Blu-ray, NOT just for CGI anymore:)

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="FIipMode"]Sony was smart to use Blu-Ray as a storage medium this gen. Can't wait to play this game.GreyFoXX4

Can't say I agree. Bluray drove the cost of making the system up, caused the outrageous launch price (which cemented it in 3rd place for years) and has caused sony not to make a profit on the PS3.

Bluray is nice, but I don't think it was a great idea for the PS3.

Bluray is also nice that I can have my disks out and really not have to worry about scratching them, yes they can be scratched but not under normal wear and tear like regular dvd's get scratched under. Heck you can buy a game from gamestop for the ps3 and really feel that you just purchased a new game.

But even as a ceo sometimes you have to lose some to make more back later on. Sony will use bluray on the ps4 aswell, and devs can look forward to that. And since they are part of the bluray panel and put the work in to it this gen, next gen it will be much cheaper to use, and they will start to see some great income from winning the format war. And there will always be a need for a hard format for retailers and just for people who like to actually own something from their money spent.

I mean, the 360 was what $299 and $399 at launch. The ps3 was $499 and $599. Now add $50 to the 360 for xbox live and you are now at $349, a total of $150 cheaper than the ps3 with less options for its buyer. Then add on 4 years of play with the 360 for what you get from the ps3 for free, you are now adding $200 to the price of the 360 which puts it at $499 the same price as the 40gb or 80gb ps3 which had more hdd space than any of the 360's and giving you the option to watch bluray movies on your $2000 hdtv plus all of the past great games the ps1, ps2 had that could have sequels on the ps3 and all of the dev support Sony has. Really for the life of me I have yet to figure out why on earth did people get the 360, besides not being able to wait on the ps3 which came out a yearlater, something that lemmings will never understand. And is the ONLY reason the 360 has a higher user base at the moment. Cause once you take that year out of the equation the ps3 has sold even or better than the 360 even with a higher price tag :)

tl;dl but i tried to say somethinglike this already

[QUOTE="FIipMode"]Sony was smart to use Blu-Ray as a storage medium this gen. Can't wait to play this game.Pixel-Pirate

Can't say I agree. Bluray drove the cost of making the system up, caused the outrageous launch price (which cemented it in 3rd place for years) and has caused sony not to make a profit on the PS3.

Bluray is nice, but I don't think it was a great idea for the PS3.

I see alot of people poo-pooing on Blu-ray in this thread, but in reality its a major selling point for the PS3. Once you get a nice HD Tv setup going and you experience your favorite movies on blu-ray there is no going back to DVD's. Some people are still trying to downplay the jump up from DVD but its there, and its massive. So if you got yourself a nice HD setup at home you will be in the market for a PS3, which is still one of the best BLu-ray players around. Sony ate huge costs to get this ball rolling, and now the ball is really picking up steam.

It's time to let the residual PS3 hate go, its not 07' anymore. How can having a Blu-Ray drive in this day and age ever be construed as a negative?? Maybe the peasantry can't afford it but its no reason to hate. :P

It just cracks me up seeing these lemmings go on and on how MS is making huge money off of its console, and how they made money on it when it launched. When the only reason that was is because they were getting ripped on its price tag. Yes the ps3 was more expensive cause of it internals such as bluray, but they took the lose and the consumer was getting a great deal actually for what was inside of it.

I mean when as a consumer you gloat about paying for something way above what it actually takes to make, something is truly wrong with that picture. And that is the ony reason MS has made money on the 360 so soon, is because they over charged its consumers for it.

It just cracks me up seeing these lemmings go on and on how MS is making huge money off of its console, and how they made money on it when it launched. When the only reason that was is because they were getting ripped on its price tag. Yes the ps3 was more expensive cause of it internals such as bluray, but they took the lose and the consumer was getting a great deal actually for what was inside of it.

I mean when as a consumer you gloat about paying for something way above what it actually takes to make, something is truly wrong with that picture. And that is the ony reason MS has made money on the 360 so soon, is because they over charged its consumers for it.

The ps3 at launch was not a deal.Rza_rectah

I think you are way way off. The PS3 was not only the best BluRay player on the market, it was also the first consumer electronic media player to feature HDMI 1.3.

People fussed and screamed about the $600 price tag, yet have bought a $400 game console and another $200 in online fees alone up to this point, and for what? Meanwhile, back in 2006, you could have a machine that pushes the most advanced TVs at the time (Talking $2000 and up in pricetag)..

The "Oh noez, teh $600" made a great talking point in fanboy wars forums but the PS3 was a literal reneassaince in home entertainment with it's BluRay player capable of normal firmware updates, web browser, support for flash memory readers and top of the line visual performance. If you don't think the PS3 was a good value at launch, it's probably because you were still petering along on an SDTV, using some budget Dynex set that has a laughable picture, or you were praying to the LemGod that HD-DVD was anything other than a still-born format.. In any case, I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the Triple.

It just cracks me up seeing these lemmings go on and on how MS is making huge money off of its console, and how they made money on it when it launched. When the only reason that was is because they were getting ripped on its price tag. Yes the ps3 was more expensive cause of it internals such as bluray, but they took the lose and the consumer was getting a great deal actually for what was inside of it.

I mean when as a consumer you gloat about paying for something way above what it actually takes to make, something is truly wrong with that picture. And that is the ony reason MS has made money on the 360 so soon, is because they over charged its consumers for it.

It just cracks me up seeing these lemmings go on and on how MS is making huge money off of its console, and how they made money on it when it launched. When the only reason that was is because they were getting ripped on its price tag. Yes the ps3 was more expensive cause of it internals such as bluray, but they took the lose and the consumer was getting a great deal actually for what was inside of it.

I mean when as a consumer you gloat about paying for something way above what it actually takes to make, something is truly wrong with that picture. And that is the ony reason MS has made money on the 360 so soon, is because they over charged its consumers for it.

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"][QUOTE="Rza_rectah"] The ps3 at launch was not a deal. The 360 didnt overcharge they just used garbage components to make their consoles. That is why they fail so often. Now that they have turned a profit they can use better parts.Rza_rectah

[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"][QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] At launch a stand alone bluray player was $1000-$1400, while getting a ps3 over a 360 was only a $200 price difference if not counting $50 for live. And garbage componant = to cheap componants which proves even more that they over charged for it. Thanks for saying they used garbage componants so I didn't have to lol. So actually out of that $200 price difference it was prolly only $150 extra for bluray or even $100 and the rest was to ensure they used reliable componants in the ps3. So once again you are supporting a maker that you know good and well used cheap or garbage componants in its console to sell to its consumers to have a inflated price tag for what was inside.GreyFoXX4

[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"] The ps3 at launch was not a deal.Shewgenja

I think you are way way off. The PS3 was not only the best BluRay player on the market, it was also the first consumer electronic media player to feature HDMI 1.3.

People fussed and screamed about the $600 price tag, yet have bought a $400 game console and another $200 in online fees alone up to this point, and for what? Meanwhile, back in 2006, you could have a machine that pushes the most advanced TVs at the time (Talking $2000 and up in pricetag)..

The "Oh noez, teh $600" made a great talking point in fanboy wars forums but the PS3 was a literal reneassaince in home entertainment with it's BluRay player capable of normal firmware updates, web browser, support for flash memory readers and top of the line visual performance. If you don't think the PS3 was a good value at launch, it's probably because you were still petering along on an SDTV, using some budget Dynex set that has a laughable picture, or you were praying to the LemGod that HD-DVD was anything other than a still-born format.. In any case, I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the Triple.

Blu-Ray being included in the PS3 was still a mistake. Sorry about that.

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"][QUOTE="Rza_rectah"] Im not supporting any console in this case. The ps3 was still very expensive to be considered a deal. Rza_rectah

Blu-Ray being included in the PS3 was still a mistake. Sorry about that.

gamecubepad

[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"][QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] Well today with the ps3 being same price as a 360, then what is the deal to you at the moment then?GreyFoXX4

Blu-Ray being included in the PS3 was still a mistake. Sorry about that.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Blu-Ray being included in the PS3 was still a mistake. Sorry about that.

GreyFoXX4

Wait, it isn't on DVD?

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Blu-Ray being included in the PS3 was still a mistake. Sorry about that.

Wait, it isn't on DVD?

[QUOTE="Shewgenja"]

[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"] The ps3 at launch was not a deal.enterawesome

I think you are way way off. The PS3 was not only the best BluRay player on the market, it was also the first consumer electronic media player to feature HDMI 1.3.

People fussed and screamed about the $600 price tag, yet have bought a $400 game console and another $200 in online fees alone up to this point, and for what? Meanwhile, back in 2006, you could have a machine that pushes the most advanced TVs at the time (Talking $2000 and up in pricetag)..

The "Oh noez, teh $600" made a great talking point in fanboy wars forums but the PS3 was a literal reneassaince in home entertainment with it's BluRay player capable of normal firmware updates, web browser, support for flash memory readers and top of the line visual performance. If you don't think the PS3 was a good value at launch, it's probably because you were still petering along on an SDTV, using some budget Dynex set that has a laughable picture, or you were praying to the LemGod that HD-DVD was anything other than a still-born format.. In any case, I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the Triple.

I already had a good gaming PC. I also already had a 50" SXRD.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] Now why don't you go watch Halo Legends on bluray on your 360. Cracked me up when I saw that movie on bluray at Walmart lol.Rza_rectah

Wait, it isn't on DVD?

Yeah, just checked and Marketplace has the DVD and 1080p versions in as episodes or a movie, for rental or purchase. Looks like $16 for the 1080p version. No BD-Player necessary.

My PS3 wouldn't play my Halo legends Blu-ray, Why?

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"][QUOTE="Rza_rectah"] Because it offers more for its price and compared the the compitition its a great deal for what you receive. Rza_rectah

LOL TC read your first link. There is cinamatics in the game.

2 games out of 300, 3 years down the line..Awesome!

heretrix

According to your signature and avatar... I'm guessing you had fun swapping discs in Mass Effect.

Jealous. Lol.

no more CGI? =[

I know. I use my Samsung Blu ray player to playmovies all the time. Works just fine.

LOL TC read your first link. There is cinamatics in the game.

vaderhater

OMG it's you again. sorry guys, this person doesn't understand the difference between a CGI, a pre-rendered cutscene with in-game assets and realtime cutscene with in-game models.

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

LOL TC read your first link. There is cinamatics in the game.

roddollente

OMG it's you again. sorry guys, this person doesn't understand the difference between a CGI, a pre-rendered cutscene with in-game assets and realtime cutscene with in-game models.

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

LOL TC read your first link. There is cinamatics in the game.

vaderhater

OMG it's you again. sorry guys, this person doesn't understand the difference between a CGI, a pre-rendered cutscene with in-game assets and realtime cutscene with in-game models.

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

OMG it's you again. sorry guys, this person doesn't understand the difference between a CGI, a pre-rendered cutscene with in-game assets and realtime cutscene with in-game models.

roddollente

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

lol we'll see if it has no CGI, the game had CGI in the past it will have CGI cutscenes now.

*talking of the god of war series which had cgi in the past*

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Are there not cinematic parts in this game that you dont controll?

vaderhater

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

lol im so sorry i owned you for not knowing something as simple as that. more official? lawl. sorry to break your bubble but this blog came from none other than SCEA animator Bruno Velasquez. yep, part of the GoW3 team. awwww....

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

roddollente

lol im so sorry i owned you for not knowing something as simple as that. more official? lawl. sorry to break your bubble but this blog came from none other than SCEA animator Bruno Velasquez. yep, part of the GoW3 team. awwww....

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

LOL TC read your first link. There is cinamatics in the game.

vaderhater

OMG it's you again. sorry guys, this person doesn't understand the difference between a CGI, a pre-rendered cutscene with in-game assets and realtime cutscene with in-game models.

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

roddollente

lol im so sorry i owned you for not knowing something as simple as that. more official? lawl. sorry to break your bubble but this blog came from none other than SCEA animator Bruno Velasquez. yep, part of the GoW3 team. awwww....

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Im going to wait for something more official rather than a blog.

FIipMode

lol im so sorry i owned you for not knowing something as simple as that. more official? lawl. sorry to break your bubble but this blog came from none other than SCEA animator Bruno Velasquez. yep, part of the GoW3 team. awwww....

[QUOTE="FIipMode"][QUOTE="roddollente"]

lol im so sorry i owned you for not knowing something as simple as that. more official? lawl. sorry to break your bubble but this blog came from none other than SCEA animator Bruno Velasquez. yep, part of the GoW3 team. awwww....

vaderhater

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

OMG it's you again. sorry guys, this person doesn't understand the difference between a CGI, a pre-rendered cutscene with in-game assets and realtime cutscene with in-game models.

roddollente

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

[QUOTE="Fuhgeddabouditt"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Odds are, given the development time, GTA5 won't show up until next generation, when storage space will no longer be an immediate issue.

JGAMROT

I am on about GTA5 not just eh next GTA

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Are there not cinematic parts in this game that you dont controll?

HuusAsking

LOL of course there are. every game has a cutscene. and yes, they're not CGI. there are pre-rendered and there are real-time cutscenes. both will feature in-game assets. in short, NO CGI. get it?

omg there's a smart-ass here. okay then, there's no FMV. since you're so smart, read the first paragraph . are you happy now or do you want me to still give you a cookie?

geez. i cant believe some people here. we all know CGI in games meant animations done through the aid of computer imagery. and not using in-game assets. jesus christ.

Presumably it's because of uncompressed audio.

id's Rage is a whopping terabyte fully uncompressed, but it's not like it's going to ship on 20 Blu-Rays and 150 DVD9s.

shinrabanshou

wait what your goint to have to get me a link on that,

were talking 1000 gigs of fully compressed data of a game.

i've heard of no such thing, and we're goin to need alot more than 20 dual layer blu-ray discs

They will say that it's because they haven't compressed anything, like audio files, same as with MGS4. bobbetybob

first post ended the thread.....

you can fit 30 hour games on 6 Gb TC, it's called GTA IV, the compression fairy allows it.

[QUOTE="siLVURcross"]Well I don't think I will get this game anymore, I was going to buy it for the CGI cutscenes but now...now I'm not so sure!heretrix

But hey, it's OK as this thread is so full of misinformation that it doesn't matter:roll:

And so you played MGS4, therefore you own a PS3? And yet this post about a positive aspect of the PS3 upset you? Hmmm.

Well whatever, all this thread has shown is that PS3 haters(not referring to you specifically) have gotten so insecure that they will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to try to water down anything good about PS3 or it's games. I can't wait to see what they say when the PS3 outsells 360 worldwide(prolly next year). I guarantee you'll hear some of the dumbest comments in human history.

Why do people (cows) argue for this format as if it is owned by a certain (Sony) company?

All next gen consoles should employ Blu-Ray, and then we can get past this ridiculous battle of BLU_RAY VS DVD!!!

Which, btw, is a terrible match up. Blu-Ray wins the day simply by offering higher storage capacity, and the newer readers offer faster read speeds that will better accommodate gaming purposes when the PS4, next Xbox, etc. are ready to go.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Presumably it's because of uncompressed audio.

id's Rage is a whopping terabyte fully uncompressed, but it's not like it's going to ship on 20 Blu-Rays and 150 DVD9s.

nofriekinlemons

wait what your goint to have to get me a link on that,

were talking 1000 gigs of fully compressed data of a game.

i've heard of no such thing, and we're goin to need alot more than 20 dual layer blu-ray discs

It's going to be culled and compressed and will ship on a double layered bluray and 2 or maybe 3 DVD's, the devs are reluctant to ship on more than 2 though because of the additional royalty fees involved.