Reminds me of a little story by Steven Fry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzfCtGFgRSk
The TL DR if you don't want to watch the 2 minute video.
spoiler
He winds up on a tour by the mormons, The leader talks about how when you die you go to be with all of your families forever, Steven raises his hand and asks "but what happens if you were good?". and they asked him to leave the tour
the quiet part not said... but I'm pretty damn sure they are factoring in the concept that hypothetically having their internet tied to a US company, with particular ties to a particular president that has publicly declared wanting to take over their country, may not be in their best interest.
That's why real web companies go multi cloud. Letting us divide up our dependency among the big 3 companies everyone hates (Google, Amazon and Microsoft).
I mean obviously depends on how much time the dev's have on it, and what the cost etc... to make both are.
If you make a game that's expecting PVP to be the primary advantage, and the PVE is meant to be a minor time sink to add some stakes to the PVP mode, then obviously the PVE players once they start playing, will complain of the game being unfun, unbalanced etc... and then the development will have to start stretching out into other portions of the game etc...
On the other hand if the games PVE mode actually does hold on it's own, and the majority of the PVP is effectively people that enjoy attacking people that don't want to be in that fight... then maybe an alternative server etc... isn't a bad idea.
Obviously no one is entitled to anything, it's up to the developers to make the game they want. Players are welcome to play what they want.
In terms of a "would this be a good business decision or good for the game", well that depends widely on the game.
I do aknowledge that's always going to be the problem when we have the human + AI driver combinations.
Safest hypothetical is 100% AIs that always follow the same rules... next safest is humans that break the rules, but in a context aware situation (IE everyone going 70 in a 55, is safer than 1 car going 55 and all other cars going 70).
Real danger though is if the AI doesn't make good judgement calls when doing so. IE rather than deciding based on how fast other cars are going, it's primary determination is whether the user says they are in a hurry, leading it to sometimes be the one car going 55, but if the person is in a hurry it may be the only car going 70 on a road everyone else is going 55.
They love to leave out the comical level of fraud the guy committed, he wasn't sent to prison for being a rogue lol.
That would be like "John Wayne Gacy was a bit of a clown.. but most clowns aren't forced to serve life sentences".
yeah fully second this... The evidence for it are vague at best... and to quintuple it up... The dude apparently lives on live stream, just looking at his streaming stats it looks like he's literally streaming 4-8 hours every single day, with his dog coming up in the background. Someone wants to say he's abusing that dog because they found one 5 second clip of one event that seems hypothetically questionable, that's kind of crazy to me. I can't think of a person who's interactions with his dog are more regularly visible to the public then him, and one incident of the dog yelping for half a second before laying down comfortably on a dog bed... being used as evidence that he's a horrific animal abuser, seems like such an extreme stretch.
as even if we gave the critics 100% trust, and even if we somehow conclude that it is in fact a shock collar, and we were to conclude that he used it this time in this situation... clearly he uses it pretty damn sparingly when over half of his waking hours around his dog, are visible for the whole world to watch.
I've heard lately he's almost starting to work as a backhanded weakness to the republicans. Basically reflecting the pattern of the left wing influencers that make hard right turns (Dave Rueben, Jimmy Dore and really looking like the rest of the young turks are working their way to the same pattern).
IE in short, "The (my side), isn't (my siding) hard enough... you should vote for the oppsite side until they get their shit together, and then spends the next 4 years silent about the opposition while talking about how bad his own side is... before suddenly making an about turn and just flat out supporting the other side.
well do you want something that has an 80% chance of finding it in 2 seconds... or something that has a 99% chance of finding it in 38 hours? (and yeah, duh the obviously rational thing to do would be to try one or 2 layers of the quick methods, say "did this find it or do you want me to look deeper".
Bottom line it's a message to your voters. obviously if you don't play ball they will cut that funding out next cycle... but just imagine in a hypothetical world with voters that actually do bare minimum research. They see you are taking AIPAC money, they use that information to decide whether or not to vote for you.
Of course the reality is the average voter isn't educated, won't take the time to look up who is funding their candidate, in which case the only way to publicly announce to your voters that you aren't beholden to a group, is to publicly reject the money and issue a press release, like this one we are looking at right now.
I wish, that's what to me the real horror of this concept is... Biggest thing the media is misrepresenting this is they are using language to make you think 14-18, what you'd expect to find on a fortnight or xbox live lobby of teenagers trying to one up eachother.
These aren't highschoolers, most of them are past college age. These aren't edgy teenagers trying to push the envelope. These are young adults, old enough not just to vote, but to run for things.
Well guess it depends which companies we are talking about, and which if any have multi cloud redundancy... and if they are configured correctly. Obviously if someone has a multi cloud environment, configured perfectly to be unaffected, we just wouldn't know what they have in the cloud, because the lack of outage wouldn't generate any news.