Re:SpacetimeDB
by Rohansi on Wednesday April 09, 2025 @11:53AM
(#43633505)
As a game dev I don't really see what problems this solves. Most of the work you would have in games is related to simulation - something this doesn't help you with at all. It can actually make simulation more difficult because all your state would be decoupled from a game engine (which is built for simulation). So you'd end up having game servers running the simulation syncing to SpacetimeDB... or of course you try to build the simulation inside SpacetimeDB with no help from it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:SpacetimeDB
by cloutiertyler on Wednesday April 09, 2025 @11:59AM
(#43633577)
It solves 3 problems:
1. Server <> client sync is handled for you 2. Server <> database sync is eliminated 3. Deployment is super easy because you just upload your wasm module to the database, and SpacetimeDB schedules it (similar to Kubernetes honestly, but at a different level of the stack)
The first two problems are nothing, IMO. Server <> client sync is handled by your engine or, if you need to roll your own, it's not that hard. Syncing to a database is more tedious than difficult.
Getting rid of a game engine on the server side adds a lot more work. I don't think it would even balance out.
Having implemented the first two for a web game i absolutely guarantee you those are far from "nothing". It takes considerable diagraming & handling to coordinate FE + API on state changes.
If they in fact can solve that (haven't checked myself), it would be a massive time saving for development.
Maybe I'm just used to it having implemented it several times. But my point is that they require a relatively fixed amount of effort. Once it's implemented you shouldn't need to touch it again.