Just for clarification:ChiefWhiteHalfoat wrote: ↑09 June 2026, 20:26 It's simple BGA. STOP ADDING NEW GAMES, put that time into reducing the technical debt that I'm sure has piled up.
Post by Meeplelowda »
This does not logically follow. If someone plays a new game, they don't have to add it on top of what they are already playing. They can Instead substitute the new game for something older they would have otherwise played. In fact, they probably do the latter because every person only has so much capacity in their BGA time budget. And that's assuming you play the new game at all, which isn't necessarily the case. I just looked at the last 10 releases and I've only played one of them.
Post by ChiefWhiteHalfoat »
Sure, but ... doesn't adding new games take any BGA resources? Staff is taken up as they work with the volunteers and are involved in testing and deployment, load on servers increases, complexity of infrastructure increases .... I'm in the tech business, growth doesn't come for free and I'll put money on that there's a whole lot of tech debt and that it's starting to show.wdspider wrote: ↑09 June 2026, 23:32Just for clarification:ChiefWhiteHalfoat wrote: ↑09 June 2026, 20:26 It's simple BGA. STOP ADDING NEW GAMES, put that time into reducing the technical debt that I'm sure has piled up.
Games are built by volunteers who may or may not get paid by a game's publisher.
Meanwhile, the site is maintained by BGA Staff.
Maintaining a site is about all these things though, updating code to be scalable, improving redundancy, e.t.c. If your hosting provider has hours of downtime a month you look at switching.lefalaf wrote: ↑10 June 2026, 06:23 could be spent towards stability, only if the site code is the issue. It could also be hosting provider issues, communications infrastructure issues, or the budget limiting server volume/power/bandwidth, and/or the scalability of one of these things. Or who knows? Could be any number of things.
Post by MrTopHatJones »
Post by Expalphalog »
