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

[MfA]

which of course means higher production costs doesn't it ?

Relatively high compared to normal BRs, relatively insignificant compared to flash.

PS. that said, I expect them to stick to 50 GB and just stream it to the drive (solid state or otherwise) during play.

 

[-tkf-]

250GB would not be much of a limiter..I mean theoretically you could buy 10 25GB games a month with that. Very few probably buy 10 games a month..

Games, iTUNEs and of course the big one, movie downloads

Any Console based on Flash would also throw Blu-Ray support out of the window, very unlikely for anyone serious about their place in the home.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Games, iTUNEs and of course the big one, movie downloads

iTunes won't count for much, seeing how small compressed audio files are. Movies at BRD quality will be...30 GBs a viewing though. Stream a few of those a week and your cap is reached in no time. But more importantly, everything else will go up in quality and size too. I'm streaming HD trailers now where I used to grab SD ones, because i have the BW to do so. With more bandwidth, I'll be able to get native resolution trailers. And then there's TV over IP in HD. A capped super-fast broadband service is basically self-defeating!

Really, the broadband companies ought to be rolling out the services and content themselves, or starting up strategic partnerships. Wouldn't BT be far happier getting 5 pence per TV movie watched instead of nothing? And 5p on every song download? The services would pay for themselves. It's no different to building an expensive shopping centre (Mall). It costs a lot, but it attracts customers who spend more. It'll cost a lot to install a fibre-based communications network, but the amount of traffic will then go up, the amount fo ecommerce will increase, and the service provider should then get their cut.

I suppose at the moment it works that way but broken across providers. If you buy more content, the cut to the ISP comes via additional fees, which makes it seem like a tax. If instead the merchants provided a cut of their takings, the consumer would still pay but it'd be transparent. And this way, there'd be no hang-ups about installing an effective broadband network.

 

[Squilliam]

Would it not vastly simplify their console if they could offer an Xbox 360 SKU like the Arcade with no optical drive and no HDD (Some flash onboard yes).

If the HDD was a problem in terms of scaling the cost of manufacturing down, what about the cost of the optical drive? Which would essentially be the last component which would have a similar cost at the beginning of the next generation until the end.

Some people just want to play games.

So having an Arcade type SKU costing $300 and a full blooded Elite/Pro type SKU @ between $400-450 with a blu ray drive and of course offering a HDD upgrade to those who want it for the Arcade seems to be one viable strategy for them to follow in the next generation.

Lastly: As the performance of the CPUs increase with every generation would it not be possible to save a whole lot of space on the early games by using heavy compression and just taxing the processor quite a bit more initially to compensate? So as the process technology produced cheaper/faster flash with more capacity they could ease back on the compression and free up those extra cycles for game code.

 

[obonicus]

Really, the broadband companies ought to be rolling out the services and content themselves, or starting up strategic partnerships. Wouldn't BT be far happier getting 5 pence per TV movie watched instead of nothing? And 5p on every song download? The services would pay for themselves. It's no different to building an expensive shopping centre (Mall). It costs a lot, but it attracts customers who spend more. It'll cost a lot to install a fibre-based communications network, but the amount of traffic will then go up, the amount fo ecommerce will increase, and the service provider should then get their cut.

I suppose at the moment it works that way but broken across providers. If you buy more content, the cut to the ISP comes via additional fees, which makes it seem like a tax. If instead the merchants provided a cut of their takings, the consumer would still pay but it'd be transparent. And this way, there'd be no hang-ups about installing an effective broadband network.

Going way off-topic, but the problem with that is that all it takes is for someone not to want to pay, or to want to do things differently. That's part of the whole Net Neutrality issue. Content providers are for it, ISPs are against it. The other alternative is a metered approach to bandwidth -- treat it like a utility.

 

[fehu]

In my opinion there's another problem too

When someone buy something expensive, want it to be big
Maybe I have not the padronance of the english language to fully explain the concept
but people (not tecnical) measure the one thing greatness by numbers
so a 50GB BRD must produce games infinitely better than an old 8GB dvd
And an optical unit it's way better than an old cartdrige littler than your palm and less than half a bluray

considering that you must happeal ineducated non tecnical people to be successfull...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's true, but only relevant if people at the moment are buying content based on size. I remember the cartridge days where the size was advertised, with 1, 2 and 4 megabit cartridges. And it was true you got more game for your money. I don't think that matters these days though. I've no idea what capacity various games take up on the disc without reading someone's investigation. I think the public care about what they see or experience. There's a slight parallel in music. A 100 MB album download is a smaller figure than a 600 MB CD, but people are happy to buy them. Smaller is cooler!

If there wasn't a price difference and I had a choice between great looking SD card based games or great looking disc based games, I'd choose the dinkier cards (all things being equal). The only time I'd care about a disc over a card is if there's a perceivable difference in quality. If the difference is a matter of uncompressed audio versus what we have now, and less-compressed video cutscenes, they're sacrifices I'll happily make and such limits I doubt most people will even notice.

Also, if one console goes with carts, like this gen that'll discourage devs from maximising any extra storage of discs. Only the difference will be less pronounced than this gen (which isn't very pronounced at all so far) as the storage disparity won't be one box having 5x the storage so much as 2x. Possibly. The actual potential for flash storage is up in the air. Perhaps there'll be a case of 20 GB flash cards versus 200 GB BRDs, but that leads back to the old chestnut of how much content developers can actually make without bankrupting themselves!

 

[specwarGP2]

Also, if one console goes with carts, like this gen that'll discourage devs from maximising any extra storage of discs. Only the difference will be less pronounced than this gen (which isn't very pronounced at all so far) as the storage disparity won't be one box having 5x the storage so much as 2x. Possibly. The actual potential for flash storage is up in the air. Perhaps there'll be a case of 20 GB flash cards versus 200 GB BRDs, but that leads back to the old chestnut of how much content developers can actually make without bankrupting themselves!

I think that depends on which console ends up being dominant. If PS4 ends up being dominant for its generation, my feeling is that multiplatform games on consoles using flash will end up with reduced assets in order to fit smaller carts.

 

[eastmen]

Relatively high compared to normal BRs, relatively insignificant compared to flash.

PS. that said, I expect them to stick to 50 GB and just stream it to the drive (solid state or otherwise) during play.

Really ? Doesn't simply adding a second layer double the cost and failure rate of BD like it does with dvd ? If so wouldn't 8 layers for a 200 gig disc increase the difficulty that much more.Thus driving the price up extremely high.

IMO Digital Downloads is the way to go. Speeds are getting faster and faster and in the next few years I expect a huge increase in speeds. I work for an ISP and can see this happening depending in which country you live. Looking at Finland , Japan and even in the UK and the US and here where 100Mbps lines are the norm for house holds, once this becomes standard throughout the world, DD will be the main media source.

US

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.

In my opinion there's another problem too

When someone buy something expensive, want it to be big
Maybe I have not the padronance of the english language to fully explain the concept
but people (not tecnical) measure the one thing greatness by numbers
so a 50GB BRD must produce games infinitely better than an old 8GB dvd
And an optical unit it's way better than an old cartdrige littler than your palm and less than half a bluray

considering that you must happeal ineducated non tecnical people to be successfull...[/QUOTE

These days its all about things being smaller , ipods , camera's cell phones and even computers. People want them smaller and smaller each year. They want them to take less and less room so they can have more and more things.

I highly doubt a ssd type device would have people walk away from it cause its smaller than a bluray disc. If anything it can allow people to store more games in the same space as previously and allow them to have more things.

Also, if one console goes with carts, like this gen that'll discourage devs from maximising any extra storage of discs. Only the difference will be less pronounced than this gen (which isn't very pronounced at all so far) as the storage disparity won't be one box having 5x the storage so much as 2x. Possibly. The actual potential for flash storage is up in the air. Perhaps there'll be a case of 20 GB flash cards versus 200 GB BRDs, but that leads back to the old chestnut of how much content developers can actually make without bankrupting themselves!

Of course you may end up having flash expanding past BD media sizes. 32/64GB sdhc cards are already possible (although very high in price) As I said early , make a small device where you can use multiples of each sdhc capaictys. That way you get higher speeds and can tailor your ssd for the size of the game your making. So if you need a 16GB game you use two 8GB sdhc cards or even 4 4GB cards for maximum speed. You need 128gigs you can use 2 64GB cards or 4 32GB cards to maximize speed.

We don't know how much these things will cost next generation , however if the pricei s right I don't see how flash is not the right choice for consoles.

I think that depends on which console ends up being dominant. If PS4 ends up being dominant for its generation, my feeling is that multiplatform games on consoles using flash will end up with reduced assets in order to fit smaller carts.

If a BD console is dominate against a flash based one we will hae a ton of games handicaped by the slow speed of the optical format. So its a moot point.

 

[-tkf-]

I believe in the UK that's it's only that one Village/Town that has 100Mbps since it's for experiment purposes atm. That's still good since at least they are experimenting.

I stay in South Africa, the local limit set here by the main Telco is anything from 1Gb to 10Gb with the speeds ranging from 384Kbps to 4Mbps so I know all about slow internet with download limits.

That said, if you read what I was saying, you'd see that I was implying in the future. Although as I've stated, in Japan and Finland it's becoming standard. In the UK and US, well things are looking bright.

US

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.

 

[-tkf-]

If a BD console is dominate against a flash based one we will hae a ton of games handicaped by the slow speed of the optical format. So its a moot point.

And the BD games will be handicapped by limited storage on Flash.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Of course you may end up having flash expanding past BD media sizes. 32/64GB sdhc cards are already possible (although very high in price)...We don't know how much these things will cost next generation , however if the pricei s right I don't see how flash is not the right choice for consoles.

Yes, but at this point the price isn't looking right for next gen.

If a BD console is dominate against a flash based one we will hae a ton of games handicaped by the slow speed of the optical format. So its a moot point.

Large amounts of BRD data could be cached to HDD/Flash, which'll be cheaper internal mass storage. The nature of the distribution media isn't necessarily limiting the game data. It's just about getting it from the developers to the consumers. HDD's ever increasing capacity and flash RAM's decreasing costs make these very viable additions to next-gen consoles as standard. Heck, XB360 is leading that option already. Include a fast, noisy optical drive for quick copying over of the data where seek-times don't matter, and you'll have the fastest, cheapest solution for data access in game.

 

[fehu]

These days its all about things being smaller , ipods , camera's cell phones and even computers. People want them smaller and smaller each year. They want them to take less and less room so they can have more and more things.

I highly doubt a ssd type device would have people walk away from it cause its smaller than a bluray disc. If anything it can allow people to store more games in the same space as previously and allow them to have more things.

People want more GB more MPixel more MHz more core more ram more pixel on a screen more color on a screen etc...
even cellphone now are cosidered better in relation to the size (to accomodate a bigger screen for example)
small phone are for the past

In another forum people try to convince me that a ps3 title *must* automatically be better than a xbox one simply because of the BRD

And look at the actual strategy for console hdd
"we have economics 40GB, good 60GB and gigalicious 80GB, can you mind? a real 80GB console!"

or the initial DS vs. PSP
they keep using cheap cartdrige, while we have the mighty umd!
slow access time and higher price, but 1,8GB of greatness!


This reasoning obviously apply primarly to the uneducated people
a geek like us understand what really is good, and predilige smaller and faster
but, the wii says, geek and hardcore don't make a console profitable

 

[eastmen]

And the BD games will be handicapped by limited storage on Flash.

Or not . we know there are 32GB sd cards today. There are 64GB sd cards soon to be announced. So we already know that in the next year sd/ flash will leap past BLuray which is currently limited to 50GB. Now there may be 200GB bluray discs working in the labs , but are there any working on off the shelf ps3s or bluray players. Will it require a new bluray drive device that will increase cost again ? Will it even happen ?

Yes, but at this point the price isn't looking right for next gen.

Mabye , mabye not , no one has been able to provide the bulk cost of 8GB / 16GB sdhc cards. All I know is in the last month I've been able to buy 4GB sd cards for as low as $6 which means the cost to make those is under $6. So what will be the price of higher capaicty cards in 2010/2011 ?

Large amounts of BRD data could be cached to HDD/Flash, which'll be cheaper internal mass storage. The nature of the distribution media isn't necessarily limiting the game data. It's just about getting it from the developers to the consumers. HDD's ever increasing capacity and flash RAM's decreasing costs make these very viable additions to next-gen consoles as standard. Heck, XB360 is leading that option already. Include a fast, noisy optical drive for quick copying over of the data where seek-times don't matter, and you'll have the fastest, cheapest solution for data access in game.

But then we will suffer through long install times . 7 gigs seems to take the 360 10 minutes to install. What happens next gen if we are installing 30-40 gigs of data per game ?

want more GB more MPixel more MHz more core more ram more pixel on a screen more color on a screen etc...
even cellphone now are cosidered better in relation to the size (to accomodate a bigger screen for example)
small phone are for the past

I disagree, Look at smart phones , they are doing away with keypads and qwerty key pads for bigger screens that are touch screens . Thus making the phones smaller and thinner while improving screen qualityand size. Just look at the htc Diamond over the htc mogul.

In another forum people try to convince me that a ps3 title *must* automatically be better than a xbox one simply because of the BRD

Thats marketing. Just like for years it was more mhz makes the better cpu even though the lower clocked athlons were faster than the higher clocked p4s . But marketing changes things. Make enough of a splash with flash and bd will look inferior .

And look at the actual strategy for console hdd
"we have economics 40GB, good 60GB and gigalicious 80GB, can you mind? a real 80GB console!"

But the actual console and drives aren't getting bigger. Just look at the playstation vs the ps1 and the playstation 2 vs the pstwo . People want smaller things that can do the smae as their bigger counter parts. The only time that seems to change is with tvs , houses and cars.

Flash it self can expand past the capacity of bd . There are already plans to pass 50GB bluray and a road map for doing it , where is the road map for tri , quad , octo layer discs from the BD camp. We should see 64GB flash cards hit the market this holiday season. Then the only thing is cost that stands in the way of flash. Of course you can allways build a cady the size of MS's current memory card and use 4 flash cards inside of it and get any capaicty you want in multiples of 4 and increase the speed way beyond what bluray can do.

or the initial DS vs. PSP
they keep using cheap cartdrige, while we have the mighty umd!
slow access time and higher price, but 1,8GB of greatness!

Yes and thats why the ds has sold many times what the psp has sold and thats why sony is now offering downloable games while releasing them on umd. Why? Because umd is slow , noisy , and a battery hog. Oh they also take up alot of space which is a no no for a portable system.

This reasoning obviously apply primarly to the uneducated people
a geek like us understand what really is good, and predilige smaller and faster
but, the wii says, geek and hardcore don't make a console profitable

You think they were born knowing that more mhz is good and more GB is good and more horsepower is good. Or do you think they learned that by being constantly bombarded with adverts about those things. The company that goes with flash can educate the new consumers. .

 

[fehu]

how can a game, even nextgen, be limited by 50GB?

 

[eastmen]

how can a game, even nextgen, be limited by 50GB?

how can it not be ? Don't we already have games like MGS4 which have surpased 25 gigs of data ? Do you think with 2-8GB of ram in next gen consoles we wont need more than 25GB more storage space than this gen that only had a 512MB ram capacity ?

50GB of storage space with 4GB of system ram would only allow you to fill the console 12.5 times with unique data. Now of course it will offer more as not all of that space will go to textures in the system ram. With a dvd having 8.4GB of space you can fill up the 512MB of ram in the xbox 360 16.4 times. Even if you take into account only 7GB of data on the disc its still 13.6 . Thats all compared to the 48.8 times a 25GB bluray disc can fill the 512 megs of system ram in the ps3 or the 97 times a 50GB bluray disc can fill the ps3's ram.

 

[-tkf-]

Or not . we know there are 32GB sd cards today. There are 64GB sd cards soon to be announced. So we already know that in the next year sd/ flash will leap past BLuray which is currently limited to 50GB. Now there may be 200GB bluray discs working in the labs , but are there any working on off the shelf ps3s or bluray players. Will it require a new bluray drive device that will increase cost again ? Will it even happen ? .

And this comes full Circle, who will use 64GB cards if they cost more than a BluRay? And as you already now there is no problem with 2 3 or 4 disc games if you need alot of space

 

[MfA]

Really ? Doesn't simply adding a second layer double the cost and failure rate of BD like it does with dvd ?

Replication costs for DVD9s are not double that of DVD5s.

 

[specwarGP2]

Eastmen,

All your arguments in favor of flash replacing BD really only benefits two groups of people: gamers who don't want to wait for load times and the flash manufacturers.

How do publishers benefit when the retail cost of the game goes up and margins stay the same while at the same time incurring greater risk maintaining far more expensive inventory? Can you explan why a publisher would want to put itself in that situation?

How do gamers benefit from paying $70 - $75 for a game where the only advantage from the change in medium is decreased load times, when most gamers have been conditioned and used to for more than 10 years slow optical loads?

How does Sony benefit after the considerable investment in BD technology? What about Playstation being positioned as a digital hub? Sony owns BD technology, as well as the largest BD duplication facilities in the world. How does it benefit Sony to NOT use their own technology and in house resources?

I don't even see how MS could benefit. The cost of adding a drive is minimal. Worst case scenario is that MS will be on exact equal footing as Sony if the next xbox has a BD drive. The repercussions of not having a BD drive could be far reaching. Look at the stink people have made about wii not being able to play DVDs. Or worse, what if Playstation games stay at $60 and xbox flash games are $70-$75? I know if I had to choose between 2 systems that are roughly the same in performance, I'd pick the one with cheaper games, even if I had to pay a little more for the console.

I understand your enthusiasm for games on flash media, but I think from a purely $$ perspective, it just doesnt make sense to most parties. Direct download has a far better chance of replacing BD than flash.

 

[eastmen]

And this comes full Circle, who will use 64GB cards if they cost more than a BluRay? And as you already now there is no problem with 2 3 or 4 disc games if you need alot of space

who uses Bluray if its more than dvd .... oh wait sony made it mandatory huh. Devs didn't seem to complain even though i'm sure at the start of the generation it was much more expensive than dvds and will continue to be so through out the gen.

Replication costs for DVD9s are not double that of DVD5s.

You have any data for the costs of replecation ?

Eastmen,

All your arguments in favor of flash replacing BD really only benefits two groups of people: gamers who don't want to wait for load times and the flash manufacturers.

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. As a matter of fact thats one of the major complaints i hear from friends with the ps3 and many were pissed about the 360 offering mandatory installs. They calmed down when I said it was simply an option and not mandatory. But no one wants to wait 20minutes to install something. I'd say the amount of people who are upset about lengthy installs is many times greater than those who wnat to sit through a disc swap.

How do publishers benefit when the retail cost of the game goes up and margins stay the same while at the same time incurring greater risk maintaining far more expensive inventory? Can you explan why a publisher would want to put itself in that situation?

Same reason they went to bluray dispite it being more expensive than dvd. Or went from cd to dvd. or went from nes carts to super nes carts and so on and so forth.

How do gamers benefit from paying $70 - $75 for a game where the only advantage from the change in medium is decreased load times, when most gamers have been conditioned and used to for more than 10 years slow optical loads?

Thats hardly the only advantage of a medium change. I also don't see where you get most gamers have been conditioned and use to slow optical loads. The firstr consoles to have slow optical loads were the saturn and ps1. But also in that generation you had the instant loading of the n64 games and in the handheld market you've only had one extremely slow loading system which is also the least popular handheld system on the market right now.

Not only do you get decreased load times , you may be able to do away with them completely . You can also continualy stream new textures to the main system ram and thus create more varied and beautifull worlds that aren't possible with a slow disc.

How does Sony benefit after the considerable investment in BD technology? What about Playstation being positioned as a digital hub? Sony owns BD technology, as well as the largest BD duplication facilities in the world. How does it benefit Sony to NOT use their own technology and in house resources?

Thats a situation that sony put itself into and not a situation that MS nor nintendo is in. Sony can go with a slow optical solution and have the benfit of decreased costs . Of course they will have a slower medium that is more fragile and takes up more retail space along with hae a fixed price as parto f the console with an optical drive ... which is going to be many sizes bigger than a ssd slot for games.

don't even see how MS could benefit. The cost of adding a drive is minimal. Worst case scenario is that MS will be on exact equal footing as Sony if the next xbox has a BD drive. The repercussions of not having a BD drive could be far reaching. Look at the stink people have made about wii not being able to play DVDs. Or worse, what if Playstation games stay at $60 and xbox flash games are $70-$75? I know if I had to choose between 2 systems that are roughly the same in performance, I'd pick the one with cheaper games, even if I had to pay a little more for the console.

minimal ? The optical drive in the ps3 is at least $20 and will not fall below a certian point. Its also a large beast and the cooling has to be designed around having a large dead zone in the caseing along with neededing a bigger case. Imagine how much smaller the xbox 360 could be without a dvd drive. Or how about the pstwo even with a slim dvd drive it could be much smaller without it.

As for cheaper games , if the games are worthwhile and I don't hae to worry about loading times or installs like on other consoles i'd go with the one that has the more expensive games.

I understand your enthusiasm for games on flash media, but I think from a purely $$ perspective, it just doesnt make sense to most parties. Direct download has a far better chance of replacing BD than flash

No one has actually been able to post the bulk price per gig of flash ram.

Apparently though 32GB flash is produced on 40nm and they estimate that they will hit 20nm by 2010. It be interesting to see the cost per GB today.