Likelyhood of the next xbox inculding a blu-ray drive?

[HawkMan]

Who ever said anything about restricting them? If the media is not a Blu-Ray disc (which has a fixed size) but flash memory then it really becomes up to the Developer/Publisher where they want to be at. They can make a 8GB game, 16GB game, 32GB game, so on and so forth and only buy media that suits that size. With a Blu-Ray they'll feel obligated to fill the 25/50gb in order to sell their game seeing as its become a new fad to measure a game based on how much space it takes up on disc/on your drive. I also don't see flash drives going away anywhere near as fast as optical media will.

BS. hardly any games on the PS3 are even close to filling up a BD. it was only int he start they filled them up, because Sony told them to, and they did it by replicating data several placeson the disc to increase loading speed as well as padding the disc so sony could say how necessary BD was.

there's no obligation to fill up a large media.

[compl3x]

Who ever said anything about restricting them? If the media is not a Blu-Ray disc (which has a fixed size) but flash memory then it really becomes up to the Developer/Publisher where they want to be at. They can make a 8GB game, 16GB game, 32GB game, so on and so forth and only buy media that suits that size. With a Blu-Ray they'll feel obligated to fill the 25/50gb in order to sell their game seeing as its become a new fad to measure a game based on how much space it takes up on disc/on your drive. I also don't see flash drives going away anywhere near as fast as optical media will.

That seems like absolute drivel. The capacity would be there for the life of the console. Devs might not use it straight away, but as time goes by they might need to make use of more of the capacity. Flash drives are too expensive to make when compared to the pressing of discs. Companies don't want to unnecessarily add costs to the production of their products which they'd have to pass onto the consumer.

[Emn1ty]

Companies don't want to unnecessarily add costs to the production of their products which they'd have to pass onto the consumer.

Yes, cause game budgets haven't ballooned to ridiculous proportions causing publishing companies to find clever ways to add costs to the consumer to make up for the bloated funding (dlc, drm, subscriptions, online passes, etc).

I cannot find an adaquate reference to compare bulk usb vs blu-ray disk purchases but the fact that the price is relatively comparable on the consumer end (a difference of maybe 10-20 cents per GB) just demonstrates the costs aren't that much different (and the benefits of using flash media are far greater than just not being a disc). I find it funny people think flash media is still expensive. Its $20 for a 32GB flash drive ($9 for 16GB) and $15 for a 25GB, rewritable Blu-Ray disc.

[M_Lyons10]

Do people seriously believe this? Microsoft isn't a fanboy that will avoid Sony at all costs, they will do what is best for business. Also, contrary to popular belief Blu-Ray isn't licensed entirely by Sony, It's licensed by the Blu-Ray Disc Association, which comprises a dozen companies.

Microsoft is currently licencing technology from tons of companies for things like Dolby audio and MPEG-4 Support, why would Blu-Ray be any different?

Exactly. And Sony licenses a ton of stuff from Microsoft, Windows being a big one right there... This is just a ridiculous argument. Microsoft would not shoot themselves in the foot like this when they are trying to get the XBox to be an entertainment hub. To do so they need to be able to play entertainment. They don't have to like it (Though I don't honestly think they care all that much at this point), but Bluray won. That's it, the end. Now they have to support it in their various products (Including the next XBox) as it is now the defacto standard. They are NOT a company that does proprietary stuff like this, so that is just not going to happen. I think people are making this into much more than it should be (Or is to Microsoft I'm sure).

And I do realize that the 360 didn't have an HDDVD Drive. I never said that it did. I said that that was their bet and what they invested in. Going forward, that lost and they'll be moving on to what won... When Sony lost with any number of previous formats that they were the proponents of, they didn't just stop and say that's it, they moved to whatever won, because in order to survive and have consumers want your products, particularly in the entertainment area, you need to actually support the formats that they in fact have. In this case, that's Bluray and I would be willing to bet money on it that it will be supported by the next XBox. It would be asinine not to at this point.

[HawkMan]

$15 for a 25GB, rewritable Blu-Ray disc.

1: They don't pay consumer price

2: They don't use RW discs.

3: They don't use R discs

4: Manufactured discs are "pressed", not written to with a laser.

while I think a ROM memory cartridge should be affordable and wouldn't cost much to make in generous sizes and with fairly simple manufacturing(simple than disc presses), pressing discs now that they have all the equipment for pressing blu ray disks is still cheaper. even at whole sale prices of EPROM chips. EPROM programming would also take a lot longer to write to than simply pressing a blu ray disc.

[giantpotato]

Another thing people seem to be forgetting is HD DVD wasn't even around when the 360 launched, so they didn't even have that as an option. The 360 launched a year before the PS3, before the specs for Blu-Ray and HD DVD were even finalized.

[Emn1ty]

EPROM programming would also take a lot longer to write to than simply pressing a blu ray disc.

I don't know the specifics about EPROM programming, so I won't go into that. I agree that simply pressing a disc may be easier but honestly "programming" may take a while, but the majority of it is only done once. No different than working out how to press a Blu-Ray disc.

Another thing people seem to be forgetting is HD DVD wasn't even around when the 360 launched, so they didn't even have that as an option. The 360 launched a year before the PS3, before the specs for Blu-Ray and HD DVD were even finalized.

The 360 didn't have an option to include it, no. But it did have an external media drive for HD-DVD.

[HawkMan]

I don't know the specifics about EPROM programming, so I won't go into that. I agree that simply pressing a disc may be easier but honestly "programming" may take a while, but the majority of it is only done once. No different than working out how to press a Blu-Ray disc.

The 360 didn't have an option to include it, no. But it did have an external media drive for HD-DVD.

The majority is only done once ? each and every chip needs to be "programmed" this will take several minutes vs less than a second to press a disc.

[M_Lyons10]

The majority is only done once ? each and every chip needs to be "programmed" this will take several minutes vs less than a second to press a disc.

Exactly, and that adds up very quickly to loss of productivity and increased cost... I really don't see Flash Memory being a new game standard for consoles at all. Especially when they're going to need disc drives anyway in order to play entertainment...

[Emn1ty]

The majority is only done once ? each and every chip needs to be "programmed" this will take several minutes vs less than a second to press a disc.

Depends on what you mean by "programmed". And even if something takes "several minutes" there are still effective ways to get them done. If it weren't possible then I doubt companies would sell anything with pre-programmed aspects (take computers, for example). Not necessarily saying the production speed would be better, but on the other end you would see:

1) More reliable and portable media storage.

2) A media that can hold all versions of the game and is scaleable.

3) Faster loading times due to a faster media.

4) More compact platforms (not requiring a disc to be inside the console).

5) Less moving parts, less possibility for failure.

There are a lot of pro's to not using a spinning, optical media which can not only be damaged, but damage the interior of the console, requires clean hardware to run (laser lense, etc) and is a fixed capacity and can't scale into the future. The MacBook Air seems to be a good example of what you can accomplish in a "super slim" environment without using an optical drive. Would any of you enjoy having a console that has a super thin form factor?

Personally I wouldn't (considering I know smaller form factors make for tougher cooling), but I'm all for eliminating a large rotating disc inside my console. Less moving parts the better. In the end it may be "easier" to make a disc of some sort, but that doesn't change that flash media can and may become a very viable choice for distributing games. I really don't see why not other than the "discs are cheaper".

[BajiRav]

The majority is only done once ? each and every chip needs to be "programmed" this will take several minutes vs less than a second to press a disc.

wouldn't they be actually just imaging the flash memory instead of writing individual files (not sure what you meant by "programming")? Although I agree with your point that it will be still slower than pressing a BD. But If they can churn mobile phones in millions then producing game cartridges won't be that much of a challenge in terms of volume(with added costs).

[M_Lyons10]

wouldn't they be actually just imaging the flash memory instead of writing individual files (not sure what you meant by "programming")? Although I agree with your point that it will be still slower than pressing a BD. But If they can churn mobile phones in millions then producing game cartridges won't be that much of a challenge in terms of volume(with added costs).

Yeah, but all of that adds up. And cost to market for media like this will rule any discussion they might be having anyway. I know some people are really hardcore on this, but I really just don't see it happening. From a business standpoint it really doesn't make sense. They don't even NEED the scale that would be the only real benefit to them... Bluray has a ton of space, and if they needed more, they could always ship the game on two discs (Which rarely if ever happens with the DVD's they are currently using, so I don't imagine would be necessary next go round either)...

To be honest, I kind of chalk this argument up to geek desires. And I don't mean that to be bad, but tech geeks have a way sometimes of focusing on what would be cool (For them) and ignoring what makes business sense (For the company). This just would never make sense for Microsoft. Not now, and I doubt anytime in the near future. I just do not see it happening.

If you even ignore the costs, you now have a console that can't play CD's (Or rip from CD's), DVD's, Blurays, etc. All things that, while in decline, are still popular enough that they need to be supported. If you for example are in an area that does not have internet fast enough to download HD Movies, have a data cap to worry about, or just don't want to, you will still be using Bluray. In fact, everyone I know still uses Bluray or DVD. So now all of these people are unable to watch movies on your console. If they CAN watch movies on the competing console, guess which one they're going to get? Now you're marketing a console as an entertainment hub (Which admit it or not is Microsoft's main goal) that can't play movies or CD's for these people... Now 2/3's of the entertainment media out there can't be played. Now you're back to a console from the Nintendo Master System days. That is essentially what you would be doing by dropping support for an optical media at this point and going with Flash memory. It is a HUGE step backwards from their desired goals and direction the console industry has been going. And for no real benefit. None. The console manufacturer won't benefit, the game developer won't benefit, and the vast majority of consumers either won't benefit or won't care...

[Tarvis123]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but If they went the flash memory route (which I highly doubt), would it not be the same basic process as how they create DS/3DS/Vita games?

Regardless, I suspect they will keep some kind of disc medium for media purposes and also for backwards compatibility with the 360 games.

[TheLegendOfMart]

With a Blu-Ray they'll feel obligated to fill the 25/50gb in order to sell their game seeing as its become a new fad to measure a game based on how much space it takes up on disc/on your drive.

Doesn't happen with PS3.

[M_Lyons10]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but If they went the flash memory route (which I highly doubt), would it not be the same basic process as how they create DS/3DS/Vita games?

Regardless, I suspect they will keep some kind of disc medium for media purposes and also for backwards compatibility with the 360 games.

Another good point. I completely forgot about backwards compatibility. That's a pretty big deal anymore in the early days of a console and it would be foolish for them to just toss the opportunity to leverage their existing library like that.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Another good point. I completely forgot about backwards compatibility. That's a pretty big deal anymore in the early days of a console and it would be foolish for them to just toss the opportunity to leverage their existing library like that.

It doesn't really matter to Sony, it's just an excuse to repackage old titles to sell in their store for more money.

If the rumours are true that the PS4 will have an AMD x86 CPU/APU as well as GPU then it's very unlikely that they will have backwards compatibility unless they include a CELL and license Nvidia tech which would make the cost prohibitive.

[HawkMan]

Another good point. I completely forgot about backwards compatibility. That's a pretty big deal anymore in the early days of a console and it would be foolish for them to just toss the opportunity to leverage their existing library like that.

As I've said before, with both sony and MS 99% going X86 AMD APU systems, BC is out the window anyway. get or keep your old system for old games. MS could a sI also said before do what they did with Xbox->Xbpox 360 though, recompile new binaries and let you donwload them on your console for select titles. expensive and cumbersome solution though.

[Emn1ty]

Doesn't happen with PS3.

It did happen, not anymore though.

Another good point. I completely forgot about backwards compatibility. That's a pretty big deal anymore in the early days of a console and it would be foolish for them to just toss the opportunity to leverage their existing library like that.

Microsoft has long since stopped updating their game library (2+ years I think since they added games to their backwards compatibility list). It seems now they will re-release them on the LIVE Marketplace. I own Burnout 3: Takedown, Guilty Gear X2: Reloaded and a couple other Original Xbox games on the live marketplace. I also wouldn't be surprised if they offered the ability to trade in games for digital download codes (as Sony offered originally for the PSP Go then retracted the offer).

[TheLegendOfMart]

It did happen, not anymore though.

No it didn't?

They only thing they did was pad it with redundant data because the transfer rate of the Blu-Ray drive wasn't fast enough. Some devs like Naughty Dog had an uncompressed audio/soundtrack purely because they could with the space of Blu-Ray.

[M_Lyons10]

It did happen, not anymore though.

Microsoft has long since stopped updating their game library (2+ years I think since they added games to their backwards compatibility list). It seems now they will re-release them on the LIVE Marketplace. I own Burnout 3: Takedown, Guilty Gear X2: Reloaded and a couple other Original Xbox games on the live marketplace. I also wouldn't be surprised if they offered the ability to trade in games for digital download codes (as Sony offered originally for the PSP Go then retracted the offer).

Well, BC only ever makes any sense initially... It wouldn't make sense, nor was I suggesting, that they continue to make games compatible years and years later...

And I realize that this isn't guaranteed in the next generation, and honestly, I don't use it much myself, so it's not a huge deal to me, but it's another argument against Flash if Microsoft or Sony do want to offer this in some way. Not sure if they will or not, and the rumors about the consoles haven't been confirmed yet, so god only knows what they'll bring anyway from a technical standpoint.

[Emn1ty]

No it didn't?

They only thing they did was pad it with redundant data because the transfer rate of the Blu-Ray drive wasn't fast enough. Some devs like Naughty Dog had an uncompressed audio/soundtrack purely because they could with the space of Blu-Ray.

http://kotaku.com/36...ve-enough-space - Blu Ray isn't big enough.

http://www.joystiq.c...is-a-necessity/ - A single level of KZ2 takes up 2GB of space.

Things that are not compressed tax not only your storage space, but the hardware dealing with it in-game. I also should note that 2048 is probably the maximum of any texture you'll get in a decent game even today. Sitting in on a level design course one of the teams put in a 2048x4096 for a ground texture and were told, "You'd have trouble getting most PC's to run that". I have even had trouble on my PC when I downloaded 4k textures for Skyrim (and they only add marginal detail over 2k). Not saying next gen consoles will have trouble with it, but honestly when you consider consoles will be on a 1080p screen that will be anywhere from 5-14ft away from the viewer you need to realize that anything beyond a certain point won't be beneficial. I don't think there is a purpose in making a game crystal clear on a 50" television from 1ft away.

[M_Lyons10]

http://kotaku.com/36...ve-enough-space - Blu Ray isn't big enough.

http://www.joystiq.c...is-a-necessity/ - A single level of KZ2 takes up 2GB of space.

I remember them saying that MGS3 had mostly uncompressed audio. They did a lot to intentionally consume Blu Ray space to try and sell its capacity.

That was not intentional though in order to use the space, it was laziness because the space was there. It's a big difference...

[Emn1ty]

That was not intentional though in order to use the space, it was laziness because the space was there. It's a big difference...

Then why advertise it if not to use the "necessity" of Blu-Ray's capacity to sell it? You think Sony didn't have their first party studios trying their best to fill up the disc? I would think that first party developers are anything but lazy. I also know it was very much intentional because less than a month after the fall of HD-DVD, Sony started marketing Blu-Ray as the only high capacity disc since DVD. They acted as if the format war never existed. Sony will do pretty much anything to get their product in your hands.

[M_Lyons10]

Then why advertise it if not to use the "necessity" of Blu-Ray's capacity to sell it? You think Sony didn't have their first party studios trying their best to fill up the disc? I would think that first party developers are anything but lazy.

Where was this advertised other than in a gaming magazine where the reviewer mentioned it for no other reason than to geek out about it? Honestly, if you have the space, why would they then go to the trouble of compressing video or audio only to have extra space on the disc? They had the space, so it was easier for them to just use it, rather than pay someone to go through a very tedious process... It was cutting a corner because they could, not so that they could then market that the game took up all this space... Who cares? "Is the game good?" "No, but boy is it huge..." "Awesome, I'll buy it!" This just wouldn't make sense.

[Emn1ty]

Where was this advertised other than in a gaming magazine where the reviewer mentioned it for no other reason than to geek out about it? Honestly, if you have the space, why would they then go to the trouble of compressing video or audio only to have extra space on the disc? They had the space, so it was easier for them to just use it, rather than pay someone to go through a very tedious process... It was cutting a corner because they could, not so that they could then market that the game took up all this space... Who cares? "Is the game good?" "No, but boy is it huge..." "Awesome, I'll buy it!" This just wouldn't make sense.

Compression is not tedious, in fact it is fairly automatic these days. Saving something as a .jpg vs a .tif is compression, for example. Or saving something as h264 video format is compression. Saving music from flacc to mp3 is compression. They are forms of lossy compression, yes but it isn't as "tedious" as it sounds and depending on the medium it can take 1s or 40m of letting a computer render it out (in which time you can do something else). And the amount of space a game takes up can be spun to indicate 2 things to consumers:

1) It has a lot of content.

2) It has a lot of quality in such content.

And consumers will easily buy into it. Many people bought the PS3 simply because it was more expensive than the 360 assuming it was a premium product. People will do the same for games that are "bigger" since a very common misconception by any consumer is that bigger is better.