![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
360 HD-DVD pics
- Thread starter Firewall
- Start date
psychoace said:ok but you got to understand the future potential of blu ray without thinking of it as just a movie player. 25gig's of space for a developer to work with instead of 9gigs like a dvd. Developers are already commenting how they are using 2 to even 3 dvd's for certain games on the xbox 360 while it would still only take one blu ray disc. So to make this standard for games would be nice. Yes it cost a lot now but eventually the price will go down and more and more people will buy the system when it is 300 dollars or so. Sony is really out in nowhere land thinking they are going to sell 5 million units at launch but how many units they sell at launch is not as important as the product. Anyhow who knows maybe that guess will push them to produce more systems before the holidays so we then we wont have the same problem Microsoft had with lack of stock of the xbox 360 during launch and the first few months. So it's Sony's decision to put in Blu Ray in more then a movie playback criteria. It's multipurpose unit that is left absent could hold back the system's full potential all together.
Devs will always be able to fill space if they want to. The question is how much of a tradeoff in quality of content will DVD provide vs Blu-Ray. So far the answer seems to be not much if any. Time will tell. But honestly, is having a game on more than 1 DVD that big a deal? We dealt with several CD size games on PS1 for years (4 cd's I think was the most any game took up), and RE4 on gamecube didn't bother me 1 bit by being on 2 discs. While it would be nice to have all games on a single disc, the convenience IMO is not a system seller. Consider that most games that use 2 or more discs only require 1 swap for the length of the game. In RE4 that was 15 hours in for me. Not a big deal.
JethroXP said:Ummm...Maybe I missed something. Can you point me to any Xbox360 game that uses more than one DVD? I don't think I've ever even seen a PC game that uses more than one DVD.
Of course he can't. The point is that dev's are saying that some games in the works may require more space than DVD can provide. I would wager that this will only affect 3-4 AA -AAA titles throughout the life of the system. Gamecube managed with 1.5GB for 4 years, and PS2/Xbox didn't use more than 1 DVD either. I have faith that devs will be able to squeeze most games on 1DVD without sacrificing content. High resolution textures will not take up much more space than they do on good X360 games now because of the ram limitations that both systems have.
JethroXP said:Ummm...Maybe I missed something. Can you point me to any Xbox360 game that uses more than one DVD? I don't think I've ever even seen a PC game that uses more than one DVD.
Blu Ray ...
For some reason people like to hold onto the belief that the DVD9 format is more than enough.
Here are some quotes from industry professionals that say differently.
(Borrowed from other people on this forum who put together the quotes)
"The Darkness" developer:
"The 360 is a fantastic machine. I really really like it. The only thing, you know, that is going to cause trouble is the amount of storage space available on a DVD... thats really a problem."
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=446554
Team Ninja
"The infamous Team Ninja front man has a thing or two to say about Microsoft's decision to assign standard DVD format to the Xbox 360. Limiting his development team to a measly 9GB does not sit well with Itagaki, especially when Team Ninja is looking to include any number of (MS-coveted) HD cut scenes. It's ironic that Microsoft has been the most outspoken about the "HD era", but is the least prepared for it However, don't be surprised to see an Xbox 360.1 springing up in a year or two, complete with HD-DVD drive."
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/07/05/itagaki-sounds-off-on-xbox-360-limitations/
"The developer of "Enchant Arms,"
"The developer of "Enchant Arms," an upcoming role-playing game in Japan, told Gamespot.com last year it was hoping to be able to fit the game on two discs, but admitted "that's even looking grim." Any old school gamer can tell you that switching discs while playing is not a fun experience."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/05/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm
Vivendi Universal
"The technical requirement for game development today demands more advanced optical-disc technologies," said Michael Heilmann, chief technology officer for Vivendi Universal.
"Blu-ray offers the capacity, performance and high-speed internet connectivity to take us into the future of gaming."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4153813.stm
EA
"EA, a leading games developer and publisher, added that the delivery of high-definition games of the future was vital and Blu-ray had the capacity, functionality and interactivity needed for the kinds of projects it was planning."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4153813.stm
That's why Blu-Ray is necessary. DVD-9s are not enough anymore. It is not a gimmick. It's quality.
taken from http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&message.id=403084
So 5 developers make a few comments and DVDs are no longer sufficent? Sorry but I don't buy that any game in the next 2 years (at least) will need more than 1 DVD. Looking at PC's we have yet to see any games that take over 9GB after installing (save for maybe wow or some other mmo that downloads content to you). I'm sure developers like team ninja would love to have that much room to play with but I don't think it would make much a difference in what they put out.
um it's probably the biggest 4 developers and they arn't thinking the xbox 360 is a 2 year system. It's 5 years minimum and by then they will need that extra space. Hell most xbox 360 games now take up 7gig's or so. So think about 3 years from now. It's nice to know sony ps3 can handle high def cut scenes without having to switch discs
k0n said:lets see some of you anti-blu-ray folks post up articles of game developers point out valid reasons why they are not using the format
Lol, how about the fact that the format isn't available yet, and the only platform any developers are using it on is PS3. Believe it or not, the gaming world is a lot bigger than just Sony.
And it's not so much that I or anyone else is anti-Blu-ray, it's that we feel the technology is to new and far from proven to be a required $200 expense on the PS3. In principle it's great, HD movies and much larger storage space for games, but the price premium it adds to the console is really rediculous for dubious return. It would probably make a lot more sense two years from now.
k0n said:blu-ray provides nothing but pure benefits for game developers.
-thwarts piracy (for now that is)
-larger space
lets see some of you anti-blu-ray folks post up articles of game developers point out valid reasons why they are not using the format
Pros of blu ray to consumer:
-.....
Cons of blu ray to consumer:
-Cost
I am a consumer. You may be a developer in which case you might care about the anti piracy and larger space. I don't care about the space since I know developers can use a second disk should they need it. Hope that clears things up a bit.
deathstar550
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 253
Data density on Blu-ray discs is a good deal higher than the data density on a DVD-9, meaning the Blu-ray disc doesn't have to spin anywhere near as quickly as the DVD-9 to transfer the same amount of data. Compared to the DVD drives, the Blu-ray drive should be remarkably quiet. That's at least one bonus for the consumer.
deathstar550 said:Data density on Blu-ray discs is a good deal higher than the data density on a DVD-9, meaning the Blu-ray disc doesn't have to spin anywhere near as quickly as the DVD-9 to transfer the same amount of data. Compared to the DVD drives, the Blu-ray drive should be remarkably quiet. That's at least one bonus for the consumer.
How so? Just because it doesn't spin as much does not mean it will be quieter. Plus are any of the consoles today very loud when it comes to the optical drive?
Data density on Blu-ray discs is a good deal higher than the data density on a DVD-9, meaning the Blu-ray disc doesn't have to spin anywhere near as quickly as the DVD-9 to transfer the same amount of data. Compared to the DVD drives, the Blu-ray drive should be remarkably quiet. That's at least one bonus for the consumer.
i had forgotten about that, but since my normal dvd players don't produce enough noise for me to hear over a game/movie, or for the matter really even notice it at all in day to day life its not really that big of a benefit to me
the data density on the blue ray disk means the lazer doesn't have to move as far to pick up anther block of data, technicaly what would take one rotation on the DVD to obtain would take in less then one rotation on the Blu-Ray (this is true for HD DVD) and would have less peak spins as normal DVD players do today, the true benefit of this is the life of the player, sometimes the motor in drives can burn out in under a year, with this you can have faulty motors last alot longer or closer to the more prime motors
blu-ray provides nothing but pure benefits for game developers.
-thwarts piracy (for now that is)
-larger space
lets see some of you anti-blu-ray folks post up articles of game developers point out valid reasons why they are not using the format
right now BR doesn't do jack and shit against piracy, its not even out, the only way it could protect against it is if a company never were to release a recordable blu-ray format, not to mention you have great backwards compatability with old DVD formats
larger space isn't at all a benefit right now, or in the future, i'd like to see this become a real tangable benefit to us, and how having multiple disks adds to development time
theres plenty of developers not using the format, same with HD DVD, and when they do its not like games are going to win the format war at all, it is not the messiah to gaming consoles to have a disk that can hold a shit ton of data, theres no point if it loads in the same time as a DVD, all it means is when you buy it your jewel case is slightly smaller then the ones with multiple CD's in it
My understanding was that Blu Ray is slower than the X360's DVD drives as stated by Microsoft last week. However, even Oblivion fits on a single DVD. Seriously, is having to swap DVD's really that inconvenient? It's not going to kill you to have to flip in a new DVD every 4-8 hours of gameplay, and we've already been doing it for a long time with previous consoles. When you look at the fact that the cost of developing a game has skyrocketed in recent years, developers arn't going to fill up a 25gb disc for the sake of filling it up.
junehhan said:My understanding was that Blu Ray is slower than the X360's DVD drives as stated by Microsoft last week. However, even Oblivion fits on a single DVD. Seriously, is having to swap DVD's really that inconvenient? It's not going to kill you to have to flip in a new DVD every 4-8 hours of gameplay, and we've already been doing it for a long time with previous consoles. When you look at the fact that the cost of developing a game has skyrocketed in recent years, developers arn't going to fill up a 25gb disc for the sake of filling it up.
How about FPS with higher texture res or maybe more variety in textures or a lot more levels? FPS arn't linier when they are played in multiplayer. So it's impossible for any system to load textures from a model on the first dvd and then load some textures from a building on the second dvd and still work. It would be great if Microsoft decided to make the hard drive manditory but that is not how it happened. Dual cd's/dvd's work in games like Final Fantasy because it's all running through a track so you can plan ahead in how you will distribute the textures and models across the cd's. Also developers are limited to 9 gig's they arn't going to fill it up for the sake of filling it up they are finally going to be free of that limitation. Also for the rush developers it means less worry about compression since you have a whole lot more space. Which also means quicker load times (less cpu being used for decompression although yes it's more mb/s to send) less worry about compression technology causing bugs thus quicker release dates. Tell my one advantage dvd has over blu ray other then cost? Also remember initial first gen games for ps3 are going to be dvd's so don't think ps3 games are going to be 70-80 bucks or something. It's most likely going to be 60 like the xbox 360 with dvd's and then a few months later will be 60 bucks with blu ray. Xbox 360 in 5 years will be running off a technology created 15-20 years ago. Ps2 used dvd's which wern't popular at the time and it suceeded so I think the Ps3 will do the same.
Exactly how I feel. If you have a game that's going to span 3 DVDs, there's a good chance your developers just blow or are being frivolous. I could possibly see some very, very epic RPGs spanning 2 DVDs, maybe.kumquat said:Call of Duty 2 fits on about 3.5GB of DVD.
Oblivion fits on about 4.2GB of DVD.
Any developer who needs more than 9GB of space needs to get their crap together.
Syphon Filter
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,597
Vivendi Universal
"Blu-ray offers the capacity, performance and high-speed internet connectivity to take us into the future of gaming."
Tell me, how exactly does Blu-Ray offer high-speed internet connectivity?
Clearly this guy is an asshat.
As for the argument that DVD9 is not large enough to accommodate HD games, there maybe some truth to that. If MS wants HD cut scenes (lets say 720p for arguments sake) Then you could potentially fill that space up quite quickly. Especially if the game relys on cut-scenes a fair bit (ie between levels, during levels etc).
To me, its not a massive inconvenience to swap discs, it would be nice to not have to, but if you do its not going to kill anyone. I dont think MS would release a hardware refresh as it would alienate a lot of early adopters. If for example they did release a 360 with a HD-DVD drive built in which could be used for games and certain devs took to using that then people would be really pissed off and I dont think they would want to do that. 9 gig should be plenty of space to do most things to be honest when it comes to creating a game engine and levels. The only real limitation I see, as mentioned, is that if all cutscenes and intro movies etc go HD and have a reasonable length/total running time then you could see that space filling up rapidly.
How large was the FEAR install on PC anyone?? I would guess at around 4gig or so? So you have over double that to work with on the 360 media...personally I dont see a big problem. MS would have a bigger problem of pissing of current 360 owners if they did decide to go and use HD-DVD for games. As long as they dont do that then I dont think we have anything to worry about.
For all you guys bitching about having to get up and change a disc, you really do need to get a grip (and probably some excercise too!!) .
HD video cut-scenes would be a dumb, complete waste of space.. just like DVD video cut scenes would be a dumb, complete waste of space. Particularly with the impressive level of graphics these machines can generate.
Cut-scenes based on in-game rendering would use very little space as well as be more seamless and less stupid looking. Just like they've been doing for years.
BTW, F.E.A.R. was just over 4.1GB. Not even all that close to filling a single-layer DVD.
Cut-scenes based on in-game rendering would use very little space as well as be more seamless and less stupid looking. Just like they've been doing for years.
BTW, F.E.A.R. was just over 4.1GB. Not even all that close to filling a single-layer DVD.
StorageJoe
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 460
Doesn't Final Fanasy require the harddrive? Did it alienate everyone who bought the core? No, if they wanted to play, they went out and bought the HDD (although most already had it). Same will be true of any other add on.
There are people that are going to buy the $600 PS3 just to play MGS4. I think it's reasonable to assume that that person would pay $200 for an HD-DVD drive to play any must have killer app that required it. The 360 can adapt if it needs to, but for the most part, it doesn't. Any developer that needs more than 9GB is sloppy.
There are people that are going to buy the $600 PS3 just to play MGS4. I think it's reasonable to assume that that person would pay $200 for an HD-DVD drive to play any must have killer app that required it. The 360 can adapt if it needs to, but for the most part, it doesn't. Any developer that needs more than 9GB is sloppy.
heatsinker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2001
- Messages
- 5,479
kumquat said:HD video cut-scenes would be a dumb, complete waste of space.. just like DVD video cut scenes would be a dumb, complete waste of space. Particularly with the impressive level of graphics these machines can generate.
Cut-scenes based on in-game rendering would use very little space as well as be more seamless and less stupid looking. Just like they've been doing for years.
BTW, F.E.A.R. was just over 4.1GB. Not even all that close to filling a single-layer DVD.
You could also finish it in less than 15 hours. PC games really aren't the type to worry about space constrictions; what with massive hard drives and all. It's been that way for over a decade.
kumquat said:HD video cut-scenes would be a dumb, complete waste of space.. just like DVD video cut scenes would be a dumb, complete waste of space. Particularly with the impressive level of graphics these machines can generate.
Cut-scenes based on in-game rendering would use very little space as well as be more seamless and less stupid looking. Just like they've been doing for years.
BTW, F.E.A.R. was just over 4.1GB. Not even all that close to filling a single-layer DVD.
RTS games use a lot of cutscene's that arn't in game because the engine dosn't have the quality and isn't ment for telling stories because the of the size and the function of the characters on screen. This holds true for games by Blizzard, Dungion Siege 2 and Act of War, Command and Conqour, ect. These games can only do cut scenes out of engine and they usually are 100x better quality then what can be done in engine anyhow. So why should developers be limited to dvd res when they can go with the ps3 and have hd video content for all there video. This is supposed to be next gen and yet they are already being restricted.
Doesn't Final Fanasy require the harddrive? Did it alienate everyone who bought the core? No, if they wanted to play, they went out and bought the HDD (although most already had it). Same will be true of any other add on
Didn't this game flop though? Maybe because most people have core systems and don't want to spend 100 dollars more in order to play a 60 dollar game. That game is now a $160 game that cost $20 so not having a hdd standard was a dumb decision
Because RTS games are sooo popular on consoles...psychoace said:RTS games use a lot of cutscene's that arn't in game because the engine dosn't have the quality and isn't ment for telling stories because the of the size and the function of the characters on screen. This holds true for games by Blizzard, Dungion Siege 2 and Act of War, Command and Conqour, ect. These games can only do cut scenes out of engine and they usually are 100x better quality then what can be done in engine anyhow. So why should developers be limited to dvd res when they can go with the ps3 and have hd video content for all there video. This is supposed to be next gen and yet they are already being restricted.
Didn't the new Lord of the Rings game get a lot of praise? It's an RTS and supposidly very playable. Maybe it's a sign rts can be playable on consoles and it might start a trend. Just like how most people though FPS is impossible on consoles.
psychoace said:How about FPS with higher texture res or maybe more variety in textures or a lot more levels? FPS arn't linier when they are played in multiplayer. So it's impossible for any system to load textures from a model on the first dvd and then load some textures from a building on the second dvd and still work.
This class, is what we call a "Straw Man" argument. First you setup a rediculous situation, such as the need to load textures that span multiple disks, and then use that situation as a reason for why the technology won't work. This is hardcore !!!!!!ism you are witnessing. Entertaining to watch, but also a little sad.
I never said anything wont work I said blu ray will make the situation easier and also give less restriction to developers. With the extra file space they don't have to worry about file size. Big games like Gran Tourismo 4 and Project Gotham Racing 3 definetly need the space as well since they have hundreds of high detailed cars and miles of road with lots of detail in them. I believe PGR3 was almost the entire dvd9 disc they probably had to comprimise on quality of some textures of removal of certain content thus restricting the overall game. Then think most xbox games only used 2-3 gig's but near the end there were more games teetering on the dual layer break and some even surpassing it. When you think about 2nd and 3rd generation games that are going to be running higher res textures and have even bigger scenes you got to think that will push the limit of the space provided on a single dual layer dvd. You will have to be pretty daft to not think that in 3 years they will be beyond the limit of that format.
I also don't see how you can think FPS being over 1 dvd is rediculous. To think Gears of War is going to be under 4gig's is insane. Then think 3 years down the road when they really got all the tweaks down on the xbox 360 and can use larger textures and have more detailed models they will need more space. So it's either lower quality of the game or spread it out between two disc's . How do you think an fps will run on 2 disc's without a hard drive?
I also don't see how you can think FPS being over 1 dvd is rediculous. To think Gears of War is going to be under 4gig's is insane. Then think 3 years down the road when they really got all the tweaks down on the xbox 360 and can use larger textures and have more detailed models they will need more space. So it's either lower quality of the game or spread it out between two disc's . How do you think an fps will run on 2 disc's without a hard drive?
psychoace said:Didn't the new Lord of the Rings game get a lot of praise? It's an RTS and supposidly very playable. Maybe it's a sign rts can be playable on consoles and it might start a trend. Just like how most people though FPS is impossible on consoles.
maybe with wireless controllers we can have wireless mice and keyboards, and then the RTS barrier will be breached much more easily.
So what the developers will have to do, is instead of including ZOMG 40214012041209 different cars, 99% of which are completely useless, they might have to limit it to the cars that people will actually use. Quite a novel concept - trimming the fat. Personally, i don't find it very "cool" to unlock some worthless car I'll never use. If multi-platform racing games have to trim the fat on the 360 version and remove the worthless cars that will just make me want to buy the 360 version even more.psychoace said:I never said anything wont work I said blu ray will make the situation easier and also give less restriction to developers. With the extra file space they don't have to worry about file size. Big games like Gran Tourismo 4 and Project Gotham Racing 3 definetly need the space as well since they have hundreds of high detailed cars and miles of road with lots of detail in them. I believe PGR3 was almost the entire dvd9 disc they probably had to comprimise on quality of some textures of removal of certain content thus restricting the overall game. Then think most xbox games only used 2-3 gig's but near the end there were more games teetering on the dual layer break and some even surpassing it. When you think about 2nd and 3rd generation games that are going to be running higher res textures and have even bigger scenes you got to think that will push the limit of the space provided on a single dual layer dvd. You will have to be pretty daft to not think that in 3 years they will be beyond the limit of that format.
Current FPSs don't come anywhere close to the 9GB limit. For example, Q4 is 2.41 GB, Doom 3 is 1.46 GB, and BF2 is 1.97 GB. I don't have CoD 2 installed on this computer, but I think it was around 3 GB. Developers have PLENTY of room left on DVDs for higher res textures and more detailed models. They can barely fill 1/3 of a DVD now.psychoace said:I also don't see how you can think FPS being over 1 dvd is rediculous. To think Gears of War is going to be under 4gig's is insane. Then think 3 years down the road when they really got all the tweaks down on the xbox 360 and can use larger textures and have more detailed models they will need more space. So it's either lower quality of the game or spread it out between two disc's . How do you think an fps will run on 2 disc's without a hard drive?
Oblivion is a 4gig install and the ground textures don't look that great. The whole game was actually lowered in quality (because of general conseption that most people wouldn't have the cpu power to run it at full quality which is true) so the size would have been more. Also I believe pc games are more optimized for disk space because most people don't want the extra heft of a game taking up space on there hard drive. So they compress it more but because you are running a faster cpu then the xbox (but not xbox 360) and so your load times are about the same. So it's a tough comparison. Also find out the size of most xbox 360 games and most of them shatter the 4.7gig barrier.
psychoace said:RTS games use a lot of cutscene's that arn't in game because the engine dosn't have the quality and isn't ment for telling stories because the of the size and the function of the characters on screen. This holds true for games by Blizzard, Dungion Siege 2 and Act of War, Command and Conqour, ect. These games can only do cut scenes out of engine and they usually are 100x better quality then what can be done in engine anyhow. So why should developers be limited to dvd res when they can go with the ps3 and have hd video content for all there video. This is supposed to be next gen and yet they are already being restricted.
Didn't this game flop though? Maybe because most people have core systems and don't want to spend 100 dollars more in order to play a 60 dollar game. That game is now a $160 game that cost $20 so not having a hdd standard was a dumb decision
I'd like to know where you pulled that data from, that most people have a core.
As for developers liking the extra space, let's see how game publishers feel about having to deal with the extra cost of more expensive media.
junehhan said:I'd like to know where you pulled that data from, that most people have a core.
As for developers liking the extra space, let's see how game publishers feel about having to deal with the extra cost of more expensive media.
Trying to argue facts against a "belief system" is a no win situation.
killedaway
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 314
that's the most silly and baseless claim i've heard in AGES. thanks. PC gamers are considered to be some of the [H]ardest of the hardcore gamers. we often upgrade in order to play a single game. it's generally accepted that the type of gamer who's interested in games like Oblivion pays a good amount of money to play them, and maintains the required hardware. that means HDD space, and lots of it. if Bethesda cut back on texture size, it had NOTHING to do with the size of anyone's hard drive. that's absurd.psychoace said:Oblivion is a 4gig install and the ground textures don't look that great. The whole game was actually lowered in quality (because of general conseption that most people wouldn't have the cpu power to run it at full quality which is true) so the size would have been more. Also I believe pc games are more optimized for disk space because most people don't want the extra heft of a game taking up space on there hard drive.
you're basing your support of Blu-Ray on the desire to have your games on one disc? are you prone to losing things? many games in the past have spanned several discs, and i don't recall anyone balking at the idea of having to swap literally hours into the game. maybe there's 7 feet of lava between you and your TV set, and each journey to the console involves scalding or some other peril...? in any event, you're repeatedly dodging something that many here have posted repeatedly, which is that in spite of what 5-6 devs have to say regarding disc space, the fact is, most gamers don't care about swapping discs. it's a non-issue.psychoace said:So they compress it more but because you are running a faster cpu then the xbox (but not xbox 360) and so your load times are about the same. So it's a tough comparison. Also find out the size of most xbox 360 games and most of them shatter the 4.7gig barrier.
you mean, similar to the PS2 which you were praising earlier? the PS2 required the HDD in order to play FFXI. the other things you can do with that drive, i can practically count on one hand. Sony shares the blame in this regard.psychoace said:[Regarding Final Fantasy XI] Didn't this game flop though? Maybe because most people have core systems and don't want to spend 100 dollars more in order to play a 60 dollar game. That game is now a $160 game that cost $20 so not having a hdd standard was a dumb decision
killedaway said:you mean, similar to the PS2 which you were praising earlier? the PS2 required the HDD in order to play FFXI. the other things you can do with that drive, i can practically count on one hand. Sony shares the blame in this regard.
i think that was his point. lack of making it standard option means it will have a tough time as a peripheral (as far as games using it to its fullest). on any console. or maybe im just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
killedaway said:you're basing your support of Blu-Ray on the desire to have your games on one disc? are you prone to losing things? many games in the past have spanned several discs, and i don't recall anyone balking at the idea of having to swap literally hours into the game. maybe there's 7 feet of lava between you and your TV set, and each journey to the console involves scalding or some other peril...? in any event, you're repeatedly dodging something that many here have posted repeatedly, which is that in spite of what 5-6 devs have to say regarding disc space, the fact is, most gamers don't care about swapping discs. it's a non-issue.
No as I keep on saying I base my Blu-Ray support because it allows developers not to be limited on what size/quality of content they can put on there disc. If a game developer is making a game and it at best quality is 100-200mb over the 9gig limit of dvd's. Do you think they will use another dvd just for that small amount of space or do you think they will cut back on the quality of textures and content so it's only 1 disc?
Also why not throw in a format that if the system does well (which it had and excellent chance of doing before Sony mess up with some of it's comments made and also dreaming a little to big) can become a cheap format and in time price wont be an issue.