Friday, March 9th 2012

Durango Out in 2013, Lacks Optical Drive: Report

Microsoft's next-generation Xbox game console, codenamed "Durango", will arrive in 2013. More importantly, it is said to completely lack an optical disc drive. The lack of a disc drive could mark a milestone in the evolution of console game distribution. Microsoft already has a high-volume digital distribution platform in Xbox Live, its significance in a post-disc console era will only increase.

This is not to say that Microsoft will completely do away with physical media, an interchangeable NAND flash-based media could also take shape, seeing how prices of NAND flash-storage has come drastically down over the past couple of years. It would be a going back to solid-state game cartridges, for home consoles. Some portable consoles use solid-state media even today.Source: Mail Online
Add your own comment

77 Comments on Durango Out in 2013, Lacks Optical Drive: Report

#1
Benetanegia
semantics said:
Wouldn't that be only in non sequential reads? Blu-ray at a min is reading at like 70-80mbps when it's streaming video, which would be at the upper end of speed of most SDHC cards.
72 Mb/s is the max that the PS3 drive can do theoretically. That's 9 MB/s. I don't remember the last time I saw SD(HC) doing at leat 15 MB/s in sequential read, it's when writing when they can be a lot slower (but not necessarily). And UHS memory can go up to as much as 60 MB/s in sequential read.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sdxc-sdhc-uhs-i,2940-11.html
Posted on Reply
#2
DarthCyclonis
bostonbuddy said:
good. Physical media is so single digit 2000's.
wish it would have a hd 8970 equivilent tho
Yep, The optical drive has had a good run but it's only a matter of time before it joins tape, Zip and Floppy in the Digital halls of Valhalla.
Posted on Reply
#3
Mega-Japan
DarthCyclonis said:
Yep, The optical drive has had a good run but it's only a matter of time before it joins tape, Zip and Floppy in the Digital halls of Valhalla.
Don't expect that to happen any time soon. We still have a few decades before we move to JUST digital everything. Sadly most of the world still lacks a broadband connection.
Posted on Reply
#4
kalstrand
Its just a money grab on M$'s part. This way they can force everybody to cough up the money for Xbox live if they want games for their new console.
Posted on Reply
#5
Delta6326
Benetanegia said:
72 Mb/s is the max that the PS3 drive can do theoretically. That's 9 MB/s. I don't remember the last time I saw SD(HC) doing at leat 15 MB/s in sequential read, it's when writing when they can be a lot slower (but not necessarily). And UHS memory can go up to as much as 60 MB/s in sequential read.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sdxc-sdhc-uhs-i,2940-11.html
They are even faster now 90MB/s +, the only thing is they ain't cheap...

Thing I'm more worried about is how big will games get now that they aren't limited to DVD. 16GB+?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/824140-REG/SanDisk_SDSDXPA_032G_A75_Extreme_Pro_32_GB.html
Posted on Reply
#6
jbunch07
I welcome bigger games...usually means higher resolution textures I want all the eye candy I can get.
Posted on Reply
#7
cheesy999
Delta6326 said:
Thing I'm more worried about is how big will games get now that they aren't limited to DVD. 16GB ?
There are already games bigger then that

On Xbox they use multiple Disks

On PS3 they use one disc as they use Blu-rays which can store up to 50GB
Posted on Reply
#8
WhiteLotus
jbunch07 said:
I welcome bigger games...usually means higher resolution textures I want all the eye candy I can get.
I would just prefer longer games. Remember when you had 4 CDs to a game. I miss those days.
Posted on Reply
#9
jbunch07
Longer games would be nice...I can only imagine how nice it would be to have a game that take a month or half a year to finish instead of a weekend that would be incredible!
Posted on Reply
#10
Solaris17
Creator Solaris Utility DVD
Benetanegia said:
I'm not so sure about that. It wouldn't be too expensive for them, not so expensive that they couldn't handle the additional cost without increasing the price*. Considering that you can often find 8 GB cards for little more than $5 and 16 GB for less than $10 on retail nowadays, the hardware itself cannot cost more than $1. M$ buying flash cards in mass from the fabs through closed deals would cost them a lot less and then there would be no need for all the packaging that current games have, which costs money too.

And I honestly think that digital distribution will take over anyway (in PC it's doing it at amazing rates), so they only need to cover demand in those areas where internet connection is slow, so volume for retail sales should be a fraction of what it is today, shrinking every year until it apporaches zero. IF flash cards do indeed cost more it's probably a cost they could swallow during the first years after which the cost of distributing would approach zero too, due to digital taking over. They save up by not including the optical drive too.

* Does anyone really expect prices to stay like they are anyway? I certainly expect "next-gen" games to cost $5 more than they do know, just because they are "next-gen".

PS: I started using Steam when I had 512 Kb/s connection and I didn't die. It took several hours and sometimes a day to download, but nothing happens, really, you stay alive and all is well. Game is the exact same the next day, I promise.
im not going out to buy a $600 console and $65 games so i can wait 9 hours to play halo 6. At that rate microsoft can get bent. I dont have bad internet. but for the people that do you cant use the excuse "it didnt kill me" for the $$ all this new gen shit ALWAYS costs. I/THEY BETTER NOT be inconvinenced by the fact that now all my games are on a server 3500 miles away.
Posted on Reply
#11
Benetanegia
Solaris17 said:
im not going out to buy a $600 console and $65 games so i can wait 9 hours to play halo 6. At that rate microsoft can get bent. I dont have bad internet. but for the people that do you cant use the excuse "it didnt kill me" for the $$ all this new gen shit ALWAYS costs. I/THEY BETTER NOT be inconvinenced by the fact that now all my games are on a server 3500 miles away.
I wouldn't pay $10 and wait 2 minutes to play any new Halo but that's another thing. :p

I understand the point you are making, but I don't have to agree. There's much more than games on life so "I need it in 2 minutes" is not an argument that can convince me. How many hours do some people wait in a line at night when a certain game is released? That's waiting too, and far more inconvenient but people put themselves into that. I rather "wait" at home, or taking a walk or whatever. Plus afaik you can preload all your games far in advance in Steam so that's a non issue. You get it a lot sooner than in any other form that way, I can't see how M$ service would be any different.

And those who have caps on their internet, like I said, it sucks, but I don't think they are too many when we take the world into account.

EDIT: But I feel like I'm defending something that I don't really care about, just what makes sense to me. In the end I wouldn'y buy a console to save my life so...
Posted on Reply
#12
Mega-Japan
WhiteLotus said:
I would just prefer longer games. Remember when you had 4 CDs to a game. I miss those days.
What days were those? o_o;

A long game for me would be Legend of Zelda. Almost all LoZ have taken me about a full month, sometimes longer, to complete. Then again I try to achive everything there is to achive in the game. In contrast, games like Uncharted and God of War I beat overnight. Literally. The likes of Dragon Age and Skyrim are the type to really keep players going, although I wasn't pleased with the latter's replayability.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mega-Japan
Benetanegia said:
And those who have caps on their internet, like I said, it sucks, but I don't think they are too many when we take the world into account.
You're right, there probably aren't too many people with capped internet, but surely there are far more with dial-up level internet or no internet whatsoever, when taking the WORLD into account :|.

Seriously, I like to be able to do certain things, like playing OFFLINE games, without relying on the internet.
Posted on Reply
#14
Benetanegia
Mega-Japan said:
You're right, there probably aren't too many people with capped internet, but surely there are far more with dial-up level internet or no internet whatsoever, when taking the WORLD into account :|.
And they can afford a new console, plus the games?

I don't know, I live in Spain which I don't think it's the most advanced country in the world and I don't know anyone (gamer, young) without some kind of broadband. So I assume that most other non-3rd world countries are the same, although that might be my mistake. A huge one I guess.
Seriously, I like to be able to do certain things, like playing OFFLINE games, without relying on the internet.
That for sure. Offline games should be played without requiring being connected. I'm just talking about distribution. Online activation is going to be a requirement or not, but that will happen with any kind of distribution.
Posted on Reply
#15
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
Been saying consoles would return to cartridges for about 2 years now since usb sticks are so cheap. Finally someone announces it :p
Posted on Reply
#16
Delta6326
Also I think they will go with flash that way they can raise the price of games. I'm going to say that next gen games will be $69, every new generation goes up $10.


Inceptor said:
A 6670, fully utilized, is more than enough power for a next-gen console. When a game developer has to work within limits 'set in stone' so to speak, they can optimize and squeeze quite a bit of performance out of something like a 6670. More so than what would be possible in a PC game that had a 6670 as its recommended requirement; because unlike a PC game, they only have to design a game that works great on one gpu and one set of drivers, not 10-20 different models running just as many driver variants.
I think the next Xbox will have something along the lines of a AMD A8 with Crossfire 6670.

Posted on Reply
#17
Mega-Japan
Delta6326 said:
I'm going to say that next gen games will be $69, every new generation goes up $10.
That statement is so wrong I'm not sure where to begin.
Initial retail prices for console games have ranged somewhere between $39.99 and $59.99 since the NES days. With $50 being the typical medium. In fact, SNES games were initially even more expensive, ranging from $50 all the way to $80 on initial release, depending on the title and if the game had special chip/software (ex. FX chip). Games were on the $50 medium throughout the 5th and 6th gen, increasing $10 for the 7th gen, but only for 360 and PS3. But according to you, the average game should now cost about $100 a pop.
Posted on Reply
#18
Delta6326
Mega-Japan said:
That statement is so wrong I'm not sure where to begin.
Initial retail prices for console games have ranged somewhere between $39.99 and $59.99 since the NES days. With $50 being the typical medium. In fact, SNES games were initially even more expensive, ranging from $50 all the way to $80 on initial release, depending on the title and if the game had special chip/software (ex. FX chip). Games were on the $50 medium throughout the 5th and 6th gen, increasing $10 for the 7th gen, but only for 360 and PS3. But according to you, the average game should now cost about $100 a pop.
.......Let me re-phrase that I was talking about newer stuff, not old games.

I'm going to say that next gen games will be $69, every new generation goes up $10. PS1 could be bought around $40, PS2/Xbox $49, PS3/Xbox360 $59
DS $29-$35, 3DS $39
Posted on Reply
#19
Goodman
sneekypeet said:
Games on USB sticks FTW?
Been waiting this for years... please do the same for PC , optical drive are to god damn slow to install big games these days (7-10+GB)
Posted on Reply
#20
xenocide
Delta6326 said:
.......Let me re-phrase that I was talking about newer stuff, not old games.

I'm going to say that next gen games will be $69, every new generation goes up $10. PS1 could be bought around $40, PS2/Xbox $49, PS3/Xbox360 $59
DS $29-$35, 3DS $39
Yes because disregarding facts to make the conclusion accurate is perfectly acceptable.
Posted on Reply
#21
Inceptor
Delta6326 said:
Also I think they will go with flash that way they can raise the price of games. I'm going to say that next gen games will be $69, every new generation goes up $10.




I think the next Xbox will have something along the lines of a AMD A8 with Crossfire 6670.

http://img.techpowerup.org/120310/Capture001164.jpg
There's no reason for that; why use an APU with a 6670 in asymmetric crossfire? A console doesn't need an APU. More importantly, where are all these millions of Llano APUs going to come from? Because it would have to be Llano. It would be easier to source low cost CPUs from intel, they can provide large quantities for something like the new Xbox at undoubtedly cheaper prices. Something like a Sandy Bridge Celeron.
Posted on Reply
#22
Peter1986C
Don't all current consoles use IBM CPUs of the PPC arch?
Posted on Reply
#23
xenocide
Chevalr1c said:
Don't all current consoles use IBM CPUs of the PPC arch?
Al current consoles yes. There have been rumours that the next Xbox would use not only an AMD GPU, but possibly and AMD CPU. I have severe doubts though.
Posted on Reply
#24
Goodman
xenocide said:
Al current consoles yes. There have been rumours that the next Xbox would use not only an AMD GPU, but possibly and AMD CPU. I have severe doubts though.
Intel CPU maybe but AMD? no way!... unless the next FX Piledriver turns out to be really good?
But i doubt it pretty much...
Posted on Reply
#25
xenocide
Goodman said:
Intel CPU maybe but AMD? no way!... unless the next FX Piledriver turns out to be really good?
But i doubt it pretty much...
Well I don't think AMD because IBM has done a fantastic job with console CPU's, and AMD just doesn't have the capacity for it. Microsoft is gonna want a company that they know can deliver the amount of CPU's when they ask, IBM or Intel most likely. I personally would love to see a game console that ran an x86 CPU rather than a PowerPC setup, would make ports suck less.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment