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

[eastmen]

Let's assume for example that we could have 64GB of cache memory or ~20GB flash card for each game. So we would soak 1 time cost of about 3 game medias to each console. If you would cache let's say 3-4GB of stuff per game and stream rest from the slower memory be it optical or flash card you could go with 15 games installations and leave some 4 gigs for savegames and somesuch. Not bad? If one assumes any sd card/usb stick is fast enough then it could be left up to the user how much storage/cache space he wants to have and the console would not need to contain cache memory.

4 gigs is what the 360 was using at launch per game cached on the hardrive.

Aside from that when dealing with games that are 16gigs and up 4 gigs wont ammount for much

Some ps3 games like uncharted1 and 2 work with rather small cache and fill it in smartly. Could work for next gen too stretching that cache to work with much more than 15 games I think XBox360 also has this gradual filling in the cache rather than installs?

Yea and the uncharted 1 (i havent played 2 yet) has alot of repeated textures all over the place.

I want a visual increase next gen. Seek times and transfer speeds will limit the varity that artists can put into the game

But what I'm really saying is that it will be the price of flash cart versus pressed media that decides the media used for games. It's not going to be read speed. And to that matter I think we will see multiple sku's where one is DD only. Fundamentally I would prefer to buy a blu-ray based sku but should that not be available then I will go whatever is being sold For the pricing blu-ray for 25GB discs has become cheap and commodity, it remains to be seen what the cost of similar flash cards is once next gen comes.

Seeing the NGP flash card pricing, sizes and performance would be super interesting...

Transfer rates , seek time , physical media size , costs of the optical drive , cost of distrubution are all factors involved.

Its not just the cost of flash vs a pressed bluray disc. you have to consider all sides.

You want to add in a fast ssd , you want the optical drive you then need to increase the case size to accomidate both then you need to increase the cooling to account for the dead space they both add into the case and then they both will pull more power and so you need to account for that. Now the console is bigger , so packaging needs to be bigger and then shipping will cost more and then retail will stock fewer of them.

Then take the actual medium . A flash cart could be small mabye twice the thickness of an sd card. You can reduce your packing size down drasticly .

You can take hte reduced plastic and thickness found with the size of a ds case. You could actually even reduce the size of the case further. You get the benfit of being able to ship more of the games to a retailer perhaps even double the amount and they will be able to keep double hte amount in stock. Shipping costs will go down.

The only advantage bluray really has is the actual cost of the bluray disc vs the cost of the flash cart. But that can go away or drasticly reduced with savings found every where else in the chain.


The question is , who is going to eat the costs. Does say MS want to eat the cost of a 64gig ssd plus optical drive plus bigger casing larger power supply higher shipment costs better cooling. Or does the publisher eat the cost of the flash . Does the consumer get stuck with it and see a $5 price increase. Perhaps we get lucky and all 3 share.

 

[-tkf-]

Flash media is already as fast as blu-ray is ever going to get. The lack of moving parts gives it a distinct advantage in this area.

I played a DVD once in my 360, just to see if it could do it. Even my ps2 only every played a DVD a few times. There's pretty much zero chance nintendo and MS will use blu-ray, the net benefit for them is nothing.

You are not statical evidence, on the contrary, you are a strange example from Console land

I remember how no one bought a PS3 to play Blu-Ray movies, and then several members of this forum turned out to not buying games for their PS3 since they only used it for movie playback.

Hi-Def movie support will be a checkmark that next gen consoles can chose to ignore and miss compared to the competition. Or they can embrace it and use it as a gaming media as well.

I bought my PS3 at launch for one reason, and one reason only, Blu-Ray (ok and GT5 demo). And i would find it weird to have a next gen console connected to my TV and not being able to playback my collection.
For me it would be negative score in the purchase book.

 

[AlphaWolf]

My xbox plays hi-def movies all the time. You don't need a blu-ray drive to fill that check box.

 

[corduroygt]

My xbox plays hi-def movies all the time. You don't need a blu-ray drive to fill that check box.

Hi-def movies usually include high bitrate 1080p content with lossless sound. Doubt your 360 can play them.

 

[-tkf-]

My xbox plays hi-def movies all the time. You don't need a blu-ray drive to fill that check box.

You need it to fill the Blu-Ray check box, Hi Def playback is many things, but the only defacto format is Blu-Ray. You want to go a few million rounds in stream/download/purchase movies online vs physical media i am all yours, you just need to pick the correct thread

Blu-Ray playback comes "free" with chosing optical media for next gen, cheap storage for games and instant support for Hi Def all around the world and of course DVD.

 

[corduroygt]

Oh and before someone claims that Steam only moves high numbers of small to mid budget games...

http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/01...ops-retakes-top-spot-on-steams-top-10-pc-gam/

And that's not even with sales to boost those as they are after the December push. And I think it was either Activision or Steam or an analyst that said COD: BO sold more on Steam than it did on retail (and that's completely ignoring the other DD services where it was sold).

Heck 7 of the 10 current top sellers are ~40+ USD. 1x at ~30 USD, ~15 USD, and ~10 USD. Once retail 1 media = 1 game retail distribution ends, I wouldn't be surprised to see that to change to 7 out of the top 10 to be ~30 USD or less. With similar types of titles.

Regards,
SB

Let's look at exactly how many people are buying before jumping to conclusions in that list:

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

Given that BO and MW2 each made close to a billion dollars by themselves, the sales figures on Steam are pathetic. Any console game that sold a million copies would be above number 2 on that list.

 

[pcchen]

Let's look at exactly how many people are buying before jumping to conclusions in that list:

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

Given that BO and MW2 each made close to a billion dollars by themselves, the sales figures on Steam are pathetic. Any console game that sold a million copies would be above number 2 on that list.

Ugh, if the number is accurate (it's only an estimation), it's far from "pathetic." US$98.2 million in US$1 billion is nearly 10% of all revenue for that game, and that's only from a single platform (and actually a single retailer!), for a game released on five platforms.

 

[corduroygt]

Ugh, if the number is accurate (it's only an estimation), it's far from "pathetic." US$98.2 million in US$1 billion is nearly 10% of all revenue for that game, and that's only from a single platform (and actually a single retailer!), for a game released on five platforms.

When you consider 360+PS3 with a combined install base of less than 100M worldwide make up >80% of that billion, it's pathetic that more than a billion PC's only make up that amount. Not to mention Black Ops was at a billion before the last 2 weeks of 2010, where I'm sure many more sales were recorded.

 

[pcchen]

When you consider 360+PS3 with a combined install base of less than 100M worldwide make up >80% of that billion, it's pathetic that more than a billion PC's only make up that amount. Not to mention Black Ops was at a billion before the last 2 weeks of 2010, where I'm sure many more sales were recorded.

You are being inconsistent here. I thought you were arguing that DD does not have a significant market share, but now you claim it's PC that is insignificant? And actually if PC's sales number is smaller than 20% then that means Steam itself represent more than half of all PC sales and that contradicts your "DD is insignificant" argument.

Also, saying there are much more PC than Xbox 360 and PS3 is not even an argument. How many of those PC are capable of running that game properly? Do you think it's much more than the number of Xbox 360 and PS3 combined?

It's actually easier to just attack the data source if I were you. After all it's only an estimation.

 

[acaeus]

Blu-ray will be "good enough" for next gen just like DVD was "good enough" for this gen.

DD would demand internet connectivity which makes it an obvious no-go.

As pointed out already, blu-ray provides cost savings and additional functionality--play BD movies.

How much using BD is going to cost MS and Nintendo, who are not part of the BD group, is the real question. The BD group would certainly want MS and Nintendo to use BD as the dist media, so it's going to be business as usual.

 

[Gerry]

DD would demand internet connectivity which makes it an obvious no-go.

Which isn't obvious at all.

And people have been discussing alternatives to blu-ray, not simply blu-ray vs DD.

 

[Squilliam]

Movie playback isn't free. Thats the reason why the Wii doesn't offer it.

 

[acaeus]

Which isn't obvious at all.

And people have been discussing alternatives to blu-ray, not simply blu-ray vs DD.

so, you are saying that MS, Sony, and Nintendo would disregard all potential buyers who do not have (proper) Internet connection and/or don't want or don't want to bother to connect their console to their internet?

That hasn't been the case has it? All consoles work just fine without interent connection.

I am aware flash drives are being discussed, but my attempt of irony pointed to the fact the technical advantages of blu-ray were deemed not important for the previous gen, and now perhaps the same ppl who thought that, argue that the technical advantages of SD trump all else--and we know that's never the case.

Squilliam, fair enough but Nintendo could potentially add movie playback with a mere FW update, because there is no physical limitation preventing it. Now they obviously cannot add BD playback due to HW limitations.

 

[Gerry]

so, you are saying that MS, Sony, and Nintendo would disregard all potential buyers who do not have (proper) Internet connection and/or don't want or don't want to bother to connect their console to their internet?

I don't think it's an "obvious no-go" as you describe. I think Microsoft are probably thinking quite hard about whether a DD model can be made to work for their next console. It certainly isn't probable, but it is possible.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Hi-def movies usually include high bitrate 1080p content with lossless sound. Doubt your 360 can play them.

It can play 1080p. I couldn't give a rats ass about uncompressed sound, and neither could anyone else who doesn't have a $15k speaker set up. I'd be willing to bet in a blind test you couldn't even tell the difference in a professional studio.

Blu-Ray playback comes "free" with chosing optical media for next gen, cheap storage for games and instant support for Hi Def all around the world and of course DVD.

There's actually a fee attached to the blu-ray playback feature. So no it's not free. You also have to pay to put the drive in the box, which is also not free. The only thing a blu-ray drive gives you is blu-ray and dvd playback, neither of which is necessary to make a successful console. If MS wants to include an optical drive there's a ton of options that aren't blu-ray, could have lower disc costs and would still support DVD playback.

I buy a console to play games, I'd rather not pay for features I'll never use. Especially features that add size weight and power use.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Blu-ray will be "good enough" for next gen just like DVD was "good enough" for this gen.

Blu-ray was cheap enough in 2006, flash will be cheap enough in 2012.

DD would demand internet connectivity which makes it an obvious no-go.

DD is already there, it's going to get bigger, its not going to be the only option.

As pointed out already, blu-ray provides cost savings and additional functionality--play BD movies.

It actually adds cost to the console. Probably $30 or so when you add the license fees and the cost of increasing the package etc. Flash would add cost to the media, just like blu-ray added cost to the media in 2006. The price for flash will come down. If they choose optical there's plenty of alternatives.. from high density red laser, to buying HD-DVD and modifying it. I actually believe holographic would be in line ahead of blu-ray for MS.

How much using BD is going to cost MS and Nintendo, who are not part of the BD group, is the real question. The BD group would certainly want MS and Nintendo to use BD as the dist media, so it's going to be business as usual.

It won't cost them anything because they won't use it, unless the BD groups gives them a complete pass on fees there's no upside for them (aside from the people who won't buy their products anyway being happier).

 

[joker454]

It can play 1080p.

To be fair, there is '1080p' and there is '1080p' if you know what I mean, and the downloadable variant isn't in the same league as the often 30+ mb/sec bitrate of 1080p blu-ray movies. Whether or not the average person would notice or care is a different argument of course, but I definitely do

Blu-ray was cheap enough in 2006, flash will be cheap enough in 2012.

That's actually an interesting point in that blu-ray in 2006 was hella expensive yet they went with it anyways. It may well have been more expensive than going with flash would be in 2013 (I doubt 2012 will happen). It's true that they expected to recoup it through movie sales, licensing, etc, but then again not incorporating an optical drive in the console saves money on day one on every console. I'd love it if they went with flash, but I'm still not sure if they could get the volume needed. Then again maybe it wouldn't matter as I suspect on next gen consoles the games will be offered both in downloadable form and physical form on same day and date, so there may not be a need to print 10 million Call Of Duty's on flash.

 

[eastmen]

You are not statical evidence, on the contrary, you are a strange example from Console land

I remember how no one bought a PS3 to play Blu-Ray movies, and then several members of this forum turned out to not buying games for their PS3 since they only used it for movie playback.

Hi-Def movie support will be a checkmark that next gen consoles can chose to ignore and miss compared to the competition. Or they can embrace it and use it as a gaming media as well.

I bought my PS3 at launch for one reason, and one reason only, Blu-Ray (ok and GT5 demo). And i would find it weird to have a next gen console connected to my TV and not being able to playback my collection.
For me it would be negative score in the purchase book.

I don't see what bluray in 2006 has to do with bluray in 2012/2013.

You are aware that bluray stand alones were $500 and above back in 2006 and there was a constantly changing revision number that you needed to keep on top of if you wanted to play the latest content. The ps3 was supported by sony that meant getting those updates. Now however the updates have largely stoped and everythign is stable. The cost of a bluray drive is as low as $50 in 2011.

The need for these devices to play blurays are not as large as it was in 2006 or even there at all. THe high def market is continuing to split and you can get alternative high def video from a number of sources than just bluray.

The question is does the average consumer want to pay the price to have bluray in next gen consoles and get saddled with an out dated technology for games just to watch blurays or would they rather just spend the $50 for a stand alone player and buy a system that is cheaper and with better tech.

 

[eastmen]

That's actually an interesting point in that blu-ray in 2006 was hella expensive yet they went with it anyways. It may well have been more expensive than going with flash would be in 2013 (I doubt 2012 will happen). It's true that they expected to recoup it through movie sales, licensing, etc, but then again not incorporating an optical drive in the console saves money on day one on every console. I'd love it if they went with flash, but I'm still not sure if they could get the volume needed. Then again maybe it wouldn't matter as I suspect on next gen consoles the games will be offered both in downloadable form and physical form on same day and date, so there may not be a need to print 10 million Call Of Duty's on flash.

They wouldn't need to print 10m call of dutys anyway.


You'd just need to ramp up production over the years. If you go to intel/micron or samsung or whoever would love to ramp up production and create new plants for hundreds of millions of flash shipments over 10 years. In fact a large infusion would allow them to move to newer micron processes faster.

MS actually has the money to go into a joint production with any of these companys for a fab just for xbox next media if tey really wanted to and they could do it with the money they would save just by not adding an optical drive.

$30 over 50m units is $1.5B in savings if the next xbox sells as well as this xbox has. It may sell even better making the savings higher.

 

[corduroygt]

blurays or would they rather just spend the $50 for a stand alone player and buy a system that is cheaper and with better tech.

Not for every piece of software costing $5-$10 more. Regardless of how much blu-ray cost in 2006, it was always apparent that polycarbonate discs can be produced for pennies. Flash will never be produced that cheap, it will be at least 5 bucks and likely more, not to mention capacity issues.