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

[MrFox]

I do agree, 4K will definitely remain a niche for quite some time, possibly forever, but it is sure to share the load to bring large capacity BDROM production cost down, so consoles can piggyback on it. I can imagine the PS4 having 4x to 8x the ram, 4x to 8x the drive speed, so if assets size follow roughly the ram and disk speed, it's 200GB to 400GB to keep everything aligned. The crazy first party games who already nearly fill 25GB to 50GB will be happy. All the technology is there right on time.

I think the 4k market is a little like 3D, it's an extension to the technology and a niche that will exist as long as there are home theater enthusiasts who will pay a premium for them (like me). It doesn't matter that it remains at only 5% of the market. The idea is that consoles can piggyback on it. The PC market is also helping to some extent.

 

[eastmen]

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)

HD TV debuted in 1998 in the united states. The first high def consoles came out in 2005 and now in 2012 there are still TV stations that are not in HD .

I would love a 4k format , but what codec is it going to use ? Are we still using vc-1 , mpeg 2 , h.264 ? Are we getting an advance codec , there are some in development that will drasticly reduce sizes again. Or are we getting another half assed measure like bluray was originaly going to be with just mpeg 2 .

ALso while we are getting 4k blurays in 2012 what TV am I going to use on this or will it be just 40k and up projectors ?

 

[manux]

I would love a 4k format , but what codec is it going to use ? Are we still using vc-1 , mpeg 2 , h.264 ? Are we getting an advance codec , there are some in development that will drasticly reduce sizes again. Or are we getting another half assed measure like bluray was originaly going to be with just mpeg 2

If 4k comes it will likely use HEVC. HEVC specification is supposed to go for ratification early 2013. It looks like HEVC will achieve similar quality as h264 avc with half the bitrate and up to 10x more computation needed. Savings from HEVC is offsetted by the 4x more pixels there is in 4k compared to 1080p. So even with this better compression more space is needed than currently.

One could also hope they would allow for higher framerates if there is upgrade to blu-ray. afaik. next highend 3d movies will be shot at least 48fps(again potentially doubling the space needed in worst case). Doubling framerate would fix most of the obvious faults in current 3d(jitter, flicker, instability, headache due to the nature of image if displays interpolator isn't up the the snuff, loss of 3d effect on fast movement etc.)

Also it would be time to get rid of 16-235 yuv420 colour space so having yuv444 or somesuch would require additional space. Probably those new displays demoed at ces could do with 10bits per channel colours and give enthusiasts a reason to upgrade.

So if you count it resolution ups the space needed up to 4x, higher framerate like 48fps requires 2x space and HEVC cut's needed bitrate to half compared to h264 avc. This gives worst case of 4x current space needed(without upgrading from yuv420). Ofcourse it's not that much more space needed but definitely 100GB disc would be useful. Even more would be useful if 1 layer is used for backwards compatibility(25GB encode of same movie for old players)


If HEVC requires up to 10x processing power than h264 avc for same resolution and resolution is upped to 4k and framerate to 48fps I would say the decoders need to be quite beasts... The spec definitively isn't gimped from this POV. Oh, and the poor encoders, we will need some new nuclear power plants to feed hollywood.


For those who are interested, further reading about HEVC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding

 

[Dregun]

I'll say it again, they should just throw in another 2GB of PC3 10600 in these bad boys for like $8 a pop as buffer storage, reduce the HDD size back down to 80gb and keep with optical discs.

SSD's, HDD's and Optical will never be as fast as ram. Having a 2GB buffer of ram would allow them to stream data from the discs to the buffer and feed that into the main system and graphics ram.

I don't know if anyone has ever played around back in the day with the ramdisk feature of Windows. It allowed you to partition a segment of your systems ram to use as logical storage device. You could load data into that ram and treat it as if it was a hard drive and run programs from it. Now you can get software still that does the same thing,

If anyone would like to see the benefit of it for themselves you can download an open source program that's digitally signed that is also compatible with Windows 7 64 here
Imdisk If you have enough ram and a game that can fit inside the ram and still have the required amount to run the game (or any program for that matter) I'd definitely give it a try; I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

My thought is they can stream data to the buffer and the system can pull the information from the buffer when it needs it. The HDD or BD will always be running and loading data into the buffer. As opposed to now when both items can and do sit idle waiting for the system to request data from it.

Another benefit of this would be that all data needed for the game can be sequentially written to the disc as all seeks would then be performed in the buffer instead. As old assets are no longer needed they are removed from the buffer and upcoming assets are loaded into the buffer much sooner then they are required for use. Heck a developer could also thrash the buffer with assets currently in system or graphics memory if it believes it may need to be recalled quickly again.

The best part is the ram doesn't even need to be DDR3 speeds, heck even old PC2100 or PC1600 would be more then sufficient for this purpose but I have no idea what the cost to produce chips with that old technology would be now.

Bottom line for me is that unless a new storage medium is invented that costs less then pressing discs and is significantly faster then both current optical and flash speeds we should instead focus on ways to supplement with current technology.

Could this also be used to perform a suspend mode of sorts? I don't know.

Thats my take on it anyways.

 

[-tkf-]

HD TV debuted in 1998 in the united states. The first high def consoles came out in 2005 and now in 2012 there are still TV stations that are not in HD .

I would love a 4k format , but what codec is it going to use ? Are we still using vc-1 , mpeg 2 , h.264 ? Are we getting an advance codec , there are some in development that will drasticly reduce sizes again. Or are we getting another half assed measure like bluray was originaly going to be with just mpeg 2 .

ALso while we are getting 4k blurays in 2012 what TV am I going to use on this or will it be just 40k and up projectors ?

Why so angry? we had a codec discussion already and the HEVC below might be suitable, if it gets done in time. Nothing to worry about. Ohh and that "half ass" MPEG2 codec is the basis for many Blu-Ray productions that are consider best quality ever. XDCAM HD (ProDisc format, aka Blu-Ray) has been used in many of the best looking Blu-Ray productions, and that tops out at 50mbit.

 

[manux]

Why so angry? we had a codec discussion already and the HEVC below might be suitable, if it gets done in time. Nothing to worry about. Ohh and that "half ass" MPEG2 codec is the basis for many Blu-Ray productions that are consider best quality ever. XDCAM HD (ProDisc format, aka Blu-Ray) has been used in many of the best looking Blu-Ray productions, and that tops out at 50mbit.

I would rephrase. As long as the physical media is done in time everything is ok. They could launch 4k movies year(s) after the console launch as long as the console can read the optical media. ps4/next box could be plenty fast for decoding HEVC on software if software codec is smartly done and utilizes both cpu+gpu.

I don't see any significant reason to launch 4k movies until(if ever) market is ready for them. But if they happened to have few tens of millions consoles software updateable(+playback software purchase from online) that could accelerate the market acceptance quite significantly. And if there is that hybrid disc with support for old players that would be sweet.

 

[eastmen]

Why so angry? we had a codec discussion already and the HEVC below might be suitable, if it gets done in time. Nothing to worry about. Ohh and that "half ass" MPEG2 codec is the basis for many Blu-Ray productions that are consider best quality ever. XDCAM HD (ProDisc format, aka Blu-Ray) has been used in many of the best looking Blu-Ray productions, and that tops out at 50mbit.

The newer codecs give a much better image with the same bit rate. I'm not like you , I rather have all my ducks in a row before I fart out a format that is going to be used for a decade. We are lucky there was a format war or we'd be stuck with blurays and mpeg 2 only . Hopefully another format will come out to rival 4k bluray so we don't get a half assed job

 

[temesgen]

Why so angry? we had a codec discussion already and the HEVC below might be suitable, if it gets done in time. Nothing to worry about. Ohh and that "half ass" MPEG2 codec is the basis for many Blu-Ray productions that are consider best quality ever. XDCAM HD (ProDisc format, aka Blu-Ray) has been used in many of the best looking Blu-Ray productions, and that tops out at 50mbit.

agree, MPEG2 is a good codec and with the space afforded with Blu Ray you can get some great results with it

 

[-tkf-]

Hopefully another format will come out to rival 4k bluray so we don't get a half assed job

A rival, for a format that isn´t even out yet By the looks of it Sony already got that one in the bag, and with big backers like LG/Samsung it looks to good to be true. Blu-Ray players that plays HD and 4K discs and upscales the old HD discs. perfect. Perfect platform for another Blu-Ray console and this time we will see "real 4K" commercials..

Now we just need a GT6 @ 4K

 

[hoho]

I'll say it again, they should just throw in another 2GB of PC3 10600 in these bad boys for like $8 a pop as buffer storage, reduce the HDD size back down to 80gb and keep with optical discs.

How much would it cost to add additional memory controller (next to GDDR5 or even XDR2) and memory bus to the CPU/GPU? The ram stick itself is cheap indeed but it will add costs to the whole system

 

[MrFox]

The newer codecs give a much better image with the same bit rate. I'm not like you , I rather have all my ducks in a row before I fart out a format that is going to be used for a decade. We are lucky there was a format war or we'd be stuck with blurays and mpeg 2 only . Hopefully another format will come out to rival 4k bluray so we don't get a half assed job

This is irrational. Don't be a history revisionist. If the DVD forum had it their way, we would have had a horrible DVD-9 in 720p, barely better than DVD.
Sony (along with LG and Panasonic) came up with the BR-50 solution with a long term evolution to 16 layers (400GB), and they gathered all the studio support, and all the consumer electronics support. HDDVD was the half-ass solution which everybody knew would never fly. An industry standard has to be established BEFORE coming out to market. Format wars must be avoided.

You say you want 4k, and you want the highest possible codec quality, you'll have it for free on the PS4 (the drive doesn't cost more, you remember?), what more do you want?

 

[Blazkowicz]

I'll say it again, they should just throw in another 2GB of PC3 10600 in these bad boys for like $8 a pop as buffer storage, reduce the HDD size back down to 80gb and keep with optical discs.

when a 80GB HDD costs as much to make as a 500GB HDD you ought to go with the bigger one I believe

 

[Squilliam]

What about the changing face of consoles? It used to be that ~100% of the use of consoles centered around the optical drive playing games, however in recent times how much time is actually spent with the optical drive active on a console? How much time in the future if these trends hold will a console actually spend with the disc spinning vs using locally stored data or internet services?

The article above suggests that more time is spent playing internet services on Xbox Live than multiplayer. Not having an optical drive makes it more difficult to position the console to take advantage of the existing console market around games however it is a trade off against taking advantage of new and growing internet services. Which is more important to a console for the next 10 years? Internet services or playing optical games?

I understand the cost argument of the games alone. However if you compare the cost between the total use of a console how would that change the dynamic if say 40% of the console time was used on ODD games and 60% was based off internet services and locally stored content? Surely you would skew the console design towards better catering for that 60% use case scenario and then make accommodations for the remaining 40% like how Microsoft included an optical drive in all consoles but no HDD in some.

The current equations people use look at optical vs flash as if they were the only two options on the table and as if that was all people did with their games consoles.

Flash = X per cart vs Y upfront for optical = breakeven at Z point.

What about:

Media = 30% of use.
Downloads and services = 70% of use. (assuming more games are digitally distributed).

It seems to make sense to design the console around where the majority of your revenue sources come from and then try to mitigate the shortcomings from your compromises than to design a jack of all trades which is expensive and doesn't quite fit as well into the new business model.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What about the changing face of consoles?.

That's the third time that report has been linked today! Can we just be sure we appreciate that that's comparing online use only before using it for consideration? More people use online media then online gaming on their XB360. That doesn't mean people aren't playing offline games. Considering online gaming is rather niche that's no great surprise. Aren't a lot of the stellar AAA disc titles single player? Skyrim and Final Fantasy and the like. And Wii's success was local multplayer, part of the changing face of gaming.

It seems to make sense to design the console around where the majority of your revenue sources come from and then try to mitigate the shortcomings from your compromises than to design a jack of all trades which is expensive and doesn't quite fit as well into the new business model.

Where are the majority of Sony's and MS's revenues coming from for their consoles? Personally I agree that the box should cater for content (HDD/SSD as standard), but an argument could be made that these aren't great revenue sources for the consnole comapnies so they focus their attention on the bread-winner.

 

[MrFox]

We have both right now. We'll need both for next gen.

No drive means:
1. lose a huge user base who want backward compatibility
2. remove the ability to play any existing media except ephemeral consumption type
3. lose the user base looking for a media center that can play their whole collection
4. create a nightmare scenario in case of RROD/YLOD, backups will take forever
5. Say goodby to coming back from work, passing to the store to get your copy and play when you get home. You'll wait days to download over 100GB, and day-1 will clog the servers.
6. infrastructure required for day-1 release becomes a big deal, the highest bandwidth in the world remains a truck full of bluray disks
7. the internal drive will need to be huge, or the games limited (xbox live game size limits has to be there for a reason)
8. broadband infrastructure isn't and won't be ubiquitous, another massive loss of user base
9. Internal drive cost * capacity / average next gen game size = additional cost for each game
10. Broadband connection cost * data cap / average next gen game size = another additional cost for each game

Is all of the above worth 30 dollar saved on the console?
That doesn't add up.

On the PS3 side of things, I now have over 20 bluray games after 5 years, my 120GB is already full of downloadables and there isn't much I can delete. None of that would fit in any 2.5 drive, no matter the cost, so imagine what next gen is going to be. I purchased LA-Noire downloadable version at 30GB and I regret it already, I should have bought the disk version. Downloadable makes sense for smallish games and ephemeral consumption. It's a very different market.

 

[Squilliam]

That's the third time that report has been linked today! Can we just be sure we appreciate that that's comparing online use only before using it for consideration? More people use online media then online gaming on their XB360. That doesn't mean people aren't playing offline games. Considering online gaming is rather niche that's no great surprise. Aren't a lot of the stellar AAA disc titles single player? Skyrim and Final Fantasy and the like. And Wii's success was local multplayer, part of the changing face of gaming.

The article quotes 84 hours between online gaming and media. On average that means that in a month the average use is 2.74 hours per day. Even taking into consideration offline games, that still represents a significant and growing useage model.

Where are the majority of Sony's and MS's revenues coming from for their consoles? Personally I agree that the box should cater for content (HDD/SSD as standard), but an argument could be made that these aren't great revenue sources for the console companies so they focus their attention on the bread-winner.

With Microsoft the a large majority of their profits have (likely) come from:

1. Live.
2. Xbox 360 profitable redesign, smaller and quieter.
3. Kinect.

The first being online services, the second being a smaller and quieter machine which is what optical media prevents and the third being a hands free interface which benefits from not having to physically interact with a controller or the console itself.

There are serious tangible benefits to not using optical drives from a noise, cost, form-factor perspective. These benefits will likely increase as the console ages whereas the benefits from optical media will likely decrease as processes get better, internet improves and broadband penetration from services such as LTE reach even quaint little British villages like yours!

A large part of the console business model is making decisions to implement technologies which may not make perfect business sense in the short term which turn into money spinners in the longer term. Not making profit from media initially and using a different distribution model could be considered a good compromise for the serious question of whether or not to lose money on the console at launch. They could price for instance at a profitable level and then not have to make up the losses through royalties on media. How will the optical vs other distribution question look in 2016 or 2018 assuming these next generation consoles are still on the market?

 

[AlphaWolf]

No drive means:
1. lose a huge user base who want backward compatibility

You really think if Sony doesn't offer BC all of the people who want this feature will quit the playstation? I know some of the people on this forum like the BC, but I expect many of those same people will still be buying a PS4 even if it doesn't offer BC. It might lead to some angry forum posts or something, but I doubt it will cause any mass migration from one platform to another because you're still not going to have BC if you move from one platform to another.

<edit> and 3 is the same as 1, it's just another reason for wanting BC.

 

[hoho]

No drive means:
1. lose a huge user base who want backward compatibility
2. remove the ability to play any existing media except ephemeral consumption type
3. lose the user base looking for a media center that can play their whole collection
4. create a nightmare scenario in case of RROD/YLOD, backups will take forever
5. Say goodby to coming back from work, passing to the store to get your copy and play when you get home. You'll wait days to download over 100GB, and day-1 will clog the servers.
6. infrastructure required for day-1 release becomes a big deal, the highest bandwidth in the world remains a truck full of bluray disks
7. the internal drive will need to be huge, or the games limited (xbox live game size limits has to be there for a reason)
8. broadband infrastructure isn't and won't be ubiquitous, another massive loss of user base
9. Internal drive cost * capacity / average next gen game size = additional cost for each game
10. Broadband connection cost * data cap / average next gen game size = another additional cost for each game

1-3, 8. extrernal optional device or higher priced SKU with built-in optical drive for those who wants/needs it
4. don't use awfully slow USB? Big HDD is needed anyway I'd say so this is kind of a non-issue
5-6. Who said you can't start preloading games days if not weeks before release? Obviously it will limit impulse-buys somewhat though
7. If you have HDD in there then it's price won't really be dependent on it's size all that much.
9. how many games does an average console gamer have at the moment? How much disk space do they take (without data duplication if possible)?
10. see first reply. Also caps WILL increase in future, you can bet on that. Also quite big part of the world isn't using that kind of stuff to limit their internet connections.

Is all of the above worth 30 dollar saved on the console?
That doesn't add up.

Make it a core model, provide an external reader + "premium" model with internal optical and I'll be happy to get the cheap one without a disk as I have no previous generation console or games, I hate switching disks, the noise the drive generates and I have 150Mbit/s connection with no caps that costs peanuts.

On the PS3 side of things, I now have over 20 bluray games after 5 years, my 120GB is already full of downloadables and there isn't much I can delete. None of that would fit in any 2.5 drive, no matter the cost, so imagine what next gen is going to be

Pretty sure there are 500GB single-platter 2.5" HDDs out now and in 1.5 years there should be at least 1TB ones. Should last for a while I guess.

 

[MrFox]

You really think if Sony doesn't offer BC all of the people who want this feature will quit the playstation? I know some of the people on this forum like the BC, but I expect many of those same people will still be buying a PS4 even if it doesn't offer BC. It might lead to some angry forum posts or something, but I doubt it will cause any mass migration from one platform to another because you're still not going to have BC if you move from one platform to another.

<edit> and 3 is the same as 1, it's just another reason for wanting BC.

I didn't say all, only a few won't buy it because of the lack of BC, some will definitely wait until there are enough games to justify the purchase, but BC has a real impact on sales.

 

[AlphaWolf]

So big that even sony didn't feel the need to continue to offer it.