Is it just me or does anyone else not see the point of the DVD vs. Blu-ray discussion for large games?

I don't see what the big deal is about multi-disc games in DVD land.  Capacity is of no concern to the average person who wants to play a game.  I have Blue Dragon which comes on 3 DVDs, and have played 14 hours and I am still on disc 1...  When it comes to the second disc and prompts me to switch that is not the end of the world. 

Many people have stated that blu-ray is needed to do large games and I feel this is completely false.  Large games can be done on multiple DVD disks.  I could see if the system was constantly prompting to switch DVDs like in the old days with 360K and 1.44Mb diskettes that could only get 20 mins of subpar graphics and sound on a disk...  But, when you play any where from 5 hours to 20 hours on one DVD then get prompted to switch are you going to go into a state of shock and keel over for an untimely death?

It may just be me, but I think the "you can't do it on DVD" is a lame arguement at best.

Agreed.

And with blu-ray you have the added issue of its slower read speed.

Blu ray has and always will be a con.

Sony tried to differentiate there console from others by claimimg games need it.
If thats true why am I enjoying 360 games more and alot of the PS3 hype games are short and disappointing. Oblivion was huge. it took 6 gb on 360 disc.

I also don't see the point at this, I have never ever read a review that stated 'bad point was that the game came on multiple disks'
Even PC games have been distributed on multiple CD's long after DVD was accepted as the new standard.

I think that people think that when you have a multiple CD or DVD set you have to pay more. Look at series where you often have 6+ DVD's. IMAGINE just imagine that same content on one HD-DVD or Blue-ray disk. Well it would be the same content and the same price.

For game i can't imagine the size of a disk being that important. There is on the fly compression available with the GPU and since optical disks are often slow, it's a better way to go because the decompression takes msec while it takes as long to even locate the same data on the disk itself.
Thats why i think Sony should stop bragging around with their 'games need blue-ray' PR: the PS3 is meant to be the holy supercomputer that for the first time in history is so affordable that everyone can have one at home. And that superpower is unable to decompress on the fly, huh?!

On the other hand i wouldn't like CD's any more, yet then CD-players are like 10-15$ cheaper, are 8-12 times as slow and have just maybe 1/10th of the capacity. You could opt for a next gen format then, yet it has about the same troughput (even slower in fact), 3-6 times the space yet it costs like 10 times as much...

Sony just wanted to push Blue-Ray, and it helps: HD-DVD sells 30k a month, Blue-Ray does 60k. So they delayed the PS3 for a year (remember the blue laser diodes), increased the price to an insane level (who has time for an excellent meal if you have two jobs), and is now suffering at the level of PR/reorganisations/Price drops/less exclusives/small install base and all that just because it helped them selling 30k more Blue-Ray movies.

I don't know what there is to earn when you can ask fees for using a optical format but it better be much...very much...

Im with you, i hate it when they bring up
"but it will have to be on more then one disc"
who gives a crap, if you are so danm lazy as to not get up off your butt and switch a disc, just shows how bad america and the rest of us gaming countries have become