PDA

View Full Version : PC Gaming N00b: How much bandwidth is taken?



AzureBlaze
May 5, 2011, 12:50 AM
Simple version: How much bandwidth do games of this level take up?

Backstory:
All right. I am a PC gaming n00b.
The closest I ever got to PC gaming was to play the beta of psu on a PC that couldn't handle it. I've never had an interest in clicking on things or spending more hours in front of a PC than I already do for work. Console always had 'more action' to me, so I didn't even care BB PSO.

Buuuut...pso2 will make me buy a new machine or do w/e it takes to play it. I intend to hdmi cable over to my 55 screen so I can see it on the same screen as I do regular games. Problem solved? I hope so. I actually DO believe NOW that PC only is a good decision, even though I was a diehard ps2 psu supporter/raged when it ended. To get done what they need to get done, to make it fun...it seems right. I care about updates & patches vs cheating.

However, I have heard about these new bandwidth caps the ISPs are putting.
The situation here (and I'm sure others have it too) is a monopoly, where "If you dont like this internet service, then you can buy another place to live" The provider here is ATT & I never had a problem with them. But they are capping mobile & home use. Moving out is not an option. UVERSE is not an option, they won't serve it here either.

From what anyone's seen of the graphics so far, and requirements on alpha trial, how much bandwidth would it eat to run it many hrs/day? (based on looking at what similar looking games have done in the past)
Would one have to quit looking at non HD netflix shows?
I heard only torrent people would be affected by caps...but I don't torrent really (too troublesome) but would people who do, need to quit torrenting?
Is there a 'how much internets you used' measurement device somewhere to get an idea of what you do use now?

I mean, I don't want to get knocked offline because I like to game a couple hrs a day/have it come down like a total shock. I think capping is stupid, if you're paying for it, you're paying for it--I hope this nonsense goes away. I am hoping this is a non-concern but figured to ask anyway.

Zyrusticae
May 5, 2011, 12:54 AM
The current caps are much higher than most normal users will hit. You don't need to worry about it.

Unless, of course, you KNOW you're consistently downloading over 150 GBs of data a month...

•Col•
May 5, 2011, 01:03 AM
I lived on a college campus this semester, which had a limit on how much bandwidth you could use per week, so I watched it pretty closely. It was only 15GB per week. Aside from large patches/updates, depending on the game, I'd only use around less than 1 GB to a few GB per week for just gaming. Even on weeks where I'd play every day for several hours. So I wouldn't really worry about it.

Just gotta watch that HD video streaming... lol. Even just watching a few hours of low resolution videos a week would suck up way more bandwidth than any of my gaming ever did.

Niloklives
May 5, 2011, 01:37 AM
This is the first I've heard of them limiting use for a paid service.

Canard de Bain
May 5, 2011, 08:26 AM
Console isn't more action at all. Whatever you can do there you can do on PC.

Nitro Vordex
May 5, 2011, 02:20 PM
This is the first I've heard of them limiting use for a paid service.
It happens more often than you think. It even happens right in front of you.

Akaimizu
May 5, 2011, 02:49 PM
Games are actually fairly small in gaming bandwidth. However, needed response time does depend on the game. It's the main reason why fighting games really needed at least Broadband. It's not the size of the data, but how fast it needs to get to the other person.

But think of it this way. A huge populated game like WoW, on a non-instanced map, with complete and utter syncing of all characters, monsters, and actions, on the map is still geared to run within a 28.8 baud modem stream. Yep. Medium but not high end narrowband. Sure, it may take a little while to load up all the details of the various characters while sitting in the auction house. But quick enough for instanced stuff and being away from large populations and quickly loading other people's character data. Guild Wars works within these limitations, too. Everquest definitely did. Just a few old examples.

chaoelite
May 5, 2011, 03:04 PM
I know not everyone is a fan of cable based internet but luckily i don't have to worry about bandwidth since would be silly since its always on.

The game company who runs the servers need to worry about bandwidth more then the user that's why some games have fees to help with the upkeep.

Malachite
May 5, 2011, 04:58 PM
You don't have to worry about bandwidth, when playing almost any game, on any modern connection.

Unless you have 56k, you're in the clear.

Niloklives
May 5, 2011, 05:59 PM
It happens more often than you think. It even happens right in front of you.

well I mean we have 4 computers in the house and torrents running and all sorts of stuff. we've never exceeded any limits and seeing as I used to set up home offices and such for people and tend to read up on these things in my spare time...I mean I know they have those kinds of limits in really specialized areas, but as being a common place thing? this is the first I've heard of it.

AzureBlaze
May 6, 2011, 12:07 AM
Great!
I'm glad there's nothing to fear with PSO2! This is excellent news to not have to worry about caps or not watching the occaisional netflix instant show or something. I am using a cable modem with ATT's basic whatever plan. (they won't serve anything else in this area)

This is a PCWorld article that talks about it
http://www.pcworld.com/article/222039/atandts_uverse_and_dsl_data_caps_good_deal_bad_pre cedent.html

It's only raising a fuss right now because May was the month they set out to start up such things. It made the paper the other day which caused me to start wondering and make this post. I do agree with it that it's a bad idea to cap it because if they learn that capping works, then everyone will do it to extort more money for doing basically nothing. It provides a little history of how others tried it but backlash stopped them.

With phones, it is competition for customers to buy plans that makes people like Sprint say "our unlimited has no actual limits" to make people pick them, because they know they're going to use it a lot/more than other people. But ISPs I guess are sort of area-specific because they have to wire areas so not as much competition is available to push them to act fair or throw people a bone who might use more than others do.

•Col•
May 6, 2011, 02:08 AM
well I mean we have 4 computers in the house and torrents running and all sorts of stuff. we've never exceeded any limits and seeing as I used to set up home offices and such for people and tend to read up on these things in my spare time...I mean I know they have those kinds of limits in really specialized areas, but as being a common place thing? this is the first I've heard of it.

As I understand it, Internet traffic has been drastically increasing recently(largely due to HD video streaming like I mentioned, such as Netflix and ESPN.com), that ISPs literally just can't/won't be able to handle it. Hence the limits being put in place.