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

[eastmen]

Sony should have developed a brand new DRM scheme just for DVD, instead of just sticking with the Blu-Ray solution, which haven´t been cracked? It doesn't make sense, at all. DVD on the 360 was cracked how fast?

So let me get this strait , Its okay that Sony raised the cost of games to use bluray even when a cheaper medium existed for the ps3. But its not okay for MS to increas the cost of games by going with a new format that is superior to bluray in many ways ?

So now John Carmacks Mega Textures is not a good way to go? The compromise was made because of the 360 limit. Which brings us to your ignores...

\

The pc shouldn't have compromises , they could have just as easily made a 200 gig game for the pc. Whats the excuse there ? The assets were already made at higher quality than was released on any platform.

Games on Flash will be compromised because of size?
Will big games will cost more?
Production costs, you ignore the production line, you ignore the added cost of producing the carts compared to Blu-Ray. There is more to flash than just the chips and plastic.
I pay more for my flash game, what do i get for that extra money?

Why would they be comprimised because of size ? 16gigs more than doubles the current avalible storage of the lead console from this gen. And those are sizes at the start of this generation. IF 16 gigs is viable for 2013 then in 2015 32 gigs would be viable. Its no more capcity than bluray , in 2017 64 gigs would be viable , its now greater than dual layer bluray , in 2019 128 gigs could be viable and its now more capacity than quad layer bluray. All the while unlike bluray the transfer rates will continue to go up as capacitys go up.

The investment in flash production WILL be a part of the system from the get-go, so it´s not just the price of the cart. While Blu-Ray is already established as is the production lines. So you can´t expect consoles without Blu-Ray to just be $30 cheaper. You have to add that cost to the console, from the start.

Flash is already produced in a massive scale. Manufactures would love to have a stable buyer as it would raise the price of flash in other markets .

That would be a hell of a launch
The cost of Flash would be a part of the launch price, on paper it might be cheaper to produce the consoles, but the investment would still have to be paid back. We have a good example with Blu-Ray vs DVD from this generation.

Of course , but then again flash is a huge part of computers now. Investing in an exclusive fab can help MS or even Sony in all product catagorys.

It moved them at launch, which was the important part, but i think you know very well that wasn't what i meant. My example was a Console with cheap games and Blu-Ray vs a Console without Blu-Ray and expensive games, though i don´t expect a flash console to be that much cheaper based on flash alone...

Of course not , bluray is magical and the drives only add $1 to the cost of the console

The fact is that adding a bluray drive into a console has long reaching effects on the cost of the unit that is felt through the entire generation.

Why wouldn't i expect such an expensive Console to support bluray playback?

Why would anyone care about a niche format. More and more people are moving to streaming services and it will only speed up over the next decade. This isn't a device from 2000.

What does new codecs have to to with Blu-Ray playback? With Blu-Ray you can stream and buy a disc, optimal solution. Without Blu-Ray you just have to rely on streaming, your ISP cap on bandwidth and regional systems.

New codecs will only help the adoption of new formats over Bluray . Discs are antiquated. For the small minority of people who want a bluray player they can simply buy one at a very low price or use one they already have.

Me feelings have nothing to do with anything, they were invested when HD-DVD died, back then i was feeling fantastic. Blu-Ray is here and it´s not going away, my opinion is that it would be an added value to any console and it easily matches the proposed $30 dollars. $30 dollars for a 3D Blu-Ray player, a games medium and cheaper games. Yes please!

Bluray is already going away , streaming and download solutions are getting more popular by the day.

You might like a console with a bluray player , however not all of us want to wait a half an hour while the game console installs new firmware to watch a movie.

 

[-tkf-]

So let me get this strait , Its okay that Sony raised the cost of games to use bluray even when a cheaper medium existed for the ps3. But its not okay for MS to increas the cost of games by going with a new format that is superior to bluray in many ways ?

Wait wait.. so you can´t find anything that backs up your claim, you have no evidence of evil Sony telling publishers there is DVD option? Maybe because there never was a DVD option, Sony decided to go with Blu-Ray, they bet the farm and it was a reason they pretty much lost. And now you are telling me it was a good idea and that Microsoft should repeat that mistake? Except Microsoft should raise the price on games, because that is the piece you are missing here. Blu-Ray games does not cost more than DVD games.

AND YOU FAIL TO SAY WHERE FLASH IS SO SUPERIOR!

The pc shouldn't have compromises , they could have just as easily made a 200 gig game for the pc. Whats the excuse there ? The assets were already made at higher quality than was released on any platform.

Ask id software? my guess, money, they just don´t care and think it´s "good enough" for pc's and there is plenty of evidence of just how much all platforms suffer because compromises are made for either space or memory, and you actually want to keep this going in the next gen.

Why would they be comprimised because of size ? 16gigs more than doubles the current avalible storage of the lead console from this gen.

And that console is held back because of the DVD size, you have games with "DLC´s" packed on a second disc, optional higher res texture packs that can be installed on the Harddrive, and then you want to nerf the next generation from the get go? 16GB is valid NOW it was valid in 2011 and guess even for some games in 2010, didn´t the first Forza on 360 introduce DLC´s on a disc?

Every flash format so far have shown us that publishers/developers and console manufacturers will have games where they have to balance space/cost/price. As flash gets cheaper the problems with this will get smaller, but they wont go away, i think that will happen during the next gen, but...

Blu-Ray is 50GB today! and without much effort 100GB "tomorrow" and unlike the 360 the next gen can depend on a harddrive, install disc 1 (50GB) insert disc 2 (50GB) when you play. That is 100GB of storage, at launch for 2 bucks. By your assessment that would take 5 years for Flash to be able to compete with.

Of course not , bluray is magical and the drives only add $1 to the cost of the console

Rolling eyes? tsk tsk. I think you suggested $30 added cost for a Blu-Ray drive, but you didn´t come up with a price for getting Flash into the next gen consoles:

Production costs, you ignore the production line, you ignore the added cost of producing the carts compared to Blu-Ray. There is more to flash than just the chips and plastic.

But maybe you just want every flash game to be $20 more?

The fact is that adding a bluray drive into a console has long reaching effects on the cost of the unit that is felt through the entire generation.

Absolutely true, and that face is extremely well known, and if by 2017 flash is very cheap and Blu-Ray is dead it would take a small effort to create a pure flash based version with a Blu-Ray option.
But i consider it a non issue, as said before, we have DVD based consoles selling at low prices already.

Why would anyone care about a niche format.

Because it has 26% of the optical market share, and it´s growing? And to many many people outside USA (and some in the US i guess) it´s the only option right now? The best part about it is, with Blu-Ray you get a fast cheap media for games and as a bonus you get the best quality Hi-Def movies essentially free. And if you need to you can still stream via your console.

With flash you get, faster and expensive installs of compromised games and no way to watch HiDef movies except by streaming IF your connection and ISP is ok with it.

New codecs will only help the adoption of new formats over Bluray . Discs are antiquated. For the small minority of people who want a bluray player they can simply buy one at a very low price or use one they already have.

What are those new formats? And why buy one if it´s included with your next Console to provide cheap uncompromised games?

Bluray is already going away , streaming and download solutions are getting more popular by the day. You might like a console with a bluray player , however not all of us want to wait a half an hour while the game console installs new firmware to watch a movie.

Ahh showing what it´s really about, the PS3! The Blu-Ray drive is there for games (see the Wii U) you install firmwares to play games not to watch movies and if Sony is just a tad bit smart (unlikely) Firmware updates will be silent like they are for PSN+ users now.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The pc shouldn't have compromises , they could have just as easily made a 200 gig game for the pc. Whats the excuse there ?

Cost of releasing on 20 DVDs? Or limiting their market to PCs with BRD drives?

And regards megatexturing, you've taken the first ever implementation of a new technology, seen its flaws, and dismissed it out of hand as irrelevant. Read the full discussions on virtual texturing (and megameshes which'll be the next progression), and it's obvious that it's an important development. Trials Evolution seems to be doing pretty okay with the tech, although its camera is not comparable. Once the tech is refined through experience, it'll provide way, way better visuals than a chunk of RAM could. A BRD enabled console with suitable flash cache will be able to offer far better visuals than the same game limited to a 16 GB cart. Imagine the next Elder Scrolls game with one platform having massively varied content throughout and the other having the same old cookie-cutter clones - the varied one is going to have much more appeal.

Now there's an argument to be made for procedural content generation and the like, or cost issues with creating such expansive content, but at that point we're choosing a distribution mechanism on guesswork (although it's pretty apparent some folk are happy to do that anyhow, stating a preference for discs or carts based on economics founded in pretty blind guesses!). The system that offers storage capacity and performance will cover all bases and offer developers the freedom to create whatever games. The platform with the data limits is going to have added technical limits affecting their choices.

 

[function]

Ask id software? my guess, money, they just don´t care and think it´s "good enough" for pc's and there is plenty of evidence of just how much all platforms suffer because compromises are made for either space or memory, and you actually want to keep this going in the next gen.

Compromises are made for everything though. XBox 360 DVD size, Xbox 360 disk only SKUs, RSX and low poly counts, PS3 and low memory, high budgets, low predicted sales, focus testing, number of buttons on a pad, people still using SD screens, anything and everything. Disk size hasn't really worried me this generation and probably won't do next. Budgets and predicted sales are the big ones to worry about IMO.

Games being "nerfed" down to 16GB during the early stage of the generation is a big no-worry for me, especially if it helps reduce reliance on FMV cutscenes.

And that console is held back because of the DVD size, you have games with "DLC´s" packed on a second disc, optional higher res texture packs that can be installed on the Harddrive

If you're referring to BF3 with that last bit then it's worth noting that the hi-res texture pack would have mostly fit on the single player DVD. There was loads of empty space on the disk. This is not to say games wouldn't benefit from more storage, just that things aren't always what they seem. Mass Effect 1 felt loads bigger than the levelised Mass Effect 2, but it needed only one disk. Skyrim is a 3.8GB install on 360 (5.6 GB on my PC with the HD texture pack), but Rage needs three disks. It's not big games that need lots of storage but lots of unique (or repeated but stored as if unique) content.

If everyone has a HDD you can make the multiplayer stuff a download and don't even need to ship it on the DVD / Bluray / cart if you don't want to. We're moving towards a download future anyway, it's the offline stuff you really need to get in its complete form on the original shipping media.

Blu-Ray is 50GB today! and without much effort 100GB "tomorrow" and unlike the 360 the next gen can depend on a harddrive, install disc 1 (50GB) insert disc 2 (50GB) when you play. That is 100GB of storage, at launch for 2 bucks. By your assessment that would take 5 years for Flash to be able to compete with.

Flash only needs to be able to compete with Bluray in the same way that MS's gimpy 6.8 GB DVDs competed with Sony's 50GB Blurays. And flash can do that without a real issue based on capacity, and it can do it on cost just so long as physical attach rate over the generation isn't too high. Up to a certain threshold it actually saves money and without a doubt allows you to make a smaller system with a decent sized fan in it! You could even integrate it into a tv and not need to put an optical drive in.

But maybe you just want every flash game to be $20 more?

8GB SD $2.85.

I'll charge MS $16.15 to copy the data on, put a postage sized sticker on and post it out in a brown envelope using air mail and woohoo I can undercut whoever you were thinking they should use!

 

[Arwin]

A few small points: 8x bluray is already average speed for cheap pc oen today. Current BD spec can be expanded to 4 layers even with most existing drives and 8 layers is possible. BD layer change has no additional cost and read speeds of BD are constant. There is a much bigger advantage to flash in portable systems vs consoles, and BD drives will keep an advantage simply of being able to play back existing CD, DVD and Bluray, which is a huge load of content and will stay for a long time.

More interesting is that Flash has the potential for better seek-times and tranfer rates should grow. Also behaviour should match DD versions downloaded to internal storage more easily. But considering the context of the media world I think BD drives will stay for a while.

I expect some kind if 3D storage solution to happen eventually though. High speed storage is going to be increasingly important, but streaming and caching a game rather than first completely downloading it should be interesting too. but definitely not excluding Flash altogether.

 

[TheWretched]

Skyrim is a 3.8GB install on 360 (5.6 GB on my PC with the HD texture pack).

Either you talk of a different game, or your installation is busted, but my Skyrim installation with the HD texture pack is about 8.5GB... the HD Textures alone make up 3GB alone. Even if you deduct the low res texture file (which is 1.3gb, but probably still needed for the actual game) it's 2GB more than you say it is.

And, by the way, even with the high res texture pack, the game still doesn't have super high res textures everywhere. There are console games with better looking textures (though, most of them usually have less freedom in gameplay) than even the best ones here.

If anything, you should take a look at The Witcher 2 or something, which is a really potent non-megatextured game. It also didn't get bogged down by targeting consoles from the get go. And that game is about 20GB without any mods.

 

[-tkf-]

Compromises are made for everything though. XBox 360 DVD size, Xbox 360 disk only SKUs, RSX and low poly counts, PS3 and low memory, high budgets, low predicted sales, focus testing, number of buttons on a pad, people still using SD screens, anything and everything. Disk size hasn't really worried me this generation and probably won't do next. Budgets and predicted sales are the big ones to worry about IMO.

Games being "nerfed" down to 16GB during the early stage of the generation is a big no-worry for me, especially if it helps reduce reliance on FMV cutscenes.

If you're referring to BF3 with that last bit then it's worth noting that the hi-res texture pack would have mostly fit on the single player DVD. There was loads of empty space on the disk. This is not to say games wouldn't benefit from more storage, just that things aren't always what they seem. Mass Effect 1 felt loads bigger than the levelised Mass Effect 2, but it needed only one disk. Skyrim is a 3.8GB install on 360 (5.6 GB on my PC with the HD texture pack), but Rage needs three disks. It's not big games that need lots of storage but lots of unique (or repeated but stored as if unique) content.

If everyone has a HDD you can make the multiplayer stuff a download and don't even need to ship it on the DVD / Bluray / cart if you don't want to. We're moving towards a download future anyway, it's the offline stuff you really need to get in its complete form on the original shipping media.

Flash only needs to be able to compete with Bluray in the same way that MS's gimpy 6.8 GB DVDs competed with Sony's 50GB Blurays. And flash can do that without a real issue based on capacity, and it can do it on cost just so long as physical attach rate over the generation isn't too high. Up to a certain threshold it actually saves money and without a doubt allows you to make a smaller system with a decent sized fan in it! You could even integrate it into a tv and not need to put an optical drive in.

8GB SD $2.85.

I'll charge MS $16.15 to copy the data on, put a postage sized sticker on and post it out in a brown envelope using air mail and woohoo I can undercut whoever you were thinking they should use!

I see no reason why i should wish for low space media from the get go. Might as well get rid of one the low points of this gen from the start. As for my example, i think there was more games, but i don't have a 360 (yet) and those that have, has a tendency not to mention stuff like that, for some reason.

Explain to me how Flash gives room to a decent sized fan?

 

[function]

A few small points: 8x bluray is already average speed for cheap pc oen today. Current BD spec can be expanded to 4 layers even with most existing drives and 8 layers is possible. BD layer change has no additional cost and read speeds of BD are constant. There is a much bigger advantage to flash in portable systems vs consoles, and BD drives will keep an advantage simply of being able to play back existing CD, DVD and Bluray, which is a huge load of content and will stay for a long time.

More interesting is that Flash has the potential for better seek-times and tranfer rates should grow. Also behaviour should match DD versions downloaded to internal storage more easily. But considering the context of the media world I think BD drives will stay for a while.

We've actually gone back and forwards over some of this stuff a few pages back (and maybe earlier in the thread too I can't remember). But it's a big old thread now.

Only CLV drives have constant read speed, and they're the slow ones. Once you're talking about a 6 or 8X drive you're looking at a CAV drive and they should see read speed change across the disk just like CD and DVD. 8X Bluray drives spin rather quickly and may be too noisy for a console environment - something like Xbox 360 12X noisy iirc. At the very least 8X is as fast as you'd go and I hope it's lower unless, perhaps, you're only talking about an install.

Flash with higher data transfer rates could allow you to forgo both the optical drive and an internal mechanical storage but obviously would cost more. We've talked quite a bit about seek times and the value of flash for virtual texturing and yeah I agree it would be great to see that advantage used somehow (ideally through internal cache so HDD installs could use it too).

I don't think MS are particularly interested in selling people a DVD and Bluray player, what with Zune and netflicks et al creating ongoing revenue streams. Maybe if they could charge you extra for it, Xbox 1 style ...

I expect some kind if 3D storage solution to happen eventually though. High speed storage is going to be increasingly important, but streaming and caching a game rather than first completely downloading it should be interesting too. but definitely not excluding Flash altogether.

I think MS have a games on demand service for the 360 where you can start playing while still downloading. I haven't checked it out, but it sounds like the future (preferable to On Live for the time being) for games who's structure works with that style of deployment. Maybe future bluray or flash installs could use a similar install process to reduce wait-to-play times (assuming you had internal mass storage to cache / install too).

I see no reason why i should wish for low space media from the get go. Might as well get rid of one the low points of this gen from the start. As for my example, i think there was more games, but i don't have a 360 (yet) and those that have, has a tendency not to mention stuff like that, for some reason.

I didn't say you should wish for low media space! It's just one of those things that if it's there, it's there. There are a few multi disk 360 games but the main reason that 360 owners probably don't mention them is because they don't care. Final Fantasy 13 was actually better on the 360 for coming on multiple disks.

Explain to me how Flash gives room to a decent sized fan?

Oh come on now, take a look inside the PS3 or the 360. See that big hunk of space where the DVD / Bluray drive go? You can't put a fan or a heatsink there and air can't pass through it. Good luck putting a 92mm fan in something like the WiiU. Neither the 360S or PS3 slim are small or slim and the 360S at least couldn't use a 12cm fan or a fan surrounding heatsink so you'll have trouble managing greater thermal output without a larger case, or blowing more or of your budget on exotic cooling. Or running the fans fast which is a horrible thing to do.

I'll take flash over a noisy console. I'll take anything over a noisy console. Put an overclocked Wii in there if you must just don't put two 5,000 rpm fans under my tellybox.

 

[function]

Either you talk of a different game, or your installation is busted, but my Skyrim installation with the HD texture pack is about 8.5GB... the HD Textures alone make up 3GB alone. Even if you deduct the low res texture file (which is 1.3gb, but probably still needed for the actual game) it's 2GB more than you say it is.

And, by the way, even with the high res texture pack, the game still doesn't have super high res textures everywhere. There are console games with better looking textures (though, most of them usually have less freedom in gameplay) than even the best ones here.

If anything, you should take a look at The Witcher 2 or something, which is a really potent non-megatextured game. It also didn't get bogged down by targeting consoles from the get go. And that game is about 20GB without any mods.

Perhaps it's my install that's busted then. I've just started the game up - first time since Christmas - and textures look just as they did. Texture pack is 1.4 GB. I've not played the game much because it runs poorly on my old drivers and all the "new" drivers crash on my desktop all the frikkin time. Actually, I've not checked nvidia drivers since Feb, maybe they're fixed now ...

 

[TheWretched]

Yeah, then you don't have the HD texture pack... sounds about right.

 

[-tkf-]

Flash with higher data transfer rates could allow you to forgo both the optical drive and an internal mechanical storage but obviously would cost more. We've talked quite a bit about seek times and the value of flash for virtual texturing and yeah I agree it would be great to see that advantage used somehow (ideally through internal cache so HDD installs could use it too)..

But you have to make a choice in your strategy, without a big local storage you do limit your options when you want to sell more content to your customers.

Nintendo is going for a SD+USB Drive solution with the Wii-U. Cheap but may be limiting when it comes to performance.

 

[function]

God damn it, that's the third time I've tried t set up my super Final Fantasy 13 joke with the "better on 3 disks" line but no-one ever picks up on it. -tkf- please ask me "Why is Final Fantasy 13 better on 3 disks?". I've been trying this for a year now.

But you have to make a choice in your strategy, without a big local storage you do limit your options when you want to sell more content to your customers.

Yes I think you do, and that it's an unavoidable consequence of wanting a cheap base unit (Wii, WiiU, 360S). Perhaps you can make it pay off like the Xbox 360 - where you cripple USB drives (16GB cap) and then sell a stock HDD with proprietory firmware and caddy for a large margin.

I think an optical drive in a 'powerful' next gen console will require a HDD, but then again a slow flash card would too. Faster flash would run fine straight from cart but then you're looking at costs climbing even more. There's a lot of considerations and depending on your business plan and projected userbase a lot factors could weigh more or less heavily than one another.

For example:
- How much would a cheap entry level Xbox 3 with no optical or HDD sell to the Wii crowd vs how much would expensive carts punish the system?
- How much will the market move from physical to online distribution?
- If you ship a HDD less system can you convince most of its users to "upgrade" to a HDD plus Live sub or do you lose most of them at that point? If not, would these be lost customers with a HDD anyway?
- How barren would a flash system look compared to a Bluray movie playing system for the kind of customers you want to throw money at Zune and netflicks?
- and loads of others, and various combinations of them too.

The safest bet from a platform capability POV is probably optical + HDD for every system, but if you calculated that you could gain momentum from a more radical approach maybe you'd give it a shot.

Nintendo is going for a SD+USB Drive solution with the Wii-U. Cheap but may be limiting when it comes to performance.

Could be, but if they really are targeting PS360 levels of performance then they could probably get away with 6X Bluray with no assistance from anything else. It'd dump all over the 360's DVD drive and probably allow them to outperform 360 loading while also using higher resolution textures. Hopefully there's a good sized flash or ram cache somewhere in that little box...

 

[-tkf-]

God damn it, that's the third time I've tried t set up my super Final Fantasy 13 joke with the "better on 3 disks" line but no-one ever picks up on it. -tkf- please ask me "Why is Final Fantasy 13 better on 3 disks?". I've been trying this for a year now..

3 disks..! how old fashioned.. let me guess, next time you want 100 floppy disks for a intro sequence?
With Blu-Ray it would have been a swap free and much better experience!


[size=-2]ok?[/size]

 

[function]

3 disks..! how old fashioned.. let me guess, next time you want 100 floppy disks for a intro sequence?
With Blu-Ray it would have been a swap free and much better experience!

No ... because changing disks added some much needed variety to the gameplay!

BOOM!

[size=-2]Thanks.[/size]

 

[eastmen]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ing-in-u-s-to-top-discs-in-2012-ihs-says.html

Legal online viewings of films will more than double to 3.4 billion this year from 1.4 billion in 2011, IHS said today in a statement. Physical viewings of DVDs and Blu-ray discs will shrink to 2.4 billion from 2.6 billion, according to the forecast.

I also remember when Slim meant slim

3 disks..! how old fashioned.. let me guess, next time you want 100 floppy disks for a intro sequence?
With Blu-Ray it would have been a swap free and much better experience!


ok?

I guess you have a choice , change the disc every 10 hours or so on dvd or suffer through a 20 minute or longer install time before you can even start playing. I'd choose the disc changing.


And how big do you really think games are going to get next generation. At the begining the majority of games will be up ressed ports of 360 games and 16 gigs which is more than double the avalible space on the 360 should be just fine. As the generation goes on flash sizes will increase along with the speed to read them. Bluray on the other hand will be static in speed. At some point in the next generation the flash might offer even more storage than a bluray. What happens then ? Will you guys be old fashion having to change your bluray discs ?

 

[-tkf-]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ing-in-u-s-to-top-discs-in-2012-ihs-says.html

we have another thread discussing that

I also remember when Slim meant slim

What?

I guess you have a choice , change the disc every 10 hours or so on dvd or suffer through a 20 minute or longer install time before you can even start playing. I'd choose the disc changing.

I think you missed something, besides isn´t FF13 one of those non install games on the PS3? I have no idea but you missed a few points

And how big do you really think games are going to get next generation. At the begining the majority of games will be up ressed ports of 360 games and 16 gigs which is more than double the avalible space on the 360 should be just fine. As the generation goes on flash sizes will increase along with the speed to read them. Bluray on the other hand will be static in speed. At some point in the next generation the flash might offer even more storage than a bluray. What happens then ? Will you guys be old fashion having to change your bluray discs ?

I think games will range from a few mb up to multi disc Blu-Ray games depending on platforms.

 

[MrFox]

I got some new info from a presentation of a new consumer 4k projector, obvious questions ensued about 4k sources, Sony is expecting production of 4K-bluray to start Q4 2012. That should be enough to bring down the cost of the larger blurays with many layers by the time the new consoles come out.

(queue in eastmen to repeat once again that we don't need 4k, and we don't need more than 16gb initially, and bluray is too slow, and download is the future despite being much slower, and I hate films anyway)

 

[-tkf-]

Sony is expecting production of 4K-bluray to start Q4 2012.

Time to checkout who did 4K transfers for the current Blu-Ray movies.. and stop buying Blu-Ray

 

[Shifty Geezer]

(queue in eastmen to repeat once again that we don't need 4k, and we don't need more than 16gb initially, and bluray is too slow, and download is the future despite being much slower, and I hate films anyway)

Well, most people don't need 4k and won't, while it certainly isn't an issue for next-gen games. Even if it was supported, assets would be created for 1080p and the game just rendered at higher resolution. 4k displays aren't going to elevate storage requirements. The big storage pushers will be megatexturing/megameshing, and higher resolution or more numerous assets (a 4x increase in RAM will consume 4x the assets requiring 4x the storage, roughly). 16 GB games will only allow 2x the current level of content. Well, take any game on XB360 and quadruple the resolution of its textures and models, and you're pushing up the storage requirements without even introducing more varied, detailed worlds that next-gen should be offering.
Single layer BRD is likely to struggle. 16 GB flash carts are going to be pretty constraining. It'd still work for a console built around it, but that console won't be the console of choice for the AAA gaming crowd. Unless I guess it sets the standard and the console with BRD is suitably gimped, as happens.

 

[Arwin]

Mass Effect 3 is just one in many big titles showing that DVD us too small. Interestingly they didn't make any sacrifices to the structure, and now if you play any sidequest you have to swap discs. Apparently installing one of the discs on HDD doesn't help, copy protection check wants the physical disc in there.

PS3 version doesn't have this issue but also has no HD install, required or optional, but what is interesting is that the PSN store also has the full game as DD, at 15GB. I wonder if it has a performance benefit.