Is console going digital?

[Lil Frier]

Yeah, that's what they just did for the 50-Mbps people, upped it to 75. Makes sense they'd give the 105 guys something similar. You're basically getting what I got on the 105 connection, though with lower ping.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah, that's what they just did for the 50-Mbps people, upped it to 75. Makes sense they'd give the 105 guys something similar. You're basically getting what I got on the 105 connection, though with lower ping.

Yeah I was told that they are going to alter their offerings. If true they are replacing the 105 with 150, replacing the 50 with 75 which already happened and adding the 500 and 1Gbit. I wouldn't mind having the 1Gbit service when available but I know it'll be like $200/mo and not worth the asking price.

 

[smackababy]

Yeah I was told that they are going to alter their offerings. If true they are replacing the 105 with 150, replacing the 50 with 75 which already happened and adding the 500 and 1Gbit. I wouldn't mind having the 1Gbit service when available but I know it'll be like $200/mo and not worth the asking price.

For what it's worth, Comcast has said their entire network (US, I assume) will support for gigabit+ capability.

 

[cmdrdredd]

For what it's worth, Comcast has said their entire network (US, I assume) will support for gigabit+ capability.

Yeah I remember reading that when they announced 2Gbit for my area. Thing is it's $299/mo, costs me nearly $2k in equipment and new wiring for 10GBase-T network. I'd even have to remove my 2nd GPU or build from scratch and buy a network card cause I only have Gigabit available. I have no clue what the install fee and activation fee is. I'm thinking before I use it it costs me $5k. Totally not worth it, I don't run a business from the house.

 

[smackababy]

Yeah I remember reading that when they announced 2Gbit for my area. Thing is it's $299/mo, costs me nearly $2k in equipment and new wiring for 10GBase-T network. I'd even have to remove my 2nd GPU or build from scratch and buy a network card cause I only have Gigabit available. I have no clue what the install fee and activation fee is. I'm thinking before I use it it costs me $5k. Totally not worth it, I don't run a business from the house.

I'd imagine once the network gets rolled out, the installation will go down or be covered in your contract. Currently, they know the people who "need" those network speeds are people who can afford to shell out the cash for it (business class, btw is way more than $299 per month).

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'd imagine once the network gets rolled out, the installation will go down or be covered in your contract. Currently, they know the people who "need" those network speeds are people who can afford to shell out the cash for it (business class, btw is way more than $299 per month).

Yeah we have comcast business where I work and their network guys are so incompetent that they wired the RJ-45 jacks backwards on two outlets so they didn't work, didn't plug in a wire from the patch panel to the switch, they also put the wrong IP in our mac which needs a static IP for our Heidelberg Suprasetter because the software is hard coded at install with the IP of the host computer and needs a complete reinstall to change it. So backwards. I fixed it before they came out to look at it. Wasn't impressed.

 

[MongGrel]

I must be silly, I thought console were always digital.

But haven't had one in ages.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I must be silly, I thought console were always digital.

But haven't had one in ages.

I think the Virtual Boy was the last one to use hamsters.

 

[Sonikku]

If the US was hooked up like South Korea? Sure. But here in America the greed to cut out retailers and the 2nd hand market succumbs to the greed of the telecom's that just won't lay down the broadband infrastructure with the government subsidies they receive.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If the US was hooked up like South Korea? Sure. But here in America the greed to cut out retailers and the 2nd hand market succumbs to the greed of the telecom's that just won't lay down the broadband infrastructure with the government subsidies they receive.

Yeah and there's a higher population density in South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan than the US which is why they lead the US in Broadband connectivity and speeds offered. It's easier to connect people. South Korea is on track to offer 10Gbit internet speeds.

South Korea did it right, they had a plan at the government level starting back in the 90s to be a connected society. They want everyone connected to the internet and they even have services that install broadband to the homes of people who cannot afford it via subsidies. One program hooks up housewives with broadband internet and teaches them how to use it in their day to day lives. The cultural differences create more demand for fast connections. Here people seem to be happy browsing youtube videos and you don't need much for that. The higher demand in Korea encourages telcoms to provide those connections.

 

[smackababy]

Yeah and there's a higher population density in South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan than the US which is why they lead the US in Broadband connectivity and speeds offered. It's easier to connect people. South Korea is on track to offer 10Gbit internet speeds.

South Korea did it right, they had a plan at the government level starting back in the 90s to be a connected society. They want everyone connected to the internet and they even have services that install broadband to the homes of people who cannot afford it via subsidies. One program hooks up housewives with broadband internet and teaches them how to use it in their day to day lives. The cultural differences create more demand for fast connections. Here people seem to be happy browsing youtube videos and you don't need much for that. The higher demand in Korea encourages telcoms to provide those connections.

The problem is geographically, Korea has nothing on the US. The amount of rural living people severely decrease the internet AVAILABLE for people. The average consumer speed of US citizen is also a bit misleading. Not everyone has the fastest available (or wants to pay top price for it) and due to our government geography allowing little competition, the prices are outrageous.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The problem is geographically, Korea has nothing on the US. The amount of rural living people severely decrease the internet AVAILABLE for people. The average consumer speed of US citizen is also a bit misleading. Not everyone has the fastest available (or wants to pay top price for it) and due to our government geography allowing little competition, the prices are outrageous.

Yes, I think I read that the average speed in Korea is 24Mbit where in the U.S. it's like 12Mbit.

 

[smackababy]

Yes, I think I read that the average speed in Korea is 24Mbit where in the U.S. it's like 12Mbit.

Again, that is due in large part to price and choice, not availability. How many people have the highest tier in the US? Not everyone, because the cost is ridiculous for what most people need. And, then we have all those guys out of cities that get nothing (one of my father's friend can't even get DSL in 2015, for example). And their speeds really bring down the average. A lot of that is simply due to setting up infrastructure and the other part of it is pricing not having to be competitive in the US.

 

[sweenish]

That's not a counter argument. That's a supporting statement.

 

[smackababy]

That's not a counter argument. That's a supporting statement.

Then you're missing the point. The actual internet speed difference for the majority of urban living people is not as vast as all these reports show. I have never lived in an area where I did not have access to far above what the "average" reported is.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Again, that is due in large part to price and choice, not availability. How many people have the highest tier in the US? Not everyone, because the cost is ridiculous for what most people need. And, then we have all those guys out of cities that get nothing (one of my father's friend can't even get DSL in 2015, for example). And their speeds really bring down the average. A lot of that is simply due to setting up infrastructure and the other part of it is pricing not having to be competitive in the US.

There are many areas where there are no broadband lines at all in the us. That's my point. A more densly populated country which is also smaller by area can more easily get the infrastructure set. The areas who get none or very slow speeds bring down the average.

 

[Lil Frier]

The problem is geographically, Korea has nothing on the US. The amount of rural living people severely decrease the internet AVAILABLE for people. The average consumer speed of US citizen is also a bit misleading. Not everyone has the fastest available (or wants to pay top price for it) and due to our government geography allowing little competition, the prices are outrageous.

Such is reality when you're a country the size of Europe. I mean, some U.S. states are comparable in size and population to many Euro countries.

 

[Anteaus]

The real question is, "What percentage of gamers that are most likely to purchase future content actually live in areas with little to no broadband access?"

The rural comment has been made before, but publishers/developers have not been bashful about trading possible sales for control. Ubisoft DRM is an active example of a publisher openly forcing customers to either assimilate or go elsewhere. In a room somewhere, there are people constantly looking at the numbers, and as soon as they finally decide there is more money to be saved by not creating physical copies than they would lose in sales from 'rural' gamers you will see a change.

I've said it before, but Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all crave the "Steam' style of game distribution where they can cut out the middleman (brick and mortar) and keep a much higher share of the revenue. It's not if but when, and I think we are only 5 or so years from it.

To those that don't think they will gladly trade away gamers with little broadband access in favor of more control and higher total profits, I strongly disagree. It's merely that the ratios haven't quite hit the sweet spot yet.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well, when you have people on caps who stop buying entirely it won't only be people in rural areas at that point and it'll bring down sales. See the major problem is you see a game a year old still on PSN or XBL for $60 when it's $20 at Walmart.

 

[smackababy]

Well, when you have people on caps who stop buying entirely it won't only be people in rural areas at that point and it'll bring down sales. See the major problem is you see a game a year old still on PSN or XBL for $60 when it's $20 at Walmart.

And, even then, with an online only distribution model, they can sell activation codes and something like USB with the content. They can't have that mode of "the data doesn't matter without the activation" without activation. People with strict data caps can pass the USB around and activate it online, after paying for it.

 

[sweenish]

Then you're missing the point. The actual internet speed difference for the majority of urban living people is not as vast as all these reports show. I have never lived in an area where I did not have access to far above what the "average" reported is.

And you think South Korea is somehow not adhering to the exact same law of averages? That's dense.

It's a smaller country, to be sure. But their rural is still washing clothes in the stream and living in self-made huts. Not an American farmer with their trucks and combines who happens to live too far out for a corporation to care.

The speed difference is as this shows. Had you argued that a median would have been a better measure than an average, I can get behind that. Because it usually is, and it definitely would be in this case. Even with a median measure, we'd still be well behind. Because our faster tiers are prohibitively expensive.

As an example, the next tier down in service for me is 15 down. I drop my speed by 70%, and my bill goes down 22%. I own my own modem, so I only pay for service. That's ludicrous. Saying that faster speeds are available is a massive no freaking duh. Faster speeds are also available in South Korea. That should be a no-brainer. Our average is not being dragged down by farmers. It's being dragged down by the price more than anything. Availability is not the same as use, and the numbers in question are not measuring availability. Again, a no brainer.

The better question is to ask what kind of service you'd get in South Korea for what you're paying now. Something well above their average is the answer.

But you're trying to use the law of averages to say why the US looks worse than it does, but that somehow doesn't apply to a country where their poor live in houses made of sticks and mud. Sounds legit.

I get that we're big. If we could lead a chart like that, it would be truly impressive. And if corporations weren't so greedy, I could easily see us moving up quite a few spots. Rollout is slow, upgrades slower, and expansion nearly non-existent. All while we pay more per Mbps than many other countries worse off than us.

I'm not missing the point. You're selectively applying your argument to one number and not the other. So I stand by my assertion. You're actually arguing for what you think you're arguing against. Because averages work the same all over the world.

 

[smackababy]

And you think South Korea is somehow not adhering to the exact same law of averages? That's dense.

It's a smaller country, to be sure. But their rural is still washing clothes in the stream and living in self-made huts. Not an American farmer with their trucks and combines who happens to live too far out for a corporation to care.

The speed difference is as this shows. Had you argued that a median would have been a better measure than an average, I can get behind that. Because it usually is, and it definitely would be in this case. Even with a median measure, we'd still be well behind. Because our faster tiers are prohibitively expensive.

As an example, the next tier down in service for me is 15 down. I drop my speed by 70%, and my bill goes down 22%. I own my own modem, so I only pay for service. That's ludicrous. Saying that faster speeds are available is a massive no freaking duh. Faster speeds are also available in South Korea. That should be a no-brainer. Our average is not being dragged down by farmers. It's being dragged down by the price more than anything. Availability is not the same as use, and the numbers in question are not measuring availability. Again, a no brainer.

The better question is to ask what kind of service you'd get in South Korea for what you're paying now. Something well above their average is the answer.

But you're trying to use the law of averages to say why the US looks worse than it does, but that somehow doesn't apply to a country where their poor live in houses made of sticks and mud. Sounds legit.

I get that we're big. If we could lead a chart like that, it would be truly impressive. And if corporations weren't so greedy, I could easily see us moving up quite a few spots. Rollout is slow, upgrades slower, and expansion nearly non-existent. All while we pay more per Mbps than many other countries worse off than us.

I'm not missing the point. You're selectively applying your argument to one number and not the other. So I stand by my assertion. You're actually arguing for what you think you're arguing against. Because averages work the same all over the world.

You literally proved my argument, without knowing it. The highest tiers of internet available in the US are prohibitively expensive. This isn't the case in South Korea. The average, mid tier internet speed is about half the cost as the average LOWEST tier in the US. That is why the average speed of what consumers have IS a terrible argument. How many people can or are willing to pay $100+ for the higher speeds in the US? Not many.

 

[Jubassi]

Sure it would help to reduce cost of physical items i think everything will be going fully digital

 

[TeknoBug]

There's one other thing that will change if consoles go all digital, Battlefield Hardline for example did very poorly on PC but sold well on console because people can buy the physical game and then trade it in a few weeks/months later for high value towards another game. With digital, console users will think twice and Battlefield Harldine probably wouldn't have sold as well in a digital-only era. That is when game devs need to really knock off the laziness of releasing half-baked games.

 

[Skel]

Well, when you have people on caps who stop buying entirely it won't only be people in rural areas at that point and it'll bring down sales. See the major problem is you see a game a year old still on PSN or XBL for $60 when it's $20 at Walmart.

What game is $60 on PSN/XBL that's $20 at Walmart? While they're normally still a bit behind brick and mortar (who are dumping stock to regain floor space) I've not see that kind of gap in years. At most I've seen $10-20, and that's for a popular game like CoD.