To the people who say blu-ray isnt necessary

i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturesblues3531

blu-ray has more capacity. thats it.

gears of was had an 8 hour campaign?? that pretty short.

in the future(and its starting to happen now) more space will most likely be needed for games. this is not to say that compression techniques wont improve, but c'mon having to uncompress all that data will just make loading times longer.

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]LOL, where would the PS3 without blu-ray??? In my house thats where. It would be selling better too, and because it would be selling so well it would be getting even more 3rd party support, thus more good games. subject117

You're wrong about that. The 3rd party support and good games WILL come. It's too bad you can't see far enough ahead to realize the benefit. It's not like the development turnaround is a short time. It takes more than a year to make most games (the system has not even been out for a year).

I'm sorry that you can't afford a PS3. I'm sure if someone gave it to you, or you could afford one you'd be happy with it as I am.I certainly play it about 10X more than my Wii.

[QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturesjack_russel

Yes it's true. By allowing the developers more time to develop, and less to spend trying to compress data, the end result can be a better product. Also, there are no negatives to extra storage, other than the initial cost of the system. Now here's where you can't argue: The PS3 is only 600 dollars. 600 dollars for something that you will use for more than 1000 hours. How is that a bad investment? It's not.

[QUOTE="subject117"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]LOL, where would the PS3 without blu-ray??? In my house thats where. It would be selling better too, and because it would be selling so well it would be getting even more 3rd party support, thus more good games. jack_russel

You're wrong about that. The 3rd party support and good games WILL come. It's too bad you can't see far enough ahead to realize the benefit. It's not like the development turnaround is a short time. It takes more than a year to make most games (the system has not even been out for a year).

I'm sorry that you can't afford a PS3. I'm sure if someone gave it to you, or you could afford one you'd be happy with it as I am.I certainly play it about 10X more than my Wii.

Well right now I'm enjoying a lot of Blu-Ray movies, and a lot of PS2 games (that look better with the smoothing on). If it didn't have Blu-Ray, my PS3 would probably be collecting more dust than my Wii. (and the dust is thick on that one). Just because it's not something you find to be a good value, doesn't mean it isn't for millions of other people.

[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturessubject117

Yes it's true. By allowing the developers more time to develop, and less to spend trying to compress data, the end result can be a better product. Also, there are no negatives to extra storage, other than the initial cost of the system. Now here's where you can't argue: The PS3 is only 600 dollars. 600 dollars for something that you will use for more than 1000 hours. How is that a bad investment? It's not.

[QUOTE="subject117"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturesjack_russel

Yes it's true. By allowing the developers more time to develop, and less to spend trying to compress data, the end result can be a better product. Also, there are no negatives to extra storage, other than the initial cost of the system. Now here's where you can't argue: The PS3 is only 600 dollars. 600 dollars for something that you will use for more than 1000 hours. How is that a bad investment? It's not.

You act like $600 is alot of money :lol:

i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturesblues3531

You're twisting the argument around, not just here, but in the TP as well. Arguing that BluRay isn't necessary for gaming right now, is not the same argument as "technology never needs to improve". Yes, if games keep evolving the way they are currently (they might not), a new standard format will have to arise to hold them. However...

The argument for dvd9 is that RIGHT NOW that isn't the case. You're paying a few hundred extra dollars to recieve a benefit that has yet to be proven existant. The only multi-disc dvd9 is Blue Dragon, and it works just fine. The rest of the games (some arguably better in technical and gameplay realms than ANY ps3 game) work just fine on dvd9. If there would come a time they need more space, Blue Dragon it up and multi-disc.The tradeoff of switching discs isworth the money saved on the console.

[QUOTE="subject117"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturesjack_russel

Yes it's true. By allowing the developers more time to develop, and less to spend trying to compress data, the end result can be a better product. Also, there are no negatives to extra storage, other than the initial cost of the system. Now here's where you can't argue: The PS3 is only 600 dollars. 600 dollars for something that you will use for more than 1000 hours. How is that a bad investment? It's not.

You know, it's been 7 years since PS2 came out. I bought it for 300. I was in college at the time, and not making that much money. I now make TWICE as much (I better after 7 years). So really, it's a no-brainer. I'm sorry that you haven't had the same experience as me. That being said, I understand where you're coming from.

blu-ray has more capacity. thats it.

gears of was had an 8 hour campaign?? that pretty short.

in the future(and its starting to happen now) more space will most likely be needed for games. this is not to say that compression techniques wont improve, but c'mon having to uncompress all that data will just make loading times longer.

xxtechn9ne

Your wrong, compressed data loads faster from the drive because it is smaller. Todays hardware is super fast at uncompressing data, way faster than a drive can load it. You ever use your PC to uncompress a file, even a slow PC is faster at uncompressing data than the load or save times from the drive.

[QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen textureswhoisryanmack

You're twisting the argument around, not just here, but in the TP as well. Arguing that BluRay isn't necessary for gaming right now, is not the same argument as "technology never needs to improve". Yes, if games keep evolving the way they are currently (they might not), a new standard format will have to arise to hold them. However...

The argument for dvd9 is that RIGHT NOW that isn't the case. You're paying a few hundred extra dollars to recieve a benefit that has yet to be proven existant. The only multi-disc dvd9 is Blue Dragon, and it works just fine. The rest of the games (some arguably better in technical and gameplay realms than ANY ps3 game) work just fine on dvd9. If there would come a time they need more space, Blue Dragon it up and multi-disc.The tradeoff of switching discs isworth the money saved on the console.

It's okay, I remember the same arguments about Dreamcast vs. PS2, and how DVD isn't necessary. They'll come around.

look the ps3 might be a good value with blueray in it but its not selling well(GBA beat it last month) it needs to come down to at least $400. Now to make it sell extremely well like the PS2 did last gen it need to come down to at least $300. Which imo is not happening for one reason only: blueray the manufacturing cost of the drive is going to keep the price of the PS3 up.

Can everyone imagine what would have happened had sony not had blueray in the PS3? the price of the console would probably have started at $400 and then by now they could have dropped it to $300 where I and many others would buy it.

So no blueray is what makes the ps3 not sell well in my opinion its why sony isn't matching the ps2's sales last gen. Maybe next gen if the price of making the next gen dvds is a lot cheaper it might make sense but i mean there has to be a price roof in which console manufactures understand that you cant sell your product at $500+.

[QUOTE="xxtechn9ne"]

blu-ray has more capacity. thats it.

gears of was had an 8 hour campaign?? that pretty short.

in the future(and its starting to happen now) more space will most likely be needed for games. this is not to say that compression techniques wont improve, but c'mon having to uncompress all that data will just make loading times longer.

rrjim1

Your wrong, compressed data loads faster from the drive because it is smaller. Todays hardware is super fast at uncompressing data, way faster than a drive can load it. You ever use your PC to uncompress a file, even a slow PC is faster at uncompressing data than the load or save times from the drive.

It's not *always* smaller, and it doesn't *always* decompress faster. You are probably thinking about ONE type of compression (WinZip). Different compression techniques can achieve different results. Some can decompress faster, some can compress more, it depends.

look the ps3 might be a good value with blueray in it but its not selling well(GBA beat it last month) it needs to come down to at least $400. Now to make it sell extremely well like the PS2 did last gen it need to come down to at least $300. Which imo is not happening for one reason only: blueray the manufacturing cost of the drive is going to keep the price of the PS3 up.

Can everyone imagine what would have happened had sony not had blueray in the PS3? the price of the console would probably have started at $400 and then by now they could have dropped it to $300 where I and many others would buy it.

So no blueray is what makes the ps3 not sell well in my opinion its why sony isn't matching the ps2's sales last gen. Maybe next gen if the price of making the next gen dvds is a lot cheaper it might make sense but i mean there has to be a price roof in which console manufactures understand that you cant sell your product at $500+.

Tactis

The PS2 is beating the 360 so your point is?

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturessubject117

You're twisting the argument around, not just here, but in the TP as well. Arguing that BluRay isn't necessary for gaming right now, is not the same argument as "technology never needs to improve". Yes, if games keep evolving the way they are currently (they might not), a new standard format will have to arise to hold them. However...

The argument for dvd9 is that RIGHT NOW that isn't the case. You're paying a few hundred extra dollars to recieve a benefit that has yet to be proven existant. The only multi-disc dvd9 is Blue Dragon, and it works just fine. The rest of the games (some arguably better in technical and gameplay realms than ANY ps3 game) work just fine on dvd9. If there would come a time they need more space, Blue Dragon it up and multi-disc.The tradeoff of switching discs isworth the money saved on the console.

It's okay, I remember the same arguments about Dreamcast vs. PS2, and how DVD isn't necessary. They'll come around.

That was an entirely different situation. The argument was not storage space as much as it was the fact that ps2 could play dvd's. That was important back in 2000, and because the systems were priced comparably, it didn't make sense not to get the one that could play movies. Hense, ps2 destroyed.

[QUOTE="subject117"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen textureswhoisryanmack

You're twisting the argument around, not just here, but in the TP as well. Arguing that BluRay isn't necessary for gaming right now, is not the same argument as "technology never needs to improve". Yes, if games keep evolving the way they are currently (they might not), a new standard format will have to arise to hold them. However...

The argument for dvd9 is that RIGHT NOW that isn't the case. You're paying a few hundred extra dollars to recieve a benefit that has yet to be proven existant. The only multi-disc dvd9 is Blue Dragon, and it works just fine. The rest of the games (some arguably better in technical and gameplay realms than ANY ps3 game) work just fine on dvd9. If there would come a time they need more space, Blue Dragon it up and multi-disc.The tradeoff of switching discs isworth the money saved on the console.

It's okay, I remember the same arguments about Dreamcast vs. PS2, and how DVD isn't necessary. They'll come around.

That was an entirely different situation. The argument was not storage space as much as it was the fact that ps2 could play dvd's. That was important back in 2000, and because the systems were priced comparably, it didn't make sense not to get the one that could play movies. Hense, ps2 destroyed.

It's not as different of a situation as you think. How is Blu-Ray NOT better than DVD? The answer is: Blu-Ray IS better. The question is whether or not you want to spend 600 dollars. The price WILL come down, butI don't regret my PS3 purchase.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="subject117"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturessubject117

You're twisting the argument around, not just here, but in the TP as well. Arguing that BluRay isn't necessary for gaming right now, is not the same argument as "technology never needs to improve". Yes, if games keep evolving the way they are currently (they might not), a new standard format will have to arise to hold them. However...

The argument for dvd9 is that RIGHT NOW that isn't the case. You're paying a few hundred extra dollars to recieve a benefit that has yet to be proven existant. The only multi-disc dvd9 is Blue Dragon, and it works just fine. The rest of the games (some arguably better in technical and gameplay realms than ANY ps3 game) work just fine on dvd9. If there would come a time they need more space, Blue Dragon it up and multi-disc.The tradeoff of switching discs isworth the money saved on the console.

It's okay, I remember the same arguments about Dreamcast vs. PS2, and how DVD isn't necessary. They'll come around.

That was an entirely different situation. The argument was not storage space as much as it was the fact that ps2 could play dvd's. That was important back in 2000, and because the systems were priced comparably, it didn't make sense not to get the one that could play movies. Hense, ps2 destroyed.

It's not as different of a situation as you think. How is Blu-Ray NOT better than DVD? The answer is: Blu-Ray IS better. The question is whether or not you want to spend 600 dollars. The price WILL come down, butI don't regret my PS3 purchase.

But it is different. DVD's don't require hdtv's and thousands of dollars to enjoy. They were also a massive leap over VHS, and already becoming the standard format at the time. People wanted in badly, and the PS2 gave them a justifiable and low priced way to do so.

BluRay on the other hand, is better, but no one really cares as of yet. It surely isn't going to sway many buyers to choose PS3. Most of the people who would be interested (read: videophiles and the generally wealthy) would be able to, or would want to, buy a standalone player. The market just isn't clamoring for BluRay just yet, and it isn't boosting PS3 sales.

I never said BluRay isn't better, but the question is...is it necessary? Judging by system sales and current game quality, the obvious answer is no.

But it is different. DVD's don't require hdtv's and thousands of dollars to enjoy. They were also a massive leap over VHS, and already becoming the standard format at the time. People wanted in badly, and the PS2 gave them a justifiable and low priced way to do so.

BluRay on the other hand, is better, but no one really cares as of yet. It surely isn't going to sway many buyers to choose PS3. Most of the people who would be interested (read: videophiles and the generally wealthy) would be able to, or would want to, buy a standalone player. The market just isn't clamoring for BluRay just yet, and it isn't boosting PS3 sales.

I never said BluRay isn't better, but the question is...is it necessary? Judging by system sales and current game quality, the obvious answer is no.

whoisryanmack

I wouldn't say no one really cares as of yet. Obviously lots of people care, including myself. I'm sorry that you don't see the value in HD movies and games, but I do. I enjoy them thoroughly, in fact. I'm by no means "wealthy" or I would probably have some huge 60" 1080p set. I don't, I have a 26" tube HDTV that was only 500 bucks. It does 720p and 1080i and is beautiful. A lot of people just think they need to spend thousands on an HDTV and leave it at that.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

But it is different. DVD's don't require hdtv's and thousands of dollars to enjoy. They were also a massive leap over VHS, and already becoming the standard format at the time. People wanted in badly, and the PS2 gave them a justifiable and low priced way to do so.

BluRay on the other hand, is better, but no one really cares as of yet. It surely isn't going to sway many buyers to choose PS3. Most of the people who would be interested (read: videophiles and the generally wealthy) would be able to, or would want to, buy a standalone player. The market just isn't clamoring for BluRay just yet, and it isn't boosting PS3 sales.

I never said BluRay isn't better, but the question is...is it necessary? Judging by system sales and current game quality, the obvious answer is no.

subject117

I wouldn't say no one really cares as of yet. Obviously lots of people care, including myself. I'm sorry that you don't see the value in HD movies and games, but I do. I enjoy them thoroughly, in fact. I'm by no means "wealthy" or I would probably have some huge 60" 1080p set. I don't, I have a 26" tube HDTV that was only 500 bucks. It does 720p and 1080i and is beautiful. A lot of people just think they need to spend thousands on an HDTV and leave it at that.

Comparitively, no one cares. There are 6.8 billion people on the planet, and only acouple million who watch BluRays. And yes, you are "wealthy" as compared to the general human population. Very few people have any sort of HDTV, be it CRT or flat panel. This seems ridiculous I know, but this is the scale of the argument. Sony isn't trying to win over a million people, they're trying to win hundreds of millions with this format. DVD did and does that. BluRay doesn't so far, and is not growing at the rate that would suggest they are getting there anytime soon.

And again, I didn't say I don't see the value in the movies or the games. I am arguing that they are unnecessary, which the public seems to think they are at the moment.

Bluray DISC = cheaper to produce than HD DVD
So it does have an advantage...excluding the player cost lol..

But other than that, storing 50 gigs of info on one disc? Thats a nifty back up cd right there to me. Covers half my comp files.
Idk, IMO it's not NEEDED but it certainly has its distinct advantages. (e.g. Lair = 25g of data...even though most of it is uncompressed...but that means no texture loading times like in GeOW.)

[QUOTE="subject117"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

But it is different. DVD's don't require hdtv's and thousands of dollars to enjoy. They were also a massive leap over VHS, and already becoming the standard format at the time. People wanted in badly, and the PS2 gave them a justifiable and low priced way to do so.

BluRay on the other hand, is better, but no one really cares as of yet. It surely isn't going to sway many buyers to choose PS3. Most of the people who would be interested (read: videophiles and the generally wealthy) would be able to, or would want to, buy a standalone player. The market just isn't clamoring for BluRay just yet, and it isn't boosting PS3 sales.

I never said BluRay isn't better, but the question is...is it necessary? Judging by system sales and current game quality, the obvious answer is no.

whoisryanmack

I wouldn't say no one really cares as of yet. Obviously lots of people care, including myself. I'm sorry that you don't see the value in HD movies and games, but I do. I enjoy them thoroughly, in fact. I'm by no means "wealthy" or I would probably have some huge 60" 1080p set. I don't, I have a 26" tube HDTV that was only 500 bucks. It does 720p and 1080i and is beautiful. A lot of people just think they need to spend thousands on an HDTV and leave it at that.

Comparitively, no one cares. There are 6.8 billion people on the planet, and only acouple million who watch BluRays. And yes, you are "wealthy" as compared to the general human population. Very few people have any sort of HDTV, be it CRT or flat panel. This seems ridiculous I know, but this is the scale of the argument. Sony isn't trying to win over a million people, they're trying to win hundreds of millions with this format. DVD did and does that. BluRay doesn't so far, and is not growing at the rate that would suggest they are getting there anytime soon.

And again, I didn't say I don't see the value in the movies or the games. I am arguing that they are unnecessary, which the public seems to think they are at the moment.

By your logic, though,peopleARE clamoring for Blu-Ray moreso than they did for DVD. It's just that the bar has been raised. Looking at actual sales numbers, PS3 to date has a similar amount to PS2 during the same period. A lot of people aren't seeing that. How is that bad? The only REAL different is that DVD was out for 3 years before PS2 came out. Considering that point, Blu-Rays are doing BETTER than DVD's when first released.

At the present the Blu-Ray is just now getting support from game developers and within a year or two the Blu-Ray will be the standard for games. So the PS3 is more of a next gen. console than any other system. Just give things a little time we will see other game consoles coming out with the same specs.

The PS3 is actually a great value for what it can do now and in the future with firmware updates.

[QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen textureswhoisryanmack

You're twisting the argument around, not just here, but in the TP as well. Arguing that BluRay isn't necessary for gaming right now, is not the same argument as "technology never needs to improve". Yes, if games keep evolving the way they are currently (they might not), a new standard format will have to arise to hold them. However...

The argument for dvd9 is that RIGHT NOW that isn't the case. You're paying a few hundred extra dollars to recieve a benefit that has yet to be proven existant. The only multi-disc dvd9 is Blue Dragon, and it works just fine. The rest of the games (some arguably better in technical and gameplay realms than ANY ps3 game) work just fine on dvd9. If there would come a time they need more space, Blue Dragon it up and multi-disc.The tradeoff of switching discs isworth the money saved on the console.

i havent been twisting around my argument at all, i stated that blu-ray isnt NECESSARY for games, BUT it does make them better and yeah it makes games more next gen then just great textures like geow, thats the only claim gears has towards graphics is hi res textures due to small levels and lots of backdrops and buildings that u cant enter, also almost no dynamic lighting, cuz they went the route of nearly filling up the disc with extreme amounts of textures over small areas, on a blu-ray disc you could have the same textures on bigger more realistic open ended enviroments

[QUOTE="subject117"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="blues3531"]i gtg to work now so i wont be hear to reply but serioulsy just admit blu-ray will have a place in the future of games rather than making last gen games with next gen texturesjack_russel

Yes it's true. By allowing the developers more time to develop, and less to spend trying to compress data, the end result can be a better product. Also, there are no negatives to extra storage, other than the initial cost of the system. Now here's where you can't argue: The PS3 is only 600 dollars. 600 dollars for something that you will use for more than 1000 hours. How is that a bad investment? It's not.

wow! 600 is not that much money...

blues i am supporting you on the basis that blue ray is better.

however blu-ray does not make games better. it simply has more capacity and it is up to the DEVELOPERS to utilize it.

you just keeps saying "blue rays makes games better" but have nothing else to say besides that.

Lets see, what games now use over the space of a DVD?

It isn't needed right now, not saying that it shouldn't be used for gaming. If I have a DVD player that works and is old as hell, why should I spend more money for a new one that does the same exact thing? If I have a TV that's over 10 years old that works, why should I spend more money for another TV when it does the same exact thing? Sometimes more advanced technology isn't needed.

Legendaryscmt

Lair is 25GB, The Gamer's Day demo of Uncharted was larger than 10GB, .. ya..

blues i am supporting you on the basis that blue ray is better.

however blu-ray does not make games better. it simply has more capacity and it is up to the DEVELOPERS to utilize it.

you just keeps saying "blue rays makes games better" but have nothing else to say besides that.

xxtechn9ne

i didnt say it automatically makes a game better, in one of my earlier posts i said when the devs use it in the right way or something like that idk the exact words but im saying the potential for blu-ray is there its up to the devs to utilize it

[QUOTE="xxtechn9ne"]

blues i am supporting you on the basis that blue ray is better.

however blu-ray does not make games better. it simply has more capacity and it is up to the DEVELOPERS to utilize it.

you just keeps saying "blue rays makes games better" but have nothing else to say besides that.

blues3531

i didnt say it automatically makes a game better, in one of my earlier posts i said when the devs use it in the right way or something like that idk the exact words but im saying the potential for blu-ray is there its up to the devs to utilize it

The same could be said for more ram, larger hard drives, better graphics cards, etc. to death. There is always more potential that could be added. These are consoles though, as in, lower priced standardized pc's. If we start adding all kinds of stuff just because devs could use it, we'll end up with a $5k Alienware as the ps4.

A balance must be struck, and at current parts costs, 360 seems to have hit that point more closely than did ps3. This is the ultimate decider of "necessity", not which format holds more content. If people wanted more content, and valued that enough, ps3 would be flying off shelves leaving the 360 as dust collector. It isn't happening that way, and the games aren't proving without a doubt that we're wrong about that decision.

congradulations, welcome to the mniority. Everybody else bought the 360 and Wii.jack_russel

I usually don't ***** about grammar but the fact that your post is both flame-bait and poorly composed/thought out please consider reviewing SW best practices sometime down the road.

Considering the PS3 is sold out where I work as well as at the local Target and Best Buy I would say the price issue is the real problem with adoption and thats being brought to bear surprisingly quickly (not THAT surprising considering the intial $140 charge on diodes, but still surprising).

And our point is that "blu-ray is even less necessary than the other kinds of technology because it doesn't help gaming".jack_russel

Blu-Ray can definitely help gaming, numerous developers have come out and said that the game wouldn't fit on DVD or that they are having trouble getting their games to fit on DVD9.

[QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]

Lets see, what games now use over the space of a DVD?

It isn't needed right now, not saying that it shouldn't be used for gaming. If I have a DVD player that works and is old as hell, why should I spend more money for a new one that does the same exact thing? If I have a TV that's over 10 years old that works, why should I spend more money for another TV when it does the same exact thing? Sometimes more advanced technology isn't needed.

E_x_i_l_e

Lair is 25GB, The Gamer's Day demo of Uncharted was larger than 10GB, .. ya..

Factor 5's Julian Eggebrect

GZ: How many hours of gameplay do you anticipate this game will have?

Julian:It depends on how good you are as a player. Some missions you might get on the first go and some you may take 10 go's and it will last much, much longer. We are saying, in general, 12 hours, and that is without a lot of the replay value.

25GB's for a 12 hour game? What is this some sort of joke?

[QUOTE="E_x_i_l_e"][QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]

Lets see, what games now use over the space of a DVD?

It isn't needed right now, not saying that it shouldn't be used for gaming. If I have a DVD player that works and is old as hell, why should I spend more money for a new one that does the same exact thing? If I have a TV that's over 10 years old that works, why should I spend more money for another TV when it does the same exact thing? Sometimes more advanced technology isn't needed.

Blackbond

Lair is 25GB, The Gamer's Day demo of Uncharted was larger than 10GB, .. ya..

Factor 5's Julian Eggebrect

GZ: How many hours of gameplay do you anticipate this game will have?

Julian:It depends on how good you are as a player. Some missions you might get on the first go and some you may take 10 go's and it will last much, much longer. We are saying, in general, 12 hours, and that is without a lot of the replay value.

25GB's for a 12 hour game? What is this some sort of joke?

no the game has huge levels, i think the demo level of kz2 was 15 minutes, yeah 2gb, not fitting that whole game on dvd9 and its mainly cuz these levels dont use backdrops everything is actually physically rendered in objects with textures and such

To the people who say blu-ray isnt necessary....

Are the people who are currently playing HD games with a great current lineup of games which includes dominate multiplats versions along with highly anticipated titles due in the near future.

The pro Blu-ray group are the envious gamers who wish they had better examples as to why Blu-ray should be the dominant format, but overall their current lineup (1st and 3rd party) dont portray the format as anythng more than a hardware limitation.

Game On...

I don't know guys, but personally I would much rather put one disc in the drive and play a game on it rather than having to deal with swapping out two to five discs to play a game, I just think that would get a bit annoying after awhile, especially when and if every game starts having to do it.abeautifullmind

Thats nice that you have been completely brainwashed by Sony into thinking disk swaps are a burden. But no game in the last decade (PC or console) has required a gamer to swap disks as often in the manner the Sony clan wants you to think. The pro Blu-ray group makes it seems like you are swapping disks every other cutscene or while you are playing through a level. WRONG!!! This is not the good old days of old PCs where you needed a 5 1/2 disk to load the OS, another disk to start a app, and a few more the actually use the app.

Wake up and smell what Sony is shoveling!!!! HD gaming has been going on for years without Blu-ray, so just because the format is installed in the PS3 it should automatically become a industry standard because Sony said so?

Game On...

Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will most likely be important next gen but the PS3 has Blu-Ray just to help the format against HD-DVD. The PS3 is good value for someone who cares about the difference but personally when I see the price of the PS3 I turn my head and think of other things I could be spending that money on. IMO the 360 was a little too high but just enough for me to agree in buying(any higher and I would own a Wii only).

LOL to the person who said they would rather spend the money then switch discs.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="E_x_i_l_e"][QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]

Lets see, what games now use over the space of a DVD?

It isn't needed right now, not saying that it shouldn't be used for gaming. If I have a DVD player that works and is old as hell, why should I spend more money for a new one that does the same exact thing? If I have a TV that's over 10 years old that works, why should I spend more money for another TV when it does the same exact thing? Sometimes more advanced technology isn't needed.

blues3531

Lair is 25GB, The Gamer's Day demo of Uncharted was larger than 10GB, .. ya..

Factor 5's Julian Eggebrect

GZ: How many hours of gameplay do you anticipate this game will have?

Julian:It depends on how good you are as a player. Some missions you might get on the first go and some you may take 10 go's and it will last much, much longer. We are saying, in general, 12 hours, and that is without a lot of the replay value.

25GB's for a 12 hour game? What is this some sort of joke?

no the game has huge levels, i think the demo level of kz2 was 15 minutes, yeah 2gb, not fitting that whole game on dvd9 and its mainly cuz these levels dont use backdrops everything is actually physically rendered in objects with textures and such

Uh huh and so why doesn't a game like Crysis take up 25GB hmm? Is it because it takes place in open area environments? The high level of detail that destroys Killzone 2 and Lair? The advanced Physicas and destructable enviroments? Please explain to me how a game that isn't on the same graphical level takes up 25GB while Crysis doesn't. I'd really love to know. I mean PC's have generated huge worlds forever because of that thing that every PC has. What is that thing again....darn what's it called oh yeah a Hardrive. Wait doesn't every PS3 have a Hardrive too? Well then hell if PC doesn't need Blu-Ray then why does PS3? They chould theoretically just equip it with a large HDD and not use Blu-Ray. It would be cheaper and just as effective.

Uh huh and so why doesn't a game like Crysis take up 25GB hmm? Is it because it takes place in open area environments? The high level of detail that destroys Killzone 2 and Lair? The advanced Physicas and destructable enviroments? Please explain to me how a game that isn't on the same graphical level takes up 25GB while Crysis doesn't. I'd really love to know. I mean PC's have generated huge worlds forever because of that thing that every PC has. What is that thing again....darn what's it called oh yeah a Hardrive. Wait doesn't every PS3 have a Hardrive too? Well then hell if PC doesn't need Blu-Ray then why does PS3? They chould theoretically just equip it with a large HDD and not use Blu-Ray. It would be cheaper and just as effective.

Blackbond

How do you know crysis won't take up 25GB or at least more than 9GB? The game isn't even finished yet...

I just want to say, PGR4. :lol:sm66612

[QUOTE="sm66612"]I just want to say, PGR4. :lol:omarguy01

pgr4 developers have said that they have to make a compromise cuz the game would not fit on a dvd.they said that they were planning to make a track in both day and night conditions with all those wether efefects.but it wont fit on a dvd.so pgr4 will not take full advantage of 360 hardware. scroll down in www.kotaku.com

.............

[QUOTE="omarguy01"][QUOTE="sm66612"]I just want to say, PGR4. :lol:moon_1990

pgr4 developers have said that they have to make a compromise cuz the game would not fit on a dvd.they said that they were planning to make a track in both day and night conditions with all those wether efefects.but it wont fit on a dvd.so pgr4 will not take full advantage of 360 hardware. scroll down in www.kotaku.com

.............

While it is not the best news to hear, its no different from previous generations where devs had ideas they wanted to implement but ran into issues with budget, time, medium capacity, or hardware limitations... No biggie, its not like they said "we cant create the game at all"!!! Besides all this Blu-ray can do this and that, the only dev that actually has a legitimate use for the medium is Kojima-san and MGS4, all other devs are just adding useless fluff to promote Blu-ray which is why the format is not the industry standard this gen.

Game On...

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

Uh huh and so why doesn't a game like Crysis take up 25GB hmm? Is it because it takes place in open area environments? The high level of detail that destroys Killzone 2 and Lair? The advanced Physicas and destructable enviroments? Please explain to me how a game that isn't on the same graphical level takes up 25GB while Crysis doesn't. I'd really love to know. I mean PC's have generated huge worlds forever because of that thing that every PC has. What is that thing again....darn what's it called oh yeah a Hardrive. Wait doesn't every PS3 have a Hardrive too? Well then hell if PC doesn't need Blu-Ray then why does PS3? They chould theoretically just equip it with a large HDD and not use Blu-Ray. It would be cheaper and just as effective.

munu9

How do you know crysis won't take up 25GB or at least more than 9GB? The game isn't even finished yet...

Like other pc games, it may take up a few installation discs, this time..maybe on a few dvds.