> I don't think anyone disagrees that linearly scaling of traffic scales linearly. What they're getting at, why would you still use that rather implementing som

> I don't think anyone disagrees that linearly scaling of traffic scales linearly. What they're getting at, why would you still use that rather implementing something more efficient? Like Battlefield games (bf4?) did, using different update rates for nearby and distant players. I guess my confusion/frustration comes from this sort of default, "wow, that's a lot of bandwidth, umm I guess somewhere he must be doing something really inefficient" train of thought that I see so many commenters are going through in this thread. What if it wasn't inefficient. What if what I'm describing is actually using the 10-20mbps and packing in an appropriate amount of game that justifies that amount of bandwidth on top of already doing all the smart compression techniques? Think of it like this, what if you did all the compression and bandwidth optimization techniques available, and instead of targeting 1-2mbps, you just used the additional bandwidth to fit in more game? More players. Greater object density. A bigger world. More networked objects. Higher tick rate. There are any number of dimensions you can expand along. Nobody is suggesting "LOL, bandwidth is free now, make the same game, but be lazy and have it take up 10-20mbps! hahah". The industry doesn't take kindly to the same things over and over, players want novelty. So give it to them!