Poll: Rawest tech deal?

Sometimes, life gives you a raw deal. Other times, the tech industry is the one handing out crappy cards. Crysis 2‘s $60 asking price is more than a little questionable given the game’s reliance on DirectX 9. Portal 2 is a little more reasonably priced, although some may feel ripped off after pouring hours of their life into the GLaDOS@home ARG. Then there’s that new 105Mbps Internet service… which comes with a 250GB monthly data cap. Is that worse than buying a P67 board, enduring the SATA bug, and learning that Z68 is due early? Surely, that’s nothing compared to your iPhone telling your wife where you’ve been.

Which is the rawest deal of them all? Let us know by voting below or in the middle column on the front page.

Last week, we asked you to look ahead to the future of input devices. Which pointing device will reign supreme in a decade? The tried-and-true mouse and touchpad, according to 53% of you. 19% think that multitouch displays will dominate, followed by 14% who figure we’ll be controlling everything with brain waves. Of those who voted, only 10% expect motion controllers will really catch on. The remaining 4% see some other form of pointing method rising above the rest.

Comments closed
    • lethal
    • 9 years ago

    Well, in my country we now have this awesome deal: 10 Mbps service with a [b<]25[/b<] Gb cap. With 105 Mbps at least you would have to put some effort trying to saturate your connection in order to eat your whole cap in a day.

    • Silus
    • 9 years ago

    I can’t believe I read that Crysis 2 asking price isn’t worth it because it’s “DX9 only” in the same sentence that Portal 2’s asking price is reasonable…50 euros for a 10 hour SP campaign + MP “sucks” because it’s DX9 only. But 50 euros for a 5-6 hour SP campaign of a puzzle game (with no replay value, after you solved the puzzles) and DX9 only too, is reasonable……what ?

    Is Valve funding Tech-Report now ? That’s the most absurd and ludicrous thing I’ve read in a while in here…

      • khands
      • 9 years ago

      I guess the point is expectations were not met. I agree that it’s not so much a raw deal as it is people wanting more from Crysis 2 than what they were expecting, whereas people pretty much get what they were expecting with Portal 2.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      Double that for co-op.
      add more for add-ons/DLC/User levels.
      It’s already getting GOTY/100 awards.
      The game is probably worth $35-50 on release. We know Valve will lower the price gradually over time given the history of similar games they offer.

      Crysis promised incredible graphics/gameplay, didn’t deliver on either. Crysis is a $30-40 game the way they released it, and the price I bet will drop fast, with their publisher fighting that tooth and nail. I don’t know what the MP use looks like but they were pushing it hard as a replacement for COD/BF series and I don’t think it’s going to dethrone either of those two.

      • Entroper
      • 9 years ago

      I would argue that one hour of Portal 2 is not equal to one hour of Crysis 2. Also, there was plenty of replay value in the original Portal, because there were challenges to solve the puzzles in less time and with fewer portals.

      DX9 is a non-issue for Portal — it’s not that kind of game. Puzzle games don’t need to push the boundaries of what’s possible on a quad-SLI rig; they need to do exactly the opposite, which is run on a wide variety of hardware. On the other hand, “will it run Crysis?” is its own meme.

      • Bensam123
      • 9 years ago

      Because all Crysis has is graphics and once you take that away, there is nothing there. Portal 2 has a lot more to it. Not everything is so black and white.

    • marvelous
    • 9 years ago

    As much as I want to vote. None of those apply to me.

      • clone
      • 9 years ago

      nor I.

      P67 was annoying but I was planning on waiting for Bulldozer before buying something new anyway.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 9 years ago

    I think that buying a PSP Go right now would be very high on the list.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    250 GB data cap is going to be the fine red tape for many consumers for many years in the US because they aren’t used to their service being capped. It will also be a lot of free money for ISPs on overcharges until the demand for ‘unlimited’ services becomes the new thing and companies will go back the other way to where we are.

    However, I voted for Crysis 2 as it was a huge disappointment. Putting aside the lack of eye candy and overall worse look then the first one, the gameplay just sucks. Current games in and of themselves are almost ALL a ‘raw deal’ so thats why I’m voting as such.

    • d0g_p00p
    • 9 years ago

    I voted the P67 only because it hit me directly. I built my new machine in Jan and so far had the P67 issue plague me and over the weekend my GTX 560Ti died on me. Best computer I have ever built and 2 major parts of the computer die within months. I pray that none of the 6 disks I bought for my new build don’t die based on my luck for this build so far.

    • FireGryphon
    • 9 years ago

    I voted for #1, Crysis 2. I voted because of this site’s poor attitude towards the game being DX9. Shouldn’t you be more concerned with game play than graphics?

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      It is geek angst. They paid for a new OS–DX10 five years ago, DX11 1.5 years ago–and they want to get a benefit from it !

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 9 years ago

        Don’t AMD cards get a healthy speed bonus using DX10 paths too?

      • Damage
      • 9 years ago

      Bah, that’s a false dichotomy that has polluted discussions of gaming for far too long. Good visuals aren’t necessary for enjoyable gameplay, but good visuals can enhance immersion and enhance the overall gaming experience substantially. I don’t see any tension between the two things, for the vast majority of cases. Why act like they’re a tradeoff, or that only one matters?

      Crysis 2, of course, has its own unique history of over-promising and under-delivering on the PC on many fronts, including the visuals. Press start to begin.

        • Silus
        • 9 years ago

        Portal 2 says “Saving…Don’t turn off your console”. And hey, it’s DX9 only too, as any Valve game. Guess that doesn’t matter either. Double standards are a must these days…

          • Damage
          • 9 years ago

          Eh, I don’t have a lot of enthusiasm for this argument. Didn’t vote for Crysis 2 in the poll and I’m hoping it’s a decent game. I just wish it were cheaper for a variety of reasons.

          I’ve talked to folks off the record who really expected Crysis 2 to be a big deal in the PC industry, with really good DX11 support and the works. That all changed when EA apparently decided to rush it out the door. The promises Crytek made about not diluting their PC focus when making console versions also went away. I think that’s a shame, and it means Crysis 2 is not what we’d expected or hoped to see.

          The Portal 2 comparison is instructive. Portal 2 costs less, for one, and the price feels appropriate. Heck, I pre-ordered and paid even less than list. Also, I’ve never even noticed the vaunted “console” prompt in P2, and nothing else about the game says “port.” The video adjustment menus are detailed and excellent, with clear explanations of what each slider does. Playing with 16X AF and 16X CSAA is quite nice, and I didn’t have to force anything in a control panel or deal with the compromises in performance and IQ doing so can cause.

          I’m not sure Crysis 2 is a raw deal, but 60 bucks feels like a lot for a game that’s less than we expected, with mixed reviews and some obvious console-port seams and tuning limitations we wouldn’t expect from a Crytek game. I want to buy it but can’t bring myself to pony up that much. So into the poll it went. Here’s hoping it’s less of a raw deal than it seems.

            • Bensam123
            • 9 years ago

            Yup, you actually took the time to break it down. I honestly don’t think there has been any ‘source’ game that has screamed port, probably because they port it the opposite direction. The source engine wasn’t designed primarily with consoles in mind. It’s a relic of a far older war people have seemingly forgotten and it’s original construction has now become a mystery.

            All Crytek games have ever been is a showcase for technology with a bit of flavor thrown in to make it palatable The latest iteration is complete garbage, as I stated in a forum thread about the game, you lose all hope when you see the AI dance around on your screen in some strange ballet dodging behind non-existant cover and facing a enemy that is not actually there. The game is just all around terrible and the graphics are a step BACK from Crysis as well as the sound and the gameplay.

            Portal is a completely different beast and comparing both of them to each other and saying they’re the same because they’re both ‘games’ does not equate… as they say apples to oranges..

          • Bensam123
          • 9 years ago

          “Because all Crysis has is graphics and once you take that away, there is nothing there. Portal 2 has a lot more to it. Not everything is so black and white.”

      • PRIME1
      • 9 years ago

      That’s like saying you should be more concerned about the cake than the frosting.

      But the cake is just not as good without the frosting.

      Besides newer versions of DirectX and things like physics and 3D can actually add to the gameplay.

      • Vasilyfav
      • 9 years ago

      Unfortunately, Crysis 2 has even less going for it in the gameplay department.

        • burntham77
        • 9 years ago

        It does feel like a step down from the first game, although some game play improvements, such as the suit being easier to use, helps.

      • Silus
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah, plus the fact that they praise Portal 2, which has nothing to give graphics wise, and it’s DX9 only too. That criticism is reserved for Crysis 2 only…Crytek can’t win and Valve always wins…it’s ridiculous.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        valve is perfect. duh.

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        Valve never raved about how awesome they’re going to make the graphics and/or the AI, so they have less such related hype to live up to. Their game lasts longer, and costs less, and is much more memorable. And in general, it’s an all-around [u<]better[/u<] game than Crysis 2, if you don't mind the lack of action. Your turn, tell us a reason why $60 for a goddamn ugly, mediocre, overhyped action game is worth a thought.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      Congratulations, you voted in favour of it being a bad sale. Learn to read.

    • christopher3393
    • 9 years ago

    3 words: Dell Technical Support. Particularly for Home and Home Office, unless you add North American Phone Support to the warranty cost for extra $$$.

    • grantmeaname
    • 9 years ago

    iPhone telling your wife you’re selling her horses. Raw deal.

    [/ssk]

    • khands
    • 9 years ago

    iPhone telling your wife where you’ve been is only slightly higher than a 250GB cap on a 105Mbps service.

    • tejas84
    • 9 years ago

    I know which one sweatshopking voted for 😉

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    How bout when you buy a server from Dell and… aw heck, just go read here:
    [url<]https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=75941[/url<]

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    I voted for the data cap thing. Data caps are nuts. Just use marginal pricing.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    How could you have missed the rawest deal of all: ISP overage charges?? Up here in Canada, [s<]Robbers[/s<], sorry, Roger's is charging [b<][i<]$5/GB[/b<][/i<] overage charges - and that on a $35/mo plan that has a lousy 2 GB cap. Especially galling when the incremental cost to them - including capital outlays - is less than one penny. Do even 1/100th of that in the financial sector and it's called 'loan sharking' and you go to jail for it.

      • cynan
      • 9 years ago

      [i<]Do even 1/100th of that in the financial sector and it's called 'loan sharking' and you go to jail for it.[/i<] Sure, but don't worry about too much about the poor souls in the financial sector. They've proven they can get plenty creative skirting the laws that exist. For example, allowing speculation on loan default insurance (credit default swaps) so that insurance company (cough, AIG, cough) executives can get rich selling these "policies" while their federally backed company burns to the ground and takes a chunk of the economy with it. And hey, if they find the current laws governing the brokerage of such financial products too constricting, they can always get their friends (aka, the federal government) to change them for them. But back on topic. Where do you live? I have Rogers resold through Teksavvy and their plans and caps are much more reasonable. For $43 + tx/month, I get 15 Mbps, and 300 GB cap. The best thing about it is that it's the exact same service as Rogers.

        • Johnny5
        • 9 years ago

        Teksavvy doesn’t have coverage in my area yet. Even when they do my parents might not want to switch from their Rogers package deal (phone, cable, internet). I’m probably stuck with my 60GB a month until I move out.

          • dpaus
          • 9 years ago

          I’m hoping to get Teksavvy for home, and business too if we can. I just moved my son from Bell to Lake Simcoe Telecom – his bill dropped from $59/mo and a 4 GB cap with $4/GB overage to $45/mo unlimited – on exactly the same circuit.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      I ask this honestly: What would it take for an enterprising group of geeks to bypass Rogers, lay their own fiber, and make a buck? Do you have a regulatory hurdle to prevent you from laying your own fiber?

      I ask honestly, because those prices are absurd, and fiber is less expensive than it was, and it just takes training+time to lay it properly…

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        Comes the revolution, baby… I’m ready to hold my breath until high-speed wireless becomes a business that any Joe can get into.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 9 years ago

    I think you need a video games in general option. The DLC, subscriptions, cyclical rehashing like everything is a sports game, and general business model of taking one game and splitting it into overpriced parts has stopped me from buying games cold turkey.

    Meanwhile, the prices just keep going up. Now big PC games are even $60. Why? They aren’t paying MS and Sony for covering their losses on consoles. They’re paying for another loss that they brought upon themselves: massive advertising campaigns. I’m not footing the bill for irritating commercials.

    Crysis 2 is nowhere near the worst offender. My jaw dropped when I saw there’s already $80 of DLC for Portal 2, and it’s got the same sort of left over console port nonsense, like warning you not to turn off your “console” when saving. It’s a joke at this point, like they’re not even trying and just want to see how many people will hand over money they didn’t actually try to earn.

    “Real” PC games aren’t any better. $60 for Starcraft 2, three times?!? This isn’t a “consolitis” issue.

    And if you do pay all that, what’s your reward? Bend over, here comes the DRM!

      • odizzido
      • 9 years ago

      I agree with this post. I almost never buy new games now because of all the garbage. SC2 was the last game I got and it’s total lack or regard for the people who actually payed for the game doesn’t make me want to buy more blizzard games.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        well, when i posted in the portal 2 thread a similar position, i was panned for it. I find i get along better with you news boys. WHICH IS REALLY SAYING SOMETHING!

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          That’s the price you pay for being the king. Nobody ever agrees with world leaders.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            LOL man, you’re the balls.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 9 years ago

        Agreed. I only buy new games when I trust that they are good and also free from terrible drm. I already knew about starcraft2 before it came out, didn’t buy it, and honestly laugh at people with buyers remorse. You bought it, therefore fueling the cycle. Show some self-control when necessary, and perhaps we wouldn’t have all this crap. They obviously can’t sell us garbage when we won’t buy it. Crysis2 looks to be a non-purchase, portal2 sale only, Dragon Age2 non-purchase, Homefront sale only, Witcher2 preorder, Rage preorder. See? That’s how you do it.

          • Noigel
          • 9 years ago

          I commend you, sir +1!

          I’m close to your buying pattern, except:

          Crysis2 (sale only), portal2 sale only, Dragon Age2 non-purchase, Homefront (bought, buyer’s remorse), Witcher2 preorder, Rage (sale only).

          – I liked the first Crysis even though it got repetitive near the end, will check out the new one one day.
          – I jumped on Homefront, found single player to be like whack-a-mole very quickly and multiplayer to be CLOGGED for the first week and WEAK, not even close to Battlefield good, after that.
          -Rage, after all these years, hasn’t shown me anything worth checking out to prove to me that it’s pre-order worthy.

          Looking forward to Witcher2 though. 😀

      • xeridea
      • 9 years ago

      Just a note on Starcraft 2. We don’t know if its $60 for expansions, and you don’t have to get them to play and have tons of fun. Also Blizzard games tend to be a lot more polished, higher quality, with far less bugs than other games, and not massive bugs at release, like EA and Sony does. And you can play SC2 for years and years and still be entertained, unlike many games now with short campaigns, hacker central multiplayer, and bland gameplay, but oh a little bit of eyecandy, but not to much, kuz its gotta run on a crappy console from 5 years ago. There are also tons of custom games you can do in SC2, with the extremely versatile map editor, making it enjoyable for years and years.

      • lex-ington
      • 9 years ago

      I have to agree on all points. My wife and I laughed hysterically on the weekend when I pointed out the new Mortal Kombat for $70. We were both wondering what could be so good about it – so I downloaded the demo and deleted it after about 5 minutes.

      I swear . . . .only Tiger Woods and ModNationRacers is worth the money right now. . . . .at least the DLC prices are still very reasonable.

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<] "I swear . . . .only Tiger Woods and ModNationRacers is worth the money right now. . . . .at least the DLC prices are still very reasonable."[/quote<] And right now two gay men are giggling hysterically in tight, tight jean-shorts that you would pay any money for a Tiger Woods game. [i<]Diff'rnt strokes [heh] for diff'rnt folks.[/i<]

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Blame it on the out of control budgets and too many customers who are willing to pay top dollar for new releases.

      Video game industry is repeating the same mistakes as film and music industries. I expect the industry to start doing more aggressive crackdowns on “piracy”.

        • Bensam123
        • 9 years ago

        The film and music industries actually has a way to get into it though. Even IF you become a game developer, largely you aren’t making a masterpiece you devised unless you’re a private company that you made completely yourself. You have a lot of people already in the industry that helped make pong that believe that their way is and always will be the right way, the only thing disputing that is the metric for the latest CoD.

      • Bensam123
      • 9 years ago

      Actually posted exactly on this same issue before I scrolled down and saw your post. It’s really all garbage except for the occasional half way decent game. I would, however, argue that it has a lot to do with consolization (consolization encompasses making cheaper ‘disposable’ games and knee jerk DLCs).

    • Tumbleweed
    • 9 years ago

    The speed vs. data cap issue is mostly a non-issue. Higher bandwidth is still better than lower bandwidth, even with the same data cap. I can have more torrents going. I’m already downloading as much as I want to download, and the highest I’ve gone in a month is about 90% of the cap.

    The raw deal aspect of the 105Mbps Comcast thing is not really the data cap – it’s that you can only get it in some areas, and can only get it as part of a ‘triple pack’, not stand-alone, and the $105/mo price is only for the internet PART of the triple pack, AND it’s a limited-time only price. Gaaah!

    The real raw tech deal, I think, has been the crappy 4G rollout of the cellphone providers in the U.S. Oh, and also Intel purposely delaying USB 3 rollout. 🙁

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      No the cap is a far worse limitation than the speed. As I mentioned below, the current comcast cap is an actual limitation for actual legit home/small business based customers of several home-based users I support.

      You can easily live with slower Internet, but a cap where the pipe gets turned off is horrible. At least offer a payment for excess use. Some of us would gladly pay it.

        • Tumbleweed
        • 9 years ago

        You’d have to be an idiot to run a business off this class of connection. That’s why Comcast offers their business connections without these restrictions, for higher prices.

        I’d have less trouble with the data cap on the home connections if they offered me the ability to get an account with a higher data cap for a reasonable fee. Why limit the ability to take in more money? Stupid business decision.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          You’d need to clarify. One business is different than another. A small 1-2 person shop is fine using home internet, and even <10 should be fine.

          Comcast “business” Cable Internet connections don’t have SLA’s and are run side-by-side with consumers. Their outages are synonymous with consumers’ side. From what I hear about Comcast with Vendors, they have outages weekly here in Portland and there’s zero a customer can do about it.

          Given the business transfers speed is lower, (50/8) the cost is lower, you claim there are no caps on Comcast business? Then everyone should just get a comcast business account!

            • Tumbleweed
            • 9 years ago

            True, but as far as the datacap goes, that goes away with the business account.

            Comcasts’ reliability varies by region, and by much smaller areas than that – my Comcast service in Bellevue, WA is super-reliable, whereas it was crap when I was over in Seattle before.

            Whether it’s a 1-2 person shop or larger, a business really shouldn’t be hosting much of anything on a cable modem connection. Use it to connect to your stuff hosted in a proper hosting environment (shared web hosting, dedicated, VPS, colo, whatever). If you need to host your own stuff for whatever technical reason, then it’s time to create a data center and have a serious data connection.

            As far as the business accounts at Comcast, I’m told they tend to cost about twice the amount of the regular accounts for any given bandwidth.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 9 years ago

            I’m guessing in indeego’s example the company isn’t hosting anything from their own site. They would have bought hosting somewhere like godaddy or amazon, however they still need to upload anything new they do to that site.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    You might want to use a different term? In some slang [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=raw<]raw(NSFW)[/url<] is a good deal/cool.

    • Thresher
    • 9 years ago

    The game price thing has been urking me lately. The only way I have to protest it is to buy the game used or to buy it later when it has dropped substantially in price. This is what I’ve been doing.

    I guess they’ve done the math, but it seems to me that a $60 price tag for PC games and a $70 tag for the same console title has the potential to increase piracy more than enough to offset whatever potential extra revenues they were hoping to get. But then again, these are the same sorts of geniuses that thought copy protection on music was a good idea too, despite the fact that music piracy was so rampant.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      1. Ignore release dates. You’ve already essentially ignored them prerelease.
      2. Wait. The amount of time to wait has gotten smaller and smaller for the vast majority of games. The rare exception seems to be blizzard/activision top tier games/Multiplayer games.

      Crysis 2 will be $15 or lower by holiday sale, I guarantee it. Portal 2 also.

        • odizzido
        • 9 years ago

        Ignoring release dates is only the first step. The best thing to do is ignore all the information entirely and just browse the weekend impulse buys or steam holiday sales. Then you can see all the “new” games when they release at a price that is worth paying.

          • Palek
          • 9 years ago

          The other great thing about buying games after they’ve made it to the bargain bin is that you can also delay your hardware upgrades! I’m playing games mostly from 2007~2008 and have no problems running them on old hardware. Bargains “R” Us!

          • Thresher
          • 9 years ago

          There are a very few, select games that I am willing to pay full price for. Portal 2 will be one of these (although most places are at least giving a gift card away with it) and I suspect Duke Nukem Forever will be one of those. There are a few others, possibly, but the rest I’ll pick up a good 6 months or so after release or when Valve has one of their stunning sales.

      • burntham77
      • 9 years ago

      There are so many great games out there, you can easily buy them on sale if you wait a few months and just play older games in the meantime. These days, the only games I pay full price for are ones I am really excited about, like Dragon Age 2 and Crysis 2. Even Portal 2 I bought on sale for 45 dollars.

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago

        I bought Just Cause 2 full price, something I rarely do anymore, and I played it every waking moment for almost a month. The game dropped rapidly in price, (a good $5-10 a month via sales.)

        The game was so silly, but so fun, that I can’t imagine another medium/value where I would get such bang/buck. Well, now that I think about it…

        I don’t know why Portal 2 and Crysis aren’t tugging at me like Just Cause 2. I guess because the games have/had so much hype that I’m looking for a polished, patched, quiet time to try them out on my time, not a publishers/media/friends’ time.

          • Thresher
          • 9 years ago

          Those are the games I don’t feel bad about paying full price for. I feel like I got my money’s worth from Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, and the Mass Effect Games. Same with the GTA games. There was enough content to keep me busy for a good month.

    • PRIME1
    • 9 years ago

    $5.4 billion for ATI

    :-p

    For me recently it was paying for TV when OTA + Internet offered plenty

      • ClickClick5
      • 9 years ago

      Found your drivers license photo:

      [url<]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/285/2/0/troll_face__by_shantelle_ham-d30m1sz.png[/url<]

        • PRIME1
        • 9 years ago

        [url<]http://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a409/CertifiedTroll/god-haters-gonna-hate-eagle.jpg[/url<]

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 9 years ago

        Okay, I lol’d.

    • mcnabney
    • 9 years ago

    When you can hit a monthly cap after five hours, you know you are getting screwed.

      • Kurotetsu
      • 9 years ago

      250GB in 5 hours means you’re doing something illegal, which is precisely what the data caps are intended to stop. And please don’t try the ‘LINUX ISOs!!!!’ excuse.

        • Thresher
        • 9 years ago

        Or you could be in a video production company that moves large files all over the country.

        You just cannot assume illegal behavior because of data traffic.

          • bthylafh
          • 9 years ago

          Nitpick: if you’re such a company you should be paying for business-class Internet.

          Your point stands, however.

        • Synchromesh
        • 9 years ago

        What difference does it make? It’s my bandwidth that I pay for and I can do with it as I please. Plus, there are quite a few ways to get to that cap very legally. Backing up files over internet would be one.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          250GB/per month is your allotted amount.

          If you need more with the same speed. You have to pay up. It’s that simple.

            • Bensam123
            • 9 years ago

            Everytime you go over your monthly limit a kitten is killed, it’s that simple.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            Nice strawman.

            What happens when you reach 250GB is clearly stated in Comcast’s TOS.

            Then again who goes and reads contracts/agreements these days?

            • Bensam123
            • 9 years ago

            Strawman for a strawman. Mine just wasn’t designed to be masked, rather to mock.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 9 years ago

            It wasn’t in the TOS when I originally signed my deal

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago

        Acronis Online Backup first run for a 100% legal system is 4x that cap.

        (Acronis only charges $50/year, BTW, for multiple systems and backups.)

          • SomeOtherGeek
          • 9 years ago

          I have thought about that, but then it says:

          [quote<]250 GB — for only $49.95 for the first full year![/quote<] So, what is the price after the first year? I can't find that info anywhere.

            • indeego
            • 9 years ago

            Nor can I, but I would pay it. As I say over and over and over again, paying [i<]x[/i<] for Internet access is worth it to me. It's pennies investment for what it brings in in terms of overall revenue. Sure I'd like something cheaper, but I also enjoy Comcast reliability (I hear horror stories from others, however.) The cap is the first time I've run into a serious hindrance with Comcast.

            • SomeOtherGeek
            • 9 years ago

            Gotcha.

          • bittermann
          • 9 years ago

          Jeeezzz…………so you are the people clogging up the internet/bandwidth backing up your freaking torrents and pr0n, then complain about CAPS? Get a freaking external hard drive for cripes sake and stop wasting the internets!!!!

          PS: I don’t care if you have 100% legit software that is just nuts backing all that up via the internet…no wonder they have caps!

            • SomeOtherGeek
            • 9 years ago

            Well, Bittermann, no need to take your name for granted, but there is info that is that sensitive.

            • bittermann
            • 9 years ago

            Huh…if it is that sensitive why on earth would you send it offsite to some 3rd party backup servers????

            You make back up tapes and send it to secured storage if it’s that sensitive!

            Nice shot at my username btw…grow up.

            • PsychicMuffin
            • 9 years ago

            Tapes? Really? I think you need to get used to the modern era. The internet can provide extremely reliable, safe, and convenient storage. You’re welcome to hoard your tapes in your bomb shelter though =P.

            • bittermann
            • 9 years ago

            WOW…really how small minded of you. It can be tapes, disks, anything…point is to store it offsite and or offline. Just because it’s modern doesn’t mean it’s better…you mean reliable and secure as in several copies on different 3rd part servers…good luck with that. Security isn’t really your strong suite is it?

            • grantmeaname
            • 9 years ago

            I agree. What small mines you operate!

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            Small mines aren’t very deep, are they?

            • bittermann
            • 9 years ago

            Fixed! 🙂

            • shank15217
            • 9 years ago

            dude, tape are still used in the ‘modern era’ because they are usually more resilient to failures and they store a ton of data, upwards of 5TB per tape device. Sounds like you need to come into the modern era.

            • indeego
            • 9 years ago

            They are used because they have a higher shock/vibration tolerance than HDD’s, are more portable, and they fit in well with legacy inventory management systems (barcoding, use slightly less space physically.)

            HDD’s have several advantages, including read/write speed, random lookup, and their costs have come way down. They just aren’t quite as portable/tolerable to shock/vibration as tapes.

            Throw SSD’s in there (very pricey+capacity is still an issue) and you resolve all above issues. Last I checked 1 TB SSD’s were $2800 so figure in media rotation and you get very very pricey compared to tape media costs.

            If I were building backups for a business at any level I’d use B2D2T+offsite like Iron mountain [u<]or[/u<] B2D2D+offsite(online over Net) depending on clients' bandwidth setup.

            • Skrying
            • 9 years ago

            Except when a natural disaster, fire or maybe even just a electrical surge destroys your external hard drive and computer equipment you won’t hold that opinion. The cost of online back ups are cheap compared to the protection they provide.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            If that’s the case, data loss is the least of your concerns.

            • shank15217
            • 9 years ago

            Data loss is probably one the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern world, don’t play it down.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            Data loss isn’t that big of a deal to most normal people. Only businesses and organizations have much to lose from data loss.

            On the other hand, Data theft is a far greater danger. It also happens on a frequent basis (identify theft).

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 9 years ago

        Oh, there are plenty of other legal ways, you just have to have it to understand. Not owning something that you pay for is a big turn-off.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          Those legal uses are clearly under “business/non-profit”. A best-attempt service doesn’t cut it.

          People keep forgetting that this is a “best attempt” service not dedicated. There is a world of difference.

            • Bensam123
            • 9 years ago

            “Tell that to your mom next time she uploads a 12 minute 720p video to her cooking blog.” pretty much sums it up.

            I really enjoy when people tell me EXACTLY what I need and how I should spend my time and money. It totally rationalizes any point when you say ‘oh you don’t need that’.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            This is a best-attempt service. If you don’t like Comcast’s TOS. Go elsewhere, it is that simple.

            Crying and throwing around a tantrum like a spoiled child isn’t going to help you.

        • PsychicMuffin
        • 9 years ago

        This last December I reformatted and forgot to actually back up my Steam game files (just took my save games), so I had to re-download all of them. Once I was finished I decided to not have that happen again and did a full backup to an online service. Also since it was Christmas break I was streaming a lot of Netflix because I had lots of free time. It was over a TB of bandwidth on 100% legal activity. As a side note, I did not at this time know about the bandwidth caps, resulting in an interesting surprise.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 9 years ago

          Wait, let me get this right. Your solution to not having to download your games again is to…upload them to an online backup service? How the freck does that save you from having to download them again if you need to reinstall?

        • xeridea
        • 9 years ago

        You can DL 250 GB in 1 week on yer average 3Mbps connection, so you basically have like a 1Terabyte data cap. Why on earth would you get something with a datacap, when you are pretty much guaranteed to never utilize it, and you can have capless, but totally fast internet for half the price? IIf you actually used the 105Mbps, you could only use it ~1/100 of the time, yay. Netflix, Youtube, multiple computers/users in same house, online storage/backup, music streaming, remote DVR viewing (for security cameras), there are hundreds of ways to use up that data. You can totally do anything you need on a 12Mbps connection, for half the price, and unlimited.

        In Chattanooga, you can get 1Gbps connection, with no data cap, for $350/month. Thats 10x faster, with no datacap, for only 3x as much. And thats 1Gbps up AND down. They also have more reasonable lower speed packages for lower prices, with no data caps. Typical cable company BS. You can get webhosting with unlimited data (with some restrictions such as you can’t be a video hosting site), for less than $10/month, so its not like bandwidth really costs that much money.

        • Krogoth
        • 9 years ago

        Exactly, Comcast’s own network only can handle so much bandwidth at once like all ISPs.

        The vast majority of users here don’t understand the costs and requirements it takes to handle thousands of users with 100+Mbps 24/7 with little downtime.

        At moment, Comcast’s network doesn’t have the capacity. They are left with two undesirable options.

        A.) Let things slide and the abusers (hardcore pirates) will hog most of the bandwidth. They would effectively kill service for the majority of their base. “OMFG, WHY IS MY INTERNETS SO SLOW!!!!!”

        B.) Enact bandwidth caps to ensure that each customer has a fair chance. 250GB is quite generous if you aren’t abusing the connection. “OMFG, I CANNOT TORRANT MY 500GBS OF WAREZ!!!!!!!!”

        Option B is the lesser of two evils for both Comcast and their users.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 9 years ago

          You forgot option

          C.) Honestly sell or advertise the level of service which your network can support. ‘Honestly’ here means not having to fineprint a bunch of stuff or ‘up to’ speed advertising and so on.

          I dream, I know..

            • Bensam123
            • 9 years ago

            Hey, I was going to go for the ‘don’t oversell your services’, but you beat me to it…

            Getting knocked offline in the AoL days and having to reconnect knocking someone else offline, what?

          • xeridea
          • 9 years ago

          You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong, you shouldn’t even be allowed to post. There are thousands of legitimate uses of unlimited bandwidth. I probably use half that much, on a 3Mbps connection, and don’t do anything “illegal”. My faster 12Mbps connection (not comcast), I never have any slowdown, and never any downtime. I have guaranteed, unlimited speed, and I always get it (cept when remote server sux, or Youtube is being stingy). By The Way… you can buy 2 TB/month bandwidth for $99/month. So… 8x their stupid cap, for $6/less. I know there are other costs associated with maintaining the networks, but get real. This is 2011. Fiber is everywhere. Fiber is getting insanely fast. Other countries you can get super fast internet for like $20/month. The US is behind, but that is no reason to have unnecessary data caps just because you want to milk the consumer. So if you could actually use the 105Mbps, you could use your cap in like 5 hours…. so whats the point of having all that speed? I bet its not even sustained speed, and their extra overhead of micro analyzing everyones traffic surely doesn’t equal better ping.

        • Bensam123
        • 9 years ago

        Ripped from my comment on the Comcast news post…

        “You wouldn’t find upload userful for sending files to friends, a teamspeak server, watching some content from your computer remotely, getting anything remotely from another location, or using a slingbox? There are a lot of uses for it, just as many as there are uses for downloading there are for uploading, not everything is about web hosting or doing something illegal.”

        • d34thly
        • 9 years ago

        Streaming pron in HD is perfectly legal, but 5 hours of HD pron is showing some superhuman stamina/fortitude. 🙂

          • cygnus1
          • 9 years ago

          or you dosed off after your were done and left it playing…

        • TheBulletMagnet
        • 9 years ago

        Slingbox while away from house and Netflix hd while at home. Both very legal.

      • PixelArmy
      • 9 years ago

      Depends on how you slice it. That cap is there regardless of the speed you choose. For some it might be a plus to just do the same things but faster.

      Ex.
      Downloading a game via steam.
      Watching streaming video at the same quality but with less buffering.

        • mmmmmdonuts21
        • 9 years ago

        Anyone hear of Netflix? Hulu? Pretty sure you can eat a very healthy chunk quickly and legally.

          • travbrad
          • 9 years ago

          Yep, especially if you have multiple people using these services. 250GB is “only” 8GB per day, and you can burn through 5GB just watching a couple movies.

          I actually think 250GB is a pretty reasonable cap (for now) on the regular $40-50 packages. It’s just unacceptable on a $100+/month service. Those “introductory rates” are a very misleading as well. After my 1year of “introductory rates” on triple-play they started charging me MORE for triple play than it would cost to buy the services individually. What a deal!

          They lowered my rates after I called and talked to them about cancelling my service for Qwest though. 🙂

          • PixelArmy
          • 9 years ago

          I’m not questioning legality. That’s none of my business. I’m also not arguing caps are good (or if 250 GB is “fair”).

          To elaborate, that netflix or hulu show will require the same amount of data regardless of speed, assuming constant quality. Even if it’s not constant, it’s not like they can increase the quality infinitely. And you’re probably not watching faster than realtime. You’re not going to watch your month’s worth of netflix in 5 hours. Unless you’ve somehow learned to manipulate the space/time continuum.

          Or the steam example, a 5 GB game is still going to be 5 GB, but you might be able to play sooner.

          I was watching that battlefield 3 clip on youtube yesterday. I have a slow connection and tried loading the 720p version. I walked off and let it buffer before watching. With a faster speed, that would happen quicker, yet use the same amount of cap space.

          [b<]My point is that the cap isn't new and is there at slower speeds![/b<] Faster is faster. The fact that there is enough upside, despite that cap, which was already there, makes this not as "raw". (FYI, I believe this post has taken the same amount of cap space regardless of my connection speed).

            • Corrado
            • 9 years ago

            This is what I have been saying. If you put a turbo on your car, and double the HP, are you going to suddenly drive twice as far daily and put more miles on your car? Or would you just get to the destinations you’re already going to goto regardless, faster? It might be fun to drive more for the first few weeks because its new and fast, but after you get accustomed to it, you end up just doing the same things you did before. Streaming a movie at 105mbit still takes 2 hours to watch, just like if you had 10mbit. It still is the same 2gb or whatever as well. You can’t watch MORE movies on a 105mbit line just because you get it faster. The content still has a specific run time and you can only fit so much of that run time into a day.

            • travbrad
            • 9 years ago

            You may not drive more miles, but you will burn more fuel.

            • travbrad
            • 9 years ago

            I don’t think anyone is saying it’s realistic to burn through 250GB in 5 hours, but when those speeds are possible, it could be quite easy to go over 250GB in a full month. If someone finds Comcast’s 20mbit service to be “too slow” then they are obviously transferring a lot of data.

            Now you could argue someone using that much data should be on a business connection, but that means this service is completely pointless. If everyone transferring large amounts of data has to use a business connection, and their regular 12-20mbit service is fast enough for 1080p/etc, why would anyone pay for this?

        • xeridea
        • 9 years ago

        I have 12Mbps, and can easily stream 2 1080p YouTube streams, with no buffering, so that point is invalid. I can download anything I want, within seconds/minutes. What is the point of paying an extra $50/month, for speed you will never use, and if you could, you could only do so for 5 hours/month, when you can get unlimited data elsewhere, and use it 24 hours a day?

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Good luck finding a server that is willing to host that much bandwidth…….

      100Mbps connection is mostly a gimmick anyway.

    • gbcrush
    • 9 years ago

    Hey. Where’s the Cheese option? You know, like paying $50 for a block of yellow cheddar, only to find out its Blue Cheese painted over? 🙂

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      MAN TELL ME ABOUT IT. I paid 7$ for 500g of cheese yesterday. i was like WTF. if i hadn’t finished 80% of the lasagna i wouldn’t have bought it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This