I find it quite ironic thats americans, who statistically have the largest living spaces in the world, double the space for average person than europeans, and up to 5 times for eastern countries, are complaining about storage space.
This is not the driving factor for digital games, unless you hoard thousands of them and need a special room. besides, lets not ignore people who trade in the games after a month or so. those hardly keep more than 20 boxes at any given time.
Lightknight said:
Interestingly enough, as much as we love our preowned market, it does have a significant impact on how quickly new game costs go down.
But thats not preowned markets fault. that is fault solely of game developers, that they make games that people buy, play once (for 5 hours) and want to sell it. If they made games people wanted to keep, preowner marked wouldh ave no supply to begin with. There is very little Nintendo games in preowned market, because thats games people want to keep (i personally dont like them, but thats a good example nonetheless). It is dominated by couple hour linear campaign games, and for good reason.
Holythirteen said:
The statistics I just looked up seemed to say that in north america, there is 25-30 broadband subscriptions for every 100 people, and everybody else gets the truck driver's salute? Ya, I don't see it. Not anytime soon, especially not for 40 gig games, that shit would take me 7 hours to download, and I live in a major city with upgraded internet.
During the whole Xbone DRM discussion a lot of statistics were dug up. The msot recent and reloable one said that only recently america has reached 60% broadband coverage. Though one has to remember, americas internet is in extremely poor state compared to the rest of the world, and while it is a largest gaming market, it is not the only one.
Also have you ever though of press download, go to sleep, wake up and play the game? or are you that impatient that you waited for months and cant wait another 7 hours, sleeping none-the-less?
i have the cheapest plan available here. 40 gigs would take Around 1:45 to download (provided downlaod is at maximum tecnical speed, it fuctuates above and bellow a bit sometimes), so basically i could watch a movie and then go play it.
Another thing to consider, that comparing internet acessible households to consoles sold, there are over 40.000 times more houses with internet than hosuees with consoles, even if we ignore posibility of same household buying two Xboxes (due to RRods) and so on. it is very likely that most people that do not have internet, are not interested in gaming consoles to begin with.
Kenjitsuka said:
"and say: "Halo 5? It plays better on disc." "
Sadly, things never play better on disc, because CD-,DVD- and Bluray readers are just so much slower than HDD's.
Once SDD's completely replace HDD's there won't even BE games that can work from a disc, since loading times will be minutes (if trends continue and all becomes in memory/SSD as a standard they WILL cram so much visual crap on screen loading TONS of bytes)
I agree with your post fully, but i woudl like to say that SDD is still a LONG way for replacing HDDs. it is unrealiable, msot real life reports state that their lifetime is around 1 year, which is simply unacceptable. But that is design flaw, and needs a major overhaul of the system and not minor tweaking. Secontly it is still ridiculously expensive per gygabyte of storage space comapred to HDDS. i woudl rather see a server designed 12000 RPM HDDs being placed there (and home computers, i wish i had one) than HDDs as they are now.
So SDD wont happen soon. not even the generation after the PS4s probably. unless they be even more retarded now and wait even more than 7 years.
Irridium said:
and high-speed internet in more areas (running on an 80kb/s connection. Downloading/streaming doesn't work too well) since places with decent (and reliable) high-speed connections are NOT the norm.
In america they are not, granted. That is because americas internet provuiders is a monopolistic leeches that havent done squat in 20 years. you get the worst internet in first world, while paying the most for it. Though i guess this is partly due to american way of thinking that "any govenment interference = communism = evil". i just hope google fiber woul hurry up, though they cant, they acutally got sued by the monopolies because "They would bring competition we cannot compete with". well whos fault is that?
Here in lithuania only people who live in one-house villages (not sure how to express it in english, there is one house in the middle of the place, soft of like the cliche version of a farm, but old and rotten) would have no acess. we got over 98% coverage and due to competition and government regulation it is reliable (over the past 10 years i have used services of 2 providers and my internet has crashed a total of like 10 times. thats once per year. most of them are restored within an hour. coupe took them half a day. one took longer, thats becasue the cable switcher that switched internet to each flat from the mastercable has shapped the mastercable in half). now of course this is example of a country that by some ratins rates as the fastest internet in the world. but it is certainly possible future everywhere. and lets not forget this article we are talking future. long term future.