Should Nintendo or Microsoft adopt Blu-ray for their next console? [Archive]

MDX

25-Jun-2009, 12:50

Arwin

25-Jun-2009, 12:55

If the system gets a disc, it may well be BluRay. I wonder though if it will be feasible for the system to get the disc as an option, much like the HDD now on the 360, and have the basic system be online only.

TEXAN*

25-Jun-2009, 13:41

Flash prices are rapidly falling.

By 2013 they might just use Compact Flash Cards.

You never know...

Iron Tiger

25-Jun-2009, 16:36

There's plenty of AAA software delivered through PSN. Titles like GT5P and Tekken 5:DR even deliver video "on demand," so as not to bloat the initial download.

The current gen doesn't seem to have enough hardware resources to exploit larger disc capacities in a way that meaningfully impacts the game. Who knows what the next gen will be like, but looking at what my PC is capable of through Steams's sub-DVD9 capacity downloads, I don't think a big shot of RAM and bandwidth is gonna make a whole lot of difference to storage requirements.

If downloads could be made modular, so you can start playing after downloading the first 10% of the game, I'd be fine with no optical disc at all. Give the console a big hard drive (and the option to add on), and I'll be happy.

RudeCurve

25-Jun-2009, 16:50

I don't see Nintendo adopting any blue laser ODD, their next console won't be powerful enough to need it. MS may go with BR or they may go with a proprietary HD DVD drive.

Rangers

25-Jun-2009, 17:03

I think MS could skate by without it this gen but next gen they need Blu Ray (or other high capacity disc).

Nintendo, I dont know nor care, they dont do high tech.

Any non-disc solutions are still too tenuous imo. Not everybody will even ever have broadband (just like some people will always not have cable TV), so you dont want to exclude that 20, 30% of the market.

MDX

25-Jun-2009, 22:06

StefanS

26-Jun-2009, 02:53

How important is it for Microsoft, possibly Nintendo to have their
next console be able to play Blu-ray movies?

Nintendo has a track record of bypassing the ability to play movies by way of DVD. So I dont see them too worried about that.

But Microsoft has a track record of allowing their consoles to play movies by way of disks. So to be the multi-media console that they want to be, can they afford to ignore those who would want to play Blu-ray movies on the next console?

As everyone agrees, Nintendo can get away with not carrying it easily. First of all they have a record of not supporting movie formats and thus, the consumers' expectations with regard to that is not an issue for them.

Secondly, their new console will probably be on a level with PS3, X360 at max, performance wise. Thus, their assets should fit on a DVD9 derivative quite easily.

Microsoft has to balance its decision quite well, though. Do the want the additional bullet point of having BR playback? How much more sales would that generate? Or do they want to stick with a download service structure for HD movie?

I think a lot of those questions really depend on BR market penetration by the time of the X720 release. Plus, how expensive BR player will be by that time, etc.

Squilliam

26-Jun-2009, 03:37

For Nintendo I would suspect they would support an HD-DVD format because they hate piracy so it wouldn't have media available and they prefer to have a quiet unobstrusive console and HD-DVD would give them the higher density to get a much faster data delivery rate at a relatively slow rotation speed.

For Microsoft, its hard to say! :-D Though with their support of digital downloads and simplicity of keeping pirates away I suspect HD-DVD as well. They already have a relationship with Toshiba as they make their Zunes for them and they had a deal with HD-DVD already.

Rockster

26-Jun-2009, 04:33

SG79

26-Jun-2009, 04:57

I say no optical media at all next gen. Easily could do 2TB hard disks and all digital distribution. No one wants to have to get up and switch disks, listen to them spin, wait on the horrible access times, and be locked in to a fixed capacity limit. Pretty pointless unless you care about retailers, or don't have internet access (in which case you are "next-gen" anyway).

Not exactly a viable solution since ISP's don't have the capacity to support massive game download services yet, and not every consumer worldwide has reliable services either. It's likely the reason why Sony offers disc solution for some of their PSN games in Asia and Europe.

Even when such a solution is available, I very much doubt that publishers won't set a limit on game sizes because of various distribution issues. HDD size being one and publishing games that are 30GB+ won't be cheap.

There will naturally be increased digital distribution in the next gen for sure, but we're still some way off from it being 100%.

BD drives will be faster and cheaper by the time next-gen consoles roll out so it's safe to assume that MS and Sony will go that route. Nintendo on the other hand may stick to DVD-9's.

RancidLunchmeat

26-Jun-2009, 05:35

Isn't there another option of some proprietary removable storage device that isn't an optical drive?

What about going back to carts? Perhaps save some console cost by increasing the game cost by offloading some of the hardware to the cart? I dunno, just asking.

Especially if you're only talking about reaching the 20% or 30% of the market that doesn't have access to digital distribution. Let's face it, most of the market that the 360 sold to and was able to get its lead over the PS3 had access to digital distribution.

In fact, has that 20% or 30% of the market that we're even talking about that wouldn't have access to digital distribution in 2 years even purchased a 360 or PS3 yet at this point?

SG79

26-Jun-2009, 06:04

Especially if you're only talking about reaching the 20% or 30% of the market that doesn't have access to digital distribution.

It's likely much less than 20-30%, and I did include consumers in the west with decent but not fast connections (there is a lot of them out there). My point is, with current ISP infrastructures that aren't likely to evolve immensely in the next 2-3 years, can you honestly say that there are enough consumers on any market who would welcome a 100% digitally distribution of games for their consoles?

I love the perks but I won't be able to download a 5-10GB or more game fast enough without any hitches. Unless I spent another $25 per month on a better service that is.

Mastperf

26-Jun-2009, 07:07

With download caps becoming the norm in the US, I'm not expecting a download only system from anyone next-gen.

liolio

26-Jun-2009, 08:44

I would not want to steal away your fun but I think that a lot of this has been discussed in this thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=52690) and likely others.

Teasy

28-Jun-2009, 12:56

I doubt Nintendo will, they like proprietary technology.

MS?, bleh.. they probably will, they're boring and predictable like that.

DeadlyNinja

28-Jun-2009, 21:03

Grall

29-Jun-2009, 08:39

It's likely the reason why Sony offers disc solution for some of their PSN games in Asia and Europe.
Europe overall has much better broadband coverage than US overall, since Europe is much more densely populated.

That said, there's no way it's feasible for non-physical media distribution in just a few years' time. Besides, games retailers would be rather miffed too.

JPT

29-Jun-2009, 14:14

Europe overall has much better broadband coverage than US overall, since Europe is much more densely populated.

That said, there's no way it's feasible for non-physical media distribution in just a few years' time. Besides, games retailers would be rather miffed too.

Plus that some countries do not have access to a PSN store and in addition to the fact that PSN cards are not available in EU or ASIA I belive. And since not everybody got a creditcard to buy on PSN store, a disc version is probably a good idea.

BRiT

29-Jun-2009, 18:46

This thread really needs a Poll added to it.

LunchBox

29-Jun-2009, 22:35

I think it will depend on how much a blu-ray drive will cost at the launch of the system, royalties and other things. Personally, I don't think they will. I would rather see that amount of money go towards more ram or a better GPU, or CPU than spend all that money in a disk drive. Plus... comparatively speaking, PC games are still in it's HD infancy, The average gamer can't even play Crysis decently in all it's glory if the resolution is at 1920x1200 or higher...

If the consoles want to target true 1080P games at a constant 60fps, with the scope of graphics to rival the top end PC games, which still use DVDs... Plus streaming it through a disk drive is going to take forever. It seems a storage media such as HDs and or flash memory will be required. It's starting to become a trend where console games need to be installed to play with lesser load times... It will probably be the same on next gen.

Digital distribution seemed feasable before, but since most ISPs are now aggressively starting to put limits on bandwidth, it'll be harder to push. Unless, if game companies would start using kiosks like Japan does...

Honestly, this gen was such a letdown in contrast to the marketing hype it generated. This gen really fell short on a lot of things... It's like the Windows Me or the Pentium Pros of the video gaming indusrty.

I think next gen is going to be the real 1080P gaming goodness that the companies promised this gen was supposed to be.

DeadlyNinja

30-Jun-2009, 00:07

Digital distribution seemed feasable before, but since most ISPs are now aggressively starting to put limits on bandwidth, it'll be harder to push. Unless, if game companies would start using kiosks like Japan does...

Yeah, I don't get why everyone has such a hard-on over digital download. Even with my 1 MB DSL speed, it'll take days to download blu-ray size content. I much rather spend a 20 minute walk to Toys R Us than waiting days for my game to download. Plus, it might kill my bandwidth with the ISP restrictions. I just don't think we're there yet, unless games actually reduce in size and goes back to 700 MB.

tongue_of_colicab

30-Jun-2009, 00:23

If you really have 1MB/s it would take like 14 hours to download 50gb and no game is really going to take a 50gb download. The biggest pc game is probably gt4 with its 16gb or so and if you would compress that for digital distribution I suppose it would be smaller. If your isp can offer you 1MB/s that I doubt 10 times or even 100 times that amount is going to be a big deal.

ISP's starting to rip off customers is a whole other thing. You should go against that because afterall without you their company cant live. No ISP in my country would even thing about capping bandwith as they would get the finger right away.

Personally im a big fan of digital content (as long as it has no DRM at all). I didnt had a optical drive in any of my pc's for over 2 years now. I try to do everything with images as much as possible. Works way better.

The download downside for games is that what your 10 years on and the console isnt produced anymore. Plus you cant sell your game.

BRiT

30-Jun-2009, 00:53

Yeah, I don't get why everyone has such a hard-on over digital download. Even with my 1 MB DSL speed

It's because most people have faster speeds. In my area most have 20 mbit/sec speeds. There's talks of upgrades at the end of the year to DOCSIS 3 offering upto 100 mbit/sec. In other really fortunate areas they currently have FIOS offering upto 100 mbit/sec speeds.

Positively Kanyon

30-Jun-2009, 01:03

I'd also love to see a non-disc based system next gen as well. I just like the idea of the cart storing the save with it. I'd like to see DS like carts but bigger, maybe 16 gig flash carts. Imagine 10 gigs reserved for games while the 6 gigs reserved for DLC and save files. Now all the patches and whatever garbage can stay exactly with the game it was designed for instead of being shoved into a harddrive.

I actually like this idea, that way when you take the game to a friends house it's not some unpatched or 'wrong' version etc.

As for the disc based systems... Since HD-DVD is considered a dead format, would it be 'dead' enough to say be used as a proprietry format by MS or Nintendo?

MDX

30-Jun-2009, 23:29

[QUOTE=Positively Kanyon;1308412]I actually like this idea, that way when you take the game to a friends house it's not some unpatched or 'wrong' version etc.
/QUOTE]

Yes Im all for carts... but arent they still very expensive compared to discs?

zed

01-Jul-2009, 02:23

As for the disc based systems... Since HD-DVD is considered a dead format, would it be 'dead' enough to say be used as a proprietry format by MS or Nintendo?using hd-dvd would be quite a good idea for MS, nintendo will prolly use there own propriety format
+ yes next generation will still have use discs, in 2 years time fast digital coverage is still not gonna be enuf, perhaps by 2018-2020

edit
broadband rates in the US
2008 25.8
2007 23.4
2006 20.3
2005 16.3

a bit higher in the richer european countries, but still nowhere near enuf
Thats excluding the fact some countries have data caps per month (eg mines 3GB a month)

grandmaster

01-Jul-2009, 05:43

An HD-DVD drive would cost more for MS to produce than an off-the-shelf BD drive. Plus it won't play BD movies. Following such a strategy would be an awful decision.

midorigreenwood

01-Jul-2009, 06:06

Instead of shunning retailers with full blown digital distribution why not have a combination of both....

set up download stations at retailers and gamers just bring in a removable storage device to load up what they want.

I think Nintendo's first priority is to work out how to thwart the hackers though....

its kinda taking the piss when peeps are playing games off a usb hard drive >,>;;

zed

01-Jul-2009, 09:30

An HD-DVD drive would cost more for MS to produce than an off-the-shelf BD drive. Plus it won't play BD movies. Following such a strategy would be an awful decision.
does the most sucessful console this generation play blu-ray or dvd or even cd's (perhaps it does I dont think it does though)
true perhaps it would be cheaper having a standard blu-ray but I assume by then it will be hacked, with blu-ray writers on the market (if it aint so already).
Ok from a customer perspective it wouldnt be as good as blu-ray, but from a business perspective perhaps not

grandmaster

01-Jul-2009, 11:33

The most successful console on the market uses a standard optical drive that is dirt cheap to produce. And that is not and never will be HD-DVD. Assuming that Microsoft wants to compete with Sony, it will be using Blu-ray.

The piracy issue is moot too. Xbox 360 wasn't cracked because it uses a DVD drive, it was because the firmware was unencrypted. Sony hasn't made that mistake with PS3, the security is absolutely solid.

DeadlyNinja

01-Jul-2009, 19:52

If you really have 1MB/s it would take like 14 hours to download 50gb and no game is really going to take a 50gb download. The biggest pc game is probably gt4 with its 16gb or so and if you would compress that for digital distribution I suppose it would be smaller. If your isp can offer you 1MB/s that I doubt 10 times or even 100 times that amount is going to be a big deal.

I don't know, I'd rather walk 14 minutes than wait 14 hours. BTW, the ISP calls it 1 MB, but the reality is the download speed's just 125 KB. That's fine, mind you, but even with that speed I don't enjoy downloading demo.

Yes Im all for carts... but arent they still very expensive compared to discs?

I believe flash memory is quite different from the traditional carts back in the old days.

zed

01-Jul-2009, 22:25

BTW, the ISP calls it 1 MB, but the reality is the download speed's just 125 KB

1 mega BITS equals ~125 kilo BYTES (*)
though u are right, i'm lucky if I get half of the rated download speed

The most successful console on the market uses a standard optical drivebut its not standard AFAIK as it doesnt play blu-ray,dvd,or cd's
true all drives are similar
but I just wanna point out that having a non-standard drive for the wii hasnt exactly harmed sales much

(*)I wish everyone stuck to either bits or bytes accross all mediums storage,bandwidth whatever
couple that with the 1kb = (1000 of 1024) is just murky watering

02-Jul-2009, 00:21

Actually 25% coverage is not bad, but what's consider minimum broadband speed ? 256k ? What you need is 25% fibre to home coverage. Then you can get 25-100 Mbits speed with that. Still have to deal with caps though. In some country I've seen some silly plan, like 25 Mbits for 5 GBs for $50. That's $10 per GB. If most people are on that kind of plan, than I don't think HD digital download will ever get off the ground. I just don't see people paying $10 per GB would waste their quota on a single game or movie.

Still though even on 100 Mbits, 50GB is not instant. Then you have to deal with storage. You will need way larger storage without optical drive. So money saved from not having optical drives woul need to pay for larger storage. We are talking about multiple HDDs storage here. Single HDD won't have the density to support all the HD games. movies and musics for next gen.

I belived that no optical drive console is the way of the future, I just don't buy the argument no optical drive console will be cheaper. It will be way more expensive from the get go.

RobertR1

02-Jul-2009, 00:44

MS would have no issue with using BD in their next console if they wanted to. The royalties won't be as high and hardware costs will be a lot cheaper. By the time the 360 gets replaced, BD costs won't be anything to worry about. They might choose alternatives for different reasons (technical or business) but cost of BD drives will certainly not be an issue for the next console.

Squilliam

02-Jul-2009, 00:56

BRiT

02-Jul-2009, 01:06

Not without a new mainboard and dvd-rom design.

j^aws

02-Jul-2009, 14:40

Yes or No and why?

Well we know Nintendo will eventually go High Def.
We know that Sony, and some developers, claim that DVD 9 limits the Xbox 360.

So what options do those two companies have?

DVD 18?
Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD)?
5D DVD?

Is it even necessary to drop DVD 9?

But there is another reason why Blu-ray might be an option.
If either system adopts Blu-ray wont they take sales away from the PS3 or PS4?

Personally, I miss the robust simplicity and speed of something like a Megadrive or SNES cartridge; I'd really like to see a future return to that kind of model, and games designed around such a model... Speed vs Size vs Robustness; with the emphasis on speed, i.e. minimising any kind of 'waiting' by the player...

Shifty Geezer

02-Jul-2009, 14:54

Speed vs Size vs Robustness...Where does Cost factor into your equations? ;)

j^aws

02-Jul-2009, 15:33

Where does Cost factor into your equations? ;)

Cost is ubiquitous. I'd rather stakeholders argue and bicker over how to maximise return-on-investment, and other such metrics that feed their families; and feed their ideas of progress... : )

DeadlyNinja

02-Jul-2009, 16:01

Where does Cost factor into your equations? ;)

Like I said, how about flash memory? The prices are pretty cheap now for 4 gigs. I hope this generation will last a bit so when we do make the switch, 16 gigs or even 32 gigs would be relatively cheap.

Oh and I like storing stuff within the game for various reasons. If your harddrive dies, it wipes out EVERYTHING; all your game saves, patches, DLC, the works. Even if a single game dies, at least it won't affect everything else. That's why I want to see someone explore this option of writable media for game storage.

obonicus

02-Jul-2009, 16:02

Cost is ubiquitous. I'd rather stakeholders argue and bicker over how to maximise return-on-investment, and other such metrics that feed their families; and feed their ideas of progress... : )

Aren't we stakeholders (I assume you mean something diferent from shareholders)? Are we willing to start paying $100 a game again?

DeadlyNinja

02-Jul-2009, 16:04

When were games ever 100 bucks? The most I paid was $69.99. During the late N64 days, I was paying $49.99 for huge games like Paper Mario and Ogre Battle 64. That's 10 dollars cheaper than today's 360/PS3 game.

I.S.T.

02-Jul-2009, 16:07

old school RPGs cost that much due to the added cost of the SRAM. Specifically, I think it was Phantasy Star 4.

DeadlyNinja

02-Jul-2009, 16:10

I bought Chrono Trigger for $59.99. I've never seen an SNES game go above $69.99. I know about Neo Geo games being in the 100s.

liolio

02-Jul-2009, 16:43

My contribution to the topic is "yes"

:lol:

Shifty Geezer

02-Jul-2009, 16:47

Like I said, how about flash memory? The prices are pretty cheap now for 4 gigs.That debate has been had here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48244&highlight=solid+state). 'Pretty cheap' is still way, way more expensive than pressing optical disks. Unless that cost is passed onto the buyers, it won't happen. I can't say I'd be totally opposed to paying an extra 5 quid for a dinky little SD card that runs the game with virtually instantly load like the good old days, but I'm not expecting it.

j^aws

02-Jul-2009, 16:55

Aren't we stakeholders (I assume you mean something diferent from shareholders)? Are we willing to start paying $100 a game again?

Yes, I don't mean "shareholders". I mean "stakeholders" in the sense of actively/ knowingly being involved in a business model/ project to launch such a venture... Both get 'paid' in some sense, but "stakeholders" are more closely involved...

The business model can incorporate whatever contraints and metrics you want to throw at it; changing one will undoubtedly affect another. Pricing and profit are undoubtedly important elements; but as I mentioned earlier, I personally want speed emphasised, and the rest will take whatever form that fits an arbritary model...

zed

02-Jul-2009, 22:43

That debate has been had here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48244&highlight=solid+state). 'Pretty cheap' is still way, way more expensive than pressing optical disks. Unless that cost is passed onto the buyers, it won't happen. I can't say I'd be totally opposed to paying an extra 5 quid for a dinky little SD card that runs the game with virtually instantly load like the good old days, but I'm not expecting it.
you might wanna forget about the idea of instant load as well, IIRC(*) flash aint much faster than optical media (true seeking times would be quicker I assume)

(*)wikipedia is down for me at the moment so cant check

slapnutz

03-Jul-2009, 05:31

Online only is a long way away. Why, coz the entire world doesnt have ISPs with good bandwidth/cost ratios.

Download speed is one thing, actual month data cap vs cost is a whole other problem.

Simpy put, the market isnt big enough for it yet for devs to consider a profitiable medium. (compared to the market size of "people buying discs". You have to think outiside US and Europe.

Shifty Geezer

03-Jul-2009, 08:02

you might wanna forget about the idea of instant load as well, IIRC(*) flash aint much faster than optical media (true seeking times would be quicker I assume)Yes. That was discussed in the big thread on this topic. Hypothetically I wouldn't mind, but at the moment it's not a valid option. I'd like to hear where j^aws is going to extract extra speed from. Load times seem inevitable, unless someone produces a DRAM/flash combination replacement of non-volatile but fast memory!

Crossbar

03-Jul-2009, 10:15

you might wanna forget about the idea of instant load as well, IIRC(*) flash aint much faster than optical media (true seeking times would be quicker I assume)

(*)wikipedia is down for me at the moment so cant check

If you settle for SD Cards the bandwidth will of course be limited by the card interface, but even if we use the currently fastest SD Card from Sandesk which has a read/write speed of 30 MB/s, any game for the PS3 and 360 should load all content within about 10 seconds as there are no seek times (assuming some memory is used for dynamic content: variables, framebuffers etc.). Which is not to bad IMO compared to many current games.

Of course faster flash cards can be developed if there is a market for it. The fast Sandesk SD card was developed to enable recording full HD 1920x1080 videos at a data transfer rate of 24MB/s.

It is of course also easier to improve read speeds than write speeds.

j^aws

03-Jul-2009, 13:23

[...] I'd like to hear where j^aws is going to extract extra speed from. [...]

Okay, so what's really being asked here? Does one take an arbitrary budget, and make it profitable in N years? Design goals: Bring back the nostalgic days of console cartridges; exploit modern state-of-the-art technologies; instantaneous feel, i.e. minimize any waiting experience?

What would Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony design?

What would a new competitor design?

What would be the ideal design?

What would I personally design? A Holodeck . : )

RudeCurve

03-Jul-2009, 17:11

If you settle for SD Cards the bandwidth will of course be limited by the card interface, but even if we use the currently fastest SD Card from Sandesk which has a read/write speed of 30 MB/s, any game for the PS3 and 360 should load all content within about 10 seconds as there are no seek times (assuming some memory is used for dynamic content: variables, framebuffers etc.). Which is not to bad IMO compared to many current games.

Of course faster flash cards can be developed if there is a market for it. The fast Sandesk SD card was developed to enable recording full HD 1920x1080 videos at a data transfer rate of 24MB/s.

It is of course also easier to improve read speeds than write speeds.

I'd rather have a game stored on a optical disc and then installed onto a HDD. Even an average 7200rpm HDD with 32MB of cache can transfer data at 70MB/s.

Shifty Geezer

03-Jul-2009, 18:17

Okay, so what's really being asked here? Does one take an arbitrary budget, and make it profitable in N years? Design goals: Bring back the nostalgic days of console cartridges; exploit modern state-of-the-art technologies; instantaneous feel, i.e. minimize any waiting experience?You pitched the idea of retro carts and the console companies aiming for speed of loading, no? So I guess the question is, what solution is practical for a next-gen console to reintroduce a 'cart' based system that elliminates much of the loading times, but which remains a practical, affordable implementation?

damienw

03-Jul-2009, 18:40

You pitched the idea of retro carts and the console companies aiming for speed of loading, no? So I guess the question is, what solution is practical for a next-gen console to reintroduce a 'cart' based system that elliminates much of the loading times, but which remains a practical, affordable implementation?

Keep in mind when he says that, he means for game companies who have to pay for millions of these carts. right now, pressing discs is ridonkulously cheap.

These hypothetical "cartridges" will cost them quite a bit more. Especially when they have to engineer them with read only game area that can never be erased, and then the patch and game save space which is basically going to have to be open to the consumer.

j^aws

05-Jul-2009, 16:04

You pitched the idea of retro carts and the console companies aiming for speed of loading, no?

Well, it wasn’t really a “pitch”, but more of a ‘what I’d like to see’ emphasised; I sidestepped the “Cost” argument by passing it to the “stakeholders” earlier… But I’ve given more thought to the points in your rephrased question and points raised by damienw: I can see your points, but I can also develop a business model and a strategy to counter them…

What I don’t have are ‘nailed’ down numbers, nor a proof-of-concept/ prototype, but I do have a skeleton model in mind, and even a marketing strategy. This road would probably suit Microsoft the most, or a new competitor, but it can be applied to anyone really; depending on partnerships involved and existing strategies etc... It takes into consideration retailers, publishers, developers, consumers, used market etc. without really adding more risk. It does 'attack' the optical media though, and those that have an interest in maintaining its 'status quo'...

It’s a cunning plan; more cunning than Professor Cunning from Cunningham University!

Well, maybe not, but it’s cunning enough for me to consider it a “pitch” with merit, and think: “Why wouldn’t/ couldn’t anyone else think of this?”… So what is the plan? I could reveal moar, but I’ll hafta shoot-chya! : )

damienw

06-Jul-2009, 02:24

from: http://www.studiobriefing.net/studiobriefing.net/FILM_NEWS/Entries/2009/7/2_TRUE_HD_STREAMING_LIKELY_YEARS_AWAY,_SAYS_REPORT .html

"It is likely to be at least five years years before high-definition movies can be streamed to home theaters with the same resolution as Blu-ray discs, according to a study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and reported on the Video Business magazine's website. Although millions of homes are already connected to video services that claim to offer HDTV titles, via streaming, the quality doesn't even match that of standard DVDs and the "flow" is sometimes jerky. The problem in many cases is that most consumers' broadband connections are too slow to stream HD video which ideally requires an 18- to 20-megabits-per-second connection. (The average broadband subscriber's connection is about 2.5 mbps.) "

2.5 mbps would make downloadable only games the biggest pain ever, especially when combined with usage caps.

07-Jul-2009, 00:29

Yep, In some country I've seen usage cap as low as 5 GB/month on 25 Mbits connection.

Silent_Buddha

07-Jul-2009, 03:12

Ouch, thank goodness at least in the US and Japan the broadband is still mostly uncapped. Well with the exception of some cable providers in the US.

I may only have a 7 mbps connection but not having to worry about a cap makes it just peachy for most things. Although I do so miss my 100 mbps FTTH connection in Japan. Although a downside of that was that almost all connections out of the country were throttled down to between 2-10 mbps. Multiple downloads could still max it though. :) But wouldn't be very good for reliable streaming outside the country.

Anyway, I really wouldn't mind downloadable delivery of games for next gen consoles. Perhaps provide an option external drive (for additional cost) for those that still want physical media.

I've already started purchasing most of my PC games entirely online through Steam or sometimes Direct2Drive. The only time I bother with physical media anymore is if it includes nice pre-order bonuses or has a key to basically make it into a Steam game.

Even better if they allowed games to be downloaded onto any machine at home and then transferred to the console. Heck that right there would be yet another way people could use "legacy" physical media to get a game onto a "driveless" console.

Regards,
SB

Blazkowicz

07-Jul-2009, 05:27

I actually like this idea, that way when you take the game to a friends house it's not some unpatched or 'wrong' version etc.

As for the disc based systems... Since HD-DVD is considered a dead format, would it be 'dead' enough to say be used as a proprietry format by MS or Nintendo?

It doesn't make sense for the industries to keep producing a dead format, there's still the option of BRD without movie player royalties, DRM makes the format proprietary.

Online only is a long way away. Why, coz the entire world doesnt have ISPs with good bandwidth/cost ratios.

Download speed is one thing, actual month data cap vs cost is a whole other problem.

Simpy put, the market isnt big enough for it yet for devs to consider a profitiable medium. (compared to the market size of "people buying discs". You have to think outiside US and Europe.

agreed. you would cut off people in unlucky nations or areas as well as islands (such as Australia and NZ)

that would put an end to the whole walking in a store and buying games, too. I remember getting almost all console games as Xmas or birthday present (or bros's present). The other ones were lent or bought used.
So with digital distribution only you would piss off mom, kids and the game publishers, who will never accept it. Stores would have few incentive selling that console when the other ones bring game revenues.