Resident Evil 5 is an example why Blu-Ray is not needed.

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Zoso-8"]Fail at anyone who thinks Blu Ray won't be the standard next gen. Downloading to an HDD? Are next gen consoles coming with 1TB HDD :lol:. Games like MGS4 are simply too large, and will keep getting larger. Not to mention by then Blu Ray would be cheaper for the company then putting in an insane sized HDD.3picuri3

Actually, the best route to go is to keep the Blu-ray format, but implement solid-state drives in the next round of consoles (PS3 is solid-state drive compatable now). Then, you'd not only have the storage space, but incredible speed, as well.

Somebody correct me but isn't the transfer rate with Blu-Ray so slow that installs are required to play most games?

Doesn't having full installs negate any advantage it would have?

Somebody correct me but isn't the transfer rate with Blu-Ray so slow that installs are required to play most games?

Doesn't having full installs negate any advantage it would have?

DaBrainz

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

Somebody correct me but isn't the transfer rate with Blu-Ray so slow that installs are required to play most games?

Doesn't having full installs negate any advantage it would have?

SpruceCaboose

OK not all Blu-Ray drives are too slow for games, just the one in the PS3. I think we'll have full download retail games before Blu-Ray has a chance to replace DVD.

No.

Change your topic title:

Resident Evil 5 is an example why people should STFU, and be piss happy that everyone's getting a quality looking game.

(sucks for sheep though :P)

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Blu-Ray transfer rates are much faster on a one to one than DVD. The issue is that the PS3 only has a 2X BD Drive, so it is slower overall than the 360s DVD drive. The difference is not drastic, but Sony allowed developers to do installs to somewhat negate the increased loading times, but at a cost of HDD space and time taken to install the game.RuinedMachine

OK not all Blu-Ray drives are too slow for games, just the one in the PS3. I think we'll have full download retail games before Blu-Ray has a chance to replace DVD.

If I'm wrong educate me then. If installs are required to run the games properly because the PS3 Blu-Ray drive data transfer rate as too slow then what's wrong with what I wrote?

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="drj077"]

Actually, the best route to go is to keep the Blu-ray format, but implement solid-state drives in the next round of consoles (PS3 is solid-state drive compatable now). Then, you'd not only have the storage space, but incredible speed, as well.

drj077

guess we'll see then won't we ;)

and mark my words, it'll be in less than 3 years, closer to 2.

It's funny how there's only one group here that claim that blu-ray is needed for games. Only one group.

Everlyone else seems to know that blu-ray is just a storage medium, meaning is does not affect the size, graphics, or sound of a game.

Blu-ray would be an advantage for the PS3 if the drive speed was at least 3x. But Sony wisely included a standard HDD, which effectively neutralizes the slow 2x BR drive in the PS3.

Fact is, DVD has ALREADY proved itself to be just fine for this gen of games. While blu-ray (and it's related cost) has proven to be the silver bullet to Sony, taking them from 1st Place to 3rd Place in a single gen.

EDIT: edited in fear of someone snitching to the MODs :shock:

It's funny how cows are the only group here that claim that blu-ray is needed for games. The only group.

Non-fanboys, Lems, and Hermits all know that blu-ray is just a storage medium, meaning is does not affect the size, graphics, or sound of a game.

Blu-ray would be an advantage for the PS3 if the drive speed was at least 3x. But Sony wisely included a standard HDD, which effectively neutralizes the slow 2x BR drive in the PS3.

Fact is, DVD has ALREADY proved itself to be just fine for this gen of games. While blu-ray (and it's related cost) has proven to be the silver bullet to Sony, taking them from 1st Place to 3rd Place in a single gen.

LosDaddie

i personally hate bluray. think it's a pointless media created by a consortium to push their hardware on an already cash-strapped consumer that just finished (or hasn't yet) replacing their VHS with DVD. this is why i'll never support it. big media a greedy bunch of *******. second, i totally agree. it's what some refer to as 'burden media' - which essentially means it has been placed upon the consumer base as a burden to carry for the big electronic companies that are struggling to sell their HDTV sets that are built to last 5 years to consumers that fail to see the necessity and are still using reliable CRT sets that are over 20 years old and showing no signs of failing.

i'm fine swapping disks, and have no issues with the quality of upscaled DVDs.

lost odyssey i didn't even notice the swapping and it has multiple disks. the truth is there is very little argument for BRD, even in the gen to come next. it caters to a very small group of people that feel it's necessary to spend a ton of money for a small increase in visual fidelity. people my grandfather would have referred to as 'saps' :P i'm fine with compressed audio using non-lossy compression. i'm fine with swapping disks. i'm fine with my DVD collection & using DD for my HD material.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Theres no corellation between secondary storage space (discs, hard drives, memory cards, etc) and visual fidelity.Zeuxo

i personally hate bluray. think it's a pointless media created by a consortium to push their hardware on an already cash-strapped consumer that just finished (or hasn't yet) replacing their VHS with DVD. this is why i'll never support it. big media a greedy bunch of *******. second, i totally agree. it's what some refer to as 'burden media' - which essentially means it has been placed upon the consumer base as a burden to carry for the big electronic companies that are struggling to sell their HDTV sets that are built to last 5 years to consumers that fail to see the necessity and are still using reliable CRT sets that are over 20 years old and showing no signs of failing.

i'm fine swapping disks, and have no issues with the quality of upscaled DVDs.

lost odyssey i didn't even notice the swapping and it has multiple disks. the truth is there is very little argument for BRD, even in the gen to come next. it caters to a very small group of people that feel it's necessary to spend a ton of money for a small increase in visual fidelity. people my grandfather would have referred to has 'saps' :P i'm fine with compressed audio using non-lossy compression. i'm fine with swapping disks. i'm fine with my DVD collection & using DD for my HD material.

3picuri3

I own a PS3 and love blu-ray movies. I also own a 61" 1080p LCD and HDMI 1.3a sound system.

But none of that changes the fact that blu-ray isn't "needed" for games

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

i personally hate bluray. think it's a pointless media created by a consortium to push their hardware on an already cash-strapped consumer that just finished (or hasn't yet) replacing their VHS with DVD. this is why i'll never support it. big media a greedy bunch of *******. second, i totally agree. it's what some refer to as 'burden media' - which essentially means it has been placed upon the consumer base as a burden to carry for the big electronic companies that are struggling to sell their HDTV sets that are built to last 5 years to consumers that fail to see the necessity and are still using reliable CRT sets that are over 20 years old and showing no signs of failing.

i'm fine swapping disks, and have no issues with the quality of upscaled DVDs.

lost odyssey i didn't even notice the swapping and it has multiple disks. the truth is there is very little argument for BRD, even in the gen to come next. it caters to a very small group of people that feel it's necessary to spend a ton of money for a small increase in visual fidelity. people my grandfather would have referred to has 'saps' :P i'm fine with compressed audio using non-lossy compression. i'm fine with swapping disks. i'm fine with my DVD collection & using DD for my HD material.

LosDaddie

I own a PS3 and love blu-ray movies. I also own a 61" 1080p LCD and HDMI 1.3a sound system.

But none of that changes the fact that blu-ray isn't "needed" for games

i watched people get burned by laser disc as a child, so i guess i'm just a bit more savvy when it comes to dropping money / paying more for movies for a minor increase in quality.

not to mention the fact i can stream all of this HD content with my slingbox without dropping a dime on 30$ BR

It's funny how cows are the only group here that claim that blu-ray is needed for games. The only group.

Non-fanboys, Lems, and Hermits all know that blu-ray is just a storage medium, meaning is does not affect the size, graphics, or sound of a game.

Blu-ray would be an advantage for the PS3 if the drive speed was at least 3x. But Sony wisely included a standard HDD, which effectively neutralizes the slow 2x BR drive in the PS3.

Fact is, DVD has ALREADY proved itself to be just fine for this gen of games. While blu-ray (and it's related cost) has proven to be the silver bullet to Sony, taking them from 1st Place to 3rd Place in a single gen.

LosDaddie

Bigger the media, the more content....is that simple. If you want UNCOMPRESSED true content, disc capacity is an advantage. Sometimes you can tell if audio/visuals have been compressed more so..etc. But yes, its not needed, but games get bigger and Sony's choice with bluray was due to movies not games, but of course they have to make it look like it effects both. Eyezonmii

Heavenly sword, lair and uncharted all say hi to your comment with there 10hours or less campaigns and no multiplayer. MGSIV says hi too and reminds you that just because the dev was lazy and chose not to compress audio does not = needed.

Somebody correct me but isn't the transfer rate with Blu-Ray so slow that installs are required to play most games?

Doesn't having full installs negate any advantage it would have?

DaBrainz

The word needed is stupid in this context, Blu Ray is an enhancement just like rumble, HD graphics, hard drive, online, browser etc... None of these things are "needed" but it's a lot better to have them then not too. These "blu Ray aren't needed" threads are just plain pointless, and you can bet that if the 360 also had Blu Ray dev's would be taking advantage, and offering us more, I'm not talking about graphics but I'm sure dev's can find Blu Ray to be usefull. Doesn't Uncharted one of the sexiest looking console games have 0 loading times because it can constantly stream data off the Blu Ray disc? Was it needed? Ofc not, is it cool to have? YES! Stop making it sound like DVD > Blu Ray. Maybe Sony and MS should try the Wii approach next gen because clearly HD graphics aren't needed either...Eddie-Vedder

In the context of console game development; 12x DVD > 2x Blu-ray

Disc read speeds are far more important to developers than storage capacity.

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

Somebody correct me but isn't the transfer rate with Blu-Ray so slow that installs are required to play most games?

Doesn't having full installs negate any advantage it would have?

Teufelhuhn

I don't know why people are so resistant to change. I remember these same arguments for cartridges when CD came out, then again when DVD came out and now it's Blu-ray. It might not be needed right at this moment, but more storage capacity is needed and DVD is reaching it's limitations. You already have some games shipping on multiple disks.EmperorSupreme

CDs showed immediated advantages over SNES cartridges, other than load times. There was no resistance to DVDs since all the consoles used them last gen.

And blu-ray hasn't shown any real advantages over DVDs yet

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] The word needed is stupid in this context, Blu Ray is an enhancement just like rumble, HD graphics, hard drive, online, browser etc... None of these things are "needed" but it's a lot better to have them then not too. These "blu Ray aren't needed" threads are just plain pointless, and you can bet that if the 360 also had Blu Ray dev's would be taking advantage, and offering us more, I'm not talking about graphics but I'm sure dev's can find Blu Ray to be usefull. Doesn't Uncharted one of the sexiest looking console games have 0 loading times because it can constantly stream data off the Blu Ray disc? Was it needed? Ofc not, is it cool to have? YES! Stop making it sound like DVD > Blu Ray. Maybe Sony and MS should try the Wii approach next gen because clearly HD graphics aren't needed either...LosDaddie

In the context of console game development; 12x DVD > 2x Blu-ray

Disc read speeds are far more important to developers than storage capacity.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Bigger the media, the more content....is that simple. If you want UNCOMPRESSED true content, disc capacity is an advantage. Sometimes you can tell if audio/visuals have been compressed more so..etc. But yes, its not needed, but games get bigger and Sony's choice with bluray was due to movies not games, but of course they have to make it look like it effects both. CreepyBacon

Heavenly sword, lair and uncharted all say hi to your comment with there 10hours or less campaigns and no multiplayer. MGSIV says hi too and reminds you that just because the dev was lazy and chose not to compress audio does not = needed.

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] The word needed is stupid in this context, Blu Ray is an enhancement just like rumble, HD graphics, hard drive, online, browser etc... None of these things are "needed" but it's a lot better to have them then not too. These "blu Ray aren't needed" threads are just plain pointless, and you can bet that if the 360 also had Blu Ray dev's would be taking advantage, and offering us more, I'm not talking about graphics but I'm sure dev's can find Blu Ray to be usefull. Doesn't Uncharted one of the sexiest looking console games have 0 loading times because it can constantly stream data off the Blu Ray disc? Was it needed? Ofc not, is it cool to have? YES! Stop making it sound like DVD > Blu Ray. Maybe Sony and MS should try the Wii approach next gen because clearly HD graphics aren't needed either...Eddie-Vedder

In the context of console game development; 12x DVD > 2x Blu-ray

Disc read speeds are far more important to developers than storage capacity.

Kinda, but not really.

Basically, 2x BR + Standard HDD = 12x DVD.....but that's really the wrong way to look at things.

The real reason you won't see either the PS3 or Xbox360 outshine the other is because the hardware specs (500MB RAM, 3.2 GHz CPU, etc) are so similar. DVD and BR are just storage mediums.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

Somebody correct me but isn't the transfer rate with Blu-Ray so slow that installs are required to play most games?

Doesn't having full installs negate any advantage it would have?3picuri3

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

It's not the transfer times, it's the seek rates. And to be accurate, the seek times are usually too slow for games to meet Sony's TCR guidelines for loading times.Steppy_76

[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Bigger the media, the more content....is that simple. If you want UNCOMPRESSED true content, disc capacity is an advantage. Sometimes you can tell if audio/visuals have been compressed more so..etc. But yes, its not needed, but games get bigger and Sony's choice with bluray was due to movies not games, but of course they have to make it look like it effects both. Steppy_76

Heavenly sword, lair and uncharted all say hi to your comment with there 10hours or less campaigns and no multiplayer. MGSIV says hi too and reminds you that just because the dev was lazy and chose not to compress audio does not = needed.

Not true.

Cows have repeatedly claimed they need blu-ray because they own 50"+ 1080p HDTVs and 7.1 HDMI 1.3a sound systems.....to go along with their high-end gaming PCs, which make owning the Xbox350 redundant.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

In the context of console game development; 12x DVD > 2x Blu-ray

Disc read speeds are far more important to developers than storage capacity.

LosDaddie

Kinda, but not really.

Basically, 2x BR + Standard HDD = 12x DVD.....but that's really the wrong way to look at things.

The real reason you won't see either the PS3 or Xbox360 outshine the other is because the hardware specs (500MB RAM, 3.2 GHz CPU, etc) are so similar. DVD and BR are just storage mediums.

And that's why they copy some texture files and content over and over again in the same disc. It's easy, kids!longshotgir

The SNES is an example why new consoles are not needed. New consoles cost money and you can get just as much of a good gaming experience on the SNES. Cartridges had plenty of space to create good games and greedy people who are just trying to shove the CD, DVD, or BRD down our throats to make money.peeviness

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Theres no corellation between secondary storage space (discs, hard drives, memory cards, etc) and visual fidelity.Zeuxo

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] this is why many BRD games have several copies of the game across the entire BRD. oblivion i think is one of the first i read about that tried this to help with the seek times.longshotgir

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] 2x Blu Ray + Guaranteed HD > 12x DvD or am I wrong?Eddie-Vedder

Kinda, but not really.

Basically, 2x BR + Standard HDD = 12x DVD.....but that's really the wrong way to look at things.

The real reason you won't see either the PS3 or Xbox360 outshine the other is because the hardware specs (500MB RAM, 3.2 GHz CPU, etc) are so similar. DVD and BR are just storage mediums.

Again, 12x DVD is better than 2x BR for console devs. Disc read speeds are of far more importance than storage capacity to devs.

You have a point about better audio & more cinematics. But this gen, the vast majority of devs have moved away from using pre-rendered CGI cinematics because the game engines are good enough to make those cutscenes now. And it's actually EASIER & MORE COST EFFICIENT to use the game's engine for cutscences. The only devs still using pre-rendered cutscenes seems to be JRPG devs, and I hate JRPGs.

Better audio is nice. But really, how many people here even have a surround sound system, much less a 7.1 system? The market just isn't there.

When will people accept that bluray was included to beat HD DVD.

Whatever they say about its gaming applications is just spin and PR. It was meant to win the HD format war, and nothing more.

Multiple DVDs and modern compression are just fine, as only jrpgs on 360 require multiple disks.

[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Bigger the media, the more content....is that simple. If you want UNCOMPRESSED true content, disc capacity is an advantage. Sometimes you can tell if audio/visuals have been compressed more so..etc. But yes, its not needed, but games get bigger and Sony's choice with bluray was due to movies not games, but of course they have to make it look like it effects both. Steppy_76

Heavenly sword, lair and uncharted all say hi to your comment with there 10hours or less campaigns and no multiplayer. MGSIV says hi too and reminds you that just because the dev was lazy and chose not to compress audio does not = needed.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

Heavenly sword, lair and uncharted all say hi to your comment with there 10hours or less campaigns and no multiplayer. MGSIV says hi too and reminds you that just because the dev was lazy and chose not to compress audio does not = needed.Gay-Lord-Perry

Bigger the media, the more content....is that simple. If you want UNCOMPRESSED true content, disc capacity is an advantage. Sometimes you can tell if audio/visuals have been compressed more so..etc. But yes, its not needed, but games get bigger and Sony's choice with bluray was due to movies not games, but of course they have to make it look like it effects both. Eyezonmii

Less compression requires higher bandwidth and more video and internal memory, so it isn't always better.

damn MGS4 is 7.1... nice. I never knew games were in 7.1. Can anyone PM me a list of known games with 7.1... because I thought my cousin bought 7.1 too early as only 2 of his 10 Blu-Ray movies support it.Rai

Of course its not needed. Not even the space of DVD is needed. But its a nice luxury to have that added space.SpruceCaboose

It really should have ended with this post.

The demo looks gorgeous and its only 460MB!!! What do you think?Zeuxo

Blur-ray is needed for HD Movies, don't forget! The quality is nearly perfect, it's creepy.

As for games, Blu-ray helps but of course isn't necessary. Blu-ray discs dont scratch, that's a plus!

[QUOTE="Zeuxo"]The demo looks gorgeous and its only 460MB!!! What do you think?Gaming_Guru_Guy

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Of course its not needed. Not even the space of DVD is needed. But its a nice luxury to have that added space.FragTycoon

It really should have ended with this post.