@MikeB

Quote:

Mass audio is usually streamed of the disc, I don't think it's going to be installed on the 360's on average too small (~20 GB, minus OS and everything else installed) harddrive.

Don't forget the audio can be compressed and loselessly. We'll see exactly what's copied to the harddrive and how once Microsoft ships the copy the game to HDD option. But you must admit that this improved use does mitagate the need for Blu-Ray on games.

As for the HDD there is ~4GB of the HDD eaten for backwards compatibility and the special content. All of which can be deleted if the user doesn't want that stuff. Or they can buy a bigger harddrive. Well, and of course the end of the 20GB HDD era and new consoles with 60GB drive as the smallest option.

Quote:

Producing two or more dual layer DVDs costs more money and is more cumbersome than producing a game on a scratch resistant dual layer Blu-Ray disc.

You sure on that? My understanding is that Blu-Ray is still more expensive to produce. In stores a dual layer Blu-Ray media is still $22 each. DVD media is .55 cents. Blu-Ray movies are over twice as expensive -- for example iRobot on BR is $35 on DVD is $15. (Yes one can find items cheaper online.) If Blu-Ray is all the cost savings you state then the conclusion is stay away from it until manufactures stop gouging the marketplace.

@BrianK

Quote:

In stores a dual layer Blu-Ray media is still $22 each.

You are probably referring to singly disc quantity rewritable discs, which is very different from mass disc replication.

Back in 2006, replicating a small quantity of 10,000 Blu-Ray discs costed about 1.4 to 1.5 dollars per DL Blu-Ray disc. Now in 2008 about 200 million Blu-Ray discs have been replicated, there are various competing replication factories and so costs have come down considerably.

Some notes:
- Casing for multiple discs is more expensive.
- Spanning a game on multiple discs is more cumbersome and costly andrequires different disc labeling to distinguish between discs.
- Final Fantasy XIII is to be mass produced, we are talking about really high volumes here. Millions of replicated discs.

Quote:

for example iRobot on BR is $35 on DVD is $15

It comes with higher quality content and extras, the Blu-Ray version was replicated at lower quantities.

Planet Earth on Blu-Ray costs about 65 dollars, the Fifth Element on Blu-Ray disc costs less than 15 dollars. That's not because of over 4 times higher replication costs.

@MikeB
Quote:

You are probably referring to singly disc quantity rewritable discs, which is very different from mass disc replication.

Obviously it is. But if it's costing $1 for each Blu-Ray in mass clearly charging us $22 for a single Blu-Ray is gouging.

Quote:

Back in 2006, replicating a small quantity of 10,000 Blu-Ray discs costed about 1.4 to 1.5 dollars per DL Blu-Ray disc. Now in 2008 about 200 million Blu-Ray discs have been replicated, there are various competing replication factories and so costs have come down considerably.

My understanding is that while Blu-Ray pricing has come down it's still ~2x more expensive then DVD for Single Layer and ~3-4x more expensive for Dual Layer.

Quote:

Some notes: - Casing for multiple discs is more expensive - Spanning a game on multiple discs is more cumbersome and costly andrequires different disc labeling to distinguish between discs. - Final Fantasy XIII is to be mass produced, we are talking about really high volumes here. Millions of replicated discs.

More expensive casing? Not always. Of course there are variables for literature clips, colors, type of material, I tried to compare like against like. Also I compared 1 case order (~200) the pricing would goes down and is more comparable with larger quantitites.
Single DVD case - .22
Dual DVD case - .23 Wow that's breaking the bank!
Three DVD case -- .46 Okay now we see a price jump.
Four DVD case -- .49 Minimal change to the next level. In large quantities the 3 or 4 DVD price are about .01 difference.
Slim line single DVD -- .34
Slim line dual DVD case -- .33 Oops clearly your statement isn't right in all cases. In this case dual case is the less expensive option. (Psst most PS3 games will fit on 2 DVDs.)

Certainly pressing 2 discs with the same cover is a bit less as one can use the same run. But, nothing hugely bank breaking to do 2 runs with different covers.

FFXIII mass produced in high volumes -- The BR manufacture will come down more in pricing. Make it equal to DVD? I doubt it but probably less then 2 DVDs.

Someday BR will be the cheaper option, it's not presently.

You forgot other bads of multiple discs -- more material means higher weight means more gas usage means more global warming and more trash in the dumps.

Quote:

It comes with higher quality content and extras, the Blu-Ray version was replicated at lower quantities

Great extras I watch once, if lucky, are clearly not worth 2.5x more expense. This is why I rent Blu-Rays. Quality is higher. In theory 1080p has about 7x the resolution of 480i. However, in use the jump from VHS-DVD was much more of an improvement then the jump from DVD-BR. Sorry BR is too expensive. I'll buy movies I watch infrequently on DVD for that $10-$15 price. I'll not spend $35. So only content I truly love is that which I own on BR. Others seem to agree as media purchases (DVD+Blu-Ray) are down in 2008 compared to 2007. Where rentals and online streaming are up.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Aug-2008 at 06:36 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Sorry, not selling my PS3, nor a potential Wii in the future. I already sold my 360 a long time ago.

you operate a store selling games yes? confused

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

Obviously it is. But if it's costing $1 for each Blu-Ray in mass clearly charging us $22 for a single Blu-Ray is gouging.

I Robot, for example is said to include very good quality HD video and sound with some license fees which has to be paid for usage of codecs and such as well as 150 minutes of high definition bonus content.

The discs are being replicated in still lower quantities than DVDs (still fewer potential consumers), etc. That all explains higher costs. Of course companies try to maximize profits nomatter the used disc format.

Quote:

My understanding is that while Blu-Ray pricing has come down it's still ~2x more expensive then DVD for Single Layer and ~3-4x more expensive for Dual Layer.

The difference between the cost of replicating dual layer and single layer Blu-Ray discs isn't that much more. The same (still more expensive) machinery being used. It does not cost twice as much. production yields are better than was the case for DVD taking equal timeframes.

@ Interesting

No I don't, I never sold games.

@MikeB

Quote:

@BrianKQuote: Obviously it is. But if it's costing $1 for each Blu-Ray in mass clearly charging us $22 for a single Blu-Ray is gouging. I Robot, for example is said to include very good quality HD video and sound with some license fees which has to be paid for usage of codecs and such as well as 150 minutes of high definition bonus content

Huh? Seems you quoted something from me about costs of blank media and responded with comments on a movie?

@MikeB

Years' for Sony to Catch Microsoft

Quote:

"At this pace," Goodman said, "it will take Sony years to catch up with Microsoft."

In total sales, the Wii is in first place, with about 13.5 million sold in North America and about 31 million worldwide. The Xbox 360 is in second place, with 12 million U.S. sales and 20 million worldwide, and the PS3 takes third with 5.5 million U.S. and 15 million worldwide.

will be interesting to see these numbers again next year!

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

Hi guys! Still going strong, huh? :)

Someone remind me, what were the estimates, where would PS3 vs. Xbox 360 be in the percentage battle by end of 2008? 2009? I mean the predictions discussed a year or so ago. How do they relate to the latest analyst comment? When was Wii thought to loose its momentum?

Last edited by jtsiren on 18-Aug-2008 at 07:52 PM.

@Interesting

Quote:

he Xbox 360 is in second place, with 12 million U.S. sales

NPD LTD for the US (July):

Wii: ~11.4 million
360: ~10.7 million
PS3: ~5.1 million

For the rest of the world as a whole minus the US the PS3 already leads over the 360 due to good European sales and Japan.

@jtsiren

Quote:

jtsiren wrote: Hi guys! Still going strong, huh? :) Someone remind me, what were the estimates, where would PS3 vs. Xbox 360 be in the percentage battle by end of 2008? 2009? I mean the predictions discussed a year or so ago. How do they relate to the latest analyst comment? When was Wii thought to loose its momentum?

Here are my comments recapped....
Initally I thought the Wii would be 3rd. About a year ago I changed my prediction to say the Wii will start to loose momentum around March 09 when digital TV is mandated in the USA.

Initally I wasn't sure if the PS3 or 360 would be #1 but thought it'd be a close fight with likely the PS3 winning by a nose. About a year ago I changed my prediction to this is the race for #2. I projected the PS3 would overtake the 360 by end of 08, that now seems very unlikely. Especially with FF being dual platform.

I predicted the 360 would make profits for Microsoft's gaming division for the first time ever. That came to pass.

My comments have also been whomever wins their #1 position will be a lower marketshare then the PS2 enjoys. AKA a more equal race then last gen.

@jtsiren

My take was Wii would be successful and sell better than the original GameCube did, but will eventually end up becoming second, I think the platform will loose momentum as HDTV penetration increases. The 360 I think will end up being a distant third, I anticipated momentum to die down when it passes the XBox install base for Europe and the United States, which should be the case this upcoming holiday season. Regarding the PS2, I predicted it would still win Christmas 2006 (it did) and worldwide sales to keep strong for 2007 and 2008.

Around the time of the PS3 lackluster sales at the beginning of 2007, I predicted much better sales for Europe (I ran a poll on this, and this was the case) and much better sales for the 2007 holiday season and 2008 onwards. I anticipated the PS3 install base to be about on par with the 360 worldwide by the end of 2008, but I anticipated FFXIII to be launched for the upcoming holiday season (so Japan would have become more of a factor).

Currently I still anticipate the PS3 to be roughly on par with the 360 by the end of 2008, but I think the 360 will maintain a small lead until the release of FFXIII early next year. I also anticipate many PS2 owners to upgrade when the PS2 will be discontinued and a slimline PS3 launches. That's when I anticipate the Wii to be beaten in sales by the PS3 (I do think it will take some years for the PS3 to overtake the Wii install base).

Last edited by MikeB on 19-Aug-2008 at 12:36 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 18-Aug-2008 at 11:39 PM.

Interview with Michael Paolini, IBM Master Inventor on the PS3 Cell

Although all arguments and information I brought forward in discussions here at AmigaWorld, IMO nice to read something from IBM specialists themselves:

http://www.builderau.com.au/strategy/architecture/soa/Programming-for-Cell/0,339028264,339288702,00.htm

A snip:

"Are there any differences between developing for a new multi-core environment compared to the traditional multiple CPU environment? What are the consequences of this?

Yes, new multi-cores such as Cell/BE have actually been architected from the ground out to be multi-core and many-core. For example Cell/BE has an internal communications ring that provides >300GBps of bandwidth to the cores at the current clock speed. It also has mechanisms for reserving that bandwidth for cores, and communications mechanisms in place. In contrast, most of the traditional multiple core CPU's lack these kinds of mechanisms, and some of them even require communications to hit their front side bus to communicate between cores (which ties up a precious resource).

Additionally, newer architectures designed from the ground up to be multi-core and many-core take a further step forward in partitioning what runs where. For example, traditional cores have the OS running across all their cores. This introduces "jitter" in the programs since the OS always wins the battle for cycles or resources against a user program. That jitter can cause inconsistent performance results from run to run, and make things very difficult to debug. By contrast Cell/BE only runs the OS on the Power Processing Unit (PPU), and only user codes run on the Synergetic Processing Units (SPU's). That is to say, the additional cores are dedicated to running only User mode apps, not the OS. This reduces complexity, helps reduce jitter, and gives much more deterministic results per run. In addition to great performance at a lower power footprint, many people find it much easier to debug as well. For both traditional and new, the same rules of thumb apply by the way -- reduce synchronisation and dependencies, reduce inter-core communications, partition the data. We find that all things a programmer does to make the new cores like Cell/BE go faster also speed traditional processors up as well -- just not as much since most of them were retro fitted for multi-core."

@MikeB

Clearly the Cell is built differently. DId you see this yet?
VISTA on PS3 -- 25 minutes to boot into VISTA.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: Interview with Michael Paolini, IBM Master Inventor on the PS3 Cell Although all arguments and information I brought forward in discussions here at AmigaWorld, IMO nice to read something from IBM specialists themselves: http://www.builderau.com.au/strategy/architecture/soa/Programming-for-Cell/0,339028264,339288702,00.htm A snip: "Are there any differences between developing for a new multi-core environment compared to the traditional multiple CPU environment? What are the consequences of this? Yes, new multi-cores such as Cell/BE have actually been architected from the ground out to be multi-core and many-core.

NV's CUDA (marketing name for Pathscale C complier and middleware for G8x/G9x/GT2x0) GPUs and AMD CAL GPUs are also designed for "many cores".

Quote:

For example Cell/BE has an internal communications ring that provides >300GBps of bandwidth to the cores at the current clock speed. It also has mechanisms for reserving that bandwidth for cores, and communications mechanisms in place. In contrast, most of the traditional multiple core CPU's lack these kinds of mechanisms, and some of them even require communications to hit their front side bus to communicate between cores (which ties up a precious resource).

Intel Core 2 uses a shared L2 cache for communications between its internal CPU cores.
AMD Phenom uses a shared L3 cache for communications between its internal CPU cores. AMD K8 and K10 doesn't have a FSB per se.

AMD RV6x0 (CAL)GPU also uses a ring bus for it's internal "many-cores" communications.

AMD RV7x0 (CAL)GPU uses also uses a crossbar bus for internal "many-cores" communications. This crossbar bus sits between L1 and L2 caches. The bandwidth
is up to 384 GByte/sec between L1 and L2 cache links. RV770 has four L2 cache banks. In another words, it has enough bandwidth to feed 1TFOPs “many cores”.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/video/rv770-part1-p3.html

Quote:

Additionally, newer architectures designed from the ground up to be multi-core and many-core take a further step forward in partitioning what runs where. For example, traditional cores have the OS running across all their cores. This introduces "jitter" in the programs since the OS always wins the battle for cycles or resources against a user program. That jitter can cause inconsistent performance results from run to run, (SNIP)

Funny that mainstream Wintel benchmarks results in consistent performance results (with enough memory).

Running Fold@Home GPU2 (CUDA application) requires minimal CPU intervention e.g. ~10 percent.

Quote:

and make things very difficult to debug.

Depends on the tool chain. e.g. Visual Studio .NET/XNA vs whatever.

Quote:

In addition to great performance at a lower power footprint,

AMD Radeon HD 3850 Mobile and NV Geforce 9700 Mobile are under MXM-III limit i.e. under 35 watts. AMD Radeon HD 3650 Mobile is under MXM-II i.e. 25 watts.

Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2008 at 04:01 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2008 at 03:58 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2008 at 03:52 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2008 at 03:47 PM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@BrianK

Quote:

Clearly the Cell is built differently. DId you see this yet? VISTA on PS3 -- 25 minutes to boot into VISTA.

It's surprising it works at all, Linux hosted on the CellOS, hosting an emulated x86 environment on a single PPU processor (not x86 but PPC). I guess it must be using virtual memory to the extreme, considering there's not that much memory for Linux to work with to run a x86 emulator as a well as a resource hog like Vista.

@Hammer

Quote:

AMD Radeon HD 3850 Mobile and NV Geforce 9700 Mobile are under MXM-III limit i.e. under 35 watts. AMD Radeon HD 3650 Mobile is under MXM-II i.e. 25 watts.

Did you see the Athlon 64 2000+ 1Ghz vs Intel Atom 1.6Ghz? AMD beat the Atom in many performance tests and power usage, pulling in under 8 Watts.

@BrianK
Yes. Link

Last edited by Hammer on 19-Aug-2008 at 09:47 PM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@MikeB

Sony Has Lost More on the PS3 Than it Made on the PS2

Sony has lost more money selling PlayStation 3s than it made selling PlayStation 2s during the entire five years of its peak. So basically, all of the money Sony made on hardware last generation -- it's already spent more to sell the PS3 at a loss so far. Some estimates put that loss at $3 billion... (due to this) Sony will extend the PS3 longer than the PS2 to break even.

Microsoft has lost $ itself of course. The Xbox lost $4B for Microsoft. And likely close to PS3 #s due to $1B for the RRoD.

I said Wii FTW!
I'm on vacation in Las Vegas and after 2 days, like the console race..., I am winning. I'm up almost $500 in 2 days.
HD penetration will have ZERO effect on Wii sales.

@BrianK

Yes, I know. I said from the very beginning Sony has invested incredible amounts of money into the PS3. The years before the PS3 introduction Sony's Gaming division profits already went down significantly due to PS3 R&D.

Just the manufacturing costs, not including marketing, retailer share of their profit regarding retail pricing, shipping, promotions, etc:



July 2007 : Sony responds to a quarters loss in the gaming division:
Sony: Poor PS3 sales mean less financial loss

Oneda said, "Sales of the PS3 have risen but we booked losses due to our strategic decision to price it below the (production) cost. Actually, because the number of units sold was not as high as we hoped, the loss was better than our original expectation".

I always said from a technical point of view the PS3 was always an amazing deal.