Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Console Download Speeds Tested

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the fun-transfer-protocol dept.

Networking 81

MTV's Multiplayer blog tested and compared the download speeds of games on the Wii, the Xbox 360, and the PS3. They tested a variety of scenarios, with the PS3 most often coming out on top. The Xbox 360 took first in one test, but in that situation it was using a wired connection while the other two were not. The Wii consistently came in on the slower side, taking last place in all but one test. The PS3 ranged from .44 to .79 MB/sec, the Xbox 360 from .26 to .86 MB/sec, and the Wii from .30 to .55 MB/sec. What have your experiences been with console download times?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Same game != Same server (4, Insightful)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706083)

Unless download speeds are tested locally somehow, how can this possibly be accurate? They're downloading the same game, sure, but being served by completely different content providers, and presumably, completely different servers

I think the headline they're looking for is "PS3 managed to connect to faster content provider".

Re:Same game != Same server (3, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706247)

As long as that's understood from the beginning, that's a perfectly legitimate test. They're testing the difference in download speed for the entire stack, not just the console itself. Since most people are going to look at the speed of the console downloading from the company's servers anyway, this is a completely valid measure.

Re:Same game != Same server (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26716455)

Perhaps legitimate, but definitely pointless.. does anyone actually care about the download speed of games? Download speeds for movies is much more important -- and that's where testing the whole stack end to end would really mean something.

Re:Same game != Same server (1)

Noirling (1468781) | more than 5 years ago | (#26721611)

I certainly care about download speeds whenever I get shotgunned in the face in COD 4.

Re:Same game != Same server (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26731433)

But TFA wasn't measuring that.

TFA measured time to download games. Bandwidth and latency are the factors that will affect your COD4 lagging experience -- this will differ depending on who is host, what connection each person has, geographical locations of players in the party, etc. There is no connection between TFA and you getting a shotty in the face.

Re:Same game != Same server (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26718447)

It isn't legitimate since the results only matter if you are in the exact same location that the tests are conducted. It is legitimate to them alone and irrelevant to everyone else reading their results.

Re:Same game != Same server (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26708161)

Maybe you didn't "knowtice" that this article is from the great minds behind MTV.

I think Jack Thompson has more scientific clout than the nobs at MTV.

Re:Same game != Same server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26712031)

PS3 would be the fastest on a faster connection. It has a gigabite module... 1000baseT. I use that for media streaming..

Professional... (5, Insightful)

zombietangelo (1394031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706089)

So three different consoles, all downloading from different servers, on different networks, with different network configurations... and they're not even downloading the same data. How, exactly, does this provide ANY sort of statistical value?

Re:Professional... (5, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706111)

Look, if it doesn't make sense to you, you obviously haven't had enough to drink. Have three more shots, wait fifteen minutes, and read the article again.

Re:Professional... (4, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706391)

So three different consoles, all downloading from different servers, on different networks, with different network configurations... and they're not even downloading the same data.

Except that it appears each of the three consoles were tested from the same network, and repeated on different networks (unless I'm on crack again.)

The other differences are exactly what you would want to test. I don't care if the wii is actually blazing fast at downloading but nintendo's servers are extremely slow, to me that's summed up as "Dowloading is slow on the wii."

Note that I'm not certain I have servers straight from networks, and if I am in fact getting the two mixed up, I have a "I told you I was no expert" I'll use. And the aforementioned crack problem doesn't help. But the article does seem interesting to me.

Re:Professional... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26709979)

Except they don't account for all the other factors. Consider the timing of their downloads. Most of them occur on Monday. What happens on Monday? Nintendo releases new titles to the Wii Shop and millions of people go shopping on Nintendo's servers.

This matters whether you download titles during release days or not. Why? Because if you don't, then this test is unfair to the Wii. If you do, then you don't know the results for the PS3. (I have no idea when the XBOX 360 releases titles.)

And they are testing them on different connections. Maybe the Wii is slower in some parts of the country than others? We don't have any idea. All we know is it appears to be slower over time on different networks, but the number of tests is not statistically significant, so it really doesn't tell us anything.

The information is meaningless.

Re:Professional... (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710163)

Good point about the Wii. Sony doesn't release titles on the PS3 store on any given day. They just come up whenever they're ready.

Re:Professional... (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710313)

I thought Sony released titles on PSN store every Thursday? The RE5 demo this week was exceptional for coming out on a Tuesday.

Re:Professional... (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26711889)

Dunno about anything else, but the Rock Band stuff is always on Thursdays.

Re:Professional... (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706711)

Statistical? None. It does not show whether the connection speed of the Wii is in any way inferior to the one of the PS3. But how does this matter?

If your question is "what console should I pick if I don't want to wait long to play the downloadable games for this console", it gives you sensible information. Whether the question is sensible is another thing, though.

The first thing you learn in statistics is that it's all in how you ask, and what question you ask. Even the most braindead statistics can be made sensible when you ask the right question.

Yes, that means searching for a problem when you have a solution at hand. If that does not make sense to you, don't waste your time in statistics and keep your honest daytime job.

Re:Professional... (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709569)

Actually, for that to be useful, it should include the average size of the most common games as well. Since Wii games may well be smaller than PS3/360 games (lower res graphics, &c), this could also make a difference. Anyway, if it was measured in "seconds per game" I'd agree with you. By measuring it in seconds per meg, they failed to meet your criteria.

Re:Professional... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710681)

If your question is "what console should I pick if I don't want to wait long to play the downloadable games for this console",

Then given the sub 1MB/s of all of them, the answer is "none".

Unfortunately.

Seriously (1)

nnnich (1454535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26708163)

I don't EVER want to hear of another story on slashdot that begins with "MTV dah dah dah dah dah".

No! That's a bad slashdotter! Bad! We do that outside!

Seriously I thought this was an intellectual community - nobody cares about mtv

and it wasn't even tagged "troll" or "flamebait"? wtf?!

Re:Seriously (1)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26708347)

Seriously I thought this was an intellectual community

wat ur srs? lolol

nobody cares about mtv

lol! ur silly. Ok, that one's actually true.

Re:Professional... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709369)

My experience has been very contrary to this report. I have both a 360 and PS3, and downloads on the PS3 (especially in the early days) have been EXCRUCIATINGLY slow compared to my 360. Downloading a system update (and the PS3 is CONSTANTLY getting these, even if you just use it to watch blu-rays) is a HUGE pain in the ass on the PS3. It takes forever to download such an update (and that doesn't count the long install time and the fact that I always have to go find my game controller, since the PS3 won't recognize the remote during system updates). 360 downloads, by contrast, are usually quick and relatively painless (even system updates seem to download pretty quickly). Playstation Home took longer to download and install than ANY game I've ever bought on the 360, and it's a pretty simple game.

Re:Professional... (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710233)

Heh. I've had the opposite experience here. The PS3 system updates are for the f*cking DRM on Bluray that they keep changing. Home is an MMOG (not RPG); It is NOT a simple game. Downloading the SAME GAME for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 resulted in very similar speeds actually. The PS3 felt faster, but you never know, maybe it was because I was playing on it while it downloaded.

Re:Professional... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26711053)

Heh. I've had the opposite experience here. The PS3 system updates are for the f*cking DRM on Bluray that they keep changing. Home is an MMOG (not RPG); It is NOT a simple game. Downloading the SAME GAME for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 resulted in very similar speeds actually. The PS3 felt faster, but you never know, maybe it was because I was playing on it while it downloaded.

Maybe it's just what is updated? It seems that everytime there's a system update for the PS3 (monthly, practically), you'll be sitting there waiting for a 10-50MB download, while the Xbox gets a much tinier update. About the biggest "wait" I had on the xbox was the NXE update which probably took 30 minutes to download and install.

Nothing's more irritating than inserting a game disc, and having to sit through another 20MB+ of updates (which seems to happen often on the PS3). On the Xbox, they seem to take maybe 30 seconds. Or maybe Microsoft spent time and effort in a patch mechanism that really avoids the big waits?

I don't know - it just seems that the Xbox downloads "feel faster". Either smarter caching and prefetching, or just perception.

I do know Home was excruciating to use. A 70+MB download that took forever (can't be backgrounded), then a bunch of "hidden" downloads while you set up your avatar (which took forever, as well - it appears to download only what you hovered your cursor on when "trying out" stuff like hairstyles, rather than tried to download more previews and everything), followed by more download screens. You'd think because it's a tutorial, you could get started and have tons more background downloads take place since you know where the user is going next...

Re:Professional... (2, Informative)

cluke (30394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26712161)

The PS3 system updates are for the f*cking DRM on Bluray that they keep changing.

Nonsense [wikipedia.org] . Regardless of whether it is slow or not, this claim is just not correct. The last PS3 update added a photo viewer application for example. Another added trophy support. Another added in-game XMB. In fact, if you look at the list of what changed in the firmware update, Blu-rays are only rarely mentioned, and that is for non-DRM matters.

What I am getting at is - PS3 firmware updates are a GOOD thing.

Re:Professional... (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 5 years ago | (#26716515)

Sorry, having to sit there for half an hour downloading and installing updates because I want a ten minute game of Fifa is not acceptable. It's bad enough I've bought the most expensive console on the market, was bait-and-switched with PS2 backward compatibility, have the worse controller of all three systems, as well as a shitty library of games, now I have a series of obligatory, interminable updates.

In conclusion: fuck Sony.

fair test? (1)

bilbo909 (974603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706103)

Sure they downloaded the megaman 9 demo for each system, but that's 3 different file types on 3 different servers isn't it? they should have done the test by using their browsers to download a common file off a common server like a Linux Distro for a large file test and a few high res pictures of Tux for the small file tests. only then would it be a truly fair test.

you call that fair? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706163)

everyone knows the most unbiased test is how fast it downloads porn! what else is worth downloading?

Re:fair test? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706237)

The Wii doesn't even have a Megaman 9 demo... AFAIK the 360 doesn't have a webbrowser so that comparison wouldn't work either.

Re:fair test? (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706307)

Sure they downloaded the megaman 9 demo for each system, but that's 3 different file types on 3 different servers isn't it?

I don't know much about networks, so if the following is wrong or just nonsense, ignore it.

Seems like that would answer which console itself downloaded the fastest, but that would be of purely academic value if the file types and servers themselves had a bigger and different effect. If the PS3 can download from a given server faster than the 360, that's nice, but if downloading something from XBLA is itself much faster than PSN, that really has no effect and doesn't matter to people like me. The test under discussion tells in the real world which console is faster at downloading, which is more interesting to me.

Once again, I don't know much about networks, so maybe that's nonsense, if so just disreguard.

The sample size / method is absolutely retarded. (3, Informative)

ragethehotey (1304253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706113)

He is comparing the download of a demo of an emulated game for all three systems, all of which are "wildly different in size", as he admits in the article.

Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB

How many times did he test? Four times, on 3 different peoples connections.

FAIL.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (5, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706259)

Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB

Of course, he does account for that. He was following their discovery chronologically rather than a more straightforward story. First they downloaded the game and timed it, got some odd results, looked further, and realized the difference in sizes.

Such a discovery calls for some long division, which yielded the following results:

-Mega Man 9 download speed on PS3: .44 MB per second (1st place)
-Mega Man 9 download speed on Xbox 360: .26 MB per second (3rd place)
-Mega Man 9 download speed on Wii: .31 MB per second (2nd place)

It doesn't matter that the file sizes were different, that was accounted for.

Furthermore, all three systems appear to have been tested on each connection, not a PS3 on one connection, a 360 at another house, etc.

Lastly the blog calls for more results. The most valid criticism of the findings is not the methodology but the low numbers, and the author appears to acknowledge that and is trying to do something about that.

But by all means, heap abuse on him for daring to try to compare consoles quantitatively.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706925)

It doesn't matter that the file sizes were different, that was accounted for.

Have you ever heard of a thing called "TCP slow start"? Comparing a 8.3 MB download to a 88.7 MB download at download speeds like these is pretty much guaranteed to penalise the smaller download.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710761)

I'm okay with that penalty: the wii doesn't have background downloading, which makes the wait much more annoying. Wait times on the 360 aren't much of an issue, since I can be playing another game as the file is downloading (I don't know about the PS3, I would guess it also has background downloading.)

Not to mention that factoring that out would be pointless: most of the stuff you can download for the wii is about that size, that's always going to be an issue for the wii.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

mog007 (677810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26707125)

FYI, Mega Man 9 isn't being emulated on the Wii. It's a native Wiiware title, that was ported to the 360 and PS3 a few days after release on the Wiistore.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26708981)

Small file sizes like this are pretty pointless. I would have liked to have seen 1gb demo downloads as seen on the 360.

Even then, using one connection, as I'm sure my 360 does, is not a great test. I can only max out my 20mbit connection (18.5mbit in the real world) by using 20+ connections. I'm yet to find one of these so-called bandwidth test sites that scores me higher than 10mbit - we all know how shite these sites are...

A fuller test is in order.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710275)

Agreed. They should find some other large (750MB+) demo (is Burnout Paradise on the Wiistore?) and do that.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

MChisholm (1115123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710435)

Well, it would have to be a bit smaller, as the Wii only has 512MB storage (512 minus space for saves and previously downloaded games).

The largest files would probably be WiiWare titles (other than Mega Man X), or N64 games.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710007)

Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB

whaaaaaaaat.

Nevermind the question of why a recreation of an NES-style game takes 8MB on the Wii, when on the original console the ROM would have been at maximum 1MB -- why, on the other two consoles, is the program size again 8 times larger? For just the DEMO?

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710305)

On the PS3 and XB360 they improved the graphics and made it HD. On the Wii they improved the graphics a little and made it compatible with the Wii hardware. It IS emulated. The emulator is wrapped in the game file itself, so is not separate.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710829)

why, on the other two consoles, is the program size again 8 times larger? For just the DEMO?

Probably because the libraries for the other two consoles were bigger, creating a bigger minimum size for any game compiled for that platform.

Also, for quite a few games the "demo" is the full game minus an unlock key (of one or two hundred K), so the whole game is there, but you can't play it until you pay for the "full game" which causes the system to generate an unlock key, and then download it and apply it to your system.

Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710711)

Not only that, but he used slow-ass connections. Neither the servers, nor the systems are likely to be the bottleneck in his tests. .86MB/sec? I've seen 2.2MB/sec downloading from PSN or Live. I'm sure if I had a faster connection (currently 25mbit) the downloads could be even faster.

MTV?!? (2, Funny)

Xistenz99 (1395377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706165)

Always get my tech news from them......right

Re:MTV?!? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706327)

Yeah, and I get my tech news from Slashdot.

Re:MTV?!? (1)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26708367)

And I get my news from Spike.

Re:MTV?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26709155)

If it isn't on Manswers, it isn't worth knowing.

Re:MTV?!? (1)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709353)

hey, I don't give you any news!

Well... (1)

Starmengau (1367783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706231)

I suppose this could have been a more useless article...if perhaps it was spread across multiple pages in classic C|net style.

I don't own any of the current-gen consoles, so perhaps someone could clue us in: are there serious frustrations with downloading content on the Wii, or for that matter any of the other consoles? I could see how there might be, depending on the way the content is actually delivered.

Re:Well... (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706361)

I don't own any of the current-gen consoles, so perhaps someone could clue us in: are there serious frustrations with downloading content on the Wii, or for that matter any of the other consoles?

With the 360 and I think the PS3, there is background downloading, so it's not much of an issue. The wii, which happens to be the slowest in most of the tests and also the slowest in my house, does not. Downloading something means you can't use the wii while you're waiting. You do get to watch mario run and pick up coins and hit coin boxes as a 3 stage status bar, but that's about it. Kind of annoying, and makes everything you download seem a lot slower. It is interesting that it's not all in my head.

I suppose this could have been a more useless article...if perhaps it was spread across multiple pages in classic C|net style.

You don't own any current consoles, of course YOU'RE going to find it useless!

Re:Well... (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709669)

i own all three current gen consoles and I found it useless...

Re:Well... (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710851)

i own all three current gen consoles and I found it useless...

Funny, I found YOUR post useless...

Re:Well... (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706515)

I have a Wii, as my sig suggests, and downloading games is fairly slow on it. The games are pretty small but they take forever to download, and I've downloaded a lot so I've gone through the process many times. I also hate how they don't provide a goddamn progress bar, instead using a weird metric wherein Mario, or occasionally Luigi, runs and collects coins, presumably indicating the speed of the download, and occasionally he hits one of three blocks on the screen. Said blocks probably indicate the 1/3, 2/3, and 100% mark for the download but it sometimes seems be be a bit off. That said, Mega Man 9 is a brilliant, albeit brutal game, and you only have to suffer through downloading it once, so it's not too much trouble. I sometimes wish that the Wii had a better, multitasking OS with more complex features, but really, when I want that I play on my PC, which can do complex features and graphics better than any console.

Multitasking on consoles (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709635)

I sometimes wish that the Wii had a better, multitasking OS with more complex features, but really, when I want that I play on my PC, which can do complex features and graphics better than any console.

One might say that the Wii can multitask better than PCs. Don't believe me? Load Super Smash Bros. Brawl and a PC game that isn't FPS or RTS, and then try starting a 4-player match on each. Chances are that you'll need four machines and four monitors for the PC title and only one machine and (larger) monitor on the console.

Re:Multitasking on consoles (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710397)

But can you hook up four keyboards and four mice to a PC? No. It isn't designed for that.

FYI 4 player split screen isn't multitasking. It's still one task. It's like having 4 tabs in firefox: 4 tabs, 1 task.

And I can play Armagetron Advanced on my PC with 4 people. We hook up two keyboards (which both input as the same one) and put two people on a keyboard. We could probably get 8 or more if we really wanted to. My monitor is plenty big.

Re:Multitasking on consoles (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26714985)

But can you hook up four keyboards and four mice to a PC?

Yes, through a pair of USB hubs, one plugged into each front-panel USB port.

No. It isn't designed for that.

You mean Windows isn't designed for that. Your multiple keyboards show up as one because DirectInput makes it difficult to tell which device a mouse movement or keypress came from. But keyboards and mice aren't the only input devices for PCs, as I sort of hinted with my "isn't FPS or RTS". Four gamepads work just fine on Windows. My point was that few major PC game publishers want to take advantage of gamepads.

FYI 4 player split screen isn't multitasking. It's still one task.

Which of the several definitions of "task" are you using? Consider the game Tetris & Dr. Mario for Super NES, which could be set up to run Tetris on one side and Dr. Mario on the other.

It's like having 4 tabs in firefox: 4 tabs, 1 task.

Firefox uses lightweight cooperative multitasking between open pages, and it gets criticized when layout or script running in one page monopolizes the CPU. Open Slashdot's logged-in home page in several tabs to see how. That's why other browsers such as Chrome are going to a separate thread or process per page.

Re:Multitasking on consoles (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26716483)

Well, that isn't what I had in mind, but I was talking about more like running multiple programs at once, although I think you knew that. But that's basically why I have my Wii, for when friends are over and don't have enough laptops to play starcraft or something. On an unrelated note, I had really been wishing they would bring 8 player gameplay to Brawl, with 4 Gamecube and 4 Wii controllers. They have that in Bomberman Blast, another excellent WiiWare title, and it's pretty crazy fun.

Perhaps I'm showing my age, but... (1)

darpo (5213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706267)

I still haven't wrapped my mind around broadband-connected consoles. Today's consoles look so much like computers. When I was a kid, network gaming meant having your friends crowd around an NES.

That said, I plan on getting one for my next gaming platform. I'm tired of messing with system requirements and installs on the PC. I also like the idea of using a wireless controller, so I can lounge when gaming, taking a break from the "hunched over keyboard and mouse" posture that dominates my work week.

Re:Perhaps I'm showing my age, but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706425)

When I was a kid, network gaming meant having your friends crowd around an NES.

No, that was just ordinary multiplayer gaming. It still exists. In particular, the Wii excels at it.

The Xbox and PS3 also support local multiplayer, although they (especially the Xbox) tend to emphasize online multiplayer a lot.

Both are great, for different reasons.

Re:Perhaps I'm showing my age, but... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706495)

I still haven't wrapped my mind around broadband-connected consoles.

I'll sum it up for you:

"we, the console maker, want to charge you not only for the games, but also monthly, and make your games expire.

We're also not too hot on what happened to the original xbox, so we'll be introducing this online content concept as a trojan horse so we can remotely destroy (as in physically) the memory cells containing any firmware which gets compromised to make sure XBMC never rears its ugly head again.

Please enjoy this token mockery of a multimedia system we've included, and yes you can develop for the platform but good luck actually using the graphics capabilities for which you bought this gaming system.
signed in fetal blood by:
microsoft, sony, nintendo"

Re:Perhaps I'm showing my age, but... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26707783)

I've gotten all the updates for my Wii. They don't delete any homebrew content. I think they disabled a couple things, like programs that allow you to run pirated Wii games, but they pretty much left all the homebrew completely intact.

Re:Perhaps I'm showing my age, but... (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710447)

Same with the PS3. I can even rip blurays in Linux on there! But the XBox 360, when i modded the fan to keep it from RRODing again, wouldn't let me play online. So I changed it back. Now I can play online at the risk of RRODing. Im thinkin maybe it check the voltage/amperage of the fan in use....

Re:Perhaps I'm showing my age, but... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26714411)

I've gotten all the updates for my Wii. They don't delete any homebrew content. I think they disabled a couple things, like programs that allow you to run space shifted Wii games, but they pretty much left all the homebrew completely intact.

Sorry, fair use is fair use. They're remotely disabling stuff on YOUR hardware. In any other circumstance you'd call that vandalism.

Just read the article... (1)

powerspike (729889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706365)

Wii may be slower downloads, but when the game is an 8th to a 10th smaller in size then the other consoles, you don't need to be that fast, in all the downloads, wii finished downloading an easy 3-4x faster then the other consoles, and in reality, that is what counts, I don't care if it's downloading slowly if it's coming across quickly, in most of the cases, it was 25-30 seconds for a full game download.

Re:Just read the article... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706541)

Even that doesn't count because although they're the same games they have different features.

The 360 has XBox live integration and achievements for example, so it's not as if the game in question is even the same across all platforms.

It really is the most pointless test ever, we're talking about effectively different games, for different hardware platforms, from different servers.

We may as well compare the whiteness of the consoles and claim the PS3 is a failure because it's black, the Xbox comes second place because it has a black and a white version and the Wii is the winner because it's white through and through.

Re:Just read the article... (1)

Briden (1003105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706715)

racist

Re:Just read the article... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709707)

The 360 has XBox live integration and achievements for example, so it's not as if the game in question is even the same across all platforms.

Then it's a drawback of the Xbox 360 platform that the "live integration and achievements" inflate the download size by an order of magnitude. Is this stuff statically linked into every EXE or something?

Re:Just read the article... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26711391)

No the difference is that Nintendo is effectively just sending you ROMs for emulators. XBox live titles are complete new versions.

Nintendo effectively just takes old ROMs and just puts them up on the marketplace, live arcade games are actually built as new applications using the existing assets, sometimes offering whole new game modes and new graphics whilst keeping the classic modes and graphics available as options. On games like Sonic the Hedgehog for example you can now save, some people may not care about that option but others like to be able to load up a game, have a quick bash at it before they have to go out then save and quit without having to start from scratch next time. Because some of the Nintendo titles are just ROMs I encounter issues where they just don't work right with HD screens also, this is another important advantage of Microsoft's method of doing it because they have a decent certification process that ensures the games will work okay on modern screens.

The important thing to realise though of course is that a lot of XBox live file sizes are uncompressed too, so when it comes down the pipe it actually comes down faster as it's compressed/decrompressed on the fly. If it says 80mb, it just means it's 80mb of space that it'll use on disk, not necessarily 80mb to download.

The other important point is that yeah, Doom on XBox live may well be 8 times bigger than it was on the PC but my net connection is over 150x as fast as my connection was back then so I don't see it as a big deal proportionally, particularly when you can just press the Xbox button on your controller, select your friend from your friends list, press X to invite them and have them press the Xbox button at their end and a to accept to join a game. We're talking maybe 5 minutes to download a game? When you factor in the sometimes sluggishness of Nintendo's store I'm not convinced it's any longer to get the game purchased and downloaded realistically, but you get more for it.

I do have both a Wii and a 360 but if a game (e.g. Sonic, Ecco) is out on both platforms I'll always choose the 360, because there's nothing in it pricewise and I get more for my money in terms of an updated game. The Wii has a better selection of classics certainly, so it has the advantage there in that I can sometimes get titles I couldn't on the 360, I'm not saying it's all bad. I'm just saying a negligible increase in download time is irrelevant compared to the benefits.

Re:Just read the article... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26715127)

No the difference is that Nintendo is effectively just sending you ROMs for emulators.

The emulator is bundled with each ROM. Mega Man 9 isn't emulated anyway; it's a Wii-native game with NES graphics.

live arcade games are actually built as new applications using the existing assets, sometimes offering whole new game modes and new graphics whilst keeping the classic modes and graphics available as options.

You mean like Tetris Party or Dr. Mario Online Rx on WiiWare?

Because some of the Nintendo titles are just ROMs I encounter issues where they just don't work right with HD screens also

What you're seeing is 240p, which works on arcade monitors and most SDTVs but doesn't strictly conform to any TV-industry standard. Still, some of the Virtual Console emulators can line-double to 480p now.

The other important point is that yeah, Doom on XBox live may well be 8 times bigger than it was on the PC but my net connection is over 150x as fast as my connection was back then

You also didn't install Doom for PC by downloading it; it came on a disc.

I'm just saying a negligible increase in download time is irrelevant compared to the benefits.

Except for people who live in places where residential "broadband" isn't much faster than ISDN or has a low monthly transfer cap. For them, the increase isn't as negligible.

Re:Just read the article... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26722877)

Rather than reply point by point, I'm interested to know more what you're getting at.

Are you really saying you feel the Wii offers a superior DLC experience because although you pay the same amount and get much less for it (multiplayer modes, save game abilities, updated graphics, live integration, additional content, better product testing to ensure it works well with modern screens etc.) the content can be downloaded in say maybe 12minutes rather than 15minutes on even the slowest broadband connections? Even the UK, which is severely lagging in broadband speeds worldwide is due to push BT for a minimum of 2mbps connections for everyone.

I know you mentioned bandwidth caps too but I've yet to see an ISP wish such harsh caps that the difference in size between Nintendo DLC content and Xbox live DLC content wasn't irrelevant compared to the amount of allowance you have.

I don't mean to flame, but that really does sound like one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard in favour of one console over another and I'd be suprised if it was ever a factor in anyone's decision in choosing a console. Even early on in this console generation it would've been a push, but we've had over 2 years now since then so storage and average broadband speeds have increased even further. Certainly with the next generation probably not too many years off (2010 - 2011 probably) then sizes are bound to increase even further.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're getting at and your point is different, but if so I'm not really sure what it is.

Re:Just read the article... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26728277)

Are you really saying you feel the Wii offers a superior DLC experience

No, just that it's not as inferior as some people make it out to be.

I know you mentioned bandwidth caps too but I've yet to see an ISP wish such harsh caps

Then you appear not to have read any Slashdot posts describing the Internet situation in the anglophone southern hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa).

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're getting at and your point is different

Frankly, I'm starting to think Xbox Live > Wii Shop Channel because Xbox Live has XNA Creators Club and Community Games, while Wii has 23 Oct Updates and System Menu 3.4. But then for indie games, PC > all others anyway.

Usability (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706379)

I own both a Wii and an Xbox 360. To me the difference in download speeds doesn't matter very much, the important thing is the console's usability.

If I download Mega Man 9 for the Wii, I have to sit there and watch a progress bar. (Okay, so the progress bar is disguised as Mario punching a bunch of bricks, which is cool, but I still have to wait.)

If I download Mega Man 9 for the Xbox 360, I can go play a different Xbox game while MM9 is downloaded in the background. I get a nice little pop-up when the download is complete and when I want I can switch to my new game.

Because of this, the total file size and download speed don't matter much to me on the Xbox 360.

I don't know how this works on the PS3.

Re:Usability (2, Informative)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26707109)

I don't know how this works on the PS3.

You can download in the background most of the time. It downloads slightly slower than the 360, according to TFA. It seems like that to me, but I do use wireless for the PS3 and wired for the 360, so I can be no judge.

The download speed is not the issue on PS3. Whenever you download anything you have to install it, which takes about eight times as long as on the 360 and you can't do anything else whilst that's going on. That, combined with the necessity of installing some games before playing them (which takes as long or longer than on a PC) and you've got a few pretty poor design decisions.

Re:Usability (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26710999)

I haven't found too many of the downloads too bad for the PS3 (the only exception was a couple of the Demos which were HUGE).

One of the nice features they implemented "recently" (in the past few months) in the XMB updates for the PS3 is that once you've loaded up your download queue, you can go to the "shutdown" option (top of the user menu).

It then asks you if it should wait and shut down after its finished downloading everything in your queue. In this case, downloading means installing also, so it will take care of downloading and installing anything and then shut down.

If there is something I want to install and I don't want to babysit it, then I just set it in the queue, set it to shutoff when its done, and watch some TV/read a book/go to sleep. When the PS3 turns off, its done, and I can play. :)

Re:Usability (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26709815)

If I download Mega Man 9 for the Wii, I have to sit there and watch a progress bar.

Or you pull out the DS Lite that you bought with the money you saved buying a Wii at launch price (250 USD) vs. buying an Xbox 360 at launch price (400 USD). At least Nintendo has a handheld; Microsoft hasn't really been pushing games on its handheld platforms (Pocket PC and Windows Mobile Smartphone) the way it has on its stationary platforms (Games for Windows and Xbox 360).

If I download Mega Man 9 for the Xbox 360, I can go play a different Xbox game

Unless the Xbox game isn't on the Xbox 360 backward compatibility list. Then you have to plug in an Xbox, just like Wii owners have to pull out a DS.

Re:Usability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26711269)

I own both a Wii and an Xbox 360. To me the difference in download speeds doesn't matter very much, the important thing is the console's usability.

Yes, like a good D-Pad. The 360 controller's D-Pad sucks.

So?? Most people can't get those speeds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706721)

Even the slowest of those results if faster than 2 Mbps.

He has a point, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706827)

Ok, the article is quite lousy and he's also comparing apples with oranges here. Another very important factor to consider here is latency and how the consoles deal with that. Sure; downloading stuff on your console (media files for example) can be fun but it becomes important (IMO) when you talk about playing games. It would have been a lot more interesting to see how well the consoles would compare with regards to, for example, the way they deal with latency. From personal experience I can say that the PS3 does an excellent job when it comes to playing multiplayer games over wifi. I don't know how it manages but it sure seems to utilize the full bandwith it has.

Some games (I can only comment in depth on Far Cry 2 and I have minor UT3 experiences) even have build in support to check up on this. So, when you're doing a multiplayer game and rotate to the next map (yes, despite of other stories in an earlier article you can setup a multiplayer game which goes over several maps and then just goes on forever) chances are that you need to download it if you don't already have it (esp. when you're using a custom made map). You get into a screen which shows the status of the players and if some fall behind with regards to downloading the game will simply start up for the 'ready players' while the others continue to download and drop in at a later time. I think thats a brilliant approach, and it would be interesting to see if this approach is the same across consoles and if others (xbox) can cope just as well with this kind of situation.

Or, if you do insist on checking up on raw download power, make something useful from it. Just comparing those is silly (IMO); go beyond it. Use media files of the same size to test your raw power, then start looking at what more the console can do. For example; I managed to play (not too long) movies on my PS3 during downloading over wifi without stalling. In all honesty: that only worked for me once. In other cases it started some heavy buffering, started playing and eventually stalled for the buffer to fill up. (source: Heavenly Sword animated series from the Playstation Store (freely available)). I'd really like to see how the xbox handles things like this. That would be a usefull comparison IMO. Not merely spec comparisons but in field experiences.

And then there's the playing experience. I never had issues on my PS3 with that. In fact, I was amazed to see that even a video chat using the webcam (better put; a PS3 Eye in my case) provided a clear, smooth picture on the other end (the person I was talking to). And all over wifi... And that would be quite interesting to know too IMO; how do other consoles cope with this. Or; can they even cope, naturally some specs will be different but even then it would be a lot more interesting than this article.

Naturally a wired connection is a lot better. For me the wifi usage was temporarily, I now have my PS3 connected by wire and its a lot faster and I don't have stalls with video playbacks from the PSN anymore. So summing up TFA; a missed opportunity. It could have been more interesting.

PS: Too little, too late I know. But I can't help it: in Far Cry 2 you /can/ easily bring up a list of available servers. Just don't select your type of game (capture the diamond, uprising, etc.) but go for a custom game. Then you can select what you wish to look for and in no time get a list of available servers. Personally I like this approach; players who want a "quick" game get diversity and players who want to experiment with setting up servers get a chance too.

Color me surprised (1)

jalet (36114) | more than 5 years ago | (#26707375)

Is this surprising that with the wii sold like hot cakes there are more people trying to access to Nintendo's download service at a given time than there are for the other two consoles ?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26707897)

Well it doesn`t really matter anyway. My ps3 is connected using wireless and my xbox 360 is wired. My 360 is just a little faster but when you factor in the crappy "install" that the ps3 has to do, then the xbox is much faster at downloading a demo or game because you can play right after it is finished!

Value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26713447)

While interesting, what is the value of this?

Download speed on a console is about the 943rd most important metric to me, right above weight of the system and right below time it takes to push the power button before the system actually gets juice.

About the Wii... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26730435)

The Wii only natively supports 802.11b wireless... that puts them at a serious disadvantage but as for the games themselves, the download speeds are perfectly acceptable.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?