5 ms·
Id be willing to bet discord makes more gross profit from nitro sales in one week than TS/Vent make in a year, combined.
by ds 6y ago
Id be willing to bet discord makes more gross profit from nitro sales in one week than TS/Vent make in a year, combined.
- newfeatureok 6y agoI highly doubt it - what are you basing this on? I personally don't know a single person who actually pays for discord. Most people I know who use Teamspeak pay for it. That being said, Discord is way more popular than Teamspeak, it does remain to be seen if they can heavily monetize.
- kungito 6y agoGo to any public discord server with hundreds of users and you'll see them. I got my friends to pitch in to boost the server so that we can stream to each other in 60 fps but turns out our internet connections cannot handle it
- jowsie 6y agoMajority of people I speak with on Discord do infact pay, nitro and server boosting, etc. Both our examples are anecdotal, though.
- Karunamon 6y agoAny person who uses animated emotes/reacts is paying for discord nitro. It's not just the people who pay for server boosts, that's a higher tier.
- unethical_ban 6y agoI don't know a single person who uses Teamspeak, and every discord server I'm on has at least one person boosting it. I was paying for discord for a while until I did a trim of my budget - but it gets you a shiny icon, you get to use more emojis, and other little things. You may call me a chump, but Discord is a product I value (like public radio ;) ) and so I tossed a coin to them.
- geek_at 6y agoyou're under 20, right?
- unethical_ban 6y agoPlease, go on and tell me how my comment led you a conclusion about my age.
- gsich 6y agoThey probably need it, using someone else's computer is not cheap.
- schmorptron 6y agoDoes anyone know how efficient / cheaply they can use their servers? I'm guessing the chat part of the service save for file / image hosting is probably pretty cheap, but the low latency voice chats might be pretty costly, even if they can efficiently host them on virtual servers.
- zaksoup 6y agoDiscord's voice chats have no apparent upper limit in how many concurrent users they support - they basically say "the upper limit is how many your client device is able to support without crapping out". I haven't read into this but it seems like they're doing peer-to-peer for audio or the server load is INCREDIBLY efficient, given this.
- Macha 6y agoIt's not P2P. Here's a technical overview: https://blog.discord.com/how-discord-handles-two-and-half-million-concurrent-voice-users-using-webrtc-ce01c3187429 https://blog.discord.com/how-discord-handles-two-and-half-mi... This is observable to still be the case as an end user. When the discord servers are having issues, people's voices become inaudible. This can be resolved by moving the server to a different, less loaded region, even if that region should have worse connectivity to the users in the voice chat. For example, my raid group often have to bounce our server from Europe to the US to workaround reliability issues on the EU servers.
- gcblkjaidfj 6y ago> It's not P2P. Here's a technical overview > link describe a P2P WebRTC implementation what am i missing? edit: found it. they use a SFU forwarder. That's the cheap version of going full centralization (MCU) benefits. they probably have a better deal on bandwidth than CPU to justify that, or all their use cases work fine with only one person transmitting at once, which gives you the same benefit of a MCU with less cpu usage...
- KallDrexx 6y agoDiscord might have a lot of Nitro sales, but that's probably dwarfed by their CDN and bandwidth costs of all the streaming that goes on with it. The infrastructure to relay massive scale of streams (even without transcoding) is not cheap. There's only so many streaming minutes at 720p that a single $9.99 nitro sub can support. They also do gif transcoding and a bunch of other things that do take actual compute resources that cost money.