2 ms·
>I'm sure much of the $100k/day is recent This is probably the reason and the unexpected scale. Initially as a broke(referring to part where struggled to pay r
by vthallam 10y ago
>I'm sure much of the $100k/day is recent
This is probably the reason and the unexpected scale. Initially as a broke(referring to part where struggled to pay rent) 32 year old developer, you don't want to share spend a lot on AWS/GCP. If the revenue stream is consistent, I'm sure, he is going to move to either of the platforms. So much less headache that way.
- ebsalberto 10y agoWrong. He isn't even running on cloud anyway. For this type of workload, bare-metal is 10 times a better option, both in terms of performance and costs.
- mullen 10y agoThe "problem" this dev is having is what AWS was built for. He could get his OS of choice, customize it with his server software, then copy the AMI to various regions, spin up dedicated instances as he needed them, use what he needed in various regions and direct players to their closest server. Turn on and turn off servers as need arises and they are close to players. After his game settles down to predictable traffic, he can move to some bare cost ISP. He would not have to call anyone and within a hour or so he could have a game that gave a much better experience. What kills a flavor of the month game like this is being laggy and having an awful experience. The only thing I think would be an issue is the bandwidth charges. I wonder why his game creates so much traffic?
- vthallam 10y agoThe game is very latency sensitive and it makes complete sense to use a cloud and distribute the servers based on the user load : locations and that's what he plans to do as mentioned in the article.