Xbox 720 and PS4 will be the last traditional home consoles, says Nvidia

richymcdermott

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/xbox-720-and-ps4-will-the-last-traditional-home-consoles-says-nvidia

personally i dont think consoles are going anywhere anytime soon and personally dont wanna see them go anywhere

thoughts?

dclewis

really love the image of the console they have in the picture there. looks real futuristic

Myrddin

The company's head of cloud gaming

Ah, I see

Mr E

Moved: Nintendo >> Games.

richymcdermott

Mr E wrote: »

Moved: Nintendo >> Games.

Was wondering where i posted it ...whoops :pac:

Helix

said that years ago

it'll definitely be the case imo

ScumLord

I think he's a bit optimistic, it will happen but I don't see the entire planet getting the required infrastructure in the space of ten years which would probably be the lifespan of the next generation of consoles.

I'm sure an online service will be there in 10 years but only open to the countries that have invested in the necessary infrastructure like most of Europe, the states and Asian countries. I don't think they'll be over looking the emerging African nations.

Although 5G may be around by then which could fix the problem but there's always going to be a transition period.

ShadowHearth

did he heard about place called ireland? people here are still call 3mbit stable connection a "very good and solid internet".
It is very optimistic. he still forgets about a little detail that not everything is connected to the internet and never will be.

then again wouldnt that be a very grim future for nvidia? where people dont need to buy their hardware anymore? ( consoles did used nvidia GPUs ). what will happen with pc gaming?

marshbaboon

He knows nothing, cloud gaming isn't the future. Free to play games are the future.

ScumLord

ShadowHearth wrote: »

then again wouldnt that be a very grim future for nvidia? where people dont need to buy their hardware anymore? ( consoles did used nvidia GPUs ).

The servers running the games will still run on Nvidia hardware. Instead of selling millions of cheap consumer cards they'll sell thousands of high end GPUs to gaming providers that could cost thousands. They wouldn't be promoting the idea if they didn't know how to make money off it.

The internet will become ubiquitous with the technology that's coming in the next decade, even fabrics could be connected to the internet. There's some crazy technology on the way, by the end of this century even people will be biologically connected to the internet.

ShadowHearth

ScumLord wrote: »

The servers running the games will still run on Nvidia hardware. Instead of selling millions of cheap consumer cards they'll sell thousands of high end GPUs to gaming providers that could cost thousands. They wouldn't be promoting the idea if they didn't know how to make money off it.

The internet will become ubiquitous with the technology that's coming in the next decade, even fabrics could be connected to the internet. There's some crazy technology on the way, by the end of this century even people will be biologically connected to the internet.

tell it to my neighbour dont the road, who barely gets 3mbit line and eircom is the only provider...

ofc it will improve in 10++ years, but i still cant see internet replacing hardware completely.

ScumLord

ShadowHearth wrote: »

ofc it will improve in 10++ years, but i still cant see internet replacing hardware completely.

The technology that will allow it to happen is being developed, we're not talking about the internet as it is now.

blatantrereg

It's to stop piracy really. That idea is discussed on this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055885820

titan18

Considering consoles are lasting about 10+ years, I see it as inevitable tbh. This is 2025 or so we're talking about. 13 years is a long time, consider where technology and the internet were 13 years ago. If that sort of advancement continues, I'd be surprised if a console was needed.

K.O.Kiki

All I'll say is:

YOU CAN PRY THE GAMEPAD FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7hkwbKmBM

You'll NEVER get this hype with cloud gaming.

hightower1

Head of cloud gaming for Nvidia says cloud gaming is the future.... SHOCKING :eek:

Bottom line is cloud gaming is fundamentally flawed and the biggest one being that console manufactures are NOT going to switch to a business model that means they will sell less than their current model. Its just business sense.

Until every single person on the planet has access to a residential Internet connection then physical hardware will always trump it by the virtue of the fact that if you own a power socket and a TV thats currently the only requirement to hand cash over to a company to use and own a console.

Even if this was ever the case then consumers will be reluctant to leave go of physical media seeing as they will be shooting themselves in the foot by giving up resellers and again... if the consumer will not want it, the consumer will not buy it meaning the manufacturer will not invest in it.


The very closest we will get to this business model is a hybrid of DD through proprietry home spaces like XBL, PSN etc and physical media.



also, he looks like the love child of Alex Murphy and David Mitchell

death1234567

richymcdermott wrote: »

personally i dont think consoles are going anywhere anytime soon and personally dont wanna see them go anywhere
thoughts?

My first thought that in about ten years time isn't anytime soon. Of course consoles are going to go by the wayside. With Cloud technology it means you can completely remove the need for someone to have a CPU/Memory/GPU box in their own living room. There might still be an option to buy a PS5 if you don't have the required internet facilities (e.g. in poorer countries) but in the big markets like Japan, USA cloud gaming means, no piracy, cheaper costs, bigger profit margins, digital distirubtion and virtually no negatives.

Its like prediciting the end of DVD players, I mean who the f$%k will own one of them in ten years? Why would consoles be any different.

ScumLord

hightower1 wrote: »

Bottom line is cloud gaming is fundamentally flawed and the biggest one being that console manufactures are NOT going to switch to a business model that means they will sell less than their current model. Its just business sense.

They can try and impose all the business sense they want but should look to music and film as a warning of where they'll end up if they do.

If they try to belligerently hold onto their console model it leaves the door open for someone else to step in with a cloud based service. The cloud based system does require an infrastructure but it's being built and is already built in some counties. It will happen, I reckon Microsoft have the resources to shut the door on everybody else so it would be in Sonys interests to get there first.

Varik

They're just pissed that Sony and MS are rumoured to be using GPUs from AMD.

J. Marston

I don't like change.

hightower1

ScumLord wrote: »

They can try and impose all the business sense they want but should look to music and film as a warning of where they'll end up if they do.

death1234567 wrote: »

Its like prediciting the end of DVD players, I mean who the f$%k will own one of them in ten years? Why would consoles be any different.

You see ye are both trying to draw comparisons between other entertainment business models simply because the distro media element (CD's) are similar, but thats where the similarities stop.

Neither the DVD movies industry nor the physical music industry had at any stage a widespread, lucrative or prominent resale element as a core circle of the ecosystem. All you need to is look at the reported earnings from the pre-owned retailers to see just how fundamental a part of the gaming industry physical media is.

A no physical media model is fraught with difficulties unique to the gaming industry. For example the typical game costs 60eur which for the typical consumer age - is a sizable amount of their monthly disposable spending power. With the safety net of "well if its bad I can always trade it in later" those consumers are far more likely to play a new franchise or enter into a franchise that they may be new too. While this hurts the dev / publisher if the game is traded in and rebought later it hurts them far less than if there are far less initial sales of the disc due to people not "risking" a large slice of their monthly disposable cash on something they may or may not like.

You can take that to its logical conclusion where devs / publishers would be less likely to create new franchises due to less adventurous consumers. You would see more games created like COD where they promote year long play through online MP and thus giving a far higher chance the disc will not be traded back. The devs / publishers still want to generate revenue however so you see even more pervasive subscription schemes set up like battlefield premium and COD elite ensuring the one game make a continuous stream of revenue. You can see the long term effect of that on the likes of Activision where they now are so dependent on that business model that they effectively only release one physical game per year (and subsequently have only one point of risk where the consumer can trade back) then attempt to generate revenue with elite / map packs.

So sure, go cloud gaming. Reduce consumer spending on "riskier" titles or new unknown IP's because they cant trade back. Encourage more models like COD and elite. Personally I call that the quickest route to killing the gaming industry imaginable but thats just me.

ScumLord

hightower1 wrote: »

Neither the DVD movies industry nor the physical music industry had at any stage a widespread, lucrative or prominent resale element as a core circle of the ecosystem.

It's not part of the developers ecosystem and they want to see that stop. They think it's hurting their bottom line.

A cloud based system would allow you to rent the game or buy a cheaper time limited version of the game. The options open to them is limitless compared to selling disks. They could run a subscription based system, they could simply sell the game, they could rent it. They'll find a way to get at peoples money and with reduced overheads they can afford to take those risks. It's already happening.

The market will find a way to attract people in. Already with steam you can trade off games. Steam highlights the benefits of having your gaming collection online, I see the consoles following suite and it's only a matter of time before someone starts offering total online gaming.

It's where the money is, console sales aren't really where the money is, it's the over priced licensed games that generate the biggest profits in the same way your printer isn't where HP makes their money (the printer is in fact subsidised) they make their money off the ink cartridges.

Whatever presents the biggest profit for the companies in charge is what will ultimately dictate where gaming ends up. People won't stop playing games so these companies can do what they like because the consumer has no choice in the matter they've been caught hook line and sinker.

hightower1

ScumLord wrote: »

it's only a matter of time before someone starts offering total online gaming.

Yeah, twas called OnLive, and we all know what happened them. In the end they had literally a few thousand subscribers. They offered cheap cloud gaming services that gave the same graphical fidelity as the current gen, same range of titles with the same features but no one wanted it.

You could think that sony or MS could throw more cash behind an en devour like on live but no matter how much cash was thrown at the model we already saw the demand just wasnt there. I can see the virtue of a hybrid system - in fact Id promote it, more choice for the consumer is never bad but and entire cloud gaming service wasnt and still isnt viable.


The only way I would consider it would be a manufacturer coming out with the hardware that impressed in a big way and two guarantees.... 1. that there would be absolutely no difference between playing a proposed game online as opposed to local storage and 2. that the games were priced 20eur or below. As it is I can buy a new game in HMV for 45eur, trade it in a week or two later and get average 25 eur back on trade in so if cloud didnt offer the same level of value I (and I would guess most) would say "screw that noise".

desaparecidos

marshbaboon wrote: »

He knows nothing, cloud gaming isn't the future. Free to play games are the future.

I hope not, because all they are is pay to win.

Helix

hightower1 wrote: »

Until every single person on the planet has access to a residential Internet connection then physical hardware will always trump it by the virtue of the fact that if you own a power socket and a TV thats currently the only requirement to hand cash over to a company to use and own a console.

the vast majority of people playing current gen games DO have access to a residential internet connection. 78% of playstation 3s ever bought are online. factor in ylod machines, and the percentage of ps3 owners online is even higher. 73% of xbox 360s bought are online. factor in rrod machines (of which there were many) and you've got a huge online adoption rate.

people always throw out things like developing countries when it comes to cloud gaming negatives. newsflash - people in developing countries who can afford consoles have the internet, people in developing countries who don't have the internet, can't afford consoles

sony, nintendo and microsoft don't give a toss about developing nations. that's not where they make their money. their income comes from people who are already armed with capable internet connections

ScumLord

hightower1 wrote: »

I can see the virtue of a hybrid system - in fact Id promote it, more choice for the consumer is never bad but and entire cloud gaming service wasnt and still isnt viable.

We're not talking about now, we're talking about ten years time, the internet has changed a lot in the past ten years and it's going to change as much again in the next ten years. We can expect much higher bandwidth and much smaller and more powerful devices. In ten years your tv will be at least as powerful as today's xbox making it a very viable platform for cloud based gaming.

Arrow in the Knee

Sure its all in the cloud :pac:

The obvious downside is that if you want to play a game you need very good broadband connection to access the cloud to play the game.

At home I'm getting 600-700kbps broadband speed so it would be unrealistic for me to play in the cloud.

I would still prefer the console eventhough the Xbox 360 makes some noise when on.

I'll have to play with myself!!!

Helix

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

At home I'm getting 600-700kbps broadband speed so it would be unrealistic for me to play in the cloud.

if that's your download speed rather than your line speed it should be fine for cloud gaming

Magill

Helix wrote: »

if that's your download speed rather than your line speed it should be fine for cloud gaming

Yeah.. until someone starts watching youtube videos or downloading movies. Im on a 60 meg connection and it becomes impossible to play online games once someone starts downloading.

Personally i don't think the infrastructure will be ready to support an exclusive cloud gaming industry by the end of next gen. It may well be a competitive option, but i still think there will be at least one home console released.

We'll just have to wait and see tho.

Myrddin

Cloud gaming, I dunno, its a nice idea & all, but at the end of the day:

If the service goes down - YOU have no access to YOUR games.
If your connection does down - YOU have no access to YOUR games.

Have you ever heard how frantic people get is SEN/PSN is down for maintenance? And thats only multiplayer unavailable! Imagine nothing available in the situation.

I like to own & possess whatever games I buy. Big name operators arn't exactly strangers to falling out of the video game business either. Imagine SEGA had a cloud service all those years ago, & people were lapping up their games digitally {much the way they are now}, then SEGA pulled out from the hardware end of things, where would it have left all those people with digital games & nowhere to play them? Thankfully instead, those games can be played today hail rain or snow even on original hardware.

Again I like the convenience of Cloud Gaming, it also rules out lost/damaged media which is a big plus. The big minus though, is your at the mercy of a service that can & does fail from time to time.

desaparecidos

Contention.

The only reason your 5mb / 10mb / 20mb / 60mb connection works so well is because a large chunk of the other users are off playing games :pac:

It wouldn't work so great if those games were delivered by high resolution streams over the net. Infrastructure just isn't there for mass adoption of cloud games / movies / whatever, bar a few select urban areas around the world.

Arrow in the Knee

Helix wrote: »

if that's your download speed rather than your line speed it should be fine for cloud gaming

600-700kbps is my line speed.

And they call that broadband speed!!! :pac: :pac:

Myrddin

Helix wrote: »

the vast majority of people playing current gen games DO have access to a residential internet connection. 78% of playstation 3s ever bought are online. factor in ylod machines, and the percentage of ps3 owners online is even higher. 73% of xbox 360s bought are online. factor in rrod machines (of which there were many) and you've got a huge online adoption rate.

people always throw out things like developing countries when it comes to cloud gaming negatives. newsflash - people in developing countries who can afford consoles have the internet, people in developing countries who don't have the internet, can't afford consoles

sony, nintendo and microsoft don't give a toss about developing nations. that's not where they make their money. their income comes from people who are already armed with capable internet connections

I think you need to come back Ireland for a while, maybe spend a week or two in Killarney or something & come back to us It's pretty shocking here outside of Dublin in many places

ScumLord

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

Sure its all in the cloud :pac:

The obvious downside is that if you want to play a game you need very good broadband connection to access the cloud to play the game.

At home I'm getting 600-700kbps broadband speed so it would be unrealistic for me to play in the cloud.

Ye're still all making the mistake of saying it won't work because look at my broadband now. It would be like dismissing mobile computing 10 years ago because the hardwares to big and there's no wireless internet options at all.

We'll soon have 4G which will be followed by 5G, the internet infrastructure is always being upgraded and in 10 years time you'll probably have a redundant system that has the option of multiple possibilities for connecting to the internet.

10 years is an awful long time in technology, ten years from now our world will look as different to us as it looked ten years ago.

Myrddin

ScumLord wrote: »

ten years from now our world will look as different to us as it looked ten years ago.

More reliable consoles, more privacy/less online intrusion, you got physical media, and facebook was where it belonged. Here's to 2002!

Joking aside though, fibre to the home is the future...not 4/5G. Trust Ireland to be heading in the wrong direction

hightower1

Helix wrote: »

the vast majority of people playing current gen games DO have access to a residential internet connection. 78% of playstation 3s ever bought are online. factor in ylod machines, and the percentage of ps3 owners online is even higher. 73% of xbox 360s bought are online. factor in rrod machines (of which there were many) and you've got a huge online adoption rate.

people always throw out things like developing countries when it comes to cloud gaming negatives. newsflash - people in developing countries who can afford consoles have the internet, people in developing countries who don't have the internet, can't afford consoles

sony, nintendo and microsoft don't give a toss about developing nations. that's not where they make their money. their income comes from people who are already armed with capable internet connections

Even if your figures are correct that still a loss of over 25% of the current userbase. Id challenge anyone one to pitch a business model to any large company that proposes a 25% user base loss over their current model. Bear in mind too that the console manufacturers actually stand to gain very little from this whole endeavor. The will make a small percentage on hosting the developers games on their ecosystems but a large chunk of that will have to go back into the massive rise in cost of maintaining that eco system (security, huge server banks located in many sites per country to keep latency down, routing and peering costs etc).

So if the console manufacturers dont gain enough from this, they loose at least 25% of their userbase, the consumer looses the flexibility of physical media being able to be traded, and consumer spending gets more conservative....who DOES win from all this? - Developers.

For developers its the easy way out, passing the buck as it were. Instead of providing long lasting, high quality and engaging single / MP experiences they look at the problem being people trading in games where in actual fact the problem is their making games that people WANT to trade in.

Its easy for devs to say "oh if sony or microsoft made only online consoles we'd stop trade ins" because all the work is up to someone else, the consumers pay the price and the manufactures that the userbase hit.

Take borderlands as an example, an excellent single player game thats long lasting and engaging. I will most definitely be holding on to this and pick up DLC as it comes because I know they released excellent DLC for borderlands While I didnt play that game or its DLC I am confident it will enhance my experience. Creating games like this is why people hold on to discs and it would serve some in the industry far better to learn by their example rather than look at manufacturers and tyr blame the use of trade-able media for their own short comings.


NB- also your not taking into account broadband network demographics. If one doesnt have broadband of a reasonable quality they dont necessarily have to be living in a third world country. Ireland is a prime example of this due to the geographical layout and population dispersion. Its cost effective to roll out a decent fiber network to a densely populated area but as the population becomes more dispersed your costs increase and uptake / revenue return drops so many companies simply wont bring a network to areas that the cost outweighs the benefit. Ireland is hardly third world but there are larges sections of the population that cannot get decent broadband but are more than able to purchase (and do) games consoles. Mid America is in a very similar situation as too are any countries with significant populations dispersed oved large areas away from main cities.

Helix

Magill wrote: »

Yeah.. until someone starts watching youtube videos or downloading movies. Im on a 60 meg connection and it becomes impossible to play online games once someone starts downloading.

that's your own internal network problem though. limit downloads to 500-700kb/sec less than your line's maximum and you'll have absolutely no problems

it baffles me that people roll out the whole "oh sure i cant play when people are downloading" thing. of course you bloody can't, the downloads are set up to use ALL the bandwidth available ffs. you could have a 1gb line and you'll still have the same issue

Helix

hightower1 wrote: »

Even if your figures are correct that still a loss of over 25% of the current userbase. Id challenge anyone one to pitch a business model to any large company that proposes a 25% user base loss over their current model. Bear in mind too that the console manufacturers actually stand to gain very little from this whole endeavor. The will make a small percentage on hosting the developers games on their ecosystems but a large chunk of that will have to go back into the massive rise in cost of maintaining that eco system (security, huge server banks located in many sites per country to keep latency down, routing and peering costs etc).

So if the console manufacturers dont gain enough from this, they loose at least 25% of their userbase, the consumer looses the flexibility of physical media being able to be traded, and consumer spending gets more conservative....who DOES win from all this? - Developers.

For developers its the easy way out, passing the buck as it were. Instead of providing long lasting, high quality and engaging single / MP experiences they look at the problem being people trading in games where in actual fact the problem is their making games that people WANT to trade in.

Its easy for devs to say "oh if sony or microsoft made only online consoles we'd stop trade ins" because all the work is up to someone else, the consumers pay the price and the manufactures that the userbase hit.

Take borderlands as an example, an excellent single player game thats long lasting and engaging. I will most definitely be holding on to this and pick up DLC as it comes because I know they released excellent DLC for borderlands While I didnt play that game or its DLC I am confident it will enhance my experience. Creating games like this is why people hold on to discs and it would serve some in the industry far better to learn by their example rather than look at manufacturers and tyr blame the use of trade-able media for their own short comings.


NB- also your not taking into account broadband network demographics. If one doesnt have broadband of a reasonable quality they dont necessarily have to be living in a third world country. Ireland is a prime example of this due to the geographical layout and population dispersion. Its cost effective to roll out a decent fiber network to a densely populated area but as the population becomes more dispersed your costs increase and uptake / revenue return drops so many companies simply wont bring a network to areas that the cost outweighs the benefit. Ireland is hardly third world but there are larges sections of the population that cannot get decent broadband but are more than able to purchase (and do) games consoles. Mid America is in a very similar situation as too are any countries with significant populations dispersed oved large areas away from main cities.

console manufacturers wouldn't have to pay to manufacture consoles. they wouldn't have to pay the associated r&d costs. they wouldn't have to pay the distribution costs.

they WOULD get the same licensing fees as before. they WOULD get the same cut of title's hosted on their online services. they WOULD get the same subscription fees

Retr0gamer

Helix wrote: »

console manufacturers wouldn't have to pay to manufacture consoles. they wouldn't have to pay the associated r&d costs. they wouldn't have to pay the distribution costs.

they WOULD get the same licensing fees as before. they WOULD get the same cut of title's hosted on their online services. they WOULD get the same subscription fees

They would have to pay to keep a huge server bank of top of the range machines. When a console comes out it's usually the same power as the top of the range PC. I've heard with Onlive even running the games at such low detail settings they were still using one machine per connected customer. It's hardly economical, especially with with the demands customers will want for a next generation machine. Rendering these games isn't free and neither is the network infrastructure.

ScumLord

EnterNow wrote: »

Joking aside though, fibre to the home is the future...not 4/5G. Trust Ireland to be heading in the wrong direction

I was just using 5G as an example of what's to come. With a network of 5G, DSL, Fiber,. You'll be able to use any and all of them when they're available to you and they will have become more available in ten years.

hightower1 wrote: »

Even if your figures are correct that still a loss of over 25% of the current userbase. Id challenge anyone one to pitch a business model to any large company that proposes a 25% user base loss over their current model.

It' doesn't have to be a case of one or the other they can add it as an online service alongside consoles. You could have xbox live ready devices like your smart tele. The tele would have bluetooth so could pick up xbox controllers. At the end of the day if you have access to your games and can play them as well as you would be able to on a specialised piece of hardware what does it matter how they're delivered?

BizzyC

Won't happen for at least another 10 years...

When you look around the world there isn't a consistent global market of people who would have access to the internet connections reliable and fast enough to support cloud gaming on that scale.

I for one wouldn't put my gaming in the hands of an isp or an online service. I like having local hardware cause I always have the option of playing offline when these things fail.

death1234567

EnterNow wrote: »

If the service goes down - YOU have no access to YOUR games.
If your connection does down - YOU have no access to YOUR games.

Not that anyone ever does but IIRC if your read the EULA for most/all of your games you'll find out that you don't own any of them. You just buy the rights to use them, EA/Valve/etc. own the game.

People get way too anixous about what happens when my ISP goes down/server goes down and I can't play my games. I still want my overheating hardware box in the corner of the room so I can play hello kitty island adventure 9, Kitty's motherf&*king revenge, offline. Well what happens when there's a powercut in your house? Do you freak out at your electricity supplier or do you just sit there staring at the walls, brooding until the power comes back. You just sit there because you realise that your electricity supplier doesn't give two ****s that you had no power for 5 hours. Gaming companies like Sony and Microsoft aren't going to care if your ISP goes down for a few hours and you can't play some games, why? Because in 10 years the uptime/speeds/reliablity of internet connections for 99% of their customers, in the markets that matter, will mean that this is a non-issue.

Deano7788

death1234567 wrote: »

Not that anyone ever does but IIRC if your read the EULA for most/all of your games you'll find out that you don't own any of them. You just buy the rights to use them, EA/Valve/etc. own the game.

People get way too anixous about what happens when my ISP goes down/server goes down and I can't play my games. I still want my overheating hardware box in the corner of the room so I can play hello kitty island adventure 9, Kitty's motherf&*king revenge, offline. Well what happens when there's a powercut in your house? Do you freak out at your electricity supplier or do you just sit there staring at the walls, brooding until the power comes back. You just sit there because you realise that your electricity supplier doesn't give two ****s that you had no power for 5 hours. Gaming companies like Sony and Microsoft aren't going to care if your ISP goes down for a few hours and you can't play some games, why? Because in 10 years the uptime/speeds/reliablity of internet connections for 99% of their customers, in the markets that matter, will mean that this is a non-issue.

I'd go and play on a handheld. :P

Myrddin

death1234567 wrote: »

Not that anyone ever does but IIRC if your read the EULA for most/all of your games you'll find out that you don't own any of them. You just buy the rights to use them, EA/Valve/etc. own the game.

By own, I mean own the same way I do my Super Nintendo & Megadrive carts. They're mine, nobody can take them away from me, I can play them when I want, how I want, if I want & basically they're just mine. Now, attribute to that whatever term or definition of 'owning' you want, but it's fine by me.

People get way too anixous about what happens when my ISP goes down/server goes down and I can't play my games. I still want my overheating hardware box in the corner of the room so I can play hello kitty island adventure 9, Kitty's motherf&*king revenge, offline. Well what happens when there's a powercut in your house? Do you freak out at your electricity supplier or do you just sit there staring at the walls, brooding until the power comes back. You just sit there because you realise that your electricity supplier doesn't give two ****s that you had no power for 5 hours. Gaming companies like Sony and Microsoft aren't going to care if your ISP goes down for a few hours and you can't play some games, why? Because in 10 years the uptime/speeds/reliablity of internet connections for 99% of their customers, in the markets that matter, will mean that this is a non-issue.

Are you suggesting your electricity goes down as much if not more than your internet service? You really should get that checked out