Prosis said:
http://business.comcast.com/docs/ent-solutions-docs/bus-svcs-tcs-ver20-published-130401.pdf?sfvrsn=0
This is Comcast's terms of service. Please look at Article 15A, on the bottom of pg 12. They have 24 hours to send out a repairman, or they issue a credit for the 24hour period to your account. They are not required to provide 99% uptime, and they are not required to come out within 2 hours.
And I fail to see how the fact that your internet hasn't failed means that internet never fails for anyone else anywhere.
well, the part you pointed states 24 hours, so thats not "next friday" though.
there is no uptime sadly or i missed it (havnet read the whole document), but:
Comcast makes no representation regarding the speed of the Internet Service. Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. any factors affect speed including, without limitation, the number of workstations using a single connection.
WOW. our contracts have an "Article" where it states that speeds privided cannot be slower than that of the plan chosen and if any such problem occur due to providers fault it shoudl be remedied as quickly as possible (no time given though) with exception of unreasonable circumstances (like someone stealing the cables or something). the actual situation is that most of the time speeds are higher than per plan due to "hey we got free capacity thats nto used at this moment we may as well let people use it" thinking. the cables are there anyway, and you only need to limit it at peak hours. no doublr speeds or something, but my 50mbps (cheapest) plan goes up to 80mbps sometimes. though for those with 300mbps this probably dont happen. at least i didnt notice when i had that, but that could be due to my limited router back then that i used to connect a laptop+PC combination to.
ANd we do have a clause for 99.9% uptime (because 100% is "unreasonable" according to them), and they deliver by now, that used to be problematic in the past, say, 5 years ago, when once a month it would go out for a few hours or so and thne you could try counting the %, though as far as i know noone sued them yet (our people dont like to sue everyone for everything unlike americans).
And if there is a problem you usually call them and they fix it from thier end over phone. firend onf mine had internet that woudl reset every few hours, so he called them every day, for 2 weeks, they got pissed off and fixed it
Dark blue regions have the most access to internet. That is Canada, Australia, EU, and America. Blue regions have moderate access (South America, Russia). Light blue regions (the rest of the world) have 40% or less internet penetration. In other words, internet is not readily accessible for large regions of the map. Microsoft is cutting out a large customer base.
notice how almost whole europe and parts of asia is darker than america? US is 33rd in the world compared by internet speeds.
While yes, there are large regions that are lighter, you have to look at them. they are usually 3rd/2nd world countries, where most inhabintants would not be affording a console anyway, and those that would likely has internet to begin with. The amount of people who have internet acess is 300 times larger than the amount of people who has current generation consoles (even if we ignore that one person may have multiple consoles and those sales that were made to replace broken one).
Microsoft is cutting out a small userbase who prioritized consoles over internet when they are so poor they cant afford both, but not poor enough to afford at least one. and a few people who need the console on the go (liek soldiers) of course, but i dont think thats ther target audience to begin with with what they been showing us.
Regardless, that still doesn't answer the question. How is someone's gaming experience is improved by being forced to connect once a day? What purpose or benefit does the daily connection serve, other than the server checking for hacked systems?
Its not, there is no benefit of forced used control for the users. Hence me and plenty of other people are not buying it out of the principle and not because we do not fit the requirements.
Still that is not to say that the console will sell poorly because people lack internet - they dont. it will sell poorly because its anti-consumer product.
FreedomofInformation said:
We own a copy of the media to do as we please.
[/img]grumpy cat[/img]
sadly, this statement has been false for quite a few years now.
remember the guy that got jailed for jail-breaking PS3s? he did not have a right to do as he please with hardware that he "owns" because "sony didnt like it".
Akalabeth said:
Deus Ex HR is a recent, new game? Really?
well lets see. it came out August 26, 2011 for EU audience (me). that is less than 2 years ago. Id say thats pretty recent.
Then again, i think Fallout3 is a recent game, and if you want to talk old games, lets talk Return Fire (1996).
Your probably one of those guys "omg its 6 months old, thats old garbage i wont play it".
What you don't understand the principle of convenience. It doesn't affect me, so I don't care. As long as their change is integrated in a seamless way where it doesn't affect me why should it bother me?
government spying on your does not bring inconvienience. People blowing eachother in middle east doesn ot bring us inconvienience. and yet we care. you know why? because convenience is not equal happiness.
Thing is, this shit has happened long ago. It happened when I bought Half Life 2 from a store, was forced to install Steam, and saw that my game didn't actually work off the shelf because the disc only had 95% of the game. Now nearly everyone is ready to bend over for whatever Valve wants and will defend them to their dying breath. Gamers will get over it.
I still dont use Steam. and if i buy a game that requires it, there are ways around it. and yes the disk does hold 100%, they just want to check it with the steam anyway.
That's the thing, Valve killed ownership LONG AGO. Microsoft is simply catching up. But get in any Valve thread and speak against them and what happens? Everyone jumps on you like a pack of wolves.
are you new to escpaist? while admittedly not everyone, but there are plenty of people that hate Valve for this.
That is a pretty good question, if they are still going to have physical media, why not just use that to "lock/unlock" the game as they do now.
you can copy the keys and if them achine does not check online for verification, you can, effectively, have unlimited installs on unlimited machines with same key, even for uillegaly obtained copies. also requires the console to know combinations to check for them for games nto created yet = impossible or extremely restrictive on code generator (which will get cracked). Using server-side checks for that does go around the whole "offline so cant verify if tricked" part.
Atmos Duality said:
Gamestop grew filthy rich by exploiting arbitrage. Normally, I'd agree with those developers and publishers who say that Gamestop is ripping their sales figures a new one, because logically, they were.
However, I don't feel sorry at all for those same publishers when they continued to do business with Gamestop anyway; they're obviously still benefiting from exposure and exclusive deals enough to warrant doing business with them.
and you know why it worked so well? because most games were a one-off 5 hour spectacles, that you woudl trade back in then ext day. if the games were actually attractive enough for you to keep them for, say, a year, the arbitrage market would fall upon itself due to lack of supply. and whne supply finally comes the demand would be too small because we all know games sell over 80% of their sales in first 3 months.