this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
316 points (96.5% liked)

PC Gaming

8576 readers
365 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
316
Palworld server costs near $500K per month as network engineer is ordered to 'never let the service go down no matter what' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brygphilomena 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't particularly like the either or approach. You can certainly spin up some minimum on local hardware. You have some up front capex but something that doesn't have a fluctuating, expensive monthly opex bill.

You can then use cloud architecture to add capacity resources on demand and in different geographic locations. You can also utilize multiple cloud architectures to further add redundancy and cost optimization.

If you build out the scripts used to dynamically scale to also pull current pricing, you can have something that is both heavily redundant and somewhat cost effective. Sure it's not like azure, AWS, Google cloud, or any other public cloud option changes their pricing that frequently, but it would give a good way to compare specifically in different regions.

For a game like this, building capacity and the ability to scale early was clearly more important than optimizations in the server code base. 500k/mo isn't actually a lot to companies and it's likely to go down as optimizations are implemented and popularity stabilizes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Main problem with game like this, is that you are probably not going to have it running more than 6 months with heavy loads, after that you can scale everything down.

If you have a business that is going to run 10-20 years, you can build complex solutions to optimize the cost.

In this kind of rocket like need of global computing power, the cloud is only real solution.

[–] brygphilomena 2 points 9 months ago

Oh yea. Though I don't feel that utilizing different public cloud options should incur significant additional development time, at least not if it was something they considered during the development of the game.

It can also go the opposite way, moving from cloud to on premise as things stabilize and they want the more stable, consistent costs decreasing opex and spending more capex and have done optimizations to better determine the hardware they need so they don't over buy.

It's entirely possible they have some private servers from the development of the game that they used cloud to augment.

No matter how it was architected, right now it's primarily in a public cloud of some sort.