Perhaps, yes. Do you have any data to the contrary?
Do you have any data to support your ideas? We can go like this forever.
Do we have official word on this? We have the annoyed grumblings of publishers to a blog with no obligation of accountability. Because it's written on the internet it's 100% true? This might very well be true, but we don't know, do we? It's not a sane response to read something on the internet and believe it's the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth.
We have info published on a fairly reputable blog. This was picked up by a tech board (this one) and people decided to discuss it. If data are to be believed, I pointed out that numbers are pretty high. I understand you don't want to believe those numbers and that is perfectly fine. But it is ridiculous to say that calculations are incorrect. They are valid IF the source numbers are.
Now, again, you may call $0.16 inaccurate, sure. But unless you have more reputable data, calling the original ones BS is counterproductive at least, wishful thinking at worst. This is not a conversation if against numbers you use "but what ifs". This is BTW what I called pulling "facts" out of nowhere.
I'm not pulling any facts out. I'm saying: you don't know squat besides a handful of data and neither do I.
And I based my opinion on that data and you based yours on your squat. I'm sorry but that's, again, pointless discussion. Look, this is how it looks like:
A: if data are valid, this looks expensive
B: but I don't believe this data
A: sure, but do you have some sort of idea why those numbers would be wrong?
B: no, but they are wrong
Your most recent post is the first where you have some really interesting point, to which I will get back in a moment.
I wouldn't bring my own calculation up because there's none to make. It'd be pointless, it'd be math with made up numbers.
This is where we substantially disagree. These are the only numbers we have. Again: if they are correct, PSN seems expensive to put content on. There's a difference between numbers without names behind them and made up numbers.
Here's the difference: if I write that Sun is 100km from Earth, I made up numbers. I don't know what's the distance and I typed in completely random value. If I'm a journalist and I break news with the info that 50% of Xbox 360's are broken based on data from a retail chain that wants to be anonymous, these are not made up numbers. You may not believe them, but I had a source.
In case of a piece I'm trying to discuss, there is an anonymous source (or sources) behind it. I'm certain that Stephen Totilo would not pull numbers out of his back. Publishers? I'll get to that.
And who's ridiculing? You're the one behaving passive-aggressively, you're the one working off one unconfirmed number, one entirely speculative number and using that final result as if it meant something. As to the mods locking this, are we going off-topic? We're discussing the initial report.
Speculative number is when based on a body of knowledge I make an educated guess about something. There is, again, a difference between educated guess (speculative number) and anonymous source. Until recently you did ridicule my posts without addressing the issue discussed. I'm simply answering your posts, trying to make this discussion constructive. I'm not aggressive: I don't benefit from PSN's success or failure, why would I be agressive?
You are not discussing the initial report, you're commenting on my posts on the basis of initial report being speculative or made up, providing no rationale behind that claim.
I said no such thing, you're just having a kneejerk reaction.
Thanks for assuming hostility when there's none. I went back to your original point and I agree - I misread what you wrote. But sure, if they are not competing on price, what are they competing on then?
Okay, I'll bite. If the flat fee covers bandwidth costs, why is it more reasonable to expect a portion of the end-users to subsidize these accrued operating costs than to expect the content providers to do so? Or it's not, and you believe the platform-holder should pay for these costs entirely, in both cases?
Please read again. What I wrote is that existing flat fee cound easily cover the cost of storage, which is negligible compared to bandwidth. This is especially true in case of a static content delivery.
Now back to one of your points that I find interesting.
We have the annoyed grumblings of publishers to a blog with no obligation of accountability. Because it's written on the internet it's 100% true? This might very well be true, but we don't know, do we? It's not a sane response to read something on the internet and believe it's the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth.
No, I don't think that everything that's on the Internet is true. I would say that most stuff on the Internet is noise or straight out lie.
But at the same time I think that Totilo has no interest in writing about something that he doesn't believe is true. I also doubt he would publish risky information that comes from a doubtful source. He has nothing to gain by publishing sensational BS, he most likely has very good, steady stream of readers on MTV Multiplayer.
Let's assume for a moment, even if you don't think it's true, that Totilo is an honest journalist. His post states that he got this info from multiple sources (he uses plural in many places, e.g. referencing publishers). He got enough details to write about differences between free and paid content. He points out the price twice, stating that "it applies (...) to
every Gigabyte of content".
So my question, again, is: why would he not get to the information about variable bandwidth price if he was able to 1) verify this info from multiple sources 2) get info on differences between free nad paid content 3) get some anonymous comments?
There's another option: his sources lied. The question is: why would they lie about the flat price tag per GB and go into other details? What are the chances lies would be uniform?
Also my assumption that Totilo is a honest journalist may be wrong.
What I'm trying to say is this: numbers were disclosed by a reputable - IMO - journalist. Existance of this fee was confirmed in this thread by joker. I'm trying to discuss data points we have. Some people for whatever reasons find this numbers uncomfortable or doubtful. Yet I haven't seen any attempt to disprove them in a constructive, respectful manner. Just calling out Totilo's text speculative or made up is not enough. This is called denial.
There may be upsides of this situation as well, sure. But please separate made up points from publicly disclosed ones for the sake of a healthy conversation.
