By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ViktorBKK on 06 December 2013
Edit Thread
Michael-5 said:
ViktorBKK said:

Some people are very confused. Optical storage DOES NOT improve your game or graphics in any way whatsoever. It is simply a means to deliver the data. A huge game could come in 5 DVDs or in 1 blu-ray or be downloaded or whatever. The way the data is delivered is irrelevant to the game's quality. Also, running games directly from optical storage, wether its blu-ray or dvd, is pathetic. Compare to HDD/SSD, optical drives are loud, slow and more prone to fail eventually.  All games should be installed on the hard drive, in their entirety, before play. Optical drive should be inactive during gameplay. X360 offered such a feature on a system level, PS3 didn't.

Blu-ray was awesome for movie playback, and for convenience. It didn't improve the games in any way.

Disk space is important for how you partition data, and can indirectly affect graphics. If say you design a game which requires a lot of data to be accessed at once (say like MGS IV), and say you always need access to 10GB or more, then the game won't work on a DVD since it can't be partitioned into small enough bits for that to work.

A better example would be using a CD and DVD for the moment, I'm sure the Unreal 3 engine is larger then 700MB, so it's impossible to run Gears of War off a CD because you can't even fit the engine on it.

You don't get it do you? An optical disc is a container, nothing more. I can have Gears of War partitioned in 25 CDs if I want to, then install them all to the hard drive, and the game will play the exact same way. The computer will never know where the files came from. It will actually play better, than running it directly from a DVD.

Disc space is only important in terms of logistics. If you choose a format that is too small for your platform, and all your games end up 5 discs a piece, then that is a poor choice. If on the other hand you choose a format that is too expensive(blu-ray) then again, that can bee a poor choice, UNLESS you also happen to be pocketing roylaties from that format :P.

Blu-ray definetely wasn't essential for the PS3. A PS3 designed with DVD would have a lot more budget to spare on the important stuff, CPU/GPU/RAM. But of course one has to account for the wider business gains that Sony enjoyed by implementing blu-ray on the PS3. Overall it was a correct business decision, albeit it took a very long time for Sony to enjoy profits from the format. But now, Sony is king with blu-ray.

The biggest mistake with the PS3 was the Cell. It costed a shitload of money and offered shit performance in return. The PS3 should have been designed around a much cheaper general purpose multi-core cpu, like the 360 CPU. That would leave room for more ram, perhaps ~1GB and a better GPU. Some prototype variant of GeForce 8000 series must have been available at the time. A system like that would run circles around the 360(See what I did there?). Then adding blu-ray on top, would simply be a business decision.