Full Digital Game Delivery Comes One Step Closer
Internet data transfer record smashed
Japanese scientists from the University of Tokyo have destroyed previous records for data transfer speeds over the internet, taking us one step closer to the delivery of premium games via download.
The scientists, who sent data across a 30,000km network, achieved a speed of 9.08Gb/sec, around 1000 times faster than current top-of-the-range broadband connections. SPOnG did the maths, and that's about five seconds to download a massive 50GB PS3 game.
Such download speeds won't be available to the man in the street just yet, however. To break the record fibre-optic cables were needed instead of the copper currently used.
Also, in practice, the download would not be as quick as five seconds. There would be data bottlenecks related to the technology being used, data infrastructure and commercial practices. Even with those factors considered, however, we'd be looking at a premium game downloaded in a matter of minutes as opposed to the 14 hours it would currently take.
Alternatively, with transfer speeds that fast, publishers could potentially opt to not sell the game at all. Rather, the game could be stored on a server and played directly from there via streaming, with users paying for access to it rather than ownership. Streaming would also dodge the need for huge hard drives capable of storing large numbers of 50GB games.
We won't be switching to digitally delivered premium games overnight, but it will certainly be in hardware manufacturers' lines of sight. Bricks and mortar retailers, and even e-tailers, should be worried - and should at least be planning ahead, now. The fact is that - we reckon by 2014, possibly - the platform holders will be able to deliver games direct to the end-user with scheduled over-night downloads on day of release as subscriptions are taken from your PlayStation Network, XBox Live or and updated Virtual Console.
Would you be happy with digital downloading direct from the source? Or do you like the fact that gamers can meet in the real world? Tell us in the Forum below.
You can read the source article at the Times Online.
The scientists, who sent data across a 30,000km network, achieved a speed of 9.08Gb/sec, around 1000 times faster than current top-of-the-range broadband connections. SPOnG did the maths, and that's about five seconds to download a massive 50GB PS3 game.
Such download speeds won't be available to the man in the street just yet, however. To break the record fibre-optic cables were needed instead of the copper currently used.
Also, in practice, the download would not be as quick as five seconds. There would be data bottlenecks related to the technology being used, data infrastructure and commercial practices. Even with those factors considered, however, we'd be looking at a premium game downloaded in a matter of minutes as opposed to the 14 hours it would currently take.
Alternatively, with transfer speeds that fast, publishers could potentially opt to not sell the game at all. Rather, the game could be stored on a server and played directly from there via streaming, with users paying for access to it rather than ownership. Streaming would also dodge the need for huge hard drives capable of storing large numbers of 50GB games.
We won't be switching to digitally delivered premium games overnight, but it will certainly be in hardware manufacturers' lines of sight. Bricks and mortar retailers, and even e-tailers, should be worried - and should at least be planning ahead, now. The fact is that - we reckon by 2014, possibly - the platform holders will be able to deliver games direct to the end-user with scheduled over-night downloads on day of release as subscriptions are taken from your PlayStation Network, XBox Live or and updated Virtual Console.
Would you be happy with digital downloading direct from the source? Or do you like the fact that gamers can meet in the real world? Tell us in the Forum below.
You can read the source article at the Times Online.
Read More Like This
Comments
hollywooda 27 Apr 2007 12:01
1/9
game prices would have to seriously drop for full downloadable games to become a viable option.
@ the end of the day u don't really own anything & plus this will kill the trading or selling of ur second hand games.... its a nice idea, but I think it'll play into Sony/MS hands & we'll shoot ourselves in the foot.
@ the end of the day u don't really own anything & plus this will kill the trading or selling of ur second hand games.... its a nice idea, but I think it'll play into Sony/MS hands & we'll shoot ourselves in the foot.
dr_faulk 27 Apr 2007 12:05
2/9
Link to the tehcnology article?
more comments below our sponsor's message
TimSpong 27 Apr 2007 12:12
3/9
dr_faulk wrote:
Link to the tehcnology article?
Added to the SPOnG article as I type...
DoctorDee 28 Apr 2007 05:50
4/9
hollywooda wrote:
game prices would have to seriously drop for full downloadable games to become a viable option.
But that won't happen will it? Music download services are not notably cheaper than a CD (except eMusic of course), movie ones don't seem to be planning to be either. This is a way of increasing corporate profits, not consumer value.
Companies don't want you to own music or movies... and once ubiquitous high speed wireless access is available they won't let you.
realvictory 29 Apr 2007 18:26
5/9
Prices will become cheaper once you can bypass the shops and not have to pay for the physical media.
I think that if you're willing to pay for something you want, though, companies want you to.
I think that if you're willing to pay for something you want, though, companies want you to.
DoctorDee 30 Apr 2007 09:04
6/9
realvictory wrote:
Prices will become cheaper once you can bypass the shops and not have to pay for the physical media.
So why is Apple Music store charging £9.99 for an album?
I think that if you're willing to pay for something you want, though, companies want you to.
They want you to RENT it, not buy it. They do not want you to own music, movies, or games.
realvictory 30 Apr 2007 19:20
7/9
DoctorDee wrote:
So why is Apple Music store charging £9.99 for an album?
That's just Apple. Have you noticed, for example, how much more expensive IPods are than other MP3 players, or at least, how much more expensive, for example, Macs are than PCs?
They want you to RENT it, not buy it. They do not want you to own music, movies, or games.
All they want, ultimately, is money. Don't pay for services you don't want, and they'll have to change to provide something in a way you do want. If everyone switched to Linux, for example, Windows would become more like Linux. Just make sure you don't criticise something, then buy it - you'll just make the situation worse.
DoctorDee 30 Apr 2007 19:27
8/9
realvictory wrote:
That's just Apple.
Really? What other successful music stores are cheaper?
Have you noticed, for example, how much more expensive IPods are than other MP3 players, or at least, how much more expensive, for example, Macs are than PCs?
No. Not really. iPods are competitively priced. OK, some of the tackier rip offs are cheaper, but comparable hardware is typically comparably priced. Any discounting is done to try and buy market share. Macs are not the rip-offs they once were. They are slightly more expensive, but they are much better quality, both in terms of the hardware and the OS.
Don't pay for services you don't want, and they'll have to change to provide something in a way you do want. If everyone switched to Linux, for example, Windows would become more like Linux.
But everyone WON'T switch to Linux until it becomes more like Windows.
Just make sure you don't criticise something, then buy it - you'll just make the situation worse.
I don't. I use Macs personally and professionally. We use Linux professionally. I use eMusic.
realvictory 1 May 2007 00:25
9/9
DoctorDee wrote:
Really? What other successful music stores are cheaper?
Well, that's a trick question, because none are quite as successful as iTunes... I doubt any are more expensive, though. I don't know why iTunes in particular is so successful, really, though.
No. Not really. iPods are competitively priced. OK, some of the tackier rip offs are cheaper, but comparable hardware is typically comparably priced. Any discounting is done to try and buy market share. Macs are not the rip-offs they once were. They are slightly more expensive, but they are much better quality, both in terms of the hardware and the OS.
I can't really argue, I suppose, but I would say that Apple do want people to think they are better quality, although I couldn't guarantee that they are - depends specifically how you expect a product to work (in fact, they're designed to only last one year). Something with the same specifications can definitely be found cheaper, though, or better for the same price. Or something with better specifications for the same price. It's definitely debatable as to whether the quality of an iPod is in fact better than alternatives. Anyway, I can't stop people liking iPods, really - it's one of those things. I'm sure when someone does beat Apple at it, we'll look back on iPods and realise that they weren't as good as they seemed at the time.
But everyone WON'T switch to Linux until it becomes more like Windows.
Same thing (replace "iPod" with "Windows").
I don't. I use Macs personally and professionally. We use Linux professionally. I use eMusic.
I didn't mean to imply you did - sorry. But it's the people who do that are cause of the problem. Basically, though, people are too controlled by marketing campaigns, trends, etc. If people only bought what they wanted, as opposed to what they are told they want, the people trying to con you wouldn't be able to, because there would be no business in it.