DVDs are big enough for Next-Gen + File sizes for X360 launch games

Unless you have a slower drive and delivering uncompressed data is too slow.

 

Of course that would be the limiting factor, but with a constant read speed with a high transfer rate. I'll take that plus the bigger storage capacity.

Besides, 12x read speed is only reached on the outer side of a disc and even that is limited by how much data can be tossed in that area (DVD).

 

Everything will be compressed to speed loading. That's a given and not related to space. No optical drive is fast enough to deliver uncompressed content, and given the decompression performance these next-gen CPUs have got, loading and decompressing a compressed file will be faster than loading an uncompressed file without having a serious impact on available processing resources for the game. If you're trying to get a two-pint game onto a one-pint disc, you'll need to consider aternatives such as higher compression for the sake of space, unless other systems can be used, such as dropping CG cutscenes and using 'procedural synthesis' to adapt a smaller arrange of resource to add the neccessary diversity.

 

I agree with you insofar as I don't think retail is going to completely disappear anytime soon either. But I think online downloading is going to become a significant factor in this generation (or next generation, if you prefer that terminology). Just looking at 360, for example, you can already re-download anything you've purchased again for free, and the sufficient DRM is already built into the box and it already works for Live Arcade games. I think those problems have been solved, or at least proven that they can be solved. The logical next step is for MS to start offering up full games on there. If bandwidth isn't there - so what? People just won't download them. That's not a reason for MS not to try.

And while I agree that publishers will be totally against it (since it cuts them out), it doesn't preclude the fact that studios can negotiate non-exclusive distribution deals with publishers and thus offer both retail and online versions. Valve did this very thing with Vivendi, which is why they were able to distribute HL2 through Steam (albeit after some lawsuits). I think it's a total no-brainer for both the studios and MS; both can receive larger percentage of the profits by eating up the publisher's share, and it costs almost nothing to either of them to do so. Why wouldn't MS enable this ASAP? Why wouldn't studios jump on this in addition to their retail distribution? I think we will see this happen this year.

 

Sethamin:

Let's come at this another way.

This generation I purchased around 30 games (returned some traded some...can't remember all of them). If I were to do the same this generation with a DL service only what would that imply...

Each next gen game would be around 5-10GB on average to DL. (PGR3 and Need for Speed Demos are already 1GB+ DLs and they're just demos). 5GB for a game without HD video and no need for redundant data. 10GB for a big game with HD video trimmings and the like still without redundant data cause you can skate the need for it on a HDD.

So 30x5= 150GB and 30x10=300GBs of storage needed for my games give or take demos, save games, music, etc that I'm supposed to be able to use my consoles HDD for.

I cannot keep my entire game library on the current HDD. I would need 13 of the current X360 HDD to do that since typically only 11 or so GB of the 20GB HDD are free when you get it home and plug it into your X360. I could end up needing more since I can't partially save a game on two or more HDDs. At $99 a pop simple math shows that this is not a practiacal option for the X360's consumer base.

We need a larger HDD and significantly larger at that...but how big...and how much are they going to charge for it? How much penetration is this larger drive going to get into the user base?

Most likely it will still not be 150-300GB is size so then it falls back on DLing and re-DLing games. MS's servers will have to be able to handle hundreds of thousands of multi-gigabyte downloads for just one decently selling game and then millions of such for a platinum title and then tens of millions of such for all such platimun titles and other games combined. MS's servers will need an INCREDIBLE amount of bandwith to pull this off...several mulituples more than Valve does for just their games. This at what transfer rates are now for the average user.

56k and even DSL in some instances will be an impediment rather than a convienience to those with such connections. Broadband users are still looking at hours long DLs for a single game in the majority of cases and hopefully the servers aren't down or overburdened often with all these millions of multi-gigabyte transfers occurring all over the world. And then...users will have to contend with re-DLing stuff on a regular basis since most likely their HDDs will not provide sufficient storage for their games. This may encourage many to play fewer games at a time or not all if the hassle is too great or they simply they don't want to unistall any of their favorite titles and take a chance on a dud consuming valuable HDD space and stealing precious time away from them. How many games will gamers buy if they can't trade in games they don't like or are done with and save some money? I know I'd certainly buy quite a few less and be much more cautious handing over my hard earned cash.

Will gamers even own their games without a physical media or will they be licensing it? Can MS stomach users DLing games as much as they want with the burden placed on the servers or will they put a cap on the number of transfers so that they can manage things?

Is Live ready to contend with every hacker in the world turning from trying to crack disks to trying to penetrate Live and it's games? Will gamers have to online validate continuously and ask permission to get their games re-enabled after Live detects a possible infringement to itself? Will gamers have to connect online to play at all in the first place? If a game update is available will gamers "HAVE" to DL it?

----------------------------------------

From my perspective there is a great deal in the way of a pure DL service taking off in the short term...maybe even next gen five years from now.

If any sort of game DLing begins on Live I believe it will be very few games and very limited. If a dev opts to do this they will be selling their game to a pool of a couple of million people instead of the much larger VG market that is not online. If they go both ways they still have to contend with whether MS has the capability to handle transfers in the realm of what Valve has to for just that one game and then on top of that the rest of the Live service. 2 or 3 games distrubuted like this and ...

A gamer has to know they can't trade in the DLed game and many will expect that game to be cheaper since they DLed it so if MS and the developer accomodates then they won't be getting to split all of what they would have had to pay a publisher.

Maybe you're right and MS and some developer may decide to test the water but I think I have just cause to think it's not very likely.

 

The only way downloaded games would work is if they mailed you a copy of the disc as soon as you purchase the game online.

That way you could download the game from your living room, and a couple weeks later the disc shows up so you can delete the game from your HDD which will inevitably run out of space.

The option of redownloading games is not feasible as it would take multiple hours every time, and it's simply way to much hassle. The point of downloadable games would be to make life easier, not more of a pain.

 

Can someone ckeck some PSX games on his PC?I currently dont have anu with me.
The reason I am asking this is to see how much PS1 games filled up the CD.
If its a similar case with the one we are currently seeing now then it would be safer to judge if in the next gen a bigger storage will be needed.
So far we have seen the tendency of games using bigger formats in each gen

 

The whole point of the download strategy was to obviate the disc capacity limitations. So what is the point of mailing the disc, afterwards? The game doesn't fit on a single disc. ...and if it did, why not just buy it in a store? If it fits on 2 discs, why not just buy that in a store? That makes a whole lot more sense than bombing your internet connection flat-out for many hours (can't surf the internet that well, just because you want to download a game?) and expecting MS to host the infrastructure of some future Skynet empire to pull this off.

 

A p2p system would solve the infrastructure problem easily. Why would anyone share their bandwidth after downloading? Insentives and rebates.

Ie: for each gb/mb of game x you share or after you reach a certain level of mbs shared you could: download a cool new character, get a skin for free, wallpaper, € rebate on your next purchase, an exclusive level, a face plate sent home to you, 1 week of xbox live gold subscription, virtual $ to spend on the live! store or whatever it is called.

Besides _a lot_ of people already download pirated stuff off of the internet, so it seems people are villing to download stuff given enough insentive. And they certainly do for some games (HL2, geometry wars etc).

And no one needs their bandwidth when they are sleeping unless they are downloading/uploading something...

 

The drive may take a moment to switch layers on the desk, which would introduce a perceptible lag while switching. If it's possible to keep it to one layer, that would be ideal.

 

Sounds like some kind of marketspeak. Maybe they won't need to store that grass texture, but I would not bet on any big breakthrough where the entire game, including the work of hundreds of modelers and texture artists is reduced to an equation.

 

MS is going to hinge the distribution of their entire X360 software library on a p2p system? Yeah, that's a strategy that is screaming "pirate these goods" and "add virus here" all over it. A userbase with varied degrees of digital bandwidth will still make any kind of p2p strategy a long and laborious process. Not everybody is going to be uploading in the Mb/s range. What will happen is you get a bunch of people uploading stuff 240-400 Kb/s, at best, with the norm being even less- a meager trickle when all is said and done.

Also getting distribution of a new game to a hearty p2p network is still going to be murder. The whole p2p thing is predicated on the assumption that a bunch of people already have it and can upload it, at the time you want it. If it's a new game, it's all going to be coming from MS or one publisher's server, in the beginning. Then that initial set of users will have to carry the burden of 24/7 distribution to a larger set of users, and so on... Every new game will be like an X360 premiere, over and over again, just to get your goods. That's going to piss off a whole lot of people over time, and every new game release. It's never going to get off the ground, when the alternative is to simply get over to your local game store and buy the friggen disc.

 

what the hell are you talking about? MS is never going to release games that do not fit on DVD, and are not for sales in stores.

IF they adapt some sort of online download system, which they won't IMO till the generation after this at best, it will be in tandem with the store bought games.

The point is obvious, convenience. Why do online DVD rental stores work so well? Why not just goto blockbuster? With downloadable games you could purchase them from the comfort of the living room, on impulse, they would take some time to download but you can do it from the comfort of your own home which is the whole novelty of the idea.

If they implemented such a system, the bext way would be to mail-out the retail versions of the games so the user gets the best of both worlds. Convenience of downloading games from your living room, without the inconvenience of having to spend hundreds of dollars on bigger HDD's, or delete/redownload games.

 

If your only point was to bring up an online distribution scheme for another console generation altogether, then it is another topic that you really need to be in. This topic is about capacity limitations of DVD format, if you haven't noticed.

 

No, the discussion has been sidetracked to whether or not it would be feasible to distribute full retail games online. That's it. No-one's talking about what you're talking about.

 

It's also the shortest game for 360.

 

Then the answer to your inquiry is "NO, it is not feasible for this generation."

 

Blizzard uses "p2p" for World of Warcraft updates and patches, a small game with 4.5 million players.

 

Your assumptions concerning P2P are wrong.
What may be true for edonkey and co is not necesseraly true for P2P in general.

If they do it right, and i'm sure they'll do, it will be better than the client-server model, both for MS and their clients.