MikeB said:
slowmo said:
MikeB said:
@ Slimebeast
Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right?
Where did you get this from?
mazing though that it hasnt paid off in this gen yet (not many games are that big that they dont fit on 2 DVDs).
Games would be more demanding if the 360 had more storage capacity, PS3 mulit-platform games included.
It's a bit like claiming it was an excellent choice the Dreamcast stuck to CD, as the bulk (if not all) of its games filled no more than a CD.
There are so many recent 360 games which are ~6.8 GB, it can be assumed that if there was more capacity they would be larger (maybe additional content, maybe more assets varierty, maybe higher quality assets). I think this is one of the reasons Microsoft so vividly pushes for exclusive DLC. |
That would be an incorrect assumption then. Compression takes time and money so there is no point investing in extra compression that isn't required. It costs no extra money to fill a disk with 6.8GB or 4.8GB so there is no point in not using the entire disk.
What you meant to say was I assume and my opinion doesn't reflect fact.
|
What do you mean with extra compression? You can compress certain data about 2:1 without having data loss, usually not more than that. Both 360 and PS3 games make heavy use of this, it's not hard or expensive, it just makes sense on the PS3 as well as the Cell can decompress faster than Blu-Ray can load the extra data involved with the uncompressed file.
|
Extra compression is I mean you compress more items than you need to. Why spend time compressing every resource on your game if you don't need to. Compressing resources would cost time in both people and computer resources. Also why spend hour after hour cleaning up a disk image of redundant data if it works fine and fits. My point was assuming because games are generally 6.8GB doesn't mean the capacity is always at its peak on these releases, but you believe what you like.
