Sorry, but really now. I personally don't want a blu-ray or HD-DVD player, but the added space is a good thing. You really shouldn't talk about need when talking about completely luxury items. More space = better for developers. You should want developers to have more breathing room.
I'm sure that most developers would have preferred more RAM or a better GPU rather than the extra space. Most consumers would probably have preferred a lower price point.
The PS3 only has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of GPU RAM, so it's certainly not going to be loading absolutely massive files into memory.
The extra space is nice, but it's hardly a "big ticket" item for most developers or consumers. PC games are doing just fine with the DVD format, and they have been doing the "HD" thing for years.
And if I recall correctly, the blu-ray drive only reads at something like 2x. The oblivion guys, again if what I heard was true, just put most of the content on there twice, to make the game load a little faster.
The blu-ray drive in the PS3 is a 2x drive 9mb/s, (which isn't the same as a 2xDVD). However, unlike a DVD drive, it has a constant read speed regardless of where the info on the disc is which is. DVD drives on the xbox has a maximum read speed of 12x (16mb/s) but only when reading from the outer edge. I think the drive reads dual-layers slower as well, but I'm not 100% confident on that. Either way, it's a bit naive to suggest that the PS3 has loading problems whilst the 360 doesn't, both systems have limitations.
More space is better. Not just trivially better, but better over-all. I can't get too technical, for I would sound dumb because of it, but there are many things that space can make better in a game. Texture sizes are increasing in games, and compression of textures is never a good thing. More space means better quality audio, more audio can be put on. They could potentially put in more levels, more content, etc. There's more things also, but they're technical, and I would sound retarded trying to explain them.
Of course, multiple DVD's can do the same thing, really.
But do we NEED those things? Space is ultimately irelevant. No one decided to buy a PS2 based on the fact that, with a Gamecube they'd have to deal with swithing a disc during RE4
Lol. You're right. Infact, why not just have games run on CDs? I mean, we can do everything on a CD that we can on a DVD, we'll just have to use CDs.
Or Floppy's.
Sorry, but really now. I personally don't want a blu-ray or HD-DVD player, but the added space is a good thing. You really shouldn't talk about need when talking about completely luxury items. More space = better for developers. You should want developers to have more breathing room.
If all they wanted was extra space for devs then why didn't they just put in a drive that could read DVD-9s or throw a second laser in there and put games out on DVD-18s? You might still have to swap disc later in the console generation, but 8.5 (DVD-9) and 17.1 (DVD-18) GB is a lot of space. I'm not sure which Blu-Ray discs the PS3 reads, but the capacity is between 7.8 and 50 GB. Assuming the PS3 reads 50GB discs they could have accomplished the same thing with three DVD-18s. Personally, I'd rather switch discs than have Blu-Ray pushed on me. It's not like the only choices are 1 Blu-Ray disc and 1 billion floppies.
Sorry, but really now. I personally don't want a blu-ray or HD-DVD player, but the added space is a good thing. You really shouldn't talk about need when talking about completely luxury items. More space = better for developers. You should want developers to have more breathing room.
I'm sure that most developers would have preferred more RAM or a better GPU rather than the extra space. Most consumers would probably have preferred a lower price point.
The PS3 only has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of GPU RAM, so it's certainly not going to be loading absolutely massive files into memory.
The extra space is nice, but it's hardly a "big ticket" item for most developers or consumers. PC games are doing just fine with the DVD format, and they have been doing the "HD" thing for years.
And if I recall correctly, the blu-ray drive only reads at something like 2x. The oblivion guys, again if what I heard was true, just put most of the content on there twice, to make the game load a little faster.
The blu-ray drive in the PS3 is a 2x drive 9mb/s, (which isn't the same as a 2xDVD). However, unlike a DVD drive, it has a constant read speed regardless of where the info on the disc is which is. DVD drives on the xbox has a maximum read speed of 12x (16mb/s) but only when reading from the outer edge. I think the drive reads dual-layers slower as well, but I'm not 100% confident on that. Either way, it's a bit naive to suggest that the PS3 has loading problems whilst the 360 doesn't, both systems have limitations.
Yeah I'm pretty sure the 360 drive only reads dual-layer DVD's at a maximum of 8x.
Also, the Oblivion example is wrong. They mentioned it once in an interview and suddenly the journalists took "they put the content on there twice" out of it. Bethesda were then asked about it in another interview and they said it'd been blown out of proportion, that they did it in a couple of places but that's about it. I'm pretty sure Garnett Lee (from 1UP) was one of the ones that misunderstood Bethesda, which is funny since he's also the source of the "PS3 doesn't have enough RAM for Oblivion's DLC" bullshit (not trying to say he's biased against the PS3 but that he doesn't really seem to understand any technical talk).
Btw ronzo: I'm not sure if you meant it but saying the PS3's BD drive is 2x doesn't mean anything. You can't just compare 2xBD to 12xDVD and come to the conclusion that the DVD drive is 6 times faster.
Sorry, but really now. I personally don't want a blu-ray or HD-DVD player, but the added space is a good thing. You really shouldn't talk about need when talking about completely luxury items. More space = better for developers. You should want developers to have more breathing room.
I'm sure that most developers would have preferred more RAM or a better GPU rather than the extra space. Most consumers would probably have preferred a lower price point.
The PS3 only has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of GPU RAM, so it's certainly not going to be loading absolutely massive files into memory.
The extra space is nice, but it's hardly a "big ticket" item for most developers or consumers. PC games are doing just fine with the DVD format, and they have been doing the "HD" thing for years.
And if I recall correctly, the blu-ray drive only reads at something like 2x. The oblivion guys, again if what I heard was true, just put most of the content on there twice, to make the game load a little faster.
The blu-ray drive in the PS3 is a 2x drive 9mb/s, (which isn't the same as a 2xDVD). However, unlike a DVD drive, it has a constant read speed regardless of where the info on the disc is which is. DVD drives on the xbox has a maximum read speed of 12x (16mb/s) but only when reading from the outer edge. I think the drive reads dual-layers slower as well, but I'm not 100% confident on that. Either way, it's a bit naive to suggest that the PS3 has loading problems whilst the 360 doesn't, both systems have limitations.
Yeah I'm pretty sure the 360 drive only reads dual-layer DVD's at a maximum of 8x.
Also, the Oblivion example is wrong. They mentioned it once in an interview and suddenly the journalists took "they put the content on there twice" out of it. Bethesda were then asked about it in another interview and they said it'd been blown out of proportion, that they did it in a couple of places but that's about it. I'm pretty sure Garnett Lee (from 1UP) was one of the ones that misunderstood Bethesda, which is funny since he's also the source of the "PS3 doesn't have enough RAM for Oblivion's DLC" bullshit (not trying to say he's biased against the PS3 but that he doesn't really seem to understand any technical talk).
Btw rook: I'm not sure if you meant it but saying the PS3's BD drive is 2x doesn't mean anything. You can't just compare 2xBD to 12xDVD and come to the conclusion that the DVD drive is 6 times faster.
I'm fairly sure I mention that fact, though perhaps not as coherantly as possible.
Honestly, Blu-ray (or any other next-gen DVD format out there) will be an improvement. More space is better. Problem is, it was put in the PS3 before it was mass-market ready (and all video game consoles NEED to be mass-market; they can't be early-adoptive expensive to thrive in the market). It added $200 to the cost of the console, its (current) slow read speed requires massive pre-loads, and DVDs haven't become prohibitively small yet. A game on seven disks would be just stupid, but 2-4 is just fine.
In the next gen, blu-ray or HD-DVD will absolutely be needed due to increasing game size, it will be cheap, and it will be effective. But at the moment, the disadvantages outweigh its advantages.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
Wii what's this? I haven't seen any in stores, so I'm not sure it exists.
That would be because every time a UPS truck shows up at a store, a horde of increasingly desperate yuppies and soccer moms descend like a horde of locusts and BUY THEM.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
Wii what's this? I haven't seen any in stores, so I'm not sure it exists.
That would be because every time a UPS truck shows up at a store, a horde of increasingly desperate yuppies and soccer moms descend like a horde of locusts and BUY THEM.
A phenomenon that many analysts have said will be a detriment to Nintendo, that there aren't any on shelves. They completely ignore the fact that they aren't on shelves because people are buying them too fast.
With Blueray outselling HD by nearly 2 to 1, despite Blue being newer and more expensive, as well as PS3s big sellers not yet released, on top of poor 360 sells in Japan means the PS3 ain't going anywhere.
The Wii does exist.
Wii what's this? I haven't seen any in stores, so I'm not sure it exists.
That would be because every time a UPS truck shows up at a store, a horde of increasingly desperate yuppies and soccer moms descend like a horde of locusts and BUY THEM.
A phenomenon that many analysts have said will be a detriment to Nintendo, that there aren't any on shelves. They completely ignore the fact that they aren't on shelves because people are buying them too fast.
The analysts have moved past that point and are now blaming Nintendo for what Nintendo did best in the 80's and most of the 90's; make most of the third parties look bad. The reason Nintendo failed at it in the late 90's? Most of the third parties had already given up on the 64.
Posts
The blu-ray drive in the PS3 is a 2x drive 9mb/s, (which isn't the same as a 2xDVD). However, unlike a DVD drive, it has a constant read speed regardless of where the info on the disc is which is. DVD drives on the xbox has a maximum read speed of 12x (16mb/s) but only when reading from the outer edge. I think the drive reads dual-layers slower as well, but I'm not 100% confident on that. Either way, it's a bit naive to suggest that the PS3 has loading problems whilst the 360 doesn't, both systems have limitations.
If all they wanted was extra space for devs then why didn't they just put in a drive that could read DVD-9s or throw a second laser in there and put games out on DVD-18s? You might still have to swap disc later in the console generation, but 8.5 (DVD-9) and 17.1 (DVD-18) GB is a lot of space. I'm not sure which Blu-Ray discs the PS3 reads, but the capacity is between 7.8 and 50 GB. Assuming the PS3 reads 50GB discs they could have accomplished the same thing with three DVD-18s. Personally, I'd rather switch discs than have Blu-Ray pushed on me. It's not like the only choices are 1 Blu-Ray disc and 1 billion floppies.
Yeah I'm pretty sure the 360 drive only reads dual-layer DVD's at a maximum of 8x.
Also, the Oblivion example is wrong. They mentioned it once in an interview and suddenly the journalists took "they put the content on there twice" out of it. Bethesda were then asked about it in another interview and they said it'd been blown out of proportion, that they did it in a couple of places but that's about it. I'm pretty sure Garnett Lee (from 1UP) was one of the ones that misunderstood Bethesda, which is funny since he's also the source of the "PS3 doesn't have enough RAM for Oblivion's DLC" bullshit (not trying to say he's biased against the PS3 but that he doesn't really seem to understand any technical talk).
Btw ronzo: I'm not sure if you meant it but saying the PS3's BD drive is 2x doesn't mean anything. You can't just compare 2xBD to 12xDVD and come to the conclusion that the DVD drive is 6 times faster.
I'm fairly sure I mention that fact, though perhaps not as coherantly as possible.
Sorry, was meant to say that to ronzo but I accidently got your name instead.
In the next gen, blu-ray or HD-DVD will absolutely be needed due to increasing game size, it will be cheap, and it will be effective. But at the moment, the disadvantages outweigh its advantages.
That would be because every time a UPS truck shows up at a store, a horde of increasingly desperate yuppies and soccer moms descend like a horde of locusts and BUY THEM.
A phenomenon that many analysts have said will be a detriment to Nintendo, that there aren't any on shelves. They completely ignore the fact that they aren't on shelves because people are buying them too fast.
The analysts have moved past that point and are now blaming Nintendo for what Nintendo did best in the 80's and most of the 90's; make most of the third parties look bad. The reason Nintendo failed at it in the late 90's? Most of the third parties had already given up on the 64.