Next Generation Xbox and Playstation Consoles Will Have Optical Drives [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/YJS51mJC8CscpQbcTpGHRP8pmsQ/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/YJS51mJC8CscpQbcTpGHRP8pmsQ/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/YJS51mJC8CscpQbcTpGHRP8pmsQ/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/YJS51mJC8CscpQbcTpGHRP8pmsQ/1/da)
First time accepted submitter dintech writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that while Sony considered online-only content distribution for its next-generation Playstation, the manufacturer has decided that the new console will include an optical drive after all. Microsoft is also planning to include an optical disk drive in the successor to its Xbox 360 console as the software company had concerns about access to Internet bandwidth."http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Next+Generation+Xbox+and+Playstation+C onsoles+Will+Have+Optical+Drives%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fb it.ly%2FKBf28X)http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F05%2F31%2F1741224%2Fnext-generation-xbox-and-playstation-consoles-will-have-optical-drives%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dface book)http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/05/31/1741224/next-generation-xbox-and-playstation-consoles-will-have-optical-drives?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=googleplus)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/05/31/1741224/next-generation-xbox-and-playstation-consoles-will-have-optical-drives?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/K5yA4S3S4MU

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

The ole disc format lives on to see another generation. Wonder if it'll be the last.

[duffmanth]

Making consoles without disc drives and making them download only isn't realistic now for many reasons. Current gen games take too long to download and take up too much room on people's hard drives. If people are downloading games and/or streaming them from a server, they'll be going over their data limits in no time unless ISP's remove caps from data usage. Not everyone has broadband access yet. Lastly this will pretty much wipe out gaming at the retail level.

[Leo_A]

Yep, despite all the debate and speculation, this was a guarantee.

And also guaranteed was that the format was going to be optical media. Speculation and such about things like SSD's were academic at best since they're sure expensive in comparison.

[RPG_Fanatic]

Now here's a question. Do you think they will both be backwards compatible with 360 & PS3 games.

[Bojay1997]

Now here's a question. Do you think they will both be backwards compatible with 360 & PS3 games.

I doubt it. Sony basically showed this generation that people won't get very upset about not having full backward compatibility, even if the launch PS3 did have it. Unless the hardware in the 360 or PS3 is very easy to make fully backward compatible, I can't see either company making any effort to maintain compatibility with their older hardware, especially if there is any added hardware cost to do so.

[Leo_A]

It all depends on what they go with for CPU's and GPU's. If Sony for instance sticks with the Cell processor and Nvidia for the GPU, I'd say the chances of backwards compatibility were excellent. The more commonality, the better the chances are.

Even full PS2 compatibility isn't out of the question if it's PS3 compatible. They've worked hard to allow the PS3 to play PS2 releases via software means. There's debate on how it's accomplished, but I don't believe there's any porting involved with these digital PS2 releases. I have to think it's done strictly by emulation, otherwise they wouldn't be choosing so many underperformers and even several games that already had full PS3 releases to give the treatment to if they actually have to dig into the code and adapt some of it to run on the PS3.

Doesn't seem out of the question that they might choose to unlock that capability on the PS4. Sadly though, I don't see Microsoft ever revisting their Xbox emulation... although I would expect existing Xbox backwards compatibility to be maintained if the 720 is backwards compatible with the 360 since it's essentially free if it was.

I'm hoping they both are backwards compatible. If for nothing else, I think it extends the window of availability for our digital downloads many of us have accumulated on these two consoles. There's a much better chance if 2020 for instance rolls around in being able to retrieve Afterburner Climax for the Xbox 360 if necessary if that software is compatible with the Xbox 720 as well.

[Bojay1997]

It all depends on what they go with for CPU's and GPU's. If Sony for instance sticks with the Cell processor and Nvidia for the GPU, I'd say the chances of backwards compatibility were excellent. The more commonality, the better the chances are.

Even full PS2 compatibility isn't out of the question if it's PS3 compatible. They've worked hard to allow the PS3 to play PS2 releases via software means. There's debate on how it's accomplished, but I don't believe there's any porting involved with these digital PS2 releases. I have to think it's done strictly by emulation, otherwise they wouldn't be choosing so many underperformers and even several games that already had full PS3 releases to give the treatment to if they actually have to dig into the code and adapt some of it to run on the PS3..

Doesn't seem out of the question that they might choose to unlock that capability on the PS4. Sadly though, I don't see Microsoft ever revisting their Xbox emulation... although I would expect existing Xbox backwards compatibility to be maintained if the 720 is backwards compatible with the 360 since it's essentially free.

I'm hoping they both are backwards compatible. If for nothing else, I think it extends the window of available for our digital downloads many of us have accumulated on these two consoles.

I just don't see it. There were rumors two months ago that Sony was looking at an AMD chip instead of a Cell processor for the PS3 successor. Sony did little or nothing to deny it and frankly, they have scaled back their participation in manufacturing and promoting Cell in the past two years anyway. Backwards compatibility really does little to promote sales in the age of digital downloads and HD remakes less than one generation old. I just don't see any upside for Sony or anyone else to provide backward compatibility anymore even if some consumers would benefit from it. I could see them perhaps going the Vita route and allowing PSN style purchases of older games that were software patched for PS4 compatibility, but as far as playing old (i.e. used) disc games, I don't think they are going to spend even a penny to make that happen.

[PapaStu]

I doubt it. Sony basically showed this generation that people won't get very upset about not having full backward compatibility, even if the launch PS3 did have it. Unless the hardware in the 360 or PS3 is very easy to make fully backward compatible, I can't see either company making any effort to maintain compatibility with their older hardware, especially if there is any added hardware cost to do so.

Microsoft showed it before, with their limited backwards compatibility for XBox titles, few cared past the first year of the cycle. PS3 screwing with backwards BC for their first year or two just put the nail in the coffin. Those who care enough for the old stuff have been hitting up the the PS2 or Xbox classics that are available on XBL and PSN.

[RPG_Fanatic]

Do the slim 360's still play the backwards compatible xbox games? I want to play/buy Tony Hawks pro stater 2X but I don't know if it will play on the new slims or since they have done so many software updates to the 360.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

Making consoles without disc drives and making them download only isn't realistic now for many reasons. Current gen games take too long to download and take up too much room on people's hard drives. If people are downloading games and/or streaming them from a server, they'll be going over their data limits in no time unless ISP's remove caps from data usage. Not everyone has broadband access yet. Lastly this will pretty much wipe out gaming at the retail level.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think they were closer to going all downloadable than you make it sound. Things have been moving in that direction, and I suspect the gaming public purchases tons of downloadable games already.

As far as taking up too much room on a hard drive, they simply would have had to make a gigantic hard drive (beyond anything we've seen in a console), or do the the cloud thing.

As for wiping out the retail level, yes it would be shocking, but record stores practically got wiped out by MP3's, and people got over that.

Either way, I'm glad we'll still have physical media.

[The 1 2 P]

Do the slim 360's still play the backwards compatible xbox games?

Yes. Microsoft kept it's backwards compatibility in the new slims.

[Leo_A]

I think we have a decent chance that at least one of these two manufacturers will incorporate backwards compatibility in their next generation console.


I just don't see it. There were rumors two months ago that Sony was looking at an AMD chip instead of a Cell processor for the PS3 successor.

I wasn't making a wager on what they're going to use. Just that if they do stick with the cell and nVidia for the GPU, it greatly increases our chances of getting backwards compatibility. The same with Microsoft if they stick with hardware closely related to their current platform.

The drastic differences Microsoft and Sony faced the last time out are why backwards compatibility was so difficult to achieve.


Backwards compatibility really does little to promote sales in the age of digital downloads and HD remakes less than one generation old. I just don't see any upside for Sony or anyone else to provide backward compatibility anymore even if some consumers would benefit from it.

I don't see what digital distribution and HD remakes have to do with it. They don't erase the advantages that backwards compatibility brings to the table. The reasons why backwards compatibility have been included in the past are still relevant today.

-It encourages people to upgrade with the knowledge that their existing library of games will continue to work.
-It opens the market up for late releases on the earlier console to still be sold to those purchasing the next generation console (I bet 360 owners accounted for a significant percentage of Halo 2 sales, for instance).
-It allows the existing library for the older console to fill in gaps where the new system is weak during its early days.
-The knowledge to the average customer that they're not just limited to $60 next gen games is a plus since most gamers have a limited budget and might pick up some economical last gen releases during the early days of a new console when games maintain their MSRP's for a long time.
-It encourages people that didn't own the company's previous console to buy their next gen system since they'll be able to pick up some games they missed out on during the previous generation.

The reasons behind BC are still there today, it provides an additional incentive to get people to buy your latest and greatest console. And of course as time goes by, it becomes less and less important. I'm not aware of a console's library that has actually grown in popularity after replacement. And how many games get HD remasters? A miniscule fraction of last gen games have seen rereleases this generation so I doubt that's a significant consideration (And I really doubt if every PS3 could play PS2 software that we'd of seen a significant hit in sales for things like the Team Ico collection). And I don't see them not doing so just because they might make a few dollars selling digital rereleases. PSOne and PS2 downloads along with the Xbox Originals lineup are hardly setting the sales charts on fire.

If it's economical to do so (Contributing more in hardware and software sales by being included than it cost to include the feature), I bet Sony and Microsoft will since it provides encouragement to consumers to buy a system (particularly during the early days when the last generation is still a significant force in the marketplace). They never included this feature out of the goodness of their hearts, there are sound business decisions behind backwards compatibility and time hasn't erased the benefits it provides.


Microsoft showed it before, with their limited backwards compatibility for XBox titles, few cared past the first year of the cycle. PS3 screwing with backwards BC for their first year or two just put the nail in the coffin.

That transition period is the entire reason for backwards compatibility. That 5 years into a new generation there's limited people that care about being able to play the software from the previous console cycle doesn't seem significant to me. The feature was always there primarily for those opening couple of years when the market is transitioning from one console to another while both are significant forces in the marketplace.

[Bojay1997]

Yes, sound business reasons which didn't pan out which is why Sony dropped the feature when it revised its hardware and why Microsoft stopped issuing software patches. My point was that in an environment where Sony in particular and Microsoft to a lesser extent are selling digital versions of content that is only one generation old and doing HD remakes of the same stuff, there is little incentive for them to provide backward compatibility, at least with physical media. The marginal increase in sales on the hardware side (which is not very profitable at all in the first few years of launch if history is any indication) from that group of consumers that doesn't want their old media to be obsolete is far less than they will make on selling digital and remade content and frankly, forces consumers to buy entirely new game libraries. The whole reason manufacturers make such a big deal about attach rates is that the profitability in consoles early on is all in the software and the accessories. There is no point in maintaining a large consumer base of people who are just going to keep playing old games since they have far less incentive to buy new games and they are essentially net losses for the manufacturer.

I also don't buy that a significant portion of Halo 2 players were doing so on an Xbox 360. The 360 was released almost a year after Halo 2 and at least initially, the game was super glitchy and virtually unplayable on-line in multiplayer using the 360. While it was eventually patched and ended up working pretty well, it still was never 100%.


I think we have a decent chance that at least one of these two manufacturers will incorporate backwards compatibility in their next generation console.



I wasn't making a wager on what they're going to use. Just that if they do stick with the cell and nVidia for the GPU, it greatly increases our chances of getting backwards compatibility. The same with Microsoft if they stick with hardware closely related to their current platform.

The drastic differences Microsoft and Sony faced the last time out are why backwards compatibility was so difficult to achieve.



I don't see what digital distribution and HD remakes have to do with it. They don't erase the advantages that backwards compatibility brings to the table. The reasons why backwards compatibility have been included in the past are still relevant today.

-It encourages people to upgrade with the knowledge that their existing library of games will continue to work.
-It opens the market up for late releases on the earlier console to still be sold to those purchasing the next generation console (I bet 360 owners accounted for a significant percentage of Halo 2 sales, for instance).
-It allows the existing library for the older console to fill in gaps where the new system is weak during its early days.
-The knowledge to the average customer that they're not just limited to $60 next gen games is a plus since most gamers have a limited budget and might pick up some economical last gen releases during the early days of a new console when games maintain their MSRP's for a long time.
-It encourages people that didn't own the company's previous console to buy their next gen system since they'll be able to pick up some games they missed out on during the previous generation.

The reasons behind BC are still there today, it provides an additional incentive to get people to buy your latest and greatest console. And of course as time goes by, it becomes less and less important. I'm not aware of a console's library that has actually grown in popularity after replacement. And how many games get HD remasters? A miniscule fraction of last gen games have seen rereleases this generation so I doubt that's a significant consideration (And I really doubt if every PS3 could play PS2 software that we'd of seen a significant hit in sales for things like the Team Ico collection). And I don't see them not doing so just because they might make a few dollars selling digital rereleases. PSOne and PS2 downloads along with the Xbox Originals lineup are hardly setting the sales charts on fire.

If it's economical to do so (Contributing more in hardware and software sales by being included than it cost to include the feature), I bet Sony and Microsoft will since it provides encouragement to consumers to buy a system (particularly during the early days when the last generation is still a significant force in the marketplace). They never included this feature out of the goodness of their hearts, there are sound business decisions behind backwards compatibility and time hasn't erased the benefits it provides.



That transition period is the entire reason for backwards compatibility. That 5 years into a new generation there's limited people that care about being able to play the software from the previous console cycle doesn't seem significant to me. The feature was always there primarily for those opening couple of years when the market is transitioning from one console to another while both are significant forces in the marketplace.

[Leo_A]

Time will tell, but my money is on at least one of the two offering full backwards compatibility with downloadable and retail software.


Yes, sound business reasons which didn't pan out which is why Sony dropped the feature when it revised its hardware and why Microsoft stopped issuing software patches.

Sony dropped it because they were hemorrhaging money and were desperate to cut the losses they were incurring on each console sold. And it was present for the first year and a half or so, which is the most crucial time where the advantages of backwards compatibility are concerned. And Microsoft gave a good two years of regular updates before the numbers game caught up with them with backwards compatibility use declining and the titles remaining being the most difficult to emulate (And with a large percentage of them being of little interest to consumers).


My point was that in an environment where Sony in particular and Microsoft to a lesser extent are selling digital versions of content that is only one generation old and doing HD remakes of the same stuff, there is little incentive for them to provide backward compatibility, at least with physical media.

Easily less than 1% of last generation software releases have seen HD updates this generation with few obvious candidates left to do. The Xbox Originals lineup was such a sales failure that it was killed off after a dozen and a half or so releases. And just look at how often Sony adds PSOne and PS2 digital releases on PSN. It's difficult to imagine there being a goldmine there and what there is has largely been played out for Microsoft and Sony (Particularly where HD upgrades are concerned). And they're not going to be able to rely on easily doing a significant upgrading to current gen software next generation since any leap is going to be an extremely minor one without a huge and expensive upgrade which defeats most of the reason why these things exist in the first place. Hard to imagine people lining up at the door to buy a rerelease that just ups the native resolution from 720p to 1080p and sometimes provides a frame rate boost (Although there's plenty of 60fps games this generation so many wouldn't even have that benefit) and perhaps 3D support.

Going to be a heck of a lot less of an easy niche to cheaply make rereleases that will sell well compared to this time around where they're easily upgrading games that ran in standard definition and often 30fps or less.


The marginal increase in sales on the hardware side (which is not very profitable at all in the first few years of launch if history is any indication) from that group of consumers that doesn't want their old media to be obsolete is far less than they will make on selling digital and remade content and frankly, forces consumers to buy entirely new game libraries. The whole reason manufacturers make such a big deal about attach rates is that the profitability in consoles early on is all in the software and the accessories. There is no point in maintaining a large consumer base of people who are just going to keep playing old games since they have far less incentive to buy new games and they are essentially net losses for the manufacturer. .

You're greatly exaggerating the money there's to be had with rereleases of old content. And of course it's all about attach rates. You can't sell software and accessories to people if they don't own the system to utilize them.

That's why backwards compatibility is always a consideration and why a decent number of consoles have supported it. It's a significant incentive to help push people into their latest console knowing that they'll also continue to be able to enjoy releases from the previous platform on the same console. And then they'll naturally be buying accessories and software for it which is where the real money is.


I also don't buy that a significant portion of Halo 2 players were doing so on an Xbox 360. The 360 was released almost a year after Halo 2 and at least initially, the game was super glitchy and virtually unplayable on-line in multiplayer using the 360. While it was eventually patched and ended up working pretty well, it still was never 100%.

That's not how I remember it. Halo 2 was extremely popular among 360 users as I recollect and they were two of the best performing titles via BC (For obvious reasons, their focus was heavily on getting those working well). Beyond a single map that had issues (And was pulled from the rotation), I don't remember any troubles other than a bit of an issue with the last map pack when they tried to make it available via the 360's marketplace.

[kedawa]

Now here's a question. Do you think they will both be backwards compatible with 360 & PS3 games.

I don't think they'll both support both, no.

[Bojay1997]

You also can't sell software and accessories to people who see the next generation as primarily a way to play their old media or used games. Just ask Sony what the first few years of the PS2 launch were like in Japan when people were buying them as subsidized DVD players and a very significant percentage of launch units had no game software sales associated with them at all.

On the reason Sony in particular dropped backward compatibility, I understand your viewpoint, but they have never really said and it's just as likely that they dropped it because they simply realized consumers didn't really care about it after all and it did nothing to boost profits. If they thought it actually drove sales, they would have continued spending the extra money to include it or done a better job of developing a software based backward compatibility solution that would have reduced the cost while maintaining the same benefit to consumers. Of course, that was also 5-7 years ago before digital downloads really took off. I imagine that with this generation, digital downloads will be even bigger and people who really want to play older games will simply buy them on XBL and PSN. Heck, Sony already includes older games for free every month for PSN+ subscribers, so obviously they see the value in that market or at least see it as something that is appealing to consumers.

I can't say with certainty what Microsoft and Sony make from sales of PSOne and PS2 or Xbox games on their services, but as the older platforms age and become less common in the homes of consumers, I would imagine demand will increase for digital versions of the games. Demand for enhanced remakes will likely increase as well.

Halo 2 was extremely popular on the 360 with a small group of people who continued to play it for years after release. The bulk of the sales and play, however, occured well before the 360 even hit the market and most certainly happened on the original Xbox.





Sony dropped it because they were hemorrhaging money and were desperate to cut the losses they were incurring on each console sold. And it was present for the first year and a half or so, which is the most crucial time where the advantages of backwards compatibility are concerned. And Microsoft gave a good two years of regular updates before the numbers game caught up with them with backwards compatibility use declining and the titles remaining being the most difficult to emulate (And with a large percentage of them being of little interest to consumers).



Easily less than 1% of last generation software releases have seen HD updates this generation with few obvious candidates left to do. The Xbox Originals lineup was such a sales failure that it was killed off after a dozen and a half or so releases. And just look at how often Sony adds PSOne and PS2 digital releases on PSN. It's difficult to imagine there being a goldmine there and what there is has largely been played out for Microsoft and Sony (Particularly where HD upgrades are concerned). And they're not going to be able to rely on easily doing a significant upgrading to current gen software next generation since any leap is going to be an extremely minor one without a huge and expensive upgrade which defeats most of the reason why these things exist in the first place. Hard to imagine people lining up at the door to buy a rerelease that just ups the native resolution from 720p to 1080p and sometimes provides a frame rate boost (Although there's plenty of 60fps games this generation so many wouldn't even have that benefit) and perhaps 3D support.

Going to be a heck of a lot less of an easy niche to cheaply make rereleases that will sell well compared to this time around where they're easily upgrading games that ran in standard definition and often 30fps or less.



You're greatly exaggerating the money there's to be had with rereleases of old content. And of course it's all about attach rates. You can't sell software and accessories to people if they don't own the system to utilize them.

That's why backwards compatibility is always a consideration and why a decent number of consoles have supported it. It's a significant incentive to help push people into their latest console knowing that they'll also continue to be able to enjoy releases from the previous platform on the same console. And then they'll naturally be buying accessories and software for it which is where the real money is.



That's not how I remember it. Halo 2 was extremely popular among 360 users as I recollect and they were two of the best performing titles via BC (For obvious reasons, their focus was heavily on getting those working well). Beyond a single map that had issues (And was pulled from the rotation), I don't remember any troubles other than a bit of an issue with the last map pack when they tried to make it available via the 360's marketplace.

[Bojay1997]

If this is accurate, this seems to be more support for the contention that the PS4 will not have built-in backward compatibility. Essentially, the only hardware that will have to support the legacy system is the stuff on the streaming server side. The users console will be used solely as an audio video output/controller interface.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-01-sony-brings-backwards-compatibility-to-playstation-with-gaikai-deal

[Griking]

Now here's a question. Do you think they will both be backwards compatible with 360 & PS3 games.

Of course not. How would they get you to purchase the same games all over again if they did?

[Leo_A]

Edit - Deleted my long winded response.

When you get right down to it, without being privy to things like the cost/benefit study I would assume a console manufacturer would undertake when considering implimenting this feature, this is a pointless conversation. Wouldn't shock me if plans weren't even set in stone either way at either Microsoft or Sony even though I'm sure both consoles are well into development.

On the bright side judging by how often the Xbox 720 and PS4 have flipflopped between having optical drives and not having optical drives, likely all we have to do is wait a week or two for a different rumor to come along that says otherwise if someone doesn't like the current one... ;)

I guess all we can do is sit back and wait and see what they actually do.

[duffmanth]

I agree with most of what you said, but I think they were closer to going all downloadable than you make it sound. Things have been moving in that direction, and I suspect the gaming public purchases tons of downloadable games already.

As far as taking up too much room on a hard drive, they simply would have had to make a gigantic hard drive (beyond anything we've seen in a console), or do the the cloud thing.

As for wiping out the retail level, yes it would be shocking, but record stores practically got wiped out by MP3's, and people got over that.

Either way, I'm glad we'll still have physical media.

I read Verizon is getting rid of data usage limits, so if all ISP's head in that direction and speed up download speeds, downloading and/or streaming would definitely be better than it is now. I guess if cloud storage is the answer for storing game files, that would eliminate the need for massive hard drives? I just don't wanna see physical games become totally obsolete, but I fear that'll happen eventually.

[Bojay1997]

Unlikely. In fact, Verizon is planning to impose a 2 Gig limit on unlimited data plans for their mobile devices once you upgrade using a subsidy, so those of us who are "grandfathered" in are basically screwed. I do agree that the Internet will be getting even faster in the near future as there are all sorts of hardware solutions being developed every day to make routing and serving much faster. The only way we will get unlimited data use at home is if the ISPs charge much more per month for it or apply some type of other revenue boosting model.


I read Verizon is getting rid of data usage limits, so if all ISP's head in that direction and speed up download speeds, downloading and/or streaming would definitely be better than it is now. I guess if cloud storage is the answer for storing game files, that would eliminate the need for massive hard drives? I just don't wanna see physical games become totally obsolete, but I fear that'll happen eventually.

[duffmanth]

Unlikely. In fact, Verizon is planning to impose a 2 Gig limit on unlimited data plans for their mobile devices once you upgrade using a subsidy, so those of us who are "grandfathered" in are basically screwed. I do agree that the Internet will be getting even faster in the near future as there are all sorts of hardware solutions being developed every day to make routing and serving much faster. The only way we will get unlimited data use at home is if the ISPs charge much more per month for it or apply some type of other revenue boosting model.

That is exactly why I think downloading and/or streaming of games will never totally replace physical games...at least for the foreseeable future. My local ISP provides me with 120GB of data for downloading/streaming which I don't even come close to using now as I do minimal downloading and only stream a few movies/month. I would imagine downloading/streaming huge game files would eat up my data pretty quickly?

[otaku]

in the case of portables this makes sense because it is more convenient gives you more access to games etc and can be cheaper to. But come on why not offer disc drives to they're so cheap give us options! Glad to see that is the case at least for one more generation!