Question - are people really arguing about whether more space means better games or not?
If so pls stop - you're all looking very foolish.
Storage space has close to zero to do with making good games.
Storage space is only a factor for content - it also has nothing to do with length. Elite was tiny and as it generated random missions effectively had no end. More recently Oblivion essentially had no end and fit on a DVD - you keep going back to caves the game will happily keep supplying foes.
More storage space of course means that games can have (if desired) more content.
More content does not make a game better either.
The simple fact is that a good game can fit on DVD and BR (and CD and even on a phone - Tetris anyone?).
However, if you have a good game and want a lot of content then a bigger disk clearly means you can have more content before you need more disks.
As 360 is DVD and PS3 BR then PS3 does natively allow more space for developers (whether they use it or need it is another matter). So for example you could have a PS3 version of Oblivion with more textures, characters, etc. so that guards don't look so similar all the time, there is more variety, etc. but of course that would all cost more and developers will ponder whether the game would actually sell better and whether it really makes core game better (my view, it wouldn't make it better but it would make it more immersive).
Everyone needs to stop the attempt to push their own bias (all games can fit on DVD or all games will need BR space) IMHO and realize that its all down to the developers and the game, but that yes more space does allow for more content (how could it not? And pls don't be so dumb as to quote compression as that simply means the bigger disk could now hold even more compressed data that the smaller disk).
How can this not be clear?
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
