Was Blu-Ray even necessary this gen?

I mean come on, the only game I can think of that used all 50 GB was MGS4, any other games hasnt really tapped the potential of how much it can store, most games PS3 can do 360 can also do. Sure I can buy Blu-Ray movies now, but when I still buy DVDs,and that its usually $35 for one Blu-Ray movie, I would just go for DVD, unless its a really good movie ( Dark Knight, Transformers). I dont care about this whole "10 year plan" I personally think its just a huge backlash. Anyone else agree with me? I think it couldve waited until next gen. Then again this is just my opinion.ImSwordMan

Probably not needed for gaming, but I am sure the added space is a benefit more than a hindrance.

And for films, IMO, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are huge improvements for people like me who love movies.

Its not necessary but its a nice addition.

[QUOTE="ImSwordMan"]I mean come on, the only game I can think of that used all 50 GB was MGS4, any other games hasnt really tapped the potential of how much it can store, most games PS3 can do 360 can also do. Sure I can buy Blu-Ray movies now, but when I still buy DVDs,and that its usually $35 for one Blu-Ray movie, I would just go for DVD, unless its a really good movie ( Dark Knight, Transformers). I dont care about this whole "10 year plan" I personally think its just a huge backlash. Anyone else agree with me? I think it couldve waited until next gen. Then again this is just my opinion.skektek

I'm pretty sure all those games you mention except MGS4 doesn't need all those spaces considering they're all not a lengthy games and most probably can be done on the 360. Just a thought.

apparently carmack says yesrocoswav

Carmack's thing seemed to be more of a complaint that MS requires a higher fee if your game ships on more than 2 discs. Thats what he really seemed pissed about. I think its kinda stupid on MS' part. You'll scare people from making games as good as their PS3 counterparts. When it comes down to it I think most of these companies would be happy to make a gimped 360 version if it meant they could make more money than releasing an equal quality version that cost them a higher roylaty or license fee.

haruhi fan I counter with code geass fan

on topic I like bluray and bluray is useful if you don't like scratches,multiple disks,and like movies.also extra contnet

I mean come on, the only game I can think of that used all 50 GB was MGS4, any other games hasnt really tapped the potential of how much it can store, most games PS3 can do 360 can also do. Sure I can buy Blu-Ray movies now, but when I still buy DVDs,and that its usually $35 for one Blu-Ray movie, I would just go for DVD, unless its a really good movie ( Dark Knight, Transformers). I dont care about this whole "10 year plan" I personally think its just a huge backlash. Anyone else agree with me? I think it couldve waited until next gen. Then again this is just my opinion.ImSwordMan

Were DVD's really necessary last Gen? When you really think about it, CD's could have worked for the most part.

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]apparently carmack says yesSenor_Kami

Carmack's thing seemed to be more of a complaint that MS requires a higher fee if your game ships on more than 2 discs. Thats what he really seemed pissed about. I think its kinda stupid on MS' part. You'll scare people from making games as good as their PS3 counterparts. When it comes down to it I think most of these companies would be happy to make a gimped 360 version if it meant they could make more money than releasing an equal quality version that cost them a higher roylaty or license fee.

that doesn't make sense. why waste money on a game that guaranteed a flop or isn't even on the same level as the other levels. im sure there are games that have been released like this but devs should never release a game that has problems. sure that console has more users but if the game scores low they screwed up. at the end of day profit is most important thing to look at. also ms better please the devs when it comes to making a game on more than 2 disk. devs can give ms the middle finger and do a game on the ps3 instead. seriously how are you going to charge devs for using more space.

Is this gen even necessary for gaming? hakanakumono

yes

Is this gen even necessary for gaming? hakanakumono

Yes. Why would one say such a thing?

Blu-ray is a different story

Is this gen even necessary for gaming? hakanakumono

Gaming, like all the other forms of entertainment, is not needed. We keep it going because we prefer to be entertained in some form or another rather than look at other people.

Is this gen even necessary for gaming? hakanakumono

Not in my opinion. Most games could have been done on last-gen hardware. Aside from better graphics, nothing much has been brought to the table.

Concerning Blu-Ray, it hasn't been necessary yet. In theory it should be more convenient, but in reality slow read speeds have negated that convenience. HDDs are probably going to be the big story this gen with installs becoming a reality on consoles.

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]apparently carmack says yessireclaborn

Carmack's thing seemed to be more of a complaint that MS requires a higher fee if your game ships on more than 2 discs. Thats what he really seemed pissed about. I think its kinda stupid on MS' part. You'll scare people from making games as good as their PS3 counterparts. When it comes down to it I think most of these companies would be happy to make a gimped 360 version if it meant they could make more money than releasing an equal quality version that cost them a higher roylaty or license fee.

that doesn't make sense. why waste money on a game that guaranteed a flop or isn't even on the same level as the other levels. im sure there are games that have been released like this but devs should never release a game that has problems. sure that console has more users but if the game scores low they screwed up. at the end of day profit is most important thing to look at. also ms better please the devs when it comes to making a game on more than 2 disk. devs can give ms the middle finger and do a game on the ps3 instead. seriously how are you going to charge devs for using more space.

Huh?

I'm just going by what Carmack said. He said that MS charges more if your game is on more than 2 discs. He then said he'd be releasing his game on two discs instead of 3 and that the graphics would suffer because of this. He didn't say Microsoft banned him from doing 3 discs, but that whatever they charge (not sure if technially its a roylaty, licensing fee or penalty, but it was clear that it wasn't just extra manufacturing cost for the extra disc and special case) dramatically increases if you go over 2 disc so he'd rather released a gimped version on 2 disc then do a proper release on 3 disc but have increased expenses.

Being a business major I can see why he'd do this. I doubt the 360 version will be a poor looking 360 game so its not like you're really gimping it to unacceptable levels. From a business perspective, more money > less money.

It's not a question of whether or not all 50GB is needed it is a question of whether or not DVD 9's 7.9GB was enough. MGS4 is over 25GB (requiring a dual layer BD).Motorstorm, Uncharted, Resistance and Heavenly Sword are all ~15GB.skektek

All those games are from sony, and most are actually quite content lacking.

The only games on the 360 that I am aware of that need multi disks are Blue Dragon, Lost Oddessey and the upcoming Rage. If every other 360 game can fit on a DVD, I don't see why those 4 sony ones can't. (or MGS4 really)

haruhi fan I counter with code geass fan

on topic I like bluray and bluray is useful if you don't like scratches,multiple disks,and like movies.also extra contnet

Iceman2911

Extra movie content? like commentary and behind the scenes? Those things are uesless imo and I can just see that on youtube

[QUOTE="Iceman2911"]

haruhi fan I counter with code geass fan

on topic I like bluray and bluray is useful if you don't like scratches,multiple disks,and like movies.also extra contnet

ImSwordMan

Extra movie content? like commentary and behind the scenes? Those things are uesless imo and I can just see that on youtube

haha youtube quality videos

By the end of this gen PS3 owners will be very happy to have Blu-ray. Its not really a question of whether or not you mind changing discs, it's the fact that once you start having to put games on two and three discs you've outgrown your storage medium. Now that the space is available devs will use it, just like they did with DVD on the PS2. If the PS2 didn't have DVD we would have been able to argue that it was never needed, but by the end of its life cycle it would have been handicapped and we never would have known what we were missing. It almost becomes a chicken before the egg arguement. If the space isn't there devs will make due without it, so you can argue they didn't need it, but if it is there they do use it, so obviously they did need it right? O_o

Besides, even if it's possible to fit the game on a DVD wouldn't you rather they spend their time tweaking the game instead of finding ways to compress data? It wasn't that long ago that PC's were using 5gb hard drives and games were stored on floppys. I can't understand why so many people think technology is going to stand still for DVD and keep insisting that "it's good enough". It's time to move on people, whether it's Blu-ray or HDD and digital download (I hope not), or something we haven't seen yet, the bottom line is that DVD just is not big enough to last through another generation.

[QUOTE="sireclaborn"][QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]apparently carmack says yesSenor_Kami

Carmack's thing seemed to be more of a complaint that MS requires a higher fee if your game ships on more than 2 discs. Thats what he really seemed pissed about. I think its kinda stupid on MS' part. You'll scare people from making games as good as their PS3 counterparts. When it comes down to it I think most of these companies would be happy to make a gimped 360 version if it meant they could make more money than releasing an equal quality version that cost them a higher roylaty or license fee.

that doesn't make sense. why waste money on a game that guaranteed a flop or isn't even on the same level as the other levels. im sure there are games that have been released like this but devs should never release a game that has problems. sure that console has more users but if the game scores low they screwed up. at the end of day profit is most important thing to look at. also ms better please the devs when it comes to making a game on more than 2 disk. devs can give ms the middle finger and do a game on the ps3 instead. seriously how are you going to charge devs for using more space.

Huh?

I'm just going by what Carmack said. He said that MS charges more if your game is on more than 2 discs. He then said he'd be releasing his game on two discs instead of 3 and that the graphics would suffer because of this. He didn't say Microsoft banned him from doing 3 discs, but that whatever they charge (not sure if technially its a roylaty, licensing fee or penalty, but it was clear that it wasn't just extra manufacturing cost for the extra disc and special case) dramatically increases if you go over 2 disc so he'd rather released a gimped version on 2 disc then do a proper release on 3 disc but have increased expenses.

Being a business major I can see why he'd do this. I doubt the 360 version will be a poor looking 360 game so its not like you're really gimping it to unacceptable levels. From a business perspective, more money > less money.

It doesnt take a business major to know that. One thing though, why would the cost of 3 discs be that much more than 2 discs... i wonder what the cost per disc is from MS or the royalty fees. I mean, for a blank dvd its like $0.50/each. selling a game for $60-70 and losing another 50 cents doesnt seem expensive, so there must be some kind of royalty or fee involved from MS per disc. like $20/disc. two discs = $20-30 profit/game and 3 discs = no profit. But $20 per disc seems a little much even for money grubbing MS.

I mean really is $50 a year for playing online really necessary? Heck that is what $200 for 4 years of playing. And like wise no bluray isn't really necessary but it is a huge plus to have included into your purchase of the ps3, which in most cases was only about $50 difference than its competitors price. Another words MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK!!

I know everyone says its about the games lol. Well to me it was about the games and the multiuse functions of the ps3 the justified the price. $50 more and I get games and alot more than what the competitor is offering with this system. If you purchased a ps3 you can rest assured you got a quality product and your moneys worth with all of its hardware that is inside of it, so be happy :). And plus a ton of great games out and coming. Heck the competitor screams about dlc and multiplates when we know the ps3 is having some great exclusives coming. So we have the games aswell :)

Its not needed. We could still use cartrages if we wanted to, but we dont.

Its like every other gen, blu ray is a new and better storage device for games, it has more space, which means larger and more detailed games.

People say its not needed, but whilst its true at the same time it isnt. You dont need it, but its nice to have.

Sony have just been a little more brave and jumped ahead, whilst MS wanted to stay safe.

IMO no it was not needed

I hate those installations:evil:

They should have waited a gen and build one in once they're cheaper

What do you mean WAS it necessary? Hate to break it you ya, buddy, but just because the 360 is in its Autumn years, doesn't mean the PS3 is. CD's weren't necessary at the start of the PS1's life. They eventually were. DVD's weren't necessary at the start of the PS2's life. They eventually were. BD isn't necessary at the start of the PS3's life, it eventually will be.

Not all sides release half-assed consoles with old mediums that die regularly. PS3 is future proofed, GTA V, MGS5 etc etc will benefit immensely from it.

Was blu-ray necessary this gen? No.

Is it pretty cool? Yeah.

It seems to be Sony's tradition to change formats with each console.

With the PS1, they had CD.

With the PS2, they had DVD.

With the PS3, they had BD

With the PSP, they had UMD.

They are always a little different each console that gets released.

any advantage that blu ray has is negated by the 2x speed drive in the ps3.

mgs4 was actually about 33 gb and that includes uncompressed audio and probably a lot of redundant files. i wouldnt be suprised if it fit on 1 dvd. gta4 was a much larger game and was only 6gb.

blu ray in the ps3 was only meant to be a launching platform for the format and to beat hdvd. it was a wise business decision but it has no advantage despite what sony pr keeps spewing.

as of right now for 360 no

for ps3 yes

so basically sony games are taking advantage of the space, but 360 has no choice but to only use one dvd or ms will charge "expensive fees"

i believe your question is too earlly to answer, but i also can see bluray being necessary from her on out and when MS makes a new box

Most of the people are either kids or talk like kids over here.Doesnt anyone over here understand the game ?

This is basically a format war.Sony has armed every one with the weapons(blu ray drives) and now all they are left to do in the near future is supply everyone the bullets(blu rays).

Most of the people are either kids or talk like kids over here.Doesnt anyone over here understand the game ?

This is basically a format war.Sony has armed every one with the weapons(blu ray drives) and now all they are left to do in the near future is supply everyone the bullets(blu rays).

lesner87

any advantage that blu ray has is negated by the 2x speed drive in the ps3.

mgs4 was actually about 33 gb and that includes uncompressed audio and probably a lot of redundant files. i wouldnt be suprised if it fit on 1 dvd. gta4 was a much larger game and was only 6gb.

blu ray in the ps3 was only meant to be a launching platform for the format and to beat hdvd. it was a wise business decision but it has no advantage despite what sony pr keeps spewing.

mephisto_11

Honestly I hate the name Blu-Ray, i thought it would grow on me but it really hasn't...HD-DVD was a much better name.W1NGMAN-

Too many syllables, it was a mouthful. It looked great on Paper, but not when pronouncing it.