While Usenet usage is unfortunately declining for text, heavily supplanted by web-based forums and, in more recent times, social networks, it’s being more and more used to carry binary contents. There are many groups (whose name normally include “binary” or “binaries”) dedicated to the exchange of video files, audio files and, essentially, all sorts of material. In this arena, since very few ISPs still run a newsserver at all, and those few that do will just not carry binary groups, several commercial Usenet providers fill the gap. I am currently a customer of UsenetServer, but I may just switch to NewsHosting.

I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to advocate or promote piracy in any way. This post is solely dedicated to highlighting the differences between Usenet binaries and the more widely known BitTorrent system, and showing how NewsHosting got it just perfectly right. Let’s start from the beginning, but if you want, you can jump to the review by clicking here.

NH 468×60 B

Usenet vs. BitTorrent

Unlike BitTorrent, which essentially works as an independent peer-to-peer network (the “swarm”) for each torrent, Usenet is a well define client-server architecture. The client connects to the server and uploads or downloads data. It is the server’s business to make sure that all data is synchronized with its fellow server peers. Neither system is necessarily better than the other. While it is true that BitTorrent allows for transfers even in complex situations, whereas a Usenet servers provide a single point of failure, it is also true that the download speed within a swarm depends on the upload speed of the peers themselves. Given that most binary Usenet servers are commercial, however, bandwidth is never an issue and downloading from them is always a very fast business. Indeed, I saturate my downstream bandwidth every single time: I literally download as fast as my DSL allows.

Moreover, many BitTorrent’s trackers have strict ratio enforcement requirements, which can make downloading almost impossible if a user’s line is highly unbalanced. For instance: my effective connection speed is 1.3 MB/s, but I can only upload as fast as around 60 KB/s. This means that if I download a 650 MB file (a typical CD ISO image), it will take me little over 8 minutes. To reach a round 1.0 ratio, ie. to upload as much as I have downloaded, it will take me 3 hours. In the long run, it becomes unsustainable. Usenet servers pose no such problem: users download the contents they want, and only upload (new) contents if they want to. No requirements, and oftentimes no limits whatsoever.

But how does it compare, in practice?

Let’s assume I wanted to download a Linux distribution. I would have to head to a tracker’s site (or anywhere else to get hold of a small .torrent file), feed it to my BitTorrent client, and have it download and upload back, possibly tweaking the settings so that everything is efficient: uploading at the maximum speed possible will make the download slower because there is not enough room to push the ACK packets over the line.

With Usenet, I would head to a Usenet search engine (there are several) and download a small .nzb file, feed it to my Usenet newsreader, provided it handles binary files, and download it. The support for binary files is important: given that Usenet is still essentially a decentralized text-only gigantic bullettin board system, several techniques were devised to allow it to carry binary content. Files are usually split into smaller part using RAR or another compression software, and each part is usually further split into smaller chunks, each of which is uploaded as a single post or article. In addition, parity files are added so that it is possible, within certain limits, to recover any chunk that may be missing due to the decentralized structure of the network itself. Sounds complex? In practice, it’s not. There are specialized Usenet binary downloader programs that are solely dedicated to that; in fact, some of them don’t even handle text groups at all. It’s still a bit of a burden for the uninitiated, and that’s where NewsHosting comes into the picture.

The easy way: NewsHosting‘s client

This is a (currently beta) news reader that incorporates a very nice search system to find contents directly. No more browsing Usenet search engines, comparing dates, looking for retention promises. The database is built by NewsHosting itself, so if it shows, it can be downloaded. It is also possible to use external search engines, but in my tests I found no reason to. The client is also extraordinarily simple to use, and this what really sets it apart. Let’s have a look.

Downloading the application is very easy: after logging in to NewsHosting, a link will led to this page, where it is possible to choose the appropriate operating system. I used the Mac version, but I’m sure that the experience is the same on Windows and Linux too.

Upon launching the app, the only thing that’s needed is typing in one’s username and password. Nothing else. There is no configuration to go through, though of course there are many settings that one may want to tweak: download folder location, connection speed, number of concurrent downloads and more. It is all completely optional, and this is what makes this application really great.

After logging in, the user is presented with what I assume is a collection of the latest posts from the default group bookmarks, seen on the left pane. The application takes care of collecting the chunks and the parts (see above) and condensing them into individual files. Note in the screenshot that there are 26,730 pages to scroll through.

Searching is built-in. Aside from the quick search field in the top right corner, there is a dedicated search pane that allows to set up additional clauses, such as the content language, the file size and more. The application is smart enough to pull up an image for the file in question, whether it’s a cover, a screenshot or a logo.

Before downloading, it is possible to obtain detailed information about the selected file. If an NFO file is present, it is shown directly. In the case of video files, a very interesting feature is the ability to watch a short preview. This is something I haven’t found in any other Usenet downloader I have used, and it’s very interesting. I have no proof of this and I haven’t looked into it in detail, but I suppose that it achieves this by downloading the first part of the set, forcing its extraction without the rest, and then relying on VLC being able to play an incomplete file. For this reason, it may not work in case the video format needs an initial complete seek, but it’s a very handy function nevertheless.

Downloads are just a click away. Once the transfer is started, it is possible to keep browsing around (whether via the search or directly in a newsgroup), or switch to the Transfers pane which shows detailed information about the transfers, down to the part and chunk level.

NewsHosting carries many newsgroups (including national hierarchies) and inexperienced users will probably find the notion of “group bookmarks” less confusing than the traditional idea of a “subscription” used by most, if not all, other newsreaders.

Of course, while the application is specifically built for downloads, I found that it works quite well as a traditional newsreader too. Posting access is disabled by default, but it can be requested via the Control Panel (also directly within the program itself!)

So, how much does it all cost? Less than you think. There are three plains available:

• NewsHosting Lite, $10.00/month, with a 50 GB monthly allowance with rollover, 30 connections
• NewsHosting Unlimited, starting at $12.95/month, unlimited transfer, 30 connections
• NewsHosting XL Powerpack, starting at $15.83/month, unlimited transfer, 60 connections, free account at EasyNews to search and download directly with a browser

Of course, it is possible to use any Usenet newsreader and/or downloader to access NewsHosting‘s servers, though the application I described above frankly makes it hard to justify going through all the loops and hoops of configuration, separate searching and so on.

NewsHosting‘s Usenet client may very well be the “killer app” for anyone interested in the world of Usenet binaries. It’s well worth a shot, and with a two-weeks free trial, why not?

If you sign up for the service, feel free to leave a comment and share your experience!

(Are you interested in protecting your anonymity on the ‘net? Check out my review of IPVanish!)

NH 468×60 A

This was a triumph, I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.

PS: the cake is a lie.

I used to work at a small video game store. Like any other video game store, people often brought in used games. As an employee, I had a nice benefit: I could take them home and try them for a day or two, and then either bring them back, or purchase them. While that’s perfect for the Xbox 360, and in fact that’s how I fell utterly and hopelessly in love with Burnout Paradise, I only managed to try PS3 games over the weekend. If you have a PS3, forget about popping the disc in and checking the game out. It doesn’t work like that.

You pop the disc into the console. You try to start it, and it says it needs to be installed on the hard drive. This is because the Blu-ray reader is slower than DVD readers, and it would probably be unable to keep up with real-time loading, or it would just make the loading screens stay up longer. The obvious solution is: let’s use that hard drive space! That’s true of every single PS3 game, and you can confirm this by peeking at the back of any game when you happen to be at a retail store; and we’re not talking a few megabytes, oftentimes it’s in the gigabyte range.

After a while, it’s finally installed. You start it, and before you can do anything, you’re told that there’s an upgrade. So you let it install it, otherwise it just won’t play, unless you disconnect from the network. This is extremely silly, and defies any logic: if I am not planning to play online, why do you want me to upgrade it? Just let me play with the older version, but let me play now! After all, that’s what happens if I’m off the network, so why not let me do it anyway? Incidentally, the Xbox 360 gets it right: if an update is available, it offers to download and install it. If you say no, you just won’t be able to play that game online until you update. It makes sense, as it enforces version consistency among online players. The PS3, however, forces you to go through the painful process of downloading and then installing the update. And it takes time, lots of time. My PS3 was connected directly to the router using an ethernet cable, and my DSL is 8 megabits down / 512 kilobits up. Either the updates were huge, or the servers were slow.

Finally, after well over half an hour if you’re lucky, you are ready to play. Too bad it’s late and you have to get up early tomorrow. Ah well. And all of this doesn’t include any system updates, which, as Ars Technica points out, happens fairly often.

It is worth to note that the Xbox 360 only recently (as in: a year and a half ago or so) gained the ability to install games on its hard drive. It’s still usually not mandatory but it can be good to speed up the loading times, to reduce the wear on the discs, and to make the whole thing quieter. A few games do require a mandatory installation when the data spans more than one disc and needs to be available at all times (Forza Motorsport 3 comes to mind), but it’s a small minority, and that’s a very good thing because changing hard drives on an Xbox 360 is essentially a huge and messy hack. The PS3, on the other hand, gets it perfectly right: one screw, and a standard 2.5-inch SATA disk and you’re ready to go. You even get the option to back up your data to an external unit before the surgery and then copy it back to the new disk after it.

Now if only Sony gave up the 16-year-old design of its controllers and accepted that Microsoft got the ergonomics just right…

But are video games addictive? Are some people more likely to be unable to stop playing? And when should playing video games be considered an addiction? Let’s try to answer those questions.

Wikipedia defines an addiction as “a persistent behavioral pattern marked by physical and/or psychological dependency and tolerance that causes significant disruption and negatively impacts the quality of life of an organism.” It is true that some people are unable to stop playing and can go through actual withdrawal symptoms when forced off their game of choice. The following video shows how a teenager reacted when his World of Warcraft character was deleted by his family.

That is undoubtedly an extreme response, and very few gamers are that obsessed. I have personally never World of Warcraft because I don’t like its premise: while it has intermediate goals (quests and such), the game itself is never over. It simply cannot beaten. I do love open-world games — more on that later — but no ultimate goal makes a game somewhat boring to me. Yet that’s exactly why millions of people pay a monthly fee to play World of Warcraft, even though I’ve been told that the role-playing aspect of it, which is the only thing that might attract me to that kind of game, is limited to usings one’s own skills to “level up.” In other words, there is little acting involved.

All kinds of video games, however, have to be pleasant enough to convince players to go back to them. It is a conditio sine qua non of any product: even cookies have to be tasty in order for the company that makes them to stay in business. The difference is that games are much more complex matter, because while consumers will keep buying the same cookies for decades, gamers will have no problem ditching a successful franchise if the latest game isn’t nice enough. And you don’t play the same game over and over, with some rare exception.

As much as the media likes to feed like vultures on the few extreme cases of “video game addiction,” the truth is that most gamers have a perfectly fine life. Playing video games is for most people simply a hobby, even though — just like with any other hobby — it can take different degrees of involvement. Some people will keep an unusual coin when they come across it, while others will spend much of their free time actively seeking rare coins, and possibly spending huge amounts on money to get hold of them. Similarly, the casual gamer will pick up his or her controller when bored; the hardcore gamer will use most of his free time to play. The problem arises when a person will give up his or her work time to do that.

Between those extremes, however, there is the huge majority of people who play games, that is those who might want to have some time to do so, but are not too bothered if they can’t manage to.

Video games are not addictive by themselves. They are captivating in one way or another, and that’s simply because they have to sell. Just like with anything else that’s enjoyable, it takes common sense to know when to stop. After all, as I said, it’s a hobby. Quite an enjoyable hobby indeed!

Such results do not surprise me in the slightest. I am a casual gamer, in that I usually buy a game every couple of months or so, and I usually purchase them from the UK, where they are much cheaper than in Italy. The reason I do that is that, since I never get games that have been just released, having to wait a week for the delivery is not a big deal. Savings versus instant gratification. (Disclaimer: that may not be the fact when GTA V comes out. Can’t help it.)

That is one of the reasons I prefer physical media: the price usually goes down on boxed discs, whereas digital downloads have a tendency to stay at the same price for much, much longer. Just compare the full games that you can now download through Xbox Live: they are invariably priced €29.99, even though the same games can now be found boxed and sealed for as low as €10.

Of course, physical goods can be lent and resold, which is what the big companies do not want you to do. Their line of business is 1-1: one user, one sale. If you sell your copy of Mirror’s Edge, DICE only makes profit once. If you rent your copy of Fable II to a friend, Lionhead only makes profit once. They don’t like this, and in a way it makes sense. However, perchance they should attempt to charge less on the game in the first place in order to have bigger sales. Game studios can and do make extra money on extra downloadable contents, after all. (And they sometimes manage to make money on that twice: many people who downloaded “The Lost And Damned” for GTA IV ended up buying the “Episodes from Liberty City” physical game, which carries both TLAD and “The Ballad of Gay Tony”.)

And while you can install games on an Xbox 360, it is not needed. It’s sure nice to have it load faster and quieter, but you can just run it from the disc itself if that’s your cup of tea. Considering that hard drives for the 360 are hard to find on their own, and usually come at insane prices, it’s not a bad thing. But when you download fifteen games at an average of 6 GB each, you start having a problem. (Yes, you can “hack” the hard drive bay, and I have done that. This is about “normal” consumers, though.)

Playstation 3 is not as kind: virtually all games require an installation, but at least you can swap the hard drive very, very easily. That’s a blessing, considering that some games require in excess of 10 GB, even when you have the disc.

These are the main reason for consumers — including me — not to feel like a digital download is worth such high pricetags. They have no resale value, and they have a higher cost in terms of space needed. Not to mention that it takes time to download gigabytes of data, and not everybody is on broadband; those who do, moreover, might have download caps.

The latter is also why I am stunned that Apple insists in saying that Blu-ray is not making its way onto Macs any time soon, and that it’s a “bag of hurt.” Do they really think that everybody is willing to spend money on purchasing/renting movies off the iTunes Store? That’s just not going to happen, for several reasons:

1. It’s just not available everywhere. Unless you are in the USA or in the UK, forget about video in the iTunes Store.
2. Even in those countries where it is available, bandwidth may be an issue.
3. Users only get 720p movies, whereas most — if not all — movies on Blu-ray are 1080p. That’s two and a quarter times the picture resolution, and well over five times the data size for a comparably smooth quality.
4. No resale value. Or, rather, no resale chance.
5. Other alternatives, at least in the US: Hulu, Netflix, etc.

Physical media is also very important for backup: a single-sided recordable DVD holds as much as 4.7 GB of data, and can be filled up in a matter of minutes. How long does uploading that much data when your upstream bandwidth is barely 50 KB/s?

Ultimately, whatever companies say, physical media is going to be around even in the age of cloud computing. Now let’s go and check for some bargains on videogames that support multiplayer, shall we?