iceatcs
Junior Member
Yep, esp 10 to 50 GB data. It is still massive for Internet and hard drive.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Robbie Bach: Next generation will be a whole new game
- Thread starter ZhugeEX
- Start date
DracoBlade
Member
But did this line of thinking halt their original concept of an always online system, when internet or at least stable connections are anything but universal domestic or internationally.
I don't think they would be arrogant to try forcing something like this or that but who knows after that snafu...
I think new subscriptions are $12 or $144 a year, which I would surmise is not all that far away from what the average punter spends on games a year. But in any case I didn't mean with the example that there was a latent demand for cheap games subscription services. More that
1) obviously broadband suitable for media consumption is widespread, Netflix is not only big in the US, but taking Europe by storm; that's already two major markets where digital distribution seems viable. Japan's internet is pretty decent too.
2) in a broader trend of cutting the cord and crashing optical disc sales, the Internet is taking over as not only the main supplier, but the only supplier of media content in a person's home. My huge collection of dvds is starting to feel like a waste of cupboard space pretty rapidly. Games seem like a next step.
Basically everyone who lives in a city is good, and the further out you get, the worse you'll have it.
It's a cost/benefit situation. Can console manufactures make enough money by just focusing on those who have access to high speed Internet?
Despite being a digital only PS4 owner, I still think bandwidth isnt even enough worldwide for anything more than providing a digital only option. At least if you want to sell it in as many countries as possible.
Meanwhile I'm buying more bluray movies now, and are planning my upgrade path to 4k bluray.
Meanwhile I'm buying more bluray movies now, and are planning my upgrade path to 4k bluray.
Soodanim
Member
I like being all digital on PC, and I do it without even thinking about it. But it works because it's an open market and my PC is so easily customisable. I can go out, buy an additional hard drive, and have it permanently in my system. I know most console owners aren't going to need that much space, but there are those of us that do. And the pricing is always a factor. Nothing has changed on console - you're still buying everything from one store, and that's not great.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'm saying your argument was flawed. The person you replied to said we were a long way off from a digital future. You responded with mgs5 as an example of that not being true. Your example was flawed. Nothing about mgs5 points to that we are close to an all digital console. In fact people buying the physical PC release proves that. I don't think it's just a matter of opinion on this. Your argument is flawed. Nobody is arguing that it won't happen some day. Most people here are addressing Robbie Bach saying this will happen in 3 to 5 years.Totally fine to me and I guess we can stop this here.
You seem to see no point in what I say and the same applies to me about what you say
I don't even think living in a city guarantees you a good connection. I live in the Silicon Valley and options are limited. In San Jose, my ISP could only get me 18mbps which is going to take like 7 hours to get a 40GB game. I think that's pushing it on being acceptable to the end user.
You are making it sound bad and I don't know why you keep repeating it over and over again. I said in the beginning of the discussion that MGS5 is the extreme point and was arguing and discussing what content we actually get when we buy games physically.
No matter how often you repeat "flawed", this doesn't add anything to the (sub-)discussion anymore.
I already explained enough how games nowadays already rely on the internet and that this will only get "worse". I don't want to argue if it will happen in 3 to 5 years and I guess it won't happen *that* fast but that wasn't what I was adressing.
Marty Chinn
Member
Read this post
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=177965045
He pretty much used MGS5 on PC as a counter to someone saying we are a ways off from an all digital future. It's a terrible example of proof.
It's not just an extreme point, but a bad example is the point. It doesn't support your stance in any way. It's a flawed argument even if the example is extreme. If anything, as said before, people buying a physical PC game in 2015 actually kills your argument.
No offline game relies on the internet. You can play all of these console games offline just fine and never connect. And yes you were addressing the timeline because the guy said not any time soon which is referencing the next generation. You were disputing any time soon.
Kills? You didn't get my point, even after many posts and
this is an example where it shows. Again, let's quit it. You disagree with me, I disagree with you and as we continue, it only gets worse as we can see.
Ya, a city doesn't guarantee it, but the likelihood of being closer to a line is much higher.
As far as speed goes, 18 is enough to do pretty much everything but stream 4k. Although I will admit that 18 is low if you are sharing the connection with someone else.
DangerMouse
Member
This. If they do decide to go for this they learned nothing.
On top of all the issues the competition has no reason to go digital only. Like you said, no way Sony goes digital only for PS5 in a mere 5 years or so, especially with all of the markets they shoot for.
Plus we're already talking blu-ray sized downloads and ISPs dragging their feet in various ways and by then the data on the discs will probably get bigger again with 4K.
Marty Chinn
Member
I did get your point. I'm showing you how your point is flawed. People who go out to buy a physical PC game don't want to download it. It doesn't matter what Konami did. It shows what people wanted to do. There was a number of deals to get MGS5 on Steam for cheap. Options were there if they wanted to download it. They didn't want to download it so using MGS5 as an example of how we're not far off from an all digital future doesn't support your stance. That's why it's a terrible example.
I get that you feel content is being blocked through the gateway of online access, but it doesn't matter right now. You never get 100% of all game owners to get all the DLC. You never even get all 100% of gamer owners to get the patches for a game. None of the stuff locked from online access is required. It doesn't rely on it. It helps to have it, but it does not rely on an Internet connection. Nobody is disputing that having an online connection gets you more content. The point is for someone who has limited access, or no access, a physical copy still gives them a fully playable experience. There are too many people who would not be capable of downloading 40GB of data, and fall into the camp of either never connecting, or connecting to get smaller patches that would be affected by an online only console. That's why it's not happening soon. That doesn't mean it will never happen. It's just not happening any time soon including the next generation which is what this thread is about.
I agree, a major city will have higher odds you'll be able to get a fast connection. On the other hand, do you think 7 hours to download a 40GB game will be acceptable to the end user? I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of push back on that. Even with tricks like downloading parts of the game before you play it, I have to think there's going to be resistance on how long before you can play it. What that threshold is, I'm not sure.
Feel_The_Pain
Member
With all the massive patches on just about every damn game (halo mcc etc) might as well ditch physical.
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
Internet speed isn't much of an issue for me but for a lot of people it is. Some people still can't even get internet and play on unpatched version of games.
my biggest issue with going all digital is the prices. no way am i paying £60 for a standard game (MGSV for example). my XB1 physical copy was £40.
my biggest issue with going all digital is the prices. no way am i paying £60 for a standard game (MGSV for example). my XB1 physical copy was £40.
Nope. But you still insist you do, that's why the discussion will find no end, apparently. I don't want to blame you in any way which is what you are trying to do constantly which could be because you think I'd blame you and you think you have to respond "appropriately".
You show me that you didn't get my point and try to show me what my message says to you but I can't change what you make out of my posts.
This is at least getting nearer. I asked several posts ago that perhaps we should define what actually makes a game a game currently and what exactly you buy when you buy a game physical.
But that doesn't mean that the content you actually get is "good" in an objective way. Sure, you can say "I can deal with input delay on my PS4 copy of USF4" or "I don't care about getting additional tracks that should've been on disc initially" but than this is an opinion. The fact is, you get worse content on disc.
It's not even about more, it's about better content. Or let's say - what you get on disc is worse than what you get when buying digital. And a physical copy gives you a fully playable experience? Skyrim was on PS3 last gen... But yes, this is, again, an extreme point. Still did happen, though.
If devs or better publishers decide anytime that it's totally ok to release broken games and patch them via day1 patches (and I have no idea why they wouldn't, honestly), many users will be disappointed.
Of course there are but still patches increased a lot this gen. It happened and happens although the companies know that people aren't able to download huge patches.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Are you talking about on consoles only? Overall including PC, mobile and consoles digital surpassed retail last christmas.
milanbaros
Member?
Are we reaching the limits of physical media?
The PS4 is already at 6x drive and 50GB discs.
I believe digital only is getting closer and closer to being the better option. A digital only console from the ground up in 2018 could be very attractive.
It would stop 2nd hand games and manufacturing and distribution costs, which would be far more profitable to Microsoft.
They could cut the price to $50 and still make more per game than they do now.
The PS4 is already at 6x drive and 50GB discs.
I believe digital only is getting closer and closer to being the better option. A digital only console from the ground up in 2018 could be very attractive.
It would stop 2nd hand games and manufacturing and distribution costs, which would be far more profitable to Microsoft.
They could cut the price to $50 and still make more per game than they do now.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Or they can keep game prices @ $60 and make more per game than they do now.
Art Vandilay
Member
I'd be on board for this so long as it had decent storage and was cheap, obviously.
That's why he's saying the next generation. I mean I'm physical only so far this gen. I love collecting my games, but the fact I also have to install 40gig games before I can play them from disc makes me question why I don't just go digital? I mean with digital, no need to swap discs, I can just turn on my console and play, plus it's always tied to my account. What if BC is possible next gen? I'm sure digital content owners would have it easier than me.
If we buy that this generation of consoles is only going to be 5-6 years, then we still have about 3-4 years remaining. That's a long time in terms of getting people prepared. Maybe if 4K Blu-ray discs are large enough, that could be the next physical format. I'd hate to do away with a drive altogether. I mean we're starting to see large day one patches, games are approaching 50gb+ on day one, what if GTA VI requires 100 gigs of data, that could make it tough for those with data caps.
But I'd still like to think the industry will move forward and people will either adapt or be left behind. If many areas of the US aren't ready, then they're not ready. I think a greater challenge to digital only is the fact retail sales still matter. Microsoft and Sony cannot afford to lose Best Buy, Gamestop this quickly. It's why we see games have so much pre-order content or exclusive stuff if you buy from retailers. Who knows though. Look at when the Xbox 360 launched, people were fine with a DVD drive, HDMI wasn't needed, nor was there any WiFi. And then all of a sudden, WiFi becomes the norm in households, everyone gets an HD television with HDMI being the de facto standard connection, and Blu-ray defeats hd-dvd to become the next disc standard etc.
dead souls
Member
Yep. Anyone who thinks console game prices would drop in a digital only world is much too optimistic.
It's all a moot point anyway. A digital only console from one of the big three is still decades away. Even as digital grows in popularity I just don't see any reason why MS/Sony/Nintendo would be willing to forego all the money they make from those who purchase physical games.
Marty Chinn
Member
You're going out in left field about stuff that doesn't matter though to what this topic is about. The question simply is, is an all digital console viable for the next generation. It's not. Nothing you've presented says otherwise. You're going off on the necessities of a connected console, but right now they aren't a requirement. You benefit from being connected but it's not preventing anyone from buying and playing their games 100% offline.
Of course the scope of the game has changed with things like DLC. Those to me are expansion packs just like they have been in the past. They are not required to play the main game. The main game is what's on the disc. It can be played and finished with additional content being completely optional. Games like Driveclub are way more in the exception than the rule with new functionality like weather. A few offer photo mode after the fact which is a nice perk but hardly needed to play the game. But none of that matters because people are buying what's on the disc and what's on the disc for many is all they get. It lives and dies based on this and developers know that. So all this talk about patches and DLC, while they improve and extend the game, is irrelevant to someone doesn't have the means to obtain that content. They only care about what's on the disc and if what's on the disc isn't satisfactory, then that affects their future purchasing decisions.
And then the product can get negative reviews and word of mouth because of that. It doesn't matter if it can be improved or not by connecting. Nobody is disputing that at all. We're talking about the necessity of going online, and so far nothing shows that you need to go online to play your physical game. There are a lot of games out there that aren't good that never improve because of an online connection, so this notion of you're not getting something good because you need to extend or improve it by going online is making it a bigger deal than it is when people already don't care and don't do that. You bring up USF4, while certain a big deal to the core crowd, can be completely irrelevant to the casual and the masses. Those people don't count frames so it doesn't matter to them even if it is impacting them. They don't notice it. But again, nobody is disputing that you can improve and extend a game by going online. Hell technically a game could have infinite content released for it online, but that doesn't matter to someone who can't get it to begin with.
Skyrim is an exception not the rule though. You admit it's an extreme case. You're using all sorts of exceptions and extreme cases to prove points, but that's not a trend or even proof. I can find all sorts of one off examples of something that can fit an argument, but that's not real proof. That's searching for something to fit the narrative. Skyrim also got a lot of shit for it and people got refunds for having a broken game. You clearly don't know what goes on when a game is in development. Developers don't take day 1 patches lightly. They also try not to ship a broken game. A tier bugs almost never get shipped but no game in the history of video games has ever shipped bug free; we just live in an era where bugs can at least be fixed now. Day 1 patches try to focus on bugs relating to online and not offline play knowing that people might never get the patch and those who do play online will get the patch. I've worked on plenty of games that designed their patches around this. Day 1 patches are also not something developers want to do and try to mitigate the need for it. There are always exceptions which you seem to jump on, but those exceptions aren't the norm.
Yes they do, but again you're failing to acknowledge there are three tiers of people.
1) People who are 100% offline
2) People who have online access but limited bandwidth/data and still rely on physical copies
3) People who have gone completely digital
Going all digital cuts out #1 and #2 in revenue. Of course some from 2 will go into 3, but you're cutting off a lot of people because it simply isn't feasible now or in the next generation and that's what this topic is all about. You're going off on tangents that aren't relevant and using extreme cases to try and prove they are relevant. Most of that extra stuff is fluff, but nobody ever denied that going online can improve the game and content. Nobody is disputing that nor that some day, way down the line, we may have an all digital console. You're arguing points that nobody is disputing. The only point that is in dispute in this thread is if we are ready for an all digital console now or in the near future. The answer to that is no. You can claim I don't understand your points but you'd be wrong. I do understand your argument and your argument has no relevance to the topic. This all started when you tried to use MGS5 as an example of we're already pushing for an all digital future.