When SEC collaboration was told it wasn’t good sign, because Grin story delivered bad image related to SE name 
I waited 3 hours, couldn’t wait much longer 
2 Likes
Got our update! 
(If anybody coming here directly and didn’t see)
6 Likes
Exactly! That’s why boundless and its community has an important place in my life, we all have different opinions, whatever one may think or say has always been done with respect.
I mentioned it in my first topic, it is very rare that I post in forums, almost never, either by fear or shyness, maybe because of my limited English Lol.
I retain positive in this adventure, by love for boundless and with your help to all here, I managed to overcome this fear, I could never forget that and whatever happens in the future I want to thank you all here to have taken part in this human adventure.
8 Likes
Another possibility I could see is something I mentioned before. To cut down on server cost, they cut down the number of permanent planet per region, to possibly 6. Sucks if it happens, but if it would mean the game survives, I’d be fine with it.
3 Likes
Me too I’m on a Sovereign
no thank you! 
We know from statements made by Phil that the steam revenue alone was not enough to pay for the servers. It will be interesting to see if the revenue from PS players is enough to make up the difference. If not then this suggestion makes sense to me. Phil had indicated the server costs are in the low thousands per month. So if it was say $3000 per month that would be more than 600 people paying for gleam club each month. It is more than 600 since Steam and probably Sony/PS get a cut of the money. If it is $2000 per month then it drops to over 400 gleam club members per month.
I think it is also important to remember that the reason we have so many planets is planets were added after launch to accommodate more players. As an example planets were added during the Steam Free weekend in order for there to be enough low level home planets for the more than 1000 simultaneous players we had. Unfortunately we did not keep enough of these players to cover the costs of the planets that were added.
1 Like
If Houchus goes I’ll quit and want a refund of my 10 years of gleamclub. (O.O) or am I reading that wrong hehehe Book For Dummies here “pointing at me”
3 Likes
The most logical thing for something like that is that they have a Dev post where people would vote on which planets to keep. For US East, I’d definitely vote for Houchous over Shedu Tier.
1 Like
I did some math in another thread and determined that sever costs are likely between $1,000 and $7,000 USD a month, but remember that those servers are also running the 300+ sov planets, which generate at least $3,000 monthly revenue assuming they are all the smallest size.
Can the servers even handle an influx of players? I would much rather see the playerbase grow than just “maintain”.
Phil had indicated the server costs for the public universe was in the low thousands per month. Unfortunately he was not more specific than that. That probably fits more with your high end total (including Sovereigns) than the low end. The public might be more expensive since they support more player instances than the sovereign planets .
Technically we had over 1000 players on the public planets simultaneously (this was long before sovereigns and I think even before exo-planets). I do think there were some issues with some planets being full, but how many I have no idea. I would think the existing public universe could handle more players than we have now, since it has done so in the past successfully. Maybe not over 1000 and everyone being happy but certainly more than we have now.
I do agree more players is better for the game. Hopefully more players is more gleam club and other revenue to support the game.
This was why I asked if it could even support it. I want the game to be more popular but if it can’t support a player base of more than 1000 the game will never be more than that sadly. I am talking about 50k+ players here.
With that large of a player base, revenue would most likely be a non-issue.
There is probably some number of concurrent players that could use the public planets without having issues. All I can assume is the number is between what we have now and the 1000+ Steam and PS players we had for the Steam free weekend. Now is that total players? Probably not. But I would hope that it is a number that could successfully fund the game
As long as the growth is at a moderate rate, the developers can always add more planets. If we got to 50k + players I wonder how many planets that would actually require? Several hundred at least I would think. I do think this size universe makes the game very different from what it is now. As an example, is there really one guild of players that could manage a portal network across so many planets?
As IIRC in posts the Devs never considered these large portal networks as an actual thing and these large networks posed issues for the game. I am guessing those issues were addressed.
I wouldn’t count gamers out though; they always find a way to make things happen.
This is all speculation, but the game deserves a larger player base, but if it can’t support it, that is quite sad.
I agree the game deserves a larger player base. I feel that it can support it since, the universe was structured to be able to add planets as the player base grew.
I will also agree that players would find a way to make travel work even if it was more a series of regional networks with a few central networks tying them together. I think the ability for players to travel pretty seamlessly across the universe is an important part of the game, even if it was not what the developers had imagined would happen.
Edit: I guess what I am wondering is what is going to happen or change that will bring more players to the game? Is this at all part of what James is going to announce?
My estimates are based on how many individual server instances there are and an estimation of what type of AWS instance the software would require. Since we don’t really have access to the standalone server yet, it’s only possible for me to guess based on known CPU requirements, which is why the range is so big.
My guess is that they have saved up enough sov revenue over the last year, or that the new agreements or something will allow them to hire a full time or part time developer to start getting any development velocity going, but that’s a mostly blind guess - at this point it could be anything tbh.
I’m not sure if it’s the main issue, but one of the issues that persists is that looking at a world through a portal counts as being on that world, so if you go looking through all the portals at a hub, you’re affecting the player count on those worlds. If there are a bunch of hubs and a bunch of people looking through portals, that’s a lot of “not really” players counting toward the player cap.
Go ahead and shut it down @james I would not blame you one bit. It has been a great run
Stay Boundless!