By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mutantclown on 03 July 2013
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
mutantclown said:


Yeah, DVDs downgrade accessibity, it downgrades games in general. $600 was pricey at the time but still worh it, future proof machine all around, high quality build. It paid off to include Blu-ray, not only it saved the format from the doom Microsoft so vehemently tried to send it to (both of them, actually, even when they "supported" HD-DVD), it also allowed some of the best games of this generation, experiences that wouldn't be the same at all without it, even if 90% of them were 1st party titles. 

Once again, how does it downgrade "accessibility"?

The PS3 hasn't proven to be anymore future proof than the 360. Lots of space but still limited specs. Furthermore, now that MS allows mandatory installs it has become just as future proof as the PS3.

The format war is irrelevant. That doesn't prove Bluray was essential to give you the same experience.

The 360 also offered some of the best game experiences and it did it with DVDs. Like I said before, the only things PS3 offered with Bluray is less disc swaps and sharper video.


It downgrades accessability in the form of disc swapping and in the way games access data to offer continuious streaming experiences like the ones found in Uncharted games and the Last of Us, no loading screens, also made possible by the use of a standard built-in HDD, another future-proof trait and very valuable feature the PS3 had over the 360. 360 hardware limitations held back gaming because of its DVD drive and lack of HDD in all SKUs. 360 didn't have HDMI, Wifi or HDD (as standard) when it launch, and it has a DVD ROM. Pretty backwards if you ask me, kind like Wii U these days.