In the long run, which would be more advantageous for PGC? Paying for web hosting services, or buying its own servers? You see, a while back I had asked how long PGC planned to stick around. Either it's just here for the cube (not likely and hopefully not the case) or, as a certain pgc staffer put it, "forever".
Now, don't get me wrong, but if PGC intends to be around for the following generations of Nintendo systems, then maybe it's a good idea to consider a more long-term hosting strategy.
Standard hostingPROS
managed by a professional company means less responsibility on PGC's part
relatively inexpensive in the short term
less work for the webmaster and tech director
reliable for the most part
CONS
expensive in the long run; not very cost-effective after only a couple years for it means paying a monthly fee
less control over site security
not very flexible. can't switch/upgrade host services in a timely and reasonable manner*
bandwidth woes. the site may not be the only one hosted on that particular server. limited and picky bandwidth.
*The only reason this is a factor is because PGC, as many gaming sites, does not have a consistent flow of traffic year-round. There are a lot more readers during E3 and other trade show events than other times of the year. A useful, and thrifty tactic would be to switch to a cheaper hosting plan during "slow" periods, and to pay for premium hosting only when it was really needed (E3, etc.). This is not possible with standard hosting, or simply too much trouble to work out.
--------------------------------
Server OwnershipPROS
one-time fee. able to cover the cost by providing hosting services to other sites.
total management of site and servers*
predictability. you know exactly how much processing power and bandwidth is available.
warranty. you have coverage with ownership. the same is not true with standard hosting.
*This could also be seen as a con. On one hand, you're in complete control of your site's server and able to monitor its status more closely. On the other hand, you have a huge burden to bear, not to mention having to find room to fit the necessary machinery.
CONS
total management of site and servers (see above comment)
*Chances are the server(s) would not be placed in as safe an environment as what the hosts use. Therefore, natural disasters pose a bigger threat. Seeing as how Billy lives in good ol' Minnesota, his heating bill is bad enough. Imagine what would happen if he also had to worry about keeping a huge electronic powerhouse under safely regulated temperatures.
-------------------------
When it comes to actually owning a server instead of relying on a host, the disadvantages are subjective. If you store the server in a safe environment and under supervision by a trusted staff member, then its not that bad. I'm sure Billy would never want to keep a server at his place, for fear of having Louie "accidentally" relieve himself on it. But if another staffer had the means and know-how to properly maintain a server, then there ya go.
The only reason I brought this up is because of the disadvantages one gets with paying for a host's services. Not only is your credit card billed for hundreds of dollars on a monthly basis, but (as mentioned above) you don't have that much control over what the hosting consists of. It's simply not flexible, very costly in the long run, and not that reliable.
The choice is of course the site's to make, but I'm definitely interested to hear other people's input on this.
Topic: PGC: Hosting vs. Server ownership (Read 3967 times)
