shocking i say SHOCKING! that a scam isn't a huge revenue stream for a shit company.

You can almost hear the disappointment, can't you?

I love how he says "probably 10-15 million". 5 million dollars is a pretty huge gap. So either he's pulling that number out of his backside or their accounting is really terrible. I also love this choice quote:

"Brown pointed out that the above figure is "found revenue" that comes from users who previously "consumed bandwidth for free"."

You mean the bandwidth that has a near zero cost now? Or the fact that many of these people PAY for Xbox Live and that it was EA's CHOICE AND INSISTENCE to host their own servers instead of using Microsoft's? Or the fact that most of your major franchises were profitable before you implemented Online Pass? Cry me a river.

Maybe EA should be spend less resources on this and more on perhaps actually marketing the litany of awesome EA Partner's titles in the last year that bombed and cost them a fortune because they didn't bother to tell anyone they existed.

Its nice to hear online pass is not making money because it sure as hell is not making gaming any better. My dad plays xbox ( i know - he is 64 so lay off me please) and the only games he owns is Bad Company 2 (he pre-ordered BF3!!) and since they started muffing around with their server he has gone from always being able to connect to EA to almost never. It is stupid how bad it has gotten. I feel bad for the guy. He will sit on the couch re-starting his 360 for as long as it takes for him to get on. I think EA hates old people. Plain and simple. Its all a conspiracy to slowly drive my father even more insane.

Bandwidth has 0 cost? Thats complete nonsense.

Read and weep
http://fishtrain.com/2008/01/17/the-impact-of-bandwidth-costs/

eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 8, 2011, 12:09:
Bandwidth has 0 cost? Thats complete nonsense.

Read and weep
http://fishtrain.com/2008/01/17/the-impact-of-bandwidth-costs/

Nice article from almost 5 years ago. Back then, yes bandwith cost more than it did now. Today the price per GB is well under a dime and getting lower. It's not free, but it does not cost much.

"Brown pointed out that the above figure is "found revenue" that comes from users who previously "consumed bandwidth for free"."

Shouldent the cost of the game cover this? How have FPS game servers been running since the late 90's with no extra cost to the user other than their on net connection and the cost of the game?

EA you FORCE yourself to run the servers because you do not let users run their own servers then bitch that its costing you money. Then you start charging for it and get mad that people have finally clued in and gave you the middle finger?

eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 8, 2011, 12:09:
Bandwidth has 0 cost? Thats complete nonsense.

Read and weep
http://fishtrain.com/2008/01/17/the-impact-of-bandwidth-costs/

Modern bandwidth costs are fairly insignificant. EA could probably invest in a transit provider even to further minimize them. Most of the capital assets required have already been made unless you're talking about wireless in which case its a whole different ballgame. You should take your own advice and read up before linking google results

EA you FORCE yourself to run the servers because you do not let users run their own servers then bitch that its costing you money. Then you start charging for it and get mad that people have finally clued in and gave you the middle finger?

Exactly. It has nothing to do with cost, its about control.

I have wonder how someone at THQ can be so clueless. Cloud computing can't work without a fast internet and an unrestricted one. ISPs on the other hand are getting closer and closer to putting limits on traffic on the net. You already have them in Canada and I don't think the US is far behind.

Throwing the bandwidth is cheap argument does nothing to change the reality that these big ISP's seem to be getting their way in charging for it. It is not what it costs you, but who you have in your back pocket that counts.

Flying cars and hover boards are also around the corner.

Suckage wrote on Sep 8, 2011, 16:34:
Flying cars and hover boards are also around the corner.

Well, auto-lace shoes come out tomorrow, so there's that.


Cloud computing is the future. I do not think the next-gen consoles will dump discs. Too soon. Even when they do they'll keep HDDs for downloading. But clouds are coming.

Beamer wrote on Sep 8, 2011, 16:59:

Suckage wrote on Sep 8, 2011, 16:34:
Flying cars and hover boards are also around the corner.

Well, auto-lace shoes come out tomorrow, so there's that.


Cloud computing is the future. I do not think the next-gen consoles will dump discs. Too soon. Even when they do they'll keep HDDs for downloading. But clouds are coming.

Clouds are already here and heavily in use. By corporations.

But for the consumer? I seriously doubt it. Hard to do everything "in the cloud" when your ISP lets you use 150GB of data a month and then starts charging you a 10000% markup on every GB of data you use.

onLive may have wet dreams of everyone playing their games solely on their shitty service, but if not everybody CAN, then not everybody WILL either.

Creston

But for the consumer? I seriously doubt it. Hard to do everything "in the cloud" when your ISP lets you use 150GB of data a month and then starts charging you a 10000% markup on every GB of data you use.

That's today, and even then most are above 150GB if they even have a limit. I'm pretty sure most American ISPs do not.

What will that limit be 10 years from now?

It'll be as low as they can possibly make it to squeeze people which is already happening in places. Companies are sick of wireline no longer making bank, they are only going to get more and more aggressive with caps as time goes on. Consumers are mostly ignorant about the issue, Canada and some states are perfect test cases where it's going on right now.

Fair enough But Bandwidth of cloud services and other providers (akamai etc) is not "near 0" and this is what big companies likely use, unless they have their own data-centers and ISP contracts. Even then that is not even remotely anywhere near 0 cost.

Before posting that i checked the Amazon cloud calculator and BW prices are still the same.

Beamer wrote on Sep 8, 2011, 18:34:
That's today, and even then most are above 150GB if they even have a limit. I'm pretty sure most American ISPs do not.

What will that limit be 10 years from now?

IF the ISPs have their way, it will be 4GB. Have a look at the wireless providers for a prime example of charging out the fucking ass for absolutely nothing. The big telcos would LOVE to go that exact same fucking route. Offer higher speeds and lower limits to downloading, so that people can basically NEVER use it, while you still get to charge them for it. It's every corporation's wet dream.

As for "Most American ISPs do not", that's kind of a hollow statement. 2 out of the top 3 providers already do, and the third one is still "testing." (Ie, will implement it soon.) Together they reach... what, nearly a majority of the market?

Sure, small time providers will likely stay cap free, but can they ever compete with the big guys? I think looking at the wireless providers will again show that they likely can't.

So unless something drastically changes (like, I dunno, maybe a fucking President keeping his damn promises), I don't think it's going to get better.

Creston

Have a look at the wireless providers for a prime example of charging out the fucking ass for absolutely nothing.

Actually they have limited bandwith and are terrified of exceeding it. Terrified.

It's every corporation's wet dream.

You have a very warped view of what corporations want.

You have a very warped view of what corporations want.

Says the lapdog. If you think corporations aren't going to squeeze wireline then you're an idiot.