Moderator: Community Team
tzor wrote:This reminds me of an old Yogi Berra quote, "No one goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
I remember from my old days working for the "Multi-Player Games Network." Originally, (around 1990) we were connected through the dial in facilities of Compuserve. We used to charge a per minute fee. The more people used the system, the more money we got. Then came the evil world wide web (honestly, you never saw "Re-boot?") and with it the evil notion of a "flat fee" for service. Pay the "flat fee" and you could bang the hell out of our servers all you want, and we received all of the inconvenience and none of the additional benefits to upgrade equipment.
Now I am not saying that this site should go back to the glory online days of per minute charges (or - gasp - the notion of a fee per speed game), but this is a horrid fact of life. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If everyone attempts to saturate the system with a plethora of speed games, the system is going to slow down. Faster systems may be installed in the future, but that could just as well be like adding a few more lanes to the crowded highway, the highway still continues to become just as crowded but now even more people are in the traffic jam.
tzor wrote:This reminds me of an old Yogi Berra quote, "No one goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
I remember from my old days working for the "Multi-Player Games Network." Originally, (around 1990) we were connected through the dial in facilities of Compuserve. We used to charge a per minute fee. The more people used the system, the more money we got. Then came the evil world wide web (honestly, you never saw "Re-boot?") and with it the evil notion of a "flat fee" for service. Pay the "flat fee" and you could bang the hell out of our servers all you want, and we received all of the inconvenience and none of the additional benefits to upgrade equipment.
Now I am not saying that this site should go back to the glory online days of per minute charges (or - gasp - the notion of a fee per speed game), but this is a horrid fact of life. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If everyone attempts to saturate the system with a plethora of speed games, the system is going to slow down. Faster systems may be installed in the future, but that could just as well be like adding a few more lanes to the crowded highway, the highway still continues to become just as crowded but now even more people are in the traffic jam.
owenshooter wrote:yeah... this is all great, except you are missing out on some of the important aspects... CC now has 1/2 the membership it had a few years ago when lag was not an issue...
owenshooter wrote:freestyle is dead... we used to have an insane amount of freestyle speed games on this site and that has all but vanished... back then, with 22K members, there was no lag on speed freestyle games.
BigBallinStalin wrote:But somehow "equipment" has advanced since the 1990s. It seems that your 'fact' doesn't hold in reality. Regarding the bottlenecks of internet systems, I'd hold the municipally granted and federally enforced monopoly privileges for ISPs and the price controls through regulation largely responsible.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how you can keep repeating your contradictory stance, so I'll leave it at that.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how you can keep repeating your contradictory stance, so I'll leave it at that.
Kotaro wrote:TG for site owner 2020
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how you can keep repeating your contradictory stance, so I'll leave it at that.
I think he's making a straightforward rebound effect argument: make using an internet service cheaper, and people will use the internet service more, which makes it more costly to provide the service, negating at least some of the initial benefit.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how you can keep repeating your contradictory stance, so I'll leave it at that.
I think he's making a straightforward rebound effect argument: make using an internet service cheaper, and people will use the internet service more, which makes it more costly to provide the service, negating at least some of the initial benefit.
So, like I said, what's missing from that story are price adjustments.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure how you can keep repeating your contradictory stance, so I'll leave it at that.
TeeGee wrote:If I can leak the confidential information...... We are only DAYS away (provided everything holds firm)
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Butters1919 wrote:i've wondered if the bot games are the cause?
Kotaro wrote:TG for site owner 2020
macbone wrote:I'd say the vast majority of people coming here are looking for instant action. They sign up, apply for a guide game, and then leave, or perhaps take one turn. Many people are looking for the Risk games they used to play on Facebook. The market perhaps isn't huge (Zynga shut down Attack, after all), but there are enough people around to keep CC running.
Kotaro wrote:TG for site owner 2020
TeeGee wrote:look out for the CC app on facebook
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users