Doesn't that also apply to, say, GitLab paying their team? The pricing for a highly-available service isn't as cheap as it could be but it doesn't seem terribly far off of S3's pricing.
I know that a small game studio must have a tight budget — and yours looks like a really interesting project (just subscribed) — but it seemed like an awfully strong objection to what I would have assumed would be a small fraction of your total expenses.
Re:Avoid Git LFS if possible
by Dylan16807 on Friday May 14, 2021 @03:33PM
(#27158770)
It's good for GitLab to pay their teams, but that stops being a justification to pay them more once the profit margin for a service gets high enough.
> it doesn't seem terribly far off of S3's pricing
GitHub's offering is close to S3 but only because AWS charges so much for bandwidth. The storage portion is less than a quarter of the equivalent bill.
And then GitLab is charging 5x as much as GitHub.
An I happy paying 6 dollars a year for a single gigabyte: I'd rather pay less.
Edit: I pay attention to costs, and repo size is the sort of thing which has a. Habit of growing. All else being equal I'd prefer my team receive the money. A dollar I can give to my team/employees feels good, a dollar paying for over priced storage feels bad.