@JackC - have had some time to think about it, and just wanted to follow on a bit with additional feedback.
Coming into Spatial, it seems like a large part of the platform’s attractiveness is to handle much of the nitty-gritty problems of scaling and MMO networking. Of course, many of the same problems an MMO faces also extends to running highly complex ongoing simulations.
On the pricing side though, focusing only on charging based on raw usage means then that two major scenarios would likely play out:
A large developer capable of highly optimizing their game/simulation pushes down their usage costs and pays only a very small portion of the revenue they are making to Spatial.
A small indie company uses Spatial to handle the networking/scaling side of their game/sim. Indie company spends most of their time putting the actual gameplay/content/etc… together, with optimization perhaps leaving a lot to be desired. They end up paying a much larger percentage of their revenue/profits to Spatial to continue running the system.
From Spatial’s perspective, I see both of these cases as being bad for you. In case 1, you are only able to capture a very small % of the success enabled by your cutting edge technology.
In case 2, you get a comparatively large % of a smaller pie, from a customer who is already running at the edge (as is the case with most indies/small companies I hope we can agree?) in terms of keeping the lights on and growing. It seems to me that companies like this would not become long-term customers of Spatial if they feel Spatial is “too expensive” (when perhaps it’s just an optimization problem…).
I’ve had some first-hand feedback from a number of devs on the SpatialOS discord where there have been concerns where people are worried about the prices not being transparent, and that prices could easily get too high.
This makes a lot of sense considering if a project decides to base their core tech around SpatialOS, and then start getting into problems down the road with pricing… what do they do? They have already sunk (likely a lot) of development time into creating things using the SpatialOS platform. Consider the case that they end up paying much higher prices to Spatial then they were expecting… do they simply take the loss, cut the project and change their tech? Do they need to engage in negotiation games with Spatial’s sales team? Either outcome sounds like really bad news.
I just cannot agree that CPU / Bandwidth / Storage / “Worker #” pricing makes sense for any dev studio serious about using SpatialOS.
One final note… I have considerations from both sides of the fence, since there are potential opportunities on my side to either use SpatialOS on an enterprise level, or just as a prototyping/do-it-on-my-off-time thing.