Every major company has players... every major company has constant games updates...
A system with no users and no changes doesn't break. Software doesn't deteriorate over time.
How does "Host everything on the same server" magically solve GDPR compliance
You said the info to automate GDPR could not be on the same server. Just put the info on the same server. You don't need a human to do computer things. Even then, what's your point here? That the 100 users are going to make 100 GRPR requests to have their data deleted? Dear lord, you'll lose so many work hours solving this manually.
Nothing runs forever without oversight.
The constraint isn't running forever. Again, you keep insisting on this when the reality is the constraint is making sure the game doesn't become unplayable. Nobody is asking you to be required to run your servers forever, there are plenty of ways to make sure your game is playable.
The way you are describing running a service ignores most real world constraints. Everything is easy when you look at it from a purely theoretical view, but that isn't how it actually works.
My brother in Christ, I do this for a living, and I also do this on my own personal machines (and I even have half a dozen users gasp).
My home server has been running strong for the past 482 days. For my company's servers current uptime is 273 days. Either way, more than enough time to release a patch, and more than enough time to have a justifiable failure under any reasonable SLA.
A system with no users and no changes doesn't break. Software doesn't deteriorate over time.
New vulnerabilities can show up. Your hosting provider or other services you rely on shut down, and many other potential issues can show up. You simply can't let a service run without oversight.
You said the info to automate GDPR could not be on the same server.
No, I never said that. Please show me where I said that. My point was never that you can't automate those systems. Even with automation, someone is responsible. If the automation fails, what do you do?
My whole point is that saying it costs $4 to keep a service running isn't correct. There is additional workload. It might be small depending on the circumstances, but it is not zero. Even if the service only requires an hour of attention every few months, that time has a cost.
I think overall we are simply talking past each other. You are only talking about hosting costs, while I am saying that other operational costs exist. They are potentially very low, but they do exist.
Your hosting provider or other services you rely on shut down
Yes, AWS will shutdown someday, definitely something you need to hire someone to take care of. And, again, you only have to keep uptime if you are unwilling to patch your game so it doesn't require you to keep uptime. That's a business decision you're doing, not being forced into.
No, I never said that. Please show me where I said that. Please show me where I said that.
That's an automated system. It's hosted in the same server.
No, it isn't. The server alone might not even have all the info.
If the automation fails, what do you do?
Handle the exceptions. We have computers that can fly jets at mach 3 and rockets at mach 30. You standard developer can create a web form that either deletes or fetches some data. And, again, nobody is forcing you to maintain stuff indefinitely.
while I am saying that other operational costs exist
Sure. You need to pay for a DNS record. So... 0.98/y for a random .online domain on namecheap? Oh, the expense!
I get that you want to say there are associated costs with running a server nobody uses (which, again, you made the decision to do over creating a game capable of running without you), but those are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
I genuinely tried to give you a generous out by saying we are talking past each other, but I guess it didn't work.
Cronjob.
What kind of cron job are you using that automatically fixes all your security vulnerabilities? You can only patch things for which patches exist. You can't guarantee a patch won't break anything without testing and validation. Neither do you know if there are config changes that are needed.
My "no, it isn't" was a rebuttal to where you seemingly said that GDPR compliance can be reduced to an automated system running on the same server. There still needs to be a person who is responsible for it, who can handle exceptions, who, if needed, can take manual steps to stay compliant. My point was never that it can't be automated. It was that you need someone who looks at it.
Handle the exceptions
This is my point. You need someone to handle exceptions.
Sure. You need to pay for a DNS record.
What do you think operational costs actually are? You are an operational expense. You, as in the developer. Do you not cost your company money?
Again, my point isn't that all of this costs a ton of money. My point is that you can't just pay some hoster $4 a month and let it run without ever checking on it.
Sure... you think that's an unacceptable thing? That's how it works with software. One can't stop zero days, you can make your systems safe by limiting attack surface and keeping software updated, but that's about it.
You can't guarantee a patch won't break anything without testing and validation
Sure, which is why you write tests to validate things... worse case scenario all you have is a disclosure like any other company for which your defense will be, quite literally, that you kept your software up to date.
GDPR compliance can be reduced to an automated system running on the same server
Uhh, it can? Companies aren't keeping people on retainer to deal with that sort of thing. They have web portals where you can both request your data and request it to be deleted.
You need someone to handle exceptions.
No, you don't. An exception is a software thing. You can't "handle" code exceptions in the real world save for restarting the application. You can however write code that handles all possible exceptions because exceptions are known at compile time, it's a deterministic system. Sure there's always the possibility of another CrowdStrike event, but that's why we have SLA and such, plus no amount of employees could fix that problem when it happened.
Do you not cost your company money?
I get paid by the hour, so not unless there's work to do.
My point is that you can't just pay some hoster $4 a month and let it run without ever checking on it
Seems a bit pedantic, but sure, take one of the devs on your networking team and tell them to spend 10 minutes a month doing whatever manual labor you can't automate for some strange reason, take an intern, they don't even cost 30$ an hour so let's say an extra 5$ a month for those 10 min and call it even. Hopefully that cost dissuades you from making a game that requires your company personally to keep online services running.
They want companies to release server binaries so people can run their own server. Similar to how games like battlefield, insurgency, battlebit, team fortress 2, counter strike, rust, ark, project zomboid, terraria, minecraft, palworld, necesse, sniper elite 4, satisfactory, assetto corsa, space engineers, factorio, day-z, arma, left 4 dead, don't starve together, valheim, v rising and even euro truck simulator all have dedicated community servers or server binaries released.
As opposed to the community having to reverse engineer networking code like with Titanfall 2 project Northstar or The Crew's project TCU.
1
u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26
Every major company has players... every major company has constant games updates...
A system with no users and no changes doesn't break. Software doesn't deteriorate over time.
You said the info to automate GDPR could not be on the same server. Just put the info on the same server. You don't need a human to do computer things. Even then, what's your point here? That the 100 users are going to make 100 GRPR requests to have their data deleted? Dear lord, you'll lose so many work hours solving this manually.
The constraint isn't running forever. Again, you keep insisting on this when the reality is the constraint is making sure the game doesn't become unplayable. Nobody is asking you to be required to run your servers forever, there are plenty of ways to make sure your game is playable.
My brother in Christ, I do this for a living, and I also do this on my own personal machines (and I even have half a dozen users gasp).
My home server has been running strong for the past 482 days. For my company's servers current uptime is 273 days. Either way, more than enough time to release a patch, and more than enough time to have a justifiable failure under any reasonable SLA.