If you need to give Epic Games special treatment just because they have a huge amount of outside collaborators, then your pricing model is broken.<p>It would be more fair to charge <i>$9&#x2F;mo per organization member + $1&#x2F;mo per active outside collaborator</i> (somewhat similar to AWS CodeCommit) than to charge for every single active and inactive member and collaborator equally. Maybe throw in a 50% bulk discount for active outside collaborators over 1000.<p>This is not a &quot;unique situation&quot;, it&#x27;s how many organizations use GitHub (just on a smaller scale than Epic Games). As giovannibajo1 puts it[1], this change is very unfair to software houses. Giving Epic Games special treatment is only avoiding the issue.<p>If 5% of Epic Game&#x27;s 90664 collaborators are active for a given month, then with my proposed pricing model it would now cost them ($9&#x2F;organization member + ~$2766)&#x2F;mo, instead of &gt;$800k&#x2F;mo. No special deals needed, and everyone (presumably) is happy.<p>This proposed pricing model also scales well for software houses that have have many active outside collaborators. For example, a company with 20 employees and 50% of 100 outside collaborators active in any given month would be charged $230&#x2F;mo. With 50 employees and 50% of 500 outside collaborators active, it would be $700&#x2F;mo.<p>This should also work well for large companies. 200 employees + 30% of 4000 outside contributors active = $2900&#x2F;mo.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11673352" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11673352</a>