SSD Mandatory for Next-Gen Games?

Pyromaneyakk said:
I put a SSD in my PS3 a few weeks ago, a 40GB Kingston (Intel-made) and in Gran Turismo 5 it greatly reduced the time it takes to load between menus, load cars, load races / tracks, etc. I haven't measured the difference but I think it cut the time to load most of these screens by more than half, though during some of the time it does not flash the disk light so something else mustbe contributing to the delay. Presumably it would also improve performance with other disk-intensive games such as GTA, which when I played it always seemed to have occasional hiccups when travelling at high speeds.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about an SSD in the PS3 the other day when playing GT5 and seeing the HD light grinding away... might have to find a 40gb ssd to slap in the PS3 now!
 
I think the problem is a tacit collusion in the console market to keep product refresh times high.

The longer it takes for a new design to come out, the more units you can spread your R&D costs over = more profit.

In a world where transistor counts double every 18 months, it is inexcusable to sell a a new computing product with a 4 (PS3) or 5 (XBOX360) year old design, that didn't even have the performance crown when it was new...

It would be sort of like selling a new "gaming computer" today with a Geforce 7800 a single core 3ghz Pentium 4 and 512 megs of ram...
 
Zarathustra[H];1036563059 said:
My first thought when I read this:

They are really going to wait until 2012 to release the next gen consoles? This things are obsolete NOW and ought to have been updated last year.

Then again, while 2012 sounds like far into the future, its only just over a year away...
Click to expand...

I think it's going to be longer actually.

360's profitability was delayed a year or so due to the warranty write-off, but I doubt that they would put the money into making the slim if they were really only two years away from a new launch. It just would seem like the money spent on that could have been spent on making sure the 480 (or whatever) is designed right this time.

And Sony just got the price of components down that they make money off the console this summer. Not to mention that every Playstation console has had a 10 year lifecycle, and even Microsoft has indicated that they see the 360 lasting just as long too. 2012 would be nice, but I'm thinking 2014-16 range personally.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036563554 said:
I think the problem is a tacit collusion in the console market to keep product refresh times high.

The longer it takes for a new design to come out, the more units you can spread your R&D costs over = more profit.

In a world where transistor counts double every 18 months, it is inexcusable to sell a a new computing product with a 4 (PS3) or 5 (XBOX360) year old design, that didn't even have the performance crown when it was new...

It would be sort of like selling a new "gaming computer" today with a Geforce 7800 a single core 3ghz Pentium 4 and 512 megs of ram...
Click to expand...

To be fair, both the xbox and ps3 have "better" than P4 processors, neither are single core either.
 
niconx said:
Those Apple devices have an insignificant installed base compared to 360 and PS3.

Xbox 360 Units sold 196.9 million (as of October 30, 2010)
PS3 Units sold 200 million (as of October 30, 2010)

The fabs simply cannot make that much flash memory. They would need a whole lot of new plants and we all know how expensive those are. Maybe it will happen one day but it will not be anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Where are those sales numbers from? Wikipedia has 44 million units sold for the 360, but refer to some IGN article I haven't checked out yet.. Think the PS3 is about the same number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Sales
just wondering..
 
Zarathustra[H];1036563554 said:
I think the problem is a tacit collusion in the console market to keep product refresh times high.

The longer it takes for a new design to come out, the more units you can spread your R&D costs over = more profit.

In a world where transistor counts double every 18 months, it is inexcusable to sell a a new computing product with a 4 (PS3) or 5 (XBOX360) year old design, that didn't even have the performance crown when it was new...

It would be sort of like selling a new "gaming computer" today with a Geforce 7800 a single core 3ghz Pentium 4 and 512 megs of ram...
Click to expand...

Right on the money there. It is for this reason that I keep to PC gaming as opposed to console gaming.
 
LightningCrash said:
Google it, it was (incorrectly) on Wikipedia for PS3 and Xbox360 for a short while.
Click to expand...

So wait. You claim numbers and when someone asks for a source you don't have one? You also deny the other's source as if it was common knowledge that Wikipedia was incorrect?

Sorry. I think I'm going to side with the person who provides a source that is at least checked sometimes, rather than, "google it" and come up with whatever I want. Research skills 101.
 
Dreaz said:
So wait. You claim numbers and when someone asks for a source you don't have one? You also deny the other's source as if it was common knowledge that Wikipedia was incorrect?

Sorry. I think I'm going to side with the person who provides a source that is at least checked sometimes, rather than, "google it" and come up with whatever I want. Research skills 101.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you smoking?
 
Thread Title fail...

But point being, most end users don't come close to filling up a standard HD now, I'd say by the time the next consoles come out, both Consoles and mid-range Comp's should have SSD's as standard.
 
I think having more RAM would be better than using an SSD. Get 12GB of RAM and a 2TB 7200RPM drive. That should be sufficient.
 
Dreaz said:
So wait. You claim numbers and when someone asks for a source you don't have one? You also deny the other's source as if it was common knowledge that Wikipedia was incorrect?

Sorry. I think I'm going to side with the person who provides a source that is at least checked sometimes, rather than, "google it" and come up with whatever I want. Research skills 101.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify your inattention:
I have stated no numbers.

niconx stated some rather inordinately rotund sales numbers, and I was responding to ObiDamnKenobi, addressing niconx's numbers.

ObiDamnKenobi referenced numbers from Wikipedia, and asked where niconx got his figures. If you go to Wikipedia right now, the article matches the numbers referenced by ObiDamnKenobi. In addition, the numbers posted by ObiDamnKenobi are likely the most accurate sales numbers available. So why, then, would I say that Wikipedia had incorrect sales figures for a short period of time? Why, then, if ObiDamnKenobi asked where niconx got his data, would I even talk about Wikipedia? Perhaps if you Google the numbers in question, as I have suggested previously, you will find out where niconx's numbers came from.

I did not say "Google it" to be obtuse... Googling the sales numbers from the response in question really does explain everything about the data source in question.
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
Where are those sales numbers from? Wikipedia has 44 million units sold for the 360, but refer to some IGN article I haven't checked out yet.. Think the PS3 is about the same number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Sales
just wondering..
Click to expand...

I got those numbers from Wikipedia:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds...r+30,+2010&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=267856ed3ee60de5

Sharp eye. You can still see those numbers in the cache of Google search above. I guess someone edited the wiki document to put in false numbers just to screw with people. According to IGN the correct number of 360s sold is 44.6 million units since its launch. The PS3 is at 41.6 million sold since launch. Those numbers are a lot less crazy than what was there before.
 
They aren't going to put SSD's in the next generation of consoles as the primary storage device. A small internal SSD, 16GB most likely, may be used as a cache, but they are going to put in the biggest HDs they can afford to because games will be download only and will run directly off the HD to reduce used market and piracy issues. MS will probably skip the optical drive entirely or use a DVD for backwards compatibility with 360 games. PS3 will include a Blu-Ray but primarily to allow Blu-Ray movies and backwards compatibility, not to distribute games.

I predict a VERY rough time for Gamestop in a few years. They might even have to go back to selling PC hardware to get by.
 
Sounds good to me except the whole problem where SSDs seem to be price fixed like LCDs. It should not have taken this long for slow and small SSDs using 3 year old technology to fall under $100.

Much more complex products such as a mATX 775 G31 chipset board bundled with a E5500 CPU can be had just a bit more than that.
 
Korben Dallas said:
You guys think it would be possible for games in the future to come on flash drives instead of CDs?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's likely. seems like console makers would see that as just another easy way to enable piracy. think about how you can load psp games off a memory stick, which has definitely hurt the psp.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12/16GB SSD/Ram to easy loading times along with a 1TB HDD to store on the next-gen systems. That being said though, I don't see a large SSD being standard on them, perhaps an option but not a way to buy into the entry-level system.

To address some weird side topics:

Cloud gaming on next-gen consoles is unrealistic since pirated media is easy but pirated clouds are even easier. Unless they create a dedicated server to log into to play a game on with just character basics saved on the actual console people will hack it with speed and ease. Also the lack of resale will drive many independent companies out of business, crippling the gaming industry. The industry doesn't make money on resale but builds value by the secondary market, much like the used car market helps auto manufacturers.

If one looks at inflation a $200 Nintendo Entertainment System in 1984 cost about as much as an Xbox 360 does today. Pretty amazing considering the leap forward in technology. The cost of updating a PC is drastically more over the same time period that a console costs. In a 6-10 year period the average PC gamer has probably overhauled their system atleast twice. If not they replaced the video card at least twice if not thrice in that same period, upgrading to a mid-grade card over that period would buy you a PS3. So while the current systems are a tad bit old and the Wii really shows its age/power they're the most cost-efficient video game delivery system available.

Also the types of games on the PC are relatively limited in the mainstream compared to their console brethren. Sports, FPS, and RTS games are the mainstay of PCs. Through in RPGs but mainly MMOs and the current Fallout/Morrowind lines and that is pretty much the extent of PC games. Consoles lose out on RTS but gain platform, adventure, racing, and others. Really if you want a simple action game you're more likely to find it on an Xbox 360 than the PC.
 
mandatory no...but if more and more adopters jump on board it would be happy times for us the consumers. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top