![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2665e448-91d9-484d-919d-113c9715fc79.png)
Huh, I get not selling media any more, but surprised they’re not even going to sell consoles.
Huh, I get not selling media any more, but surprised they’re not even going to sell consoles.
Because it’s actually really hard to achieve technically. When ads are served outside the stream you can easily serve different ads to different viewers based on their profiles. When the ads are baked into the stream you can either
A) Create a whole bunch of different copies of the video asset with different ads baked in and then rotate these on a regular basis. Which would be expensive to update and store and limit the range of adverts that could be served to a particular user.
B) Dynamically create a stream on the users request, which while possible means standard CDN caching isn’t going to work so there’s a distribution challenge.
Or some other alternative they’ve come up with. I’d be really interest to know what their approach is here.
Yeah. If this restriction exists it’s pretty clear it only applies to selling steam keys on another platform, not for selling generally. Pretty often games are cheaper on Epic or GOG and don’t use steam for delivery.
It thought those pledges were just for Activison / blizzard stuff. The Bethesda purchase was before regulators started taking an interest. The new Indiana Jones is an Xbox exclusive Bethesda game for example.
Awesome!
Was expecting this to be Xbox/PC exclusive but looks like it’s getting a PS5 release too.
The thing with serverless is you’re paying for iowait. In a regular server, like an EC2 or Fargate instance, when one thread is waiting for a reply from a disk or network operation the server can do something else. With serverless you only have one thread so you’re paying for this time even though it’s not actually using any CPU.
While you’re paying for that time you can bet that CPU thread is busy servicing some other customer and also charging them.
I like serverless for it’s general reliability, it’s one less thing to worry about, and it is cheap when you start out thanks to generous free tiers, at scale it’s a more complex answer as whether it is good value or not.
I imagine SMS authorisation texts are Telegrams biggest single expense, they are for Signal https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/
Telcos know that authentication is about the only remaining use case for SMS and are not going to turn down the revenue stream.
That said this idea from Telegram sounds absurd. Not least I expect most contracts prevent reselling free SMS’s like this. The security implications have got to be significant too.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/stop-doing-math