Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz
While Im not a huge fan of Jon, in this case he is 100% correct. What you are saying if I can use an analogy is similar to this.
Game companies should continue to produce games compatible with low resolution, underpowered cpus, and low amounts of ram. Otherwise you are alienating a bunch of people who won't be able to play the game, so we should aim our quality and standards to the lowest common denominator. Makes perfect sense afterall right? Aim your marketing and standards at people who can't afford a 55.00 a month broadband bill, or a 400.00 emachine from walmart. BRILLIANT!
Its probably why DTV and comcast fight back and forth to see who can provide more HD channels, you know to go after that non hd 99.00 sylvania tv from 97 users. Pip pip and Tut tut and all that. 
Adult 10 years ago INNOVATORS!!
Adult now... 56k users might not like it.
Jesus Christ. |
Jesus Christ indeed.
The most profitable game in the history of mankind is WoW. A game that has low requirements exactly to be available to as many people as possible. So that's a great analogy you used there, champ.
But games are nothing like websites. Websites can offer both downloadable and streaming content, to satisfy two different sets of surfers at once. Aside from that, unlike with games, downloadable content actually offers a higher quality than streaming content does.
The advantage of streaming is immediate availability, not higher quality. It's great for surfers with a good connection who are looking for a quick fap. The ones with a less-than-great connection and the ones who want high quality instead of speed will not be pleased with sites that only have streaming video available. Which hurts retention rates.