3 ms·
0.83 / hour sounds really expensive
by almosnow 13y ago
0.83 / hour sounds really expensive
- ebiester 13y agoI'm not saying this isn't a fair price given the technological constraints, but that basically means we're going back to the pay per hour model of gaming, a la AOL. That's going to be an expensive game.
- almosnow 13y agoIt's definitely not a fair price at 0.83 per hour. That's >1,500 a year PER USER for a typical business app No way this is going somewhere at the current fare imo.
- simonebrunozzi 13y agoUsers would not use this 24/7.
- almosnow 13y ago24/7 would probably get you fired
- ebiester 13y agoAs I understood it, the point was for games which should be always-on. That said, A heavy gamer on a WOW-like game could be 120 hours a month, which would be on the same order of magnitude. What I mean by fair price is that this is not an easy thing that they're proposing -- enough bandwidth and hardware to play a game. It may cost more than you would expect to deliver a high quality experience. However, the value to consumer isn't there for 83 cents an hour.
- arscan 13y agoIs the price of the g2.2xlarge instance included? I couldn't find that anywhere... that would be another .767 / hour. They REALLY need a killer app here to demonstrate the use case where this is worth the price. You need an application that has very high computation needs that is being used on a platform with limited computation ability BUT has a solid internet connection (preferably low-latency, if you want it for "twitch" type gaming, but not necessary in all cases). The example in their video is a FPS. I don't think that's a good example, as it is way too expensive for that market.
- WalterSear 13y agoAlso, it's a poor fit due to latency.