• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

death of the disc?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
i can see the disc bieing but not to downloadable content. with solid state drives getting larger and cheaper i could imagine seeing cartridges again. better load times, being able to load sounds higher quality than a cd now. carts used to be $50 and $60 dollars, dvd and cd games are the same price new, i dont see why it couldnt happen again.

the issue was that the sound took up so much space and wasnt up to par but in all honesty look at MP3 players now, solid state and better sounding than a cd. i imagine the same time the internet is 10x faster that chips will be just as expancive or less than discs
 
...you'd be able to download a ~25gig game overnight or while your out in class, or at work etc. Yeah that might be too slow for some people, but in the long run it isn't that bad, and like I said above, people that can't get to a store easily, that's better than having it shipped to you.

Plus if they don't have to use discs / packaging, that will save a little bit of money. If an online game store game could be downloaded for say 45$, as opposed to a 50$ store bought version, I think a lot of people would want to save that extra 5$.

Yeah, some people would love not to have to drive 50+ miles to the nearest store that has a poor selection, anyway. However, those same people that live in the boonies are the ones with the worst availability of internet. Large portions of the US still don't offer any DSL or cable internet coverage and still largely rely on dial-up. Satellite is pretty much the only alternative, and that stuff is awful.

The people that do have the nice net connections are typically the ones that can conveniently pop over to a nearby game store.

Even with those good connections, it's still an overnight download type of prospect. Such lengthy downloads make it important to not have to rely on on-demand redownloading....in other words, cheap notebook size HDD's need not apply.

The handful of $$$ saved on disks and packaging simply gets moved to initial console purchase cost in one big up-front lump sum. $400 PS3 + $200 giant HDD = yay, I'm ready to start DL'ing games at ($60-$5)....$55 a pop!

Just imagine... Hmm, GTA IV is sounding pretty good right now. Oh, wait...I just ditched that off my 40GB HDD last week to make room for the new Final Fantasy game. I guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow after setting it to re-download tonight. Hmm...what am I gonna delete this time to make room for getting GTA IV again? Too bad they don't just sell these things on disk anymore.



DL's are already just fine as an occasionally used alternative form of distribution and will continue to gradually improve as such. But for them to become a dominant form of mainstream distribution to the point that disk distribution dies off? That's still laa-laa-land for now. We just had that thread a while back for basically the same thing on movies and MS's digital distribution....everyone was like, "yeah, disks aren't going anywhere anytime soon..." It's the same thing! Content made to fit on 50GB disks that people want to feel like they own and control.
 
Last edited:
Your dreaming rainless :)

Just because the technology exists DOES NOT mean it will be rolled out quickly. FIOS has been rolling out for a couple of years now and only major cities and few other areas have it.

And lets NOT forget that every cable company is trying to stop FIOS from coming to their area. Its an uphill battle for Verizon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080408/bs_ibd_ibd/20080408tech01

Dreaming hunh? Comcast has 50 MBs internet access NOW (albeit for $150. My buddy in Japan has a fiber connection that does 80. And somehow you're still convinced that five years from now we'll still be stuck at 10?

You want to make a LONG TERM bet?
 
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/03/30/And to those who DOUBT that faster internet is coming:

http://www.myfoxlakecharles.com/myf...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1



BELIEVE ME... it'll be here in five years or sooner.


There are lots of impressive analogies and numbers thrown around in the article, but when you get down to the technological advancement side, it's just a bunch of technology we already have and use in the current internet with supposedly the "old junk" cut out. It's just an upgraded internet, and the internet is already upgrading itself in the same manner gradually over time. Also, how long until the "new grid" ends up effectively interconnected with the "old net?" Even if the internet backbone does get faster, the average consumer is still limited by their own personal connection to it.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080408/bs_ibd_ibd/20080408tech01

Dreaming hunh? Comcast has 50 MBs internet access NOW (albeit for $150. My buddy in Japan has a fiber connection that does 80. And somehow you're still convinced that five years from now we'll still be stuck at 10?

You want to make a LONG TERM bet?

Even those speeds are pretty lame for the kind of applications we're talking about.

Although, the issue isn't whether highspeed connections exist - it will be whether everyone has one. In 5 years we'll be doing good if all typical American households have 1.5MBs DSL or better as a minimum. This is still a very rural country.
 
BELIEVE ME... it'll be here in five years or sooner.

I don't know why people in the gaming world are so quick to ignore history and technological evolution. Why the hell do you think it would just STOP now? I remember back in the Genesis/SNES days they'd said they'd gone as far as technology would allow them with current television technology... but then they came out with the Saturn, N64 and PS1, and then the Xbox, PS2, and gamecube.

I remember when they said they'd gone as far as they could go with bandwith when they hit 14.4k. Then they hit 28.8, 56k, and finally we entered the DSL and Cable eras.

So somehow you think they've finally hit the final wall?

Come now...


I believe all of this will be throttled by revamping the current cable/copper infrastructure. Sure, you'll have select cities that'll reap the benefits of fiber-optics, but the article you linked to really illustrates how far of a jump it would be to reach that level of technology. There's something to be said about service commitments to consumers. At least where I live, there's vast socio-economical divisions that will prevent 150mbs for more than 50% of the metro. I also think physical retail is so embedded in our culture that it'll take quite some time before it becomes completely extinct (WRT gaming).

Maybe its the massive recession in the rust belt that has me thinking like this... or maybe I'm grossly underestimating the profits to be had by ISP capitalism...
 
For some odd reason the US is actually way BEHIND other countries when it comes to net speed/bandwidth. :shrug:

It's because as a people, we spread out a lot. We spread out because we want to and because we can afford to. We have big houses with big yards spread out into outlying communities because we don't want to live in congestion. Everyone has a car, and can afford fuel to drive long distances on a daily basis. It's a blessing, really, but it makes certain types of centralized infrastructures very inefficient. High speed data connections are one such thing that is very inefficient to initially create for sprawled out communities.
 
For some odd reason the US is actually way BEHIND other countries when it comes to net speed/bandwidth. :shrug:

Its for the same reason why car ownership per capita is high in the U.S., this country is huge in comparisson to 'yurp. Before a major ISP can begin a massive advertisement campaign, they need to wrap up their target market with a healthy service commitment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm led to believe U.S. is one of the few countries where the government doesn't help aid in building an improved telecommunications infrastructure...
 
It's because as a people, we spread out a lot. We spread out because we want to and because we can afford to. We have big houses with big yards spread out into outlying communities because we don't want to live in congestion. Everyone has a car, and can afford fuel to drive long distances on a daily basis. It's a blessing, really, but it makes certain types of centralized infrastructures very inefficient. High speed data connections are one such thing that is very inefficient to initially create for sprawled out communities.

Beat me to it :beer:
 
For some odd reason the US is actually way BEHIND other countries when it comes to net speed/bandwidth. :shrug:

Well, thats because base on the number of people per square mile, the ratio is much much smaller compare to other countries. Its not cost efficient at all to tear down the old infrustrature and build new ones from scratch. It is way much cheaper to do it when you have everyone living in a small piece of land. Less area to cover in order to serve more people. It's not providers in US dont have the technology to do it, it's just too expensive to do it.
 
Even those speeds are pretty lame for the kind of applications we're talking about.

Although, the issue isn't whether highspeed connections exist - it will be whether everyone has one. In 5 years we'll be doing good if all typical American households have 1.5MBs DSL or better as a minimum. This is still a very rural country.

Who the hell is talking about "typical American households?"

We're talking about the average next-gen gamer who's willing to throw down $400-500 for a video game system, 60 bucks a game, and who the HELL KNOWS how much in accessories.

THOSE people will not have 1.5mbs internet connections in 2013. How do I know this? Because it already happened. I remember downloading games on a 2400baud modem. The computer gaming industry, at that time, played a large roll in increased bandwith. And gamers bought 14.4, 28.8, and whatever else they needed to keep up with the curve. (They were selling modems in software stores.)

Console gamers will do exactly the same thing. If they released Street Fighter V as a 10 gig download, or required a certain bandwith to play GTA VII, you bet your sweet *** gamers would be on the phone to AT&T and Comcast.

You're DREAMING if you think bandwith isn't going to skyrocket over the next few years.
 
Console gamers will do exactly the same thing. If they released Street Fighter V as a 10 gig download, or required a certain bandwith to play GTA VII, you bet your sweet *** gamers would be on the phone to AT&T and Comcast.

You're DREAMING if you think bandwith isn't going to skyrocket over the next few years.

And what do you think you will get for calling comcast? Cable is not static bandwidth and therefore is NOT infinitely increasing.
 
Who the hell is talking about "typical American households?"

We're talking about the average next-gen gamer who's willing to throw down $400-500 for a video game system, 60 bucks a game, and who the HELL KNOWS how much in accessories.

THOSE people will not have 1.5mbs internet connections in 2013. How do I know this? Because it already happened. I remember downloading games on a 2400baud modem. The computer gaming industry, at that time, played a large roll in increased bandwith. And gamers bought 14.4, 28.8, and whatever else they needed to keep up with the curve. (They were selling modems in software stores.)

Console gamers will do exactly the same thing. If they released Street Fighter V as a 10 gig download, or required a certain bandwith to play GTA VII, you bet your sweet *** gamers would be on the phone to AT&T and Comcast.

You're DREAMING if you think bandwith isn't going to skyrocket over the next few years.

Companies like Sony don't make big money on a console by just selling to hardcore gamers. They make the big bucks by being inclusive of all sorts of customers including kids getting christmas presents, occasional gamers, and hardcore gamers that live in rural areas instead of urban ones.

They make the bulk of their money through game sales, and if those sales are limited to download only, it would severely drive down their sales by being impractical, undesirable, or impossible to a large portion of their potential customers. Game systems don't stay at $400-$500 dollars forever. Neither do games stay at $60; they hit bargain bins. Consoles in general are designed to target casual gamers, at least eventually.

I remember the days of dail-up modems and their rapidly increasing speeds, too. Connection speeds did indeed rocket up at an alarming pace back then. There were differences, though. Everyone already had a phone line, and the only thing required to increase speed was to personally own faster hardware - often available in cheap software modem versions. Speed increases were univerally available so long as a person was willing to make a one-time investment on hardware. That lasted until 56k, and then speed increases hit a wall while people awaited eventual broadband offerings in their area.

The situation is a lot different now as increased speeds depend on massive investments on infrastructure by utility companies. It's not like someone with 1.5MBs DSL can just got buy a new 150MBs DSL modem, plug it in, and have 100x the speed. It's not just a question of calling the utility company and saying, "Give me more speed, damn the cost!" Most people get an answer of, "Well, we can offer 1.5 or 5.0 in your neighborhood." Some people still get an answer of "no availability." My father-in-law lives in central Ohio…it's a rural area that's over an hour from the nearest major metro area, but it's not exactly the boonies, either. Ohio is pretty well populated in virtually any part of the state. The local retailers there sell out of new gaming consoles and such just like anywhere else. (I know because my brother-in-law tried unsuccessfully to buy an Xbox 360 there when they first came out.) He still has ZERO offerings available for broadband other than the possibility of getting gouged for horrible satellite service. He's been hearing, "We plan to eventually expand into your area" for years. I live in a suburban part of a metro area with over 1 million people and it was only 4-5 years ago that DSL became available in my specific neighborhood. Available connection speeds have changed little since introduction. I know people in slightly more outlying areas that still can't get it. Cable coverage is a bit better, but more expensive.

So, even a hardcore gamer can't just decide to spend extra money and automatically get a fast connection. We don't all live in the middle of big cities with the fastest available connections.

Connections are definitely improving overall, yes, but nothing has been quick about it so far. Unless some kind of great, new, low latency wireless connection that doesn't require huge investments by utility companies comes along, the pace of improvement probably isn't going to change much.
 
Its for the same reason why car ownership per capita is high in the U.S., this country is huge in comparisson to 'yurp. Before a major ISP can begin a massive advertisement campaign, they need to wrap up their target market with a healthy service commitment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm led to believe U.S. is one of the few countries where the government doesn't help aid in building an improved telecommunications infrastructure...


On your first point, I agree. There is a lot of real estate to cover, and top of the line technology is expensive.

The government however does help pay for telecommunications lines. This is part of the reason why telco's and service providers are required to share the landlines and all major trunk lines. When Comcast and RCN deliver cable to your home, they are using the same copper, between poles. Same applies for telephone. The parts that each company maintains themselves, are the switching stations, and the connection from pole to home/bldng.
 
Companies like Sony don't make big money on a console by just selling to hardcore gamers. They make the big bucks by being inclusive of all sorts of customers including kids getting christmas presents, occasional gamers, and hardcore gamers that live in rural areas instead of urban ones.

They make the bulk of their money through game sales, and if those sales are limited to download only, it would severely drive down their sales by being impractical, undesirable, or impossible to a large portion of their potential customers. Game systems don't stay at $400-$500 dollars forever. Neither do games stay at $60; they hit bargain bins. Consoles in general are designed to target casual gamers, at least eventually.

I remember the days of dail-up modems and their rapidly increasing speeds, too. Connection speeds did indeed rocket up at an alarming pace back then. There were differences, though. Everyone already had a phone line, and the only thing required to increase speed was to personally own faster hardware - often available in cheap software modem versions. Speed increases were univerally available so long as a person was willing to make a one-time investment on hardware. That lasted until 56k, and then speed increases hit a wall while people awaited eventual broadband offerings in their area.

The situation is a lot different now as increased speeds depend on massive investments on infrastructure by utility companies. It's not like someone with 1.5MBs DSL can just got buy a new 150MBs DSL modem, plug it in, and have 100x the speed. It's not just a question of calling the utility company and saying, "Give me more speed, damn the cost!" Most people get an answer of, "Well, we can offer 1.5 or 5.0 in your neighborhood." Some people still get an answer of "no availability." My father-in-law lives in central Ohio…it's a rural area that's over an hour from the nearest major metro area, but it's not exactly the boonies, either. Ohio is pretty well populated in virtually any part of the state. The local retailers there sell out of new gaming consoles and such just like anywhere else. (I know because my brother-in-law tried unsuccessfully to buy an Xbox 360 there when they first came out.) He still has ZERO offerings available for broadband other than the possibility of getting gouged for horrible satellite service. He's been hearing, "We plan to eventually expand into your area" for years. I live in a suburban part of a metro area with over 1 million people and it was only 4-5 years ago that DSL became available in my specific neighborhood. Available connection speeds have changed little since introduction. I know people in slightly more outlying areas that still can't get it. Cable coverage is a bit better, but more expensive.

So, even a hardcore gamer can't just decide to spend extra money and automatically get a fast connection. We don't all live in the middle of big cities with the fastest available connections.

Connections are definitely improving overall, yes, but nothing has been quick about it so far. Unless some kind of great, new, low latency wireless connection that doesn't require huge investments by utility companies comes along, the pace of improvement probably isn't going to change much.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. That stupid "instant epidemic" thread Fudge made has drained my energy for pointless arguments.
 
Who the hell is talking about "typical American households?"

We're talking about the average next-gen gamer who's willing to throw down $400-500 for a video game system, 60 bucks a game, and who the HELL KNOWS how much in accessories.

THOSE people will not have 1.5mbs internet connections in 2013. How do I know this? Because it already happened. I remember downloading games on a 2400baud modem. The computer gaming industry, at that time, played a large roll in increased bandwith. And gamers bought 14.4, 28.8, and whatever else they needed to keep up with the curve. (They were selling modems in software stores.)

Console gamers will do exactly the same thing. If they released Street Fighter V as a 10 gig download, or required a certain bandwith to play GTA VII, you bet your sweet *** gamers would be on the phone to AT&T and Comcast.

You're DREAMING if you think bandwith isn't going to skyrocket over the next few years.

You're harking back to the mid-90's. Today we're still utilizing >80% of that infrastructure that delivered your bandwidth to you back then. This country is built on copper. I'm not buying into the idea of gaming being exclusive to the upper-middle class.

The same argument is proven in the automotive industry. You can only push a certain infrastructure so far (network of gasoline stations), obtain a maximum MPG rating, before you've maxed the internal combustion engine. Then you have to pray the gov't is going to aid you in setting up hydrogen stations and/or electric companies cooperate with plug-in hybrids. Fat chance of that happening within 10 yrs time without government regulation aka CAFE. (I'm not even going to mention the exclusivity of who can afford hybrid vehicles)

Unless bandwidth becomes a national concern, the copper network is here to stay.


Edit: I couldn't have said it better than John G.
 
Last edited:
On your first point, I agree. There is a lot of real estate to cover, and top of the line technology is expensive.

The government however does help pay for telecommunications lines. This is part of the reason why telco's and service providers are required to share the landlines and all major trunk lines. When Comcast and RCN deliver cable to your home, they are using the same copper, between poles. Same applies for telephone. The parts that each company maintains themselves, are the switching stations, and the connection from pole to home/bldng.

You learn something new every day. Cheers to educating me :beer:
 
Back