9/10 TC.
How many multi-plats were held back this generation because of 360's DVD format?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]A grand total of about zero. arkephonic
My answer is still about zero. It's cheaper to use two or even three DVDs than one Bluray disc. How many games had different versions because of DVD...about zero. How many games didn't make it to the Xbox 360 that normally would have because of DVD...about zero.I don't see how the answer could be zero. I mean, how could you possibly prove that no games were held back because of the 360 using DVD?
I know I can prove that games were held back because of it, because countless developers have gone on record saying that their games didn't live up to their full potential because of the 360 and DVD.
PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.
So really, it all comes down to the comments of developers VS the opinions of people on System Wars.
We should make a poll....
Who is more credible? The average forum poster on System Wars or the developers who are making the games?
Plus, I'm not saying that Sony exclusive developers are lying, but I'm sure someone would make the accusation that they're building up blu ray because they exclusively develop for Sony. How do you explain the comments made by people like Dan Houser for Rockstar, or John Carmack for ID? They're multi-plat developers, what motive would they have to lie about such things?
arkephonic
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]My answer is still about zero. It's cheaper to use two or even three DVDs than one Bluray disc. How many games had different versions because of DVD...about zero. How many games didn't make it to the Xbox 360 that normally would have because of DVD...about zero.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
I don't see how the answer could be zero. I mean, how could you possibly prove that no games were held back because of the 360 using DVD?
I know I can prove that games were held back because of it, because countless developers have gone on record saying that their games didn't live up to their full potential because of the 360 and DVD.
PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.
So really, it all comes down to the comments of developers VS the opinions of people on System Wars.
We should make a poll....
Who is more credible? The average forum poster on System Wars or the developers who are making the games?
Plus, I'm not saying that Sony exclusive developers are lying, but I'm sure someone would make the accusation that they're building up blu ray because they exclusively develop for Sony. How do you explain the comments made by people like Dan Houser for Rockstar, or John Carmack for ID? They're multi-plat developers, what motive would they have to lie about such things?
KC_Hokie
Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.
Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.
So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.
My answer is still about zero. It's cheaper to use two or even three DVDs than one Bluray disc. How many games had different versions because of DVD...about zero. How many games didn't make it to the Xbox 360 that normally would have because of DVD...about zero.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
arkephonic
Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.
Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.
So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.
Rage came on 3 DVDs for Xbox 360 which means they didn't cut anything. It actually looked BETTER than the PS3 version. Three DVDs is still cheaper than one Bluray disc. And the hardware of the Xbox 360 and PS3 held back that game more than anything.Again, name a game that had different versions or didn't come out to the Xbox 360 because of DVD. You won't be able to because there aren't any. Developers simply used two or more DVDs when they had to.
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]My answer is still about zero. It's cheaper to use two or even three DVDs than one Bluray disc. How many games had different versions because of DVD...about zero. How many games didn't make it to the Xbox 360 that normally would have because of DVD...about zero. KC_Hokie
Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.
Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.
So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.
Rage came on 3 DVDs for Xbox 360 which means they didn't cut anything. It actually looked BETTER than the PS3 version. Three DVDs is still cheaper than one Bluray disc. And the hardware of the Xbox 360 and PS3 held back that game more than anything.Again, name a game that had different versions or didn't come out to the Xbox 360 because of DVD. You won't be able to because there aren't any. Developers simply used two or more DVDs when they had to.
Once again, prove that 3 DVDs is cheaper than blu ray, everything considered, including licensing fees. Carmack says otherwise, and I'm sure he'd know better than you would, because you know, he's making games and dealing with the companies directly.
All you have to do is provide proof, that's all I'm asking.
No multi-platform games didn't come out on the Xbox 360 because of DVD, you know why? Because they're multi-platform games. When developing multi-platform games, multi-plat developers need to take the lowest common denominator into consideration while doing so, which in this case storage medium wise, is the 360. The question is, what was changed in order to compensate for the lowest common denominator?
Rage came on 3 DVDs for Xbox 360 which means they didn't cut anything. It actually looked BETTER than the PS3 version. Three DVDs is still cheaper than one Bluray disc. And the hardware of the Xbox 360 and PS3 held back that game more than anything.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.
Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.
So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.
arkephonic
Again, name a game that had different versions or didn't come out to the Xbox 360 because of DVD. You won't be able to because there aren't any. Developers simply used two or more DVDs when they had to.
Once again, prove that 3 DVDs is cheaper than blu ray, everything considered, including licensing fees. Carmack says otherwise, and I'm sure he'd know better than you would, because you know, he's making games and dealing with the companies directly.
All you have to do is provide proof, that's all I'm asking.
No multi-platform games didn't come out on the Xbox 360 because of DVD, you know why? Because they're multi-platform games. When developing multi-platform games, multi-plat developers need to take the lowest common denominator into consideration while doing so, which in this case storage medium wise, is the 360. The question is, what was changed in order to compensate for the lowest common denominator?
You keep bringing up Carmack and Rage and yet it looked/ran better on the Xbox 360.The royalty fee for a game is roughly 15% for both Sony and MS. That's per game not per disc. You then pay a royalty fee for use of the discs. The royalty fees for a DVD is 3 cents vs. 16 cents for a blu-ray. So 5 DVDs are cheaper to use than one blu-ray.
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Rage came on 3 DVDs for Xbox 360 which means they didn't cut anything. It actually looked BETTER than the PS3 version. Three DVDs is still cheaper than one Bluray disc. And the hardware of the Xbox 360 and PS3 held back that game more than anything.
Again, name a game that had different versions or didn't come out to the Xbox 360 because of DVD. You won't be able to because there aren't any. Developers simply used two or more DVDs when they had to.
KC_Hokie
Once again, prove that 3 DVDs is cheaper than blu ray, everything considered, including licensing fees. Carmack says otherwise, and I'm sure he'd know better than you would, because you know, he's making games and dealing with the companies directly.
All you have to do is provide proof, that's all I'm asking.
No multi-platform games didn't come out on the Xbox 360 because of DVD, you know why? Because they're multi-platform games. When developing multi-platform games, multi-plat developers need to take the lowest common denominator into consideration while doing so, which in this case storage medium wise, is the 360. The question is, what was changed in order to compensate for the lowest common denominator?
You keep bringing up Carmack and Rage and yet it looked/ran better on the Xbox 360.The royalty fee for a game is roughly 15% for both Sony and MS. That's per game not per disc. You then pay a royalty fee for use of the discs. The royalty fees for a DVD is 3 cents vs. 16 cents for a blu-ray. So 5 DVDs are cheaper to use than one blu-ray.
Links? Proof? Right now it's just your word against Carmack, and I think we both know who I am going to side with.
I'm fully willing to bow down and forget about this, all I'm asking is for some proof.
You keep bringing up Carmack and Rage and yet it looked/ran better on the Xbox 360.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
Once again, prove that 3 DVDs is cheaper than blu ray, everything considered, including licensing fees. Carmack says otherwise, and I'm sure he'd know better than you would, because you know, he's making games and dealing with the companies directly.
All you have to do is provide proof, that's all I'm asking.
No multi-platform games didn't come out on the Xbox 360 because of DVD, you know why? Because they're multi-platform games. When developing multi-platform games, multi-plat developers need to take the lowest common denominator into consideration while doing so, which in this case storage medium wise, is the 360. The question is, what was changed in order to compensate for the lowest common denominator?
arkephonic
The royalty fee for a game is roughly 15% for both Sony and MS. That's per game not per disc. You then pay a royalty fee for use of the discs. The royalty fees for a DVD is 3 cents vs. 16 cents for a blu-ray. So 5 DVDs are cheaper to use than one blu-ray.
Links? Proof? Right now it's just your word against Carmack, and I think we both know who I am going to side with.
I'm fully willing to bow down and forget about this, all I'm asking is for some proof.
Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.[QUOTE="arkephonic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You keep bringing up Carmack and Rage and yet it looked/ran better on the Xbox 360.
The royalty fee for a game is roughly 15% for both Sony and MS. That's per game not per disc. You then pay a royalty fee for use of the discs. The royalty fees for a DVD is 3 cents vs. 16 cents for a blu-ray. So 5 DVDs are cheaper to use than one blu-ray.
KC_Hokie
Links? Proof? Right now it's just your word against Carmack, and I think we both know who I am going to side with.
I'm fully willing to bow down and forget about this, all I'm asking is for some proof.
Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.Disc drives aren't GPUs, are they? I'd attribute a difference in looks on the GPU, CPU and RAM before I would the disc drive.
And I can't find any links, so provide some links / proof that it is cheaper to pay Microsoft royalties for 5 DVDs than it is Sony 1 blu ray disc like you claim.
[QUOTE="arkephonic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You keep bringing up Carmack and Rage and yet it looked/ran better on the Xbox 360.
The royalty fee for a game is roughly 15% for both Sony and MS. That's per game not per disc. You then pay a royalty fee for use of the discs. The royalty fees for a DVD is 3 cents vs. 16 cents for a blu-ray. So 5 DVDs are cheaper to use than one blu-ray.
KC_Hokie
Links? Proof? Right now it's just your word against Carmack, and I think we both know who I am going to side with.
I'm fully willing to bow down and forget about this, all I'm asking is for some proof.
Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.I don't want to get involved in the discussion you two are having, but I disagree with the bolded, I've seen both versions with my own eyes and I didn't see any difference. Like almost all mutliplats.
Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
Links? Proof? Right now it's just your word against Carmack, and I think we both know who I am going to side with.
I'm fully willing to bow down and forget about this, all I'm asking is for some proof.
arkephonic
Disc drives aren't GPUs, are they? I'd attribute a difference in looks on the GPU, CPU and RAM before I would the disc drive.
And I can't find any links, so provide some links / proof that it is cheaper to pay Microsoft royalties for 5 DVDs than it is Sony 1 blu ray disc like you claim.
Rage is a great example of a multiplatform that certainly wasn't held back by DVDs since the Xbox 360 version looked/ran better than the PS3 version. It was held back by the console's hardware. So you (unknowingly) answered your own question right there.Google is you friend. I did the research on DVD and Blu-ray royalties for a project last semester. DVD royalties just went down to 3 cents (they were at 4 for several years) and blu-ray discs went from 25 cents 1.5 years ago to 16 cents now.
Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
Links? Proof? Right now it's just your word against Carmack, and I think we both know who I am going to side with.
I'm fully willing to bow down and forget about this, all I'm asking is for some proof.
ShadowMoses900
I don't want to get involved in the discussion you two are having, but I disagree with the bolded, I've seen both versions with my own eyes and I didn't see any difference. Like almost all mutliplats.
You're entitled to your opinion, but just about every single reviewer either said the Xbox 360 version looked or ran better than the PS3 version (of those who played both versions).[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.KC_Hokie
I don't want to get involved in the discussion you two are having, but I disagree with the bolded, I've seen both versions with my own eyes and I didn't see any difference. Like almost all mutliplats.
You're entitled to your opinion, but just about every single reviewer either said the Xbox 360 version looked or ran better than the PS3 version (of those who played both versions).I never read or saw a review that said that.
You're entitled to your opinion, but just about every single reviewer either said the Xbox 360 version looked or ran better than the PS3 version (of those who played both versions).[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I don't want to get involved in the discussion you two are having, but I disagree with the bolded, I've seen both versions with my own eyes and I didn't see any difference. Like almost all mutliplats.
ShadowMoses900
I never read or saw a review that said that.
You should re-read the reviews then. The Xbox 360 even ran at more FPS.[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Look up the royalty fees of both DVDs and Blu-rays if you don't believe me. And, again, Rage looked/ran better on the Xbox 360 than the PS3 with the 'inferior' medium.KC_Hokie
Disc drives aren't GPUs, are they? I'd attribute a difference in looks on the GPU, CPU and RAM before I would the disc drive.
And I can't find any links, so provide some links / proof that it is cheaper to pay Microsoft royalties for 5 DVDs than it is Sony 1 blu ray disc like you claim.
Rage is a great example of a multiplatform that certainly wasn't held back by DVDs since the Xbox 360 version looked/ran better than the PS3 version. It was held back by the console's hardware. So you (unknowingly) answered your own question right there.Google is you friend. I did the research on DVD and Blu-ray royalties for a project last semester. DVD royalties just went down to 3 cents (they were at 4 for several years) and blu-ray discs went from 25 cents 1.5 years ago to 16 cents now.
So you did research on it, don't you have a bibliography that has links relevant to the discussion?
Right now I'm just looking at your words against Carmack.
Watch this video, fast forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds, and listen to what he has to say.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=father+of+fps&oq=father+of+fps&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=660l2114l0l2150l13l10l0l3l3l1l259l689l2.1.2l5l0
After you watch it, provide some links and some proof that he's wrong, and give the correct stats. The stats which apply to Sony and Microsoft directly, not the movie industry.
Don't reply until you provide some proof, because until you do, you're just beating around the bush as far as I'm concerned.
Rage is a great example of a multiplatform that certainly wasn't held back by DVDs since the Xbox 360 version looked/ran better than the PS3 version. It was held back by the console's hardware. So you (unknowingly) answered your own question right there.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
Disc drives aren't GPUs, are they? I'd attribute a difference in looks on the GPU, CPU and RAM before I would the disc drive.
And I can't find any links, so provide some links / proof that it is cheaper to pay Microsoft royalties for 5 DVDs than it is Sony 1 blu ray disc like you claim.
arkephonic
Google is you friend. I did the research on DVD and Blu-ray royalties for a project last semester. DVD royalties just went down to 3 cents (they were at 4 for several years) and blu-ray discs went from 25 cents 1.5 years ago to 16 cents now.
So you did research on it, don't you have a bibliography that has links relevant to the discussion?
Right now I'm just looking at your words against Carmack.
Watch this video, fast forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds, and listen to what he has to say.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=father+of+fps&oq=father+of+fps&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=660l2114l0l2150l13l10l0l3l3l1l259l689l2.1.2l5l0
After you watch it, provide some links and some proof that he's wrong, and give the correct stats. The stats which apply to Sony and Microsoft directly, not the movie industry.
Don't reply until you provide some proof, because until you do, you're just beating around the bush as far as I'm concerned.
You keep bringing up Carmack and Rage and yet the Xbox 360 version looked and ran better than the PS3 version. It had more FPS as well.[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You're entitled to your opinion, but just about every single reviewer either said the Xbox 360 version looked or ran better than the PS3 version (of those who played both versions).KC_Hokie
I never read or saw a review that said that.
You should re-read the reviews then. The Xbox 360 even ran at more FPS.I haven't read the reviews in a long time, but I don't remember GS or IGN or Giant Bomb ect...ever saying that. They never mentioned any difference between the two versions, I've seen both versions myself and I didn't notice a difference other than the 360 version was a little brighter. Are you sure your not overexaggerating?
There's rarely ever a multiplat that is noticabley different between the two systems, in almost all cases they look and play virtually identicle.
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, I can't believe this guy. My faith in humanity is dwindling.
You should re-read the reviews then. The Xbox 360 even ran at more FPS.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I never read or saw a review that said that.
ShadowMoses900
I haven't read the reviews in a long time, but I don't remember GS or IGN or Giant Bomb ect...ever saying that. They never mentioned any difference between the two versions, I've seen both versions myself and I didn't notice a difference other than the 360 version was a little brighter. Are you sure your not overexaggerating?
There's rarely ever a multiplat that is noticabley different between the two systems, in almost all cases they look and play virtually identicle.
You can believe multiplatforms look/run the same on both Xbox 360 and PS3. As an owner of both systems I don't agree and rarely buy them for my PS3.You keep bringing up the same Carmack argument but that's debunked by the Xbox 360 version of Rage vs. the PS3 version.I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, I can't believe this guy. My faith in humanity is dwindling.
arkephonic
My final answer is zero...a grand total of about zero multiplatforms were held back this generation because of DVD. Developers simply used a second disc when needed...or third.
You keep bringing up the same Carmack argument but that's debunked by the Xbox 360 version of Rage vs. the PS3 version.[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, I can't believe this guy. My faith in humanity is dwindling.
KC_Hokie
My final answer is zero...a grand total of about zero multiplatforms were held back this generation because of DVD. Developers simply used a second disc when needed...or third.
Nice job turning a storage medium discussion into a graphics discussion, when the two are not even related. Completely irrelevant. The differences in graphics are non-existant at worst, and negligible at best. If anything, that kind of stuff is attributed to a difference in GPU, CPU and Ram, not the disc drive, especially considering you must be talking about the 360 version's performance while all 22 gigabytes are installed to the harddrive, otherwise the PS3 version would obviously have the advantage.
I know, it was your way of trying to change the subject. You were asked to provide some proof, some stats, some form of credibility to counter Carmack, to prove your statements that royalties for 5 DVDs through Microsoft is less expensive than 1 blu ray disc is through Sony. Carmack clearly says otherwise in that video, and he's the guy making games and negotiating these licensing fees.
You still have a chance to provide some proof, but don't insult everyone's intelligence including your own by changing the subject and beating around the bush.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You should re-read the reviews then. The Xbox 360 even ran at more FPS. KC_Hokie
I haven't read the reviews in a long time, but I don't remember GS or IGN or Giant Bomb ect...ever saying that. They never mentioned any difference between the two versions, I've seen both versions myself and I didn't notice a difference other than the 360 version was a little brighter. Are you sure your not overexaggerating?
There's rarely ever a multiplat that is noticabley different between the two systems, in almost all cases they look and play virtually identicle.
You can believe multiplatforms look/run the same on both Xbox 360 and PS3. As an owner of both systems I don't agree and rarely buy them for my PS3.Oksy? You can buy them for whatever system you prefer, but there isn't a massive difference like you believe. In fact there's hardly a difference at all, and the differences are almost always insignifant and unnoticable.
[QUOTE="Blabadon"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]who cares? there have been amazing games this gen regardless. how many were held back because they had to be ported to the ps3?mems_1224Mems finally found some friends in loosingENDs and is finally getting his true feelings out. :lol: im just saying, its stupid to just single out the 360. its no secret that its a pain to port games to ps3
Now imagine if no games had to be ported to the consoles, only PC. Then we'd be in real business. No holding back at all!
Why do you always make posts that have no logic in them at all? I guess PC gaming is holding back multiplats to since they use DvD format. OH WAIT!![QUOTE="Another48hours"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
"Overtime, more and more publishers and developers have come out to vindicate Sony's decision in using Blu-ray media as the primary medium for the PlayStation 3. Earlier on, skeptics told Sony that Blu-ray was pointless, that it only drove up the cost of the PS3, and that DVD storage was enough. As time has gone by, those skeptics have been proven wrong time and time again. Dan Houser has made perhaps the most important critique and justification of Sony's decision to use Blu-ray.
Who's Dan Houser? The Co-founder, along with brother Sam, of Rockstar...you know, those Grand Theft Auto guys. Speaking to 1up, Dan Houser states the standard dual-layer DVD simply isn't enough, and that it too became a problem during GTAIV's development. This raises some concern on whether or not the next Grand Theft Auto game will fit on an Xbox 360 disc, because Rockstar's motto has consistently been focused on making each and every new game larger than the last.
"One of the problems with the 360, and it affects games like Grand Theft Auto if you think about how much content we put in the actual machine, is the fact that they don't have a significantly larger storage medium than the previous systems. It's a slightly bigger DVD disc," Houser told 1up.
The hard drive issue is also another problem Rockstar sees with the Xbox 360, as not every Xbox 360 has a hard drive, which makes it very hard for Rockstar to implement HDD features into the X360 game. Continuing on the subject of limited disc space, Houser states, "the 360 is going to have to get 'round this issue we're talking about...hopefully, they're going to adopt one of those in the next year or so, because it's going to become more of an issue. If we're filling up the disc right now, where are we going? It's not like our games are going to get any smaller."
This bit of news brings up two thoughts in my head. 1) It wasn't just the PlayStation 3 that was responsible for the delay, as it seems rather clear that condensing content onto the Xbox 360's disc was a problem for Rockstar. 2) This problem seems all too familiar, as it's affected Nintendo in two generations, with the GameCube, and especially the Nintendo 64. Dozens of developers gave up working on the Nintendo 64 because of how limited the cartridge was, providing a maximum of only 64MB. But unlike the N64, the Xbox 360 has a solution: multi-disc games, which were very common back in the PlayStation days. For example, Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360 boasts four DVDs worth of gameplay.
So does this potentially mean more multi-disc games in the future for the Xbox 360? Probably. What it doesn't mean is that Rockstar will release GTAV exclusively for the PS3 next time around, so put your shiny magic balls away."
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/2966.html
So before you say, "Why don't they just not worry about space and limiting content, and release games on multiple discs for the 360"?
Well apparently, Microsoft charges publishers a hefty fee per additional disc used.
Fast forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds into this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qppLjwqkiU
arkephonic
PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.
Flip time, but wait the PS3's best graphical moments are 90% during cutscenes, Qtes' and pre-animated material, so is the PS3 holding back gaming since people can't have these types of graphics during actual gameplay? Or at least without spending a ton of development programing it on the PS3? BTW, PC's don't count because they have harddrives.[QUOTE="arkephonic"][QUOTE="Another48hours"] Why do you always make posts that have no logic in them at all? I guess PC gaming is holding back multiplats to since they use DvD format. OH WAIT!!Another48hours
PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.
Flip time, but wait the PS3's best graphical moments are 90% during cutscenes, Qtes' and pre-animated material, so is the PS3 holding back gaming since people can't have these types of graphics during actual gameplay? Or at least without spending a ton of development programing it on the PS3? BTW, PC's don't count because they have harddrives. Wut? ALL systems best graphical moments are during cutscenes.[QUOTE="Another48hours"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]Flip time, but wait the PS3's best graphical moments are 90% during cutscenes, Qtes' and pre-animated material, so is the PS3 holding back gaming since people can't have these types of graphics during actual gameplay? Or at least without spending a ton of development programing it on the PS3? BTW, PC's don't count because they have harddrives. Wut? ALL systems best graphical moments are during cutscenes. Like how you ignored everything else I said which just proves my point.PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.
kuraimen
How many pc versions were held back by consoles?
How many pc versions were held back by consoles?
heeeeeeeeeweeee
Duke Nukem Forever and......
I bet you would have liked it if DNF was developed as a PC exclusive, wouldn't you?
unreal tournament 3? crysis 2?
0
why? because in the end GTA 4 actually took up less space then the maximum a dual layer dvd can.
another reason is that every exclusive open world game for the ps3 wasn't even as good looking gta 4, have as much as variety as it did or have as big a world.
[QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]Not a lot and certainly doesn't involve any tech performance but licensing. 2-4 DVDs costs more to produce than 1 blu-ray.WilliamRLBakerno..just no. It costs still about 1 dollar to 1.50 to produce each bluray disc in lots of thousands...Dvds? about 20-30 cents.
I like how you always pull "facts" from out of no where and proclaim that they're 100% true. :|
My answer is still about zero. It's cheaper to use two or even three DVDs than one Bluray disc. How many games had different versions because of DVD...about zero. How many games didn't make it to the Xbox 360 that normally would have because of DVD...about zero.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
arkephonic
Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.
Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.
So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.
if you are going to quote carmack then quote him in the correct context, he only said using blu-ray was cheaper because of the extra royalty cost that MS charges if you use more than 2 disks for there games, not because it is cheaper than the cost of 3 DVD's themselves, he was complaining about MS pricing policys on propriety discs not the format itself or the costs of the disks themselves, secondly, the Ps3 held back developement of Rage far more than the 360 did http://myona.com/2011/08/15/rage-development-is-limited-due-to-ps3-memory-id/
About zero.
Fizzman
/Thread
PC still uses DVD for games and multiplats are almost always superior on PC. Some PC exclusive games have much more depth both visually and gameplay wise than is even possible on current consoles so DVD's arent a restriction at all especially since PC can have a blu-ray drive that will both read and write blu-ray discs. If blu-ray was neccesary then wed be using blu-ray for PC games.
As far as consoles go, its the Xbox 360 and its games that come on DVD that has the higher quality multi platform games not the PS3, although the PS3 has a couple of more visually impressive exclusives, they dont offer anything in terms of ammount of gaming content that you cant get on 360.
Shocker incoming... Many PC gamers buy games on DVD9's as well and like 360, they just do a one time Full install to HDD and shazam, best way to game. :shock:
Who woulda thunk it right ? :P
That's because all PCs have HD where the game can be installed and decompressed, unlike all 360s.Shocker incoming... Many PC gamers buy games on DVD9's as well and like 360, they just do a one time Full install to HDD and shazam, best way to game. :shock:
Who woulda thunk it right ? :P
SecretPolice
BluRay was completely unnecessary and wasted.
Sony just wanted to push it as a format.
Yes it does offer uncompressed audio/video but the machine itself doesn't have the capability to RUN much of anything in full HD, it's like having racing wheels on a ford pinto.
It's basically HD cutscenes with low def graphics.
And for that you have to go thru a longer install process and loading times.
Sony is losing this gen because they give the customer what SONY wants, rather than giving the customers what the customers want.
The PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360, the PS3 technology is like a decade ahead of the 360. If all the games were made for the PS3 without the 360 in mind, then all the games would look as good as Killzone and Uncharted.
ShadowMoses900
oh wow :lol:
I hope you're not serious, because if you are... well then, I suppose you just have a feeble mind... which would explain your love for MGS4
Exactly zero
In fact Skyrim is just 4GB, about half the DVD9 of 360
who cares now the Microsoft is copying of ps3 now by moving the 360/720 format to blu-ray. I guess ps3 was true next gen
skyrim 3.8 gig. just saying.sts106matwhich the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment