Having discs that can hold 50GB would sure be nice, but certainly not nice enough to warrant slower loading time and an extra 200€ on the price tag. There's absolutely nothing wrong with 2 or 3 disc games, they've been around for ages, and aren't that much of a pain in the butt.

Again, so what if it's on multiple discs? Anyone remember the FF games on PS1? Big deal. Besides, what are game producers using all that extra storage for? That's right, MULTIPLE copies of the SAME data! Why? The disc read rate on Blu-Ray is pitiful compared to DVD, so to ease the painful loading times, frequently read data is repeated in multiple sectors on blu-ray discs. Glad to see all that storage put to good use.

And another thing, data compression is a wonderful thing isn't it? Ever heard of "theprodukkt"? It's a FULLY textured (bump mapped I believe) 3D shooter that is FULLY downloadable in a 96kb file! As Game Informer so astutely noted: imagine how many copies of the Produkkt could fit on one of Sony's touted Blu Rays? Too bad MS can only fit a fifth as many . . . looks like it'll have to be a FIVE disc set . . .

From

Their work has won numerous awards, and their name a good degree of fame. In 2004, a subdivision of farbrausch called "theprodukkt" released a 96kB first-person shooter game named ".kkrieger", and an earlier version of the tool they currently use to produce some of their demos, named ".werkkzeug", or "Tool".

I remember this game. Of course, it had absolutely no textures or models, the entire game was hard coded. This would, of course, be incredibly expensive and run like crap for a project of the scale of Halo 3. An interesting concept, and very nicely executed, but completely infeasable for any projectmuch larger than this little demo.

I would never pay $200 just so I can have a 1 disc game instead of 2 discs.

Ill take the 2 DVD's thank you very much and ill spend those $200 somewhere else... although honestly i dont want an XBox or any Halo but if i had a choice

wait i heard blue dragon is 3 disks... i could be wrong though?

"I understand complaints that it will cost more to produce multiple discs...

But on the consumer end, having 2 or even 5 discs doesn't really bother me, as long as switching discs is a smooth enough process."

You guys will never admit to anything good if it's made by Sony. You can happily defend DVD9 by saying that you love getting off your but and swap discs, it's a blast. At least it seems Sony tried to stretch the extra mile with the PS3 and get as much new technology inn as possible. Some complain about Sony including Blu-ray, that it's not for the games (because games don't need this space, because MS said that DVD was enough), that Sony is only doing this for promoting a new standard for movies. But, fyi Blu-ray is really not a Sony solo proejct, there's a shit load of companies that have developed the Blu-ray standard. Also, if Sony wanted to go with a format that had more storage capasity than DVD what should they do?

What did Nintendo do with the Wii? They use Wii Optical Discs, what kind of standard is this. Why don't you give Nintendo a hard time for not using DVD? (As long as there are so many comapnies behind the Blu-ray standard one would think it was a smart move by Sony to include this in the PS3? Why is it ok to use proprietary media for Nintendo? I believe that in a couple of years ppl will start appreciating that the PS3 was so ahead of it's time (not unlike the PS2), even if Blu-ray does not win the HD-Format-War, it still is an incredible storage medium for a console.

If everyone was content with yesterdays tech then there would be no progress, we would be playing Super Nintendos still. Sony has pulled the gaming industry out of the niche and made it into what it is today.

You'd prob call me a Sony fanboy, but you should try to get your heads out of Bills butt sometimes.

Aren't the Wii discs just DVDs with a different name?

Wow.  I don't know how you go from "I don't mind swapping discs once every 10 hours" to "I love swapping discs, it's a blast!"  

1) I'm happy to admit to Sony doing something good.  I just don't think that including unnecessary technology that raises the price of your console by 200 bucks qualifies as "something good."  If Sony wanted to go with a technology with more storage space, they should have waited another 2-3 years when that technology is affordable for gamers.

2) I don't give Nintendo a hard time for not using DVD because it actually makes the Wii cheaper, by avoiding DVD licensing costs.  It's not about the standard -- Sony could use Blu-ray, HD DVD, or some proprietary format, and it wouldn't matter if they can't make it affordable.

3) A lot of people are content with "yesterday's tech" because "tomorrow's tech" often takes a few years to become affordable for the mainstream.  Give me a console with superior high definition graphics, 50 GB of storage per disc, an innovative control scheme, and big developer support for $250, and I'll buy one right now.  Unfortunately, I think I'll have to wait until 2011 for such a console to be available.

Bordello, this is a very crucial point here. You might want to read up on Gunpei Yokoi's pet philosophy.

Basically it's a better idea to use tried and tested technology for a gaming device, than to go for new cutting edge stuff that raises the cost to unacceptable levels and is horribly unreliable. That's not to say there shouldn't be technological advancement, the Wii is the first of Nintendo's consoles without a huge leap in power after all, but it shouldn't make the machine too expensive for the mainstream audience. That would mean nobody would buy it, and nobody would develop games for it.

Let's say Nintendo would've decided to make the Wii capable of outputting HD graphics and use 10GB flash cards for games to provide cartridge-level loading times. Would it be a better console then? Technically yes, but ultimately far less succesful.

This thread deserves locking. It's so stupid.

Who really gives a crap if H3 is 2 disks? So what if MS bashed a higher-cap storage medium, and now 2 games on the 360 take up more than the 9.2gb of a DVD. It's not the end of the world, get over it.

Final Fantasy 7, a very new title to the CD storage medium (console wise), was 3 CDs. That doesn't mean every game after FF7 took 2+ CDs.

Some of the biggest titles in history used mutiple disks: World of Warcraft, FF7, FF8, Resident Evil 1/2, ect.

Production cost wise, I fail to see how it's a major increase. 1 Blue Ray disk costs about the same as 2-3 DVDs right now, if not more. Economically, it's not really a big deal.

IMO, I'd rather have a DVD system that I pay $400 for, rather than the over-inflated $600 of the PS3.