What's to stop 200 gb. BR's from being standard next gen.?

S

Sarang01

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
When you hear about MGS4 being 33 or 34 gb. already one questions whether 50 gb. will be enough breathing room for games for the next generation of systems.
I suspect 1080p is the benchmark being shot for and having a disc around 200 gb. at max would be ideal for many reasons. One of these is the textures being up to par for that res. Also add in if you want Lossless standard I think 50 gigs. won't be able to cut it for uncompressed audio with the textures. I'm thinking uncompressed textures will be the desired standard for a variety of reasons: cost cutting for games without the compression work. Also with faster drives coupled with this we would see less load time as well.
Oh and I also suspect for quality 1080p, i.e. quality textures, rock solid framerate especially at 60 FPS, we may see dual graphics cards. This is if we don't see a major leap in graphic cards GHz and amount of RAM in the next few years or HD on a chipset gets done already. After all, as we've seen from both of these high spec'ed hardware systems at the time of their launch, HD can be quite a drain on hardware.
 
Development costs are going to have something to say about that standard. Also, the market situation is going to influence what the companies put out.

I dont think either Sony or MS are going to go for a massive generational leap if its going to be as expensive as it was this time around.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Development costs are going to have something to say about that standard. Also, the market situation is going to influence what the companies put out.

I dont think either Sony or MS are going to go for a massive generational leap if its going to be as expensive as it was this time around.[/QUOTE]

Well I suspect by the time the next consoles roll around a BR drive that can handle a 200 gb. disc should be easily affordable.
 
The disc may be affordable, but the machine is going to need enough power for this scenario that you are setting up: 1080p, 60fps, lossless audio. I question whether the current players want to launch such a machine if its going to be very expensive.

You also are going to require a lot of work from developers to take advantage of these things, and I question if there are enough of them for someone to enforce that standard.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Well I suspect by the time the next consoles roll around a BR drive that can handle a 200 gb. disc should be easily affordable.[/QUOTE]

It's not about the cost for the disc drives. It is about the hundreds of millions of dollars each company will have to spend to make just one game. No company will want or be able to take that kind of risk. We are already seeing this somewhat with the constant stream of big budget games that are sequels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well first off we already have games that have Lossless audio. It's just PCM, i.e. uncompressed audio. Pretty much all of Sony's 1st party games have it if not all. EnixSquare was already including it in FFXIII for the PS3.
R&C is suppose to be solid 720p at 60 FPS from what I've heard: no lag. Uncharted is 720p also. Like I said DMK, I think 1080p going strong at 60 FPS looking quality will require two graphic cards unless there's a big jump in the RAM and GHz. I think an HD chipset may honestly happen that relieves a lot of the burden.
 
Both Sony and Microsoft have lost millions on R&D and super-powered machines this generation. Meanwhile, Nintendo has undercut both in price and power and made millions more. The lesson that will likely be learned is that the next generation of consoles will be more powerful, but not a huge leap forward. For one thing, developing games at this point has gotten so expensive that companies cannot keep up with an ever increasing arms race of graphical detail.
 
Next gen, you'd better hope there's any disc. I refuse to buy a console without a disk tray next generation.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The fact that a DVD-based system is the only one turning a profit this generation will probably stop it from happening.[/quote]

With the word only one, i'm assuming you are talking about nintendo, even though M$ is currently turning a profit on the xbox (not the console sales, they lose on the console, but they make it back plus a shit load off of games and licensing)

I would assume that Sony is also turning a profit in the video game industry.

By your logic, games shouldn't have gone to CD either, i mean, the sega CD probably turned a loss for sega, while the cartridges still flew off the self for nintendo SNES
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Sarang01']Also with faster drives coupled with this we would see less load time as well.[/QUOTE]
Microsoft is already introducing play-from-drive tech on the 360 this fall. Unless they put SSD on the next console, or faster speed drives at least, you're not going to beat the direct-from-HD loading times no matter how fast you spin your BR disk.
[quote name='Magus8472']http://kotaku.com/5026559/xbox-division-finally-reports-profitable-year[/QUOTE]
Having a profitable year =/= paying off all the losses you sustained in the previous years. They have to have REALLY profitable years to make up for all the billion dollar losses. This may have happened, btw, but one year in the black doesn't imply it has happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='willardhaven']So, uh, is that including all the money lost on the 360 prior?[/QUOTE]

No, but it seemed like you were speaking of operating costs, which is a different case. The 360 itself is still quite a bit in the red over its lifetime.
 
lets say that a 200gb or a 1tb disc does come out... the time to program and develop for the new systems and games will go up again... are you willing to buy games at $100+ each... i wouldn't.

I already think that $60 for a new game is too much and most of us here think so too, even if the cost is justified by the cost of making the game. We tend to find cheap deals and use coupons when possible.
 
[quote name='rockytrh']
By your logic, games shouldn't have gone to CD either, i mean, the sega CD probably turned a loss for sega, while the cartridges still flew off the self for nintendo SNES[/quote]

The difference is that the Sega CD was an add on to the system. Also, the price of a CD is much less than the price of a cartridge...even back then. This can be seen through the game price difference of an N64 game to a PS1 game where the MSRP of ps1 games were 49.99 and N64 were in upwards of 79.99.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']http://kotaku.com/5026559/xbox-division-finally-reports-profitable-year[/quote]
Sunk costs, olol

Code: 
FY*       Sony**        Nintendo        Microsoft
1998    974,000,000    629,000,000
1999   1,130,000,000   645,000,000
2000    730,000,000    421,000,000
2001    -409,000,000   726,000,000
2002    623,000,000    800,000,000     -750,000,000
2003    939,000,000    560,000,000     -1,191,000,000
2004    650,000,000    316,000,000     -1,215,000,000
2005    404,000,000    777,000,000     -485,000,000
2006    75,000,00      894,000,000     -1,262,000,000
2007   -1,969,000,000  1,489,000,000   -1,892,000,000
2008   -965,000,000     2,193,000,000   532,000,000                        
Totals  2,182,000,000  9,450,000,000   -6,263,000,000
 
The point is, MS and Sony are getting shafted by the Wii and their business model (bigger guns=stronger army) will have to change.

Dr. MK, thank you for the chart.
 
Fun to be lambasted for a point I'm agreeing on.

EDIT: To be clear, I hope you understanding my confusion, since you seem to be considering the present operational loss in Sony's case and the long-term lack of profitability in MS's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top