Steam and Data caps

[ImpulsE69]

When I look at Steam and see it randomly re-downloading 7GB of data for a game that's been out for over 2 years, I get a bit concerned about the future of the internet...

Can you shut off auto updates? Sure, but why should you? And why would a game suddenly have an update that is basically the size of the game after so much time? I've seen this multiple times on different games.

I don't have caps, so not an issue...but if I did, I'd be urinated right now.

 

[Aikouka]

When I look at Steam and see it randomly re-downloading 7GB of data for a game that's been out for over 2 years, I get a bit concerned about the future of the internet...

Can you shut off auto updates? Sure, but why should you? And why would a game suddenly have an update that is basically the size of the game after so much time? I've seen this multiple times on different games.

I don't have caps, so not an issue...but if I did, I'd be urinated right now.

Yes, you can turn off auto-updates.

If you think 7GB is bad, you should have seen my face when I saw that Steam downloaded a new client for when Evolve went from Alpha to Beta. It was about 22GB and I was on a cap. I've already gone over my cap this month, and I'm pretty sure it didn't help that I downloaded a few games on Steam. Albeit, they weren't much, but then again there were new episodes released for both Tales from the Borderlands and Game of Thrones, which are usually 2-3GB each.

It really makes you feel like the digital equivalence of a penny pincher!

 

[Annisman*]

Some of the older games, and a few of the newer ones require the entire game to re-download if there is an update. This used to happen with Red Orchestra 2, a small update would come and I'd be downloading an 8GB file, I believed they fixed it though for that particular game.

 

[mmntech]

The cable company keeps sending me letters in the mail begging me to re-sign. I can get their Express 15 service with a whopping 95GB of data for just $29.95! ... For the first six months. Then it goes up to $54.95.

No thanks, I'll keep my 25mbps connection with unlimited data, that's $59.99 per month. Between myself and the rest of the family, we'd easily blow through 95GB. None of us are heavy downloaders either. Just moderate Netflix use and me downloading the occasional game or Linux distro. Caps are pure BS. Now that games are starting to push 50GB, I don't know how they expect anything less than a couple hundred gigs to be sufficient.

 

[Aikouka]

Some of the older games, and a few of the newer ones require the entire game to re-download if there is an update. This used to happen with Red Orchestra 2, a small update would come and I'd be downloading an 8GB file, I believed they fixed it though for that particular game.

That sounds a lot like the app store. Some of the games on the app store are quite large (over 1GB), and it's not uncommon to see an update that requires the entire thing to be redownloaded for a small update. For example, I have an update available for Rage HD, which is a 1.07GB game, and what's the update? "Device Requirements update" :|

No thanks, I'll keep my 25mbps connection with unlimited data, that's $59.99 per month. Between myself and the rest of the family, we'd easily blow through 95GB. None of us are heavy downloaders either. Just moderate Netflix use and me downloading the occasional game or Linux distro. Caps are pure BS. Now that games are starting to push 50GB, I don't know how they expect anything less than a couple hundred gigs to be sufficient.

The biggest problem with caps are that the data rates that you're hit with when you go beyond the cap are far and above what it actually costs them to transfer the data. It's also pretty ridiculous when I've pointed out that the price of my service plan is actually less than the fees it would cost to purchase the same amount of data post-cap ($58 vs. $60).

 

[imaheadcase]

They really have no choice but to remove them eventually.

Lucky I've never had them so no worries, but if i did I would hit it within the first 2 weeks. lol

 

[Oyeve]

Heh, I downloaded Titan the other day, something like 60GB.

 

[Merad]

Heh, I downloaded Titan the other day, something like 60GB.

Star Citizen is supposed to be 100+ GB when it launches in late 2016 (IIRC). And that will probably be the norm for AAA games within 3-5 years.

 

[Homerboy]

They really have no choice but to remove them eventually.

Lucky I've never had them so no worries, but if i did I would hit it within the first 2 weeks. lol

I'd like to hear why they "have no choice"...

 

[imaheadcase]

I'd like to hear why they "have no choice"...

Because bandwidth to a service provider is free, they put caps on because they don't want to invest in upgrades. The whole idea behind data caps in the first place was to use it as a way to say "we need to put limits on it because people are using to much" which of course is false.

You can see this because most ISPS don't even enforce caps, until it fits there need. If a node is congested on cable, instead of upgrading it they decide to bill the people on it for going over caps first. Its a advantage to them for making money, without using it to invest in upgrades they should of did anyways.

In fact, if you look at my ISP for example, Charter, they used to have fake caps just for the purpose to forcing business to upgrade to Business HSI instead of using residential lines. They pay $20 more a month for "no caps", which would be great except they use the exact same network as before. Its not like they get on a separate network for business..its just a billing change.

Caps a fake way for ISP to make more money. Always has been.

 

[KentState]

Because bandwidth to a service provider is free, they put caps on because they don't want to invest in upgrades. The whole idea behind data caps in the first place was to use it as a way to say "we need to put limits on it because people are using to much" which of course is false.

You can see this because most ISPS don't even enforce caps, until it fits there need. If a node is congested on cable, instead of upgrading it they decide to bill the people on it for going over caps first. Its a advantage to them for making money, without using it to invest in upgrades they should of did anyways.

In fact, if you look at my ISP for example, Charter, they used to have fake caps just for the purpose to forcing business to upgrade to Business HSI instead of using residential lines. They pay $20 more a month for "no caps", which would be great except they use the exact same network as before. Its not like they get on a separate network for business..its just a billing change.

Caps a fake way for ISP to make more money. Always has been.

Doesn't answer the question of why they have "no choice" to remove them.

 

[Homerboy]

Because bandwidth to a service provider is free, they put caps on because they don't want to invest in upgrades. The whole idea behind data caps in the first place was to use it as a way to say "we need to put limits on it because people are using to much" which of course is false.

You can see this because most ISPS don't even enforce caps, until it fits there need. If a node is congested on cable, instead of upgrading it they decide to bill the people on it for going over caps first. Its a advantage to them for making money, without using it to invest in upgrades they should of did anyways.

In fact, if you look at my ISP for example, Charter, they used to have fake caps just for the purpose to forcing business to upgrade to Business HSI instead of using residential lines. They pay $20 more a month for "no caps", which would be great except they use the exact same network as before. Its not like they get on a separate network for business..its just a billing change.

Caps a fake way for ISP to make more money. Always has been.

I stopped reading there.
I don't think you get how it works.

Though I do agree with you in general, caps are BS.
Sadly, once ISPs are officially a utility, we're all going to be paying a per GB fee, just like electricity and natural gas.

 

[alcoholbob]

OP, was it Resident Evil 5?

 

[master_shake_]

when i download from Ubisoft it doesn;t even show up on my usage.

 

[Denithor]

I stopped reading there.
I don't think you get how it works.

Though I do agree with you in general, caps are BS.
Sadly, once ISPs are officially a utility, we're all going to be paying a per GB fee, just like electricity and natural gas.

When it should be a per GB/s fee. Pay for the width of the pipe, not how much you pull through it. There is a built-in limit, you can only download a certain amount per month depending on speed of connection anyway.

 

[imaheadcase]

I stopped reading there.
I don't think you get how it works.

Though I do agree with you in general, caps are BS.
Sadly, once ISPs are officially a utility, we're all going to be paying a per GB fee, just like electricity and natural gas.

I do know how it works. Perhaps read past the first sentence you would know to.

 

[imaheadcase]

Doesn't answer the question of why they have "no choice" to remove them.

Yes it does answer question. ISPs can't just keep raising speeds without first removing caps.
You can see it already in ISP that raise caps, they remove them altogether. Or to save face make insane caps that you can't reach anyways.

Charter already removed caps because when they offered higher speeds, no way to enforce them with more data usage.

Caps are just a money grab, like surcharges to bill, it has no technical limit on them.

 

[Homerboy]

I do know how it works. Perhaps read past the first sentence you would know to.

Truth be told, I did read past the 1st sentence.

But saying "bandwidth to a service provider is free" is a ridiculous statement.
The cost of providing that bandwidth (hardware, fiber... billions in infrastructure), and in some cases the bandwidth itself (yes, sometimes ISPs have to pay other ISPs to carry their traffic and/or for announcing routes/peering etc) is outrageous.

I spent the better part of a dozen years in the business dealing with all levels of carriers -- from the biggest international backbones, to the smallest of mom and pops.

 

[CPA]

Truth be told, I did read past the 1st sentence.

But saying "bandwidth to a service provider is free" is a ridiculous statement.
The cost of providing that bandwidth (hardware, fiber... billions in infrastructure), and in some cases the bandwidth itself (yes, sometimes ISPs have to pay other ISPs to carry their traffic and/or for announcing routes/peering etc) is outrageous.

I spent the better part of a dozen years in the business dealing with all levels of carriers -- from the biggest international backbones, to the smallest of mom and pops.

Have to agree with this. This is crux of the concept of capitalization of assets. Though it's cost is upfront, the asset has a life and theoretically that cost is also spread over the life of the asset. So, bandwidth is not free.

 

[ImpulsE69]

OP, was it Resident Evil 5?

Yes actually. I just saw the note today as to what it was...which didn't make it any better when I found out. That's a whole other discussion.

I've just been seeing this type of thing more and more and could see it becoming an issue for some users. Granted, maybe I just have too many games to begin with

 

[Midwayman]

I stopped reading there.
I don't think you get how it works.

Though I do agree with you in general, caps are BS.
Sadly, once ISPs are officially a utility, we're all going to be paying a per GB fee, just like electricity and natural gas.

I'm perfectly fine with that so long as the fees are the trivial amount it cost to transfer a GB of data. Something like $20 a month for the line and $0.02 a GB.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It really makes you feel like the digital equivalence of a penny pincher!

Amen. Nowadays I compare ISPs not on speed, or quality, but how large their cap is and how much they enforce it.

I have been super happy with AT&T recently because they have a cap on how much they charge you extra when you go over their cap. I bet they aren't happy with me though paying that extra every month when they probably meant it to be a corrective penalty.

 

[Artorias]

The cable company keeps sending me letters in the mail begging me to re-sign. I can get their Express 15 service with a whopping 95GB of data for just $29.95! ... For the first six months. Then it goes up to $54.95.

No thanks, I'll keep my 25mbps connection with unlimited data, that's $59.99 per month. Between myself and the rest of the family, we'd easily blow through 95GB. None of us are heavy downloaders either. Just moderate Netflix use and me downloading the occasional game or Linux distro. Caps are pure BS. Now that games are starting to push 50GB, I don't know how they expect anything less than a couple hundred gigs to be sufficient.

I'm curious but what provider are you with? I'm looking to potentially switch from Bell in the near future unless caps disappear or increase substantially for the price I'm currently paying,

 

[KentState]

Yes it does answer question. ISPs can't just keep raising speeds without first removing caps.
You can see it already in ISP that raise caps, they remove them altogether. Or to save face make insane caps that you can't reach anyways.

Charter already removed caps because when they offered higher speeds, no way to enforce them with more data usage.

Caps are just a money grab, like surcharges to bill, it has no technical limit on them.

Your cherry picked example doesn't answer anything. I can cherry pick Comcast as an example that repudiates your argument. They double the speed of all tiers and now offer plans over 100Mbps. On top of that, they are rolling out data caps after piloting them for over a year in markets across the country. Verizon/ATT/T-Mobile have all rolled out faster networks that come with tiered data caps. And before you say that LTE is not the same, the FCC is lumping them all together under the same regulation.

 

[xantub]

I actually think ISPs in the US (specifically cable) will move towards adding caps. See all these government decisions like Net Neutrality and others don't really attack the main issue we have, and that is about cable monopoly in their regions. For still quite some time there won't be any other high speed providers available in most areas. Consider yourself VERY lucky if you have fiber option in your area, but 99% of the US doesn't have that. The Government can force all cable ISPs to provide 100 terabytes/second of speed, but if they don't do anything about caps and/or making regional monopolies illegal, ISPs will use caps all over the place. What good is having super speed if you can only download 250GB/month? And cable providers know it.