Microsoft says no Blu-ray for Xbox 360

[Kushan]

BT wholesale and BT retail are two separate entities though.

Yes, they are run by the same company from above, but ofcom rules mean that BT wholesale have to treat BT retail the same as any other ISP.

I can't see XBLM stuff being exempt from download limits though, simply because it would cost too much money (ISP's are already struggling to cope), so unless MS pay a fair amount of money for the bandwidth that would be used, its not going to happen.

Seriously guys, the UK's backbone infrastructure is nowhere near as bad as BT want you to think it is. They could easily spend a few million upgrading their root servers to cope with more bandwidth, but it's simply cheaper to just limit everyone's connections at certain times of the day, or after they download so much.

Like I said before, my tiny little ISP can fully support maximum speeds, so why can't the big boys?

And when more people start switching over to these kinds of ISP's, BT will just have to suck it up (Plus I think Ofcom is getting ****ed about so-called "fair use policies").

[Neo003]

MS should really just embrace Blu Ray, and realise that in 12-18m it's HIGHLY unlikely the majority will be downloading.

MS doen't have to embrace anything, not untill the next console. Digital download doesn't cost them anything and we're already playing them to keep the servers up and running.

What I am wondering about is how PSN is going to handle this while keep the network free of charge. The movie rental or for sale will have surcharge or they will start charging monthly fee like MS does for live.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

MS doen't have to embrace anything, not untill the next console. Digital download doesn't cost them anything and we're already playing them to keep the servers up and running.

What I am wondering about is how PSN is going to handle this while keep the network free of charge. The movie rental or for sale will have surcharge or they will start charging monthly fee like MS does for live.

Of course they don't have to, it just makes sense seeing as they were oh so happy to put out an HD DVD addon, why not a Blu Ray?

Well of course, it's not as simple as that when weighing everything up, but many still expected to see an addon - At least to allow them to upgrade from their HD-DVD addon, as some 360 only owners would probably rather buy a new addon, than buy a PS3.

PSN won't adopt a montly charge, it's not part of Sonys plans, and it's one thing they beat to death as an advantage over rivals - They plan to bring in revenue from advertising and microtransactions in Home.

I have no idea what Sony will offer as an alternative to marketplace, but we know one is coming. They own some big movie studios, so it only makes sense.

But please not another PSN vs Live debate, im merely pointing out if your analytical skills lead you to concur that Sony will adopt a montly charge, I think you're way off and the chance of that happening are verrrrrry low-to-none.

Maybe a monthly charge for movie rentals, like pay us x.xx and you can rent as many movies as you want - But as for paying to play online/use Home/access PSN, not going to happen.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Audioboxer

[magik]

MS doen't have to embrace anything, not untill the next console. Digital download doesn't cost them anything and we're already playing them to keep the servers up and running.

What I am wondering about is how PSN is going to handle this while keep the network free of charge. The movie rental or for sale will have surcharge or they will start charging monthly fee like MS does for live.

It definitely does cost them something. Probably not nearly as much as disc mfg, but there are definitely costs involved.

[Kushan]

The costs of digital distribution, particularly for a company such as Microsoft, are minuscule at best.

[magik]

The costs of digital distribution, particularly for a company such as Microsoft, are minuscule at best.

Perhaps minuscule relative to disc distribution, but not minuscule on it's own. Certainly not.

[DigitalE]

Yeah... No Blu-Ray just like they kept denying the HDMI rumors.

[Kushan]

Perhaps minuscule relative to disc distribution, but not minuscule on it's own. Certainly not.

Trust me, you're talking a couple of pennies for several gigabytes of data - at the most. Look at the amount of downloads Microsoft outputs every single day. Not just with live, but with their main website, Microsoft.com, as well as windows update. How many computers must connect on that tuesday once a month and download a couple of hundred megs? And you always get great speeds.

Microsoft goes though a LOT of bandwidth, they'll push for an excellent deal with whatever providers they use, believe me.

[magik]

Trust me, you're talking a couple of pennies for several gigabytes of data - at the most. Look at the amount of downloads Microsoft outputs every single day. Not just with live, but with their main website, Microsoft.com, as well as windows update. How many computers must connect on that tuesday once a month and download a couple of hundred megs? And you always get great speeds.

Microsoft goes though a LOT of bandwidth, they'll push for an excellent deal with whatever providers they use, believe me.

I'm sorry but there's no real validity in your statement unless you can back it up with real numbers. I'm sure it's not as cheap as you believe it is to provide 5GB+ of downloads per movie per user, and that's not counting the free content.

[mattmatik]

If they won't release a Blu-Ray add-on then they better get crackin' on releasing new movies more often. I'm fine with the move to digital downloads, however, it needs to be as convenient as going to Wal-Mart and buying a movie: releases should be day and date with the disc counterpart. And movies that came out in 1988 ('Back to School' for example) shouldn't be called 'new movies'.

[Kushan]

I'm sorry but there's no real validity in your statement unless you can back it up with real numbers. I'm sure it's not as cheap as you believe it is to provide 5GB+ of downloads per movie per user, and that's not counting the free content.

Same to you, if it's as expensive as you claim, then post your own numbers to back it up. But Microsoft uses a -LOT- of bandwidth every single day, you're talking hundreds of gigabytes (The download centre, MSDN, etc.), they'll get a very good deal from whatever ISP's they use and there's no reason to believe otherwise.

[magik]

I don't claim it's expensive. All I'm saying is that it's not as cheap as you believe it is. But, we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)