Print 80 comment(s) - last by rountad.. on Feb 3 at 12:00 PM

An Xbox One without a Blu-ray drive is currently being tested as well, but it's not clear if this one will make it to market

Most new software is buggy at launch (and beyond), but that's what updates are for. Thankfully, an insider has confirmed that an Xbox One update is coming in March -- and if you haven't bought one yet, there will be new versions of the console later this year.
The report said the Xbox One dashboard update would address software issues in features like the Xbox Live service (such as the "usability and placement" of social features of Xbox Live) and party-chat as well as a number of other system fixes.
The Verge also said that Microsoft would sell a white Xbox One by October – it had previously been reserved for employees only.

In the rumor mill, it's been said that a 1TB version of the Xbox One could be released in November. Not only that, but an Xbox One without a Blu-ray drive is currently being tested as well, but it's not clear if this one will make it to market. 
The report also talks about a limited edition Titanfall Xbox One console, even providing the following image. But there's no confirmation on that release, either. 

[SOURCE: The Verge]

Earlier this month, Larry Hryb, Microsoft’s director of programming for Xbox Live, said that the company is committed to improving Xbox One's operating system to make it increasingly user-friendly. The upcoming major update looks like baby steps in that direction, and the offering of new console versions is likely to attract new customers. 

Source: The Verge

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By EasyC on 1/30/2014 12:53:38 PM , Rating: 1
How long until they stop selling the disc drive version and force everyone to the discless system they attempted to stuff down peoples throats to begin with?

Let's hope they didn't have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they reverted all the crap "features" that everyone hated....

RE: Sooo....
By tlbj6142 on 1/30/2014 1:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, Steam does quite well. I think the old school console owners need to let go of their discs. The rest of the computing world has...

RE: Sooo....
By TheDoc9 on 1/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sooo....
By KurgSmash on 1/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sooo....
By inighthawki on 1/30/2014 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
Speak for yourself. I constantly still play NES and SNES games on top of the 10 year old games. There's a number of great AAA games that are over 10 years old that are still great. UT2004, CS Source, Half-Life 2, etc etc etc.

RE: Sooo....
By StevoLincolnite on 1/30/2014 5:45:33 PM , Rating: 3
I still occasionally fire up Master of Orion 2 and that's 18 years old.
Alpha Centauri is going on 15 years and I also still play that...

In-fact there is a company whose entire business is based around 10+ year old games called "Good old Games" or
If there wasn't a demand for it, they would be quickly out of business.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 5:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
MOO2, one of my all time addictions. Along with Master of Magic.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/30/2014 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 4
Then you're probably only 10 years old.

I still bust out really old games on a regular basis, because I still enjoy playing something like Red Alert 2, Heroes of Might & Magic III, or Enemy Nations once in a while.

Your lack of foresight is appalling. Although not surprising.

A few years down the road you'll want to revist an old favorite game. And if it's on disk, and no connection to a no longer existing server is needed, you'll be able to play it.

RE: Sooo....
By TheDoc9 on 1/31/2014 3:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
haha, no I see this 'beautiful' digital world of the future just fine. Since I have to explain my original post, the point of it was that you don't have control of your content, the company does.

This is only partly true with discs that call home, in fact, I don't own any disc games that require this. They're still in the minority. In any case, as I have the content in hand I have a better chance of getting it. I have more control.

The future of licensed play and licensed movie viewing is a grim one. It is the dream of many content providers to be able to hold you by the balls on your purchases.

Of course, most likely any industry that adopts strict licensing requirements will ultimately collapse.

RE: Sooo....
By TheDoc9 on 1/31/2014 4:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
btw, this was meant for KurgSmash

RE: Sooo....
By piroroadkill on 1/30/2014 3:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I play emulated games now and then, and have been playing a lot of Age of Empires II recently.

I also was playing a ton of Theme Hospital not long ago.

I definitely enjoy playing older games alongside, say, Metro: Last Light, which I was also playing..

RE: Sooo....
By Bateluer on 1/30/2014 5:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
You must be very young. Some of the best games ever made came out over 10 years ago.

Even then, just remember you won't be playing a game you bought last week in 5 years without paying for the streaming services and the XBL membership, if that title is supported at all.

RE: Sooo....
By dxf2891 on 1/30/2014 7:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm playing Masters of Magic right this second on DOSBox on my Windows 8 computer. I don't understand why this game hasn't been modernized and re-released!!!

RE: Sooo....
By domboy on 1/31/2014 1:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's mostly what I do these days... search for older games. There are tons I've missed, and they are easier on the budget to boot. It's also why I'm a big fan of PCs over consoles... I can dig up a 10-15 year old game and have a good probability of being able to get it running. Eye candy is nice, but there are a lot of games out there that aren't technological marvels by today's standards, but are loads of fun.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 5:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure 10 years from now the online authentication servers for Xbox One will still be up, even if they are no longer selling new Xbox One games by then. Steam still being around 10 years from now is not as certain as MS still being there. But if Steam does shut down, I am sure Valve will enable permanent offline mode for the games you purchased before they shut down the servers.

RE: Sooo....
By wired00 on 1/31/2014 8:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
Have you used steam at all?

RE: Sooo....
By eek2121 on 1/31/2014 11:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, I can still download all my games from steam, despite them being 10+ years old.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 12:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, online services sometimes go away. Then *poof* - no games for you.

Or are you convinced that somehow Steam is going to be the one online service that is permanent and perpetual?

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
Steam chas an offline mode. If they are closing shop for good, chances are offline mode will keep working.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 2:48:32 PM , Rating: 2

And when you get a new PC...upon which you'd have to install Steam to play those games?

There's no way out for you in this argument. Having those games on disk is infinitely better.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 4:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if you are replacing a PC that died and Steam has closed, you are out of luck. But if you lose or damage your optical media, you are also out of luck. The likelihood of damaging a disc is far higher than the likelihood of Steam going under, especially if you have kids.

I have hundreds of games I have downloaded, whether from Steam, or GoG, or some Asian MMO publisher. I wouldn't want to have to store the media for all of them.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 7:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if you are replacing a PC that died and Steam has closed, you are out of luck.

This is the only thing you've said that makes any sense.

But if you lose or damage your optical media, you are also out of luck.

I can make copies of my physical media. And for my part, I still have the very first CD I bought...from when CDs first became a thing. Also, if a game was distributed on disk, if I break or lose my disk I can probably buy another one on eBay or at Gamestop. If it was only distributed chance, it's gone.

The other side to that is to point out the absurdity of the "yeah well you have to take care of an optical disk!" have to take care of *everything* you buy...or else it breaks and you're out of luck. It kills me that it's such a massive burden to manage to not break a DVD in half but one is expected to somehow not destroy everything else they own.

The likelihood of damaging a disc is far higher than the likelihood of Steam going under

LOL! Vast numbers of software companies have come and gone, large and small, over the past 30 years or so since I've been amassing a collection of things on optical disk. Considering that I've never broken an optical disk in my life (except on purpose), then it seems that the reverse is the case - any given software company is virtually guaranteed to have a shorter life than the disks they produce.

I have hundreds of games I have downloaded, whether from Steam, or GoG, or some Asian MMO publisher. I wouldn't want to have to store the media for all of them.

Then don't. Throw them away and be proud of yourself. The very notion that protecting your investment and ownership rights by stashing a wafer-thin optical disk in a closet someplace is some massive burden that would make your life so hard does nothing but illustrate what a whiner you are.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 2/1/2014 5:11:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hard to stash it in a closet if you plan on playing it regularly, unless their is no disc-based DRM. But since this was originally about console games, how many console games can be played without the disc? For that matter, how many console games can be easily copied on to other media? Console game discs are regularly swapped in and out, and if you have kids doing so, they can get damaged. A disc does no have to be broken in half to become unreadable. A scratch will do it. Sometimes those scratches can be repaired, but not always.

Now, on the PC, it is different. You can usualy find a cracked loader that allows you to skip placing the disc in, or at least you could back when I actually bought discs. I assume that is still true. So your archiving argument makes more sense on PCs. But, ironically, it is the PC game industry that has all but abandoned physical copies. So I guess most people value the convenience of digital distribution over the What-If scenarios involving Steam going out of business. Besides, you list being able to buy a new disc as a plus on the media side. You could do the same with your digital collection. If Steam did go under, one of the other digtal distributors would take its place and you could buy from them. Or just get a torrent to replace it. I doubt many would een consider it piracy to download what is probably abandonware by then, especially to replace something you had already paid for.

I bet it is even easier to find a specific 10-20year old game by searching the net than it would be to find the same game in disc format.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 2/1/2014 11:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. OK Black Knight, here we go again...

Hard to stash it in a closet if you plan on playing it regularly, unless their is no disc-based DRM.

...really? Because I can't pull it off the shelf in the closet when I want to play it? That would be such back-breaking work...

But since this was originally about console games, how many console games can be played without the disc?

No one said anything about playing console games without the media. Pull it off the shelf you put it on. back!

As to the relative ease with which optical disks can be made noted I still have the very first CD I ever bought, which was at the dawn of the age of CDs. I also still have every disk of every type bought since then, aside from a few I sold or traded (because if you have the disk, you have ownership rights) I haven't taken any particularly noteworthy care of my disks either...I take them out of the case to use them, and put them back in the case when I'm done. back!

As for kids - of course kids break things. And if they break their favorite game disk...tough. Guess you don't have that game anymore. Learning experience.

Now, on the PC, it is different. You can usualy find a cracked loader that allows you to skip placing the disc in, or at least you could back when I actually bought discs. I assume that is still true. So your archiving argument makes more sense on PCs.

I didn't make that argument. My reference to putting your disks in a closet in no way implied that you don't pick them off the shelf when you want to play them. Or get a CD/DVD rack. Or whatever. I don't care...I'm just pointing out the mind-bendingly obvious, irrefutable fact that storing your disks someplace in your home, and getting them when you want to use them, is no big f%cking deal. back!

f Steam did go under, one of the other digtal distributors would take its place and you could buy from them.

Maybe, maybe not...maybe for some games, maybe not for all games. And what sense does it make to pay the next digital company more money for a game you already bought from the last company? The benefit to digital is convenience - if you have broadband. But there are vastly more downsides to it than upsides. As I've clearly demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt...regardless of how many shadows you keep trying to manufacture.

If you want to resort to piracy, I guess knock yourself out. Maybe some of the old stuff shows up on abandonware sites anyway...and I reckon if you broke a disk and found a ripped version online, you're probably legal with it anyway. But it stands that the best possible case, for all uses, is to have a physical disk which will always work forever, and which you have ownership rights on.

RE: Sooo....
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2014 1:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to my online hell. Talking to Troy about anything is less rewarding than smashing your face into a vat of broken glass and acid.

Did you lose track of all the red herrings and points he was trying to argue against that you never even made? I know I did!

RE: Sooo....
By Manch on 2/2/2014 7:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I need a good laugh. Your response had me laughing so hard it back!

If I can, I always get my games on disc. I have no objections to steam or GOG, but like I tell my friends. Downloaded games are tied to the service, so just beware. I always implement a CD crack so i don't have to change the discs out if possible.

I have all of my consoles, PC and games etc in my game room. It's not like I have had to build a vault to house them so the guy you've been replying to is off his rocker or has serious back issues.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 2/2/2014 3:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have 4 kids. And I live in a place with 4 very distinct seasons. With that comes winter clothes, summer clothes, rain gear, etc for 4 kids. Plus me and wife. Added to that are skates, snowboards, hockey gear for winter, balls, bats, Frisbee, beach toys for summer. Gardening gear, tools, board games, and all the other trappings of life for a family. Storage space is at a premium. Any seldom used games would not be in easily accessible storage, they would be in the attic or under the stairs.

I had a PS2 and a Genesis that I had kept for nostalgia. I got rid of both because they were not used often enough to justify keeping in a closet in the main living area, and if they were put in the attic, they were too inconvenient to take out for a occasional games. If finding having all my games stored on a hard drive that I can access any time easily more convenient makes me a whiner, so be it. but I could just as easily say fear of losing your games to the possibility of Steam or MS or whoever going out of business makes you a whiner. See how unhelpful to the discussion name calling is?

About 80 million people find Steam to be a convenient way to get games, so obviously it isn't just me who values the service they provide. Plus, Steam is just one of hundreds of services on the PC that provide digital software distribution. Obviously, many people do not share your fear of losing access to their games. The only time I have ever lost access to a game on the PC was if an MMO I happened to be playing shut down.

RE: Sooo....
By TheJian on 2/1/2014 6:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
You can play all xbox360/ps3/wii/wiiu games without discs (though I only have xbox360). I'm just saying there are multiple ways around loading from a drive that dies over time. Also load times are faster across the board on both when loading from an HD.

No need to keep ANY disc for any console or pc games (excepting xbox1/ps4 for a while). Just make an image of the discs and plop them on a few 3TB drives with a full backup of these on another one. If one goes belly up I care not. Think about that size for a minute, and realize a 3TB drive can hold about 400 disc images. I don't know many people with more games for xbox or ps3 than that...LOL. Maybe you keep the discs to store in your attic or something...ROFL.

So for $200 you protect your whole xbox360 collection. About the same if you have a ps3, or if you have both many are overlapping games so you'd only use the best rated one from either side. I'm betting most could spend $200 and have both consoles covered from last gen (300 games between the two, and a complete backup of them on a 2nd 3TB drive right?).

For another $200 you do the same to your PC games and apps.

Heck you could probably put the wii/wiiu games on either pair of drives too as they are only 4.3GB or so each (less than 500GB for 100 games and another 500GB for backup on a separate drive as noted above).

When needed you just unpack the image (Multipar everything after rar, just in case) to your local drive, or whatever you need to get it onto a ps3/xbox360.

As for DRM gamecopyworld fixes almost everything. There are xbox360/ps3 websites that explain how to backup your discs to images and how to use them on your console. It's quite easy today. I'm sure they'll have the same things for the new consoles in a few years tops as they are closer to PC's then every before. You can crack Steam just the same as a disc if you hate their crap. The only way to ensure you won't be pissed later though, is buy from with no DRM or limits on you at all.

Nobody has to deal with DRM if they are willing to read a little. PS2 and Xbox are the same story. Two pieces of tape and a bootdisc is all that is needed on a PS2 slim...ROFL.

I advocate always OWNING the disc, but back it up ASAP if you can. DRM on the disc doesn't matter if you're cloning it intact bit for bit. Patch & Crack it later as needed. Pretty much everything else you buy in life (but software/music/movies) you own and can return them if the product sucks. Since you can't here, people need to wise up and beat them at their own game. Then again, you can just refuse to buy games until they land on gog (like myself these days, I won't purchase DRM crap any more).

In summation: Your points are invalid for anyone who doesn't mind reading a little.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/30/14, Rating: -1
RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/30/2014 3:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
While I like old games too, I don't get the "time invested" argument against MMOs. It is a game, not an investment. The time you put in should be counted as fun, not any sort of investment. If a game stops being fun, I move on to another. I don't get that attachment to a character that keeps people playing something they no longer enjoy.

I didn't want to play Halo when it was new. I certainly won't in 20 years time. :P

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/30/2014 11:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Love the ignorant people who downrate irrefutable truth.

Here's a good article that quotes the latest FCC internet access report, and although it starts out talking about streaming TV stuff, it's all valid for gaming and whatever else happens on the internet.

So, all you morons just keep your heads in the sand and pretend that everyone in this country has fiber optic connections. The real world, where maybe a hundred million Americans has no access to broadband, is far too scary for you to deal with.

...and the other 2 points are, of course, irrefutably true as well. If you disagree with any of the 3 points made above, it's literally a fact that you couldn't possibly be any wronger.

RE: Sooo....
By kingmotley on 1/31/2014 12:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
You know motoman, just because 33% of the population doesn't have a broadband connection doesn't necessarily validate your assumptions. There is a large population that doesn't have broadband BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT IT. Like my mom. She has no interest in watching netflix in 4k video, doesn't video game, and only uses the internet to get email and browse facebook. Her iPad does that fine over LTE, and she is quite happy with it.

I suspect there is a large portion of the population that does even less, particularly in the south. You know all those states the FCC mentioned...

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 10:07:48 AM , Rating: 2
There's a tiny % that is probably without broadband because they don't want it.

For the vast majority of that 1/3 of American citizens, it's because there is no broadband available to them.

Which as defined by the FCC requires a minimum download speed of 3Mb.

If your mom is fine without broadband, while it's actually available for her, then that's great for her. But there's maybe a hundred million other Americans who can't get broadband...period.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 5:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
I read the article. Interesting, except I saw one point he was wrong. I did have high-speed home internet 20 years ago. Well, high speed for the time, anyway. DSL was capped at 1.5 Mbps when it was introduced here in 93. Of course you couldn't stream 4k video at that speed, but it seemed blazingly fast after moving up from dial-up.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 10:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and I used to have high-speed home internet too...including the first round of DSL that was like 1.5Mb.

Right now the FCC considers 3Mb to be the minimum download speed to qualify as "broadband." That is described in the report, and is therefore the minimum bar to meet to be noted. So the 1.5Mb DSL services of old don't qualify as "broadband."

RE: Sooo....
By kingmotley on 1/31/2014 12:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
Some day they'll turn the servers off for Diablo III. And WoW and everything else. When that day happens, all the time and money you spent on that game, expansion packs, whatever...*poof* gone. If you have a game on disk, and there's not any required server connection to play it, you never lose your ability to play that game.

And yet you name 2 games that still won't play even if you have the disk. Many of the games now won't play pretty much off line. I haven't bought a game on disk probably in 5 years. Seriously, get with the times. If it is such a great game, then leave it installed on the internal HD. You can fit quite a few games on those you know.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 1
And yet you name 2 games that still won't play even if you have the disk.

No sh1t, Sherlock. Why do you think I named 2 games that won't play even if you have the disk, as examples as to why it's not in the consumer's best interests to have games that require online access and/or dedicated online servers to be played?

Hmmm...I wonder why I did that?

You're a moron.

RE: Sooo....
By Arkive on 1/31/2014 11:19:16 AM , Rating: 1

Anyone who would consider an expensive console purchase will have broadband, so why would you even open your argument with such a silly stat?

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I can count dozens of households in my area who have consoles...and who don't have broadband available. PS3s, Xbox360s, etc. that have *never* been online. And never will...because these people have to get by on maybe 5Gb of cellular wifi internet service every month.

...and you know what? Those consoles work just great without being on the internet. Because there's no reason to require them to be on the internet in the first place.

But we've settled this argument before...when MS had to reverse course the first time. You are the one without an argument.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you live that can't even get basic ADSL?

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 2:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
10 minutes from being in the middle of our town of about 20,000 people. And about 30 minutes from being downton in our state capital.

...and apparently 1.5 miles from where the ADSL service ends.

All of which is solidly within a region considered to be a "metropolitan area" of about 3.5 million people.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 4:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry that your ISP sucks so bad. We have ADSL pretty much everywhere that is serviced by copper. You have to get fairly remote before you lose access to it. Not having it so close to a metropolitan area is unheard of.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 7:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
No, it isn't. It's the norm, as a matter of fact.

DSL has a VERY limited range. Roughly about 3.3 miles from a central office. Obviously, central offices tend to be in high-density areas...

...but I refer you to the article I linked above, which in turn references that FCC article pointing out that 1/3 of Americans don't have access to broadband...of any kind, including DSL. Granted that urban areas are vastly more densely populated than rural areas, it becomes clear that the overwhelming majority of the USA has no DSL available to it in terms of actual real estate.

Oh, and as for
Sorry that your ISP sucks so bad
- note that I don't really have one. There's no DSL. There's no cable. And I know a seemingly endless number of people who live in metropolitan areas, like me, who are in the same boat. Note the "in metropolitan areas" - not "close to a metropolitan area." Make no mistake - we are 100% IN a metropolitan area. Not even close to the boundaries of that area. We are part of it. And we have no broadband available to us in any form.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 2/1/2014 5:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
I know the limits of DSL. But you live in an area that is easily dense enough population to warrant a CO being put there. That is why I said the ISP in your area sucks. I was not aware that it is common in the USA for ISPs to routinely abandon that many potential customers.

Before I moved where I am, I lived in a town of approx 1500 people with no nearby urban centers. We had DSL there. Every village in my province has had DSL for at least a decade. All the cities and large towns have fiber access, or are getting fiber rolled out soon. The only people with no DSL access are those who are truly rural and don't even live close to a village.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 2/1/2014 11:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
I know the limits of DSL

Doesn't look like it.

But you live in an area that is easily dense enough population to warrant a CO being put there.

And this is why. The vast majority of the USA doesn't have enough population density to justify deploying COs to get DSL to everyone - not from a private business standpoint. Likewise the vast majority of the USA can't justify deploying cable either. The areas that do have sufficient population density are *VASTLY* outweighed by the areas that don't.

That is why I said the ISP in your area sucks. I was not aware that it is common in the USA for ISPs to routinely abandon that many potential customers.

ISPs are for-profit companies...not utilities. There's no law or regulation saying that there's a requirement to get broadband to every American there is for landline phones and electricity. Realistically speaking...that needs to change. For the sake of around 100 million Americans who don't have that access now. Because the direct response to your quote above is that, frankly, it would be a bad business decision for the cable/DSL providers to put in the infrastructure to get use broadband. It's a bad investment. They're not "abandoning potential customers" - they're avoiding unprofitable expenditures.

Before I moved where I am, I lived in a town of approx 1500 people with no nearby urban centers. We had DSL there. Every village in my province has had DSL for at least a decade.

Sounds like you're Canadian. Canada has like a tenth the population of the USA. So while there's certainly lots of Canadians that live away from broadband access, the numbers are vastly smaller. The same is true in the USA in terms of how you described it. There's cable and/or DSL available 1.5 miles down the road from me - where there's a dinky little town of probably less than 200 people. They have broadband. We don't. And we're only 2 minutes away from them.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 2/2/2014 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I am Canadian. You are the first person I have ever seen use lower population density as a reason for better internet coverage. Usually, people respond to Europeans or Asians who talk about their better internet services, claiming it is because they have much higher population density.

I decided to check some of the communities in my province. Black's Harbour, population 900, over 1 hour away from the nearest urban center, and they have ADSL. Aliant is highly profitable, so they seem to be able to service small communities and still make money. I am not sure exactly how much it costs them to build a CO to service that community, or how long it takes to pay it off with the 300 or so households in the area it covers, but they manage to do it.

Pretty much every community over 5000 people now has fiber internet available. If my ISP in what is considered the economic backwater of my country, can manage to provide broadband coverage to nearly everyone if they want it, then surely yours could make money servicing your much more populous area.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 2/3/2014 11:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
You are the first person I have ever seen use lower population density as a reason for better internet coverage.

...what? I think you'd better revisit your ESL classes. How can you manage to get by in life with such a catastrophic lack of reading comprehension?

RE: Sooo....
By nikon133 on 1/30/2014 3:25:15 PM , Rating: 1
You can pile (almost) unlimited storage in PC, internally and externally. Same feat on console is hard to impossible, not to mention that people tend to buy consoles to simplify their experience.

I have around 70 PS3 games (on BDs) and maybe 10 DL ones. Some of the take only a few MBs on console's HDD, some take anywhere in vicinity of 1 - 2GB, a few take more. I'm pretty sure I'd be able to have them all prepped on my 500GB PS3. No way I could do the same if all games were DL. In addition, I can easily uninstall game and reinstall it from BD, as it does not copy everything to HDD and even if it does, I don't have to download whole thing from the PSN.

I don't sell my games, I like to collect them. I have a shell of PS3 and PS2 games (130 - 140 total) and I will still buy a good game I have missed back in the days, even if I'm not playing PS2 for some time, and PS3 is also expected to be retired when I get PS4. The whole collecting thing would be pointless with DL games. And I can borrow a game to a friend this way, all games will play single player campaign, some will play even multiplayer (without buying extra online key).

Even on PC (where storage is much less of an issue), I prefer to buy media. I do have more DL games there, but I still have more than 50% of games purchased on physical media.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/30/2014 3:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Most PC gamers are not the same. I think the last game I bought for the PC on optical disc was in 2002.

RE: Sooo....
By Boze on 1/30/2014 3:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
What about U.S. Navy personnel serving on submarines? What about those serving on ships without high-bandwidth communications like PC boats or minesweepers? What about Army and Marine personnel deployed to the far side of the planet, where infrastructure for Internet is spotty - at best.

What should they do? Just opt out of enjoying new games on disc for the next 6 to 24 months? Just work out constantly from boredom...?

Maybe you need to think a little more globally and less locally.

RE: Sooo....
By Imaginer on 1/30/2014 5:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
The downloaded games would need to work offline, like Steam does (albeit needing first an internet connection and initial downloading before traveling - to log in and enable offline mode).

And if deployed, it is even better, you can have an entire library, without necessary packing of discs, disc boxes, disc folder albumbs. It is one box you carry with the hard drive space for your library.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 2/1/2014 6:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about a strawman argument. The people in the situations you named will not have that many places selling games nearby either. So whether digital or physical distribution, they'll be missing out on new games.

RE: Sooo....
By Arsynic on 1/30/2014 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody? I for one love the idea of not having to endure hours of downloading a game just so I can enjoy the benefits of instant switching and family sharing.

RE: Sooo....
By xti on 1/30/2014 2:11:32 PM , Rating: 1
your internet connection must suck.

even Bf4 was 30 min or so...not the end of the world.

RE: Sooo....
By kingmotley on 1/31/2014 12:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
Faster than I could drive to the store, wait in line to buy it, and get back home even. I even made a sandwich while I waited. I love downloading games.

RE: Sooo....
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 5:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I get spoiled. Having a 170 Mbps fiber connection and Steam makes any game I see on there minutes away. This truly is a golden age of PC gaming.

RE: Sooo....
By KurgSmash on 1/30/2014 2:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
The features "everyone" hated? You mean the paranoid delusionals on the Internet who made a big stink and ruined a bunch of great features for everyone?

I didn't hate those features, I thought they were awesom.

RE: Sooo....
By inighthawki on 1/30/2014 2:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I was highly disappointed when MS made a 180 on things. The only thing they needed to do was change the checkin time from 24 hours to something like once every week or two.

RE: Sooo....
By kingmotley on 1/31/2014 12:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. That was disappointing, but it made all the 10 year olds happy. I guess that's what you get.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 7:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, it was the 10 year olds who thought they were a good idea.

The adults are the ones who realized the emperor had no clothes.

RE: Sooo....
By inighthawki on 2/1/2014 3:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, only people like you who were spewing nonsense about used games and the ability to sell them at a store. Anyone who has ever gamed on a PC and used steam immediately saw the benefits of the system they had in place. The ONLY real flaw was the checkin rate. 24 hours was a little too much, but the entire issue could've been solved by just changing that to every 2 weeks or so.

Sorry, but you're in the vocal minority on this one.

RE: Sooo....
By Motoman on 2/1/2014 5:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Uh-huh. MS did a 180 because of a minority viewpoint.

Keep your head in the sand. Especially when it comes to irrefutable truths like ownership rights, which you so daftly torpedoed right there.

RE: Sooo....
By inighthawki on 2/2/2014 4:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
The original plan allowed you to resell your games, it was just through the digital market. But people kicked and screamed that there was no "used games" market so they couldn't go buy the game used on day 3 of release for $40 instead of waiting a few months for sales.

So instead of allowing the developers to reap the profits from the digital market, people like you made Microsoft backpedal to the used games market for stores like GameStop, so now all used game profits go to them instead of the developers. I'm glad you're happy with games continuing to cost more.

I'm appalled that people like you are so resistant to change that you cannot see the benefits of a fully digital market. You sound like you're 60 years old and stuck in the past where you had the right to resell your physical property and you haven't grasped the concept that digital licenses do not have to be transferable.

How about trying to improve the proposed system instead of whining and crying until they change it back to what you're used to.

RE: Sooo....
By rountad on 2/3/2014 12:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
That was just petulance on MS's part.

They could have easily kept the original plan for digital distribution and combined it with the modified plan for disc ownership.

Downloading a game would just be treated differently than buying the disc.

RE: Sooo....
By HomerTNachoCheese on 1/31/2014 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
I have a library of Blu-ray and DVDs. The last thing I want is to have any type of media center not come with the drive. Of course I can get a cheap Blu-ray player, but why would I want this if it could simply be part of the system?

Yes, that's why it sucks.
By zero2dash on 1/31/2014 11:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's not white.
It has a Blu-ray drive.
It has <1TB.


It has no games and nothing worth owning one.
It also has weaker performance than the Ps4 which costs $100 less.

But sure, release a white one without Blu-ray and a 4TB HD, surely that one will sell like hotcakes.


RE: Yes, that's why it sucks.
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 2:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
The PS4 has few games too. And if you want to get into a GPU pissing contest, both consoles are weak.

RE: Yes, that's why it sucks.
By zero2dash on 1/31/2014 6:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
No argument on either point from me.

Both consoles have weak launch titles...but the Ps4 is a little easier of a pill to swallow because it's $100 cheaper and title-to-title, the Ps4 games reportedly have better visuals and better frames. That being said - it's still a lame duck (albeit 'less lame').

I don't own either, and don't plan on buying either. If I spend anything on gaming related hardware, it'll be a new graphics card. (Would have been an R9 290 but the MINESPLOSION has turned the retail on AMD cards to retarded levels.)

RE: Yes, that's why it sucks.
By troysavary on 2/2/2014 3:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily I got my card before the prices went crazy. Wonder if the Mantle API will give the huge boost people are claiming.

By Lazarus52980 on 1/30/2014 12:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Any word on if this update will add an Xbox One Marketplace like the X360 had?

RE: Marketplace?
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2014 12:53:52 PM , Rating: 3
There isn't one? Where do you buy stuff?

No BD?
By wallijonn on 1/30/2014 2:01:52 PM , Rating: 1
Advertise and engineer the xbox so that it is mostly a media centre device but remove the BD player? Then why would anyone need the XB1 when most HDTVs and disc players already have apps natively (Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, et. al.)? Is it just Skype that is being promoted? If it's an Internet browser that is it's main feature, then where is the wireless keyboard and wireless mouse capability? Make the wireless keyboard accept USB and SD cards so that no one has to get up to insert them into their XBoxes. Or wirelessly connect one's cell phone to transfer phone numbers, contacts, favourites, pictures, videos and music to the XBox1. Toting voice commanding as a replacement for a remote control hardly warrants a $500 price tag, no?

As far as digital downloads go, just come right out and say that you want to cut out the middle man, all the store fronts, that you want to keep all the profits for yourself.

Removing the BD player is just one more reason not to buy an XB1. What everyone wants is to get rid of the MS Eye. Therefore the Eye's features must be expanded - with Skype and TV telephone video.

RE: No BD?
By tlbj6142 on 1/30/2014 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
As far as digital downloads go, just come right out and say that you want to cut out the middle man, all the store fronts, that you want to keep all the profits for yourself.

What's wrong with that line of thinking? Didn't Netflix kill Blockbuster? Are you still crying over that?

RE: No BD?
By ianweck on 1/30/2014 2:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure they would still offer a SKU with a blu-ray drive in it. Calm yourself.

By Jim_Liquor on 1/30/2014 8:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
.. even as an unpaid MS apologist myself, the Xbox One is a disaster... I shall explain why I think so...

I finally went and threw down $500 for a Day One version of the Xbox One. In the nice black box. I was surprised I found one - thought they were 'rare' ...

Anyhow I get the thing home and I put it where my Xbox 360 was and even though I knew it would not play Xbox 360 games, I figured at least it would be a good media streamer.


The Xbox One, the console that does everything, the console that comes with the (what I consider) stupid, worthless, no good gall darn bastard Kinect, CANNOT STREAM VIDEOS OFF THE NETWORK.

I repeat: This thing cannot stream videos off a local network. At all. I looked into it. I downloaded patches.

So here sat a $500 machine worth $400 without the stupid, worthless Kinect, that cannot play any of my games, and has no decent new games to buy even if I found myself in the brain-dead decision to want to buy a $60 game called Battlefield OR Call of Duty that I already own on the Xbox 360... IT CANNOT STREAM VIDEOS. OR AUDIO.

After a (thankfully short) call to Xbox Support (which in what I consider a plus, an actual English speaking American answered the phone) I decided to take the damn thing back.

I don't know what the hell they were thinking, but they just decided to throw this out there without anything that made the 360 cool. And in the defense of MS, apperantly Sony did something worse with the PS4 that will *NEVER* be able to play media off a network...

Screw this console, screw the next gen and frigg all to MS to letting this even get released with this sorry excuse of an OS.

RE: apologies...
By wired00 on 1/31/2014 8:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it was rushed and over priced they both were. There is not a single Xbox or ps4 gsame worth buying at launch. It boggled my mind seeing sales numbers of the consoles that both companies were more than happy to throw around in hope that even more morons would throw money at them being justified in knowing that many millions of others !UST have thought it a good idea also...

Name a single game worth $500-600 that isn't already on pc or previous generation...?

I'll wait for the cheaper diskless version or price cuts when the truly next gen games come out. And titan fall will be a pc purchase.
I think dark souls 2 will be my next purchase

Hah... Consoles...
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2014 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
No Star Citizen on XBox/PS. No X3 on XBox/PS.

No thanks. Oh, hello PC. My best friend. :)

RE: Hah... Consoles...
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 2:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I would buy a PC for Star Citizen alone. I have never played a Chris Roberts game I didn't love. WC3 was the game that got me to install a CD rom.

By p05esto on 1/30/2014 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 1
Just a matter of time until companies start producing removable stickers for the shiny surfaces on X1. It will be an easy and sorta interesting way to skin the console.

RE: stickers
By SR81 on 1/30/2014 1:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
Stickers? Your better off getting some professional automobile vinyl and using that.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki