Steam and Data caps

[PrincessFrosty]

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 shut off auto updates and update games manually, there's all sorts of control over how updates are handled, you can limit update speeds to allow updates to trickle in slowly if you're concerned about hitting time dependent data caps, you can also set auto update times during the day to ensure it's done overnight or during periods where you're charged or punished less for bandwidth usage.

You can also pause and resume specific game downloads.

Honestly in this day and age 7Gb isn't much, games are frequently hitting 30-50Gb these days, I've just had my internet upped to 152Mbit, 7Gb is like a 6 minute download.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yes you can shut off auto updates and update games manually, there's all sorts of control over how updates are handled, you can limit update speeds to allow updates to trickle in slowly if you're concerned about hitting time dependent data caps, you can also set auto update times during the day to ensure it's done overnight or during periods where you're charged or punished less for bandwidth usage.

You can also pause and resume specific game downloads.

Honestly in this day and age 7Gb isn't much, games are frequently hitting 30-50Gb these days, I've just had my internet upped to 152Mbit, 7Gb is like a 6 minute download.

I worded is strangely, it was rhetorical, but I know you can shut them off. The context was you shouldn't need to. I get that for newer games, it was that it was a random 3+ year old game that did it that was kind of like 'wtf'. We all know caps are probably coming so yes, game sizes will probably matter in the future.

 

[pontifex]

a few times steam updates the full game because of some file system change or something?

 

[GullyFoyle]

After getting daily updated for weeks, I turned off updates for Team Fortress 2.

 

[Aikouka]

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.

What I find interesting is how much more dubious ISPs are than mobile carriers. With a mobile connection, there's no such thing as a speed cap. You can download depending on your signal strength, modem hardware, and tower hardware. Of course, there's also congestion, but that's an artifact of any network. The point is that Verizon doesn't say, "Well, if you pay $20 more a month, we'll give you access to 150Mbps LTE instead!"

So, you can probably see where I'm going with this. I have Comcast's 50Mbps service, which costs about $60 a month. If I want to upgrade to 100Mbps, it costs $100 a month. What does Comcast do when I upgrade? They flash my modem. That's it. In most cases, maximum data speeds are nothing more than an artificial limiter to reduce network congestion. In my opinion, what makes this even more egregious is that there's no extra benefit to paying more to access what's already there. I have a 300GB data cap at 50Mbps, and if I upgrade, I still have a 300GB cap at 100Mbps. Phoenix is the only test market where Comcast gives you more bandwidth for a higher speed tier.

Ultimately, these businesses are doing what businesses do... anything remotely shady (yet still 100% legal) that they can do to make more money.

 

[xantub]

Phoenix is the only test market where Comcast gives you more bandwidth for a higher speed tier.

I'm guessing you mean they give you a higher cap for a higher speed tier, which is as it should be. But knowing Comcast, they'll probably change it so the most expensive tier has the current cap and goes down from there, not the other way around.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Ultimately, these businesses are doing what businesses do... anything remotely shady (yet still 100% legal) that they can do to make more money.

I would have to lump game publishers and developers in with them, though. One could easily avoid this by buying physical product that is released well developed, not in beta form.

 

[alcoholbob]

Ultimately, these businesses are doing what businesses do... anything remotely shady (yet still 100% legal) that they can do to make more money.

Of course. In the absence of the competition of the free market, when you have collusion between government and business then the consumer's pocketbook is ultimately gouged, because government bureaucrats dont know which businesses to subsidize and which will be successful or not, they only know how to subsidize businesses that gave the most money during the incumbent's last election, driving out of business successful enterprises that didn't bribe their local representative or Washington. It's a vicious cycle that results in the only businesses being around ones that would never survive in the free market without government subsidies.

There's a reason why businesses in the United States are closing down at an all-time high rate right now, and why 7 out of the 10 richest counties in the United States surround Washington D.C, which wasn't the case 10 years ago, and the Federal budget has tripled since the 90s, while wages are declining. It's the path down which every banana republic takes.

 

[Aikouka]

I'm guessing you mean they give you a higher cap for a higher speed tier, which is as it should be. But knowing Comcast, they'll probably change it so the most expensive tier has the current cap and goes down from there, not the other way around.

Ah, yes... that's what I meant. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them take a mobile data approach and let you pay for more data up front.

I would have to lump game publishers and developers in with them, though. One could easily avoid this by buying physical product that is released well developed, not in beta form.

I'd probably say that game developers and publishers remind me more of Hollywood. They can make their riskier project as long as they make a safer project. For example, Borderlands 2 was the riskier project, which I'm pretty sure they knew would sell well, and Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is their "safe game." They also love their cheap and easy cash-ins.

government bureaucrats dont know which businesses to subsidize and which will be successful or not, they only know how to subsidize businesses that gave the most money during the incumbent's last election, driving out of business successful enterprises that didn't bribe their local representative or Washington. It's a vicious cycle that results in the only businesses being around ones that would never survive in the free market without government subsidies.

I think it really just comes down to election costs. With our heavy media culture, we're at a point where campaigns are rather expensive. Unless the candidate is already wealthy, there's no way that they can afford to run; however, I'm not sure having the political offices only accessible to the rich is a wise thing to do. So, what are these "poorer" people to do?

Part of me hates how much they're willing to screw over the country to placate their donors, and another part of me realizes that I can't really blame them for it. You aren't going to stay long if you bite every hand that feeds you. :\

 

[ImpulsE69]

Ah, yes... that's what I meant. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them take a mobile data approach and let you pay for more data up front.



I'd probably say that game developers and publishers remind me more of Hollywood. They can make their riskier project as long as they make a safer project. For example, Borderlands 2 was the riskier project, which I'm pretty sure they knew would sell well, and Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is their "safe game." They also love their cheap and easy cash-ins.



I think it really just comes down to election costs. With our heavy media culture, we're at a point where campaigns are rather expensive. Unless the candidate is already wealthy, there's no way that they can afford to run; however, I'm not sure having the political offices only accessible to the rich is a wise thing to do. So, what are these "poorer" people to do?

Part of me hates how much they're willing to screw over the country to placate their donors, and another part of me realizes that I can't really blame them for it. You aren't going to stay long if you bite every hand that feeds you. :\

I've heard social media frenzies are cheap and there are these things called Kickstarters. How long do you think it will be until there's a crowdfunded (read: not quite so different than interest group funded) politician?

I would think it is cheaper than ever today to be heard. People throw money at it because that's what rich people do. The problem with politics in general is the selfless people who should be in office aren't, because they are smart enough to know they won't make a difference with all the greedy self motivated people in office.

 

[StinkyPinky]

There should be an option on steam to tell it not to download data over 1GB without manual approval from the user.

I'm not on a cap either but I was in the past and understand how annoying it can be.