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

[-tkf-]

Any slow seek times or in otherwise limiting factors from a Optical drive should be easy to circumvent with the build in hard drive. Either in the form of full installs or party installs. It's been done now by plenty of games on the PS3, why should that change?

The discussion on the slow seeks is interesting, i just don't consider it a real problem unless there is a expectation that the next gen wont have hard drives as a standard.

 

[Brimstone]

Any slow seek times or in otherwise limiting factors from a Optical drive should be easy to circumvent with the build in hard drive. Either in the form of full installs or party installs. It's been done now by plenty of games on the PS3, why should that change?

The discussion on the slow seeks is interesting, i just don't consider it a real problem unless there is a expectation that the next gen wont have hard drives as a standard.

If I was Microsoft I wouldn't put a hard drive standard. Later in the console cycle it allows you to have lower cost unit. Just offer deluxe models with hard drives and/or flash memory cards.

PS2 no built in hard drive and a huge success
Xbox 1 built in hard drive and it struggled (lots of problems overall but still...)

XB360 no built in hard drive and a big sucess
PS3 built in hard drive and not having an easy time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Any slow seek times or in otherwise limiting factors from a Optical drive should be easy to circumvent with the build in hard drive. Either in the form of full installs or party installs. It's been done now by plenty of games on the PS3, why should that change?

HDD seek times are still an order of magnitude or two slower than memory seek times. As megatexturing deals with lots of small texture fragments as opposed to standard texturing loading in large textures, the lowest possible seek times will be important for best performance (see Rage on SSDs).

 

[-tkf-]

HDD seek times are still an order of magnitude or two slower than memory seek times. As megatexturing deals with lots of small texture fragments as opposed to standard texturing loading in large textures, the lowest possible seek times will be important for best performance (see Rage on SSDs).

I got the impression this was about optical speeds and the aim with more ram, cache or whatever was to reduce/remove the problem. With harddrives the requirments for more cache/ram should be alot smaller.

If I was Microsoft I wouldn't put a hard drive standard. Later in the console cycle it allows you to have lower cost unit. Just offer deluxe models with hard drives and/or flash memory cards.

PS2 no built in hard drive and a huge success
Xbox 1 built in hard drive and it struggled (lots of problems overall but still...)

XB360 no built in hard drive and a big sucess
PS3 built in hard drive and not having an easy time.

The size of DLC's and the shift towards DD releases does make harddrives more important than ever before. Addons is an option but you do limit your consoles true potential by doing so.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I got the impression this was about optical speeds and the aim with more ram, cache or whatever was to reduce/remove the problem. With harddrives the requirments for more cache/ram should be alot smaller.

the thread was intially a discussion to remove optical drives alogether and replace them with solid state carts, and it evolved into a general discussion on the ideal distribution and IO format for next gen. Read speeds from opticals aren't bad. It's the seek times that cripple random access streaming. HDDs are much better but not ideal. RAM silicon of some form is the ideal streaming medium, but the cost has to be factored in.

 

[Blazkowicz]

hybrid HDD could be interesting, just because the package is integrated. no need to plan for how to integrated the flash on motherboard, which controller etc. it's all in the HDD behind a single SATA 6Gb interface.

 

[MrFox]

I think the devs would need direct access to the flash, so they can reserve a certain amount and get predictable performance.

 

[MrFox]

Anyway modern high speed optical drives don't use a screw mechanism to position the optical pickup they use linear motors.

Are you sure? As far as I know all seek mechanism use a screw, I know there's been rack-and-pinion and even belt at some point but haven't seen it ever. Seek time didn't improve much for a long time, I have a bad feeling that they hit a technological wall.

This is the PS3 replacement motor:
http://www.cdlens.com/?item=21671

 

[RudeCurve]

Are you sure? As far as I know all seek mechanism use a screw, I know there's been rack-and-pinion and even belt at some point but haven't seen it ever. Seek time didn't improve much for a long time, I have a bad feeling that they hit a technological wall.

This is the PS3 replacement motor:
http://www.cdlens.com/?item=21671

Yes I'm sure, direct drive linear motors for high performance CD drives have been used since the 80s...just because God created the PS3's worm drive based optical transport doesn't mean nobody else uses/used linear motors. Even SONY used linear motors.

25 year old Technics drive

Anyway I just discovered that some optical drives also used a pivoting mechanism like on HDDs.

 

[TheWretched]

There's no inherent "advantage" in using a linear motor instead of a worm drive. At least not theoretically. Both have to move the head around, and that's the biggest problem. Not the "how to do it". (and yeah, my 20 year old CD Player used a pivoting laser, too). Sure, one or the other might be faster (hence HDDs use what they use), but optimizing both versions to the max should result in a "perfect" equilibrium. The work that is done is exactly the same.

I'd think some mirror system might be better (i.e. don't move the pickup laser at all), but I am not sure if that's even possible.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's no inherent "advantage" in using a linear motor instead of a worm drive.

My PS2 optical drive was on rails, and it stuck due to lack of lubrication. I imagine a worm drive is cheaper and more reliable, but don't quote me on that.

I'd think some mirror system might be better (i.e. don't move the pickup laser at all), but I am not sure if that's even possible.

Mirror systems need a deep device with the mirror placed opposite the disc far enough that there isn't too much sheer on the beam. I believe someone's already mentioned in this thread the use of mirror-based heads in some drives related to their work. That's all very theoretical though and not a suitable alternative to flash storage next-gen.

 

[dagamer]

If I was Microsoft I wouldn't put a hard drive standard. Later in the console cycle it allows you to have lower cost unit. Just offer deluxe models with hard drives and/or flash memory cards.

PS2 no built in hard drive and a huge success
Xbox 1 built in hard drive and it struggled (lots of problems overall but still...)

XB360 no built in hard drive and a big sucess
PS3 built in hard drive and not having an easy time.

Correlation does not prove causation. And I think we can all agree that the price of the PS3 because of the Blu-ray laser was a much larger factor in it's "non-success".

Also, I should point out to you that despite launching a year later, the PS3 is only behind the 360 by about 4 million units or so. Take a look at post #12 here: http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/charts/xbox-hardware-and-software-sales.htm

Since the 360 had a 4 million unit advantage to start off with and that has been maintained for 5.5 years, I don't think that's a "huge success". Also keep in mind that the 360 in Japan is an afterthought and the PS3 has outsold the 360 in Europe.

 

[TheWretched]

It's not even that "easy". It's 12 months behind in the US and Japan, and 16 month in Europe (Sonys biggest market). PS3 had "the worst versions" of most games through its lifespan and was always more expensive than the 360 was. It did however have the PS1 and PS2 as its older siblings and thus carried a lot of namepower with it.

I am not sure if the HDD was the right idea, though... it made the console more expensive by quite a lot, and that amount can not really be diminished, as HDDs have a hard limit on how low their price can go. SDDs weren't an option until pretty much now... but those would be rather small, making them a hassle for the consumers (i.e. bad for the brand). The slower drive... I am not sure if that was the reason they put it in, though. They could've just put in (as I stated before) some additional slow RAM for caching... was an option then, and would've been MUCH cheaper in the long run. At least for a "low priced" model.

As it stands now, BDROM is the only option. Flash cards are too expensive for games that will be 16GB and more on average. Downloads can only function as an added option, but not for main distribution. (well, unless they want to make the whole "download your games onto your own cards in store" really work, which I doubt).

What else is there that is not future tech?

 

[function]

Xbox had RRoD though. They pretty much stopped making the thing for about 6 months while they tried to work out how to stop the GPU from wrenching itself from the motherboard (they failed; Xephers and Falcons still both did it, just slower than Xenons).

More on topic, I think it's the case that at the start of each generation the page is rewritten to a certain extent, and what where norms become has-beens and what what were niche become mainstream. Look at such varied things as the fall of the JRPG, the rise of the console FPS, the fall of split screen, the rise of online co-op, and the fact that almost everyone is prepared to pay for Xbox Live (even if through gritted teeth) and the fact that my console BIOS now uses 7 times as much space to stuff fucking adverts in my face as it does to let me access the stuff I've already paid for.

If there is a time when the uptake of digital distribution (and the puckering up to accept the thrust of single-user DRM) is going to happen most rapidly, I expect it to be from the start of the next generation. It's true that HDDs as standard have been more of a liability than a boon up tot his point, but never has it been more likely that this will change than with the PS4 and Xbox 3.

Not that I'm betting against Nintendo (that hardly ever works out).

 

[Brimstone]

Correlation does not prove causation. And I think we can all agree that the price of the PS3 because of the Blu-ray laser was a much larger factor in it's "non-success".

Also, I should point out to you that despite launching a year later, the PS3 is only behind the 360 by about 4 million units or so. Take a look at post #12 here: http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/charts/xbox-hardware-and-software-sales.htm

Since the 360 had a 4 million unit advantage to start off with and that has been maintained for 5.5 years, I don't think that's a "huge success". Also keep in mind that the 360 in Japan is an afterthought and the PS3 has outsold the 360 in Europe.

The 360 is going to get a price cut this year and probably in 2013. The price point should help sales...but we'll see.

Considering the amount of market share the Xbox brand gained versus Sony I think it it is clearly a huge success. Going forward into next generation it seems to me Microsoft is poised to gain even more market share. It won't matter if the overall market shrinks because Microsoft will still be gaining...but that is just speculation at this point.


Going forward you want technologies that help distance a console from Tablets and Smart Phones. I just don't see how a hard drive does this. I can see how a holographic disc does with vast data storage and Carmack Mega Textures. I think haptic feedback gamepads and Kinect helps a console seperate itself most of all.

Hard Drives are great, but a console has limits on price and how to seperate itself from other devices. How is a console equiped with a hard disk really any different from a Tablet with flash memory?

 

[-tkf-]

Hard Drives are great, but a console has limits on price and how to seperate itself from other devices. How is a console equiped with a hard disk really any different from a Tablet with flash memory?

Lets try it from another view. How are you going to make money on your console without plenty of storage?
You need storage, it seems like that is either ignored or something that is just forgotten in this discussion.

And not just a little storage, you need space for full sized next gen games, we are talking at least 7GB but more likely 20-30GB for "standard" games.
Then there is DLC's, and it's a fact that today DLC's are a major part of any game, you need space for those. And the size of DLC's is going to grow just as must as games will.

That covers the very basics of a gaming console, space for games. Add to this all the secondary functions that is a integrated part of making money on a modern console. Music and Movies, you can buy them, and download them. You need space for them as well.
And in the case of the PS3/4, there is your personal library of home movies, pictures and music, the entertainment hub, which can only grow in the next gen.

As i see it there is 2 ways to solve this, add a harddrive or support 3rd party solutions.

3rd party addons, like USB Sticks/Drives etc is a real option, just see the WIIUU.
In microsofts case you lose a revenue stream for selling overpriced addon solutions.
In Sonys case you lose nothing, i think.
However 3rd party addons have several challenges, no quality control, no idea how fast it is might be a security issue.

A build in hard drive will have exact data on anything from access time to transfer speed and will be well documented and easy to support from the consoles "os".

And since it's there already you might as well use it to circumvent slow optical drives.
I can see a hybrid drive as an option, but afaik you would need a special firmware made just for the consoles since the current drives have firmware written for windows?

 

[AzBat]

Lets try it from another view. How are you going to make money on your console without plenty of storage?
You need storage, it seems like that is either ignored or something that is just forgotten in this discussion.

And not just a little storage, you need space for full sized next gen games, we are talking at least 7GB but more likely 20-30GB for "standard" games.
Then there is DLC's, and it's a fact that today DLC's are a major part of any game, you need space for those. And the size of DLC's is going to grow just as must as games will.

That covers the very basics of a gaming console, space for games. Add to this all the secondary functions that is a integrated part of making money on a modern console. Music and Movies, you can buy them, and download them. You need space for them as well.
And in the case of the PS3/4, there is your personal library of home movies, pictures and music, the entertainment hub, which can only grow in the next gen.

You may not need lots of local storage for non-gaming content if everything is in the cloud & it's just being streamed. Hell, even games & game content could be streamed as needed. We already have cloud storage for game saves. Personally I don't see the next-gen mirroring what happened this gen with bigger hard drive SKUs every year or so. There's a point of diminishing returns. I think storage will go the cloud & you'll pay it via your subscription or extra services based on how much you'll need. Just another way to keep the hardware costs low.

Tommy McClain

 

[MrFox]

But those are vintage drives. My question remains, is there any mass market modern drive which isn't using a screw mechanism? I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I haven't found any, the platform is now stable, they won't change it unless there's a very good reason. I haven't checked them all, but the fastest ones in this list are screws, and every single one I dismantled in the last 10 years were all screws, DVD writers, blurays, PS3, laptop drives, enthusiast high-end or low cost.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1528/12

Anyway, my point about the seek mechanism was that Latency figures are physical limits and are not expected to improve much in the future. The fastest optical drives are around 100ms and have been for many many years. There hasn't been any new tech that improved this figure on any mass market consumer drives. But the landscape IS changing quickly because bandwidth seems capped on low cost 2.5 HDD (~80MB/s), while it's improving a lot on both flash and optical. Cost per GB is improving on all three technologies, so the gap is expected to remains big.

Optical Drive : 100ms latency, 50MB/s, $0.01/GB, $40 drive cost
HDD : 10ms latency, 80MB/s, $0.10/GB, $50 minimum cost
SSD : 0.1ms latency, >100MB/s, $0.60/GB, minimum cost is the controller ($??, or 100% software?)

Each of these have a major advantage over each other, so I think we need all three. A small SSD is the best for install/cache/buffer to hide optical latency, the HDD is the best for AV storage and large game installs, and the optical disk is the best distribution media. I can see them put the HDD only on the high-end SKU along with more internal flash to allow more games installed without flushing that cache (say, +16GB and a 500GB for +$100 retail?).

So whether we need an HDD this generation depends on how much space is enough, I doubt it will reach a point where $50 of flash is enough to replace an HDD, but obviously that would be the goal. We reached that point for music, but I think we're not even close for gaming, because it keeps getting bigger, and they really want you to sell you stuff locked to your hardware, it's important for THEM that you have enough storage.

 

[Brimstone]

Another reason to go with a holographic disc in a smaller form factor to help get a greater yield out of retail shelf space. Microsoft could create smaller packaging like the Vita has. The smaller the packing the more games can sit on a store shelf. So if a PS4 sticks with Blu-Ray discs, the XB720 could attempt a retail presence advantage with more compact cases. Yet the holographic disc would hold more data and be faster.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You do realize they could already make the packaging smaller if they wanted? CDs aren't physically any smaller than DVD's or blu-rays yet ship in much smaller packaging. I'm not sure smaller packaging is really what they are after. A larger package makes a better presentation for shelves.