They're talking about some sort of custom packaging, not a commercial SSD HDD. As in, buy a bunch of cheap 30 MB/s chips, put them together, ???? and 200 MB/s.
Alternative distribution to optical disks : SSD, cards, and download*
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
They're talking about some sort of custom packaging, not a commercial SSD HDD. As in, buy a bunch of cheap 30 MB/s chips, put them together, ???? and 200 MB/s.
It makes the most sense to move to a pool of internal flash memory and sell all games as a download ala the iPhone App store.
Which Sony have already started doing.
Exactly. Reverting to carts doesn't make sense for the next PSP.
This only works if you have lots and lots of chips.
If you want high bandwidth with low chipcount the only way will be designing and fabricating custom flash.
next psp will most likely come with 32 gigs of flash built in. By that time i'm sure that 16gig memory stick pros (or perhaps a faster version ?) will be avalible on the cheap. Most people I know play games off the memory card anyway.
UMD will be droped do the the power hog and noise maker it is.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/sdxc-memory-cards-promise-2tb-of-storage-300mbps-transfer/
while 1TB cards wont be around for a long time , in march we will see 104MBps cards of unknown size. Depending on price and size those would work very well for a 2011 console. 32GB at a 104MBps would be amazing
while 1TB cards wont be around for a long time , in march we will see 104MBps cards of unknown size. Depending on price and size those would work very well for a 2011 console. 32GB at a 104MBps would be amazing
If a next generation console came out first with Flash, would that be viable? Say if it had a years lead on the market, could it get away with charging an extra $10 for games to cover the higher cost of content and hope that the other console makers follow in a similar fashion?
Greedy? It's not greedy to use discs that cost dozens/hundreds of times less since it would benefit everyone more to do so.
Don't be so melodramatic, SSDs cost FAR too much to use, not just a few dollars
Both of which you're exaggerating highly. UMD won't be dropped, Sony literally couldn't if they wanted to
I'm not so sure.
Discs are very slow. We've had this discussion before. A 12x bluray drive would transfer at 54MB/s and be very loud and seek times would be horrible.
SSDs on the other hand are blazing fast and can max out SATA 3.0 . You can transfer at 250Mb/s and seek time is non existant compared to bluray. There are no performance losses for switching layers either.
If a bluray drive next gen costs $20 bucks thats $20 bucks they can put towards an ssd drve. Currently you can get 30-40 gig ssds for as low as $85 and 60-80 gigs for $200 with 120 gigs going for $350. That of course is with making a profit.
The other thing is , that the cost of the ssd can be passed to the consumer. You can simply buy another one if you run out of room.
In fact going with an ssd in the console my dream senario would be putting an ssd in the console instead of the disc drive. SSD's are 2 1/2 laptop drives. So the size diffrence betwen the disc drive and ssd would be great. You can reduce the console size. That drive will be part of the system and can't be replaced. However just like the xbox 360 you can buy an add on drive that connects to the outside of the case and you an store more games.
Now instead of purchasing pressed discs creating cases and shipping. The devs simply have to upload the game to ms's servers. It would save costs over those cheap discs actually.
The intial cost of the ssd would be included in the selling price of the console. The additional drives can be sold for a profit for consumers who need it .
Blazkowicz
Legend
for a 2011 console?
look at today's price an such a high end memory card, a 16GB "SanDisk Extreme Pro CompactFlash 90MB/s"
http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00093853.html
it's more expensive than a 2TB hard disk with the same performance barring latency. let's imagine it doubles size and get cheaper.. it will still be priced the same as a 2.5TB drive.
what process is the nand made on ? If its 55nm well they already have nand being made on 40nm and lower. I believe intel intends to start using 22nm nand for its ssd drives later this year.
Yea, so has Sony. Why do you think they still went with optical? (Cost)
And only storing about 3 games.
Another reason optical was used.
Higher cost to consumer = lower sales from consumer
Both to the hardware and the games.
Not really with PSP. It's in the same technological level as PS2/GCN/Wii/XBOX.
Sony still has the requirements of getting it to retailers (who have boycotted Sony's attempt at a system without a physical medium) selling to areas without broadband, customers who prefer physical mediums, customers without a credit card, customers will low technological aptitude, etc etc.
And it runs its optical drive from a power cable plugged into the mains.
I reassert, this thread is about optical disks in home consoles, and the other thread is about optical disks in handhelds/portable consoles/whatever you want to call them.Although I've probably read most of the thread I can't remember if this has been discussed. Wouldn't it make sense to have a default low end machine like the 360 Arcade with a small SSD, maybe 10GB? Then have an empty hard drive bay for expansion.
Unlike hard drives, the 10GB SSD would actually reduce in price over the life of the console. I think it's also big enough for any install this generation. If not, maybe it would have to be a 20GB SSD. Still, with an expansion bay for a slow drive it wouldn't really matter.
As long as that really small SSD was the minimum standard on all machines I could see this being useful.
Again, my apologies if this was discussed and I completely forgot about it.
Unlike hard drives, the 10GB SSD would actually reduce in price over the life of the console. I think it's also big enough for any install this generation. If not, maybe it would have to be a 20GB SSD. Still, with an expansion bay for a slow drive it wouldn't really matter.
As long as that really small SSD was the minimum standard on all machines I could see this being useful.
Again, my apologies if this was discussed and I completely forgot about it.
specwarGP2
Regular
So the cost of the game goes up, but the publisher's margin stays the same. When games aren't sold, they lose more per unit. Exactly how does this benefit publishers again?
Things are diffrent. Back in the day you have carts that were mabye 64-128 megs big and cost $35 bucks to make while cds cost 25 cents and offered 750 megs. Games like Final fantasy used that space for fmv (god i hated that change) But cds were good enough to last from the sega cd / turbo graphics cd through the playstation / saturn era and not only that but many dreamcast games fit on 1 cd. That is why piriating it was so popular because cds were cheap while dvs were expensive at the time.
But now we have the 360 and ps3 and visual diffrences just aren't there and games have stayed on dvd for a second gen.
A 40 gig drive would hold almost 6 games that maxed out the dvds in the 360. A 120 gig would hold over 17.
Last I looked the 360 has sold better than the ps3 dispite having expensive hardrive add ons. I would see it as no diffrent than this gen. You get a 40-120 gig drive depending on costs of the drives at launch built into the drive and at any point you can buy a larger drive and stick it on the outside. Countless people who had arcades or original pros have done this for more storage. Its no diffrent .
Bluray added huge costs to the ps3 and dvd added huge costs to the ps2. Why can't we have a large cost added again to the next gen systems.
Remember an ssd has no mving parts so it can actuall reduce costs in the long run.
Last edited by a moderator:
who you replying to ?
