You did bring it up for the first time on this very thread. Page 3. Not that I care much about what is being talked about here, just saying...
CES 2014: JANUARY 7-10, 2014
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Having an argument against the DRM is NOT a qualifier for having lousy internet unsuitable for PS Now.
People would like to take their consoles around to places where internet is unreliable which is not "home". We don't place our consoles on a throne and glue it down. Hey, I might be able to use Playstation Now in a internet cafe if my connection sucks given that I can use various devices.
Not to say LTE systems may open up even more possibilities. We already have people using remote play on their 3G networks and that works perfectly fine albeit with lag.
Here, right in my text that you quoted, I bolded the relevant parts:
I guess people missed that? No mention of drm, but mention of bandwidth caps and unreliable connections. I think the instant people see "microsoft" and "internet" in the same sentence, the immediately assume oh you must support their drm. I still don't see how people jump to that, but I bolded some text in my quote that you used figuring that people missed that.
Cell phone networks can work for internet gaming but not for Playstation now which would eat up your phone data bandwidth allotment in no time. Your phone bill would be brutal!
I pay a monthly bill for my cell phone internet service.
I don't have a bandwidth cap.
That is not the main argument against the daily check.
It appears that you, until now, still don't get the majority's argument.
I can pretty much assure you that many of us don't care about the cap and have reliable internet to do so. Quite simply, in many cases, we simply do not have caps, and also have reliable internet at home.
You won't hear us saying that our connection is reliable because it does not create a problem. You will, however, hear from the few that DO have issues so you can reliably say that they are the vocal minority.
However, it is important to keep in mind that complaints from the vocal minority do not automatically translate to everybody else, just like failure rates. Over a month has passed since the launch and we simply do not see any more defective discussion anymore because it's now ridiculous.
Granted, many of us would LIKE to bring our consoles while traveling and while doing so would have situations where the internet is unreliable or have bandwidth caps, and under these conditions having the check is pure nuisance, like getting kicked in the nuts.
The main complaint against DRM is still "why do we need goblins to kick us in the nuts for eating pizza without cell phone reception."
A Xbox One + a offline game is a product and should act like a product, and people do not like it when you impose limitations of a service to a product.
Playstation Now is inherently is a service, so having limitations that a service requires isn't going to raise any eyebrows.
Last edited by a moderator:
joker, what's your beaf with playnow? it's a complementary optional online only service for those who want it. Regular games still keep working from disc/digital download without calling home.
For me, I don't care for playnow. It's probably ok. for trying demos but not useful for real gaming. At least that was my experience couple years back when I tried onlive. The lag was just too much and that made gaming via onlive not fun.
For me, I don't care for playnow. It's probably ok. for trying demos but not useful for real gaming. At least that was my experience couple years back when I tried onlive. The lag was just too much and that made gaming via onlive not fun.
No beef, merely stating that it won't work for those same people that complained about bandwidth caps, etc not letting them use other internet related things. Apparently that got translated to a beef and/or me trying to revive drm. I don't get it. Nevermind then.
And for those people the regular disc based games still keep working so they have their games. It would be something different if ps4 wouldn't allow any gaming without online access. i.e. cripple disc based games.
It's a choice and even people without internet or with poor internet get catered.
I get that, and never talked about any of that. To repeat, I was merely stating for those all excited about using ps now that it wouldn't work for them given their previous comments on their internet limitations. For those people like Shifty that want to play Borderlands 2 but have crappy internet and no backward compatibility, there are other cheaper, better options they can use because ps now won't cut it for them. Again I made no mention of disc games, used markets, drm or whatever other stuff people seem to want to dredge up.
You apparently didn't read Shifty's post. His internet got fixed.
I 'm sure he meant 30Mbps here though.
I don't think anybody provides 30Gbps (or will provide it in the near future) solely due to consumer level Ethernet simply not supporting it.
Relax, internet infrastructure is constantly upgrading. You know that and everybody else in their right minds know that.
WWE announced a $10 a month streaming option. You get archived content of the wwe/wwf wcw along with all the live programing for that month.
The playstation brand has a timed exclusive in the console world for the app but you can get it on android and ios in the mean time.
The playstation brand has a timed exclusive in the console world for the app but you can get it on android and ios in the mean time.
It wasn't much but I shared a link from Kotoku, here is another one:
http://news.yahoo.com/sony-cloud-ba...xdWM2BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM1OF8x
haha, remember when the main argument was that Microsoft decided to take away consumers right and implement a one hour check that made it a requirement to have a Internet connection when you wanted to play EVENTHOUGH the games didn't run on any servers?
You pull up this horrible comparison at any given chance and it has absolutely nothing in common with a service that requires an internet connection to work, there is a difference between running a game from a disc or watching a video stream.
What's next, you wonder why people haven't complained about Youtubes Internet requirment?
Thats great. They are moving on the right direction
There will still be upgrade cycles, just not cycles for which the user has visibility of or agency for.
There are corner cases such as updates, downloadable content, and patching that I am curious to see handled.
This is the Sony whose servers could barely handle a million PS4 initializations, though hopefully we're talking about a different set of infrastructure.
Sony's size precludes the more immediate threat of corporate collapse, and it has a large IP presence. We still haven't seen whether the streaming game service as a business venture is able to survive without life support, yet.
I think they will use Gaikai servers which worked better than PSN servers.
Also Sony might have built new servers around the globe in preparation for the advent of PS Now.
BTW I think PS Now deserves it's own thread.
Wrong wrong wrong!!!! You've completely failed to follow and understand the discussions. There have been numerous discussions surrounding internet requirements and various companies' strategies.
Always on checks:
Requirements : 100% reliable internet connection.
Criticism : Internet sometimes goes down, whether due to ISP or router or whatever, and losing access to one's games then wasn't agreeable.
Vernacular complaints : "I get internet drop-outs like once a week/month/year. I shouldn't lose access to my disc games at those times."
Vernacular defences : "Realistically, drop-outs are extremely rare and you gain game sharing and access to cloud functions."
Factual points to consider : What's the real world failure rate of the internet in people's homes? Was it high enough to mean some people wouldn't have access to their offline games some of the time?
Digital only:
Requirements : High bandwidth for fast delivery. Decent internet plans with no caps.
Criticism : The current state of the internet can't support digital distribution only because some of the gaming market has poor internet BB.
Vernacular complaints : "I'm lucky if I get 1 megabyte a second. It'll take me 14 hours to download a game. It's quicker to pop into the shops. My ISP has a 40 GB/m cap."
Vernacular defences : "Average internet speeds anywhere that's not the sticks or backwaters are at very high speeds and you can preload games. You can structure game downloads so you don't need to download all of it before you can play."
Factual points to consider : What's the real 'state of the internet' regards broadband speeds and would some people find it difficult to operate a digital download only console? How viable are the software solutions like partial game downloads?
Cloud computing enhancements:
Requirements : Low latency, preferably high bandwidth.
Criticism : The internet does not offer low enough latency for realtime computing shared between console and cloud. The amount of support the cloud can provide is thus limited.
Vernacular complaints : "I get pings of 100+ ms meaning horrible latency issues with cloud-computed aspects integrating with local console-computed aspects. The average internet bandwidth provides only a few kilobytes, an irrelevant fraction of the systems bandwidth, a frame so there's not much the cloud can work on."
Vernacular defences : "Pings can be reduced with decent server distribution. The cloud is only there to work on high demand computations, and it doesn't need to be realtime workloads."
Factual points to consider : What's the average latency and bandwidth of internet connections, and what are the sort of data moving requirements of various tasks and algorithms?
Now look at this completely independent topic...
Game streaming (OnLive as the discussion was):
Requirements : High enough, stable enough bandwidth, and very low latency. Reliable internet connection
Criticism : Latency will be intolerable. Realtime compression at decent quality isn't likely to be possible.
Vernacular complaints : "I get pings of 100+ ms. It'll add four frames onto already laggy games. There's no way to compress a game feed in realtime at decent enough quality. Youtube looks like shit and that's what OnLive will look like."
Vernacular defences : "Decent distribution of servers can reduce ping. OnLive proved you could get some sort of realtime compression going and that'll only improve as internet speeds improve and tech gets faster."
Factual points to consider : What are the latencies achieved and image quality with game streaming services?
I don't claim these summaries are anything like complete and there are other arguments to be (and were) had, but they are there to illustrates different discussions. The requirements of the different discussions are also different. The reference points and targets are different. A criticism of internet bandwidth in a discussion about digital distribution doesn't bare relation to streaming video (or game video). That's why when MS announced Skype support in X1, there wasn't a public outcry that the internet wasn't fast enough to support video chat. For that service, bandwidth is typically accepted as adequate and it doesn't need mentioning. For streaming game video, bandwidth is typically accurate among enough of the population who care about such things. There will be people who won't have access to the service due to BW requirements and they may well voice their concerns, but they'll be evidently in the minority among the rest of the gaming populace. That's also why when these comapnies talk about online gaming, there wasn't a massive outcry that the internet was broken and can't support it, because the requirements for online gaming are already met and accepted as the norm.
In summary, prior discussions on internet activities don't have an immediate 1:1 correlation with this one, such that dismissive arguments in those discussions must also apply dismissively in this discussion as you believe. The only parallels I see are -
1) Internet reliability, but that's in the context of an online service and not accessing offline content, so response to the same internet reliability will probably be different.
2) Low latency discussion in the cloud compute debate is also relevant to game streaming, although in a diminished capacity as it only affects input. Remote gaming has no synchronisation issues to worry about.
Bandwidth doesn't really come into it as the requirement here is video streaming level which hasn't factored into any other debates. Given the high proportion of gamers who use internet video steaming services like iPlayer and Netflix, that's clearly a non-issue for those actively engaged in the discussion.
For the sake of sane, constructive discussion, it'd be far more useful if people took the poignant issues now independently of other debates where correlations will be confused and arguments possibly misremebered.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sony have announced 5 mbps is recommended as a minimum for a good experience. Which suggests adaptive encoding and low bw to still supply some level of game feed but quality will suffer. Hopefully it can go higher too, and 20+ mbps connections will get very good quality. At some point they'll be able to shift to h.265 but current playback device won't support that I guess. Latency is still looking like the major issue. Latency over wireless has been proven not too bad on Remote Play devices, so it's all about the internet.
I skimmed through your post and I am not sure if this was pointed out but one of my gripes of requiring always online is that at some point of time I will lose access to my collection. I also often have my router switched off for personal reasons. I dont want rules and limitations messing with how I use my games, how I share them and neither do I want the risk of unstable experience no matter how small that risk is. I also want the option of privacy. It is a matter of deontology and of securing and protecting current and future rights as a consumer regardless of the myopic direct utility I would have got from the product.