[MfA]

It isn't cheaper, will not be cheaper in 2 years either ... no MLC for DRAM for one.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

The issue with online downloads is that the retailers would get cut out of the game revenue stream and they lose their major incentive to stock consoles in the first place. A ticket to get people into the store.

I've never thought this was particularly true. Even if the worst possible case scenario came to pass for retail, aka the only thing they could carry was system hardware (All games were download only), I believe they'd still do it. Why? First, retail actually do make a profit on hardware..it's around 10-20 bucks on current PS360 hardware for example. I'm in a position to know that for sure because of my job. Sure, the profit margin is low for such expensive items, but it exists. Second, because of competition and getting people in the store. If one store chain (say, Target vs Wal Mart) carries game consoles and another doesn't, the one that does will have a competitive advantage, some people will traffic that store (and buy other things) because theyre buying a console. Therefore all retail will always carry consoles imo.

That's not even to mention they would still also sell hardware accessories with a higher profit margin, controllers, memory cards and the like making it even more worth their while.

I'm sure retail wouldn't be HAPPY about losing game software, but they would still carry hardware without it, no doubt in my mind. Heck even now most "software" seems to be slowly being eliminated from retail, see CD's, which have suffered years of plummetig sales due to digital, and are now being downsized in retail heavily (Best Buy doesnt emphasize CD's near as much as they they used to, nor dedicate as much of theire store shelf space to it, and that's a continuing trend).

[V3]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

If next generation games are 350+GB, heck even if they are ~100GB you're running into the barrier of streaming speed. Blu Ray, even at 6-8* is probably too slow for that much data. Movies are one thing, but getting the data off the disc and into main memory is another.

But won't there be HDD to help just like this gen ?

At worst it'll probably like that Lair game. In that game frame rate can turn for the worst all of a sudden. From my observation it was mostly because it was struggling with streaming stuff because frame rate can be back to normal again on the same scene. Some other games load low res textures first and stuff to keep up. I am sure game devs will find some solutions to deal with the problem.

Anyway that's the expectation isn't ? Consoles will have 4 GB of memory that means eight times increased. So if the matured tech games this gen (eg Rage) is 2 DVDs (Heck Carmack wanted 3 DVDs) or a single BR, it is not too crazy to assume eight times increase in game size as well.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by V3

But won't there be HDD to help just like this gen ?

At worst it'll probably like that Lair game. In that game frame rate can turn for the worst all of a sudden. From my observation it was mostly because it was struggling with streaming stuff because frame rate can be back to normal again on the same scene. Some other games load low res textures first and stuff to keep up. I am sure game devs will find some solutions to deal with the problem.

Anyway that's the expectation isn't ? Consoles will have 4 GB of memory that means eight times increased. So if the matured tech games this gen (eg Rage) is 2 DVDs (Heck Carmack wanted 3 DVDs) or a single BR, it is not too crazy to assume eight times increase in game size as well.

8* the memory, but 4* the streaming speed (at best)? Sure the HDD can help, but its not the perfect solution especially if people have to install the games or cache to a HDD which means extra cost for every console anyway.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Crossbar

Faster yes, cheaper? certainly not.

edit: beaten. Mods feel free to remove this post.

Flash also requires a controller as well. Whereas with extra Ram it could just be down to paying extra for double the density. It doesn't seem to make sense to potentially have flash SSD + a HDD + an optical drive. Thats a lot of duplication.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Flash also requires a controller as well. Whereas with extra Ram it could just be down to paying extra for double the density. It doesn't seem to make sense to potentially have flash SSD + a HDD + an optical drive. Thats a lot of duplication.

It does if it works. It's the same in principle to main RAM > (L3 cache > ) L2 cache > L1 cache > registers. Each store exists to speed up the interim data flow to get it where it's needed.

Fast flash offers faster seek times than HDD. We already have cache on HDDs for this purpose. The optical drive would just be a distribution system. So like PC, you'd need an optical drive to install it. Then you'd run it off the HDD to Flash.

In fact, Vista offers exactly this! Disc to copy to the system, then forget about it. HDD to stream, and ReadyBoost flash to increase performance. A deliberately designed flash cache as part of the data pathway should be even more effective, with developers able to manage which data goes where for best performance.

As for extra RAM, you could add 16 GBs of flash for the cost of a couple of GBs of RAM. It's also persistant, so when you switch off your console and then switch it on again to play the same game, you don't ahve to wait for the volatile cache to be filled again, and instead can carry on where you left off.

[V3]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

8* the memory, but 4* the streaming speed (at best)? Sure the HDD can help, but its not the perfect solution especially if people have to install the games or cache to a HDD which means extra cost for every console anyway.

Well not all of that memory is going to be allocated for streaming. So developers just need to balance the size of the streaming portion with the transfer speed they will have.

Beside if that voxels technology that id are pushing for next gen is similar to their Megatextures, the streaming can be managed with what will be available.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Wont faster Blu Ray drives offer a corresponding speed increase to keep up with what we have today? This is the way optical drives have progressed in the past. Loading seems to stay about the same from generation, you get more ram, but a faster optical drive. The ratio stays about the same through CD, DVD, and now Blu Ray.

IE, sure, you'll have 8X the RAM to fill in next gen, but wont an 8X (+/-) Blu Ray take care of it? Or are those too expensive?

Sure with a corresponding increase in drive noise. Imagine something sounding louder than the original X360 DVD drive.

Yeah, not something I'd be looking forward to in a next gen console.

Regards,
SB

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

It does if it works. It's the same in principle to main RAM > (L3 cache > ) L2 cache > L1 cache > registers. Each store exists to speed up the interim data flow to get it where it's needed.

Fast flash offers faster seek times than HDD. We already have cache on HDDs for this purpose. The optical drive would just be a distribution system. So like PC, you'd need an optical drive to install it. Then you'd run it off the HDD to Flash.

In fact, Vista offers exactly this! Disc to copy to the system, then forget about it. HDD to stream, and ReadyBoost flash to increase performance. A deliberately designed flash cache as part of the data pathway should be even more effective, with developers able to manage which data goes where for best performance.

As for extra RAM, you could add 16 GBs of flash for the cost of a couple of GBs of RAM. It's also persistant, so when you switch off your console and then switch it on again to play the same game, you don't ahve to wait for the volatile cache to be filled again, and instead can carry on where you left off.

If you're going to use flash, it doesn't seem to make sense to fill it from anywhere other than a mechanical HDD. An optical drive could spin and spin and not go anywhere quickly against even 8GB of flash. In an ideal situation it would take almost 3 minutes to fill 8GB of fast flash with a noisy 8* Blu Ray Drive.

3 minutes is a long time to wait to achieve maximum performance from a console. Installs would just mean more waiting up front and a HDD for every consumer whether they access online content or not. I personally prefer simplicity in operation, and if one component can do the job of three at a reasonable cost then it makes sense to use just that.

[Shifty Geezer]

How do you get your data onto HDD? How do get the data off the HDD as quickly as possible? You need the optical drive (assuming hard media remains). You need an HDD for volume of data. The flash would be in addition as a faster data cache, sitting between RAM and the HDD. It'll cost very little. IMO the balance rests clearly in favour of onboard flash in addition to an HDD.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

IMO the balance rests clearly in favour of onboard flash in addition to an HDD.

The latest 360 Arcade is just the first (tangible) step.

[Tahir2]

So we are not proposing ODD -> HDD -> Flash drive (as cache).

How big does the flash drive need to be to be useful? 1GB enough?

I don't know I don't like the idea of introducing another storage medium. Is BD-ROM access really that bad currently?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Tahir2

So we are not proposing ODD -> HDD -> Flash drive (as cache).

I am!

How big does the flash drive need to be to be useful? 1GB enough?

I imagine by next gen, the cost difference between 1 and 4 GBs will be non-existent. I'd look for more than that, depending on how much RAM the systems have.

I don't know I don't like the idea of introducing another storage medium. Is BD-ROM access really that bad currently?

Currently no. Next-gen, quite possibly. Plus this gen there wasn't much alternative. We needed a big optical drive, and flash wasn't cheap enough to cover it. Flash adds another option. Remember this isn't a drive that I'm talking about. It's another pool of memory in the box. We already have optical drive, optical cache, HDD, HDD cache, RAM, L2 cache, memory cards and USB drives, etc. If the performance gains for the considerable seek-time improvements are there (we're talking half a 60fps frame waiting for the HDD head to get to some data!) and the cost is low, why not add flash?

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

How do you get your data onto HDD? How do get the data off the HDD as quickly as possible? You need the optical drive (assuming hard media remains). You need an HDD for volume of data. The flash would be in addition as a faster data cache, sitting between RAM and the HDD. It'll cost very little. IMO the balance rests clearly in favour of onboard flash in addition to an HDD.

If you're going to need an optical drive, flash memory and a HDD, why not skip all three and just make the media a flash based alternative?

Then if you want to go for digital online distribution, package the HDD with flash and use it directly as a cache?

That way no optical drive for one and no HDD/Flash for the other.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

If you're going to need an optical drive, flash memory and a HDD, why not skip all three and just make the media a flash based alternative?

Due to cost. The multi gigabytes needed will cost so much more as a flash drive than optical disc. The only way flash could work this way is with the kiosk/download concept argued above.

Then if you want to go for digital online distribution

Digital distribution seems unlikely. As does flash storage distribution. Looks like we're lumbered with an optical drive.

Besides flash makes sense no matter what other storage you have. If there's no optical and only an HDD for downloads, flash improves performance. If there is an optical drive...flash improves performance! The presence/absence of flash isn't tied to the presence/absence of any other drive. It's not a valid replacement for any other drives either. Each device offers a data advantage to the system, a differnt balance of cost per GB, portability, access performance, etc.

[Tahir2]

Flash drives, or SSD's, seriously vary in performance. It would just add more silicon to try and reduce or make more efficient in the "cost saving drive" for the consoles BOM. Look at PS3 compared to Xbox360 - Xbox360 has a much easier time saving costs whereas PS3 had to eventually ditch the ES+EE plus who knows what else.

Just wish there was a more elegant solution. Less chips = better! (? OK large L2 cache is always sexy )

As to the main crux of the debate over the past couple of pages:

I believe digital distribution is going to be bigger next gen than this gen (stating the obvious) and maybe more than just demo downloads or patches or add on's for games - however no way are we are ready for the next-gen to kill optical media and drives.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Due to cost. The multi gigabytes needed will cost so much more as a flash drive than optical disc. The only way flash could work this way is with the kiosk/download concept argued above.

Digital distribution seems unlikely. As does flash storage distribution. Looks like we're lumbered with an optical drive.

Besides flash makes sense no matter what other storage you have. If there's no optical and only an HDD for downloads, flash improves performance. If there is an optical drive...flash improves performance! The presence/absence of flash isn't tied to the presence/absence of any other drive. It's not a valid replacement for any other drives either. Each device offers a data advantage to the system, a differnt balance of cost per GB, portability, access performance, etc.

You make some pretty good points, but I think we need some more information.

Is there any validity in: http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA632496.html

"Conclusions

Even with the well documented difficulties presented by the transition to 300 mm wafers, at IC Knowledge we believe the transition to 450 mm wafers will ultimately hinge on the relative cost of die produced on 450 mm wafers vs. 300 mm wafers. Based on modeling we have performed using the IC Knowledge — 2005 IC Cost Model and the assumption discussed above, we believe that die costs on 450 mm wafers in the 2012 time frame will be lower than the cost of a similar die produced on 300 mm wafers. Our conclusion is that, ultimately, 450 mm wafer fabs will one day be built."

I was kind of basing my argument somewhat on this information. So I figured rather than go around in circles its best to prove/disprove my source first.

[MfA]

A less than 33% cost reduction is not really going to make a huge difference, the standard scaling and increase in levels per cell are going to be major factors when looking at cost reduction in 2-3 years.

[Barbarian]

The leaked PSP Go specs suggest it comes with 16Gb of flash right now.
In 4 years for the same price we can have 2x-4x more and seems realistic to be included in a next gen console.

In regards to flash-as-game-medium, it is entirely plausible if the cost of the flash is paid by the consumer, This can work if buying games on flash is just ONE way to acquire the games. For example, imagine the following 3 tiers of acquiring games:

1) Direct download via internet - perfect for hardcore gamers with fast connections
2) Copy to your own flash via kiosks - perfect for hardcore gamers without fast internet
3) Buy game + flash for higher price - perfect for a gift and everything else not covered by 1 and 2

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Barbarian

The leaked PSP Go specs suggest it comes with 16Gb of flash right now.
In 4 years for the same price we can have 2x-4x more and seems realistic to be included in a next gen console.

Yeah, the fact a device which will be priced probably under $200, and has all the other hardware the PSP Go has in such a small form factor, is able to include 16GB of flash, just drives home how feasible this will be in next gen consoles. Heck by then 32GB should be easily affordable, and thats a lot of flash, be it for buffering or general storage.

I'm a big proponent of the fact you dont want to be saddled with the price of a mechanical HDD in your box, I think the Arcade was a great move for MS, in terms of sales. So I'd be interested in this as shipping in a Core type configuration, without a mechanical HDD (other more upscale models could include the mechanical HDD for vast storage).

So basically instead of a future Core/Arcade style SKU including a memory card amount of storage, it could easily include 16-32GB of flash (some GB's could be set aside for caching, and some for basic general storage), without being burdened by mechanical HDD cost, and everybody wins.

In fact I think thats what Sony needs to do with PS3 this generation really, but for whatever reason they dont seem to be making any moves that direction, which makes me wonder if it's a technical problem. The leaked PS3 slim would have been a ideal candidate to get flash, but instead we see it's coming with a 120GB HDD which obviously means mechanical.

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised by that, although it could be there are multiple PS3 Slim skus. The box could be for the high end model and there could still be a flash based 32GB (or whatever) model.

At any rate I think baseline configurations with a moderate amount of internal flash augmented by an optional internal HDD, and broad support for external drives and NAS devices is very likely in the next round.

[grandmaster]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Yeah, the fact a device which will be priced probably under $200...

Bearing in mind the price of a 16GB iPod Touch, I find the idea of the equivalent PSP being significantly cheaper somewhat difficult to believe. Regardless of the actual reality of the product (in many ways worse than the current SKU) I'm sure it's going to be launched as a premium product with a price to match.

[Shifty Geezer]

I can get a 16GB USB drive for £19 delivered. Newegg has 16GB flash and SDHC for <$30. That suggests a worst-case BOM to include flash at $25ish, which isn't going to break the PSP bank. Especially with the savings from losing the UMD drive, and perhaps the smaller screen being cheaper to boot.

So regardless of how Sony position the PSP Go, either as a cheap entry to the handheld market or a premium portable media device, the cost to include large amounts of flash in the handheld isn't prohibitive, showing the choice to go with flash in a console, at least up to moderate amounts, is there for next gen. Although I think given a need for installs and the size of games, 64 GBs flash won't cut it, and a large HDD will still be needed.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by Rangers

In fact I think thats what Sony needs to do with PS3 this generation really, but for whatever reason they dont seem to be making any moves that direction, which makes me wonder if it's a technical problem. The leaked PS3 slim would have been a ideal candidate to get flash, but instead we see it's coming with a 120GB HDD which obviously means mechanical.

16 or 32 GB of flash is nothing. My 16 GB iPhone is full, and so is my 80 GB PS3.

[Shifty Geezer]

Depends what you're doing with. If you use a lot of media, you want a proper (NAS) media store. If you don't, you don't need much at all. My 40GB PS3 HDD has had a minimum 20GBs free since I bought it. My PC's 40 GB drive fits everything I want, save photos that I need to burn to DVD. If installs are large next-gen, we'll want good capacity, but there's no real need for insane amounts of storage. A console is the wrong place for it. Better yet, Sony should release a PlayStation Media NAS device with always-on, RemotePlay accessed through a common portal across devices.