[QUOTE="SUD123456"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
The fact that most PC's don't use Blu-ray isn't a good comparison, because with the PC, you either use digital distribution or if you buy retail, you just install the discs and then you never have to use the discs again, and if you do, you only need to use one of the discs to play.
With the Xbox 360, you need to change discs regardless of installation, leading to annoyances like this.
"The real disappointment with the 360 version is Bioware's decision to slice its content across two DVDs, awkwardly forcing a divide between the main story and the side-missions. For a completist, this will doubtless result in multiple disc-swaps between its 50-plus missions. Meanwhile, the PS3 version naturally sidesteps the issue altogether by brute force of the Blu-ray disc's higher capacity, allowing you to dive into the optional content seamlessly from the main quest."
arkephonic
Nonsense. It debunks the myth that somehow BD magically adds to content, length or graphics. It does none of those things. It is simply storage. More storage is good. Scratch resistance is good. In those senses BD is good for the PS3.
It also comes with a first gen sloooow BD drive. Which leads to many mandatory installs and other tradeoffs in performance.
The smart thing Sony did was having a mandatory HDD for every SKU as it allows them to deal better with the tradeoffs caused by the 1st gen BD drive.
The dumb thing Sony did was using BD at all since they already decided to go with a mandatory HDD. They could have launched earlier, at a cheaper price point, with DVD and a HDD thereby overcoming the weaknessness that 360 has with DVD but no mandatory HDD.
But for Sony, BD was never about gaming which is why they launched later at a higher price and lost $$$ and marketshare with no material improvement in the actual games. Disk swaps. Oh, the horror of it all!!!!!... on the handful of games....uh, yeah...ahem.
But good for you cows lapping up all that Sony milk.
Storage has always been a problem for consoles. Nintendo 64 had a fraction of the storage of the PS1, and it was a miracle that games like Resident Evil 2 even came to the N64. A game like Metal Gear Solid wouldn't have even been possible on the Nintendo 64 because of all the things like cutscenes and voice acting. MGS was only on 2 discs, now imagine a game like Final Fantasy IX which spanned 4 discs? The CDs on PS1 could store about 700 megabytes of data, whereas a cartridge on the N64 could only store 64 megabytes unless it was a special cartridge like in the case of Resident Evil 2.
Part of the reason that Nintendo 64 used a limited storage capacity cartridge was to prevent piracy, which is the exact same reason they used a mini disc solution in the Gamecube, and use a proprietary disc format in all of their consoles including the Wii and upcoming Wii U. The Gamecube was the only system last gen to have multiple disc games, and that's because storage became a problem on the mini discs.
It's all about the evolution of gaming, which goes hand in hand with games becoming larger and larger in size. If DVD was a sufficient storage medium for gaming, games wouldn't be releasing on 2, 3, sometimes 4 discs for the Xbox 360. Multiple disc games is always a clear cut sign that a change needs to be made, it always has been. This is much more applicable to consoles because consoles require each disc for playing, requiring the specific disc to be in the console pertaining to the specific part of the game. With PC, you install the discs and put them in storage, you don't need them anymore. That's not the case with consoles.
The only people defending DVD are fanboys. History goes against these fanboys, and industry professionals from all over have voiced their opinions which disagree with these fanboys. Once multple disc games start coming out on a consistent basis, a time for change is there. The PS3 side stepped the issue entirely, just like they did with the DVD on PS2 and just like they did with Blu-ray on PS3. Developers from all over have gone on record saying that the DVD format is dated and Blu-ray is a welcomed solution, as evidenced in the quotes in my original post. There's a reason all next gen systems will use either Blu-ray or another high capacity storage medium alternative.
Long story short, the only people that disagree are fanboys.
Long story short is that you just agreed with me. Blu-ray has nothing to do with length of game, content, or graphics.
You just wrote 1,000 words about convenience, storage, and swapping disks.
No doubt DVD's time is over. But WTF does that have to do with 2005 when X360 launched? Are you cows all stupid or do you all own time machines?
Log in to comment