Rainless, I told you so... buh-bye physical media

[Niku-Sama]

How come we have a problem to begin with, while supposedly other countries have insane speeds for cheap? Is it because our population is so much larger, and our country physically bigger?




I think so too. Which is odd, because we'd go from cartridge > disc > cartridge in recent years. I always imagine the next format (for games) will be SD cards, which scared me because the little things could get lost so easily.

you know i dont know why that was the case with the broadband stuff.

its almost like the broadband company started out and went "well thats enough lets just charge alot to start out with and not improve it at all over the years, it'll be good for another 40 years" and them not even thinkin that technology acually advances. or its all for money to begin with, low speeds for high prices, win win for comapnies.

either way it ****es me off and the fact that prices now are just now comming down on those 2-5meg speeds it is stupid

 

[FudgeNuggets]

you know i dont know why that was the case with the broadband stuff.

its almost like the broadband company started out and went "well thats enough lets just charge alot to start out with and not improve it at all over the years, it'll be good for another 40 years" and them not even thinkin that technology acually advances. or its all for money to begin with, low speeds for high prices, win win for comapnies.

either way it ****es me off and the fact that prices now are just now comming down on those 2-5meg speeds it is stupid

It's infrastructure. The United States and Canada are such large countries and people are so spread out that it's a lot harder to upgrade, run new wiring etc..etc...etc... than it is in a smaller country like England or France. I mean, England is smaller than Colorado.

 

[Neuromancer]

It's infrastructure. The United States and Canada are such large countries and people are so spread out that it's a lot harder to upgrade, run new wiring etc..etc...etc... than it is in a smaller country like England or France. I mean, England is smaller than Colorado.

Yah I have argued this point as well.. SOME people think it is not true, but it is quite simple to check out the world book for population density and see that all of the countries that have better broadband than the US also have a higher population density.


Not to take the side of the megacorp telecomms but technology has evolved REALLY fast over the last couple of decades, to stay "cutting edge" would require so much money that no one in this country would be able to afford it.

 

[rainless]

It's infrastructure. The United States and Canada are such large countries and people are so spread out that it's a lot harder to upgrade, run new wiring etc..etc...etc... than it is in a smaller country like England or France. I mean, England is smaller than Colorado.

That's BS. It was always BS. And its not even GOOD BS.

I mean it's the exact same excuse that basically ran Bell out of business.

"Why are the phone bills so high? Because America is so HUGE that..."

ERNNNNNNNNGH!

Judge didn't buy it. Class action lawsuit. Followed by the Justice department swooping in with anti-monopoly suits that seem ironic now.

America may be huge... but no other country on the planet spends more on technology than we do. Government subsidies could easily shoulder the burden of better broadband. Those "smaller countries"... with way fewer people paying taxes... had to pay roughly exactly the same as we would have to pay proportionally.

It's like having ten people get together to buy something that's 100 bucks: That's ten bucks a piece. America is just a hundred people buying something that's a thousand bucks: That's ten bucks a piece.

So no: That argument is GARBAGE.

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

So what about the millions and millions the governments gave ISP to expand.. ya, larger country, sure i agree to a point cost more to lay the wire, but when ISP are getting money given to them, are making millions and billions in profit every year... ya they can afford to, they just choose not too!

 

[FudgeNuggets]

So what about the millions and millions the governments gave ISP to expand.. ya, larger country, sure i agree to a point cost more to lay the wire, but when ISP are getting money given to them, are making millions and billions in profit every year... ya they can afford to, they just choose not too!

Sure they COULD do it but there'd be no profit in that. You want more speed than DSL or Cable can provide. Get a dedicated T3, that's THEIR solution.

 

[LufbraDan23]

It's infrastructure. The United States and Canada are such large countries and people are so spread out that it's a lot harder to upgrade, run new wiring etc..etc...etc... than it is in a smaller country like England or France. I mean, England is smaller than Colorado.

France is actually more than twice the size of UK (not just England) and has just 4 million more people. Of course, its still tiny compared to the US but don't you have state governments for that purpose? If the French can organise a decent network then why can't Pennsylvania, for example. Does state government have much power or are these things Federal issues? I wouldve thought that Chicago having rubbish internet would be an embarassment that Illinois would want to sort out.

 

[shadin]

That's BS. It was always BS. And its not even GOOD BS.

I mean it's the exact same excuse that basically ran Bell out of business.

"Why are the phone bills so high? Because America is so HUGE that..."

ERNNNNNNNNGH!

Judge didn't buy it. Class action lawsuit. Followed by the Justice department swooping in with anti-monopoly suits that seem ironic now.

America may be huge... but no other country on the planet spends more on technology than we do. Government subsidies could easily shoulder the burden of better broadband. Those "smaller countries"... with way fewer people paying taxes... had to pay roughly exactly the same as we would have to pay proportionally.

It's like having ten people get together to buy something that's 100 bucks: That's ten bucks a piece. America is just a hundred people buying something that's a thousand bucks: That's ten bucks a piece.

So no: That argument is GARBAGE.

The buzzer sound made me actually laugh out loud. Thanks for that. This also has quite a bit of truth, that argument is mostly garbage, because even where our population density is extremely high the broadband is still inferior. Not to mention that most of the countries that have those awesome connections have a huge capacity of upstream as well as down, whereas our upload speeds are castrated because God forbid someone doesn't upgrade to the "business class" at double or triple the cost.

The "America is so huge" argument holds water for why Sheepherder, Montana, population 254 that's 800 miles from the largest metropolitan area can't get rockin' speeds. The argument falls apart when you throw in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc..etc.

 

[Naked Mole Rat]

Games should be On Demand, like how you can rent a movie through Comcast.

Actually, get rid of computers altogether and let's move towards virtual reality. Just like they are currently doing with parapalegics having implants in their skull and being able to use a computer by simply thinking.

I say maybe 50 years we have the same thing. You put the gaming hat on your head, sit in your chair, and eat and drink while simply visualizing interacting in the environment - instead of using the mouse to aim and keys to strafe - you think about it and it happens. Just visualize what you want to do - cast a spell, talk to an NPC, jump, turn, etc.

As far as data goes - and long term storage - definitely need something better than dvd's and HDD's. time to evolve the tech. seems like things have slowed down and instead of advancing we're just creating the same tech but with more capacity. i don't need a bigger box, i want a better box. or maybe something new altogether.

 

[Venomos1996]

hmmmmm... what happens when you want to watch a movie more than once though? Will you re-rent it??? That just seems absurd to do. Why not buy it and there you go... watch it as many times as you want..

I think they will go hand in hand for quite a few years still. The speeds will have to improve eventually as more and more people get online and start doing more and more online.

I just hope things will improve.... if you want a good laugh watch Idiocrarcy .... thats a funny one... It has luke wilson in it and shows what 'could' happen to society... LOL

 

[Niku-Sama]

That's BS. It was always BS. And its not even GOOD BS.

I mean it's the exact same excuse that basically ran Bell out of business.

"Why are the phone bills so high? Because America is so HUGE that..."

ERNNNNNNNNGH!

Judge didn't buy it. Class action lawsuit. Followed by the Justice department swooping in with anti-monopoly suits that seem ironic now.

America may be huge... but no other country on the planet spends more on technology than we do. Government subsidies could easily shoulder the burden of better broadband. Those "smaller countries"... with way fewer people paying taxes... had to pay roughly exactly the same as we would have to pay proportionally.

It's like having ten people get together to buy something that's 100 bucks: That's ten bucks a piece. America is just a hundred people buying something that's a thousand bucks: That's ten bucks a piece.

So no: That argument is GARBAGE.

this is the same reason the cell phone prices are so high only thing is, cell phone towers are cheaper than running lines and cell phone bills are generally alot higher than land line phones. talk about makin bank.

take the average population of the united states that have a cell phone, the average bill is going to be atleast $100. multiply and crap your pants. its alot, way more than cost of towers, personell/labor, what ever business expence by far.

also take that on top of the cost of a phone, sure some are free and $5 and $10 with a contract, your pretty much paying for the phone over and over again, the phones are cheap that way but if you buy one with out a contract a simple phone costs $200+ when it probally costs what? $30 to make if that?

theres alot of greed and corruption in the information and communication infrastructure and something needs to be done about it.

it seems like in the past 20 years everyones gone corrupt in business, no wonder the economy sucks

 

[AngelfireUk83]

Rainless is correct because of the slow connection speeds around the world except Japan ect download full games around 3GB-4GB plus to put on a handheld wouldn't pick up over night.

Physical media is still going to be around a long long time the UK internet speeds are still too far behind and not even half the country is using 8mbps some are on 2-5mbps and some are on fibre optic.

 

[Niku-Sama]

atleast the bandiwdth is there, with the fiber they can turn it up. in the states thats not the case

 

[zexmarquies01]

Lets not forget that the FCC ( I believe it falls in their jurisdiction ) won't open up the markets for competitors. Whenever a new ISP appears on the scene, Comcast, Time warner, and all the others throw a hissy fit, and run to the courts to get the new ISP barred from opening his service in the area. Their defense? It's competition, and their business in the area will be hurt....

Yeah...Their excuse is the exact opposite of the idea of capitalism.

and the FCC lets them get away with this, and won't open up the markets for new ISP's.

If we could get new ISP's, it would bring competition, which in turn will cause prices to lower. And a new company is more likely to bring with them newer technology, which they will then be able to offer faster speeds, or the current big ISP's will have to raise the speeds they offer to match.

Ever wonder why in major cities, there are usually at most, only 3 or 4 ISP's? In smaller towns and cities, If people are lucky they have 2 ISP's. Many area's only have 1. For something as big as the internet, you would think there would be more companies trying to get a slice of the ISP profits.

But with all this anti-competition crap going around, we aren't going to get ANYWHERE. The ISP's are just going to create bandwidth caps at 5/10/50/250 Gigs per month. And while 250 Gigs per month sounds like a lot, Think about how fast that will be eaten up 3 - 5 years in the future. By then, almost all video's online *should* be in Higher definition by then. More services like steam will pop up, and games will continue to get larger in size.

Right now, some of the caps aren't that bad ( comcasts 250 gigs per month for example. ) But what they are doing is future proofing themselves. They know they have the bandwidth to spare NOW, so they are starting these caps early while they can, and in 5 years, the system will be in place, and they will hope it will be common enough that they will be able to get away with not upgrading their networks for even longer. They realize that each year, bandwidth usage increases by a large amount.

So unless something major happens, I don't see America's bandwidth problem going away any time soon, unless verizon get's its FIOS to 75% of the country, or the FCC opens up the markets so there will be competition again.

Part of me is expecting to see lawsuits stemming from these bandwidth caps. It's not too hard to imagine companies like Hulu, Netflix, Youtube ( google ), valve ( due to steam ), Stardock ( due to Impulse ), and even possibly Amazon and Ebay jumping in and wanting to potentially sue the ISP's. Bandwidth caps will end up hurting the Video sites, and the online gaming distribution sites the hardest. And If these bandwidth caps become more commonplace, These companies are NOT going to be happy.

 

[don'tknow]

Lets not forget that the FCC ( I believe it falls in their jurisdiction ) won't open up the markets for competitors. Whenever a new ISP appears on the scene, Comcast, Time warner, and all the others throw a hissy fit, and run to the courts to get the new ISP barred from opening his service in the area. Their defense? It's competition, and their business in the area will be hurt....

Yeah...Their excuse is the exact opposite of the idea of capitalism.

and the FCC lets them get away with this, and won't open up the markets for new ISP's.

If we could get new ISP's, it would bring competition, which in turn will cause prices to lower. And a new company is more likely to bring with them newer technology, which they will then be able to offer faster speeds, or the current big ISP's will have to raise the speeds they offer to match.

Ever wonder why in major cities, there are usually at most, only 3 or 4 ISP's? In smaller towns and cities, If people are lucky they have 2 ISP's. Many area's only have 1. For something as big as the internet, you would think there would be more companies trying to get a slice of the ISP profits.

But with all this anti-competition crap going around, we aren't going to get ANYWHERE. The ISP's are just going to create bandwidth caps at 5/10/50/250 Gigs per month. And while 250 Gigs per month sounds like a lot, Think about how fast that will be eaten up 3 - 5 years in the future. By then, almost all video's online *should* be in Higher definition by then. More services like steam will pop up, and games will continue to get larger in size.

Right now, some of the caps aren't that bad ( comcasts 250 gigs per month for example. ) But what they are doing is future proofing themselves. They know they have the bandwidth to spare NOW, so they are starting these caps early while they can, and in 5 years, the system will be in place, and they will hope it will be common enough that they will be able to get away with not upgrading their networks for even longer. They realize that each year, bandwidth usage increases by a large amount.

So unless something major happens, I don't see America's bandwidth problem going away any time soon, unless verizon get's its FIOS to 75% of the country, or the FCC opens up the markets so there will be competition again.

Part of me is expecting to see lawsuits stemming from these bandwidth caps. It's not too hard to imagine companies like Hulu, Netflix, Youtube ( google ), valve ( due to steam ), Stardock ( due to Impulse ), and even possibly Amazon and Ebay jumping in and wanting to potentially sue the ISP's. Bandwidth caps will end up hurting the Video sites, and the online gaming distribution sites the hardest. And If these bandwidth caps become more commonplace, These companies are NOT going to be happy.

It's all an utterly idiotic mess. More people need to be informed how much these few ISP's are making and how much better speeds we could easily have by now if they weren't milking the uneducated masses year after year after year.

My only option for decent speed here being Time Warner, 7mbps/384kbps isn't too bad, but then I think of how much better it could be if it wasn't for all the monopoly-promoting BS. Sometime in the future supposedly TW is finally going to start upgrading to docsis 3.0 but then, look at their pricing: 50mb/10mb for $99/mo. Still unknown exactly when this upgrade will come, they keep delaying it every year.

But when thinking of the whole picture I'm sounding very spoiled, considering it's nothing compared to how f'd up the whole stupid system is in general. Some really huge changes need to be made, to solve the current low bandwidth problem among many others.

 

[PhoenixOfChaos]

All I can say is that it took me days to download my Steam collection when I built my new rig - not because I have slow internet but because I have so many of them and I could only download in short bursts before I'd want to play a game online without having my ping butchered by me dling at 350kb/s. I can say that, whenever I can, I will buy physical media purely because the idea of reinstalling and re-downloading all these games from steam hurts. Especially games like Crysis [Warhead] the too of them combined is 15gb. Hell no will I download that, that's a galactic waste of time.

 

[Mortis03]

Whoa.... thread bump....


One point I didn't really see after reading the first and last pages of this thread (lazy), is reselling games.

I pretty much only buy used games from stores like gamestop and ebay. How would they handle this with direct downloadable games? Can you sell games on steam, or once you have it, it's yours for life.

 

[iaacp]

It would be yours for life. The idea of selling a virtual game is, well, not feasible. Companies would not gain anything by letting you sell them.

 

[Mortis03]

It would be yours for life. The idea of selling a virtual game is, well, not feasible. Companies would not gain anything by letting you sell them.

Well, that is my point.

Personally, I only buy used games. Why not? They are cheaper and only difference is that you can't play it on the release date. I shouldn't say only, because I'll prolly pick up Modern Warfare 2 on release date, but you get the idea.

Until they can figure something out about reselling these downloaded games, I will be (and I would be willing to bet a lot of ppl) against medialess games.

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

How come we have a problem to begin with, while supposedly other countries have insane speeds for cheap? Is it because our population is so much larger, and our country physically bigger?




I think so too. Which is odd, because we'd go from cartridge > disc > cartridge in recent years. I always imagine the next format (for games) will be SD cards, which scared me because the little things could get lost so easily.

it is because when the companies were given millions by the government for infrastructure improvements, they wasted it and spent it on nothing.

One reason stated is because many countries didnt have the old copper cable in place for internet, they started their internet backbone with fiber and so on.

the U.S is huge and it is alot of money to redo it all from copper to fiber, but there is also the typical U.S companies being greedy and not wanting to drop the money to make things better, instead they put caps on and raise prices.