There are different loading routines, for example one game on the Amiga would quickly load an intro logo animation together with loading music first, as the loading is optimised the game engine expects data to be delivered at certain time spans (failing to do so can cause problems and the game for instance stops loading), copying them onto the Amiga harddrive without loading routines patches the game takes almost exactly the same time to load as from diskette, no matter that data can be delivered much faster.

Another Amiga game may just load one big file before execution and this will load much faster when on the harddrive, considering modern games have far more data than there is RAM this isn't the modern approach for loading within games.

In the past games mostly loaded into memory in one go, then games loading started to be devided up into game sections, for instance most data for each level is loaded seperately (less memory demands, faster loading). Then streaming game engine were developed, where parts of levels such as mostly audio and graphics are streamed within each seperate level (less memory demands, faster loading).

MGS4 was developed to run on the harddrive, optimising for data streaming (harddrive cache / Blu-Ray) would have required a lot more effort, using the harddrive you don't need to optimise as much. It requires a lot more planning (which data to stream to harddrive from Blu-Ray disc in advance to make everything work as seamless as possible) and thought.

Regarding seek times follow the link I provided earlier, read the quoted comments and follow the link there for more information.

Streaming media does not need faster internet speeds then what is presently available in basically every city in the modern world.  The fact that streaming movies does not need an internet connection is something that nobody seems to understand.  If you currently have cable TV, you have everything in place for streaming movies.

Woot, I absolutely love these threads. Especially since I remember when people were bashing each other like crazy over the Beta vs VHS format.

Honestly, I believe Blu-Ray will win.

It's a great format, and I hope to pick up a player as soon as a Sony/Toshiba/Pioneer/etc. brand unit can be had for $199 or less.

But they need to get the prices of the players and the movies down if they don't want it to stall.  I was at FYE yesterday and most of the movies were $24.99 and up.  That's a rediculous price for a format that's trying to supplant DVD as the dominant video media format.

 I don't think many home users have a RAID set up.  And even people that DO have RAID's (including companies) might not have off-site storage.  Granted backup tape hasn't been brought up, and is almost certainly cheaper (even cheaper than DVD).  That all being said, why do you seem to think blu-ray's prices will remain static?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Was DVD the cheapest solution when it came out?  I think maybe you should rescind your comment that you're no blu-ray hater - you're coming up with some reasosn that are stretching, to say the least.

DVDs were more expensive than VHS at first, then the prices dropped, that's the electronic cycle, with blu-ray it will be the same...

Blu-Ray is the next laserdisc: a niche format for technophiles. While it beat HD-DVD in this niche, the wider market is rejecting it, and why shouldn't they when it brings them nothing over DVD but a marginally sharper picture?

Your right it didnt happen overnight. It took two years. 1996 lauch to 1998 dominant format

How long has Blu Ray been available ?

From Wikipedia

In 2006, a new format called Blu-ray Disc (BD), designed by Sony, Philips, and Panasonic, was released as the successor to DVD. Another format, HD DVD, competed unsuccessfully with this format in the format war of 2006 to 2008. A dual layer Blu-ray Disc can store 50 GB.[21][22]

However, unlike previous format changes (e.g. vinyl records to compact disc, VHS videotape to DVD), there is no immediate indication that production of the standard DVD will gradually wind down, as they still dominate with around 97% of video sales and approximately one billion DVD player sales worldwide.[23][24] Consumers initially were slow to adopt Blu-ray, partly due to the cost. Currently, Blu-ray players are selling for as low as $198 USD[25], while titles retail for as little as $9.86 USD (but are usually higher in price than SD DVD releases)[26]. One also requires a high-definition TV and appropriate connection cables to take advantage of Blu-ray disc.

Some analysts suggest that the biggest obstacle to replacing DVD is due to its installed base; a large majority of consumers are satisfied with DVDs.[27] The DVD had succeeded because it offered a compelling alternative to VHS. In addition, Blu-ray players are designed to be backwards compatible, allowing older DVDs to be played since the media are physically identical; this differed from the change from vinyl to CD and from tape to DVD, which involved a complete change in physical medium.

This situation can be best compared to the changeover from 78 rpm shellac recordings to 45 rpm and 33 1/3 rpm vinyl recordings; because the medium used for the earlier format was virtually the same as the latter version (a disk on a turntable, played using a needle), phonographs continued to be built to play obsolete 78s for decades after the format was discontinued.

Manufacturers have announced standard DVD releases well into 2009, and the format remains the preferred one for the release of older television programs and films, with some programs such as Star Trek: The Original Series requiring reediting and replacement of certain elements such as special effects in order to be better received in high-definition viewing.[28]

Yeah, because technology never advances.