You make some good points. Unfortunately your bad points are extremely horrible and ill-informed.
[QUOTE="GARRYTH"]read my post above there is more than one reason why it is better.foxhound_fox
Yet you never mentioned the read speed bottleneck. The one that is forcing developers to cache data on the harddrive to speed up loading times. Imagine what using a standard HDD for caching and DVD9's could do for console gaming... look what its done for PC gaming.1. If you handle your discs carefully, this isn't a problem.
2. standard high-capacity HDD's give even more storage and faster access speeds
3. Increases development costs in time spent learning how to use Blu-ray
4. Proof? Last I heard, the Blu-ray on the PS3 had a very slow read speed that bottlenecked the other hardware and caused increased load times.
5. As long as the hardware (CPU/GPU) renders the picture at a HD resolution, it is HD, the storage medium has nothing to do with it.
6. Ooo... wow... no cases >>>> cases
1. I agree. However, sometimes discs can get scratched simply from use. I've seen discs for popular games get scratched simply from going in and out of the feeder so often. However, I've never heard of these shallow scratches affecting the game. On the other hand, this is directed to the other guy, the reason BR HAS to be more scratch resistant is because unlike CDs and DVDs (and HD-dvd) it doesn't have the protective layer of plastic covering the think metal layer that holds the info. The BR discs are the direct layer exposed so it HAS to be more scratch resistant.
2. True, but we aren't going to be downloading full games like Oblivion OR Killzone 2 any time soon. So we still need to buy games on proper storage discs OR we will have to start installing games which many of us can't stand.
3. This is simply wrong. It doesn't cost anything to "learn how to use BR." The extra costs comes into needed new manufactruing equipment to make the discs. Also, the extra costs we keep hearing about have nothing to do with BR, but with the push for graphics and realism in gaming...which requires more staff, more technology, etc to make a game and all that drives up the costs. It doesn't drive up developer costs to then put the game on BR. Especially since most developers don't print the discs themselves anyway.
4. BR doesn't bottleneck hardware, although you could make the point that the slower read time increases load times. However, after playing Oblivion for the 360, or KOTOR for Xbox, I wouldn't exactly say that those load times are worth bragging about. When people argue over load times it's like arguing over which is the better tasting turd...your still just eating turds. People used to bash the lack of a HDD in the PS2 vs. the Xbox and used load times as an excuse. Yet i've never seen a PS2 with loading like KOTOR had and I've never seen an Xbox title with ZERO loading like Jak and Daxter or Rathcet and Clank had.
5. This is also completely incorrect. HD video and sound, by their very nature, contain much more information and therefore require more space. While there is some hardware that can "upscale" or fill in the missing data, it isn't true HD and will never be considered a proper substitute. It's like comparing a real Picasso to a copy and saying they should both have the same value. Except one is REAL and has real benefits while the other is fake. There is a reason that Wav files take up more space than MP3s...because the sound quality is better. While MP3s can come extremely close, people with a discerning ear will always be able to tell the difference. And no artist will ever say MP3 should forever replace WAVs for CDs because it's "close enough."
Also, people tend to make the arguement that we can just compress the data and make it fit. This is another ignorant statement because ANY compression results in some loss of information which is therefore a downgrade of the original format. The whole point of HD video and now sound is that you get the most complete information of what was originally recorded. Any time you start compressing that, you lose something and that is why HD takes up way more space. Anything else isn't true HD and is just an imposter meant to make people feel they are getting the same quality as people with real HD. They aren't, but most of them won't know the difference anyway.
6. I agree the cases arguement is lame.
Log in to comment