• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91 year ago

    I mean some games do have monthly subscriptions. That’s basically paying for so many hours at a time.

    • @EatYouWell
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      It could potentially make games cost less, if the rates are reasonable (which we all know they won’t be).

      It’s not a very different pricing model from what AWS does.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not a very different pricing model from what AWS does.

        That doesn’t instill any confidence in me…

        • @EatYouWell
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          Paying for the resources you consume instead of paying for capacity you’re not using isn’t a bad pricing model. Although I prefer HP Greenlake’s model over AWS.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            But in the context of consumer product pricing it’s wildly anti-consumer to bill a software running largely on your own hardware consuming your own electricity based on how long you run said software. It’s expecting consumers to accurately project and plan their usage which consumers are pretty famously bad at. It’s also expecting consumers software running on consumer hardware on consumer home networks to function as expected, and all of the three are famously unreliable and janky

            The AWS model works so well because of intense automation in horizontal and vertical scaling plus technologies like Kubernetes, Ansible and the entire automated build pipeline. But most importantly it relies on a full team carefully designing the automatic deployment and scaling to maximize benefits and minimize costs