Comcast Commercial Promotes Fast WiFi To Gamers... To Play Game With No Online Connection

from the because-comcast-thinks-you're-an-idiot dept

Mon, Jun 2nd 2014 11:54am — Mike Masnick

Comcast continues its efforts to present itself as one of the most out of touch and ridiculous companies out there, with a new commercial directed at videogamers, highlighting how fast Comcast's in-game WiFi is. Note how it's addressed to "real gamers." Just one problem, as "Mr. Comcast" goes on about how there's "no buffering" and how much better the video gaming experience is with Comcast's Xfinity WiFi, people pointed out that the game in question has no online play. The game is Ubisoft's Trials Fusion, which means that there's no reason there would be any buffering at all in the first place.

Mr. Comcast gets the gamers playing Trials Fusion. The game is indeed a shiny new title, released on PC and for the major gaming consoles (Xbox 360, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4) just a few weeks ago. The motorcycle tricks-and-racing game launched to generally positive reviews that lauded its mechanics and features. But reviewers also mentioned one notable feature that the game does not have: an online multiplayer mode.

No online mode, no net connection. No network connection, no network lag.

“Do you notice any buffering?” Mr. Comcast then asks.

The gamers happily reply that they do not! And of course they don’t: the game ships on a disc or as a one-time digital download. It’s not on a streaming or cloud service like a Netflix or YouTube video; there’s nothing to buffer. That would be akin to asking if you see Microsoft Word buffering when you type a report on your work computer. Your software might be running slowly, but “buffering” is definitely not the issue.

As Re/code points out, this doesn't exactly help Comcast's reputation. And, if you want some amusement, this Reddit comment thread can't be beat:

It really takes a special kind of cluelessness to target "real gamers" with an ad so ridiculously misleading, and which those very same "real gamers" will almost immediately call out as bogus.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband, multiplayer, trials fusion, video games, xfinity
Companies: comcast, ubisoft

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Violynne (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 11:34am

This video makes me wonder: who's the target customer in the monopoly-controlled area it will be played?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Thompson (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think is meant for customers. I think this is meant to show the FCC that they care and are working towards a better world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 11:58am

The sad thing is: this will probably fool the genuine idiot population who believe that the game would be unplayable without Comcast internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  Which is the actual target market. Comcast knows what it's doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re:
  and while it is going to get mocked by gamers, it's not like they have a choice other than Comcast since the only other option most of them have is a dsl that makes carrier pigeons look good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, at least comcast implements standards like IPoAC (RFC 1149)!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LivingInNavarre, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I went to cable last year (UVerse - ugh) and even bumped the speed up to a whopping 21Mbit 2 months ago. Now I'm missing my DSL.
    
    Could someone explain why webpages load slower on cable? I feel like I'm back in the dial-up days. Ever since I went cable it seems all I ever see is that damn spinning circle when I click a link. I can light a cig and take a swig of coffee before the page starts to load.
    
    I can walk over to my parents house which is still a 3.5Mbit ADSL line and get the same if not faster page loads.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rob, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Try a different name server. Apparent speed of TWC went up a lot when I changed to Google's name servers (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) from theirs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 1:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I can tell you one possibility. Cable is a much bigger pipe but has many more people on the same switch. ADSL service degrades rapidly over a certain distance (I forget what the actual distance is) which actually limits the number of connections per switch. So although cable is inherently faster, it is much more susceptible to being slowed down at peak usage times than ADSL.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gaming_Geek (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I went to cable last year (UVerse - ugh) and even bumped the speed up to a whopping 21Mbit 2 months ago. Now I'm missing my DSL.
      
      Could someone explain why webpages load slower on cable? I feel like I'm back in the dial-up days. Ever since I went cable it seems all I ever see is that damn spinning circle when I click a link. I can light a cig and take a swig of coffee before the page starts to load.
      
      I can walk over to my parents house which is still a 3.5Mbit ADSL line and get the same if not faster page loads."
      
      On a cable connection, your modem shares the cable line with every other modem on the node. Each modem has a specified "timeslot" to send data in. Sometimes, modems coming online or modems slightly off in their timing send packets at the wrong time and cause your packets to have errors. The CMTS (device your cable modem connects to)sees these as codeword errors. There is an algorithm used to try and fix errored packets. If the packet cannot be fixed an uncorrectable notice is sent to your modem and the packet resends. On overloaded/poorly designed/problomatic nodes, this can cuase multiple retransmissions of packets, which will slow down your webpage loads somewhat at times. Your parents DSL is a straight shot from their modem to the local DSLAM (device ADSL modems connects to) and not shared usually.
      
      Also, if your cable provider is small, their DNS server they use might not be as efficient as one being used by the local ADSL provider. Try using Google (I know I know) DNS and see if that helps. Their DNS is 8.8.8.8.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Keroberos (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That sounds like a latency issue (ping time), not a bandwidth one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Keroberos (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That sounds like a latency issue (ping time), not a bandwidth one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 1:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Considering my $30/mo DSL line is 6mbit - I wouldn't say it "makes carrier pigeons look good" It's by no means stellar, but it's plenty to watch Netflix, or use a modern website.
    
    It's also has no monthly caps, and is run by Sonic.net - meaning I actually have some slim guarantee of privacy and net neutrality.
    
    It doesn't matter anyhow, since Comcast doesn't run cable out to my house - I'm actually pretty fortunate that the DSLAM is close enough to my house to get a full 6mbit (over an AT&T circuit), as opposed to the 3mbit, or even worse, 1.5mbit offerings.
    
    I do have to contact Sonic.net once or twice a year to force them to fix the shitty AT&T circuits in my areas, but it's still better than the IDSL i was stuck with years back at 144kbps for $120/mo.
    
    Love how people always knock DSL - when a good DSL provider and a solic circuit can actually be cost effective and useful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I was on an AT&T dsl until about 4 months ago. Same thing - 6 mbit and worked just fine for most things. I suddenly dropped to 1 mbit most of the time and could not even play Netflix movies. When I managed to get an AT&T rep on the phone they said that they were rolling out UVerse and that caused the dsl to drop in speed in the area - and, oh yeah, 'would you like to upgrade?'.
      
      So, Comcast looked like a better option for me.
      
      Some actual competition would be REALLY nice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re:
  So, the US regulators, then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:06pm

But then again...
It IS a Ubisoft title, so perhaps the buffering they are referring to is some useless DRM that requires an Internet connection for a game without any other need for an Internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: But then again...
  Ubisoft DRM might be bad, but not *that* bad.
  
  (I never would have thought I will write a line in some for of defense for DRM... DAMN YOU, COMCAST!)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re: But then again...
  Look at how fast DRM calls home!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:46pm
    
    Re: Re: But then again...
    THAT would be an awesome basis for someone to make a hysterical parody commercial.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:15pm

Disabled Comments
They disabled comments on this video because they knew everyone would call out their bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:23am
  
  Re: Disabled Comments
  thus, report the video as "Spam or misleading"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:17pm

Remote gaming
May be they imply that the game can be "streamed" in realtime fashion. That can use network without any multilayer. I.e. imagine the game running on the server, and sending the image to the user, while getting back the input. I'm not sure though that current networks can allow such low latency that would make responsiveness of such scenario good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re: Remote gaming
  Do you actually believe that was what Comcast setup for this demonstration?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Remote gaming
    Well, that fits the context pretty well. But I doubt they mean that because as I said, the latency wouldn't be acceptable anyway most probably.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
      There is a reason no one does this. It isn't efficient and it is prone to problems for no good reason. Even in multi-player games servers don't need the video content - AT ALL. They just need the player input and state information so that it can relate the interaction back to all players. Even if you had enough bandwidth available to do this it would be unnecessarily wasteful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        The fact that no one does that doesn't mean it's not possible if the network is fast enough. It's workable in local networks where proximity to the server is low. For example it should be pretty doable in a LAN running one beefy server and several thin clients.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        There is virtually no upside to doing it regardless of whether it is possible or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        The upside is the same as with any other thin client scenario. User can rent server time without need to buy high end computer to play some games. It's easy to imagine a service like that (if latency would allow it). Latency is the blocker however.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Another upside is enabling playing some games on different operating systems without porting them. I.e. it's enough to port the remote client in such case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        The graphics and sound are what is bandwidth heavy part and that stuff usually isn't platform specific. Local storage space is cheap.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        As I wrote, bandwidth isn't the main blocker, but latency is. It's not really about saving storage. Games demand high end hardware (like CPU/GPU etc.). Making server side rendering sending the image and sound only reduces hardware requirements on the client side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 6:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        "Graphics rich 3D games can be completely unusable on a thin client unless the updated screen area is kept very small or the overall screen resolution is very low, to reduce the amount of data sent to the client."
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
        
        Yes, there are ways to attempt to deal with that that also increase latency issues. But like I said, there is a reason why no one does this with games.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 7:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Some already do exactly that: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/homestream
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Another example: http://shield.nvidia.com/play-pc-games
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        You need more than a fast network. You need low latency as well. You can get extremely low latency in a LAN, but not as much on the internet at large.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Yes, that's why it's not practical in long range scenarios.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rabbit80, 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Works perfectly well on my nVidia Shield - though I do notice the lag if I use OnLive or the nVidia Grid beta! Streaming from my home connection the lag is not noticeable within the 50 miles I have tested it though!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Even speed of light has its limits :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 8:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
      It does not fit the context at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 8:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        Why not, all it says that there is no lag when going through WiFi :) Nothing about multilayer there. Of course they probably didn't mean streaming anyway, but it still fits if connected computers are close enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Shmerl, 2 Jun 2014 @ 8:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote gaming
        *multiplayer
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:06pm
  
  Re: Remote gaming
  I hope this isn't a serious question. Last time I checked you don't continually interact with the controller when a movie is streaming.
  
  Also, congratulations on COMPLETELY missing the point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zip, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:21pm

The Dilbert Principle
That's funny!

I noticed long ago that the people who tend to occupy senior management positions in a company, as well as those who staff advertising, tend to be among the least technically-oriented of people.

But even then, would it have been too hard for Comcast to have put together a 'focus' group of actual gamers to get some honest input before trumpeting Comcast's "success"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:26pm

It is just as useful as turning customers boxes into public wifi hotspots while claiming it won't slow the consumer down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gaming_Geek (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re:
  "It is just as useful as turning customers boxes into public wifi hotspots while claiming it won't slow the consumer down"
  
  As a Comcast customer, I check on this when I was made a public wifi place. Prior to this happening, my modem only used 4 downstream channels. Afterwards, my modem used 8 downstream channels (my original 4, and 4 for the public wifi), so that is a true statement to make technically. Of course, if you factor in extra processing on the modem/router( you now have your network and the public wifi network on the same modem/router sending/receiving traffic), then it does slow you down just a bit since you now have to process the public wifi traffic as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:27pm

This is not the fault of management, it was a communication breakdown between marketing and the technical group at Comcast.

The marketing group asked the technical group to help them find a game that would play smoothly without any buffering for the ad. The technical group couldn't find an online game that didn't studder horribly so they had to go with something that didn't need Comcast's crappy network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe K, 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re:
  This is not the fault of management, it was a
  communication breakdown between marketing and the technical group at
  Comcast.
  
  But it's perfectly consistent with Comcast's management's stated
  position: Actually
  *using* the bandwidth you've paid for is like looking for a free
  ride..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2014 @ 12:30pm

In keeping with the standards of the gaming industry
This is just another Big Lie. It works for Ubisoft, it works for Sony, it works for EA, it works for Microsoft, it'll work for Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
letmegooglethat (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 4:12pm

Hello McFly
just flag it on youtube as scam / fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 2 Jun 2014 @ 6:41pm

The Inevitable Extension of Net Neutrality Games to Shopping.
Here is a related item. It seems that a corporate landlord of student apartments heard about Brian Roberts' pronouncements, and decided to get in on the act. However, what the landlord wanted to block was not video, but internet shopping. Internet shopping is both low-bandwidth and high-latency-tolerant. I can use Amazon perfectly well over dial-up access. However, internet shopping does involve a fair amount of money, much more than video services do. The idea was that the real estate company would take a percentage on purchases of textbooks, electronics, clothing, etc. Someone in the real estate company who saw how dumb and criminal the idea was, leaked it to Slashdot, and that will presumably be the end of the matter.

http://ask.slashdot.org/story/14/06/01/1343246/ask-slashdot-taking-a-new-tack-on-net-neutrali ty

Incidentally, if Brian Roberts wants to call himself a postmaster, he should be aware of the case of David L. Carslake, of the Frosty Treats company, back in 2007. Reduced to essentials, the defendant, Carslake, recruited Russian guest-workers on false pretenses, employed them as ice-cream-truck drivers, housing them in apartments controlled by a confederate (six of them in a one-bedroom apartment), and, by fraud and terror, sought to reduce them to a condition of slavery. When the immigrants filed for working papers, in order to find another employer, they were obliged, presumably for want of any alternative address, to use their employer's address. Carslake intercepted mail sent to the immigrants by the United States government, in order to hang onto his labor force. There are serious penalties attached to diverting mail. Carslake thought his Russian guest-workers had no rights he was bound to respect. The FBI had to teach him different. He pled guilty to Obstruction of Mail, presumably in a plea bargain to avoid more serious charges. The prosecutor accepted the plea as the most expedient means to ensure that the Russian guest-workers didn't have to go back to Russia with nothing to show for their summer's work.

==========================================================================
http://freshare.net/a rticle/kcs_frosty_treats_to_pay_47555_to_foreign_student_workers_in_obstruction_of/
http://www.law.um ich.edu/CLINICAL/HUTRAFFICCASES/Pages/CaseDisp.aspx?caseID=392
http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news20 07/carslake.ple.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Barton, "Federal Heat Melts Ice Cream Man," The Fast Pitch, Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:54 PM

http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archives/2007/09/11/federal-heat-melts-ice-cream-man
--------------- --------------------------------------------------------
"Ice cream company forced to end foreign workers program," Southeast Missourian, Thursday, June 5, 2008

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1434794.html
-------------------------------------------------- ---------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geno0wl (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:29am

Just like Netflix
This is basically advertising to Video Streaming crowd while putting in a Blu-Ray for playback.
THANKS COMCAST!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:01am

Austin only
While helping a friend shop for internet service with Comcast,
I noticed that their "gigapower internet 300 premier internet only plan is $70.00 @month but is avail only in Austin.

Hmmm. I wonder why that is...maybe I'll Google it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger, 4 Jun 2014 @ 11:56am

Misleading, Reported to YouTube
I reported the video to YouTube as "Spam or misleading" as the video totally is. The game play is not online at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 11:02pm

The video is removed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2014 @ 12:09am
  
  Re:
  Yep.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]