And there are two models of the One, with the Day One being sold out so you can't gain any more orders - and that box is still right there with the PS4
Combine the Day One and Standard ones, and factor in those that are preordering the Day One elsewhere because they can't order it on Amazon.
I guess it comes down to whether you think capitalism is a four letter word or not...and whether you personally are affected by stricter DRM.
Not necessarily. I loves me some smartly implemented capitalism. But if I have enuf of it jammed down my throat it eventually leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially when applied to things that are supposed to be fun. Makes my wallet clamp shut.
Moving forward, isn’t the alleged piracy issue self-induced by the “thou shalt install game on hard drive” requirement?
Well voting with your wallet is something we agree on.
I am not a technologist so I won't chime in on "how" it should work and whether installed games cause more/less problems, or the best way to implement such solution to not adversely affect honest customers.
[b]My point is that I don't think it's unreasonable for companies to actively take steps to protect their IP.[/b] And I'm in the lucky market segment that watches movies once, plays games once, rarely re-sells games, and basically never rents games.
I'm not saying other people shouldn't be concerned because I have no expectation that people game the same way I do.
I agree, not unreasonable to protect. I’m just not convinced protection is the only reason for always on. It may not even be a primary one. Assuming it is, they’re exposing their property to risk in a new way and then forcing the consumer to be part of the solution to secure it again. Wonky, probably outstanding marketing, and quite possibly uneccessary. Taken in context with some of the other ONE requirements, tough not to scrutinize.
I've been an independant graphic designer for a while now, outside of the outrageous prices Adobe charges in the first place their prices went down after they did a "Cloud" based software package. I bought it, so I know I'm not a thief. So that mentality seems a bit overexemplified. Did I get a physical copy, no. Do I have proof of purchase, yes. Am I using what I paid for, yes. If you buy it then ownership IS yours, the only thing really left to fight it out over is going to be with the courts and that even thugh you bought a digital copy of something, that you are a rightful owner of it and not a "renter" of a liscense.
Digital downloads save time and money in my case. After all, driving consumes gasoline which I pay for. Is it a large amount? No. But it is an amount that translates to money.
Downloading the same day, playing while downloading instead of driving 15 minutes to the store, checking out, driving back, opening the disc... Its not a huge hassle of course, but downloads save that time.
Its not a big deal, and I don't resell or trade in so its the best deal for me. Physical bonuses or retailer specific incentives may get me to drive to get a disc rather than download.
Digital downloads save time and money in my case. After all, driving consumes gasoline which I pay for. Is it a large amount? No. But it is an amount that translates to money.
Downloading the same day, playing while downloading instead of driving 15 minutes to the store, checking out, driving back, opening the disc... Its not a huge hassle of course, but downloads save that time.
Its not a big deal, and I don't resell or trade in so its the best deal for me. Physical bonuses or retailer specific incentives may get me to drive to get a disc rather than download.
I'm not against either type of game acquisition.
That's not really what I mean. Consider these situations:
You have Amazon Prime and your state doesn't charge tax. You can get a new game for $59.99, no shipping no tax in two days - or you can buy it on XBL for $59.99 plus tax.
Or, a game drops to $40 on disc for a holiday, or what have you. The same game is not $40 on XBL since they rarely do sales or permanent discounts. Or a game has been out for a couple years and has steadily dropped from $60 to $20. I highly doubt it'll be $20 on XBL - considering that even same 5 year old games are $29.99 on XBL while you can bargain bin them for $5.
Unless MS starts putting games onsale, discs will still be where the deals are.
Discs will always be cheaper because of store competition. MS has the monopoly on downloads.
Digital downloads save time and money in my case. After all, driving consumes gasoline which I pay for. Is it a large amount? No. But it is an amount that translates to money.
Downloading the same day, playing while downloading instead of driving 15 minutes to the store, checking out, driving back, opening the disc... Its not a huge hassle of course, but downloads save that time.
Depends on a couple factors.
1. Is it a single player only game? If it is, then I'm sure the publisher/developer can make it so you download the first level first, followed by the second, etc, that way you can play while downloading. If it's a mixture of campaign and multiplayer, say like Halo, you may be locked out of the multiplayer until the download finishes. Which brings me to point #2.
2. It depends on your internet connection. If you're downloading a game like Halo where you may have to wait for nearly all of it to begin playing and you're downloading 80+ gb on a 10-15m/s line, it's going to take longer to get your game than driving 15 minutes to the store and 15 minutes back, opening the packaging, and installing it to your hdd.
1. Is it a single player only game? If it is, then I'm sure the publisher/developer can make it so you download the first level first, followed by the second, etc, that way you can play while downloading. If it's a mixture of campaign and multiplayer, say like Halo, you may be locked out of the multiplayer until the download finishes. Which brings me to point #2.
In the PS4 UI trailer video I posted in one of these threads, they show Sony addressing this.
A guy is playing a single-player game and he gets a message from his friend to join him in Killzone MP. The guy doesn't have the game so he goes to the PSN store, buys Killzone, and is presented with two options: Download Multiplayer first or Download Single Player first.
1. Is it a single player only game? If it is, then I'm sure the publisher/developer can make it so you download the first level first, followed by the second, etc, that way you can play while downloading. If it's a mixture of campaign and multiplayer, say like Halo, you may be locked out of the multiplayer until the download finishes. Which brings me to point #2.
In the PS4 UI trailer video I posted in one of these threads, they show Sony addressing this.
A guy is playing a single-player game and he gets a message from his friend to join him in Killzone MP. The guy doesn't have the game so he goes to the PSN store, buys Killzone, and is presented with two options: Download Multiplayer first or Download Single Player first.
Yeah that's really cool, I think that's a great option.
However keep in mind, that's supporting downloaded games which can't be shared or sold. Just making a point, as part of the conversation. I think downloaded games will be pushed HARD this gen.
Yeah that's really cool, I think that's a great option.
However keep in mind, that's supporting downloaded games which can't be shared or sold. Just making a point, as part of the conversation. I think downloaded games will be pushed HARD this gen.
Right. The only full games I've downloaded have been what PS+ has given me and a couple smaller PSN games I've purchased for my Vita (Sound Shapes and Gravity Rush). I like that the option is there for me to choose, but I still like physical media. I also know people who don't sell or trade their games or lend them out and love downloadable titles so they don't have discs cluttering up shelves.
As long as the option is there, great. Just don't force me into download-only.
As long as the option is there, great. Just don't force me into download-only.
I would say, enjoy this gen if that's how you feel. Because Gen 9 will be all downloadable games. Look at how far the internet has come from even 2005 until 2013, with this gen. Now add 10 years, exponentially.
As long as the option is there, great. Just don't force me into download-only.
I would say, enjoy this gen if that's how you feel. Because Gen 9 will be all downloadable games. Look at how far the internet has come from even 2005 until 2013, with this gen. Now add 10 years, exponentially.
Gen 9 will be all digital.
I'm glad somebody is explaining how the internet has changed over the years to mdl70.
I would say, enjoy this gen if that's how you feel. Because Gen 9 will be all downloadable games. Look at how far the internet has come from even 2005 until 2013, with this gen. Now add 10 years, exponentially.
Gen 9 will be all digital.
I'll point back to my earlier comment about data caps. I think going to all-digital, especially with free AAA game titles on XBL and PSN (~10 Gig on average), is a mistake. If someone has a crappy ISP who uses data caps, and they like to buy a lot of games, they'll be going over their cap constantly, especially in a multi-console house.
I'll enjoy this generation of consoles and look forward to what the next batch brings...which is hopefully some discs.
I would say, enjoy this gen if that's how you feel. Because Gen 9 will be all downloadable games. Look at how far the internet has come from even 2005 until 2013, with this gen. Now add 10 years, exponentially.
Gen 9 will be all digital.
I'll point back to my earlier comment about data caps. I think going to all-digital, especially with free AAA game titles on XBL and PSN (~10 Gig on average), is a mistake. If someone has a crappy ISP who uses data caps, and they like to buy a lot of games, they'll be going over their cap constantly, especially in a multi-console house.
I'll enjoy this generation of consoles and look forward to what the next batch brings...which is hopefully some discs.
I'd make a "what if I told you......" Morpheus Meme but I don't have time.
So:
What if I told you that in 10 years everyone will have gigabit connections to their home? That 10/100 will be a dinosaur, laughed about like dial-up was. It's going to happen. Google fiber is going to run rampant - or another company will each their lunch. Either way, in 10 years not having internet is not going to even register as a problem.
I'd make a "what if I told you......" Morpheus Meme but I don't have time.
So:
What if I told you that in 10 years everyone will have gigabit connections to their home? That 10/100 will be a dinosaur, laughed about like dial-up was. It's going to happen. Google fiber is going to run rampant - or another company will each their lunch. Either way, in 10 years not having internet is not going to even register as a problem.
What if I told you, that's a pipe dream (no pun intended...)
I'd make a "what if I told you......" Morpheus Meme but I don't have time.
So:
What if I told you that in 10 years everyone will have gigabit connections to their home? That 10/100 will be a dinosaur, laughed about like dial-up was. It's going to happen. Google fiber is going to run rampant - or another company will each their lunch. Either way, in 10 years not having internet is not going to even register as a problem.
What if I told you, that's a pipe dream (no pun intended...)
So since 1999 when cable internet came out, in 13 years 180+ million Americans have gotten broadband. Now, take 10 years and exponentially estimate, and you're telling me 119 million remaining won't have it in some form (be it cellular hotspot, etc).
So since 1999 when cable internet came out, in 13 years 180+ million Americans have gotten broadband. Now, take 10 years and exponentially estimate, and you're telling me 119 million remaining won't have it in some form (be it cellular hotspot, etc).
I'd go a few years back on the broadband thing. I had ADSL in my apartment in 1996 with 1.5 mbps down and I *think* 512 up. It's been a while. You're right, though. Cable modems were indeed right around the corner.
However, that technology was using what? Existing infrastructure to the house. The cable TV lines didn't really hit a lot of homes until the mid-80s. To do what you're talking about, you will need a huge undertaking not just from regional ISPs but possibly backbone operators as well. Right now the bottleneck is the end points, not the backbone.
You make an interesting point regarding hotspots. It might be ok to download via 4G, but the latency on it won't make gaming fun if you plan on playing multiplayer.
So since 1999 when cable internet came out, in 13 years 180+ million Americans have gotten broadband. Now, take 10 years and exponentially estimate, and you're telling me 119 million remaining won't have it in some form (be it cellular hotspot, etc).
I'd go a few years back on the broadband thing. I had ADSL in my apartment in 1996 with 1.5 mbps down and I *think* 512 up. It's been a while. You're right, though. Cable modems were indeed right around the corner.
However, that technology was using what? Existing infrastructure to the house. The cable TV lines didn't really hit a lot of homes until the mid-80s. To do what you're talking about, you will need a huge undertaking not just from regional ISPs but possibly backbone operators as well. Right now the bottleneck is the end points, not the backbone.
You make an interesting point regarding hotspots. It might be ok to download via 4G, but the latency on it won't make gaming fun if you plan on playing multiplayer.
I shared my phone's LTE out in BFE Illinois where my in-laws don't even have cable, they have to use Satellite. I plugged it into my 360 to charge the phone, shared the wifi, and played Halo 4 with my clan. And that was last Nov, 2012.
I shared my phone's LTE out in BFE Illinois where my in-laws don't even have cable, they have to use Satellite. I plugged it into my 360 to charge the phone, shared the wifi, and played Halo 4 with my clan. And that was last Nov, 2012.
I stand corrected. A lot of cell providers have been rolling out fiber-to-the-tower so I guess it's improved since I last played around with it.
But that actually brings me back to the original tangent from this topic...data caps. Unless you're on Sprint or T-Mobile (I think), you have a data cap....and they are expensive. More so than any cable provider charges. The bottom rung for ~$60 USD is what...2-4 gig?
You'd even be more restricted using cell traffic as they probably don't have much capacity to handle a lot of connections at once where people are uploading or downloading...hence the current data caps. Or they just like to screw over their customers and gouge them left and right.
I get what you're saying in general...but realistically there is no way the country's bandwidth problems are going to be solved befopre the next generation of consoles or in the next 10 years.
I'd go a few years back on the broadband thing. I had ADSL in my apartment in 1996 with 1.5 mbps down and I *think* 512 up. It's been a while. You're right, though. Cable modems were indeed right around the corner.
However, that technology was using what? Existing infrastructure to the house. The cable TV lines didn't really hit a lot of homes until the mid-80s. To do what you're talking about, you will need a huge undertaking not just from regional ISPs but possibly backbone operators as well. Right now the bottleneck is the end points, not the backbone.
You make an interesting point regarding hotspots. It might be ok to download via 4G, but the latency on it won't make gaming fun if you plan on playing multiplayer.
Up here in Canada, we had this product launched publicly in the late `90s: "Wave", (Rogers and Shaw, primarily, provided this to Eastern and Western provinces)
I beta tested this product from `97 - `99. 1MB down. (not megabit, though when it launched, it was gimped significantly)
It was an awesome experience. But, again, the infrastructure already existed as you said. The Cable was already there, and a great many homes already had it in Ottawa, where I lived. Getting "High Speed" internet was simple for these providers. Not too long after, DSL, DSL+ and ADSL were all coming into their own as viable sources of "high speed" ISDN was on the way out, Satellite internet arrived on the scene not long after as well.
Fiber has been around since ~mid 2000's. We've used it here at the office since `07/`08
How much is Google Fiber going to cost Google? Last December, Goldman Sachs estimated it would cost $140 billion to cover the entire country. While we in New York City dream of getting Google Fiber, odds are that Google isn't going to cover the entire country, so it's not going to cost that much.
... He estimates Google's total cash investment in Kansas City will be $94 million in 2013. For a company that generates over $4 billion cash every three months, it's not a lot of money.
$94 million for 1 city, is expensive, and that's not Fiber for everyone...
as of July 2012, there were an estimated 464,310 people living in an estimated 221,860 homes in Kansas City.
Only 3 or 4 of these "fiber-hoods" are active, many more to come over the next year, but it's still in "Beta".
It's a Pipe Dream that everyone would have Gigabit or Fiber to the home in 10 years, unless all Capitalist Corporations decided to give back to the people. (haha, I couldn't resist)
I'd make a "what if I told you......" Morpheus Meme but I don't have time.
So:
What if I told you that in 10 years everyone will have gigabit connections to their home? That 10/100 will be a dinosaur, laughed about like dial-up was. It's going to happen. Google fiber is going to run rampant - or another company will each their lunch. Either way, in 10 years not having internet is not going to even register as a problem.
If you told me that, I'd think I'd need to get a job with them. Sounds like they have more capital than any other company out there to deploy that kind of network.
One of the most successful "fiber to the home" deployments currently in existence is Verizon Fios. Verizon isn't deploying in any new areas, and what markets they do have cost around $20 Billion to build out that infrastructure. Unless you live in the Northeast, parts of Florida, Southern California, or parts of the Northwest, then you weren't included in that rollout.
What other company is going to come in and fill in the blanks for the rest of the country? Not even Google can afford to do that.
AT&T is coming around to it's areas and installing fiber to the home in certain areas with uVerse. It's still shared bandwidth. You get fiber to the house but every x number of houses shares an upstream pipe.
I'd imagine other telecom companies are in the same boat.
There just isn't the funding anywhere to deploy the kind of network you're talking about in 10 years.
There is a tax on buying microsoft points. I guarantee there is a tax on real money purchases.
I think it depends on the state you live in (talkin' US here, don't know world wide)
I can buy a playstation card at a register and pay tax. I can buy something off the playstation store and not get taxed. Heard otherwise for other states.
Ah, just read that the tax is factored based on your location such as New York for Microsoft Points. So yes, expect to pay taxes on Amazon Prime similar to how you would in a store, or for Microsoft Points.
Similarly, if your state does not charge tax, there is again no tax on Amazon Prime and none to expect on digital game purchases.
Ah, just read that the tax is factored based on your location such as New York for Microsoft Points. So yes, expect to pay taxes on Amazon Prime similar to how you would in a store, or for Microsoft Points.
Similarly, if your state does not charge tax, there is again no tax on Amazon Prime and none to expect on digital game purchases.
Nope that's wrong. You get charged no tax on Amazon if there is no outlet in your state. You do get charged tax if your state charges tax on sales.
Ah, just read that the tax is factored based on your location such as New York for Microsoft Points. So yes, expect to pay taxes on Amazon Prime similar to how you would in a store, or for Microsoft Points.
Similarly, if your state does not charge tax, there is again no tax on Amazon Prime and none to expect on digital game purchases.
Nope that's wrong. You get charged no tax on Amazon if there is no outlet in your state. You do get charged tax if your state charges tax on sales.
Which is what I said, lol.
If there's no tax in your state you won't be charged tax on amazon, but also not in store. No difference.
If tax in state, then tax on amazon. No difference.
So no, I would not consider ordering through amazon a physical disc saving money through tax since it matches the state - just as you say.
Also, the day one edition includes extra content for four games, an exclusive achievement, the controller lettering of course, but also a year of Gold subscription.
The year of xbox live gold would in fact save money since the console is the same price if you buy a xbox one anyways at launch.
I'm hoping to pay for my console through the vast shortage, peoples desire for an exclusive achievement, and ebay :P
Also, the day one edition includes extra content for four games, an exclusive achievement, the controller lettering of course, but also a year of Gold subscription.
The year of xbox live gold would in fact save money since the console is the same price if you buy a xbox one anyways at launch.
I'm hoping to pay for my console through the vast shortage, peoples desire for an exclusive achievement, and ebay :P
Where did you see this as I cannot find it anywhere.
Also, the day one edition includes extra content for four games, an exclusive achievement, the controller lettering of course, but also a year of Gold subscription.
The year of xbox live gold would in fact save money since the console is the same price if you buy a xbox one anyways at launch.
I'm hoping to pay for my console through the vast shortage, peoples desire for an exclusive achievement, and ebay :P
Where did you see this as I cannot find it anywhere.
Ah, just read that the tax is factored based on your location such as New York for Microsoft Points. So yes, expect to pay taxes on Amazon Prime similar to how you would in a store, or for Microsoft Points.
Similarly, if your state does not charge tax, there is again no tax on Amazon Prime and none to expect on digital game purchases.
Nope that's wrong. You get charged no tax on Amazon if there is no outlet in your state. You do get charged tax if your state charges tax on sales.
Which is what I said, lol.
If there's no tax in your state you won't be charged tax on amazon, but also not in store. No difference.
If tax in state, then tax on amazon. No difference.
So no, I would not consider ordering through amazon a physical disc saving money through tax since it matches the state - just as you say.
Also, the day one edition includes extra content for four games, an exclusive achievement, the controller lettering of course, but also a year of Gold subscription.
The year of xbox live gold would in fact save money since the console is the same price if you buy a xbox one anyways at launch.
I'm hoping to pay for my console through the vast shortage, peoples desire for an exclusive achievement, and ebay :P
wait - Day One includes a year of Gold?
As for the tax, I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. I don't get charged sales tax from Amazon. Yet my state does charge sales tax (it's like 10.5% in Chicago). This is because there is no Amazon warehouse in my state. So it's cheaper.
However on 360, I do get charged tax on MS purchases because it's not a physical location.
And there are two models of the One, with the Day One being sold out so you can't gain any more orders - and that box is still right there with the PS4
Combine the Day One and Standard ones, and factor in those that are preordering the Day One elsewhere because they can't order it on Amazon.
I agree, not unreasonable to protect. I’m just not convinced protection is the only reason for always on. It may not even be a primary one. Assuming it is, they’re exposing their property to risk in a new way and then forcing the consumer to be part of the solution to secure it again. Wonky, probably outstanding marketing, and quite possibly uneccessary. Taken in context with some of the other ONE requirements, tough not to scrutinize.
I've been an independant graphic designer for a while now, outside of the outrageous prices Adobe charges in the first place their prices went down after they did a "Cloud" based software package. I bought it, so I know I'm not a thief. So that mentality seems a bit overexemplified. Did I get a physical copy, no. Do I have proof of purchase, yes. Am I using what I paid for, yes. If you buy it then ownership IS yours, the only thing really left to fight it out over is going to be with the courts and that even thugh you bought a digital copy of something, that you are a rightful owner of it and not a "renter" of a liscense.
Digital downloads save time and money in my case. After all, driving consumes gasoline which I pay for. Is it a large amount? No. But it is an amount that translates to money.
Downloading the same day, playing while downloading instead of driving 15 minutes to the store, checking out, driving back, opening the disc... Its not a huge hassle of course, but downloads save that time.
Its not a big deal, and I don't resell or trade in so its the best deal for me. Physical bonuses or retailer specific incentives may get me to drive to get a disc rather than download.
I'm not against either type of game acquisition.
That's not really what I mean. Consider these situations:
You have Amazon Prime and your state doesn't charge tax. You can get a new game for $59.99, no shipping no tax in two days - or you can buy it on XBL for $59.99 plus tax.
Or, a game drops to $40 on disc for a holiday, or what have you. The same game is not $40 on XBL since they rarely do sales or permanent discounts. Or a game has been out for a couple years and has steadily dropped from $60 to $20. I highly doubt it'll be $20 on XBL - considering that even same 5 year old games are $29.99 on XBL while you can bargain bin them for $5.
Unless MS starts putting games onsale, discs will still be where the deals are.
Discs will always be cheaper because of store competition. MS has the monopoly on downloads.
Depends on a couple factors.
1. Is it a single player only game? If it is, then I'm sure the publisher/developer can make it so you download the first level first, followed by the second, etc, that way you can play while downloading. If it's a mixture of campaign and multiplayer, say like Halo, you may be locked out of the multiplayer until the download finishes. Which brings me to point #2.
2. It depends on your internet connection. If you're downloading a game like Halo where you may have to wait for nearly all of it to begin playing and you're downloading 80+ gb on a 10-15m/s line, it's going to take longer to get your game than driving 15 minutes to the store and 15 minutes back, opening the packaging, and installing it to your hdd.
In the PS4 UI trailer video I posted in one of these threads, they show Sony addressing this.
A guy is playing a single-player game and he gets a message from his friend to join him in Killzone MP. The guy doesn't have the game so he goes to the PSN store, buys Killzone, and is presented with two options: Download Multiplayer first or Download Single Player first.
Yeah that's really cool, I think that's a great option.
However keep in mind, that's supporting downloaded games which can't be shared or sold. Just making a point, as part of the conversation. I think downloaded games will be pushed HARD this gen.
Right. The only full games I've downloaded have been what PS+ has given me and a couple smaller PSN games I've purchased for my Vita (Sound Shapes and Gravity Rush). I like that the option is there for me to choose, but I still like physical media. I also know people who don't sell or trade their games or lend them out and love downloadable titles so they don't have discs cluttering up shelves.
As long as the option is there, great. Just don't force me into download-only.
I would say, enjoy this gen if that's how you feel. Because Gen 9 will be all downloadable games. Look at how far the internet has come from even 2005 until 2013, with this gen. Now add 10 years, exponentially.
Gen 9 will be all digital.
I'm glad somebody is explaining how the internet has changed over the years to mdl70.
the guy is a real n00b.
I'll point back to my earlier comment about data caps. I think going to all-digital, especially with free AAA game titles on XBL and PSN (~10 Gig on average), is a mistake. If someone has a crappy ISP who uses data caps, and they like to buy a lot of games, they'll be going over their cap constantly, especially in a multi-console house.
I'll enjoy this generation of consoles and look forward to what the next batch brings...which is hopefully some discs.
I'd make a "what if I told you......" Morpheus Meme but I don't have time.
So:
What if I told you that in 10 years everyone will have gigabit connections to their home? That 10/100 will be a dinosaur, laughed about like dial-up was. It's going to happen. Google fiber is going to run rampant - or another company will each their lunch. Either way, in 10 years not having internet is not going to even register as a problem.
What if I told you, that's a pipe dream (no pun intended...)
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/08/119-million-americans-lack-broadband-internet-fcc-reports/
-- from August 2012.
I can't imagine this has improved much.
So since 1999 when cable internet came out, in 13 years 180+ million Americans have gotten broadband. Now, take 10 years and exponentially estimate, and you're telling me 119 million remaining won't have it in some form (be it cellular hotspot, etc).
I'd go a few years back on the broadband thing. I had ADSL in my apartment in 1996 with 1.5 mbps down and I *think* 512 up. It's been a while. You're right, though. Cable modems were indeed right around the corner.
However, that technology was using what? Existing infrastructure to the house. The cable TV lines didn't really hit a lot of homes until the mid-80s. To do what you're talking about, you will need a huge undertaking not just from regional ISPs but possibly backbone operators as well. Right now the bottleneck is the end points, not the backbone.
You make an interesting point regarding hotspots. It might be ok to download via 4G, but the latency on it won't make gaming fun if you plan on playing multiplayer.
I shared my phone's LTE out in BFE Illinois where my in-laws don't even have cable, they have to use Satellite. I plugged it into my 360 to charge the phone, shared the wifi, and played Halo 4 with my clan. And that was last Nov, 2012.
I stand corrected. A lot of cell providers have been rolling out fiber-to-the-tower so I guess it's improved since I last played around with it.
But that actually brings me back to the original tangent from this topic...data caps. Unless you're on Sprint or T-Mobile (I think), you have a data cap....and they are expensive. More so than any cable provider charges. The bottom rung for ~$60 USD is what...2-4 gig?
You'd even be more restricted using cell traffic as they probably don't have much capacity to handle a lot of connections at once where people are uploading or downloading...hence the current data caps. Or they just like to screw over their customers and gouge them left and right.
I get what you're saying in general...but realistically there is no way the country's bandwidth problems are going to be solved befopre the next generation of consoles or in the next 10 years.
Up here in Canada, we had this product launched publicly in the late `90s: "Wave", (Rogers and Shaw, primarily, provided this to Eastern and Western provinces)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsknqlUMq3M
I beta tested this product from `97 - `99. 1MB down. (not megabit, though when it launched, it was gimped significantly)
It was an awesome experience. But, again, the infrastructure already existed as you said.
The Cable was already there, and a great many homes already had it in Ottawa, where I lived. Getting "High Speed" internet was simple for these providers. Not too long after, DSL, DSL+ and ADSL were all coming into their own as viable sources of "high speed" ISDN was on the way out, Satellite internet arrived on the scene not long after as well.
Fiber has been around since ~mid 2000's. We've used it here at the office since `07/`08
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cost-of-building-google-fiber-2013-4
Only 3 or 4 of these "fiber-hoods" are active, many more to come over the next year, but it's still in "Beta".
It's a Pipe Dream that everyone would have Gigabit or Fiber to the home in 10 years, unless all Capitalist Corporations decided to give back to the people. (haha, I couldn't resist)
If you told me that, I'd think I'd need to get a job with them. Sounds like they have more capital than any other company out there to deploy that kind of network.
One of the most successful "fiber to the home" deployments currently in existence is Verizon Fios. Verizon isn't deploying in any new areas, and what markets they do have cost around $20 Billion to build out that infrastructure. Unless you live in the Northeast, parts of Florida, Southern California, or parts of the Northwest, then you weren't included in that rollout.
What other company is going to come in and fill in the blanks for the rest of the country? Not even Google can afford to do that.
AT&T is coming around to it's areas and installing fiber to the home in certain areas with uVerse. It's still shared bandwidth. You get fiber to the house but every x number of houses shares an upstream pipe.
I'd imagine other telecom companies are in the same boat.
There just isn't the funding anywhere to deploy the kind of network you're talking about in 10 years.
Is there tax on XBL purchases on Xbox One?
I mean that's one scenario favoring discs. It might not be that way, but it could be that way.
Perhaps there will be frequent sales, and digital prices will reflect competition from stores.
Who knows? None of us yet.
There is a tax on buying microsoft points. I guarantee there is a tax on real money purchases.
I think it depends on the state you live in (talkin' US here, don't know world wide)
I can buy a playstation card at a register and pay tax. I can buy something off the playstation store and not get taxed. Heard otherwise for other states.
edit: I'm in Florida.
Ah, just read that the tax is factored based on your location such as New York for Microsoft Points. So yes, expect to pay taxes on Amazon Prime similar to how you would in a store, or for Microsoft Points.
Similarly, if your state does not charge tax, there is again no tax on Amazon Prime and none to expect on digital game purchases.
Nope that's wrong. You get charged no tax on Amazon if there is no outlet in your state. You do get charged tax if your state charges tax on sales.
Which is what I said, lol.
If there's no tax in your state you won't be charged tax on amazon, but also not in store. No difference.
If tax in state, then tax on amazon. No difference.
So no, I would not consider ordering through amazon a physical disc saving money through tax since it matches the state - just as you say.
Also, the day one edition includes extra content for four games, an exclusive achievement, the controller lettering of course, but also a year of Gold subscription.
The year of xbox live gold would in fact save money since the console is the same price if you buy a xbox one anyways at launch.
I'm hoping to pay for my console through the vast shortage, peoples desire for an exclusive achievement, and ebay :P
Where did you see this as I cannot find it anywhere.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/pre-order-xbox-one/disclaimer
Available in limited quantities at select retailers while supplies last.
wait - Day One includes a year of Gold?
As for the tax, I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. I don't get charged sales tax from Amazon. Yet my state does charge sales tax (it's like 10.5% in Chicago). This is because there is no Amazon warehouse in my state. So it's cheaper.
However on 360, I do get charged tax on MS purchases because it's not a physical location.