this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
381 points (90.6% liked)

Games

32168 readers
1265 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 226 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Okay so after reading the article, that 150MB/s statement is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.

So first off, that was the fastest they recorded. So they just took that times an hour and said "Whoa if it stayed that sustained for the whole hour it'd be 81GB!!". Bam, clickbait title achieved. Ad revenue pleeeease

Now, for actual data, it looks like in rural areas it's about 10mbps and in cities about 100. I'll just throw it out there, why wpukdnt you want it to stream back as fast as possible?

This is like the same stupid RAM argument. I WANT you to use as much as you can! What is the point of paying for the pipe if you don't use everything you can?! There is no reason they shouldn't push it through faster. It's not more data, it's not a constant stream of 150MB/s like the garbage title claims, it peaks at 150MB/s. So good. I'm paying for gigabit, use the full pipe. When I'm playing a game that is my number one priority, give it to me as fast as you can.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

150Mb/s, way different than 150MB/s...

[–] lud@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is why I prefer MB/s and Mbit/s it's less ambiguous.

[–] Dremor@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Or use octals -> 1Mo/s = 1MB/s = 8Mb/s

No risk of confusion.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 20 hours ago

1 MB ≠ 1MiB though.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 52 points 1 day ago (5 children)

It's not just the bandwidth that's the issue it's the amount of data as many people have datacaps.

The article says:

official Microsoft bandwidth recommendation for that game was 50 Mb/s.

which comes out to 23GB/hr. That can add up quick. 10 hours in a month equates to 20% of my cap with Comcast.

This also neglects people who live in rural areas that might not even have 50Mbps available and can't play because MS streams half the game to you rather than include it in the install files.

Also *Mb/s not MB/s

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 38 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Just to be clear. Comcast which is a major ISP for the United States has data caps?

I will never understand why the United States insists on living about 30 years behind the rest of the planet.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Insane isnt it, my cousin got a roaming charge driving across his own country.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Wait what, that's insane! I can roam over the entire EU (probably EEA too) without roaming charges.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Yeah they get reamed on roaming, speeds and data caps on top of it. Its crazy.

They be like "we earn more" and then also have to pay 12000 for medical insurance, 1000 for terrible internet and then a host of localised taxes.

[–] xonigo@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

I have a gigabit internet plan with Comcast , cost me $80 a month. And yes there is a 1.2tb data cap each month. Every 50gb that you go over, you are automatically charged an additional $10. Oh I'll just choose another ISP...nope Comcast is the only option in my town. Not unless I want 5G cell Internet or satellite which is not super reliable or fast.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Depends on where you live, most places Comcast just has soft caps.

The US is actually moving further back. Data caps are a newer thing.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I will never understand why the United States insists on living about 30 years behind the rest of the planet.

Just because one shitty company has it doesn't mean they all do. I have Quantum fiber which is 8/8 gbps at my house with no cap. Only costs me 165$ a month.

My cousin in a rural as shit location has fiber as well... 10/10 available for 240$. He currently does 1/1gbps and pays something like 65$

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Capitalism, an oligarchy that controls major players, and legislation to keep public players out of the game in a lot of places. Even aside from the fact that private companies are able to prevent municipalities from making their own networks, Congress passed taxes to build out a fiber network and let the ISPs do fuck all, to the point that we had been taxed to the tune of $400 BILLION dollars A FUCKING DECADE AGO.

It constantly amazes me the shit our government lets corporations get away with.

[–] exu@feditown.com 55 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Many countries don't have data caps on broadband.

[–] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Wasn't even aware it was still a thing, apart from on mobile (where it somewhat makes sense-ish)

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago

Even on mobile my data cap only counts some of the time. Streaming services are not included.

So I can watch all of the YouTube or Netflix or Disney plus that I want and my data limit never goes anywhere. Basically it's just for general browsing. Given that the bulk of my usage is streaming my data cap essentially doesn't exist for me.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 21 hours ago
official Microsoft bandwidth recommendation for that game was 50 Mb/s.

which comes out to 23GB/hr.

I mean, assuming you're using the maximum recommended bandwidth 100% of the time...? Doesn't seem very realistic.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can force a download of it, just be prepared for the massive install size, which also won't help the people with data caps.

load more comments (1 replies)

Sure, you can turn off data streaming too. It also allows you to cache the data, just like fs2020. My point is that the article makes it about the speed and makes some arbitrary data points. Your data examples are more accurate than theirs. They only presented a worst case scenario, not what will actually happen

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

You are mixing up the different values.

"Meanwhile, scattered reports of **MS Flight Sim 2020'**s bandwidth consumption point toward a more conservative ~100 Mb/s in densely populated photogrammetry areas, such as major cities. Usage in lighter areas could dip as low as 10 Mb/s, though the official Microsoft bandwidth recommendation for that game was 50 Mb/s."

Flight Sim 2020 had a higher install size and lower bandwidth. Flight Sim 2024 has a lower install size and higher bandwidth requirement. Even if the sustained load isn't using the maximum bandwidth, it still means that 2024 will use a significant amount of bandwidth such that it may affect customers with data caps.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My ISP will automatically throttle my house if I was slurping up that much bandwidth. It simply isn’t feasible for most people as ISPs usually throttle speeds when they detect sustained high bandwidth activity.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Every ISP I've ever had in America.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 12 hours ago

I'm sorry that seems awful 😞

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Bell Canada. One of 2 of the only options for ISPs in Canada.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 2 points 12 hours ago

I'm sorry that must suck.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds like they need to throttle their payments

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah man, all the way to zero, because that's how much you pay for no internet.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I am fortunate to have the option to switch internet providers.

That is what I was referring to.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Why is it using the Internet anyways? Storage is cheap. They're selling 12 TB hard drives. What do I care if FS2024 is an entire TB?

[–] Cagi@lemmy.ca 9 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

Because it is accessing petabytes of world data. In the old days, you'd store the world on your PC and they had relatively insane storage requirement. Now it's just too much. The current MSFS has 300GB of content, but you can download areas of world data on your hard drive to cut down on streaming data in areas you go to often. So a lot people have a 500GB+ drive just for MSFS. This new one is supposed to require much less space.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 points 22 hours ago (7 children)

It's the entire planet, in higher than high def. Every tree, every polygon. We're not talking on the TB scale, this is on the PB scale. Everything from Azure maps.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)