Do you believe 360 needs internal blu-ray for gaming?

Ok... I'm sure we all have seen this coming sooner or later. One format had to lose. BUT, when it comes to the 360... gaming is more important than multimedia things such as watching movies and things like that. So, do you guys believe in "blu-ray" allowing better graphics? I don't and I think it's a whole bunch of hype. I mean 360 games have better AA and lighting on DVDs as of now... I DO NOT expect to see an blu-ray equipped 360.... because it doesn't improve GAMING. They can not do that because there are sooooo many people that have 360s... they will lose more $ than what they could make off of such a move. What do you think?

>>>this edit is for everyone who keeps being confused. YES I know that more storage DOES NOT = BETTER GRAPHICS. Just wanted to put that out there. I know and understand that the graphics card determines graphics.

Guys, try keep this one away from SW stuff, k?

As for the original question(s). No, I don't think so. 360 is entering its third year, it's probably past now the halfway point of its life, and it is quite evident that Microsoft made a decision way before launch on 2005 regarding storage media. They'll end with regular DVD, and their next system, whatever that is, will probably sport BluRay (or whatever media format is currently reigning) internal drives.

Those issues you mention about better graphical capabilities have little to no relation with media storage, though.

Blu-Ray certainly has the potential to be used to make games that you could not do on a DVD due to the simple fact that it has so much storage capacity. I think most developers simply can't or won't make a game that can take advantage of the large amount of space, due to the large amount of time and money that would have to be invested into development. Instead all the extra space is spent on trivial things like lossless TrueHD Audio.

Having said that, no, I don't think the 360 needs Blu-Ray for internal gaming. Even if it did need it, we would never see it--not for gaming. Microsoft wouldn't be stupid enough to alienate the 18 million people that they have already sold consoles to. However, I think we may see it in the next Xbox.

Its not just about gaming but a Consumer choice for those BLU RAY movie buffs. I only care about games. I am not a movie fan so BLU RAY has little to offer me. But I think for those who are buying or thinking of buying the PS3 for BLU RAY could have options now depending on Microsofts decision. If Microsoft can offer a XBOX360 with BLU RAY capabilities and able to play standard 360 games with the same load speed, could be a very smart move. I know there are several sku's for XBOX360 systems but at least there would be a choice for everybody. An add on would be clumsy since the format war is over.

hd dvd and blue ray were just dvds with hd content on them.iam2green

Guys, try keep this one away from SW stuff, k?

As for the original question(s). No, I don't think so. 360 is entering its third year, it's probably past now the halfway point of its life, and it is quite evident that Microsoft made a decision way before launch on 2005 regarding storage media. They'll end with regular DVD, and their next system, whatever that is, will probably sport BluRay (or whatever media format is currently reigning) internal drives.

Those issues you mention about better graphical capabilities have little to no relation with media storage, though.

SteelAttack

I agree with you totally, sorry if I sounded confusing or something but I didn't mean that I think blu-ray=better graphics. That's just what has been perceived by others. I understand that more space doesn't mean better graphics. The graphics card is what determines that. Also, thanks for not locking this... it definitely isn't a system wars post. I mean, I own both consoles and love them both.

I've heard that some high-profile game developers have voiced their concerns about DVD-9 not being big enough to deliver some next-gen games on. So, it begs the question: Why should Microsoft (or the development community) settle for 8-9 GB when they could have 50 on Blu-ray?

With the 'death' of HD-DVD Microsoft can't claim to be a player in the high-definition arena without it (Blu-ray). Like it or not, they need to be on the Blu-ray band-wagon or they will be left behind...

this thread is just pointless dribble since the basis is flawed... bluray doesnt make for better graphics, it won the war because of its size, bigger size means longer before they have to move on to next technology.... the gpu is what does the graphics and 360 has a wonderful gpu, an external blu ray is unlikley since sony owns blu ray and that takes away from them...Twisted-Ice-God

Uh.. correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure more disc space makes room for better/improved graphics (among other things). Also, just because Sony owns blu-ray, doesn't mean Microsoft couldn't profit of an external BR player.

until i see a game as good as bioshock or masseffect that couldnt be done with whats being used now...no its not needed.

isnt the only reason MGS is needing it is due to the lack of compressing audio bits between cut scenes or w.e?

who said it would be for games , thatll render my 2 360s useless if they do that , so to do that they must give those who bought the others 360s how ever many they own for free and lose more money, ms confirmed they had no plans to do so

For alot of games, the biggest storage space user is sound, becuase with the current gen, unless a game uses alot of streaming, avaliable memory is going to limit the size of textures, and hence how much space they are going to use.

Plus, most people can't really tell the difference between uncompressed and compressed audio which is of sufficent quality, sort of like most people can't tell the difference between a compressed HD TV stream, and a direct HD stream (such as what the 360 produces).

There is no need for BluRay discs on the 360, period. Everything can be compressed into the space that DVD9 offers, which has been and will continue to be done. The 360 has enough memory to allow for fast uncompression of data, combined with the faster read-spead of DVD9 for streaming, to not even think of needing BluRay for a storage medium.

BluRay doesn't offer any benefit for gaming on this system, and the only reason it is beneficial for the PS3 is due to the fact that it's memory cannot support as much uncompression going on while also computing tasks demanded by the software, also in conjunction with the slow read-spead of BluRay for steaming data. The PS3 was designed around BluRay as it's storage medium, hence it requires it to operate (due to the reasons listed above), whereas the 360 was designed around DVD9, and can perform the tasks required of it's software quite easily without the need for more capacity.

Will the 360 ever need more storage than is already offered for it's software in it's lifespan? Very doubtful. As for those whom will point towards Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon and disagree, we are looking at many minutes, perhaps even extending into an hour, of prerendered highdefinition cinematics, which are massive hogs in terms of how much memory they take up on their storage medium. Sakaguchi has always used prerendered cinematics in his games and probably always will, however this is not necissary, especially when you consider how life-like in-game visuals are becoming. This is his art style, and changing discs as you progress hardly comes as a fault to the system or the creator of the software, and DVD9 limits are definitely not making games like Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon worse or being put on the chopping board for content when in this context.

Sorry BluRay, you will be needed next-generation (more than likely), however for the 360 in this current generation for gaming, you just don't have a place.

I voted naa.

If MS makes a 360 console with an internal bluray drive then it would alienate the existing owners and it wouldn't be fair on us the consumer.

Gears 3 has to be on DVD9 otherwise how many people are going to pay for a 360 console with an internal bluray drive ?

[QUOTE="Twisted-Ice-God"]this thread is just pointless dribble since the basis is flawed... bluray doesnt make for better graphics, it won the war because of its size, bigger size means longer before they have to move on to next technology.... the gpu is what does the graphics and 360 has a wonderful gpu, an external blu ray is unlikley since sony owns blu ray and that takes away from them...brujagio

Uh.. correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure more disc space makes room for better/improved graphics (among other things). Also, just because Sony owns blu-ray, doesn't mean Microsoft couldn't profit of an external BR player.

yeah, more storage would be needed for more graphics/physics simulations, however, as of now, it's not needed... if i'm not mistakin' Crysis is even on 1 DVD9...

[QUOTE="brujagio"]

[QUOTE="Twisted-Ice-God"]this thread is just pointless dribble since the basis is flawed... bluray doesnt make for better graphics, it won the war because of its size, bigger size means longer before they have to move on to next technology.... the gpu is what does the graphics and 360 has a wonderful gpu, an external blu ray is unlikley since sony owns blu ray and that takes away from them...a55a55inx

Uh.. correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure more disc space makes room for better/improved graphics (among other things). Also, just because Sony owns blu-ray, doesn't mean Microsoft couldn't profit of an external BR player.

yeah, more storage would be needed for more graphics/physics simulations, however, as of now, it's not needed... if i'm not mistakin' Crysis is even on 1 DVD9...

How much space do you people honestly think is required for compressed textures, mapping, etcetera? BluRay makes graphics better, are you kidding me? GPU architecture is what makes better graphics due to the fact that more computing can be done at any given time to meet the demands of the software. Storage medium does not and never will mean "better"graphics in this generation.

As for Crysis, yes, it is stored on DVD9. When installed, however, it takes up 12GB of space. Does this mean that on a console (assuming consoles had enough horsepower to run Crysis at its high graphical settings) Crysis wouldn't be able to run unless stored on BluRay? Of course not; why? Compression, data streaming, etcetera; the same techniques being used currently to make games that are larger than 9GB work on DVD9. Let's give an example, Gears of War for PC requires 12GB of space for installation, however it only takes up 6.43GB of space on DVD9 due to, you guessed it, compression.

When will people stop the misconception? BluRay is not required for gaming in this generation, and never will be on the 360.

How much space do you people honestly think is required for compressed textures, mapping, etcetera? BluRay makes graphics better, are you kidding me? GPU architecture is what makes better graphics due to the fact that more computing can be done at any given time to meet the demands of the software. Storage medium does not and never will mean "better"graphics in this generation.

As for Crysis, yes, it is stored on DVD9. When installed, however, it takes up 12GB of space. Does this mean that on a console (assuming consoles had enough horsepower to run Crysis at its high graphical settings) Crysis wouldn't be able to run unless stored on BluRay? Of course not; why? Compression, data streaming, etcetera; the same techniques being used currently to make games that are larger than 9GB work on DVD9. Let's give an example, Gears of War for PC requires 12GB of space for installation, however it only takes up 6.43GB of space on DVD9 due to, you guessed it, compression.

When will people stop the misconception? BluRay is not required for gaming in this generation, and never will be on the 360.

ZodiacVII

Crysis actually only takes up 7.25 gig once fully installed, the 12 or so gig is only required during installation for temp files and the like.

But the only problem is that you can't further compress textures without losing quality, and the quality shift can be quite noticeable. So hence, higher storage capacity does mean the ability to have higher quality textures, but the only problem with that is video cards have a fixed amount of texture memory, which does limit the highest quality that you can have textures at.

G012M: You are right about the 7GB of space, I don't have Crysis installed anymore and forgot the amount of space it actually took up and so decided to look up the storage requirements for installation, silly me. However, this only further pushes my point to those whom are confused on this issue.

I do agree with you about compression and loss of quality, however as you also stated, the GPU is where our limitations are for texture quality. At this point in our current generation however, I do not believe we will ever need more space due to the limitations current GPU's offer, since texture quality will always be contained by such limitations. People also forget about other tools like dynamic lighting engines and various mapping techniques that lend a lot to visual style and quality which will not require a larger storage medium. Do you not agree?

this thread is just pointless dribble since the basis is flawed... bluray doesnt make for better graphics, it won the war because of its size, bigger size means longer before they have to move on to next technology.... the gpu is what does the graphics and 360 has a wonderful gpu, an external blu ray is unlikley since sony owns blu ray and that takes away from them...Twisted-Ice-God

I never said that blu-ray or more storage=better graphics. I know it doesn't... I said "it was perceived by others". Sorry for the confusion. I agree that 360 has managed with dvd9s and it has been enough to produce awesome games with outstanding lighting and AA. Plus I agree with everyone that is saying the space of blu-ray is really being used have uncompressed audio. I also agree with the Crysis statements. Installed... it only takes up 7 or so gigs. Crysis is such a beautiful game because of what kind of video card/processor you have..... NOT because you have a 500gig HD to store it on lol.

I don't think the 360 needs a Blu Ray drive for gaming, but it would be a nice option to buy as a peripheral. I don't think there are that many gamers who would be willing to buy a whole new machine for an internal drive, but as an add-on it could sell well.jrobinow

Guys, try keep this one away from SW stuff, k?

As for the original question(s). No, I don't think so. 360 is entering its third year, it's probably past now the halfway point of its life, and it is quite evident that Microsoft made a decision way before launch on 2005 regarding storage media. They'll end with regular DVD, and their next system, whatever that is, will probably sport BluRay (or whatever media format is currently reigning) internal drives.

Those issues you mention about better graphical capabilities have little to no relation with media storage, though.

SteelAttack

My thoughts exac;y, no need for blu-ray for games this gen, next gen it will be a must though to compete in the entertainment market.

its "couldn't care less" sigh...

The 360 will never have games on Blu-ray disc. It would fracture the current market. Everyone with current 360s wouldn't be able to play the games.

You'll have to wait until the next Xbox for Blu-ray games.

Read this-microsoft in talks with Sony over blu-ray drive

http://www.trustedreviews.com/home-cinema/news/2008/03/07/Microsoft-Sony-Discussing-Xbox-360-Blu-ray-Player/p1

[QUOTE="a55a55inx"][QUOTE="brujagio"]

[QUOTE="Twisted-Ice-God"]this thread is just pointless dribble since the basis is flawed... bluray doesnt make for better graphics, it won the war because of its size, bigger size means longer before they have to move on to next technology.... the gpu is what does the graphics and 360 has a wonderful gpu, an external blu ray is unlikley since sony owns blu ray and that takes away from them...ZodiacVII

Uh.. correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure more disc space makes room for better/improved graphics (among other things). Also, just because Sony owns blu-ray, doesn't mean Microsoft couldn't profit of an external BR player.

yeah, more storage would be needed for more graphics/physics simulations, however, as of now, it's not needed... if i'm not mistakin' Crysis is even on 1 DVD9...

How much space do you people honestly think is required for compressed textures, mapping, etcetera? BluRay makes graphics better, are you kidding me? GPU architecture is what makes better graphics due to the fact that more computing can be done at any given time to meet the demands of the software. Storage medium does not and never will mean "better"graphics in this generation.

As for Crysis, yes, it is stored on DVD9. When installed, however, it takes up 12GB of space. Does this mean that on a console (assuming consoles had enough horsepower to run Crysis at its high graphical settings) Crysis wouldn't be able to run unless stored on BluRay? Of course not; why? Compression, data streaming, etcetera; the same techniques being used currently to make games that are larger than 9GB work on DVD9. Let's give an example, Gears of War for PC requires 12GB of space for installation, however it only takes up 6.43GB of space on DVD9 due to, you guessed it, compression.

When will people stop the misconception? BluRay is not required for gaming in this generation, and never will be on the 360.

i think you misunderstood my post (if you were trying to correct me)... i was actually saying that Blu-ray isn't nessesary with the current graphical effects being used...