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

Discs aren't attractive for their image quality alone either. Streaming services are like convenient all you can eat menus, and I like them very much. They don't come with delicious desserts like making-of featurettes and audio commentary, though.
 
and if you need more space than the limited bluray option ?

What then ?

By 2010 it can be very possible that nothing is based on blur-ray and everyone would have movied on

This thread is pretty fantastic, for several reasons, for example a 64GB SD-CARD on Newegg is 18 dollars today, so even 7 years after we started this discussion Blu-Ray is still killing everything when it comes to Price vs Capacity.
 
At what price ? And where ?

I can get a 4G/LTE with a 200 GB monthly cap for 299DKK ($45) here in Denmark.

Cheers

From my experience the latency and unpredictable behavior of 4G / Mobile Internet makes it worthless for gaming. I have used it several times ---> 4G on TDC and a friend of mine tried 3 and Telenor when he didn't have a connection.
Unless you are saying i should buy a Mobile Sim just for download games?
 
This thread is pretty fantastic, for several reasons, for example a 64GB SD-CARD on Newegg is 18 dollars today, so even 7 years after we started this discussion Blu-Ray is still killing everything when it comes to Price vs Capacity.
Yep.:yes:

The first few years of discussion were about flash carts having a major advantage for speed, and not having to wait an hour for install. Years later, PS4 came out with progressive install that makes us play within 30 seconds, and it caches everything on the local storage, so any flash advantage was nullified.

I'm sad nobody tried again with the holodisc vaporware, it's usually happening right before the release of a new format.

Well we did have "UHD BR is dead because 8K is coming and HD BR is dead because some people still buy DVD". But no holodisc discussion yet.
 
This thread is pretty fantastic, for several reasons, for example a 64GB SD-CARD on Newegg is 18 dollars today, so even 7 years after we started this discussion Blu-Ray is still killing everything when it comes to Price vs Capacity.

The only advantage it has is price vs Capacity

Its slower in speed , its more fragile and its many times larger and for safe storage requires an even larger case for it.

When we move to UHD Bluray the time frame is going to be even faster .

UHD Bluray has a Dual layer 66GB option , just 2 gigs more than that $18 64 gig SD option and a 100 gig triple layer which is already out classed by the 128gig options already avalible and 256 gigs on the market.. The first commercial sdxc 64 gig cards didn't hit the market until 2010.

UHD Bluray is just sub par spec bumps relying on a new codec to hit its 4k goals.
 
The only advantage it has is price vs Capacity

Its slower in speed , its more fragile and its many times larger and for safe storage requires an even larger case for it.

When we move to UHD Bluray the time frame is going to be even faster .

UHD Bluray has a Dual layer 66GB option , just 2 gigs more than that $18 64 gig SD option and a 100 gig triple layer which is already out classed by the 128gig options already avalible and 256 gigs on the market.. The first commercial sdxc 64 gig cards didn't hit the market until 2010.
This mental gymnastic again...

Bluray is 100GB for $1.20 (estimated), embraced by all studios, all the CE industry, and using the same dirt cheap drive.

Flash is 64GB for $18 (128GB for $36), no format, no proven copy protection, no support, no studios, nothing. Just a broken dream from 2008.

How do you like them apples?

UHD Bluray is just sub par spec bumps relying on a new codec to hit its 4k goals.
You do not understand the word par.
 
Which is MASSIVE!

Well we should really go further.

Streamings Capacity vs cost is massive. For $8 a month I can stream unlimited hours of content . That is the cost of a value bluray.

The cost to manufacturer of bluray is just cheaper than some other forms of physical media
 
Unless you are saying i should buy a Mobile Sim just for download games?

I was saying most people has access to cheap, fast (>30mbit/s) broadband options, enabling digital distribution, of which 4G/LTE was one and vectored DSL the other.

We have five times faster broadband than just 2-3 years ago.

Cheers
 
Well we should really go further.

Streamings Capacity vs cost is massive. For $8 a month I can stream unlimited hours of content . That is the cost of a value bluray.
Streaming a game a la Gaikai isn't the same experience as playing locally (plus only needs a thin client, so is a different model) and you'll be paying more than $8 a month as you need to fund the servers and internet distribution.

If you mean digital distribution, that's had its pros and cons repeated to excess. It's the future, but not yet. Hence the recent B3D poll showed unequivocally that gamers want both download and disc options.

In engineering, you'll see Ashby plots showing materials weighted against two variables.
http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/interactive_charts/strength-density/NS6Chart.html
You'd then pick one that had the best balance, meeting minimum requirements and trying to maximise secondary requirements within budget.
We have the same thing with game distribution, dealing with several parameters.

What you do is pick one variable to argue against a choice (like speed), and then switch variable to argue another option (price) without seeing the balanced whole of all the variables. discs sit in a strong mid-range position, being cheap and capacious and fairly fast. Flash tops the speed plots but bottom outs the cost. DD rates higher than discs for cost effectiveness (assuming someone already has an internet plan) but is far worse for speed.

When you 'plot' all the parameters, you see discs occupy a very solid central position, rating very highly on the primary requirements (cost, capacity) and well on everything else. There's no parameter where discs are dire. That's why they are used and will continue to be used until technological changes in the other options shift their plot positions to make them more balanced.
 
The only advantage it has is price vs Capacity

Its slower in speed , its more fragile and its many times larger and for safe storage requires an even larger case for it.

When we move to UHD Bluray the time frame is going to be even faster .

UHD Bluray has a Dual layer 66GB option , just 2 gigs more than that $18 64 gig SD option and a 100 gig triple layer which is already out classed by the 128gig options already avalible and 256 gigs on the market.. The first commercial sdxc 64 gig cards didn't hit the market until 2010.

UHD Bluray is just sub par spec bumps relying on a new codec to hit its 4k goals.

How can you say UHD BluRay is sub par when it's launching with specs that afaik not a single purchasable display device can even display?
Yes, in 10 years you could argue that they should have gone further, but they know just as well as you and i do, that Optical Media is not what it was, so it just have to suit the needs for UHD movies, and maybe a PS5.

"The spec allows for discs in three sizes: 50GB with 82 Mbit/s, 66GB with 108 Mbit/s, and 100GB with 128 Mbit/s."
 
Well we should really go further.

Streamings Capacity vs cost is massive. For $8 a month I can stream unlimited hours of content . That is the cost of a value bluray.

The cost to manufacturer of bluray is just cheaper than some other forms of physical media
That's only comparable if one is fine with somewhere between DVD and BR quality and low bit rate max 5.1 audio.

The true benefit of BR is high bit rate video AND audio. Can I stream 20mbps+ video and 7.1 dts-hd yet from anywhere?
 
"The spec allows for discs in three sizes: 50GB with 82 Mbit/s, 66GB with 108 Mbit/s, and 100GB with 128 Mbit/s."
I wondered why they support the 50GB in there. Maybe for a lower cost using current mastering equipment.

Maybe licensing is a few extra cents per disc for Sony's i-MLSE which allows 66GB. Or maybe there is a lower yield. i-MLSE is so weird I don't understand how it works.
 
It would be nice, however I think many people are still shy of purchasing online...
Alternative would be to sell cards (like amazon cards) at retail, but not games themsevles.
As long as there are game retailers, we are stuck with shitty price & dumb pre-order bonuses... So it would be better w/o them.

(Would be nice to be able to back them up like in Steam, makes things a little harder but that's be grood.)


Without retailers (Gamestop, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc)......How would Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo sell their consoles?
 
Without retailers (Gamestop, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc)......How would Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo sell their consoles?

Microsoft has their own retail stores they could use in the US and they also have an online store. There are also major online retailers like Amazon, NewEgg, and Dell as well as auction houses like EBay.
 
Microsoft has their own retail stores they could use in the US and they also have an online store. There are also major online retailers like Amazon, NewEgg, and Dell as well as auction houses like EBay.

Microsoft has 106 US stores.....116 worldwide.
I don't think that's enough of a retail presence, and it would certainly contribute to a massive decline in Console sales and distribution.
Brick & Mortar retail is still a very important and critical to console & game distribution.
 
Why do stores have to stop selling a game console just because it's a digital only device? Phones & tablets still sell in those same stores.

Tommy McClain
 
Because stores would need to have a significant markup to compensate, which they don't have right now. They are the customer service in exchange for some profit on software sales and peripherals. They contribute with local publicity and having it in stock for impulse buyers and gifts.

No retailer would accept $12 on a $400 device if all sw sales were digital. It would have to be sold for $500+ like all consumer electronics. It's not a charity.

Phones and tablets have a significant markup. Look up the teardowns and IHS iSupply estimates. It's like 100% markup.
 
Last edited:
Because stores would need to have a significant markup to compensate, which they don't have right now. They are the customer service in exchange for some profit on software sales and peripherals. They contribute with local publicity and having it in stock for impulse buyers and gifts.

No retailer would accept $12 on a $400 device if all sw sales were digital. It would have to be sold for $500+ like all consumer electronics. It's not a charity.

Phones and tablets have a significant markup. Look up the teardowns and IHS iSupply estimates. It's like 100% markup.

Yep.....and very well put, MrFox.
Alot of people do not understand what THE RAZOR BLADE BUSINESS MODEL is, and/or they don't understand that Consoles are sold and entrenched under this model.

There's very little to no margin for these $400 consoles at launch. Even the $600 PS3 had a razor thin margin.
Without this model, we as consumers would have to either pay more, or we would have to take even more inferior tech in the consoles at launch.......Think of a PS4 having Wii U Tech components inside........I shudder at the thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebie_marketing
 
Back
Top