When Baldur's Gate 3 came out, Steam's overall bandwidth consumption went from around 18 Tbps to 146 Tbps
From Steam's self-published stats.
Baldur's Gate 3 could not be preloaded and weighed in at 125 gigabytes on disk, so when the game left Early Access at 11am US Eastern yesterday, Steam's bandwidth utilization shot up 8x over a span of 30 minutes. I know personally, I saw my download hit over 600 Mbps across a 1 Gbps fiber connection.
Kudos to the system engineers at Valve. It is mind-boggling that they have built infrastructure that robust.
You are viewing a single comment
Anyone who has info about the environmental impact of something like this, compared to physical media? Not trying to be a downer, I'm genuinely curious.
As in DVDs or Blu Rays?
Computers running for hours just downloading, servers running hot to share the files, extra bandwidth in use - certainly not free.
But in contrast to producing optical media, burning data onto it, printing a cover, sticking it in a plastic box, sticking that plastic box in a larger box with polystyrene peanuts, putting that box with other boxes on a pallet, wrapping them in shrink wrap, flying them across the world, discarding the wrap, breaking down the pallet, driving individual boxes around a region, having an employee come to the store early by car to unload boxes, and have them put individual game cases on display on metal shelves and then lighting and air-conditioning said game cases for a few weeks until they're all sold to customers who drive to and from the store, and then run it on their local computer... Download has got to be more efficient. Certainly when most games then have an update to the disc version already required to download by the time the customer gets home.
The vast majority of the distance covered is using light as the transmission medium, so we can't really get much more efficient than that.
Just a note that commercially produced disks aren't burned they're pressed. I'm not sure which is better environmentally however.
This guy life cycle analysis
I don't think the difference is worth considering. The computers running for hours actually playing the game would be the same and that's the bulk of the energy consumption. The spike from downloading it or physical distribution is probably irrelevant in the big picture.
The main argument in favor of downloading is, it's easier to provide the necessary energy in a cleaner way. You just need electricity, and you could power everything using solar or other "clean" sources. While the production and distribution of the physical copies will have to be done by boat, car, and potentially even airplane. And I think we are still far away from electric shipping boats.
I have no info on it. I can speculate, and I'm happy to be corrected!
There is no way that physical media is greener.
Just the sheer production of physical media would be more than the servers, never mind the transportation, space in shops, people traveling to pick it up.
And then, day 1 rolls around and there would still be updates.
10x bandwidth for an hour is nothing.
And I'd consider everything up to the trunk routes of the internet. Ultimate, internet trunks and consumers are going to have internet. A data center peering to the trunks isn't hugely power intensive, the networks are going to exist and the bandwidth is available, it's mostly a matter of cost. So, it's essentially steams datacenter impact.
Could probably estimate it.
If it's able to deliver 150tbps, and we assume steam is using 100gbps networking per server (ultimately, it's just file serving), that's 1500 servers.
Say a server is 1.5kw, that's 1.5kw of power and 1.5kw of heat. DC cooling is about 15%, so 1.77kw per server.
Or 2.7 MW for all 1500 servers.
Round that up to 3MW to account for backups, spares, switches etc.
So, let's assume that the BG3 download took 3MW for 1 hour.
And, I feel, this is an over estimate.
Trucks are 300-500kw. Let's take 300kw, best case.
A single DVD case (let's ignore that this game is on the edge of a 4-layer bluray, and say it's single disc) is 55 grams.
2.5m copies (the lowest sales estimate I've seen) would be 137,500 kilograms, or 137t.
A 44t artic truck can carry 24t of cargo (this depends on the actual truck and local regulations, of course).
So, moving 137t of discs requires 6 trucks.
6 X 300kw = 1.8 MW.
So, if it take more than 2 hours to truck these discs to get them to stores, then transportation is already over the DC power requirements.
Most of the distance covered by internet transmission is transmitted by light. It's as efficient as it gets.
I'm looking forward to the return of games so big they merit physical distribution. Like, the first terabyte game that comes on its own SSD - plug it into a spare M2 slot or a USB3 port and go.
You're not going to see it unfortunately. They'll just assume that you're on gigabit and will spend 3 hours downloading it.
In a Datacenter that I have some equipment in, it's $300 a month for 1gbps. At that cost, 3 hours of bandwidth costs them $1.20... this is cheaper than any current device that can hold 1TB by leaps and bounds. Forget that they'd have way bigger pipes than that and at a much better cost/gbps.
On top of that you can also program stuff to do distributed file serving (eg. bittorrent) to alleviate the datacenter costs too. So that $1.20 is a "worst case" scenario... and the costs plummet hard at each cost-cutting step they could take.
No more than any other release. This is just notable because it was all at once, which Steam is usually good about distributing, but this time it didn't work out and they took the traffic all at once.
Basically you'd see the same thing spread out over days with a usual steam release and the pre-loading that goes with it.
As for a physical release, I mean, I absolutely would if I could...