Coffee Talk #381: I Dream of Next-Gen Consoles with SSD

51 thoughts on “Coffee Talk #381: I Dream of Next-Gen Consoles with SSD”

1. Well…. I do like the idea of an SSD not crashing as much as the traditional hard drives and the speed. But my concern would fall under the the storage theme. Donts ssd limit the amount of storage there for the choice would be higher loading time vs. Less space provided…. I’m am torn

   1. There isn't a limit in terms of space. It's a matter of price. SSDs are much more expensive than platter drives. Like I said in the column, the cost will come down by the time new consoles are out, so hopefully it's feasible.

   2. as long as the SSD become more common than of course the price will drop. i just think that at this point in time its like this…. I would not want to compromise a higher loading time for a smaller amount of data storage…..

2. If it takes until fall of 2014 to release new consoles with dated tech I think I'll not buy another console. AppleTV will play games soon and AAA titles are on the Mac app store which has a merging ecosystem.

3. I think that some (okay… maybe just one) console company would want you to have the storage medium that would break sooner so that you have to pay them more money more often.

   I think all of them need to work with a standard storage medium like computers and laptops do.

   1. It would prob be the most expensive medium possible. Just like Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic standardizing active shutter 3D glasses lol.

      1. That's the capitalistic approach… yes.

4. At this point in time it would be foolish to put a SSD in any console. There would be a a slight performance increase, but not enough to justify the price. The PS3 and Xbox 360 were not made to take advantage of SSD speed.

5. This is really tough. Obviously I would want more memory and better graphics. I would love to have more connectivity with the cell phone of my choice, because by then, phones will have the graphics of the current PSP, if not, better. Everything else that I can think of I say to myself, get a computer then lol.

6. At some point I feel better graphics is just not worth it. I'm not saying we are at that point yet, but I'm fairly satisfied with a lot of the graphics on games like Halo, CoD, L4D, Bioshock, etc. Big name titles are producing graphics that I'm fine with. The processing speed is also fairly good too, but is probably what I would like to change the most. SSD would help a lot with this issue on a next gen console, but it's not really a big concern of mine. I feel that SSD is a great possibility on a next gen console, as is faster processing speeds, good UI, etc.

   What I really want on a next gen console that I am actually worried won't happen is quality digital distribution that doesn't screw over the consumer, getting rid of DRM so I can play Plants vs. Zombies when my internet goes out for the weekend, Microsoft allowing Valve to come in an provide updates for the xbox 360 version of TF2, etc. There are more pressing issues to me than the ones that I feel already have a better chance of happening with the next round of consoles.

   1. I think the gfx look dated in consoles now. Uncharted will even look a little long in the tooth this year.

      1. There are games out there with bad graphics, I will completely agree with that. They usually are older games or cheaply made games. Def Jam Rapstar is a cool enough game, but the graphics look like they are being played on a Sega Genesis. That doesn't mean my 360 isn't capable of more though. I am fairly content with the state of the games I mentioned above on this console, and feel that the graphics will improve on the next gen consoles regardless of what I type here. I could demand better or worse graphics, but the reality is that the graphics will most likely get better anyways. Some of the ideas mentioned in the comments today are good ones, I love the idea of SSD being in a console and making the system run faster. In all honesty though the issues I mentioned in the second paragraph of my original post are far more pressing in my mind though.

         Also, which Uncharted are you talking about? If it's Uncharted 2, that came out a year or two ago. The graphics may not be absolute top of the line, but I'm satisfied with how they look considering that game is about 2 years old. The games that are coming out this year look good in comparison, so developers aren't giving us graphics equivalent to Uncharted 2, they are progressing on their own.

      2. I felt the way I do when I loaded God of War 3 and RDR. They are too dated looking. Dead horse beating aside, the gfx tech in those machines aren't doing it for me.

         Take BF3 for example. Consoles can't touch that. More recent example, Dungeon Siege 3 on PC and console. Visuals are so stale on the consoles.

      3. Agree to disagree. Maybe the graphics aren't increasing at the same rate it seemed they used to, or they aren't keeping up with PC capabilities, but for me they are adequate. What really isn't doing it for me on the console is the story quality. Activision syndrome has hit the gaming industry and we keep getting the sequels of hit games instead of new IP's or stories. I play some of those old IP's enough to take some of the blame for promoting the sequels, but I would love to see a big name developer release a brand new game sometime soon.

      4. That isn't Activision syndrome. It's the economy. The same thing is happening in movies. It's much safer to go with established franchises. With a shaky economy, publishers are less likely to take risks, ergo sequels and licensed games are the norm.

      5. So Activision making just under 40 different versions of Guitar Hero in 4 years had no effect on other developers and publishers opinions of what they could get away with selling us? What about Call of Duty's annual release? There are some changes, and yes the maps are newer and different—but we are still being sold an online multiplayer game over and over again with minor changes.

         Sure the economy could be blamed for some of this, but I think it is foolish to ignore Activision's effect on other company's perceptions of how many times they can sell us the same IP.

      6. That's hardly exclusive to Activision. EA has been doing annual sequels for much longer. Does the Guitar Hero example count? If anything, Activision showed how to tarnish a franchise.

      7. Yes the sports games have always been a little ridiculous in my opinion as well. Sure Activision showed how to tarnish the franchise—but they did what EA had been doing with the sports series for much longer, and they got a lot more attention for doing it. That's not something to simply be brushed off.

      8. It's exaggerated. Activision got a bad rap from the enthusiast press and gamers bought into it. The company milks things, but no more than EA did and no more than the movie business did. Activision was easy to hate because the press played up the evil empire aspect and Bobby Kotick is a great target.

      9. Activision/EA syndrome is also using a 5 year old gfx engine and still charging 60 for it. :)

         Flat textures are just getting on my nerves now. It's time to upgrade!

      10. Unreal Engine 3 is five-years old too. I'm not sure that most gamers care.

      11. Most gamers don't have the choice. Also, that engine is way older than 5 years old.

      12. The engine is older, but the first commercial product on consoles was Gears, no?

          I would also argue that most gamers don't care to choose. A $300 console has graphics that will satisfy most and most of those gamers don't care to spend $7,000 for the best Battlefield graphics.

      13. Yeah. That engine was developed for the 360 which was released in 2005. Screenshots were first shown of a then unknown Gears in 2004.

          You obviously have the normal console bias towards PCs. You can run BF3 with a 1k PC. None of that 2,3,4,5,6,7k stuff.

          You can't make that argument anyway. There isn't a choice.

      14. Ha. I've been a PC gamer for as long as I've been a console gamer. There's no obvious bias. The Battlefield gameplay I saw at E3 2011 would not be possible on a $1,000 PC.

          And you're wrong about there not being a choice. You can buy a console or a gaming PC depending on what you want for your gaming experience. For most people, a console is the more reasonable and satisfy option.

      15. Yeah, a lot of those games aren't on PC. So no choice.

          You can build a 1k PC. That's if you have a keyboard, mouse, and case already. Radeon 6850 goes for $150. That will handle it. Catch ram on sale and you can get 2 of those cards. Easy. I just built one in February.

      16. To amend: an engine developed for hardware that was already a few years old at release.

7. Handling it is not what I was talking about. I plainly stated that what was shown at E3 would be impossible on a $1,000 PC.

   What are you talking about when you say "those games"?

   1. Those games = exclusives, console only titles.

      Of course 1k will do fine. Have you priced components in a while? It's not that bad. I'll send you fps screens.

8. Anyone here had any problems with a Wii before? My parents got hit by lightning and they have no clue whether it has a 3 year warranty or not (I doubt it is because I'm positive no one paid for that). Would Nintendo cover anything like that or will they just have to suck it up and buy a new one if they want to keep playing?

   1. I never knew anyone that had their parents hit by lightning.

      1. ha. especially both parents right?

9. Again, you're talking about somethig I'm not. I never said anything about it running "fine". What I saw at E3 — i.e. the graphics being used to promote the game — is impossible on a $1,000 PC. I'm not sure why you keep bringing other things up.

   1. I really don't think you understand. I will run that game at max settings on an overclocked i5 with 8gigs of ram and xfire 6850. Guaranteed. That costs less than 1k. I don't care about the rig they run it on at E3. Further proof, look at the test setup that Ars uses for PC gaming now. That is less than what I run and handles Crysis 2 jacked up. My machine handles Shogun 2 at max no problem. Witcher 2 max, no problem. I'm not sure where you get impossible from.

      So let's say someone over pays for every component and runs BF3 at 30fps…it will still look better than the old consoles. That's with them paying 1k for a $500 machine. What we originally were kicking about in the thread.

      1. I understand just fine. Again, I don't think most gamers care. The difference between a console and a $1,000 PC is certainly noticeable. It's just as noticeable as that same PC running against an i7 and a Radeon 6990. A console is just easier for most consumers in terms of price and convenience.

         As for exclusives, I don't know what your point was. Every platform has exclusive games. Ultimately, it's a matter of what a gamer wants. Going with any platform is a choice, so what are saying?

10. I'm currently playing BF3 Alpha. I have an AMD X2 6000+, with 4Gb of DDR2 Ram, and a ATI 4850. My rig is OLD, but it looks amazing and plays great, though you are currently unable to change any settings on it.

11. Again, I'm not sure what you're saying and how you're interpreting things. When did I say that exclusives didn't matter? I said that every platform has exclusives. I have no idea how you took that to mean that they didn't matter. It's a choice.

    Why do I keep bringing up the E3 rig? I keep saying that what was shown at E3 would be impossible on a $1,000 PC. You keep bringing up things that will "handle" it or run it "fine". Again, that's not what I'm talking about.

    1. Ray, let's try to sort this out. Why do you think the rig at E3 can handle the game better than what I have already laid out. I qualified settings as MAX in my last post, not fine settings. You tell me what was so different about E3.It can be ran on Max settings at 1080 on less than what you saw it run on.Instead of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, fill in the blanks.Sent from my iPhone 4

       1. You keep changing the terms and adding conditions. From the start I said what was shown at E3 would be impossible on a $1K PC. I maintain that, you refute that with several "buts".

          Also, when did I say you didn't know what you were talking about? This is like the thing with exclusives. I never mentioned it and I'm not sure why you are. Be careful, you're straying into Nightshade territory and going off topic.

          Anyway, I understand your point, but I don't think it fits into the argument exactly.

       2. Last time I am attempting this. I have not changed a thing. I have maintained that you have incorrect notions about what it will take to run what you saw during E3 at MAX settings. Is that clear enough? I have said this about 10 different times and have told you why it's possible. If you want to hide behind the “it's not the box at E3” mantra then so be it. You are behind the curve in PC gaming I am assuming so this is going nowhere. There is no refuting what I'm saying. There is definitely refute in your claims that it takes a friggin sandybridge i7 with a 6990 to run the game at max settings as shown at E3. I don't even care about the original argument anymore. Why don't you understand or even acknowledge that it can be done on something other than what you saw at max settings? There is no shame in being wrong or mistaken about something from time to time.If you want to continue thinking that the end all be all was at E3 then fine. You aren't supporting your argument at all. Until you can better support this I'm through. You haven't told me once why it isn't possible and in at least the last 5 posts I have stated why it is. Slicky even put up his stats and said it was fine with the DX9 build.You keep changing the terms and adding conditions. From the start I said what was shown at E3 would be impossible on a $1K PC. I maintain that, you refute that with several “buts”.If I'm using buts then you are claiming that EA used magic. You haven't said once why it's not possible. So when this game comes out and I'm running it at max settings with no lag will you eat your words and admit that you were wrong? Is that what it takes? You surely aren't doing the research here.I'm out.

       3. Again, you're not following the conversation. You're saying a single-core graphics card with far less memory and a slower clock will produce the same results as a dual-core card with more memory and a faster clock? Okay.

       4. Ray, I think you should drop this one. I run a single GTX 285 and play games at max most of the time. That said, I don't have any current shooters on my PC because I usually play shooters with my Live friends and Shadowrun is the only game I could play with them on my PC. My PC was ~$1600 worth when I got it three or four years ago.

          Should I do a rant on how PCs haven't improved significantly in the last couple of years? I don't have an extensive PC background and don't want to say something ignorant.

       5. I'm not even sure what I would be dropping. I never said anything about a $1K PC not being able to run BF3. The argument this has devolved to is whether what was produced on an i7 Turbo and a Radeon 6990 in Uber Mode would be possible on a $1K PC. I've reading nothing here that says it's possible.

       6. I make it a habit to not assume what will run max settings or uber settings in upcoming games. It can't be proven or disprove until the game comes out. I'm saying that this tread needs to die as it won't produce fruit. (or clothes)

12. Big N has awesome customer service. Call them and see what's up.

    My Wii wouldn't play SSBB on launch, and Nintendo hooked it up free.

    1. I told my mom to try calling them and see where it goes. I've never dealt with Nintendo customer service before so I didn't really have any idea how it would go.

13. I want a console that comes with free 1gb internet. Or at least a cheap monthly fee.

    1. What do you mean by "free 1gb internet"?

       1. I mean, 1gb/s. If Microsoft and Sony want to "justify" me paying them a monthly fee for their online services, then I would like them to offer me a better ISP than any in the USA. How they get it to me, via mobile networks or wifi through unused radio waves, doesn't really matter to me and they could even charge up to $50 a month for it. I'm just tired of the "cheap internet" ISPs charge us too much for.

          Unlikely and near impossible, but a dream none the less.

       2. can I like that comment more than once? lol. With MS having talked about offering tv through the xbox this service seems like another good idea for them to use. Besides I will agree that ISP's charge a ridiculous amount of money for the services they do provide.

       3. The U.S. ISP market blows. Neither company wants any part of that mess.

Comments are closed.