Alternative distribution to optical disks : SSD, cards, and download*

Those arguments are not convincing in the least bit.

By the time the PS4 actually rolls around, the drive and transfer speeds of blu-ray will be greatly improved. On top of that, you can always include small capacity flash storage to stream to from disc or hdd. That seems like a far more pragmatic solution than going with ssd as the game medium.
 
Those arguments are not convincing in the least bit.

By the time the PS4 actually rolls around, the drive and transfer speeds of blu-ray will be greatly improved. On top of that, you can always include small capacity flash storage to stream to from disc or hdd. That seems like a far more pragmatic solution than going with ssd as the game medium.

a 12x bluray drive would give you 432Mbit/s or 54Mb/s. Sandisk has announced a 16GB sdhc card that will do 30MB/s read. As I proposed. You can use a ssd case design about the size of the current 360 memory cards that can easily fit 4-8 sd cards or the flash chip inside those cards. That way you can scale up depending on needs. 2 16GB mods would give you 32GB of storage and 60MB/s transfer. 4 would give you 64GB and a 120MB/s transfer. Go with 8 of them and your at a 128GB and a 240MB/s transfer rate. You might say well who needs a 128GB of data next gen. Well it can be an option , you can allways go with 4-8 8GB dims. Giving 32-64GB of storage with a 240MB/s transfer rate. also while increasing the speed of bluray you may give up its constant read speed across the disc and seek times will allways be much higher than flash seek times.

Another option to reduce fees is to simply allow a kiosk where your bring your ssd card and can download the game there and max out the 240MB/s transfer rate. That be lets see 14.4 GB a minute ? Meaning you can download a 25 GB game in less than 2 minutes.

Ms can sell the ssd carts at $20 bucks and make a profit and then developers wont have to eat hte cost of the flash ram. They could actually decrease costs as they no longer have to ship a game , design packaging or anything else . At each toys'r us gamestops or best buy just give them a high speed connection and start streaming the game a few days early to the kiosks and have them act a peer to peer network to share bandwidth.

The stores can still take a cut of each download which can be less as the kiosk can be much smaller and take up much less games than current shelf space for games. It can actually be the demo unit for the system in question giving acess to hundreds of games to demo out at the store. The store can get a cut of the ssd cost also.

Then at home the users have a choice of storing the game on their hardrive (which may increase load times) or keep it on their ssd. Or they can buy multiple ssd cards. As the generation progresses ms can drop the price and phase out the smaller ssd cards. So for example you might be able to get a 32GB 4x8 card for $20 but at the end of the generation you may be able to get a 128GB card for $20. Couple that with a larger drive , perhaps go back to 3.5 inch drives as you no longer need a large optical device ni the console. You can now put in multi terabyte hardrives at a much lower cost than 2.5 inch or smaller drives. The drive can be used for movies , arcade games and demos . DLC can be kept with the game on the ssd .

You can also still do special edition of games. Just design a special ssd card with say gears of war 4 cog symbol on it , put in a figure , art book and something else and charge 20-30$ more for it than the one that is downloable.


BTW i use ssd card for lack of a better term.
 
a 12x bluray drive would give you 432Mbit/s or 54Mb/s. Sandisk has announced a 16GB sdhc card that will do 30MB/s read. As I proposed. You can use a ssd case design about the size of the current 360 memory cards that can easily fit 4-8 sd cards or the flash chip inside those cards. That way you can scale up depending on needs. 2 16GB mods would give you 32GB of storage and 60MB/s transfer. 4 would give you 64GB and a 120MB/s transfer. Go with 8 of them and your at a 128GB and a 240MB/s transfer rate. You might say well who needs a 128GB of data next gen. Well it can be an option , you can allways go with 4-8 8GB dims. Giving 32-64GB of storage with a 240MB/s transfer rate. also while increasing the speed of bluray you may give up its constant read speed across the disc and seek times will allways be much higher than flash seek times.

Wouldn't that require significantly more complicated logic? Plus, you're talking about loading stuff in parallel, or you're thinking of striping across several chips?
 
Wouldn't that require significantly more complicated logic? Plus, you're talking about loading stuff in parallel, or you're thinking of striping across several chips?

you can do striping or use some sort of control chip i suppose. Its def doable
 
A faster transfer speed can create many diffrent game experiances that aren't avalible with an optical disc. It also benfits all gamers. I'm not sure how many people want to have to sit through installs to play games.

LOL. Can you name at least 3 different experiences that you cannot recreate on an optical disk other than faster loads (since there are so many of them)?

Your arguments are starting to get a bit eccentric, to say the least.
 
I'm not fully up on SDD and flash drive technology, but I don't think transfer rate scales with the number of chips used. I guess you could do striping to attain those speeds, except that would leave your proposed unit with only 16GB of storage. As for the kiosk idea, ehhh... very un-appealing to me personally from a consumer standpoint.
 
LOL. Can you name at least 3 different experiences that you cannot recreate on an optical disk other than faster loads (since there are so many of them)?

Your arguments are starting to get a bit eccentric, to say the least.

Its up to the developers to use it to create new experiances. however with such fast transfer rates you can create true open worlds that aren't the same textures used over and over again creating bland worlds like gta4. Having large storage capacitys don't mean anything if you can't get that data to the machine fast enough and if we do see 4 gigs or even 8 gigs of ram with 54MB/s it will take you at least 74 seconds to fill up 4 gigs and 148 seconds for 8 gigs . Thats not counting seek times or the time to get a disc to actually spin up to 12x speeds.
With a 240MB/s transfer speed it would only take 16 seconds to stream in another 4 gigs of ram and 33 seconds to stream 8 gigs of ram. Seek times will also be low and you can constantly stream that data over. The only thing that will limit you is capicty and costs . But imagine having 50 gigs of unique textures that can be constantly streamed to system ram. The world you can create will be amazing .

An example is Call of duty. You call a air strike and depending on where the physics dictate damage done and buildings colapse in a multi player map you can have unique textures stream in and show diffrent outcomes and allow the players to continue using the map. Something of that scale would be limited to much less with only a 54mB/s transfer speed. Of course if you could get a 1GB a second transfer speed a game designed around that would be limited by 240MB/s transfer rate. Developers ambitions will grow as they are offered new technology
 
Dvd's don't even cost pennies. Dual layer dvds i believe are still in the quarter range. Regardless , with flash ram soultions you will gain speed , capaicty and seek time advantages .

yes but that's a double pressing requiring over 2x the machine time, single layer BR will be cheaper than DL-DVD if your volume is high enough to cover the master cost. Single layer DVD is in the <$.10 in with volume contracts.
 
I dunno , here in Jersey we just got Fios and 20Mbps is cheap but your looking at almost double the cost for 50Mbps. I doubt we are going to see 100mbp at an affordable price before next gen consoles come out. Also when looking at 50GB games or even 25GB games those will not be fast downloads.

Ahh, but you seem to miss something. With that 20Mbps you should really be getting +4Mbps of true download speeds. That's more that enough. I've downloaded content off the net that are around 8-12GB and it takes 30min. for 8GB at true 4Mbps speeds. So, in my experience I believe that lovely 20Gbps you say you have is already enough for now.

Here in SA, the basic package consists of 384Kbps and 1GB download/upload(total traffic including International traffic i.e. UK/US) content. Now up to 2-3 years ago, they were charging around 50 Euros for this if not more. Things have gotten better now and for that package you now pay around +-25 euros. For the max package, you looking at 4Mbps(shaped) and up to 10GB. you looking at paying around +-70 Euros for this. Problem I have with this is that I feel that 10GB is not enough. First, the 4Mbps allows you to download content(games, mp3's) at a faster rate and you will reach your cap within a day or two if your not careful. Now, most of the people play games every night(4-8hours) and can use up to 400MB just playing games, times that by 30 and it comes to 12GB .. so a person who plays games every day will be capped before the month ends, remember since here they total to download and upload together to get the limit(which is something else I have a problem with). What if a person wants to browse or down a new game through Steam(usually around 4GB if not more). You see the problem now? Then there's shaped and unshaped packages. Most packages are shaped, meaning that the traffic internationally is worse than if you buy the unshaped package which is a lot more, well over 100 Euros(i'd guess about 120 Euros). So a person who wants to play WOW, and wants good pings 200ms(UK) or 260ms(US) needs to get and unshaped account.

And this is all because the government has/d a policy where it protected the telco which incidently the government has shares in. Now they decided about two years ago to get a Second National Operator(SNO) but again, the government has shares in it and well, things are only slightly better than 3-4 years ago but not really helping at getting the prices lower or helping at getting better, faster internet/bandwidth services.

US
 
yes but that's a double pressing requiring over 2x the machine time, single layer BR will be cheaper than DL-DVD if your volume is high enough to cover the master cost. Single layer DVD is in the <$.10 in with volume contracts.

Doesn't bluray require extra steps including that coat of anti scratch resistant stuff they put on it which would keep it more expensive than dvd ?
 
To get that speed it usually requires a heavy investment since Cobber only goes so far. And with every insane speed bump to the private users the backbone has to be buffed as well. In 10-15 years we may have "instant" access to movies, etc..., but it will still be limited to those lucky fews that live the right place with the right ISP.

I don't believe it'll take that long. I say 4-5 years. :) for the tech to become more accessible. Also remember that yes, the technology is expensive for the ISP in the beginning, but the end result, 4-5 years further down the line the costs have been recuperated and the ISP is making a killing.

US
 
Ahh, but you seem to miss something. With that 20Mbps you should really be getting +4Mbps of true download speeds. That's more that enough. I've downloaded content off the net that are around 8-12GB and it takes 30min. for 8GB at true 4Mbps speeds. So, in my experience I believe that lovely 20Gbps you say you have is already enough for now.

Right but who has the bandwidth to max out a million users trying to download a game on release day ? The only way it coudl work is by using a bit torrent setup. However some isps (comcast) have caps and if your downloading and up loading it could cause problems for many users esp around the holidays as if this generation is any example , I will be downloading 6 games in nov. At 15 gigs each that can add up to alot of bandwidth esp if its a bit torrent setup.

It sucks for you guys that you have limits . Fios doesn't limit me and i've once upload 200 gigs of data and downloaded just under 100gigs in a single month of usage ( uploading high def video of a vacation to friends across the country) I would go nuts if i had a hard cap.
 
Thing we have over here is that we get a group together. One person d/l's one thing and another d/l's another and then we get together at lans and share the content. This seems to work quite nicely, but means that you have to wait a bit to get the content.

Waiting a few days for the release of a new game is not a problem, patience is a virtue. ;)

US
 
Eastmen,

To achieve your proposed 240MBps transfer rate you need to stripe 8 flash devices. Even if a 32GB SDHC card costs only $1.00 (lol) by 2010, that's $8.00 + control logic, and the total capacity is still only 32GB. That is an totally unecessary cost a publisher should burden.

Do you realize that a 7200rpm HD has a sustained transfer rate of about 55MBps - 60MBps? Does that seem slow to you? If BD drives are not fast enough to stream textures, then copy files to the hard drive, just like its done now. Except by 2010 terabyte size HDs will be commonplace, and installing games will be less of an issue due to space constraints.

Finally, the examples you've used to illustrate why we need a 240MBps transfer rate really have nothing to do with transfer rate at all. Crappy textures in GTA4 is a result of not enough system RAM. Your COD example is flawed as well. the effects of an explosion in an environment need to be visible immediately, therefore those textures need to reside in RAM as well.
 
Some bad math in this thread...

and it takes 30min. for 8GB at true 4Mbps speeds.

4Mbps = 500KB/s = 30MB/minute = 1.8GB/hour

Eastmen,

To achieve your proposed 240MBps transfer rate you need to stripe 8 flash devices. Even if a 32GB SDHC card costs only $1.00 (lol) by 2010, that's $8.00 + control logic, and the total capacity is still only 32GB. That is an totally unecessary cost a publisher should burden.

8 x 32 GB = 256GB

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doesn't bluray require extra steps including that coat of anti scratch resistant stuff they put on it which would keep it more expensive than dvd ?

it adds minor cost but not as much as requiring 2x pressings. Right now the cheapest per GB is a single layer HD-DVD cause it has basically the exact same pressing costs as a single layer DVD. BR is currently still 2-3x per layer over DVD but a lot of that has to do with capacity and depreciation both of which will even out over the next 3-4 years. BR will always be more expensive than dvd simply because of the machine time but it should come down to within 10% over time.
 
8 x 32 GB = 256GB

Cheers
SpecwarGP2 is seeing parallel-access flash storage as similar ot a RAID striped HDD array - you only gain higher transfer at a loss of overall HDD capacity. Carts with parallel data supply will presumably need to be similar striped with duplicate data, or instead would need to supply different parallel bits of data at the same time, which is an IO headache and would be prone to severe bottlenecks when one chip has all four textures being requested.
 
You're right. Never using Raid I forget all the options, but redundancy is ther for security, not performance. Raid-0 increases performance at the same HDD capacity.
 
Back
Top