God, I miss cartridges

[Rakehellion]

Compulsory updates are a result of the internet age and not the fault of discs. Cartridges would not change that at all.

Cartridges loaded instantly because there was less data to load. There were still loading times and decompression, but with an N64 title being 32 megabytes, you just didn't have to worry about it. The Blu-ray drive in the current consoles can load that much data in one second and the hard drives are even faster. Believe me, more data is a good thing. You probably remember how N64 games had blurrier textures than their PSX counterparts and often lacked FMV.

Chips like the Super FX existed because the Super Nintendo had gimpy hardware even for its time. Acade games looked better than console games, now it's the opposite. Just think of how much money the chips in the Xbox One and PS4 cost. Now think of how much it would cost to put something in a cartridge that's even better than that.

That said, I think there's 90% chance the PS5 and Xbox Next will use cartridges because Blu-ray drives are just way too slow and capped at a claustrophobic 50GB per disc while flash media is still dirt cheap now.

 

[alkemyst]

Cartridges loaded fast because they were pretty much solid state and non-mechanical.

If they shipped games on a SSD drive or flash we'd see the same today.

Instead you have an optical disc or have to download it to your HDD.

 

[Lil Frier]

It very well might be that this is the last generation with physical distribution, if it makes it 10 years. The next consoles could simply have large SSDs and fully-digital distribution. I've wished for years that we could get optical discs replaced with small flash drives, but they're too expensive, even now. If we're lucky, 5 years will be enough of a time gap to get flash storage to affordable levels, and we can see a refresh of physical game sales, where we can get games on flash drives.

 

[Rakehellion]

Cartridges loaded fast because they were pretty much solid state and non-mechanical.

If they shipped games on a SSD drive or flash we'd see the same today.

Instead you have an optical disc or have to download it to your HDD.

A high speed Compact Flash card has a read speed of 60MB/s which is on par with a Blu-ray drive. SSDs are faster but absurdly expensive and won't make it into cartridges any time soon.

 

[Aikouka]

Instead you have an optical disc or have to download it to your HDD.

The amusing thing is that all the PS4 and X1 require you to install your games before you can even play them. The disc is nothing other than an install disc and a key. So, it's kind of like what it was for PCs back in the day!

The thing with handhelds is solid state media is really the only option. Sony tried the optical discs but they were just too impractical.

The thing is... UMD wasn't too bad in some cases. Some of my games had some lengthy load times, but others weren't too bad. What Sony really needed to do was allow you to install the games to your memory stick. I'm not sure if Sony was just blind to that "easy fix", or if they were just lazy since the modders implemented it ages ago in the PSP CFW.

All this is becoming moot though as downloads are taking over distribution, which is even cheaper than pressing discs. You could swap out the hard drive in the PS4 for a high speed SSD right now and simply play everything off that. Though it would cost more than the console itself, SSDs are getting cheaper each year.

You can already get Samsung's TLC-based 500GB 840 EVO SSD for about $250-300 on sale. It's still not that economical, and I believe Ars tested the differences, which didn't show it as being worthwhile. The only benefit that you got was a faster system load, but most games didn't see that much of a change. I wonder if it's because console games tend to be designed around limitations such as load times.

 

[Doppel]

It very well might be that this is the last generation with physical distribution, if it makes it 10 years. The next consoles could simply have large SSDs and fully-digital distribution. I've wished for years that we could get optical discs replaced with small flash drives, but they're too expensive, even now. If we're lucky, 5 years will be enough of a time gap to get flash storage to affordable levels, and we can see a refresh of physical game sales, where we can get games on flash drives.

Although optical is absolutely going to see its zenith this gen--even if optical drives are in next gen they'll be increasingly irrelevant--it may be a struggle for some even 7 years from now to download a 50-100 GB game. Perhaps there would still be some physical distribution. It could even be in the form of flash drives (a 128 GB flash drive will be pretty darn cheap 7 years from now).

Given the decreasing rate of ssd cost there's no reason next gen will have a mechanical drive.

 

[Majcric]

OP, I'd be will to bet you miss the nostalgia from the games that were on carts more than the actually cartridges.

 

[exdeath]

No reason 64 GB SD size mask roms aren't doable. Mechanical media really is obsolete.

Hell DS has just about that and the games are $20 cheaper.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If you think games are $60 because they are on DVD or blu-ray then you are wrong. Optical media is convenient and ultra cheap to manufacture.

It has maximum profitability. Shipping you a game on a memory format that needs to be purchased from a memory supplier is not cheap and is not convenient.

 

[Rakehellion]

No reason 64 GB SD size mask roms aren't doable. Mechanical media really is obsolete.

Hell DS has just about that and the games are $20 cheaper.

3DS games aren't quite 64GB yet. Maybe 4GB. And the games are cheaper because they have much lower budgets.

The reason Blu-rays are used is because discs are cheap. If a Disc is $0.50 and a cart is $5.00, then discs are the obvious winner. With that $59.99 being split between the developer, publisher, distributor, all those middleman costs add up.

In 8 years, when game sizes go up and memory costs go down, cartridges will the the only option.

 

[Sonikku]

The only problem was Nintendo made the super reliable Famicom into an awful "VCR" shaped famicom to appease the retailers that would otherwise freak out at having a "gaming" machine. It got so much dust and was such a poor ass design. And it would bend the chips downwards when you pushed the cart down inside which didn't do the games long term longevity any favors.

To add insult to injury perfect contact with one of the chips was mandated necessary for pirating concerns. The moment it lost sync, the red light on the box would blink on and off. The top loader NES removed said feature, seemingly breathing new life into carts many had considered dead.

 

[Lil Frier]

Although optical is absolutely going to see its zenith this gen--even if optical drives are in next gen they'll be increasingly irrelevant--it may be a struggle for some even 7 years from now to download a 50-100 GB game. Perhaps there would still be some physical distribution. It could even be in the form of flash drives (a 128 GB flash drive will be pretty darn cheap 7 years from now).

Given the decreasing rate of ssd cost there's no reason next gen will have a mechanical drive.

Yeah, I couldn't help but think about where a place like GameStop would be around that time. What if "physical distribution" meant going to a place like Best Buy or GameStop with a large, USB 3.0 (maybe 4.0 by then) during the next generation (or maybe even in the second-half of THIS generation), plugging into their on-site servers, and getting a game transferred to your USB drive, then taking it home and transferring?

That would get around the fears of data caps, but I imagine it would be EXTREMELY expensive for companies to implement. I don't buy that a place like GameStop will just die out in 5-10 years. They'll probably find a way to survive, and having a limitless, high-speed means of transferring a game to a user is the only way I could think of those places staying useful long-term.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah, I couldn't help but think about where a place like GameStop would be around that time. What if "physical distribution" meant going to a place like Best Buy or GameStop with a large, USB 3.0 (maybe 4.0 by then) during the next generation (or maybe even in the second-half of THIS generation), plugging into their on-site servers, and getting a game transferred to your USB drive, then taking it home and transferring?

That would get around the fears of data caps, but I imagine it would be EXTREMELY expensive for companies to implement. I don't buy that a place like GameStop will just die out in 5-10 years. They'll probably find a way to survive, and having a limitless, high-speed means of transferring a game to a user is the only way I could think of those places staying useful long-term.

I could see automated Kiosks in grocery stores, walmart, bestbuy etc where you bring in your 128GB flash drive or whatever and buy the game from the kiosk and let it transfer to your thumb drive. Then you go home and transfer it to the HDD in your console or PC. That way you can go all digital and not have to worry about crappy Internet caps etc. You can also buy your games on the trip to the grocery store. Would be pretty convenient. They could also give people a touchscreen with game info, screenshots, trailers, and maybe even a couple snippits from a review.

 

[Rakehellion]

I could see automated Kiosks in grocery stores, walmart, bestbuy etc where you bring in your 128GB flash drive or whatever and buy the game from the kiosk and let it transfer to your thumb drive.

Yeah right, and give Walmart a cut of the profits? That wouldn't last long. Just a moment ago, Microsoft was trying to make a persistent broadband connection mandatory. They don't care if it takes you two days to download a game on your 1Mbit connection.

 

[HeXen]

Sure, stand in line at a kiosk behind some kid with the cheapest, slowest USB stick there is wait for his 100 gig game to get transferred.
And what about rentals? Many gamers like to rent most of their games they wouldn't normally buy.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah right, and give Walmart a cut of the profits? That wouldn't last long. Just a moment ago, Microsoft was trying to make a persistent broadband connection mandatory. They don't care if it takes you two days to download a game on your 1Mbit connection.

That's why that plan backfired right in their face. Don't you get it? Internet in the US is absolute shit and cannot be relied upon as the sole means of getting games and other media.

Stores selling games already make a profit. What's the difference if it became digital so that instead of getting the disk, you get the data on your drive? It's the same thing except you eliminate the box on the shelf. So you can sit there and wait for a download or just get the game on your trip to get the groceries and it'll takle less than 10min.

Sure, stand in line at a kiosk behind some kid with the cheapest, slowest USB stick there is wait for his 100 gig game to get transferred.
And what about rentals? Many gamers like to rent most of their games they wouldn't normally buy.

You wouldn't be standing in line. They would have more than one kiosk and you could even force USB 3.0 compliance by making the kiosk not work with slower drives. You are thinking way too narrow minded.
Rentals are already effectively dead. Redbox never has stuff in stock and don't even carry PS4 or XB1 games. Gamefly isn't doing themselves any favors when all the popular games are always out of stock. There's numerous threads and blogs on the internet talking about their lack of selection for new titles. People also complain that it takes 1-2 weeks for them to actually process your returned title before they send another one but once they send it it arrives in 3-4 days. That's terrible service.

The fact of the matter is that download only digital games will never replace getting your games from the store because the broadband situation in the US generally sucks outside a few major markets. Those with data caps can attest to this. Download two or three games(which are 40GB+ now) and they can eat up their cap just like that along with all the other stuff they may use their connection for.

 

[purbeast0]

redbox always has stuff in stock. i rented many games from them and finished them. i just wish i had done that earlier to save some money.

oh, and...

http://www.redbox.com/ps4

http://www.redbox.com/xboxone

 

[HeXen]

That's why that plan backfired right in their face. Don't you get it? Internet in the US is absolute shit and cannot be relied upon as the sole means of getting games and other media.

Stores selling games already make a profit. What's the difference if it became digital so that instead of getting the disk, you get the data on your drive? It's the same thing except you eliminate the box on the shelf. So you can sit there and wait for a download or just get the game on your trip to get the groceries and it'll takle less than 10min.



You wouldn't be standing in line. They would have more than one kiosk and you could even force USB 3.0 compliance by making the kiosk not work with slower drives. You are thinking way too narrow minded.
Rentals are already effectively dead. Redbox never has stuff in stock and don't even carry PS4 or XB1 games. Gamefly isn't doing themselves any favors when all the popular games are always out of stock. There's numerous threads and blogs on the internet talking about their lack of selection for new titles. People also complain that it takes 1-2 weeks for them to actually process your returned title before they send another one but once they send it it arrives in 3-4 days. That's terrible service.

The fact of the matter is that download only digital games will never replace getting your games from the store because the broadband situation in the US generally sucks outside a few major markets. Those with data caps can attest to this. Download two or three games(which are 40GB+ now) and they can eat up their cap just like that along with all the other stuff they may use their connection for.

I never had an issue finding titles to rent but whatever, rarely do I see any kiosk that has more than just the one. I see lines behind Red boxes often and never seen more than 1 but that's just in my area. Also, USB 3.0 isn't really that fast for 100+ gigs of transfer regardless of the stick.

 

[Rakehellion]

That's why that plan backfired right in their face. Don't you get it? Internet in the US is absolute shit and cannot be relied upon as the sole means of getting games and other media.

No, it was mainly the fact that they wouldn't be able to resell their games and that Kinect would constantly monitor them. Any kind of digital distribution prevents resale and would be frowned upon.

 

[Lil Frier]

I never had an issue finding titles to rent but whatever, rarely do I see any kiosk that has more than just the one. I see lines behind Red boxes often and never seen more than 1 but that's just in my area. Also, USB 3.0 isn't really that fast for 100+ gigs of transfer regardless of the stick.

5 Gbps = about 2 minutes and 40 seconds for a 100-GB transfer.
5 Gbps/8 = .625 GBps; 100 GB/.625 GBps = 160 seconds/60 = 2 2/3 minutes

Then consider that USB 3.1 is supposed to be capable of doubling that. Oh, and there's also the Thunderbolt option (if companies wanted to adopt it), as TB2 is supposed to peak at 20 GBps (or 4 times that USB 3.0 speed, meaning you'd have a 100-GB game transfer in 40 seconds, at peak speeds).

Of course, this is all assuming that games exploded to 100 GB by the time we got around to this method of game service. I'm not sure that'll happen, but given that game installs went from about 6 GB to 30 GB between these past two generations, it's certainly possible.

 

[Lil Frier]

Any kind of digital distribution prevents resale and would be frowned upon.

Yeah, JUUUUST like Steam. And GoG. And GMG. And Amazon.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yeah, JUUUUST like Steam. And GoG. And GMG. And Amazon.

Having read your posts in the Steam thread in PC gaming, I'm just going to assume you're another one of those that simply does not grasp the concept and difference in what you stated above, verses consoles games.

All of the above have MUCH cheaper games and quicker price declines than console games on average. There is a trade off involved where "resale" is expendable. Paying $60 for a game for many people is a price point where the potential resale is almost a necessity. Paying $5-20 usually isn't. This number will vary from person to person, but I'm assuming there is an average somewhere.

Also a huge key difference is competition. Steam has plenty of it (as you noted above). If MS or PS were to exclusively have an online only distribution system, there is no direct competition at all on exclusive games, and very little (just between MS and Sony) on multiplatform games.

A good example of this is Nintendos digital distribution. Many of their games are overpriced and stay that way. (Even when they are hurting for sales). While they tend to just do their own thing, over time I've chalked it up to no direct competition. They themselves even say they aren't trying to compete.

 

[desura]

OP, I'd be will to bet you miss the nostalgia from the games that were on carts more than the actually cartridges.

No, I'm actually speaking of having actual cartridges hold games. Not nostalgia for those games...which I'm actually not all that nostalgic for.

Like, there's a sense with cartridge games that the games are almost...etched...hardwired...almost like fine artisan metalworking.

And honestly, game graphics might be technically better, but they aren't really any better in effect. They just take a lot of resources and have long loading times, just so you can have this little bit of shiny effect on a surface while you're like zooming by really fast in the game.

So yeah, I'm willing to give up some high resolution graphics for this. heck, recently in a game I actually lowered resolution from the optimal 1920x1080 to like 1280x720 and it increased my enjoyment of the game.

 

[ImpulsE69]

No, I'm actually speaking of having actual cartridges hold games. Not nostalgia for those games...which I'm actually not all that nostalgic for.

Like, there's a sense with cartridge games that the games are almost...etched...hardwired...almost like fine artisan metalworking.

And honestly, game graphics might be technically better, but they aren't really any better in effect. They just take a lot of resources and have long loading times, just so you can have this little bit of shiny effect on a surface while you're like zooming by really fast in the game.

So yeah, I'm willing to give up some high resolution graphics for this. heck, recently in a game I actually lowered resolution from the optimal 1920x1080 to like 1280x720 and it increased my enjoyment of the game.

It's true, while graphics are high, gaming itself hasn't introduced much new since the 80's. Take away all the flair, and almost all games come down to going from point a to point b by running, jumping, solving puzzles, then repeat.

 

[Lil Frier]

Having read your posts in the Steam thread in PC gaming, I'm just going to assume you're another one of those that simply does not grasp the concept and difference in what you stated above, verses consoles games.

All of the above have MUCH cheaper games and quicker price declines than console games on average. There is a trade off involved where "resale" is expendable. Paying $60 for a game for many people is a price point where the potential resale is almost a necessity. Paying $5-20 usually isn't. This number will vary from person to person, but I'm assuming there is an average somewhere.

Also a huge key difference is competition. Steam has plenty of it (as you noted above). If MS or PS were to exclusively have an online only distribution system, there is no direct competition at all on exclusive games, and very little (just between MS and Sony) on multiplatform games.

A good example of this is Nintendos digital distribution. Many of their games are overpriced and stay that way. (Even when they are hurting for sales). While they tend to just do their own thing, over time I've chalked it up to no direct competition. They themselves even say they aren't trying to compete.

Well, I think people ignore two likely things with Microsoft's proposed digital distribution:

1. They were going to allow a rather-useful sharing system.
2. They probably would have gotten into the discounting game TO A DEGREE, though not like Steam does during its sales.

I don't think it would have led to a total stranglehold on prices, because it wasn't going to be without a physical alternative, at least at the start (discs/GameStop would still exist). They definitely brought it out in the wrong manner (using the game disc as an alternative to the online check-in would have been a big help, for example), but it had potential.

I'm hoping what we see is Microsoft actually bring about that "One Microsoft" thing they tout everywhere they go, even though Windows 8 isn't the same as Windows RT isn't the same as Windows Phone isn't the same as Xbox, as it stands. If they made it so they had a proper Xbox for Windows distribution service, one that rivaled Steam, it could have worked.

They could have offered $60 games new, but also offer $70 games with cross-platform saves and play, something to that effect. The fact it existed on Windows would lead to competitive pricing against Steam, and the consumers would have benefited.

But my general comment was that saying all digital distribution is evil (as your comment suggested) was overstating things by a large degree.