Hacker News Reader

Comment by notheguyouthink | Hacker News Reader

I disagree (to a degree). Everyone i know kicked and screamed about switching from Vent/Teamspeak/Mumble. I feel like it eventually dominated not because it was easy to dump existing solutions, but because existing solutions were poorly designed by comparison. No mobile, horrid chat, required install, poor voip quality. Discord came along with a better offering and it still was a tough switch.

With that said, i agree that no one "cares" about Discord. If a better thing comes along i could easily see people dumping it. But, i imagine it'll be a bit more difficult. Discord "won" in my view because it simply had to be modern to be vastly superior. However, i'm unsure how easy someone can make a next version that is such a superior leap.

Fwiw, as a gaming voip/chat i still find it a pretty great UX. My only complaint is that it is a bit laggy due to the, i assume, web-based interface on "desktop".

View on HN

I think one big killer feature Discord has is that you just have to paste in an URL/shortcode to join a server instead of needing to enter an IP and create a username to join every server. It is so much more streamlined to join a Discord server. The voice quality and chat features are both whatever although I would say that Discord feels like a more responsive and less resource intensive application than something like Slack or nuSkype.

The last time I used Slack it was a giant memory hog and used a lot of CPU resources. I don't think Discord would have become nearly as popular compared to say Mumble or Teamspeak it was not also relatively efficient in terms of system resources because PC gamers are very sensitive to big resource hogs.

As far as becoming a digital retail storefront, it has zero advantages compared to the other various competitors. While the other digital retailers do have social features, those social features are generally add-ons that aren't critical to the experience. Many of those storefronts also have API hooks that many developers rely upon for certain game-relevant social features like joining a friend's game in progress.

> Discord "won" in my view because it simply had to be modern to be vastly superior.

Discord "won" because it's literally burning cash and offering a service for free (for example, I don't have to pay for a t2.micro instance to host a Mumble server). But this is obviously not sustainable.

If you're selling a dollar for fifty cents, it's not hard to find a market.

Relaying some text is cheap. If I had to pay 3x the actual server cost to run one (so the rest can go toward development and staff), it would still be minuscule.

My friend circles on discord have enough people with nitro that it's almost certainly cash-positive by a lot.

Yep; it’s important to note that the signaling required to coordinate P2P voice and video is no more expensive than “relaying some text” with modern protocols. The question is whether Discord can remain sufficiently innovative to be ahead of the next thing that tries to disrupt its model. I think it is sufficiently irreverent, and sufficiently independent from B2B stability needs, to be that innovative.

But even if you gave me a free mumble service, it still wouldn't be comparable to Discord - at least when i was using Discord.

The price wasn't the issue (imo), it was simply the user experience. It had the best, by leagues. Users (ie, non hosts) didn't pay for any of these products, but the UX of Discord was vastly superior in my view.

>required install

I'd rather install something compared to using the "webapp" version if it used 30 MB of RAM rather than 3000MB.

Good for you, but it's still optional for the right crowd. More specifically, you don't have to. Users can connect to your gaming group with zero friction. Not even signup! (at least, back in the day, i'm unsure what it's like not)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com