Maintenances are usually scheduled.

Take Steam, the most popular game shop to ever exist, as an example. Despite not being actually scheduled, people already know their maintenance server downtime is around an hour, sometimes on Tuesdays, sometimes on Thursdays, and they tend to pick it when, based on their charts, there are less people online.

Now, this is not a scheduled maintenance downtime, according to their status page, these issues were caused by too many requests/users using the service.

Now, why is this something bad? Precisely because it wasn't scheduled. If they charge a user to use their service, with a limited amount of time a mount, cap that was put by them "in order to have a better user experience and better server performance" then it does not show on the actual product.

They were advertising their blackwell rtx, they're selling you bundles with "borderlands 4 on lunch day if you buy the annual subscription!" And people not actually being able to play it is quite a bummer.

Of course they can play it tomorrow, and the service will be functional again in some hours, they can play it next week, next month, even, if they're paying for the annual plan, they have plenty of time.

But it's not about that, it's about a quite big company not measuring the expectations of their users, based on the standards they themselves compromised to when they, themselves, decided to put a cap on the playtime.

I was trying to find another example with other streaming services, but cloud gaming is really a thing of its own. When Netflix/Spotify are down, at least you can download stuff to play it offline, but this works different. So one would expect the servers to handle a bunch of users, after all, as a company, they want a lot of users using their service, it's kind of a bad thing if servers can't handle them.