They had no problems taking everyone’s money. Maybe companies should limit the number of sales when deploying a product tied to services they operate and need to scale.
No, it’s a multinational 3.1 trillion dollar company that has many in house resources it could pull on for a project like this. If they’re gonna sell a product with this kind of server reliance built in, it’s on them to actually hold up their end of the bargain instead of “oh oops looks like the game is just too much of a success guys”.
I think their point is that Microsoft literally had all the information they needed to prevent this from happening and they just didn’t because they were incompetent or some other human reason that had nothing to do with server capacity or or a missing Ethernet cable. There was nothing “unknown” here.
Scaling to meet demand is literally their job. Supposedly best, which is why they have been awarded military contracts.
They lost situational awareness, or they never had it.
It’d be hilarious if one of the people negotiating one of those military contracts went “well, apparently your company can’t even handle scaling up a video game made by your own company, so we no longer have the confidence to rely on your product. We might offer a chance at the contract again in ten years, if no other incidents shake our confidence again.”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
You know Microsoft isn’t, like, one individual dude right?
No, it’s a multinational 3.1 trillion dollar company that has many in house resources it could pull on for a project like this. If they’re gonna sell a product with this kind of server reliance built in, it’s on them to actually hold up their end of the bargain instead of “oh oops looks like the game is just too much of a success guys”.
I think their point is that Microsoft literally had all the information they needed to prevent this from happening and they just didn’t because they were incompetent or some other human reason that had nothing to do with server capacity or or a missing Ethernet cable. There was nothing “unknown” here.
Scaling to meet demand is literally their job. Supposedly best, which is why they have been awarded military contracts.
They lost situational awareness, or they never had it.
Yeah that was exactly my feelings, I’m actually impressed you got that from my low effort vitreol haha
It’d be hilarious if one of the people negotiating one of those military contracts went “well, apparently your company can’t even handle scaling up a video game made by your own company, so we no longer have the confidence to rely on your product. We might offer a chance at the contract again in ten years, if no other incidents shake our confidence again.”
Bill Microsoft
and Melinda Apple
No Melinda hasn’t been a Microsoft since the divorce. You’re thinking of Tim Apple.