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

[HawkMan]

http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-3ds/games/new-super-mario-bros-2/101480

NSMB2 a game that relatively cheap to make compared to console games 39.99

now Halo4, AC3 and ms other xbox premorders are generally in the range of 59. for games that cost probably up to 100 times more to make, that makes them eithr veyr cheap or the 3ds game very expensive.

and looking at the full pre order listfor the 3DS there's a some even up to 54 O_O

[McKay]

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

MGS4 is actually 36GB, he was just trying to impress fans. As for Blu-Ray in gaming? I think it's a must for Xbox. Sharp have managed to produce a Blu-Ray player than can read a 100GB Blu-Ray disk. Now that would be pretty future proof, of course Gaming companies could still have choices between a 25GB, 50GB or 100GB disk.

[Emn1ty]

http://www.gamestop....o-bros-2/101480

NSMB2 a game that relatively cheap to make compared to console games 39.99

now Halo4, AC3 and ms other xbox premorders are generally in the range of 59. for games that cost probably up to 100 times more to make, that makes them eithr veyr cheap or the 3ds game very expensive.

and looking at the full pre order listfor the 3DS there's a some even up to 54 O_O

PS3 and 360 almost ALL retail for $59.99 (even crappy movie games: http://www.gamestop....attleship/98957 ). And that's still a $20 difference, which is a LOT.

MGS4 is actually 36GB, he was just trying to impress fans. As for Blu-Ray in gaming? I think it's a must for Xbox. Sharp have managed to produce a Blu-Ray player than can read a 100GB Blu-Ray disk. Now that would be pretty future proof, of course Gaming companies could still have choices between a 25GB, 50GB or 100GB disk.

Good point. I still feel, however, that a solid state media would have many obvious benefits over a disk even if its not sheer storage space. As I said, read speed is faster which makes for better load times, less prone to failure and allow for slimmer platforms. It also prevents MS from having to license Blu-Ray from Sony. I just enjoy the idea of being able to come back to my Xbox 720 in 10 years later and knowing all my games, if I have any of them still, will still work. Currently if I pulled out my old Xbox games and tried to play them I doubt half of them would be in a condition to be played merely from sitting in boxes that have moved many times. That is the nature of disc media.

[compl3x]

I just enjoy the idea of being able to come back to my Xbox 720 in 10 years later and knowing all my games, if I have any of them still, will still work. Currently if I pulled out my old Xbox games and tried to play them I doubt half of them would be in a condition to be played merely from sitting in boxes that have moved many times. That is the nature of disc media.

I have old PS1 games and demo discs that still work. If you keep them in good condition, they'll last a long time.

[HawkMan]

PS3 and 360 almost ALL retail for $59.99 (even crappy movie games: http://www.gamestop....attleship/98957 ). And that's still a $20 difference, which is a LOT.

failed to get the point completely didn't you.

yes they are cheaper. eexcept in real stores these are rarely the prices console games release for, hand held games however rarely get below rrp. anyway, the pount is that a game that costs 50-100 times lss tomake should also have a similar price drop to consumer not a 25% difference,on a good day.

[Emn1ty]

failed to get the point completely didn't you.

yes they are cheaper. eexcept in real stores these are rarely the prices console games release for, hand held games however rarely get below rrp. anyway, the pount is that a game that costs 50-100 times lss tomake should also have a similar price drop to consumer not a 25% difference,on a good day.

Um, in "real" stores like what? Target? They still retail for $59.99 (seeing as I worked there for a year and a half in the electronics department). I don't understand why you don't get the difference between "retail" and "sale". Just because a game is selling for $39.99 doesn't make it a $39.99 game. Its a $59.99 on sale for $39.99. Also: Nintendo is notorious for not dropping the prices of any of their first party titles, be it handheld or console. It took until Super Mario Galaxy 2 was released for the first one to even lose $5 off its price (I think that was almost 3 years!). Hence why your example is a poor one. PSP games went on sale quite a lot, in fact. Target even put some of the 1st party nintendo titles on sale (usually only when the newer ones were already announced, however). That is a Nintendo issue, not a handheld issue.

[HawkMan]

the nintendo first party title wasn't the highest priced game, my point was that is was one of the simplest.

hwoever your turn it though. hand held games shoudln't in relation to their dev costs cost half as much as they do. UNLESS they're paying a very high premium on the media due to higher production costs.

just the memory chips themselves are more expensive than a disc, then there the far more delicate and lengthy procedure to programeach cartridge compared to discs.

[Emn1ty]

the nintendo first party title wasn't the highest priced game, my point was that is was one of the simplest.

hwoever your turn it though. hand held games shoudln't in relation to their dev costs cost half as much as they do. UNLESS they're paying a very high premium on the media due to higher production costs.

just the memory chips themselves are more expensive than a disc, then there the far more delicate and lengthy procedure to programeach cartridge compared to discs.

I still think you're talking out your arse here. I won't doubt that discs are cheaper, but I doubt they are $5-$10 more expensive per copy to warrant such a price increase. The price difference wouldn't be that drastic on the distributor end, not to mention the prices are a significant bit cheaper. Your arbitrarily chosen rule of "half" is just dumb as well. Why does it half to be "half" the price of console games? Where did you get that figure? Its already 1/3 cheaper, why must it be half? And how did you even come up with the idea that handheld games take 50-100 times less time and money to make? Really, you're just throwing out numbers from nowhere, not even comprehending what it takes to make a game. There are many games that take just as much time and effort to create, games like KH handheld games, Monster Hunter, etc. Just because a large number of the releases for the 3DS's are shovelware (most of which retail for $29.99, not $39.99) doesn't mean everything takes half a brain and a dumb gimmick to make.

[dnast]

As far as console game prices I think you two should consider your respective locations. From what I've seen, in Europe games get nice discounts from the start and in NA, not so much. IIRC, it took over 2 years (maybe 3?) for Oblivion to drop to $49.99 in the US. Also, you pretty much have no choice but to buy new games from large retail chains in most of the US (as far as I can tell).

Anyway, back on topic: I'd be surprised if there was no Blu-ray support in the next Xbox. If they don't allow playback of Blu-ray movies (which I doubt) I'd expect them to still use the same or similar tech. Now if they could pull off using ROM carts without increasing the price of games I'd be all for it.

[BajiRav]

PS3 and 360 almost ALL retail for $59.99 (even crappy movie games: http://www.gamestop....attleship/98957 ). And that's still a $20 difference, which is a LOT.

I haven't bought a new game in last few years at retail price. Whenever I pre-ordered, I either had a $20 store credit or a straight $20 off. (courtesy newegg/amazon with release-day delivery for free ;) )

[HawkMan]

I still think you're talking out your arse here. I won't doubt that discs are cheaper, but I doubt they are $5-$10 more expensive per copy to warrant such a price increase. The price difference wouldn't be that drastic on the distributor end, not to mention the prices are a significant bit cheaper. Your arbitrarily chosen rule of "half" is just dumb as well. Why does it half to be "half" the price of console games? Where did you get that figure? Its already 1/3 cheaper, why must it be half? And how did you even come up with the idea that handheld games take 50-100 times less time and money to make? Really, you're just throwing out numbers from nowhere, not even comprehending what it takes to make a game. There are many games that take just as much time and effort to create, games like KH handheld games, Monster Hunter, etc. Just because a large number of the releases for the 3DS's are shovelware (most of which retail for $29.99, not $39.99) doesn't mean everything takes half a brain and a dumb gimmick to make.

How I came up with the rule.

Well for one, The games have generally far shorter and smaller level, meaning far smaller time to make the level, there's also MUCH MUCH less items and stuff in the levels (they're also less detailed but let's get to that later), meaning even less time to make the levels. they also avoid stretchign the levels beyond playable area and rather use the skybox/matte's for distance stuff.

Secondly, Models, They're far less detailed, and far quicker to make, there's also far less of them, with smaller shorter games on smaller formats there's less unique objects.So far less time spent modelling

Thirdly, Textures. Not even close to the amount, and they're lower res, though this may or may not matter depending on the game type, some games the texturs are drawn specifically for the res, but generally textures are made in far higher res than even the full console games can support or even PC and then scaled down. On handhelds though, they often need to be specially drawn at low res in order to have any visible detail on such small screens.

Fourth. Coding, Depends on the game, but at least with Mario it's safe to assume that the coding is nowhere as complex as Halo. but this is a point where the differences aren't necessarily huge

Fifth. QnA. Smaller games, and less complex games, means far less QnA

Add it all up and compare a game like Mario to Halo and you have somewhere between 50 to 100 times less Dev time (counted in man hours, with smaller teams the actual "time" from they start it till it's done will be the same.)For other games the difference will probably be closer to 10 times less. But still a significantly bigger difference in man hours of dev time/resources than the difference in price.

[Emn1ty]

Well for one, The games have generally far shorter and smaller level, meaning far smaller time to make the level, there's also MUCH MUCH less items and stuff in the levels (they're also less detailed but let's get to that later), meaning even less time to make the levels. they also avoid stretchign the levels beyond playable area and rather use the skybox/matte's for distance stuff.

The creative process cannot be quantified. A smaller level can be more/less detailed which means the props within could have taken longer/shorter to make. It's all relative.

Secondly, Models, They're far less detailed, and far quicker to make, there's also far less of them, with smaller shorter games on smaller formats there's less unique objects.So far less time spent modelling

Less detail doesn't mean easier to make. Also, with how modells and props are made you only ever need to make something once with a couple texture variations and then duplicate it throughout the level. Sure if you have more "content" then that's a different story but most levels are fleshed out with duplicate models and "clutter" objects.

Thirdly, Textures. Not even close to the amount, and they're lower res, though this may or may not matter depending on the game type, some games the texturs are drawn specifically for the res, but generally textures are made in far higher res than even the full console games can support or even PC and then scaled down. On handhelds though, they often need to be specially drawn at low res in order to have any visible detail on such small screens.

Lower res also doesn't make them easier to make. In fact, its harder to make lower resolution textures identifiable. Which is a counterpoint that you, yourself pointed out meaning that it takes longer to make the textures for handhelds and adds to their dev time, not subtracts from it.

Fourth. Coding, Depends on the game, but at least with Mario it's safe to assume that the coding is nowhere as complex as Halo. but this is a point where the differences aren't necessarily huge

The "coding" is called programming, and it is as complex as needed. Don't forget that games can not only be scripted in an engine but the engine could be made from scratch and regardless of how complex an engine is that is no easy task and can takes months to make.

Fifth. QnA. Smaller games, and less complex games, means far less QnA

Not necessarily. The games get as much Q/A as they can/want.

Add it all up and compare a game like Mario to Halo and you have somewhere between 50 to 100 times less Dev time (counted in man hours, with smaller teams the actual "time" from they start it till it's done will be the same.)For other games the difference will probably be closer to 10 times less. But still a significantly bigger difference in man hours of dev time/resources than the difference in price.

Adding it all up comes down to the game and how much time the art takes to be produced. Art isn't as easy as hitting a button. All styles and kinds have different difficulty levels and nuances. Just because something looks "simple" doesn't mean it is simple to make. The length of a game, the size of a level and the detail of a model do not directly represent how much dev time it took to be produced.

[The Teej]

Hawkman are you a games designer/developer? I'd really love for you to share more of your insight with us!

[Ryoken]

Yes, the next Xbox will have a Blu-ray drive.

The cloud is not an option for a very large segment of the population both in the US, and worldwide. Caps and slow download speeds would kill it for a lot of people. How would you like it if you can only play one or two games a month, because downloading them kills your cap, or takes a week ? The new games aren't gonna be 2gb.. they are probably gonna be 20-50, if not more..

Royalties ? Really ? MS and Sony each pay each other truck loads in Royalties each year. I assure you, adding a BD drive would not make much of a dent, but would allow for the Xbox to become a better media center, and make for more complex games, and more love from players and devs alike for not having to deal with extra disc's..

Hell I would bet Sony would even offer a discount to MS for having BD Drives.. the more homes with them, the more people who will buy Bluray disc's, and movies..

[~Johnny]

Hawkman are you a games designer/developer? I'd really love for you to share more of your insight with us!

Given his postings, I'd assume not - considering I actually am a games programmer :p

He also probably doesn't play Mario games at that - take Mario Galaxy 2, which has about 40-50 unique levels / worlds, many of which actually have multiple goals, and takes about 30 hours to completely playthrough and experience - versus' the 8 hour Halo Storyline over a lot less unique worlds.

There's a great difference in how they're designed too - platforms have painstakingly designed levels and arrangements (and it shows - lets not forget that many critics rate SMG2 as hands down the best designed platformer - and in a lot of cases, game - ever) whereas a game like Halo, that generally has more "expansive" worlds, is more about the bigger picture that the small details. So even though the levels are bigger, the amount of time that goes into making them isn't far different.

Both Halo 3 and SMG 2 has around 3 years of development time, (though not a fair comparison as Halo 3 was also building a new engine, and SMG2 was building off the existing, hence had more time for level design. SMG 1? In development for many, many years on and off...). There's a lot of additional resources like voice acting, complex lighting effects, mutiplayer that goes into Halo, but it's still the same amount of time really. (Though, I'd say the Halo 3 team was also no doubt larger than the SMG2 team).

Although, on topic, I think it's beyond doubt that the next machine is going to have a Blu-Ray drive, though it might not play Blu-Ray movies out of the box.

[The Teej]

Given his postings, I'd assume not - considering I actually am a games programmer :p

Don't worry, I did games dev in Uni and I fully know he's chatting out of his... mouth ;) I was being facetious ;) I've given up trying to talk to Hawkman seriously to be honest.

[The King of GnG]

Likelyhood level: maximum. Whoever says the contrary lives on a cloud, literally. And clouds are anything but a solid - or so chemistry and physics taught me at school....

[giantpotato]

Given his postings, I'd assume not - considering I actually am a games programmer :p

He also probably doesn't play Mario games at that - take Mario Galaxy 2, which has about 40-50 unique levels / worlds, many of which actually have multiple goals, and takes about 30 hours to completely playthrough and experience - versus' the 8 hour Halo Storyline over a lot less unique worlds.

There's a great difference in how they're designed too - platforms have painstakingly designed levels and arrangements (and it shows - lets not forget that many critics rate SMG2 as hands down the best designed platformer - and in a lot of cases, game - ever) whereas a game like Halo, that generally has more "expansive" worlds, is more about the bigger picture that the small details. So even though the levels are bigger, the amount of time that goes into making them isn't far different.

Both Halo 3 and SMG 2 has around 3 years of development time, (though not a fair comparison as Halo 3 was also building a new engine, and SMG2 was building off the existing, hence had more time for level design. SMG 1? In development for many, many years on and off...). There's a lot of additional resources like voice acting, complex lighting effects, mutiplayer that goes into Halo, but it's still the same amount of time really. (Though, I'd say the Halo 3 team was also no doubt larger than the SMG2 team).

Although, on topic, I think it's beyond doubt that the next machine is going to have a Blu-Ray drive, though it might not play Blu-Ray movies out of the box.

I didn't realize Super Mario Galaxy 2 was a handheld game that shipped on a cartridge. Since it is, you have certainly proven HawkMan wrong that handheld games are just as detailed as console games that ship on discs. /s

[joemailey]

I have to admit, one of my favourite things about my PS3 is the fact it is a Blu-Ray player. It basically saves me the hassle of having to buy a Blu-Ray player separately.

Anyone who thinks M$ won't have a console with a Blu-Ray drive must be nuts. It would be suicidal to remove the drive. As so many people will need it.

Although I could see both Sony & M$ maybe offering consoles without drives for cheaper, for the people who have the Data and speed to use such things.

I'd be happy without a drive as my connection is unlimited and quick + I'd have ps3 still for my Blu-Ray player.

Will be interesting once we see the console line-ups :)

[compl3x]

So maybe resurrecting this topic would be interesting because it seems MS is putting a Blu-Ray player in.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Anyone who thinks the next Xbox will not include any form of optical media or will stick with DVD needs to be committed to a mental institution because they are insane.

The next Xbox will most likely have a blu-ray player built in. Either that or they will come out with a new storage media. They can no longer use DVD's, PERIOD! Game developers are running out of space. Add to the fact, that the next xbox will be have much greater graphical detail thus much higher textures will be needed. It will also not be a download only game system. We are not to that point yet.

[Ryoken]

It'll have one.. The war is won, and it is Bluray.

Most people still don't have the connections and caps to be download ever larger games.. think they are big now, just wait till the next gen, they will only get bigger.

Also, Microsoft has tried to keep the Xbox as a Media Center, to keep that going they require Bluray playback, otherwise they lose out on that market.

[Colin McGregor]

MS should have used HD-DVD for their games and put the drive in the slim. Sure the format lost the nerd war but its still larger discs. Sony kept using umd even though no one ever used it. Just because people chose Blu-ray for the movie format doesn't mean MS couldn't have still used the discs.

Plus 99% of ps3 games and xbox games are less then 8 gb. Even though ps3 games are on Blu-ray the games are still the same size (most times actually smaller) then the 360 version (aside from multidisc games).

[Ryoken]

MS should have used HD-DVD for their games and put the drive in the slim. Sure the format lost the nerd war but its still larger discs. Sony kept using umd even though no one ever used it. Just because people chose Blu-ray for the movie format doesn't mean MS couldn't have still used the discs.

Plus 99% of ps3 games and xbox games are less then 8 gb. Even though ps3 games are on Blu-ray the games are still the same size (most times actually smaller) then the 360 version (aside from multidisc games).

Lots of games are smaller, but the "feature" games that bring in the big bucks are often quite a bit larger than a single DVD.

HDDVD is dead, if it wasn't being used for Movies then it would have been foolish to use it for games, cause you lose the low costs that come with mass production. 360 games alone could not keep those costs down to a reasonable level..

Also there are lots of cutbacks on 360 games from what studios would like to do, longer pre-rendered scenes, more audio, Better audio, etc.. that just aren't available to them currently..

And as I said in my previous post, MS wants to keep the 360 as a Media Center, and the current Media is Bluray.

[Emn1ty]

And as I said in my previous post, MS wants to keep the 360 as a Media Center, and the current Media is Bluray.

Don't rule out Netflix and Hulu. Streaming has become a huge part of media centers and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft abandoned physical media entirely seeing as they have been hinting at that for a very long time. Blu-Ray, while the new standard, hasn't overtaken DVD's as completely as they could have. Even if blu-ray players are low cost now they have yet to move beyond movies and PS3's (PC's still stick with DVD's even now). I wonder if Blu-Ray will survive the next five years, tbh.