Won’t you need more bandwidth for all that though? We’re talking about increasing data so even if it’s only for client, you still need to stream more data when you up the allowed storage. If you can answer that, I’d be glad.
They have to plan that first, that’s all I said. I’m not sure they’re any interested in it.
Typically it’s gigabytes of data for server bandwidth and disk space offered by domain owner. Like any other thing, this is limited as well.
But we’re talking about a forum here, with tens of thousands users maybe over hundred thousands, compared to a video game with 30 million sales 5 years ago.
A forum is recorded data and it’s stable, also please note, old threads get purged periodically in most forums where in D3, that’s not the case. Back in D2, it was the case so servers would have breathing space to free some memory but you can get back to D3 after 8 years of absence if you wish from where you left off.
That’s rather the distinctive difference between them. I hope that answered something.
But how many of those millions of purchasers are playing today? And I think that’s 8 years ago. Forum posts don’t have an end point and continue to grow. As you stated, to my knowledge blizzard doesn’t purge their forums.
Does blizzard outsource these servers or do they own it? Could make a big difference.
How about heroes of the storm? I doubt much money is flowing from the game and it’s free to play. Folks can make more than one account yet all that data has to be stored. hmmm
We can let the expert talk about it but this is what I believe, increasing storage does not mean more bandwidth if it’s implemented as the OP describes. We currently have a max of 13 tabs and the OP is suggesting we keep it at 13 being loaded at any given time. So no extra bandwidth is required.
Not many compared to what’s back in then. However, their data and information is still there. D3 still actively played and servers have to calculate the traffic feedback for damage, decryption of assets according to seed and communicate with client side RNG to determine your outcome.
As I said, if they were to own it they wouldn’t rent them. My diggings found that -my memory is vague here- D3 servers share the same data center with WoW but can’t remember where is it placed.
A better example; D3 classic in China is free to play but it’s monetized so it kinda covers its own cost in a way.
My opinion is that it will cause some problems, when you think about solo play. Even with multiplayer you still have to be capable of changing character by going out to lobby. So I don’t entirely get the gist of the OP’s idea and I guess I never will.
Agreed, but we talking about storage here. Regarding WoW servers, do they own it or rent them?
Is the monetization model in China still making money? It is an old game afterall.
Don’t think OP solution will change bandwidth load unless a lot more players are loading/unloading to handle stash but Shadout offered an elegant solution by having all the stash maintenance done in menu.
I’m pretty sure we will disagree on the root cause of Blizzard not offering more stash space. Here is my take on it.
There is a technical limitation to adding more stash in the form of “actors” as they outlined. Will the OP solution be a solution? Quite possible I think but why won’t they do it?
Because no matter what solution they deploy, it will require development time and cost to test it. I’m betting that’s the major reason. They have very limited staff working on D3 and it’s basically on maintenance mode.
Currently, they have showed time and time again they don’t have the ability to properly test and launch changes. For example:
Multiple seasons where players couldn’t group (same bug keeps reoccuring)
Class Balance continues to be an issue. Once they posted their benchmark is GR 130 on paragon 5000. But we can see that’s not even close this season : [Greater Rift] Class Power Level in S22 Solo
Just by making changes to the forum they’ve broken the web armory several times.
So honestly, I don’t think they are adding more stash space because they don’t have the resources (man power) to implement it for an old game like this.
It seems they rent them, I thought my memory playing games to me again: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Americas_region_realm_list_by_datacenter
Realms in the Americas region are hosted for Blizzard in several datacenters across the United States and Australia. They are located in:
Chicago, Illinois (moved from Dallas, Texas in June 2010)
Los Angeles, California
Sydney, Australia (moved from Los Angeles on October 28, 2014)
Cosmetics. And I think lucracious market in China is the sole reason why we got Diablo Immortal so impactfully quick.
Yeah. This can help I guess. I was thinking of a similar model but you can be never sure alone.
Maybe it was about how it’s “built” like that interview suggested. And it’s hard to budge some spaghetti code or they’re done giving meaningful support to the game.
If they had the means, I do believe they’d done so already. They hired quite a few people for server maintenance back in '19, I remember. If there was a mean to cut corners, I have no idea why they wouldn’t do it otherwise.
At one time, you could buy old WoW servers. So, i guess “buy”.
But, at a former company I worked at, the guy that signs the checks (CFO) prefers the “lease with $1 buy out”.
Last I checked (2005), the primary cost of a cloud service (eg AWS) was the data transfer. (This made it out of range for us). Based on that experience, I guess they “own” their game servers.
Suggest NOT rewording what I stated to mean something different. Why so much negativity? People think they have to get the last word. Such is the problem with social media.