HappySqurriel said:
If we're using the 2009 price of the PS3 shouldn't we be using the 2003 price of the PS2? If adding something onto a console made it more valueable why doesn't the PS3 have a built in Waffle Iron? Everyone loves waffles and a $400 gaming system with a waffle iron has to be worth more than a gaming system alone, doesn't it? Why don't you add in the $10 price increase in the cost of games, the $20 price increase on controllers, and the lack of a decent library of value-priced games?
|
Funny, when CDs came out, a single CD cost around 15-30 dollars, unless bought in bulk, and even then it's expensive as fuck. DVDs? 20 dollars. BDs? 20 dollars. BDs now? About 5 per disc, or buy in bulk.
People like you are retarded. "Bare essentials" PS3 uses BD for it's main format, thus it's bare essentials must include a blu-ray player. wi-fi isn't needed but it's 2009. In 2000, ethernet and wireless wasn't needed. Any device you buy today has wifi, from things like PSP, DS, WII, even majority of MP3 players have it. It's cheap as hell to include as well. Ethernet is standard in anything big enough to have it. Microsoft is so cheap they removed a piece of rubber that cost 0.5 cents from the laser, which prevents the laser from touching the disc and ruining the disc and laser, to save money. If you take a PS3, or any normal DVD player today, you can pick it up and shake it madly, and nothing will happen to disc, because of a 0.5 cent piece of rubber, 360? Just nudge it.
You can't argue it's "not needed" it's a new standard today with whats needed and whats not. We don't need hard drives, we don't even need DVDs, why don't we use CDs? We only made DVDs because they were faster and more storage, BDs are faster and more storage then DVD, and higher resolution, and harder to scratch. Games LAST generation used more then 1 DVD, sure they were single layer DVDs, but data last generation was only 1/3rd the size then. People like to state things like a 12x DVD drive in 360 outperforms the 2x blu-ray drive. Though thats not true. For 1 you lose read speed when you increase the layers on DVD format due to it's angular reading rate, and DVD stays at a variable rate, at around 70% of it's max. BD doesn't lose any speed from more layers, and it reads at max rate, all the time.
1x BD drive reads at 4.5 MB/s
2x BD drive = 9 MB/s constant speed.(72 Mb/s)
1x DVD drive reads at 1.4 MB/s
1x DVD drive reading a dual layer disc = 1 MB/s
12 MB/s IF it was reading at max rate, since DVD drive reads at angular it can only maintain around 70% on average. Meaning a 12x DVD drive reading dual layer discs, on average only reads at 8.4 MB/s on average. But why does 360 seem or appear to read faster? Data size.
360 games, majority of them are highly compressed. Meaning they are smaller then they should be. BD also uses higher audio and video rate, so on average BDs data is about twice the size, causing a problem, if your player is reading about the same as the competition with a slight edge, and your data is larger, the other player would read faster. It's simple really. Though compressed data must be uncompressed so overall loading time usually equals out. What happens when BD data starts to become compressed on the disc? Until then, you'll have to deal with mandatory installs, even though they are not needed, and other tricks and tweaks like dupilicate data. If only sony pushed for a 4x BD drive, 360 would of had mandatory installs to keep up.
