PS5 Specs

[Noctua_Boy]

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

But I simply don't think there's really any benefit to a flash cart. In all likelihood, the games are going to be installed onto the system anyway, not run of the Flash Cart. So the main benefit to a flash cart would be faster install time - which is not a bad thing,

Flash Cards Transfer rates have already matched the Slow 5400rpm Mechanical Hard drives insides this consoles. The Hard drive could simply be there for saves , DLCS ,etc... The Game itself could be read directly from the disc.

 

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

Flash Cards Transfer rates have already matched the Slow 5400rpm Mechanical Hard drives insides this consoles. The Hard drive could simply be there for saves , DLCS ,etc... The Game itself could be read directly from the disc.

 

Why would I want that, though?

 

You're telling me that we should go backwards in time, where I have to physically put in a "cartridge", every time I want to play a certain game?

 

That does not sound like progress.

 

Now, for those who do prefer buying physical copies of their games, sure, that might benefit them. But how about for everyone else who buys digital downloads?

 

I mean, just look at PC Users - most of them use Steam, and install their games onto mechanical HDD's anyway.

 

There's also not stopping any console user from buying an SSD, dropping it into a USB 3.0 enclosure, and installing all their games onto that, to get the speed benefits.

[Noctua_Boy]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Why would I want that, though?

 

You're telling me that we should go backwards in time, where I have to physically put in a "cartridge", every time I want to play a certain game?

 

That does not sound like progress.

 

Now, for those who do prefer buying physical copies of their games, sure, that might benefit them. But how about for everyone else who buys digital downloads?

 

I mean, just look at PC Users - most of them use Steam, and install their games onto mechanical HDD's anyway.

 

There's also not stopping any console user from buying an SSD, dropping it into a USB 3.0 enclosure, and installing all their games onto that, to get the speed benefits.

Internet connection/restrictions speeds are not the same worldwide , i cant download more than 100gb a month for example.

This is where physical media still makes sense...flash memory price is getting lower by the year.

[skywake]

30 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Why would I want that, though? You're telling me that we should go backwards in time, where I have to physically put in a "cartridge", every time I want to play a certain game? That does not sound like progress. Now, for those who do prefer buying physical copies of their games, sure, that might benefit them. But how about for everyone else who buys digital downloads?

I tend to agree but this shouldn't really be a discussion about cartridges vs digital distribution or even cartridges vs HDDs. It's more about cartridges vs optical media. Cartridges are and have always been better than discs in these aspects:

- Faster especially in random reads by an order of magnitude

- Lower cost mechanism in the console itself

- Less prone to mechanical failure

- Lower noise and power consumption

- Takes up less physical space

- Can contain other electronics including writable memory, co-processors and extra I/O (not much of an advantage anymore)

 

But they lost ground in the mid 90s because:

1. The cost of ODDs came down enough that they could largely absorb the costs on the console hardware itself

2. The capacity of discs was a couple of orders of magnitude higher than what was possible on cartridges at a reasonable cost

3. People were buying consoles to playback DVDs and then later BluRays

 

1 still holds, 3 is less true in the age of Netflix and 2 is increasingly less true. So the question is of cartridges vs discs is going to change. It's no longer about whether or not we're happy paying more for games on a media that's physically limited in terms of capacity. It's now starting to be more a question of whether or not we're still happy paying a bit extra for the console itself with a mechanism for reading physical media that's slower and less reliable just so we can playback BluRays. If you're going 100% digital distribution you are, if anything, in the group of people who should be pushing for the death of optical media the hardest.

[dalekphalm]

28 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

Internet connection/restrictions speeds are not the same worldwide , i cant download more than 100gb a month for example.

This is where physical media still makes sense...flash memory price is getting lower by the year.

Yes but if we're going to go down that route and use that argument, then what about people who can only download 50 GB a month? Or 20?

 

My point is that if you're gonna jump on the Flash based media train, it damn well better hold the whole game (not counting day one patches, of course). So that means, with modern 4K consoles, a 128 GB flash chip.

 

Obviously devs should do their best to optimize game size, but we should not be artificially hampering ourselves by limiting media size, and forcing a large Download even after you install off the media.

 

So, if you want the PS5/XBOX Two to have Flash Media - that's fine, but if they are going to go down that route, they should do it right, and that means large enough media - and 64GB I don't think will be enough for many AAA titles.

[skywake]

@dalekphalm

You also have to consider the likely capacity of the optical media they'd go with. There doesn't seem like much of a push at all for a mainstream and cheap optical media format after BDXL currently or any desire from consumers for movies on discs larger than UHD BluRay. The PS4/XBOne currently use 50GB discs it's likely that a theoretical PS5 if it was to use optical media would go with 100GB BDXL discs. By then and with the rate that ROM chips have been getting cheaper like clockwork since the 80s 64GB cartridges will be the standard. Mid console cycle the standard size cartridge will be larger than the BDXL discs they'll have locked themselves into at the start. So there won't be much of a capacity advantage

[Noctua_Boy]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes but if we're going to go down that route and use that argument, then what about people who can only download 50 GB a month? Or 20?

 

My point is that if you're gonna jump on the Flash based media train, it damn well better hold the whole game (not counting day one patches, of course). So that means, with modern 4K consoles, a 128 GB flash chip.

 

Obviously devs should do their best to optimize game size, but we should not be artificially hampering ourselves by limiting media size, and forcing a large Download even after you install off the media.

 

So, if you want the PS5/XBOX Two to have Flash Media - that's fine, but if they are going to go down that route, they should do it right, and that means large enough media - and 64GB I don't think will be enough for many AAA titles.

I think they should pursue the flash media path for the reasons mentioned already. Like it was stated before , current consoles use 50GB discs , why would you need more than 64GB? Why do you think we would need a 128GB flash card?

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, Noctua_Boy said:

I think they should pursue the flash media path for the reasons mentioned already. Like it was stated before , current consoles use 50GB discs , why would you need more than 64GB? Why do you think we would need a 128GB flash card?

Yes and how many of these games, even after installing from a 50GB disc, require additional files to be downloaded?

 

For example, Battlefield 1 is a 70.4 GB install on XBOX One (And that's not even enhanced, that's on the One S). Now that's installed size, so the download itself will be smaller, but not a huge amount smaller.

 

Take GTA V on Steam. Now, Steam doesn't seem to list the download size unless you buy it (I don't have steam installed on my laptop so I can't check through the client), but looking online, most people are saying the GTA V download off steam is anywhere between 68GB and 72GB (it probably depended on when they bought the game, which patches were included, etc).

 

You see the point I'm getting at?

 

Game sizes are going to get bigger. To think otherwise is to be naive. It's slowly happened in the past, and I see no reason why that will change. Devs should of course optimize the game files as much as possible, but why limit a next gen console to 64GB media, when we KNOW there are games, right now, that are larger than 64GB?

 

EDIT for clarification: Obviously if a smaller game doesn't need more than, say, 64GB of data, it can ship on smaller media. The same way that hypothetically, a PS4 game could ship on a single layer 25GB Blu-Ray disc.

[Stefan Payne]

On 18.2.2018 at 3:18 AM, dalekphalm said:

You're telling me that we should go backwards in time, where I have to physically put in a "cartridge", every time I want to play a certain game?

You have to put in the optical disc if you have bought the physical version of the game right now.

So where's the difference??

 

And we're talking about the ones who bought the physical version of a game anyway, not Download verision.

 

And then there is such physical Disk bullshit like Dishonored II wich I got for PC in a a store.

It installs around 4Gig from the single layer DVD but the other 25Gig had to be downloaded of the Interwebs. 

 

Now THAT is what I call bullshit. But its also something that's done today...

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

You have to put in the optical disc if you have bought the physical version of the game right now.

So where's the difference??

 

And we're talking about the ones who bought the physical version of a game anyway, not Download verision.

 

And then there is such physical Disk bullshit like Dishonored II wich I got for PC in a a store.

It installs around 4Gig from the single layer DVD but the other 25Gig had to be downloaded of the Interwebs. 

 

Now THAT is what I call bullshit. But its also something that's done today...

I have two words for you:

 

Digital Download

 

The very fact that you need to insert the physical media in, is the very reason why I never bought a single physical disc for my Xbox. All games are purchased digitally.

 

I do agree that including a DVD for a PC game that only has 4GB installed, then the rest is downloaded - that's bullshit too.

 

Also, let's be clear, we're talking about two different things. You said:

Quote

The Game itself could be read directly from the disc.

You're talking about essentially streaming the game off the cartridge. This is not how it works right now. The Blu-ray being in the optical reader is essentially a primitive DRM check. nothing is being read off the disc during gameplay.

 

Furthermore, if NAND becomes cheap enough to have large enough cartridges for games (And since 4K and higher quality are both things that the PS5/XB2 would aim for, most likely 64GB is going to be too small), then it would make more sense to have NAND flash on the console itself - whether this is an actual SSD, or some form of cache.

[Guest]

If the ps5 comes out, then I can finally get a PS4 a d killzpne shadow fall for cheap!!! I’ll finally know what happens after killzone 3 and what was in that box thing 

 

 

sorry but i got into pc gaming.... I don’t have an x one nor ps4. I still play halo 2 on og Xbox...

[Noctua_Boy]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

On 2/18/2018 at 4:44 PM, dalekphalm said:

Game sizes are going to get bigger. To think otherwise is to be naive. It's slowly happened in the past, and I see no reason why that will change. Devs should of course optimize the game files as much as possible, but why limit a next gen console to 64GB media, when we KNOW there are games, right now, that are larger than 64GB?

 

If they want to encourage this "download" only model , they should charge less for downloads than physical copies.

Makes no sense , why am i paying the same for less? I can trade that physical copy , lend it to friends ,etc... 

Most of my games are used , because its all i can afford.

 

 

 

[Noctua_Boy]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I have two words for you:

 

Digital Download

 

The very fact that you need to insert the physical media in, is the very reason why I never bought a single physical disc for my Xbox. All games are purchased digitally.

 

I do agree that including a DVD for a PC game that only has 4GB installed, then the rest is downloaded - that's bullshit too.

 

Also, let's be clear, we're talking about two different things. You said:

You're talking about essentially streaming the game off the cartridge. This is not how it works right now. The Blu-ray being in the optical reader is essentially a primitive DRM check. nothing is being read off the disc during gameplay.

 

Furthermore, if NAND becomes cheap enough to have large enough cartridges for games (And since 4K and higher quality are both things that the PS5/XB2 would aim for, most likely 64GB is going to be too small), then it would make more sense to have NAND flash on the console itself - whether this is an actual SSD, or some form of cache.

You come from a standpoint where everyone in this world has a fast enough connection and they can afford brand new games at the current price point.

It doesn't work like that , many people including myself simply dont possess a decent connection or can afford brand new games.

It makes sense droping the price of the downloadable version to encourage more demand for downloads and thus applying pressure on ISP's to make the price/speeds more competitive.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

28 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

 

If they want to encourage this "download" only model , they should charge less for downloads than physical copies.

Makes no sense , why am i paying the same for less? I can trade that physical copy , lend it to friends ,etc... 

Most of my games are used , because its all i can afford.

 

 

 

I agree personally that digital downloads should be cheaper. Even if you got, say, a 5% discount.

 

But you also have to consider that there are benefits to digital downloads. No disc, meaning you don't have to store the media. No wear and tear. No finding the disc and having to insert it into the console. Also, you can go to a friend's place without bringing your game, and download and play it there.

 

Personally, the benefits of a digital library far outweigh the ability to resell a game.

 

For others, who for reselling games is more valuable to them? Then that's great.

3 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

You come from a standpoint where everyone in this world has a fast enough connection and they can afford brand new games at the current price point.

It doesn't work like that , many people including myself simply dont possess a decent connection or can afford brand new games.

It makes sense droping the price of the downloadable version to encourage more demand for downloads and thus applying pressure on ISP's to make the price/speeds more competitive.

 

 

Incorrect - my argument is actually the opposite. IF someone can't afford (or even get, regardless of income - eg: rural areas) good internet, they should not be handicapped when they buy the physical copy.

And that handicap can come in two ways:

1. Physical media not large enough to hold the whole game - necessitating part of the game being downloaded (not counting patches)

2. Physical media being more expensive for little benefit - driving up the cost of physical games

 

Now, if Microsoft or Sony or some other company comes out and proves that NAND has evolved to a point where the BOM bulk costs of shipping physical games on Flash based media (Whether that's a proprietary cartridge, or whether it's a glorified SD Card, like the Nintendo Switch uses), can compete with the physical cost of mass Blu-Ray disc stamping - then we have a different discussion.

 

Blu-Ray media is pretty simple. Engineering and R&D to design it was not, but actually manufacturing it is very simple - not much different from, say, CD's of days gone by. I found an article from a few years ago that stated the BOM cost of stamping a Blu-Ray was around $2. That's pretty low. Can a 64GB or 128GB NAND SD Card or Flash Cartridge compete with that?

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree personally that digital downloads should be cheaper. Even if you got, say, a 5% discount.

I don't think it would make much sense for digital games to be cheaper. There is extremely robust competition for physical game sales, at least in the US. Brick and mortar stores will offer loss leaders a lot of the time to get you in to the store. For example, at Best Buy they put a few games at a time up for Gamers Club Unocked members to be loss leaders if you pre-order. GCU membership only costs $30 for two years and these preorders are $38 plus tax. And they're not crap games either. Last time I checked it was the blockbusters like Madden, FIFA, Super Mario Odyssey, COD WW II, Wolfenstein II, etc. Even without pre-order you can buy $60 games for $48, which is what these stores pay for the game according to Michael Pachter. Gamestop discounts games below price all the time, I imagine to get you in there to check their used games, used consoles, toys, and rewards program. But you're not going to see Sony doing that. Their loss leader is sometimes the console itself. The game sales are what drives all their profit. With no competition in digital and with Sony and Microsoft trying to get the hardware into as many users' hands as cheaply as possible you would never logically expect them to take as many cuts in price that brick and mortars selling physical do.

[dalekphalm]

52 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I don't think it would make much sense for digital games to be cheaper. There is extremely robust competition for physical game sales, at least in the US. Brick and mortar stores will offer loss leaders a lot of the time to get you in to the store. For example, at Best Buy they put a few games at a time up for Gamers Club Unocked members to be loss leaders if you pre-order. GCU membership only costs $30 for two years and these preorders are $38 plus tax. And they're not crap games either. Last time I checked it was the blockbusters like Madden, FIFA, Super Mario Odyssey, COD WW II, Wolfenstein II, etc. Even without pre-order you can buy $60 games for $48, which is what these stores pay for the game according to Michael Pachter. Gamestop discounts games below price all the time, I imagine to get you in there to check their used games, used consoles, toys, and rewards program. But you're not going to see Sony doing that. Their loss leader is sometimes the console itself. The game sales are what drives all their profit. With no competition in digital and with Sony and Microsoft trying to get the hardware into as many users' hands as cheaply as possible you would never logically expect them to take as many cuts in price that brick and mortars selling physical do.

I did not say it would make business sense for them to do it. I think it would benefit the consumer, at the expense of Microsoft or Sony. 

 

Anyway, I actually don’t even have a problem with digital not being cheaper. The benefits of digital to me are better than physical. 

 

Plus you get frequent online sales, and if you’re a PSN/XBL Gold subscriber, you get additional sales, and free games. 

[Stefan Payne]

Yes and that's where my idea to just put the 'normal resolution' textures on the Cart and make the "high quality Textures" be a free DLC you can DL if you want to.

 

That has been done before!!
Shadow of Mordor on Steam has a DLC you can choose...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/311670/Middleearth_Shadow_of_Mordor__HD_Content/

 

For example...

And Shadow of Mordor is already 50GB large...

 

[Noctua_Boy]

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree personally that digital downloads should be cheaper. Even if you got, say, a 5% discount.

 

But you also have to consider that there are benefits to digital downloads. No disc, meaning you don't have to store the media. No wear and tear. No finding the disc and having to insert it into the console. Also, you can go to a friend's place without bringing your game, and download and play it there.

 

Personally, the benefits of a digital library far outweigh the ability to resell a game.

 

For others, who for reselling games is more valuable to them? Then that's great.

Incorrect - my argument is actually the opposite. IF someone can't afford (or even get, regardless of income - eg: rural areas) good internet, they should not be handicapped when they buy the physical copy.

And that handicap can come in two ways:

1. Physical media not large enough to hold the whole game - necessitating part of the game being downloaded (not counting patches)

2. Physical media being more expensive for little benefit - driving up the cost of physical games

 

Now, if Microsoft or Sony or some other company comes out and proves that NAND has evolved to a point where the BOM bulk costs of shipping physical games on Flash based media (Whether that's a proprietary cartridge, or whether it's a glorified SD Card, like the Nintendo Switch uses), can compete with the physical cost of mass Blu-Ray disc stamping - then we have a different discussion.

 

Blu-Ray media is pretty simple. Engineering and R&D to design it was not, but actually manufacturing it is very simple - not much different from, say, CD's of days gone by. I found an article from a few years ago that stated the BOM cost of stamping a Blu-Ray was around $2. That's pretty low. Can a 64GB or 128GB NAND SD Card or Flash Cartridge compete with that?

The 50GB Blu Rays of today are not always enough to hold all the data , so what would be the problem in transitioning to 64GB Flash card? The alternative is the 100GB Blu ray discs , but how much these cost?

The Goal is for the the games to be read straight from the cards and save Hard drive Space , Im aware the cost of flash memory is higher than discs , but the advantages are enticing.

I really hope they explore this possibility.

 

 

[Noctua_Boy]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I don't think it would make much sense for digital games to be cheaper. There is extremely robust competition for physical game sales, at least in the US. Brick and mortar stores will offer loss leaders a lot of the time to get you in to the store. For example, at Best Buy they put a few games at a time up for Gamers Club Unocked members to be loss leaders if you pre-order. GCU membership only costs $30 for two years and these preorders are $38 plus tax. And they're not crap games either. Last time I checked it was the blockbusters like Madden, FIFA, Super Mario Odyssey, COD WW II, Wolfenstein II, etc. Even without pre-order you can buy $60 games for $48, which is what these stores pay for the game according to Michael Pachter. Gamestop discounts games below price all the time, I imagine to get you in there to check their used games, used consoles, toys, and rewards program. But you're not going to see Sony doing that. Their loss leader is sometimes the console itself. The game sales are what drives all their profit. With no competition in digital and with Sony and Microsoft trying to get the hardware into as many users' hands as cheaply as possible you would never logically expect them to take as many cuts in price that brick and mortars selling physical do.

All i want is the "x" amount discount associated with the cost of manufacturing and shipping that game to the stores. Even if its only $2 , it would help. 

The used game market still a big reason why many people buy consoles , you can invest $399 on a system and then buy used games at half price or less. Sometimes me and my friends swap games and save money this way too.

Online only is not something that fits my budget.

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, Noctua_Boy said:

The 50GB Blu Rays of today are not always enough to hold all the data , so what would be the problem in transitioning to 64GB Flash card? The alternative is the 100GB Blu ray discs , but how much these cost?

The Goal is for the the games to be read straight from the cards and save Hard drive Space , Im aware the cost of flash memory is higher than discs , but the advantages are enticing.

I really hope they explore this possibility.

 

 

That's kind of my point. I suspect that a 100GB Blu-Ray disc is probably cheaper to mass produce, compared to a larger flash media based cartridge.

 

Remember, we're not talking retail pricing here for a BD-R or BD-RW. Mass producing a 100GB Blu-Ray disc isn't significantly different from the way you mass produce a music CD - they're stamped in a factory. The materials are a bit different, and likely marginally more expensive, but the question would be how much more - and whether that would even be noticeable on a mass produced scale.

 

With Flash Media, we pay much closer to the BOM cost, because there's already huge mass production, and lots of competition. However, I imagine very few people buy 100GB BD-R's, which is why they still cost a lot. And I just checked on Best Buy, the prices have come down a little - you can get a 10 pack for $117.95 CAD - which is about $11 per disc. And that's retail, not bulk cost.

 

Yes there certainly are interesting possibilities with a cartridge based system, but I would actually prefer an SD Card, straight up, over a proprietary cartridge. And as long as it still played CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray's of course.

6 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes and that's where my idea to just put the 'normal resolution' textures on the Cart and make the "high quality Textures" be a free DLC you can DL if you want to.

 

That has been done before!!
Shadow of Mordor on Steam has a DLC you can choose...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/311670/Middleearth_Shadow_of_Mordor__HD_Content/

 

For example...

And Shadow of Mordor is already 50GB large...

 

And I think that's a bad idea, for those who have bad internet. Why not just keep those high quality textures on the physical media?

[kittycannon]

On 2/8/2018 at 11:08 AM, QuantumBit said:

Im sorry all I can think is of those really old predictions

I dont know, everything the ps4 has right now seems good enough, I mean obviously the specs are important but IMO what else could you ask for.

I thought the PS4 was gonna look like this lol

 

That controller looks similar to those fake project NX concepts that were floating around

[ImpulseRez]

On 20/02/2018 at 12:38 AM, Noctua_Boy said:

 

If they want to encourage this "download" only model , they should charge less for downloads than physical copies.

Makes no sense , why am i paying the same for less? I can trade that physical copy , lend it to friends ,etc... 

Most of my games are used , because its all i can afford.

 

 

 

What is this, 2007? This 'download only model' has been the primary distribution system of PC games for years (does the name 'Steam' mean anything to you..?).

 

The idea of going back to cartridges won't happen, as they cost an order of magnitude more to manufacture and distribute.

 

Optical discs cost pennies to manufacturer, whereas the costs of flash cartridges is in the 'dollars' range. Downloads are even  cheaper still, and this is the main reason that platforms like Steam have been pushed by publishers.

[Noctua_Boy]

11 hours ago, ImpulseRez said:

What is this, 2007? This 'download only model' has been the primary distribution system of PC games for years (does the name 'Steam' mean anything to you..?).

 

The idea of going back to cartridges won't happen, as they cost an order of magnitude more to manufacture and distribute.

 

Optical discs cost pennies to manufacturer, whereas the costs of flash cartridges is in the 'dollars' range. Downloads are even  cheaper still, and this is the main reason that platforms like Steam have been pushed by publishers.

Thanks for obvious info Sherlock.

Physical copies make them alot of money and still on demand , hence you still see it being released. Theres tons of people that stick to console gaming because its more affordable (used games , lending,renting , etc...), take physical away and they wont have has many consoles sales as before. (less consoles , less money from licensing , less money from online subscriptions)

PC games on stream tend to be cheaper and theres is loads of discounts and what not , but it will never be as cheap as a used game or you asking your friend to lend it to you.

 

Yh i know downloads are cheaper ,its an image on a server , there is no manufacturing or distribution costs , just the cost of maintaining the server and the ISP connection itself , which would be insignificant per unit compared to shipping a physical copy.

They dont sell the downloads cheaper , its the same retail recommended price as the full game , this policies are evangeligized by Sony , Microsoft and Nintendo , yes Nintendo , where games are shipped on a flash card.

 

Flash Memory has come down in price alot . It Would be great not to have your Hard drive full of game data , constant install times ...it would be nice to play straight from the flash card and leave the hard drive for DLCs. saves , etc...

No disc drive to fail , smaller console , etc... Even it its between cents and $2 or $3 , Its something they can think about

I wouldn't mind paying a few more dollars for the benefits of a cart , hence why im asking peoples opinions.

Belive it or not , Sony has people employed to search the web for opinions.

 

Negative nellys like yourself dont make the world go round , if what up to you we would still be stuck on 2d gaming.

"3D Graphics? that technology from the military flying simulators? it costs millions of dollars , it would never make it to consoles" ... Somehow it did.

 

[Totallycasual]

On 2/20/2018 at 6:01 AM, dalekphalm said:

The very fact that you need to insert the physical media in, is the very reason why I never bought a single physical disc for my Xbox. All games are purchased digitally.

 

As much as it annoys me that i have to put a different disc in depending on what game im playing i still like to buy them, i like that every 6-12 months i can take the games that i don't feel have much replayability down and trade them in.  I guess im a little old fashioned in that i miss the days of buying games and actually owning them, i could give it to a friend or sell it etc it was mine to do with as i pleased. 

[Stefan Payne]

On 20.2.2018 at 3:15 PM, dalekphalm said:

And I think that's a bad idea, for those who have bad internet. Why not just keep those high quality textures on the physical media?

Do you think that people living in those shitholes that have bad Internet connection have the money to buy a 4k TV??

I doubt that. If you have the money for that, you usually also have the money to move to a location with good internet connection.

 

Also those Carts should be for people who like the game in physical form/collectors and those with shitty Internet connection.

 

Where I live, I am lucky with 25MBit down.

Many people here are not so lucky and only have something between 3 and 6MBit down, maybe even 16MBit...