Face it. Blu-Ray is NEEDED! ***edited with new dev comments***

Obviously Bluray is not needed right now since it just won the format war in the beginning of 2008 thats only 3months but it will be needed in 1-2 years when developers start making bigger games and learn how to use blu-ray better. 90% of the games can fit on DVD-9 because blu-ray just came out they didnt even have the option of putting it on blu-ray so give it a year and then talk.

Nothing is compressed. Due to the fact that they didn't want to force an install. Surround sound to justify a 50 gig game? Wow. You can keep it.

xsubtownerx

That's good. Uncompressed sound is much better then compressed sound.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]blu-ray is superior to DVD. therefore blu-ray is better to have than DVD. end-o-thread.Dreams-Visions

Blu-Ray may very well be better than DVD.

But that isn't the argument.

People keep moving the goal posts man. It's nice to have. But "needed"...that's a claim that curent game evidence does not support.

Exactly, and this is the point some folks don't seem to grasp.

Obviously Bluray is not needed right now since it just won the format war in the beginning of 2008 thats only 3months but it will be needed in 1-2 years when developers start making bigger games and learn how to use blu-ray better. 90% of the games can fit on DVD-9 because blu-ray just came out they didnt even have the option of putting it on blu-ray so give it a year and then talk.

caligamer

Right. Devs are gonna force blu-ray on PC gamers, and the other consoles in 2 years? Do you have any idea how long it took DVD to become the standard for gaming after it was released? It'll be more along the lines of 4-5 years and that's IF devs even care for it.

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

Obviously Bluray is not needed right now since it just won the format war in the beginning of 2008 thats only 3months but it will be needed in 1-2 years when developers start making bigger games and learn how to use blu-ray better. 90% of the games can fit on DVD-9 because blu-ray just came out they didnt even have the option of putting it on blu-ray so give it a year and then talk.

xsubtownerx

Right. Devs are gonna force blu-ray on PC gamers, and the other consoles in 2 years? Do you have any idea how long it took DVD to become the standard for gaming after it was released? It'll be more along the lines of 4-5 years and that's IF devs even care for it.

Forcing a technology is a good thing. The PS2 "forced" the usage of DVD's. Was that bad?

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]blu-ray is superior to DVD. therefore blu-ray is better to have than DVD. end-o-thread.The_Game21x

Blu-Ray may very well be better than DVD.

But that isn't the argument.

People keep moving the goal posts man. It's nice to have. But "needed"...that's a claim that curent game evidence does not support.

Exactly, and this is the point some folks don't seem to grasp.

I feel the same way, if crysis is only around 7gb, I feel like it will be awhile before blue-ray becomes a necessity.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="caligamer"]

Obviously Bluray is not needed right now since it just won the format war in the beginning of 2008 thats only 3months but it will be needed in 1-2 years when developers start making bigger games and learn how to use blu-ray better. 90% of the games can fit on DVD-9 because blu-ray just came out they didnt even have the option of putting it on blu-ray so give it a year and then talk.

dream431ca

Right. Devs are gonna force blu-ray on PC gamers, and the other consoles in 2 years? Do you have any idea how long it took DVD to become the standard for gaming after it was released? It'll be more along the lines of 4-5 years and that's IF devs even care for it.

Forcing a technology is a good thing. The PS2 "forced" the usage of DVD's. Was that bad?

In 2 years?? I really really doubt that.

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

Obviously Bluray is not needed right now since it just won the format war in the beginning of 2008 thats only 3months but it will be needed in 1-2 years when developers start making bigger games and learn how to use blu-ray better. 90% of the games can fit on DVD-9 because blu-ray just came out they didnt even have the option of putting it on blu-ray so give it a year and then talk.

xsubtownerx

Right. Devs are gonna force blu-ray on PC gamers, and the other consoles in 2 years? Do you have any idea how long it took DVD to become the standard for gaming after it was released? It'll be more along the lines of 4-5 years and that's IF devs even care for it.

Im not saying Blu-ray is going to be the standard in 2years but it definatly will have a better grip and more games on the market in 2 years.

I like how best buy is giving people a 50$ gift card if they buy a HD DVD player....
kingman03

Isnt it you get a $50 gift card if you trade in your old HD-DVD player for a new and BETTER BLU-RAY player

[QUOTE="kingman03"]I like how best buy is giving people a 50$ gift card if they buy a HD DVD player....
caligamer

Isnt it you get a $50 gift card if you trade in your old HD-DVD player for a new and BETTER BLU-RAY player

[QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="kingman03"]I like how best buy is giving people a 50$ gift card if they buy a HD DVD player....
kingman03

Isnt it you get a $50 gift card if you trade in your old HD-DVD player for a new and BETTER BLU-RAY player

I would think that they lost more than that developing the technology and making all those HD-DVDs player

[QUOTE="kingman03"][QUOTE="caligamer"]

[QUOTE="kingman03"]I like how best buy is giving people a 50$ gift card if they buy a HD DVD player....
caligamer

Isnt it you get a $50 gift card if you trade in your old HD-DVD player for a new and BETTER BLU-RAY player

I would think that they lost more than that developing the technology and making all those HD-DVDs player

Some people can't stop and look more than a year or two ahead of them. But when your favorite console maker is known for short lifespans, why should you?TekkenMaster606

Just because Xbox 1 had a short lifespan doesn't mean that the 360 will as well. Xbox 1 was more of a "test" console for Microsoft to gain a steady foothold in the games industry, and it cost them only $4,500,000,000. That is why the money-burning Xbox 1 was quickly replaced with the Xbox 360, which is gaining money rather than losing it. Now that the Xbox brandname has gained market share ahead of the Playstation brandname, Microsoft will stick with the 360 until creating a successor is financially feasible.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]Some people can't stop and look more than a year or two ahead of them. But when your favorite console maker is known for short lifespans, why should you?PandaBear86

Just because Xbox 1 had a short lifespan doesn't mean that the 360 will as well. Xbox 1 was more of a "test" console for Microsoft to gain a steady foothold in the games industry, and it cost them only $4,500,000,000. That is why the money-burning Xbox 1 was quickly replaced with the Xbox 360, which is gaining money rather than losing it. Now that the Xbox brandname has gained market share ahead of the Playstation brandname, Microsoft will stick with the 360 until creating a successor is financially feasible.

They already announced they had plans to bring out a new console end of 2009, beginning of 2010. And you know what happens to old MS consoles when new ones come out...........

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]Some people can't stop and look more than a year or two ahead of them. But when your favorite console maker is known for short lifespans, why should you?donwoogie

Just because Xbox 1 had a short lifespan doesn't mean that the 360 will as well. Xbox 1 was more of a "test" console for Microsoft to gain a steady foothold in the games industry, and it cost them only $4,500,000,000. That is why the money-burning Xbox 1 was quickly replaced with the Xbox 360, which is gaining money rather than losing it. Now that the Xbox brandname has gained market share ahead of the Playstation brandname, Microsoft will stick with the 360 until creating a successor is financially feasible.

They already announced they had plans to bring out a new console end of 2009, beginning of 2010. And you know what happens to old MS consoles when new ones come out...........

They said this quite some time ago. Since the gaming industry has realised that graphics don't help with success (look at the Wii and DS), Microsoft will most certainly delay their next console by an extra 1-2 years.

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]

this is an awsome thread

i love the damage control everywhere, its awsome

blackace

Agreed- still no rebuttals from actual developers. Just fanboys guessing with "well GameX does blah blah blah"...really, you're not a dev, shut up.

Dev may not be complaining about Blu-Ray, because they are instead complaining about how friggin impossible it is to program a game on the PS3 in less then 2 yrs. Wasn't Heaven Sword suppose to be a launch title? I thought FFXII and MGS4 was suppose to be out this year. Why the delay? Because programming on the PS3 using Sony's weak application software and tools are terrible. That's what the devs are complaining about. Should I find links for that? :lol:

Wow, you're slow/ MGS4 is coming out June 12th of this year. Final Fantasy XIII is probably coming out next year. Any developer who complains about developing for the PS3 ought to *not* develop anything period. Developers on the PS3's side seem to be doing good enough. The PS3 is a powerhouse and eventually developers will get the hang of it. I would rather wait for a good game than a half-assed one.

[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

Just because Xbox 1 had a short lifespan doesn't mean that the 360 will as well. Xbox 1 was more of a "test" console for Microsoft to gain a steady foothold in the games industry, and it cost them only $4,500,000,000. That is why the money-burning Xbox 1 was quickly replaced with the Xbox 360, which is gaining money rather than losing it. Now that the Xbox brandname has gained market share ahead of the Playstation brandname, Microsoft will stick with the 360 until creating a successor is financially feasible.

PandaBear86

They already announced they had plans to bring out a new console end of 2009, beginning of 2010. And you know what happens to old MS consoles when new ones come out...........

They said this quite some time ago. Since the gaming industry has realised that graphics don't help with success (look at the Wii and DS), Microsoft will most certainly delay their next console by an extra 1-2 years.

Dunno, analysts are predicting early 2010 for the release of the new MS console and just before then for the release of the new Nintendo console

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6185976.html

I read somwhere that Pacific Crest have a 65% accuracy rate for games industry predictions so it's more likely to come true than not, but hey, 65% is is still not nearly 100%.

[QUOTE="blackace"]

Dev may not be complaining about Blu-Ray, because they are instead complaining about how friggin impossible it is to program a game on the PS3 in less then 2 yrs. Wasn't Heaven Sword suppose to be a launch title? I thought FFXII and MGS4 was suppose to be out this year. Why the delay? Because programming on the PS3 using Sony's weak application software and tools are terrible. That's what the devs are complaining about. Should I find links for that? :lol:

girlpowerz

Wow, you're slow/ MGS4 is coming out June 12th of this year. Final Fantasy XIII is probably coming out next year. Any developer who complains about developing for the PS3 ought to *not* develop anything period. Developers on the PS3's side seem to be doing good enough. The PS3 is a powerhouse and eventually developers will get the hang of it. I would rather wait for a good game than a half-assed one.

The PS3's hardware is just vastly different from the Xbox 360's hardware. Using the multiple cores of cell processor unit requires detailed parallel programming which is not done for Xbox 360 games on the level needed to make good games, so obviously, the only games that could really take advantage of it are games primarily developed for the PS3 or first party games. Why would a dev want to spend time learning how to programme for the PS3 properly and make better games for it, when he already knows how to programme well for the Xbox 360 because it came out earlier and, if he is making multi-platoform games, he could programme on the Xbox 360 and then make a badly optimised port to the PS3. It's not a question of being hard to programme for, it's a question of it being different and devs being lazy and wanting to maximise short term profits. Mind you, that is how a lot of businesses are run these days.

To Sony's credit, they did not provide development tools as good as MSes to begin with, but they've massively changed their policies since the console's launch and provide tonnes of development tools, not to mention, knowledge generated through creation of first party games is now shared with third party developers which provides a massive boost to the knowledge base of developers in regards to the PS3.

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

The_Game21x

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

DVDs aren't needed, There were many great and long games before DVD even exist so it is just a gimmick.

Pointing out the necessity of BDs(or lack thereof) by saying most games fit one DVD just fine is moot, developers design their games with the DVD constraint in mind. Once we see more Ps3 exclusives from great developers like Kojima, people that actually push the limits, then we'll see the real benefits of BDs.

However, The fact that BD, LO and many games couldn't fit in DVD is proof of BD need. Cutsenes have always been part of games andwhen you say said game could fit a DVD if it didn't use cutscenes you are falling in contradiction, since they would tne stripping the cutscenes and making use of real-time engine rendering to overcome a SHORTCOME of DVDs.

DVDs aren't needed, There were many great and long games before DVD even exist so it is just a gimmick.

Pointing out the necessity of BDs(or lack thereof) by saying most games fit one DVD just fine is moot, developers design their games with the DVD constraint in mind. Once we see more Ps3 exclusives from great developers like Kojima, people that actually push the limits, then we'll see the real benefits of BDs.

However, The fact that BD, LO and many games couldn't fit in DVD is proof of BD need. Cutsenes have always been part of games andwhen you say said game could fit a DVD if it didn't use cutscenes you are falling in contradiction, since they would tne stripping the cutscenes and making use of real-time engine rendering to overcome a SHORTCOME of DVDs.

lordxymor

Here's one interesting question to pose as to why BD isn't necessary yet. Why is it that so few games of this generation, despite touting 1080p to the nether regions and back, cannot reach the actual native 1080p resolution of 1920x1080@60Hz progressive? Perhaps it has something to do with the lack of available memory to actually make this possible? This is the point I've been making (and that seems to constantly get ignored). What good is a huge disc if the rest of your hardware isn't there to keep up? It's like fitting an F150 with a Civic's engine block.

PS. If BD and LO were a sign that BD is necessary, what about FF7, still one of the most lauded games in history...which was on 3 CDs?

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

caseypayne69

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

Pop Quiz!

...
...

What percentage (%) PS3 games have used more than 7GBs?

(not including the extra languages and unusused, junk code)

When you have the answer, tell me why Blu-ray is necessary.

Dreams-Visions

Don't need that quiz answered to know blu-ray is more beneficial to gaming than DVD. All you need to know is that devs take into account the medium the game will be released on to decide how big or system taxing to make the game.

That is proven by the latest quote added by the TC.

MS and Nintendo have been involved in the gaming biz a lot longer than SOny , so I couldn't care if Sony or some uneducated cow thinks it is needed.Fruity_Fantasy

LOL at MS is longer in the games biz than sony

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]

I look at my 7 360 games that all fit on one DVD, I look at the 3 others that are already released that I still plan on buying, all of which fit on one DVD. I look at GTA4, a game about to come out that I want to buy that fits on one DVD... Blu-Ray certainly wasn't needed for these since they came on DVD and are fine. There is only one game that needed more than DVD9, and its got hours of CGI that likely could have been done using the game engine and been just as good.

Even then, if my 360 was $399 with no games included, I still wouldn't own one and likely wouldn't buy one for another year. I ONLY paid $349 because it came bundled with a $60 game that I wanted. The arcade + that game would been $339 so I was willing to spend an extra $10 for HDD, HDMI, and a second game thatmight be decent.

donwoogie

Yes, but MS console has a lifespan of about 5 years. That is, for Xbox Live $49.99 a year, which equals to an expense of $249.95 which I would save without having to pay Xbox Live because the PSN is free.

Plus, those games were designed with the size limit and lack of HDD in mind. If the dev team was told they had 50GB to work with and guaranteed hard drive, would they have been more ambitious with the game? Of course, I can't say for certain, but it would be entirely probably to say they would.

That argument totally throws development time out of the window. It assumes that in the time it takes them to make 9gb of worthwhile gaming content (levels, vehicles, weapons, etc... not foreign language tracks and CGI) they can fill up 50gb of game content. As if 1 year before games are released, they have finished everything and the devs are just sitting around playing uno for months and months. They could be making more game content, but sadly they've filled up the disc. THAT IS NOT REALITY

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

caseypayne69

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

They have to compress it again way if they want it to load efficiently... Loading uncompressed data is really slow... Im not sure how MGS4 is going to pull it off... but then again I think MGS4 is compressed game data, and uncompressed audio so maybe that's how...

[QUOTE="caseypayne69"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

HuusAsking

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

cleanup? optimization? are you seriously saying that if a game comes out on a smaller format it will be better because devs spent time onto compression rather than on the game itself? PHAIL

[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]

I look at my 7 360 games that all fit on one DVD, I look at the 3 others that are already released that I still plan on buying, all of which fit on one DVD. I look at GTA4, a game about to come out that I want to buy that fits on one DVD... Blu-Ray certainly wasn't needed for these since they came on DVD and are fine. There is only one game that needed more than DVD9, and its got hours of CGI that likely could have been done using the game engine and been just as good.

Even then, if my 360 was $399 with no games included, I still wouldn't own one and likely wouldn't buy one for another year. I ONLY paid $349 because it came bundled with a $60 game that I wanted. The arcade + that game would been $339 so I was willing to spend an extra $10 for HDD, HDMI, and a second game thatmight be decent.

Senor_Kami

Yes, but MS console has a lifespan of about 5 years. That is, for Xbox Live $49.99 a year, which equals to an expense of $249.95 which I would save without having to pay Xbox Live because the PSN is free.

Plus, those games were designed with the size limit and lack of HDD in mind. If the dev team was told they had 50GB to work with and guaranteed hard drive, would they have been more ambitious with the game? Of course, I can't say for certain, but it would be entirely probably to say they would.

That argument totally throws development time out of the window. It assumes that in the time it takes them to make 9gb of worthwhile gaming content (levels, vehicles, weapons, etc... not foreign language tracks and CGI) they can fill up 50gb of game content. As if 1 year before games are released, they have finished everything and the devs are just sitting around playing uno for months and months. They could be making more game content, but sadly they've filled up the disc. THAT IS NOT REALITY

Well maybe they would have more time if they weren't bogged down trying to cut, optimise and compress stuff to fit it on a DVD.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="caseypayne69"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

sambalimbo

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

cleanup? optimization? are you seriously saying that if a game comes out on a smaller format it will be better because devs spent time onto compression rather than on the game itself? PHAIL

remind me how big UT3 was.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

caseypayne69

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

That's the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. They've been making games forever. I think they know a thing or two on how to compress things by now. Wasting time.. Riiiight. :roll:

I've played through a number of games that "needed" an excess of 13-17gbs, including RFoM, Motorstorm, and Uncharted, and cannot pinpoint any single thing outside of uncompressed audio( which i am a huge fan of) that shows a dire need or even utilization of the extra space.dru26

Uncompressed sound isn't -needed-. Just because you're a fan doesn't mean it's needed by the masses.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

Pop Quiz!

...
...

What percentage (%) PS3 games have used more than 7GBs?

(not including the extra languages and unusused, junk code)

When you have the answer, tell me why Blu-ray is necessary.

The_Dan_K

Don't need that quiz answered to know blu-ray is more beneficial to gaming than DVD. All you need to know is that devs take into account the medium the game will be released on to decide how big or system taxing to make the game.

That is proven by the latest quote added by the TC.

The last quote? About trailer compression? :lol:

So...you feel that the best way to argue the reality that 98% of PS3 games weigh in at less than 8GB *ON DISC* is to point me to the 2% of developers/games that may need more space? That want to encode all their videos (you know, the stuff not directly related to gameplay anyway) at high bitrates?

I say that fails, Dan. I say that fails. The day we see a healthy number of PS3 games coming out that really weigh in larger than 8GB-9GB, then I'll say that is the day Blu-ray became a necessity.

Right now, it's a luxury feature. These 2 years of NextGen gaming have proven it's not necessary. Sorry, but we have 2 years worth of proof that says those developers who *need* Blu-ray to make their game to be in the extreme minority.

And as I've said, an emergency for one does not constitute an emergency for all. What one or 2 developers feel is a "necessity" doesn't qualify it as a "necessity" for the entire industry.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

People like you need to realize that Blu Ray is NOT needed. At this point, it's just nice to have. When the average game fills a DVD 9 and multiple disc games become a standard, then a higher capacity disc format will be necessary. In a few years when the aforementioned conditions are met, then Blu Ray will be necessary.

Bottom line, as long as games are still fitting on DVD 9's with space to spare, Blu Ray will not be necessary.

caseypayne69

Dev's have to cut time out of making a game to find ways of compressing it all to fit on a dvd9. Good use of dev time, NOT! Thats one BIG benefit of Bluray is that dev's don't have any time taking from making the game they want to make. Instead games like Mass Effect the dev took time out of making the game to find out how to shrink it. WASTE.

Yet again, all you, like everyone else who has tried to refute my point, have proven is that Blu-Ray is nice to have and not that it is a necessity.

Besides, as HuusAsking has already stated, the extra time Bioware took could be perceived as a proper and efficient optimization period. Far from a "WASTE".

lol no one has ever really said that blu-ray is a bad thing, because, its undeniably great. High quality + the extremely important disc space = great. however, the price is the lag point, the PRICE.

also there is the possiblity of dual layered bluray and the like to get EVEN MORE space.

for the remainder of this gen, blu ray is not needed, games are handling fine and devs are pros at compressing them. yes even now the DVD9's are getting alittle full and theres 3-4 years left .. they should be added to the NEXT gen consoles definetaly, we need the space- then.

I find it funny that most diehard 360 fans/PS3 haters have the "overkill for this generation" reaction to the PS3s advantages in disk storage space on blu-ray while their 360 game developers are struggling to fit games on their dvd9's. They seem to have come to an agreement/realization that their beloved consoles games have no room for improvement for the next 3-4 years because it's already been maxed out. I think what they're trying to say without actually admitting it is that they are ready for the next generation of the XBOX to be released so that there is something to compete with the 'overkill' of the blu-ray. People, why not have the future of gaming, today.

lol no one has ever really said that blu-ray is a bad thing, because, its undeniably great. High quality + the extremely important disc space = great. however, the price is the lag point, the PRICE.

also there is the possiblity of dual layered bluray and the like to get EVEN MORE space.

for the remainder of this gen, blu ray is not needed, games are handling fine and devs are pros at compressing them. yes even now the DVD9's are getting alittle full and theres 3-4 years left .. they should be added to the NEXT gen consoles definetaly, we need the space- then.

alia999

I dont see a reason to bring blu-ray price into the argument because blu-ray games for the PS3 have the same price as Xbox360 games. You would have a valid point saying the movie price is higher, however, its not as if you dont still have the option to buy DVD's or BD's to play on the PS3. So in the end it all depends on how much you want out of your MOVIE experience when it comes to price.

I dont think it was needed this gen, but when ps4, mii, and xbox720 hits the shelves then yeah we need itSegArgyle

nevermind, its hopeless. did anyone understand my last posts???

[QUOTE="SegArgyle"]I dont think it was needed this gen, but when ps4, mii, and xbox720 hits the shelves then yeah we need itWeMakinBacon

nevermind, its hopeless. did anyone understand my last posts???

On the contrary, a significant amount of focus is going into smaller games that can be transmitted online. It's a common starting point for indies. Xbox started the trend with Live Arcade. Why do you think Sony and Nintendo followed suit if they didin't realize there was a market for the stuff?

I find it funny that most diehard 360 fans/PS3 haters have the "overkill for this generation" reaction to the PS3s advantages in disk storage space on blu-ray while their 360 game developers are struggling to fit games on their dvd9's. They seem to have come to an agreement/realization that their beloved consoles games have no room for improvement for the next 3-4 years because it's already been maxed out. I think what they're trying to say without actually admitting it is that they are ready for the next generation of the XBOX to be released so that there is something to compete with the 'overkill' of the blu-ray. People, why not have the future of gaming, today.

WeMakinBacon

This man knows how to think can anybody (360fanboys) counter this. He is right, you all are not looking at the big picture PS3 is future proof j/k almost.

[QUOTE="WeMakinBacon"]

[QUOTE="SegArgyle"]I dont think it was needed this gen, but when ps4, mii, and xbox720 hits the shelves then yeah we need itHuusAsking

nevermind, its hopeless. did anyone understand my last posts???

On the contrary, a significant amount of focus is going into smaller games that can be transmitted online. It's a common starting point for indies. Xbox started the trend with Live Arcade. Why do you think Sony and Nintendo followed suit if they didin't realize there was a market for the stuff?

You have a good argument there, i'll give you credit. Smaller downloadable games seem to serve as the filler of the industry though. The future of gaming will no doubt aim to be the most in depth, immersive experience available, which is where the blu-ray disk comes into play, and developers are just beginning to scratch the surface of its potential. So, if you think it is a stretch that Sony is trying to push the limits of gaming by allowing more room to do it in (this generation), then it seems like you may have grown too used to the limitations and restrictions of the 'last generation' media storage of the xbox360.

Hell yeah Wii needs Blu Ray

You have a good argument there, i'll give you credit. Smaller downloadable games seem to serve as the filler of the industry though. The future of gaming will no doubt aim to be the most in depth, immersive experience available, which is where the blu-ray disk comes into play, and developers are just beginning to scratch the surface of its potential. So, if you think it is a stretch that Sony is trying to push the limits of gaming by allowing more room to do it in (this generation), then it seems like you may have grown too used to the limitations and restrictions of the 'last generation' media storage of the xbox360.

WeMakinBacon

I swear, did any of you even read the quotes taken straight from the mouths of people like Mark Rein of epic games, the creator of your beloved Gears of War!?!makingmusic476

Fine ignore the developers. Keep playing games like Gears that only have an 8-hour singleplayer campaign and games where you have to wait for months after you get the game to download some new multiplayer maps to make up for the few that were given to you in the first place.makingmusic476

[QUOTE="WeMakinBacon"]

I find it funny that most diehard 360 fans/PS3 haters have the "overkill for this generation" reaction to the PS3s advantages in disk storage space on blu-ray while their 360 game developers are struggling to fit games on their dvd9's. They seem to have come to an agreement/realization that their beloved consoles games have no room for improvement for the next 3-4 years because it's already been maxed out. I think what they're trying to say without actually admitting it is that they are ready for the next generation of the XBOX to be released so that there is something to compete with the 'overkill' of the blu-ray. People, why not have the future of gaming, today.

ThaGreatness007

This man knows how to think can anybody (360fanboys) counter this. He is right, you all are not looking at the big picture PS3 is future proof j/k almost.

Crysis is only around 7gb and is probably superior than anything any of the consoles will ever produce both in scale and graphics, looking at this alone shows that there will not be much problems using DVD during this gen. Also, saying the 360 is maxed out is just plain foolish, no console has been maxed out in two years, even the makers of Gears of war said they still had alot of room to improve.