The return of the cartridge, are you ready?

The $0.75 versus $5.00 difference is huge - for a company issuing a one million unit initial shipment, it changes costs from $750,000 to $5,000,000 - that's massive, considering it comes on top of the existing $10 ~ $30 mil dev cost of the game. You still have to add in distribution costs, licensing fees, etc - it can easily make games more expensive on the shelf (see the N64 era, where N64 games were more expensive than PS1 games) AND you now have to seriously consider your costs of returns, damaged product, etc.subrosian

Once again, you make the assumption that costs can't be reduced. Everything you just stated was once true for optical discs, as well. To assume that SD card production costs will remain static is to ignore the past.

- Even your "environmental" claims don't add up - disc drives fail, but cartridges require far more material (read, energy) to produce, are more damaging to the environment when disposed of, and their production uses all the precious materials that you attack disc drives for using. Motor failure is real - so if flash cell degradation - it's a moot point, the real issue is the business end - where the costs of having a massivly higher per-unit production cost, greater inventory costs - hurt.subrosian

I'm not talking about N64 cartridges, here, ya know. I'm talking about little cards like the ones that go into cameras. They require much less plastic, which is a petroleum product, BTW.

The other environmental concerns that I raised are also quite real. A format that requries spinning motors and a laser WILL use more power than an SD format that only uses solid circuits. This is a fact. Furthermore, a disc reader definitely is more resource intensive than a card reader (no motor...no laser). Once again, you, like others, are choosing to ignore the the disc player. A disc player is actually a quite complex little device, requiring electrical energy to be turned into kinetic energy in order to spin the disc and also converted into radiant energy to actually read the spinning disc. An SD or flash format sticks to purely electrical energy. Converting electrical energy into kinetic & radiant energy definitely involves more energy loss than just keeping it in electrical form. You'll always have some energy lost as heat due to electrical resistance, but by converting it to kinetic & radiant energy, you lose even more as heat.

From an engineering standpoint, anytime that you can avoid having to convert one type of energy into another and still get the job done, you will increase efficiency by reducing heat loss.

Furthermore, you also did not address the waste involved when a disc player fails and must be replaced. Having fewer moving parts, a card reader naturally would need to be replaced less often than a disc player. This is elemental.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

Did I use the word "blank" anywhere? You can put your strawman away, now. The first retail CD albums retailed for about $40-$50, depending on where you made your purchase. They didn't even sell blank CD's to the general public in the 1980's anyways. The price then dropped to $20-$30 by 1984, again, depending on where you made your purchase. Audio CD's on the base exchange where I did my shopping back then went for $25 a pop, and that was at military base prices, which are always lower than your standard civillian retail. They stayed at that price for about 6 years, and then they started to drop to the levels that we see today.

Oh, and here's your link, BTW. The first blank CD's available to the general public retailed for $40 each, in 1991.

dkrustyklown

You're using the wrong info. I'm talking about the price to make a CD.... not charge you for an album. BluRay movies cost in the neighborhood of $30 bucks each. Blank BluRays with 50gb capacity costs around $15. That doesn't mean the BluRay actually cost 30 bucks to make, or even 15. I'm speaking about the manufacturing costs, not the retail price of an album paying royalites, retails fees, and patents fees. I'm not speaking about huge markups for high end conumer devices. None of that figures into the cost that a publisher would spend putting their game on a disc versus a card. I don't even understand why you would bring it up....

I'm using the prices that the consumer actually SEES. In all reality, it makes little difference, since the retail price is a derivative of the manufacturing price with several markups causing the difference. You're arguing semantics, anyways. You want to use manufacturing cost, and I want to use retail cost. They are correlative of each other, so your challenge is PURELY SEMANTIC and does nothing to affect my conclusions.

On top of that, your position is extremely short-sighted. At one point, optical discs cost more to produce than it costs to produce SD cards today. So if the production costs for CD's can be reduced to today's levels, then what makes a similiar price drop for SD technology impossible? When the first CD stamping facility opened in Germany, CD's cost significantly more to produce than they do today, but that was only because the manufacturing process used back then was less efficient and the raw materials, due to a smaller supply, cost more. If you think that optical discs ALWAYS cost only a few pennies to produce, then you are deluding yourself. Increased production decreased the prices, and the same thing can happen with ANY format.

Also, think about it. How much plastic & metal goes into producing an optical disc VS an SD card. An SD card is physically smaller. It weighs less. It therefore requires less raw materials. The manufacturing process itself is no more complex. It's just that since optical discs have been produced for a longer period of time, the production process is currently more streamlined. It is no less likely for SD card production to be streamlined than it was for optical disc production.

Now, I defy YOU to find information to the contrary. You demanded links and sources from me, but now I demand the same from you.

You aren't making sense at all. The difference between the manufacturing costs for a a disc versus the retail cost of a media laden disc are correlative? The difference is semantics? Preposterous. Do you honestly believe that a CD you buy at Best Buy today is a good indication of the media's cost to the publisher? Or put it this way. you can buy a blank cd for pennies. A CD for 15-20 dollars. A CD based video game sold for 50... now in what way are these reail prices "correlative" to the cost of the media? They aren't Not at all, and it's silly to propose otherwise. Each piece of media cost the same in all three instances. The retail price differed by what was ON the disc, not how much each disc cost to make.

Never. And let me repeat NEVER did it cost more to produce optical discs than it cost to make memory cards or cartridges that could hold the same amount of data... and at no point have the two been close. You argrument tries somehow to make us believe that memory based storage is the "New Kid on the Block"... which is a strange stance to take from the TC who named the thread "The Return of the Cartridge". Mass Production for memory based storage HAS been going on for decades.... this isn't soething that just needs to catch on and then the prices on disc capacity mem cards are gonna sink to the penny level. Of course the first CDs, DVDs and BluRays cost more at the beginning to make. Not anywhere near the difference in prices as you are trying to overcome, but sure... Factories were built or converted, and inital supplies were lower. But we still aren't talking about 1 dollar a disc. And the only factor needed to bring down the price was volume. Memory based storage HAS the Volume. It has been developed since before the first CD was pressed. We aren't talking about a new technology that just needs to catch on. We are talking about one of the most common data storage options for a host of devices found in homes all acrss the world. And it is STILL nowhere near as cost effective as a disc. Once again, your facts are flawed, and your understanding of the timeline is all out of order.

You want Links? Ask specifically and I'll be happy to demonstrate anything I've said. Your links had nothing to do with your argument, but I'll do my best to be more helpful to you.

When so-called 2 TB SD cards magically cost $0.75 per unit, fully cased, physical distribution will already be almost non-existant. And SD cards still won't have a relevance to console storage - as consoles will opt for the larger 2.5" form factor for flash-based drives, for a number of reasons.subrosian

Optical discs don't even hold 2 TB, so why would you hold up the SD format to a standard that even optical discs aren't expected to meet?

If flash based storage works better, then fine, make it flash based storage. It does need to be removable, though, that's the key. Consumers don't really like the idea of putting all of their eggs in one basket and hoping the basket doesn't break. Consumers will need a way to transfer their downloaded games to a new console if need be. Relying on internet won't work, either. I want an actual copy that I can keep locally in case something goes bad and communications are down. This concern is what keeps me from purchasing a significant amount of DD content.

I totally agree...moving parts ...they give us RROD and disc read failures ! My SNES, Genesis and NES still work perfectly ! And think of the climate ! Less energy with unmoving parts ! Let the cartridges come again !!

[QUOTE="subrosian"] When so-called 2 TB SD cards magically cost $0.75 per unit, fully cased, physical distribution will already be almost non-existant. And SD cards still won't have a relevance to console storage - as consoles will opt for the larger 2.5" form factor for flash-based drives, for a number of reasons.dkrustyklown

Optical discs don't even hold 2 TB, so why would you hold up the SD format to a standard that even optical discs aren't expected to meet?

If flash based storage works better, then fine, make it flash based storage. It does need to be removable, though, that's the key. Consumers don't really like the idea of putting all of their eggs in one basket and hoping the basket doesn't break. Consumers will need a way to transfer their downloaded games to a new console if need be. Relying on internet won't work, either. I want an actual copy that I can keep locally in case something goes bad and communications are down. This concern is what keeps me from purchasing a significant amount of DD content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

HVDs will hold 6TB.

I can see games coming on SD card-like cartridges in the near future.

Sure there may not be any need for 1tb of data, but the good thing about SD cards is that they can come in different sizes. A game is 20GB in size, it can fit on a 20GB SD card. One is 50GB in size, it fits on a 50GB SD card. This has an economical effect for the producer (the smaller the game the cheaper each SD card).

Another advantage is that because the card is re-writable, dlc and saves can be stored on the card. This means that if you go over a friends house all you need to do is take the card and it has all your saved files on it. No need to carry around a HDD.

It'll also be cheaper for game distribution. Obviously the cases will be smaller, so there is less money spent on shipping. The fact that there are no moving parts in the console could also help improve reliability.

There are obviously some things needed to be cleared. Security is the major one. The price of the SD card itself is another. The technological feasability is yet another hurdle. However if these can be overcome I see no problem for SD cards ...

Subrosian, do you think games will even use TB? I want to know if I'm full of crap.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="santoron"]

You're using the wrong info. I'm talking about the price to make a CD.... not charge you for an album. BluRay movies cost in the neighborhood of $30 bucks each. Blank BluRays with 50gb capacity costs around $15. That doesn't mean the BluRay actually cost 30 bucks to make, or even 15. I'm speaking about the manufacturing costs, not the retail price of an album paying royalites, retails fees, and patents fees. I'm not speaking about huge markups for high end conumer devices. None of that figures into the cost that a publisher would spend putting their game on a disc versus a card. I don't even understand why you would bring it up....

santoron

I'm using the prices that the consumer actually SEES. In all reality, it makes little difference, since the retail price is a derivative of the manufacturing price with several markups causing the difference. You're arguing semantics, anyways. You want to use manufacturing cost, and I want to use retail cost. They are correlative of each other, so your challenge is PURELY SEMANTIC and does nothing to affect my conclusions.

On top of that, your position is extremely short-sighted. At one point, optical discs cost more to produce than it costs to produce SD cards today. So if the production costs for CD's can be reduced to today's levels, then what makes a similiar price drop for SD technology impossible? When the first CD stamping facility opened in Germany, CD's cost significantly more to produce than they do today, but that was only because the manufacturing process used back then was less efficient and the raw materials, due to a smaller supply, cost more. If you think that optical discs ALWAYS cost only a few pennies to produce, then you are deluding yourself. Increased production decreased the prices, and the same thing can happen with ANY format.

Also, think about it. How much plastic & metal goes into producing an optical disc VS an SD card. An SD card is physically smaller. It weighs less. It therefore requires less raw materials. The manufacturing process itself is no more complex. It's just that since optical discs have been produced for a longer period of time, the production process is currently more streamlined. It is no less likely for SD card production to be streamlined than it was for optical disc production.

Now, I defy YOU to find information to the contrary. You demanded links and sources from me, but now I demand the same from you.

You aren't making sense at all. The difference between the manufacturing costs for a a disc versus the retail cost of a media laden disc are correlative? The difference is semantics? Preposterous. Do you honestly believe that a CD you buy at Best Buy today is a good indication of the media's cost to the publisher? Or put it this way. you can buy a blank cd for pennies. A CD for 15-20 dollars. A CD based video game sold for 50... now in what way are these reail prices "correlative" to the cost of the media? They aren't Not at all, and it's silly to propose otherwise. Each piece of media cost the same in all three instances. The retail price differed by what was ON the disc, not how much each disc cost to make.

Never. And let me repeat NEVER did it cost more to produce optical discs than it cost to make memory cards or cartridges that could hold the same amount of data... and at no point have the two been close. You argrument tries somehow to make us believe that memory based storage is the "New Kid on the Block"... which is a strange stance to take from the TC who named the thread "The Return of the Cartridge". Mass Production for memory based storage HAS been going on for decades.... this isn't soething that just needs to catch on and then the prices on disc capacity mem cards are gonna sink to the penny level. Of course the first CDs, DVDs and BluRays cost more at the beginning to make. Not anywhere near the difference in prices as you are trying to overcome, but sure... Factories were built or converted, and inital supplies were lower. But we still aren't talking about 1 dollar a disc. And the only factor needed to bring down the price was volume. Memory based storage HAS the Volume. It has been developed since before the first CD was pressed. We aren't talking about a new technology that just needs to catch on. We are talking about one of the most common data storage options for a host of devices found in homes all acrss the world. And it is STILL nowhere near as cost effective as a disc. Once again, your facts are flawed, and your understanding of the timeline is all out of order.

You want Links? Ask specifically and I'll be happy to demonstrate anything I've said. Your links had nothing to do with your argument, but I'll do my best to be more helpful to you.

So your claim is that the high prices for disc media in the '80s had nothing to do with production costs? Nonsense! The companies that stamped the early discs had to recoup their costs for R&D and for setting up the infrastructure required to mass produce them. That is why the early costs were so high. Between tech licensing and manufacturing setup, there had to be a period of high prices, and there was. Maybe you don't remember CD's costing $25, but I do. Once those costs were reduced, the prices fell, dramatically.

Did you READ the link that I provided? It gave a retail price for BLANK discs in 1991, which was $40. That would buy you a pretty hefty SD card today.

ahahah you cant even buy unreal tournament 2003 on steam so because of this scratch i no longer own this retail cd key i paid for in 2002? i no longer own this game i paid for? or should i have the right to download disk number 2 off a torrent so i can install the gamE? lol casualtrashnow4

Tecnically, since you did purchase the game, you have every right to download it off of a torrent. If some copyright lawyer tried to talk smack to you about it, then all you have to do is show him your scratched disc and tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

At some point in the future, we may have terabyte game installs. Keep in mind that asset quality increases have a big impact on our installs - and that 4K digital films take several hundred gigabytes. It's really not impossible that "some day" there's going to be a terabyte game - and it may be sooner than we'd expect. Hell, wasn't RAGE making claims about it's massive size, were it to be uncompressed?subrosian

But isn't there a point where they're going to have to draw the line in the sand or flat out start charging more for videogames like Australia and Japan?

I mean, I find it hard to believe that there will be a time when over a TB of data will become standard size for videogames at $50.

[QUOTE="casualtrashnow4"]ahahah you cant even buy unreal tournament 2003 on steam so because of this scratch i no longer own this retail cd key i paid for in 2002? i no longer own this game i paid for? or should i have the right to download disk number 2 off a torrent so i can install the gamE? lol dkrustyklown

Tecnically, since you did purchase the game, you have every right to download it off of a torrent. If some copyright lawyer tried to talk smack to you about it, then all you have to do is show him your scratched disc and tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

He's not real.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]At some point in the future, we may have terabyte game installs. Keep in mind that asset quality increases have a big impact on our installs - and that 4K digital films take several hundred gigabytes. It's really not impossible that "some day" there's going to be a terabyte game - and it may be sooner than we'd expect. Hell, wasn't RAGE making claims about it's massive size, were it to be uncompressed?hakanakumono

But isn't there a point where they're going to have to draw the line in the sand or flat out start charging more for videogames like Australia and Japan?

I mean, I find it hard to believe that there will be a time when over a TB of data will become standard size for videogames at $50.

Krusty - you're still not answering my question: - Do you honestly believe a *computer chip* is going to cost less than a piece of aluminum foil? Yes or no, no other response please.subrosian

It is possible. It depends on the price of oil. You have shipping costs to consider, you know. Then there's all the plastic that covers that aluminum foil, which an SD card has a lot less of and which is a petroleum product BTW. Then you have all of the plastic used to produce the case, which is, once again, a petroleum product. Then there's the ink that goes into the cover art and manual, which is mostly made of petroleum products. Then you have the issue of aluminum actually being quite variable in price, since turning bauxite into aluminum is an energy intensive process that waxes and wanes with the price of energy (read: price of oil, again).

Your committed belief that these prices are set in stone is amusing.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="subrosian"]At some point in the future, we may have terabyte game installs. Keep in mind that asset quality increases have a big impact on our installs - and that 4K digital films take several hundred gigabytes. It's really not impossible that "some day" there's going to be a terabyte game - and it may be sooner than we'd expect. Hell, wasn't RAGE making claims about it's massive size, were it to be uncompressed?subrosian

But isn't there a point where they're going to have to draw the line in the sand or flat out start charging more for videogames like Australia and Japan?

I mean, I find it hard to believe that there will be a time when over a TB of data will become standard size for videogames at $50.

Because it costs developers more and more money to make games but they're roughly the same price as 10 years ago?

Well, I'll take your word for it then. You certainly seem to have a better understanding of the market than me. ^^;

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="casualtrashnow4"]ahahah you cant even buy unreal tournament 2003 on steam so because of this scratch i no longer own this retail cd key i paid for in 2002? i no longer own this game i paid for? or should i have the right to download disk number 2 off a torrent so i can install the gamE? lol hakanakumono

Tecnically, since you did purchase the game, you have every right to download it off of a torrent. If some copyright lawyer tried to talk smack to you about it, then all you have to do is show him your scratched disc and tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

He's not real.

So I was talking to a bot? :o

AI is getting good. A little spammy, but almost life-like.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

But isn't there a point where they're going to have to draw the line in the sand or flat out start charging more for videogames like Australia and Japan?

I mean, I find it hard to believe that there will be a time when over a TB of data will become standard size for videogames at $50.

hakanakumono

Because it costs developers more and more money to make games but they're roughly the same price as 10 years ago?

Well, I'll take your word for it then. You certainly seem to have a better understanding of the market than me. ^^;

Here's the thing. 23 years ago, I could make a file using Applesoft Paint with a certain amount of work and it would produce a file of a certain size. Today, I can put the same amount of work into the latest Corel art program and produce a file that takes up much more space.

Same amount of work, but yet the file is larger today. That's one of several reason for data storage inflation.

So your claim is that the high prices for disc media in the '80s had nothing to do with production costs? Nonsense! The companies that stamped the early discs had to recoup their costs for R&D and for setting up the infrastructure required to mass produce them. That is why the early costs were so high. Between tech licensing and manufacturing setup, there had to be a period of high prices, and there was. Maybe you don't remember CD's costing $25, but I do. Once those costs were reduced, the prices fell, dramatically.

Did you READ the link that I provided? It gave a retail price for BLANK discs in 1991, which was $40. That would buy you a pretty hefty SD card today.

dkrustyklown

Of course I read your link... it simply didn't factor into the discussion. Surely you aren't arguing that the CD blanks used in the manufacture of Audio CDs or CD-ROM media in 1991 cost $40 each... right? The writable CDs for the $20,000 CD recorder were not the same discs being used by the industry, and you know that. That's why I said it was irrelevant information. If the prices you mention have nothing to do with the cost to the manfacturer, then that information isn't relevant to this discussion. By 1991 I'm sure you'd agree that Audio CDs cost less than half of the blank cd you linked to.... and the vast majority of the price of that album was for retail profit margin, shipping, royalties to the artist, and profit to the studio. Not the cost of the CD blank the album was printed on. I'd bet the case and album book cost more to manufacture than the disc itself.

The reason Disc based media has become so successful in the world of gaming is the cost per MB to make. Even though they came after the Cartridge, CDs, DVDs, and BluRays have been able to Immediately provide more storage for less money than memory based storage. Cartridges, with all the benefits you list, were dethroned from their position... not because larger cartridges weren't technically feasible... but because the price to make them was prohibitive... especially compared to the discs that came out later and immediately passed them by. In over 25 years of competition, memory based storage has never again come close to being as cost effective, and the advent of larger versions isn't going to change that.

So Krusty, you think a *computer chip*, a transistor based device made with *far* more petrol-derived products, requiring many rare metals, far more fuel / factory time, and highly-skilled workers, will cost less to manufacture than a device made of a tiny amount of foil between plastic? - And you base that on oil and bauxite prices? Krusty... I'm done, I'm not going to argue with you anymore, you're grasping for straws on an argument where you're 100% wrong. Anyone else, if you believe it costs less to make computer chips than aluminum foil - feel free to join Krusty here in corner A. Me? I'm going to get get some sleep, I have a job in the morning where I make these decision for real, and it's becoming increasingly clear that my voice of reason is rarer than I realized.subrosian

It's not like people are coming in here and agreeing with him either. Those who didn't post probably realized beforehand how pointless it would end up being.

i am not worthy :cry:

So Krusty, would you like to pay $79.99 or more a pop for cartridge-based console games, and make it impossible for many small-to-medium sized developers to continue to put out games on consoles? As a follow-up question, what will you do when your cartridge-based system develops prong failure, corrossion, or simple cooling system failure in eight years? Blame the disk drives? - I notice you still haven't addressed the cost multiplayer / leverage problem either, and it's massive impact on the sustainability of the gaming software industry. This is why I ask people without a business background and industry experience to *please* stay away from cost discussions. Personal ancedotes ("I sat on my tomb raider disc and broke it! Screw discs") are not sound business reasoning - no company wants to spend more than it has to to put a game on the shelf - and no company wants to take budget away from actually making the game and instead spend it stamping out discs - knowing full well that every MB now lowers profit.subrosian

Another bone of contention that I have with your position is that you seem to think that publishers drive the console business.

They don't. The main force behind the console business is provided by the hardware manufacturer & the consumers that purchase said hardware (at least for Nintendo, anyways). Those 3rd party studios are just tag-alongs. They either fall in line with the specs that the hardware manufacturer requires or they publish to another platform. Nintendo has taken a lot of heat for this, but it's worked out fine for them. It's one of those, "my way or the highway" scenarios. If I recall correctly, Nintendo has always managed to pull a profit from every one of their consoles, even the N64.

I never liked disc media for consoles. I felt that it sacrificed durability in favor of affordability. The disc consoles today seem fragile and prone to failure compared to the cartridge consoles of old. Does anyone here really think that a 360 or even a Wii for that matter will still be functioning 25 years from now? I don't. My Atari 2600, though, works like a charm. My SNES withstood years of cigarette smoke without having a problem. My Gamecube, however, could only take a couple years of chain-smoking roomates before I had to get the lense cleaned, and SSBM still freezes up a lot. My #1 criteria for purchasing electronics is ruggedness & durability. I can't stand buying a lemon, and the typical 1 year warranty or even MS's 3 year warranty does not satisfy me. I seriously expect 20+ years from my gear. Anything less is dissapointing and even infuriating because I have a functioning 20+ year old console sitting in front of me that has withstood the test of time and taken any abuse levelled at it.

If technology exists that could make consoles and games today as rugged as my Atari 2600, then not only do I feel that it should be implemented, but I would be willing to pay a higher premium to enjoy the piece of mind that comes with knowing that my purchase won't fail on me for 20+ years. If that means that some or even most of those small studios making games cannot afford to make games any longer, then so be it. I don't purchase my gear for anyone else's satisfaction or well-being. I have NEVER supported the idea of sacrificing quality just to keep someone employed. If I have to choose between durability or the availability of a large variety of games, then I choose durability. I don't think that I am the only consumer that feels this way. On this very thread, a significant number of people have proclaimed their desire for a return to a cartridge format based entirely on their desire for durability. Cartridges mean more durable consoles and more durable games, and THAT IS A FACT. If being able to purchase a higher quality product means that bunch of publishers tank, then I don't really care, just FYI.

With SD cards potentially reaching storage capacities equal to or even surpassing that of optical discs, I feel that there is an openning for a return to the rugged designs that made early consoles beasts of longevity. If anyone could pull it off, I think it would be Nintendo. They've already shown that they can go head-to-head against disc media with an SD format and come out the winner. This brings up another question. If the SD card costs are so prohibitive, then how do you explain the resounding success of the DS against the PSP? The PSP discs, after all, are just discs. If all that you said about cartridges not being a viable format to compete against discs were true, then how do you explain the results we have before us today, smart guy?

I don't really give a damn about how many people lose their jobs. It never was my concern and it never will be.

My question is how many disks would it take until the cartridge option is the better one? When you factor in whatever fee's microsoft throws at you for multidisk games it might not be so many. Disks for small games, cartridges for big ones. Thats all what if in a galaxy far far away speculation though.

So Krusty, you think a *computer chip*, a transistor based device made with *far* more petrol-derived products, requiring many rare metals, far more fuel / factory time, and highly-skilled workers, will cost less to manufacture than a device made of a tiny amount of foil between plastic? - And you base that on oil and bauxite prices? Krusty... I'm done, I'm not going to argue with you anymore, you're grasping for straws on an argument where you're 100% wrong. Anyone else, if you believe it costs less to make computer chips than aluminum foil - feel free to join Krusty here in corner A. Me? I'm going to get get some sleep, I have a job in the morning where I make these decision for real, and it's becoming increasingly clear that my voice of reason is rarer than I realized.subrosian

So Krusty, you think a *computer chip*, a transistor based device made with *far* more petrol-derived products, requiring many rare metals, far more fuel / factory time, and highly-skilled workers, will cost less to manufacture than a device made of a tiny amount of foil between plastic? - And you base that on oil and bauxite prices? Krusty... I'm done, I'm not going to argue with you anymore, you're grasping for straws on an argument where you're 100% wrong. Anyone else, if you believe it costs less to make computer chips than aluminum foil - feel free to join Krusty here in corner A. Me? I'm going to get get some sleep, I have a job in the morning where I make these decision for real, and it's becoming increasingly clear that my voice of reason is rarer than I realized.subrosian

Explain the DS vs PSP, smart guy.

Explain what about them?

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So Krusty, you think a *computer chip*, a transistor based device made with *far* more petrol-derived products, requiring many rare metals, far more fuel / factory time, and highly-skilled workers, will cost less to manufacture than a device made of a tiny amount of foil between plastic? - And you base that on oil and bauxite prices? Krusty... I'm done, I'm not going to argue with you anymore, you're grasping for straws on an argument where you're 100% wrong. Anyone else, if you believe it costs less to make computer chips than aluminum foil - feel free to join Krusty here in corner A. Me? I'm going to get get some sleep, I have a job in the morning where I make these decision for real, and it's becoming increasingly clear that my voice of reason is rarer than I realized.dkrustyklown

Explain the DS vs PSP, smart guy.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]So Krusty, would you like to pay $79.99 or more a pop for cartridge-based console games, and make it impossible for many small-to-medium sized developers to continue to put out games on consoles? As a follow-up question, what will you do when your cartridge-based system develops prong failure, corrossion, or simple cooling system failure in eight years? Blame the disk drives? - I notice you still haven't addressed the cost multiplayer / leverage problem either, and it's massive impact on the sustainability of the gaming software industry. This is why I ask people without a business background and industry experience to *please* stay away from cost discussions. Personal ancedotes ("I sat on my tomb raider disc and broke it! Screw discs") are not sound business reasoning - no company wants to spend more than it has to to put a game on the shelf - and no company wants to take budget away from actually making the game and instead spend it stamping out discs - knowing full well that every MB now lowers profit.dkrustyklown

Another bone of contention that I have with your position is that you seem to think that publishers drive the console business.

They don't. The main force behind the console business is provided by the hardware manufacturer & the consumers that purchase said hardware (at least for Nintendo, anyways). Those 3rd party studios are just tag-alongs. They either fall in line with the specs that the hardware manufacturer requires or they publish to another platform. Nintendo has taken a lot of heat for this, but it's worked out fine for them. It's one of those, "my way or the highway" scenarios. If I recall correctly, Nintendo has always managed to pull a profit from every one of their consoles, even the N64.

I never liked disc media for consoles. I felt that it sacrificed durability in favor of affordability. The disc consoles today seem fragile and prone to failure compared to the cartridge consoles of old. Does anyone here really think that a 360 or even a Wii for that matter will still be functioning 25 years from now? I don't. My Atari 2600, though, works like a charm. My SNES withstood years of cigarette smoke without having a problem. My Gamecube, however, could only take a couple years of chain-smoking roomates before I had to get the lense cleaned, and SSBM still freezes up a lot. My #1 criteria for purchasing electronics is ruggedness & durability. I can't stand buying a lemon, and the typical 1 year warranty or even MS's 3 year warranty does not satisfy me. I seriously expect 20+ years from my gear. Anything less is dissapointing and even infuriating because I have a functioning 20+ year old console sitting in front of me that has withstood the test of time and taken any abuse levelled at it.

If technology exists that could make consoles and games today as rugged as my Atari 2600, then not only do I feel that it should be implemented, but I would be willing to pay a higher premium to enjoy the piece of mind that comes with knowing that my purchase won't fail on me for 20+ years. If that means that some or even most of those small studios making games cannot afford to make games any longer, then so be it. I don't purchase my gear for anyone else's satisfaction or well-being. I have NEVER supported the idea of sacrificing quality just to keep someone employed. If I have to choose between durability or the availability of a large variety of games, then I choose durability. I don't think that I am the only consumer that feels this way. On this very thread, a significant number of people have proclaimed their desire for a return to a cartridge format based entirely on their desire for durability. Cartridges mean more durable consoles and more durable games, and THAT IS A FACT. If being able to purchase a higher quality product means that bunch of publishers tank, then I don't really care, just FYI.

With SD cards potentially reaching storage capacities equal to or even surpassing that of optical discs, I feel that there is an openning for a return to the rugged designs that made early consoles beasts of longevity. If anyone could pull it off, I think it would be Nintendo. They've already shown that they can go head-to-head against disc media with an SD format and come out the winner. This brings up another question. If the SD card costs are so prohibitive, then how do you explain the resounding success of the DS against the PSP? The PSP discs, after all, are just discs. If all that you said about cartridges not being a viable format to compete against discs were true, then how do you explain the results we have before us today, smart guy?

I don't really give a damn about how many people lose their jobs. It never was my concern and it never will be.

Right. Meanwhile, in the real world where companies are out to make money, not to serve you. Nintendo isn't going to go to SD cards because Nintendo is a business first and a Videogame company second. That's why games like Fatal Frame IV haven't made it to the US. Becuase it's not about the consumer, it's about the dollar.

Face it, you've been proved wrong. Not only that, but your fear of disc based media is completely irrational. For those that take care of them, discs have stood the test of time and many still work today. Not only that, but discs are becoming more and more durable. And they will always be more affordable than cartridges for devs, so that's what they'll use.

And wtf? 3rd parties are extremely important. When Nintendo lost it's 3rd parties it went straight to 3rd place for 2 generations in a row. They're floating on top by utilizing a gimmick that's become a pop culture phenomenon, but the bubble will burst eventually and if they can't learn to coax 3rd parties, they'll fall flat once more. Nintendo's loss of 3rd parties cost them many of the most important games the past two generations. You don't think they regret that?

The DS was already covered a couple pages back.

The DS was already covered a couple pages back.

hakanakumono

Completely inadequately.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

The DS was already covered a couple pages back.

dkrustyklown

Completely inadequately.

Yeah, I'm sure to your supreme reasoning.

Meanwhile the PSP is the first handheld to sucessfully compete against Nintendo.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

The DS was already covered a couple pages back.

hakanakumono

Completely inadequately.

Yeah, I'm sure to your supreme reasoning.

Meanwhile the PSP is the first handheld to sucessfully compete against Nintendo.

Oh yeah, those were some major profits that Sony pulled from it! :roll:

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

Completely inadequately.

dkrustyklown

Yeah, I'm sure to your supreme reasoning.

Meanwhile the PSP is the first handheld to sucessfully compete against Nintendo.

Oh yeah, those were some major profits that Sony pulled from it! :roll:

Do you know what licensing fees are? According to Sony, despite the lack of hardware profit, "Playstation" is still profitable. Interesting, isn't it? And it's still a substantial victory for Sony.

Look, do you realize that Nintendo could have released the Wii with 10GB SD cards for games just the same as the hypothetical future console might utilize SD cards for games? But they didn't. Think about that.

For those that take care of them, discs have stood the test of time and many still work today. Not only that, but discs are becoming more and more durable.hakanakumono

The IMPORTANT question, however, is: Are the disc players themselves just as durable?

And they will always be more affordable than cartridges for devs, so that's what they'll use.hakanakumono

They'll use whatever the hardware manufacturer tells them to use.

And wtf? 3rd parties are extremely important. When Nintendo lost it's 3rd parties it went straight to 3rd place for 2 generations in a row. They're floating on top by utilizing a gimmick that's become a pop culture phenomenon, but the bubble will burst eventually and if they can't learn to coax 3rd parties, they'll fall flat once more. Nintendo's loss of 3rd parties cost them many of the most important games the past two generations. You don't think they regret that?

hakanakumono

Yet the N64 was still a profitable console. Hmmm, it sure seems like you don't have to sacrifice quality in order to be profitable.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

It would be too expensive to create a game worth TB of data. Games under 50GB of data are putting devs out of business, there's certainly not going to be a game thats 1000GB of data. No amount of FMV in any game is ever going to even amount to more than 100GB.

hakanakumono

This sentiment has been repeated many times over the last 30 years (even further if you start digging up the military R&D efforts of the '60s & '70s).

As developer tools become more & more sophisticated, the products developed with those tools will require more and more space. This storage inflation has been a constant in computing, and I don't see it ever ending.

I don't think you understand that technology doesn't make games, people make games, and now they have to hire much more people to create games. And while devs were able to accomodate to the higher costs on the PSX and PS2, they're not going to be able to accomodate to higher costs. Games are already getting shorter because they can't accomodate to the costs this gen alone.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Simple. Price. Memory cards have dropped substantially in price this decade, but they are no where near as cost effective as DVD or BluRays. Manufacturing discs costs pennies. Memory cards are prohibitively expensive, by comparison. Meory will continue to get cheaper, but it will be a LOOOOONG time before it could compare with discs in price, if ever.

santoron

In the early 1980's CD's cost as much as $50. They hovered at $30 for a VERY LONG TIME. They were considered more expensive than cassettes because cassettes had such a large install-base and there were so many factories mass-producing them that there was a market glut. Even so, cassettes went the way of the dodo by the mid '90s.

EDIT: The key is mass-production. With more & more SD cards being produced, the technology will steadily decline in price.

No. Not even kinda. I defy you to find any link for blank CDs costing $50 bucks apiece. Heck, since it occured for a "VERY LONG TIME", it should be easy to show a period where Blank CDs cost $30 bucks apiece to make. Never happened. My family owned a CD player by '85... and that's only 3 years after release. They Weren't paying 30 dollars for full albums... Blank CDs were dirt cheap to make, and quickly. That's why the music industry flocked to them, and mass adoption came so quickly.

Memory cards HAVE been mass produced for years. And that's helped drop the price steadily. However a memory card today is vaaaaastly more expensive to produce than a plastic BluRay Disc. I'd be willing to bet that 50gb card costs well over 1,000x times as much to make as a BluRay disc. They'll keep making them larger, and they'll keep making them cheaper. But it's a massive divide to overcome and not one we're likely to see anytime soon.

And they are too expensive to manufacture.

Optical disks not so.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

There's a point where money draws the line. Unless people are willing to spend $200 for a single game and devs are willing to work a decade on them. :roll:

hakanakumono

Technology doesn't make games, people make games. Games take much more work to make now and thus much more people. You can't create newer, cheaper people unless the game industry somehow decides to use slave labor.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Technology doesn't make games, people make games.Games take much more work to make now and thus much more people. You can't create newer, cheaper people unless the game industry somehow decides to use slave labor.

hakanakumono

lol.......what? People use better tools all the time to make there job easier. Why should better sofware be any different for developing games? In fact newer and better ways of getting something done is makeing it to where LESS people are needed.

I don't think you understand. Just because you have superior tools doesn't mean that the character models are going to start making themselves, the textures are going to start collecting themselves, etc ... The more that has to go into a game the more people you have to hire to put into a game, regardless of how the technology may make their job easier or do a better job than it had before. And if you're going to ask people to do more work you're going to have to pay them more and then your development costs are going to go up.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

More powerful hardware is going to make a graphical artist(s) take extra time and create an extremely detailed world. And that would take time and be more difficult than it currently is........but I gaurantee that an updated version of the tools they use to draw and create those worlds will make their life a lot easier. Think about it........was it easier to photoshop a photo 10 years ago than it is today?

Trmpt

Photoshopping a photo is different because its editing something that already exists.

It's like building a sculpture. 10 years ago that sculpture had to be 50" wide. Now it has to be 500" wide (proportional to the height). But it costs the same. Is it feasible to make it 5000" wide?

That was meant to be just one example of how the advancement of software has made the lives of developers easier.

You dont think that designers want to make that kind of game? You always here about how they WANT to create a large detailed world. There are always going to be devleopers out there that keep pushing the limits.

I don't think so, you won't require that much room for a game and the speed and cost of production of optical media makes it ideal. I remember when Goldeneye came out, it was sold out for a while, because Nintendo couldn't produce the game fast enough to meet demand.

Then you had to pre order the better games to ensure you got one on release. Now I just preorder online so I can just put the order in and forget about the game until it turns up on my door step (not quite but you get the gist).

A blank large capacity SD card can still cost a lot, in some cases nearly as much as a game.