@Squill
I appreciate a contrived similitude as much as the next guy :) But my peeve is with the quantification of how much better the infrastructure is getting. Plus, you need to build the pool with its filters and pumps.

Digital distribution cached in local home servers implementing the necessary DRM dark mojo can work as long as the final users take upon them the burden of maintaining one or more file servers (arguably with back-up capabilities or redundant storage systems).
How much reliable would you like this box to be to place thousands of dollars worth of content in it, with no physical support? And how practical would this solution be in day-to-day life? The act of taking the content on a mobile player, or lending a movie to a friend would likely become dark rituals of right management.

I hope that the music DRM fiasco taught some lessons to the distributors when we eventually reach that point.

I would say the best solution for DRM is to attach it all to one username/handle/tag or whatever so that as long as someone has control over said tag they can access, download and use any media they have. Its like Steam accounts. People don't share them as much as you would think given that you can only log in at one place at once with it. I don't think the issue is in the storage, but the right to use said content. I think Microsoft intends to eventually use their Live I.D service so you can use your one Windows I.D to access all of your content on multiple devices.

With regards to content, people seem to be taking the approach that so long as its convenient they will do it. The brick and mortar rental places are suffering due to Netflix, and then Netflix is becoming more than just a DVD delivery service. In these comparisons there are implicit costs on both sides. Theres an implicit cost in going to a store to pick up a DVD/Blu Ray disc in time/money/transportation expenses. However in consumption theres no apparant difference in the experience whether someone has a disc or is streaming off a file server or web server.

Source: http://digg.com/tech_news/Average_broadband_speed_by_country_graph

The Blu Ray Bit Rate is 40Mbit per second for video (maximum).

Im not being optimistic and saying that the technology will be ready for prime time this year to stream Blu Ray quality video. However these are averages so one could say that the top 5 countries would be ready to stream the highest quality video with select consumers capable in other countries as well. Within 10 years would it be too arrogant to say that the majority of people in the western world who have internet access will have the capability to stream video at more than 50Mbit quality?

Frankly I don't care about the remarks about my grammar, I'm always ready to learn. I'm more worried about the fact that you seem not willing to conduct this conversation in an ordered manner without changing subject all the time or ignoring the points that have been previously made.

I have answered your question. Heck, I answered the same question two or three times already. Part of it is misunderstading the industry on your part. I did get off track with the last post though.

As for grammar, just remember that companies are singluar.

I started writing a point by point reply, but then I realized how useless it was. A debate is only useful if both parties take the time to read and try to understand what the other is saying, and either disprove it or take account of it in following through. You have demonstrated multiple times that this isn't the case here.

Add to that the way you keep contradicting yourself and ignoring factual reality (neither MS nor Sony "has strong software teams"? "Very few hits in their repertoire"? ), and the way you prefer to live in your imaginary world (Nintendo "moving in for a kill", "Gamers may also stay with Nintendo as they have all the content they want") and this exchange really is devoid of value.

This is a good example of the pot calling the keddle black. You misread a lot of my stuff. Even if I answer questions, you'll claim I didn't because I didn't give your responce. Actuallty, you only asked two questions. I skipped the second becuase there was no reasonable responce and the first one you somehow claimed I never answered even though I did three times.

90% of the time, you drew some conclusion based against what I said. It's not me moving around, it's you. But rather then play the blame game, I will give you an over laying responce except to the software sales making the PS3 profitable. I answered that three times. If you don't understand by now, I can't help you.

First, the 360 is simply doing better. Somehow, you have made up reasons it is not. Like I have said, there is no way to prove the claim. The games are selling better on Microsoft's system. You say "Oh OH, it is overtracking the 360" but I will point to week by week sales that put 360 above the PS3, meaning it is selling more units. You'll say "OH OH, GTA did better on the PS3 when the facts are considered" but I will reply that the fact it sold better on the 360 shows how the old market is responding to the two systems, and they see the 360 as a favorable system as they would rather have the software on that system. The precents don't matter. The Marketshares even less. the profit does. Sony is lacking those profits. They are doing bad, and worse compaired to the 360.

To your question:So where exactly is the trouble with the developers?

I'm not sure how it is relevent, but as a general answer..... exclusives can no longer be done the the HD twins due to a shrinking market and rising development cost. They have to make ports (on of their contempt with the Wii it is hard to port). Exclusives come namely when a deal of some kind is struck. Third parties might be in trouble with this system.  There is more, but I'm not sure how to explain it. Basically, the power of the systems and the shrinking market (which Iwata has proven long ago) are making it hard for third parties.

Now, the bold. Sony and Microsoft being up to par is not fact. it's an opinion from your standpoint. I'm looking at sales. The hardcore love Sony's game, but they don't match up in sales to other developers. Sony has Gran Turismo. Microsoft has Halo. Nintendo has a lot more then that. The problem with your claim is you assume that Sony and Microsoft have teams as good as Nintendo (that's laughable) and ran with it. If the assumption is false, then your argument has no backing and can not be taken seriously. In this case, it makes no sence. But if you think I'm joking, look here. Sony has three big franchises. FF7 was developed by Square and Crash Bandicoot by Naghty Dog. Both of these guys are outside Sony (Naughty Dog might not be). Compaired to the fact that Nintendo dominates the chart.  The top 12 games are Nintendo games. Only two of the top 20 are not Nintendo. Keep going and you'll only see Sony for gran Turismo and Crash (who has long since been dead). Microsoft has Halo. Thus, your claim is false.

Secondly, you are wrong on Nintendo becuase you decided to make a responce before finding out what disruption was (I gave you all the information to find it). Yes, disruption is about gobbling up market, meaning Nintendo is going after Sonmy and Microsoft. Reggie, at this E3, meantioned attacking and taking over the game industry. Nintendo's goal is to "Go in for the kill." Sony and Microsoft are both trying to make motion contols, so they are doing just what I said. Yes, disruption measn the disruptor (Nintendo) is trying to make the incombant (Sony and Microsoft) gone.

My arguments are not devoid of value. Yours are. You made a lot of claims in both that were either not backed up (Micorosoft and Sony's developers are on par with Nintendo or other big publishers) or false (And overall software sales per week of ownership show PS3>360 (slightly). I can answer everthing you said, but you will either claim I didn't answer it, or make a point based on false assumptions or no evidence at all. Becuase of this, your claims are flat out wrong and it doesn't take much work to find that out. You have to have something more tangable.

Miscommunication goes on. I feel pressed to answer at least a few of those.

First, you were the one saying that the PS3 is in a death spiral because developers will abandon it. I gave the numbers about the ratios between software sales of PS3 vs 360 to show that the PS3 sells enough software (mostly in relative terms, sometimes even absolute) compared to the 360 to always justify multiplatform development. And that ratio is not going down, it's actually going up because the sales ratio as a trend is more favourable than the install base ratio. It's simple maths, really: it is not important if the 360 outsells the PS3 every week, as long as it outsells percentually less than the current install base percentual difference then the ratio will keep moving in favour of the PS3. And while you say that percentages mean nothing, the growing of this ratio brings a growing ratio in software sales between the two HD platforms, and thus makes even more ridiculous the "developers will stop developing on the PS3 because it's third" argument that floats around.

Not once I said that the PS3 is generally doing better than the 360. Only that is doing good enough comparatively that it is not going to lose support in the short term with these numbers. This is the fourth time that I repeat the same concept, and probably the fourth time that you misquote me.

And you did not understand "overall software sales per week of ownership show PS3>360 (slightly)" which is true according to the numbers on this website. It's a more significative variation of the tie ratio and gives better indication on how much sales you can expect from a given install base, here is the relevant thread.

As for disruption, I know the concept, but you're applying it wrong because there's no such thing as a single market for videogames. Nintendo did not disrupt the core market at all, they did not bring any huge new added value to it with the Wii. Traditional gamers and developers did not flock abandoning the PS and Xbox machines. That's actually the whole point of the blue ocean strategy in this case: market segmentation.

They sold approximately the same quantity of Super Mario, Metroid and Zelda games as always to their core market and they made alot of money on a market on which they actually don't have competition from the other two consoles. Meanwhile the two HD consoles are happily selling on their core market with pretty similar results to the late PS2.

At Nintendo they actually don't have any interest into "going for the kill". Didn't you say yourself that it's about the profit? Why should they hope to turn the whole industry around? Are they zaelots that want to convert to a phylosophy all the developer and gamers? Or are they businessmen that are making money, and the later others enter their own space, the better.

One last misunderstanding on your part: I didn't say that your arguments were devoid of value. I said that this conversation was valueless as a debate. I stand by this.

@Squilz
The chart is nice and promising for a few countries, but it represents the average broadband bandwidth. Not the average internet connection bandwidth, nor even more importantly the average bandwidth available to anyone who wants to own a movie.

But I'm ready to concede anything can happen in ten or more years time, tech history is accelerating. The end is nigh.

I understand average, but in this case the best indication would be an upperquartile bandwidth level. Blu Ray can only really sell to those who have an HDTV and streamed movies can only sell to those who have a fast internet connection. The reason why the upper quartile is the important statistic here is because it counts those people who likely have a strong interest in streaming media and are therefore likely to be early adopters of the technology.

Wow this book is long.

But how much of the intended media market is actually represented by the upper quartile of that distribution? I mean, Japan and France are in there and that's great. But Finland, Sweden,  Portugal and Netherland can have all the bandwidth of the world, but for demographic reasons they won't constitute much of a sizely market :)

A better indication would be a weighted bandwidth average, the weights being the media market shares of the various countries.

MS says, "Me too!"

Claims 10 year life cycle.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/360-to-match-ps3s-10-year-lifecycle-says-kim

Blue ray is not a disruption technology it is wide open to attack from beneath...if you don't understand read about "disruption strategy"