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

[eastmen]

What about those of us that prefer to keep their games for eternity?

Those people don't exist because eventually everything stops working.

IN a way DD will be better than physical media. What are you going to do with a ps one disc. Sony doesn't make psones anymore , once your psone is broken what do you do ? Move to a ps2 that plays them but you ca't move to a ps3 as it wont play them.

With DD the software should allways be tied to your account .

Basically the writing is on the wall. All major publishers would like to move to DD first, but cannot do so until the consoles also move to DD first (PSP2 is a start in that direction). The only question is, how best to service those consumers that can't do DD due to not having access to uncapped broadband. Do we remain with the incredibly expensive to support Optical media (or even more expensive 1 game = 1 flash cart) type of retail distribution? Or a far cheaper and more profitable system featuring reuseable media distribution (flash, HDD, SSD, whatever...)

Or a hybrid retail system where you eliminate most of the manufacturing and distribution chain and go with Secure use once flash carts, where the retailer "manufactures" the secure use once flash cart instead of the publisher. They do this by downloading the secure DD image of the game and then loading onto the approved use once secure flash cart at the retail location. That will, however, quite likely result in up front costs similar to but less than traditional distribution of optical media to retail. And if you're going to do this, why not just go the extra step to far cheaper reuseable distribution?

Regards,
SB

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4078/intels-ssd-310-g2-performance-in-an-msata-form-factor

you can go with something in this form factor. Its write are slow but its using an older intel controller. A sand force controller should hit around 230MB/s .

 

[corduroygt]

Off the top of my head look at the NewZoo compiled survey data. There should be a link in the European console sales thread. The total numbers are questionable, IMO, but the ratio should be somewhat indicative (10% for DD and 9% for physical retail).
The big publishers are also mentioning DD more and more and smaller publishers are citing DD as the primary reason they are doing so well, with some consideration of going DD only for some of their published games. As well you have NPD stating that PC digital has surpassed PC retail (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100920.html ). That's for sales volume. Reports are that revenue also surpassed retail over the whole of 2010, but noone has posted numbers for that.

After disregarding people "mentioning DD" as if that means anything, the only hard numbers you have is the questionable newzoo report that's probably just as accurate as vgchartz, and NPD report that PC game sales majority but not revenue majority have moved to DD.

My argument was not about whether the publishers want to move to DD, because of course they would. That's never in question. What's in question is that how much of the massive video games market is DD.

Here's a link as it pertains just to the US market, which is by far the most widespread DD market out there:
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/46055/Video+Game+Sales+Decline+in+2010

From this piece, we see that PC software sales are insignificant, and a lesser dollar amount was spent on DD according to the NPD report (57/43) as well. It also says that used game sales, DD, casual games, facebook, and other digital content combined makes up about half of new game sales. Given that a vast majority of that is used games plus iOS games and facebook, this absolutely refutes your ridiculous claim that "DD has surpassed physical media in revenue for "traditional" style games." It's false, not even true for PC where it's close.

Therefore your outrageous claim that "DD has surpassed physical media in revenue for "traditional" style games" is absolutely 100% false. It's not even close, and not even true for PC.

 

[specwarGP2]

1) I'm one of the unwashed billions that sincerely believes 3D is the next big flash in the pan. I can barely stand to watch '3D' movies in a theater, watching in my home doesn't sound like a privilege.

So you think displays are going to be 2D forever? Cmon man..

If anything the CE companies will try very hard to make 3D mainstream so they can sell us new gear again.

2) Blu-ray players already do that, for less money than a new console... in 2 years much less money, assuming 3D is still cared about.

That's true. But why buy a standalone player when you can get one for "free" built into your console that serves as an all in one media center?

3) Blu-ray isn't the only possible way to deliver 3D content. There's already these things called cable and vod.

It's the only way to own it and currently the only way to watch feature length 3D flims at home is on BD with no indication that will change any time soon.

That's akin to suggesting that the only way blu-ray could be successful is if MS and Nintendo go along with it. There's going to be millions and millions of flash devices built every year for the foreseeable future even if it isn't adopted as the prime distribution model for a console. And that's kinda moot as Sony already has sorta gone along with it, check out their new handheld specs.

The difference between BD and DVD is measured in pennies. The difference between BD and DVD is measured in dollars. If MS goes with flash next gen then publishers will have to eat the extra $5 to match PS4 game prices. Since something like 70% of all games already dont make a profit that additional $5 manufacturing cost could drive away publishers fearing additional risk.

And you cant use portables as an example either. All decisions in that space are heavily influenced by the fact that the device has to be portable. So flash is the only media that makes sense there.

 

[AlphaWolf]

So you think displays are going to be 2D forever? Cmon man..

If anything the CE companies will try very hard to make 3D mainstream so they can sell us new gear again.

CE companies are always trying to sell people things they don't need or want. It doesn't always work. 3D with glasses will never be a big thing.

That's true. But why buy a standalone player when you can get one for "free" built into your console that serves as an all in one media center?

It's not free. Nothing is ever free.

It's the only way to own it and currently the only way to watch feature length 3D flims at home is on BD with no indication that will change any time soon.

There's nothing stopping broadcast 3D movies, except the lack of an audience. There's already been a number of 3D television broadcasts of various events. The only reason it might not change is because that audience never grows.

The difference between BD and DVD is measured in pennies. The difference between BD and DVD is measured in dollars. If MS goes with flash next gen then publishers will have to eat the extra $5 to match PS4 game prices. Since something like 70% of all games already dont make a profit that additional $5 manufacturing cost could drive away publishers fearing additional risk.

In 2006 it was much more than a few pennies (and looking around it's still more than a few pennies, more like a few dozen pennies). They could just subsidize it on their end, by lowering royalties. They could use the billions they will save by not including a blu-ray drive (and savings on licensing) to do so until the price of flash media is low enough that its no longer necessary.

And you cant use portables as an example either. All decisions in that space are heavily influenced by the fact that the device has to be portable. So flash is the only media that makes sense there.

And yet Sony moved from a portable with optical to flash in their next portable.

Flash offers a number of benefits with the only downside being a higher unit cost on games. The question is only if that cost will be too high in a couple of years. If it's only a few dollars, I think the upside is worth it. I'd pay an extra buck or 5 per game to have a quieter, smaller, faster, cheaper console.

 

[eastmen]

After disregarding people "mentioning DD" as if that means anything, the only hard numbers you have is the questionable newzoo report that's probably just as accurate as vgchartz, and NPD report that PC game sales majority but not revenue majority have moved to DD.

My argument was not about whether the publishers want to move to DD, because of course they would. That's never in question. What's in question is that how much of the massive video games market is DD.

Here's a link as it pertains just to the US market, which is by far the most widespread DD market out there:
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/46055/Video+Game+Sales+Decline+in+2010

From this piece, we see that PC software sales are insignificant, and a lesser dollar amount was spent on DD according to the NPD report (57/43) as well. It also says that used game sales, DD, casual games, facebook, and other digital content combined makes up about half of new game sales. Given that a vast majority of that is used games plus iOS games and facebook, this absolutely refutes your ridiculous claim that "DD has surpassed physical media in revenue for "traditional" style games." It's false, not even true for PC where it's close.

Therefore your outrageous claim that "DD has surpassed physical media in revenue for "traditional" style games" is absolutely 100% false. It's not even close, and not even true for PC.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/58910/Steam-Rakes-in-Nearly-1-Billion-in-2010

steam is doing pretty well by itself , add xbox live , psn , games on i stuff and andriod and i'm sure its up there , it may not have beaten the consoles and handhelds yet but mabye before the gen is over it will

 

[specwarGP2]

And yet Sony moved from a portable with optical to flash in their next portable.

That's because it makes sense for a portable. I mean cmon does it really need to be explained why?

Flash offers a number of benefits with the only downside being a higher unit cost on games. The question is only if that cost will be too high in a couple of years. If it's only a few dollars, I think the upside is worth it. I'd pay an extra buck or 5 per game to have a quieter, smaller, faster, cheaper console.

In the end the only thing that matters to publishers is the higher unit costs. I dont see them eating additional costs just because they want to be nice guys so we can have faster load times. MS could subsidize the additional cost but if the next xbox has the same attach rate next gen they would end up losing money. $5 may not be a big deal to you, but in many places after tax thats more than $70 for a game and its a big enough deal to lots of people that if there's a cheaper viable alternative they'll go for it.

 

[hoho]

It's kind of funny how people think buying a flash memory card from shop you'll pay the same price you would if you'd order millions of them.

 

[corduroygt]

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/58910/Steam-Rakes-in-Nearly-1-Billion-in-2010

steam is doing pretty well by itself , add xbox live , psn , games on i stuff and andriod and i'm sure its up there , it may not have beaten the consoles and handhelds yet but mabye before the gen is over it will

Steam + XBL + PSN + Wiiware revenues won't even come close to the ODD revenues for the rest of this gen. Majority of the DD stuff is microtransactions, DLC, and iOS stuff, you know, stuff with small file sizes that's sold cheap. Big file sizes and big "traditional" games are a barrier against DD for many people. I wonder how our friends in Canada are doing with 50GB bandwidth caps.

 

[Npl]

It's kind of funny how people think buying a flash memory card from shop you'll pay the same price you would if you'd order millions of them.

It's kind of funny how people think those cards will be identical to the cheapest flash media and at the same time having transfer rates of SSDs.
The flash cards for handhelds/consoles will have their own kind of protection built in, instantly adding costs and lowering volume ten-fold... so yes it wont be the same price, likely a bit more.

 

[-tkf-]

Those people don't exist because eventually everything stops working.

IN a way DD will be better than physical media. What are you going to do with a ps one disc. Sony doesn't make psones anymore , once your psone is broken what do you do ? Move to a ps2 that plays them but you ca't move to a ps3 as it wont play them.

With DD the software should allways be tied to your account .

Uh? You can play VHS movies today and in plenty of years to come, and that media is by all acounts dead.
And you PS1 example is flawed, when they stop making PS1 or PS2 consoles, you can still play them in the PS3.

"PlayStation® format software Can be played on this system"

Do you honestly believe that if you had bought a DD game from any of the console makers 16 years ago they would still support it in any DD format? And by the looks of it PS1 games will be perfectly supported in 15 years as well. So yes, everything stops working at some point, but i can promise you that DD purchases stop working earlier than Physical Purchases

And then there is the other issues:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=59311&page=2

In an industry where the cost of pressing 2 DVD´s instead of one is enough to make the developers introduce compromises there will be a high amount of attention given to distrubution costs. DD will absolutely be a way to save money and avoid the 2nd hand sales. But it will require plenty of space on the Console (SSD=no no) and require the customers to have access to plenty of bandwidth and high limits on transfers.
A disc is still the perfect media for the average consumer, and then the publishers can nikkel and dime us all into hell with DLC.. Just like they do now

 

[AlphaWolf]

That's because it makes sense for a portable. I mean cmon does it really need to be explained why?

Yes, explain it please. They already had an optical format, just like the ps3 does, and yet they are moving to flash. The extra speed and power savings of flash makes sense for a console in the same way that the form factor savings make sense for a portable.

In the end the only thing that matters to publishers is the higher unit costs. I dont see them eating additional costs just because they want to be nice guys so we can have faster load times. MS could subsidize the additional cost but if the next xbox has the same attach rate next gen they would end up losing money. $5 may not be a big deal to you, but in many places after tax thats more than $70 for a game and its a big enough deal to lots of people that if there's a cheaper viable alternative they'll go for it.

In the end publishers won't be deciding the format. MS could easily subsidize the $5 for the first 2 years and still save money. Keep in mind they're saving at least $25 a unit on blu-ray. That's 5 games per person that buys over the first 2 years. If cost of a flash game is a barrier, than the extra cost of including optical is a barrier as well.

It's kind of funny how people think those cards will be identical to the cheapest flash media and at the same time having transfer rates of SSDs.
The flash cards for handhelds/consoles will have their own kind of protection built in, instantly adding costs and lowering volume ten-fold... so yes it wont be the same price, likely a bit more.

Flash media has built in DRM support. What would cost extra about using it?

 

[-tkf-]

Yes, explain it please. They already had an optical format, just like the ps3 does, and yet they are moving to flash. The extra speed and power savings of flash makes sense for a console in the same way that the form factor savings make sense for a portable.

Portables would need a new optical format, Blu-Ray seems a tad to big for portables.
Or a refresh of UMD(2) which Sony clearly abandoned.

In the end publishers won't be deciding the format. MS could easily subsidize the $5 for the first 2 years and still save money. Keep in mind they're saving at least $25 a unit on blu-ray. That's 5 games per person that buys over the first 2 years. If cost of a flash game is a barrier, than the extra cost of including optical is a barrier as well. Flash media has built in DRM support. What would cost extra about using it?

You can bet that both MS and SONY is asking developers and publishers about their opinion on distribution format, even if they don´t get to decide anything. I don´t understand your 25$ pr unit remark?

 

[corduroygt]

Yes, explain it please. They already had an optical format, just like the ps3 does, and yet they are moving to flash. The extra speed and power savings of flash makes sense for a console in the same way that the form factor savings make sense for a portable.

No, home consoles don't run on batteries, so the measly 2-5W of power saved using flash over optical is not very relevant when you're plugged in to the wall.

In the end publishers won't be deciding the format.

Yes they do influence the format, unless you want a repeat of N64 where they move away from your console to publish on your competitor's vastly cheaper and more spacious format.

MS could easily subsidize the $5 for the first 2 years and still save money.

Fine, if you want to have a console with a 2 year life span. Who's going to pay the $5 (which is really closer to $10, but whatever) after the two years? Publishers who lose money on 70% of the games already? They won't.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You can bet that both MS and SONY is asking developers and publishers about their opinion on distribution format, even if they don´t get to decide anything. I don´t understand your 25$ pr unit remark?

Cost of a blu-ray drive. That's probably a conservative estimate when you include extra cost for a bigger case, larger power supply and license fees.

No, home consoles don't run on batteries, so the measly 2-5W of power saved using flash over optical is not very relevant when you're plugged in to the wall.

Where the hell are you getting 2-5 watts? That's what a blu-ray drive uses when its not running, try 20 watts. More if you want to talk about a higher speed drive to meet future needs. Flash uses almost nothing, less than 1W.

Yes they do influence the format, unless you want a repeat of N64 where they move away from your console to publish on your competitor's vastly cheaper and more spacious format.

Technically flash has much more capacity potential than current blu-ray discs, so I'm not sure how you get the idea that blu-ray is more spacious. Oh I'm sure they have an opinion, but you're assuming that opinion favors blu-ray, when we all know the developers opinions would favor direct download. And I'm sure DD will be an option.

Fine, if you want to have a console with a 2 year life span. Who's going to pay the $5 (which is really closer to $10, but whatever) after the two years? Publishers who lose money on 70% of the games already? They won't.

In 2 years the price of flash will drop 50% or more just like it always has in the past. After that they wouldn't need to subsidize it. Really the cost for flash 2 years from today will probably be no higher than blu-ray was for publishers in 2006.

 

[Npl]

Flash media has built in DRM support. What would cost extra about using it?

Which DRM, the one thats useless because it requires devices to honor the "DRM" (not really DRM, more similar to macrovision on VHS) or the one that requires online activation (bah)?
Unless Sony adds some additional protection it wont take 2 months for some copier devices to show up.
(If DRM on flash is a solved issue then why is every flash based media to date copied with ease...)

The extra cost is lower volume than regular SD Cards which are sold at razor thin profits thanks to very high volume and competition of multiple vendors.

 

[corduroygt]

Where the hell are you getting 2-5 watts? That's what a blu-ray drive uses when its not running, try 20 watts. More if you want to talk about a higher speed drive to meet future needs. Flash uses almost nothing, less than 1W.

Actually, where are you getting 20W? Same fantasy land where flash is cheap and Blu-ray didn't win the format war? Because a 6X Blu-ray burner has 7.5W peak power usage. A reader will easily be under 5W peak, and much lower once the disc is spun up.
http://www.buffalo-technology.com/files/products/BR-PX68U2BK English.pdf

Here's a 6X reader that's solely powered by USB. Max spec of USB is 500mA at 5V, so that's 2.5W. Many devices pull a little more than that but less than an amp, so that's where I got 2-5W from:
http://www.asus.com/News.aspx?N_ID=kLEpl2TVNESmRMtK

Technically flash has much more capacity potential than current blu-ray discs, so I'm not sure how you get the idea that blu-ray is more spacious.

Today you get 4GB flash for $5. That's 34nm flash. If you've noticed recently, moore's law doesn't really apply to foundries anymore, there isn't that much shrinking potential after one more shrink.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Which DRM, the one thats useless because it requires devices to honor the "DRM" (not really DRM, more similar to macrovision on VHS) or the one that requires online activation (bah)?
Unless Sony adds some additional protection it wont take 2 months for some copier devices to show up.
(If DRM on flash is a solved issue then why is every flash based media to date copied with ease...)

The extra cost is lower volume than regular SD Cards which are sold at razor thin profits thanks to very high volume and competition of multiple vendors.

There's tons of options for DRM that would have a relatively fixed cost and would dwindle to almost nothing over millions of units. I think they are all pretty much a waste of time, but the options are there if they want to use them. Just stick your flash in a custom form cartridge and be done with it.

In any event the cost is here is no more than the cost for any of the other DRM schemes, and its a hell of a lot safer than sticking it on a blu-ray disc where any idiot can buy a burner.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Actually, where are you getting 20W? Same fantasy land where flash is cheap and Blu-ray didn't win the format war? Because a 6X Blu-ray burner has 7.5W peak power usage. A reader will easily be under 5W peak, and much lower once the disc is spun up.
http://www.buffalo-technology.com/files/products/BR-PX68U2BK English.pdf

Who gives a flying fuck about the format war. That was about movie content. Most drives I've seen report much higher power usage than that, of course most of them are internal devices that require cooling, much like it would in a console.

Today you get 4GB flash for $5. That's 34nm flash. If you've noticed recently, moore's law doesn't really apply to foundries anymore, there isn't that much shrinking potential after one more shrink.

They won't be buying from retail, but I bought an 8GB (class 10) SD card for $6 just before christmas. And moore's law applies right up until it doesn't. Samsung and hynix and other companies are all in the process of building brand new fabs. The price isn't going to go up. (intel is already sampling 22nm)

 

[corduroygt]

Who gives a flying fuck about the format war. That was about movie content. Most drives I've seen report much higher power usage than that, of course most of them are internal devices that require cooling, much like it would in a console.

Current PS3 blu-ray drive does not require cooling and neither does the 360 DVD. The same drives I linked are used internally in laptops without any extra cooling. You are 100% WRONG on blu-ray power requirements, they are less than 5 Watts. Case closed.

They won't be buying from retail, but I bought an 8GB (class 10) SD card for $6 just before christmas.

If a product is being sold for way under the regular everyday retail price, it's a loss leader or inventory liquidation. Simple as that. After 22nm, there isn't much further to go by the way.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Current PS3 blu-ray drive does not require cooling and neither does the 360 DVD. The same drives I linked are used internally in laptops without any extra cooling. You are 100% WRONG on blu-ray power requirements, they are less than 5 Watts. Case closed.

In any event its an order of magnitude more power than flash requires. And the cases are cooled.

If a product is being sold for way under the regular everyday retail price, it's a loss leader or inventory liquidation. Simple as that. After 22nm, there isn't much further to go by the way.

It might have been a loss leader, but I bet it was still more than it would cost if you ordered 10 million units from a fab. And there's always a new process. They've been saying the end is near since before they broke 1 micron. I'll believe it when I see it. Intel said they were planning 15nm for 2013. Hey that's in 2 years, go figure.