In the real world the prices could just as well go up, everything about making money is about maximizing profits.
Used games is the new evil, you wouldn't download a used car!
Alternative distribution to optical disks : SSD, cards, and download*
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
In the real world the prices could just as well go up, everything about making money is about maximizing profits.
Used games is the new evil, you wouldn't download a used car!
I'm quite certain for dev/publisher used games are worse than piracy.
No, this is not sarcasm.
I can see why they would think that, people that want to use money on games but not that many
Basically it boils down to how many sales would they gain when one or the other would become impossible.
People buying used games would mostly move over to retail ones, possibly waiting for a little while for prices to drop to used games range. People pirating things would rarely buy anything.
I can't recall what game it was but someone did some tests by gradually going from no DRM to something pretty well-working. Every time they made pirating harder they gained around one sale per 1000 less pirates. I would imagine for used games it's much closer to 1:2.
Yep, i would buy fewer games and put less money in the eco system. I buy very few used games but those i buy are borderline cases, or cheap enough to not care enough if they might suck or if the kids like them. That money would go away, and i would think the industry is just adding more greed to their image. This is all imho, but used games are not my problem.
Indeed. They'll price according to how they think they can make the most money. That possibly wouldn't rule out a price decrease but I wouldn't bet on it.
This generation has changed my buying habits considerably. Last gen I kept just about every game I bought and then at the end had 30 odd games that simply gathered dust. This gen, whilst I hardly ever buy a used game, I will tend to buy new games when they're discounted enough (<£20) and trade them in when I've finished. Essentially I've been playing relatively new games for around £5-£10 a pop. This has realigned my exceptations (for better or worse) as to how much I'm willing to spend. A digital-only £40 title that doesn't get discounted significantly and can't be traded-in or loaned to someone else would give be pause for thought.
The desire to cut out the used game market is a headwind for flash-based distribution.
It's already a pressure for going to direct download, since it's much easier to argue that software is a license when it is provided through an electronic service.
For disks, there is still a perception that there is a purchase because of the buyer has a physical object that was purchased.
A flash drive might make it worse. While it might provide a way to forcibly link a drive to a single console, it's a much more obvious destruction of first-sale rights when a physical item (of more significant value and complexity than a plastic disk) becomes inoperable outright when put up for resale. Sure software on a DVD might not work fully or license properly if sold, but the disk still works. A user could argue that they bought a functional flash disk, and that Sony or Microsoft sabotaged it.
Putting an even greater investment into physical media that users think they own is something publishers are trying to avoid.
It's already a pressure for going to direct download, since it's much easier to argue that software is a license when it is provided through an electronic service.
For disks, there is still a perception that there is a purchase because of the buyer has a physical object that was purchased.
A flash drive might make it worse. While it might provide a way to forcibly link a drive to a single console, it's a much more obvious destruction of first-sale rights when a physical item (of more significant value and complexity than a plastic disk) becomes inoperable outright when put up for resale. Sure software on a DVD might not work fully or license properly if sold, but the disk still works. A user could argue that they bought a functional flash disk, and that Sony or Microsoft sabotaged it.
Putting an even greater investment into physical media that users think they own is something publishers are trying to avoid.
upnorthsox
Veteran
That's an interesting point. To extend it to the kiosk/reflashing concept proposed here, would reflashing a card to install a new game on it constitute an abdigation of ownership to that game? I don't see a reason why you should expect to be able to install that game on the HDD or redownload at will.
A user is free to destroy what they've bought, and a license for game software can be deleted.
There's no obligation to replace a DVD you've shredded, and no fundamental right to a second license. If the game license provides for reinstallation, or is part of some overarching service that ties the license to a user/console as opposed to a single copy, then all is not lost.
There's no obligation to replace a DVD you've shredded, and no fundamental right to a second license. If the game license provides for reinstallation, or is part of some overarching service that ties the license to a user/console as opposed to a single copy, then all is not lost.
If they can redownload it again, which is easily controlled, then no. If overwriting your card meant losing the game on it, the system will never take off. There's no way I'd destroy my £40 of game every time I wanted a new one!
upnorthsox
Veteran
Yep, that's my read too.
$70+ games + no used (budget) games market = fail.
Also, say goodbye to the "platinum hits" $20 games as well.
Cards would be a nice OPTION next to optical discs, but that expensive option with all it entails would be a disaster if mandated.
This would be handing the generation over to Sony on a silver platter (I'm sure some here would be thrilled with the notion though) .
none of your post makes any sense
1) You can still have a used market. Just now the devs could get money back from gamestop and other companys having to pay to unlock the game for use on other consoles.
2) You don't need a used game market if you could lower the prices of games at a decent rate. Right now a few days after a game comes out used games already undercut the price of a new copy. So right from the start the sub $60 market for a game is shrunk by the used copies and this continues all the way down to $20 .
Without a used game market a dev can actually reap the reward of each price drop.
Until people complain about a huge and noise sony console that has horrible load times compared to the MS system.
TheWretched
Regular
I don't think used game sales themselves are really a problem. It's the "commercialization" that happens around that, pulling money out of the circle, that is the problem. I usually don't sell games, as I only buy the games I want to keep, but there is the odd copy of a game that I don't want to keep. These I sell directly to people who want them. There's no middleman (i.e. Gamestop, Amazon) taking money out of the system.
Looking at PC, at this moment, you pretty much cannot sell your games anymore. All the games need to be registered to your account and thus are bound to that. Not that I condone this action, but this could very vell happen to consoles, too. The publishers might provide an "unlocking" key, similar to the first buyers DLC, but I doubt we'll keep our "freedom" as to do whatever we please with our games. I don't mind it with my PC games, actually. Though for some this might be a commitment to something they don't want to keep, thus actively lowering sales to impulse buys etc.
Looking at PC, at this moment, you pretty much cannot sell your games anymore. All the games need to be registered to your account and thus are bound to that. Not that I condone this action, but this could very vell happen to consoles, too. The publishers might provide an "unlocking" key, similar to the first buyers DLC, but I doubt we'll keep our "freedom" as to do whatever we please with our games. I don't mind it with my PC games, actually. Though for some this might be a commitment to something they don't want to keep, thus actively lowering sales to impulse buys etc.
How about this for the next Xbox:
Games on some kind of SSD, so the basic console doesn't need a HDD or flash cache. Sell the HDD in some kind of caddy with 32GB of "virtual cart" built in so you can load the game to the flash and play it just like the cart version - the cost gets soaked up into the huge mark-up HDDs and you have an excuse to scalp on the HDDs again.
Let people store some download stuff on USB / removable pen drives again (e.g. Zune movie cache). Carts can be limited to only work with a set number of unique systems or user accounts in a lifetime (say, 10) so you can put a damper on the profitless used market. Extra unlocks can be bought (by users [/B]or retailers[/B]) for some money thrown MS / EA / Ubisoft's way so everyone gets tied together in profiting from the used market.
Finally: you can take your HDD to Gamestation etc and load games directly to it there to save on cart charges and avoid bandwidth caps at home. Retailers still have a role to play too, which encourages them to play along with the cart locks / unlocks mentioned above.
Finally: deluxe system has an optical drive for BluRay, DVD, back compatibility - licensing for all these goes into the deluxe cost and doesn't lumber every system. Use a slower slimline drive and just make HDD installs compulsory while not making the console a huge, foul looking beast.
I think that covers everything:
Arcade: SSD games, no HDD, no optical drive, no flash cache, very cheap. Upgradeable to Pro.
Pro: HDD with flash cache, perfect for online gamers and DD purchases (including ones done at retail), still no optical drive.
Elite: everything. Five hundred and ninety nine you ess dollars.
Edit: you could perhaps even update the carts to the latest version / bugfix if there was a small amount of writeable storage - users and retailers would already need to have a means of connecting to add additional unlocks /activations./edit
Games on some kind of SSD, so the basic console doesn't need a HDD or flash cache. Sell the HDD in some kind of caddy with 32GB of "virtual cart" built in so you can load the game to the flash and play it just like the cart version - the cost gets soaked up into the huge mark-up HDDs and you have an excuse to scalp on the HDDs again.
Let people store some download stuff on USB / removable pen drives again (e.g. Zune movie cache). Carts can be limited to only work with a set number of unique systems or user accounts in a lifetime (say, 10) so you can put a damper on the profitless used market. Extra unlocks can be bought (by users [/B]or retailers[/B]) for some money thrown MS / EA / Ubisoft's way so everyone gets tied together in profiting from the used market.
Finally: you can take your HDD to Gamestation etc and load games directly to it there to save on cart charges and avoid bandwidth caps at home. Retailers still have a role to play too, which encourages them to play along with the cart locks / unlocks mentioned above.
Finally: deluxe system has an optical drive for BluRay, DVD, back compatibility - licensing for all these goes into the deluxe cost and doesn't lumber every system. Use a slower slimline drive and just make HDD installs compulsory while not making the console a huge, foul looking beast.
I think that covers everything:
Arcade: SSD games, no HDD, no optical drive, no flash cache, very cheap. Upgradeable to Pro.
Pro: HDD with flash cache, perfect for online gamers and DD purchases (including ones done at retail), still no optical drive.
Elite: everything. Five hundred and ninety nine you ess dollars.
Edit: you could perhaps even update the carts to the latest version / bugfix if there was a small amount of writeable storage - users and retailers would already need to have a means of connecting to add additional unlocks /activations./edit
Last edited by a moderator:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I think the idea of loading games directly onto HDD or SSDs is fundamentally flawed.
Mainly because it ignores the buying habits of consumers that enjoy the convenience of being able to buy software from online retailers like Amazon, Play.com, Shopto, Zavi etc for instance.
E.g. here in europe, a large chunk of european users order games from UK online retailers because they get much better deals.
I personally haven't been into a high-street retailers for years and don't intend to, as I buy all my games on online stores. These tend to be much cheaper than gaming high street stores and the titles currently priced extortionately high on PSN and XBLAGOD.
If you try to use the kind of "direct-to-HDD / store kiosk" method for distribution, along with DD, you basically kill the gaming retail business of all those online retailers (whose used games businesses are much smaller than the retail stores) in favour of the stores that are raping your profits with their booming used games businesses. It's counter-productive imho.
Mainly because it ignores the buying habits of consumers that enjoy the convenience of being able to buy software from online retailers like Amazon, Play.com, Shopto, Zavi etc for instance.
E.g. here in europe, a large chunk of european users order games from UK online retailers because they get much better deals.
I personally haven't been into a high-street retailers for years and don't intend to, as I buy all my games on online stores. These tend to be much cheaper than gaming high street stores and the titles currently priced extortionately high on PSN and XBLAGOD.
If you try to use the kind of "direct-to-HDD / store kiosk" method for distribution, along with DD, you basically kill the gaming retail business of all those online retailers (whose used games businesses are much smaller than the retail stores) in favour of the stores that are raping your profits with their booming used games businesses. It's counter-productive imho.
You could potentially allow for both - sell games on carts and allow someone to take a storage device into a store and download it to that, saving a few dollars but with the usual DRM style restrictions. Carts also allow for additional usage restrictions that ROM optical disks are incapable of applying.
Would also some flexibility for different regions where different practices may be preferred (or outright rejected).
I can quite image MS wanting to avoid putting a BR drive in every system, and covering all bases like this might allow them to pull it off. Maybe.
Would also some flexibility for different regions where different practices may be preferred (or outright rejected).
I can quite image MS wanting to avoid putting a BR drive in every system, and covering all bases like this might allow them to pull it off. Maybe.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
True true... although if Sony goes optical then i can't see how MS will be able to compete against it with games distributed on flash carts. The system on it's own offers little "percievable" benefit to the average gamer, yet brings with it restrictions that could be considered anti-consumer. And that's not even talking about the added entrained cost of flash-based distribution media over BR discs.
If MS goes flasg-cards and Sony uses BR discs, gamers will flock to the system that offers cheaper games. MS would never want to be in that kind of position imo. The difference between MS's next system and Sony's would have to begin and end with the HW in the box in terms of the factors and features that could possibly influence consumer purchasing decisions. Or at least extend outward in their favour.
MS has too much foresight and common sense to choose to put themselves in a weaker position to Sony, strictly speaking in the area of choice of distribution media. The only way I can see them choosing solid state-based media is if they somehow know that Sony is doing that, or if all three platform holders collude together with publishers, the likelihood of which i would warily question.
In practice seek times and potentially faster burst reading speed(assuming price is no object). PS VITA is ofcourse example where flash sucks just real bad.
function said:
If you add flash to console motherboard is there really difference between ssd/flash? I don't think so. Flash as cache is similar if not the same hdd replacement as SSD. Soldering to motherboard just saves some cost off the base model. Especially so if the base model would have had hdd otherwise a la ps3.
Flash is mechanically more reliable, quieter, and power-efficient than an optical drive. (edit: Also better than a non-SSD hard disk)
Its seeks times are massively better, and if it's not read-only it has infinitely better write capability than a ROM.
Bandwidth would depend on the implementation, but it can be pushed higher than the physical limits of a spinning metal or plastic disk can provide.
In terms of game performance, it reduces the amount of memory devoted to buffering and capacity lost to duplication for the sake of locality, which partial installs would require.
The experience is likely to be smoother than a non-SSD install.
Last edited by a moderator:
