That’s true of every large game I play these days as well. Obviously there may be game developers that remain stupid and I suggest that’s an issue to take up with them rather than an issue that is relevant to this debate.
Owen > On May 31, 2022, at 08:06 , Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > "However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 > 3.5” floppies at one point." > > > But you can still get incremental Windows Updates and don't have to > redownload Windows any time something changes. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > To: "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:26:39 AM > Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers > > > > I agree that it probably doesn't change much for the ISP's (my rural ISP > > installing fiber apparently disagrees tho). The thing is that if you're > > talking about downloads, the game manufacturers will just fill to whatever > > available capacity the pipes will give so it probably won't ever get better. > > I don’t think game manufacturers expand their games based on available > download bandwidth. I think that games have gotten richer and the graphics > environments and capabilities have improved and content more expansive to a > point where yes, games are several BluRays worth of download now instead of > being shipped on multiple discs. > > However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 > 3.5” floppies at one point. > > However, yes, a download will fill whatever bandwidth is available for as > long as the download takes. If you’ve got 1Gpbs, the download will take > significantly less time than if you have 100Mbps. > > > Maybe there a Next Big Thing that will be an even bigger bandwidth eater > > than video. But I get the bigger limitation these days for a lot of people > > is latency rather than bandwidth. That of course is harder to deal with. > > Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low > bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.). > > Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem, but it does actually help > some in that it reduces the duration of things other customers do to cause > congestion which increases latency. > > Owen
