i would say its bound to happen, but then again if games just keep getting bigger, we are already at 50gb and over, and if the devs want to have significant performance and game size over last gen , then i dont really see internet infrastructure keeping up to be able to deliver that in a practical way
i see optical storage advancing much faster than internet infrastructure ,what are people going to do in the gen after this next one, dl 1/2 tb or 1 tb or more for 1 game ,when there will most likely be affordable optical storage for that, it would take too long ,plus the ever increasing resolution of tv displays will add more data ,im sure the next ,next gen will be capable of 4k ,8k resolution,who knows.
look at canada they are having issues with their internet infrastructure and instead of fixing it their "solution" is to curb and deter use by charging by usage , instead of upgrading and fixing the problem, its even happening here in the US comcrap just limited its previously unlimited cable service, although it was limited before ,they just wouldnt tell you or admit it,but people were complaining of being dropped for overuse ,even though comcrap wouldnt admit it cause of liability, as they advertise as unlimited
No matter what "gen" it is look at the failure of the PsP GO. There will ALWAYS be people that would prefer a "physical copy" over a digital copy when it comes to video games. I am one of those people. Also not everyone "believe it or not" have Internet. But then again buying a $500.00+ console how CANT you NOT have Internet in your house but that is another story :P
Up until just very recently I have never been able to connect my ps3 to the internet. I live in a rural area just outside of the cable company's area of service. I had three choices. Dial-up, which would pretty make downloading a game take forever. Satellite, which costs an arm and a leg to start up for speeds not much better than dialup along with a limit. And an air card, yet most aircards come with limits. I received a cricket aircard at one point and it had a 5 GB/month limit and once that was passed my speeds went to prehistoric dialup levels. It was a POS even when it wasn't throttled, but I really didn't have much of an option and at least I wasn't getting overage charges like some aircards. Of course now I have a pretty decent aircard with no limits, but there is another problem. Most routers aren't compatible with usb aircards and the ones that are can cost quite a bit (mine ended up costing $100). And I could never get windows network sharing to work with aircards as it considered them dial-up devices which also prevented it from bridging the connections. It still would take a day to a week to download a game and with limited space that could mean the game might have to be deleted to make space for a new game and redownloaded when desired or be transferred to an alternate storage device.
And if it was a cloud gaming service, I doubt my internet speed could keep up. I also don't think it is a good idea to go strictly cloud. One can get a decent computer/laptop (mine is 2ghz/2ghz and 2 GB ram) for around 200 to play the games by cloud since specs would play a smaller role. Pre-rendered video games wouldn't need ps3 specs to play. Heck, ps3/360 could do the same thing as well, ps4/720 would be irrelevant if all it offered was cloud.
Originally Posted by themuse
i would say its bound to happen, but then again if games just keep getting bigger, we are already at 50gb and over, and if the devs want to have significant performance and game size over last gen , then i dont really see internet infrastructure keeping up to be able to deliver that in a practical way
i see optical storage advancing much faster than internet infrastructure ,what are people going to do in the gen after this next one, dl 1/2 tb or 1 tb or more for 1 game ,when there will most likely be affordable optical storage for that, it would take too long ,plus the ever increasing resolution of tv displays will add more data ,im sure the next ,next gen will be capable of 4k ,8k resolution,who knows.
look at canada they are having issues with their internet infrastructure and instead of fixing it their "solution" is to curb and deter use by charging by usage , instead of upgrading and fixing the problem, its even happening here in the US comcrap just limited its previously unlimited cable service, although it was limited before ,they just wouldnt tell you or admit it,but people were complaining of being dropped for overuse ,even though comcrap wouldnt admit it cause of liability, as they advertise as unlimited
I remember a few years ago I read about comcast adding a 250 GB/month limit and how people were shitting themselves. To be honest, I wanted to smack them. I would have been more than happy to switch my PoS cricket aircard with it's dial up speeds and 5 GB limit for something that had to at least been better than dial up speeds and 250 GB limit. And Comcast wasn't the only ones advertising unlimited, almost every mobile broadband company promises unlimited. Be glad it was 250 not 5. Of course I do say that limits are bullshit no matter how high they are. All they are there for is so internet companies can whore out the same outdated infrastructures to even more customers without actually factoring in the fact that more customers will need more infrastructures. Limits scare (or strong arm) customers into not using what they paid for so other customers don't notice that there are too many people on the same infrastructure. Those limits would mean nothing if everybody decided to use their allowance at the same time.
Heh, glad I'm with Verizon Fios. I have never had a limit. I manage a good 100+GB a month and they haven't even so much as sent me an email saying "Oi! your using up too much damn bandwidth! Cut it out already or else!" I haven't received anything resembling that and I guarantee I download the most BY FAR within a good 10 - 20 mile radius. If they had a map of usage statistics, I guarantee my house would be a huge red dot.
@Albedo - But see here in the US at least in major areas or semi-major areas, unlimited bandwidth and high speeds are pretty much EXPECTED and STANDARD. So people get pissed if they get throttled. hell I don't live in the boonies, but I don't live in the city either. I live only 10+ miles away from absolute nowhere. (Fredericksburg, VA is where I reside. About 5-10 minutes out of Fredericksburg city limits in the country.)
On my connection I get 25mb/s down and 20mb/s up. That's not even the highest tier package. Fiber optic was installed down here a good 5 years ago IIRC. So we've had the infrastructure for quite some time. But if you go another 10-15 minutes toward the country side, I think the only thing offered down there is Satellite.
See going North goes to Fredericksburg City, going south goes out to the country into bowling green. So I basically reside in a "border" zone between the city and country. But Fredericksburg City isn't a city by "standard" means. I think there's only a population of like 3,000 - 5,000. Could be lower.
http://deviant-generation.com/ - my site. Contact me, Korn, and gDrive. I'm the most active but they do come over to speak to me. Likewise it's always a place to send them a message when you need to. Plus you can meet my graphics team!
Meh, I have Comcast and have the 250GB limit. I don't mind it cause I know within that pay period (a month) I'm not going to use 250GB a month. I think the highest I've gone was about 200GB and that was when I was introduced to torrents lol the rest is kinda obvious. But I understand why people would get mad with the cap. But I don't mind. I get excellent service great speeds, and good support. 250GB per month is great, lol but 5GB a month would drive me crazy.
Don't Feed The Trolls Past Midnight
STOP!!! Before you post that question, 98% of your answers are --->Here<---
Heh, glad I'm with Verizon Fios. I have never had a limit. I manage a good 100+GB a month and they haven't even so much as sent me an email saying "Oi! your using up too much damn bandwidth! Cut it out already or else!" I haven't received anything resembling that and I guarantee I download the most BY FAR within a good 10 - 20 mile radius. If they had a map of usage statistics, I guarantee my house would be a huge red dot.
@Albedo - But see here in the US at least in major areas or semi-major areas, unlimited bandwidth and high speeds are pretty much EXPECTED and STANDARD. So people get pissed if they get throttled. hell I don't live in the boonies, but I don't live in the city either. I live only 10+ miles away from absolute nowhere. (Fredericksburg, VA is where I reside. About 5-10 minutes out of Fredericksburg city limits in the country.)
On my connection I get 25mb/s down and 20mb/s up. That's not even the highest tier package. Fiber optic was installed down here a good 5 years ago IIRC. So we've had the infrastructure for quite some time. But if you go another 10-15 minutes toward the country side, I think the only thing offered down there is Satellite.
See going North goes to Fredericksburg City, going south goes out to the country into bowling green. So I basically reside in a "border" zone between the city and country. But Fredericksburg City isn't a city by "standard" means. I think there's only a population of like 3,000 - 5,000. Could be lower.
My point is, they flew off the handle for a limit that would be fairly difficult to reach without trying. Their problem means they can raise a big ass stink about it until it's changed. But if you tell them you're only real option is either satellite or mobile broadband and they get pissy and tell you you should move. There was this story about this man who was literally one house away from getting internet, everyone, including his neighbors shrugged it off telling him he should move. And the very same people that were okay with mobile broadband having a 5GB limit were not so okay with cable having a 250 GB limit. It could be worse. They could have a 5 GB like mobile, but they didn't. They made a mountain out of a mole hill. I think it's sad the only reason they spoke is because it affected them and really it was only a slight inconvenience compared to other people.
US internet standard is actually pretty bad. FIOS is nowhere near prevalent in coverage from last time I checked. Most broadband is handled by cable companies. Where I live, my aircard gets better speed than the cable companies around here. From what I have seen generally the biggest cities get good speeds while the rest of the country gets much slower speeds.There are a lot of people within what's called "the last mile" that are just barely outside of any internet company and have to resort to alternate sources such as satellite and mobile broadband. You don't have to live in the boonies to be in the last mile. I live pretty much down the road from cable service.
limits are stupid because there really cant be THAT many users who use what pertotian would use , it has to all equal out the people who use less or barely use it at all subsidize the people who use more, but i think in canda their infrastructure maybe really is shit and they did have a problem there, but still update the fucking thing instead of trying to deter use, that is no solution
in the US there is adequate bandwidth, its just pure greed
limits are stupid because there really cant be THAT many users who use what pertotian would use , it has to all equal out the people who use less or barely use it at all subsidize the people who use more, but i think in canda their infrastructure maybe really is shit and they did have a problem there, but still update the fucking thing instead of trying to deter use, that is no solution
in the US there is adequate bandwidth, its just pure greed
It actually has nothing to do with how much one downloads. What counts is bandwidth. Say if I bought a 1 gigabit line and sold that to 50 customers, they would each get 20 megabits of bandwidth. And then say I added another 50 customers without buying more bandwidth, all available bandwidth would be halved for each customer. Now say I want to add another 100 customers, but people are starting to notice speeds dropping, so I add a limit of 10 GB up/downloading. This is to scare customers into not using their internet all of the time. If I can get at least half of the customers to not use their internet at the same time as the rest, then as an internet company I would have succeeded in conning 200 people into buying what they were in essence were not getting. Now I want to screw as many people as possible so I add another 800 customers and lower the limit to 500 MB. Speeds are lower so people will be less likely to truly notice that the limit has been reduced by 90 percent. While I'm at it I will make a piss poor excuse about how it has become harder and more expensive to maintain service all the while knowing the service is being paid for with what the original 50 customers pay, everything else is profit. This scenario may be a bit exaggerated, but it's true, internet companies are constantly adding new customers on lines that can't handle them and to hide the fact have created limits to cover their asses.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Goku1992
