Network now...NEWS
Playfish: “Physical Media Doesn’t Have A Chance”
Speaking at the London Games Conference last night, co-founder and CEO of Facebook game specialist Playfish Kristian Segerstrale told panel chairman Phil Harrison that “physical media doesn’t have a chance in the future”.
It was a sentiment that Runescape maker Jagex CEO Mark Gerhard agreed with, reminding Harrison that he had claimed while head of worldwide studios for SCE that PS4 would have no drive. “I said a lot of stupid things back then,” Harrison joked.
Segerstrale revealed that Playfish’s most popular game, Pet Society, has counted 36 million unique players in the 14 months since its launch and that half of those people had played in the last 30 days.
Asked how many players had paid for microtransactions in their games, Gerhard said that the figure was 20 per cent and rising for Runescape, while Segerstrale said that the numbers were dependent on the country involved, but were usually in the single digits.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
End will come when you provide almost unlimited digital space. If then a next gen physical media can provide 2-10 TB of data storage then I don't see the end in the next ten years [maybe].
Most people prefer something real and tangible that they can hold their hands. Company's that wanting only digital distribution are after one thing "total control". One copy per customer no lending to friends, no competition in retail so no major sales, no second hand market. all this so they can keep prices inflated and consumer has no real ownership. DRM world even without DRM.
The way of the future I don't think so, not for consumer point of view.....
I think Futurist below is correct, things will definitely go all online in the end - but we are still too easily filling up storage and bandwidth with new content and ideas as it becomes available. Until the increase in bandwidth and storage supersedes the creation of new content, things will not go totally online, and I can't see that happening that soon.
Nearly 18 million people have bought Mario Kart Wii. Not bad for a traditional game released via physical media.
Yeah, but he did say "in the future".
I agree with him - physical media will be one of those things the next generation will joke about (like 8 track, cassette tapes, VHS/Betamax, and even CD's now). Although EVERY company is currently making a mess at implementing it properly (in terms of pricing, DRM, portability between devices) I am confident that a model will eventually arise where you own the content and can transfer it to various devices (maybe with a negligible surcharge) - and that will be the death of physical media.
It's definintely going to happen - the only question is how long it will take.
"Never" is a very long time, but physical media will be with us for quite some time. There are many reasons why physical media is still important. Here are a few:
1. Presence: objects tend to have more value to us when it is held or touched. Think about the games you have downloaded on any platform vs. the physical box in your hands. Physicality, in the most literal sense, offers a physical presence in your environment and carries more "weight". Think about music purchases on iTunes vs. CDs. I can tell you most purchases I made on CD but with iTunes? Not a chance.
2. Quality: while this won't be as much of an issue in many games, it is an issue with movies and, to a lesser extent, music. That's not to say it's a totally bad thing; it just demonstrates a shift in the way consumers view their content. Most people are content with MP3 format music for the bulk of their music library, but the quality sucks compared to CD, sucks more compared to DVD Audio, and REALLY sucks compared to vinyl. Movies are even worse. Look at the streaming "HD" movies fro XBox 360, PS3 and Netflix. Yes, the resolution is there (1080P/720P) but the compression is WORSE than standard DVD. For a lot of content, consumers concede the quality, willingly, because immediacy and accessability trumps quality. YouTube proves this. However, when they sit down at home to watch a AAA movie, the equation changes. Netflix streaming looks ok until they pop in a local BluRay. Want to make digital downloads, and even BluRay, look bad? Catch a glimpse of 4K TVs. Uses the same resolution (4x that of 1080p) becoming standard for digital cinema. Compression will not hold up on a screen with that kind of resolution. Not for MANY years.
Again for many types of content (artifacting in an episode of The Office is not soul crushing), download/streaming is fine. For others, it is unwatchable.
3. Space: those of you reading this are probably gamers and consumers of more media than the average user. How many of you have filled up your 500GB/1TB drives at home already? My XBox 360 and PS3 are already straining. Yes, storage may be cheap, but it is always limited. To be clear, I can fit more games on my shelf than I can on my console. Today.
4. Damned ISPs: even with the small percentage of downloaded content vs. physical media, the ISPs are all screaming. When caps are enforced, QoS across the backbone is compromised due to mass consumption of uncompressed HD, full BluRay capacity games, etc. watch caps become enforced.
I believe that, eventually, most everything will be out on the network. It is where we are going. Kristian and Mark are both correct in their assessment that, for their products, online completely works. Their content is lightweight in size and modest in requirements. But their games are built around the notion of being online as their games are, well, online social games, and their requirements fit neatly in current delivery platforms.
"the quality sucks compared to CD, sucks more compared to DVD Audio, and REALLY sucks compared to vinyl"
Going to be a bit pedantic now, but could you clarify what you meant by "REALLY sucks" in your reference to vinyl - implying vinyl has superior sounds quality to CD?
Vinyl does in fact have a greater frequency response than cd which is capped at 24kHz due to it's sampling rate. A good vinyl pressing lathe will go up to 80,000 cycles. Certainly we can't hear that high, but those high frequencies harmonically affect the ones we can.
On your average stereo with an average turntable cds will sound better but on a higher quality system (we're only talking thousands of $$ here) vinyl will beat cd every time. This isn't subjective either - you would pick it in a blind test.
CD's just sound better on shitty systems is all, and handle scratches better.
I don't mean to cause offence, but your statement:
"Certainly we can't hear that high, but those high frequencies harmonically affect the ones we can"
Is completely incorrect. If we can't hear the higher harmonics, we can't hear the effect they have on the lower frequencies we can hear. To give a fuller explanation of what I stated in a post below.
Say you have a sound made up of the following frequencies 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 (all kHz). Then the waveform (the sound) that results will be a superposition (an interference) between these frequencies - as you correctly state. However, say you now passed that wave through a filter that only responds to frequencies below say 40kHz. Clearly the 50kHz and 100kHz frequencies will be removed, but because these frequencies have been removed, they cannot interfere with the remaining lower frequencies - i.e. their effects on these low frequencies are also removed. Essentially, the resulting 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 (all kHz) wave that is produced by the filter would be indistinguishable from a wave that only ever had those frequencies present (never had the 50kHz and 100kHz frequencies). We could take a wave, add higher harmonics to it (which modifies the wave) and them remove them again using a filter, and you wouldn't be able to distinguish the initial wave from the final wave. Once those higher frequencies are gone, they and all their effects are gone. Thus, because the ear only responds to frequencies below 20kHz, all those higher harmonics - and crucially all their effects on the lower ones due to superposition - will be totally removed and the resulting sound will be indistinguishable from one which never had those higher harmonics to start with.
To summarise, whoever has told you that the higher frequencies affect the lower ones is correct. However, what they haven't told you is the crucial fact that the human ear cannot detect those effects - what we hear is exactly the same as what we would hear if those higher frequencies never existed. A CD which supported frequencies up to 100kHz would sound exactly the same to us as a normal CD, which only supports up to 24kHz, because the higher frequencies - and their effect - cannot be detected by our ear. Thus the larger range of vinyl is irrelevant. That's why CDs only go up to 24kHz, it wasn't a technical limitation, they could have gone well in excess of vinyl, it was just pointless to do so. Yes they wouldn't have been able to hold the same length (although they may have been able to make it work with engineering), but then why haven't DVDs subsequently gone to higher frequencies and we all buy our music as well as our films on DVD - again because it would be pointless. Please see my other response below for a summary of this and discussions regarding the other aspects of why vinyl sounds different to CD.
Interesting comments re sampling frequencies. An example of where they fall over is how the major difference between the industry standard bearer Yamaha PM5 digital audio console (100's of thousands of $$) and the Yamaha M7CL console (10's of thousands) is that the PM5 samples at 96kHz whereas the M7 samples at 48kHz. This results in a less "brittle" top end, and more interestingly, smoother bottom end.
Recording at 96kHz offers a vastly superior result also. I've extensively used the Mackie 24/96 hard disc multitrack recorders to record all sorts (eg New Zealand Symphony Orchestra), they have Apogee ADA converters (among the best) and offer switchable 48/96kHz sampling to conserve space and the difference between the two sampling rates is obvious even to the untrained ear.
Also we may not "hear" above 20,000 cycles, but we can feel it in our teeth and bones, and that impacts on our perception of what we hear.
I'm not talkig about sampling frequency, that's a different (but related) issue, I'm talking about the signal frequencies (the frequencies that make up your signal, not the frequency at which you sample the signal). Sampling a continuous frequency into a discrete signal, as happens with CD, is dependent on the Nyquist Theory. Yes you're right, sampling at a higher frequency will give you a better result (ideally at least twice the frequency of the highest frequency you wish to sample) which explains why a higher sampling frequency gives a better sound - it more accurately represents the higher frequencies you're trying to record. But we're not talking about sampling frequency for recording (the maximum CD sampling frequency describes the waveform up to 24kHz more than adequately), we're talking about the frequency content of the played sound. When the signal isn't sampled correctly we don't hear the 24kHz sound properly, but I'm saying, as long as you have sampled correctly (which does happen for the best systems) so that the maximum 24kHz is reproduced correctly, the human ear cannot detect anything above this frequency, regardless of how well those frequencies are sampled. Therefore, provided the upper signal frequency is sampled correctly (which we have seen is a different, albeit related problem) the CD reproduces the sound better than the human ear could actually hear it. Increasing the desired maximum PLAYED frequency above 24kHz, which would require increasing the SAMPLING frequency to avoid aliasing (two different but related frequencies), would make no difference to what we hear because we can't hear those higher frequencies.
Good point about the physical effects though. Personally I'm not convinced they make an effect, I think our ear detects the maximum and minimum frequency our body could detect (otherwise it's not really doing it's job!). As an example, you can't "feel" a high frequency cat deterrent when you walk past it. So I still think you can reproduce any physical effect with a pertinently chosen equaliser set up, it's just easier with vinyl because it does that naturally.
Agree. A few years ago, a hi-fi enthusiast friend of mine took me to a Linn showroom where you could bring in your own vinyl records, put together a (hugely expensive) Linn sound system of your choice, and listen to your music in a room furnished and carpeted like an average living room.
Whilst I'm not going to get into the cd v vinyl debate, I strongly suggest to anyone who says cd is better than vinyl to listen to what I heard that day. Before then, I just never thought vinyl could sound like that. Blew cd out of the water was what it did.
omg dont start a cd vs vinyl war lol.
In theory cd is better quality but vinyl offers a unique sound that cant be imitated. There was a gadget show feature on this (CD/Vinyl/MP3) i forget the outcome but it pretty much comes down to personal preference.
Also MP3 quality depends on the Kb/P/S rate.
Too late.
I seem to be in a willy waving battle too, waving my willy around.. (c:
It's not theory it's fact. Vinyl has greater frequency range than CD, CD greater than MP3. What CD has over vinyl is that it reproduces the same sound every time vs. environmentals that can effect a vinyl playback each time (needle thickness, reverb, cutting the vinyl, etc. Think about a tuning knob on a receiver that is analog vs. one that is digital. Analog always has variance, digital hits the mark each time.
Recognizing loss in a track has a lot to do with the kind of music you are talking about (e.g. a recording of a live 3 piece jazz trio vs. a DJ Tiesto track). As for MP3 quality, of course it depends on the sample rate. However, at the end of the day, regardless of the compression/bit rate, you are still compressing audio and compressed ALWAYS means you sacrifice quality. Always.
Having said all of that, I have not played vinyl records in my home for over 28 years as most of what I listen to is electronica and pop. :)
Well at least you're redeeming your name by listening to electronica. :0
A bit off topic, I stumbled across a UK artist called Little Boots yesterday that does electronica/pop. Is she big in the UK or is Little Boots a niche band?
Yeah, that's what it comes down to. Convenience. I haven't even played my cd's since ripping em to 320kbs mp3's.
I like having em though, just like I like having the game box and manual.
People, I appreciate your input but there are several misnomers being claimed here. I have spent a considerable amount of time researching this topic, and I mean reading actual technical/scientific journals, not just reading the internet and accepting everything as gospel! Unfortunately the Internet tends to perpertrate these "myths". Let me explain.
Firstly, those who say that the total range of vinyl is superior to CD are correct, however, as has been pointed out, humans can't hear anything beyond 20kHz or so (those of you into loud music, probably even lower!). The claim that these "higher harmonics" can affect the frequencies in our audible range has been studied but has absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it. In fact, as I will discuss below (and in more detail in a post above), it's impossible if you actually understand the theory. Whoever has merely stated to you that the higher range is significant because the higher harmonics modify the sound, without giving you some reliable evidence, is being wholly disingenuous. In theory the higher harmonics could, by interference, affect the lower ones, but in controlled tests, on humans, no evidence has been found for a noticeable affect. In fact, it would be a surprise to find an effect, the reason being, if you add a higher harmonic to a waveform, then pass it through a low-pass filter, the resultant waveform will be identical to the initial one before the higher harmonic was added. This is what happens with the human ear. All those higher harmonics may well modify the waveform significantly before is reaches our ear, but when they pass through the human ear (effectively a low pass filter - well strictly band-pass), they will all be removed (because our ear can't respond to them) and the resultant sound is exactly the same as that which would occur if the higher harmonics were never present in the first place. In other words, it's an urban myth with no scientific support, because these higher harmonics couldn't possibly affect what we hear.
A more important value than the absolute range is the Dynamic Range - essentially this defines what you can actually hear above the background noise - it is far superior in CDs - typically something like 150dB to 80dB. In other words, vinyl may have a greater range, but because its dynamic range is so poor, you can't actually hear the effect above background noise.
Finally, to those who use the empirical test of "vinyl just sounds better side by side" there is a very simple reason for this. Because of the poor dynamic range, particularly the low end frequencies, in most - especially high end - sound systems there are post-amplifiers to artificially bump up these frequencies to compensate for this, and because these frequencies are popular they tend to be over compensated deliberately - giving you that "preferable" sound. This is the cause of the unmistakable vinyl sound that people like. This sound is not what was intended in the studio, it is the result of post-amplification by your sound system, because CDs don't have to do this post-amplification, they tend to just reproduce the sound and let you adjust the equaliser to your preference. Of course what this means is that, if you carefully mapped your CDs equaliser, granted not a simple task (and would need to be different for every different set up), you could pretty much exactly reproduce the effect and hear no difference between the two - even add a bit of carefully tailored noise if you like the crackle.
Let me summarise, there are a lot of false claims made about vinyl that unfortunately propagate quickly and become accepted, largely thanks to overzealous and less than rigorous (biased?) people on the internet. Nearly all of these are false, with no scientific evidence supporting them and often evidence to the contrary. The simple fact is, if you are aiming to reproduce a sound (in terms of human hearing) as closely as possible, say the recording studio, CDs are your best bet. You can even make a CD sound pretty identical to vinyl if you put a hell of a lot of effort into analysing your vinyl set up and then adjusting your CDs equaliser very carefully. But crucially you couldn't do this in reverse because vinyl doesn't have a high enough dynamic range, which is the limiting factor.
Having said all that, I am about to completely contradict myself and say that, I still hate CD DJs! It's vinyl or nothing, otherwise you're just a glorified iPod!
Just to clear it up, I don't get this information from the internet, I am a sound engineer of 20 years (recording studio and sound design for theatre as well as large scale outdoor rock concerts) with a degree in acoustics.
This isn't from the internet, that's my exact point. I dint want to resort to playing top trumps with qualifications/experience, but since you've gone there, I'm a Dr of Physics and I'm telling you that, whatever you have been told as part of your profession, while the higher harmonics are present in the waveform, and could be detected by a device with a high enough bandwidth, (that part of what you say is correct) it is physically impossible for the higher harmonics (and the effect they have) to be detected by the human ear. It's a bit difficult to explain on here without being able to use diagrams and the mathematical theory, but I repeat, to the human ear, the extra frequency range of vinyl over CDs is completely indistinguishable. The difference in sound is due to other effect that can, albeit with difficulty, be reproduced by a CD.
Your #4 is the biggest reason. I read an article about AT&T over how strained their 3G network is and that something around 3% of their userbase, the iPhone users, are creating most of the traffic.
All good points, but I can't get over the fact that the guy arguing against the end of physical media is called "Futurist". :)
:) Not arguing against the end of physical media, just pointing out why it will take longer than most believe it will. It will all come down to compromise on both sides of the equation. Again, as I stated at the end of my post, most everything will sit in the network, it will just take time, new technology and, unfortunately, legislation.
I agree with you, it will happen one day but its a long way off.
I seem to remember uproar about 3 years ago about the death of the physical newspaper, yet theres still 10 tons of Metro papers cleared out of the tube system EVERYDAY