Is DVD-9 enough this generation?

[windbane]

shams said:

windbane said:

shams said:

Taking into account faster CPUs and more on-board RAM (better compression tech available for use), downloadable content, availability of hard disks (etc) - I think DVD-9 is EASILY enough space.

It would be a very rare game that REQUIRES more than 10Gig of COMPRESSED space - and those can be simply delivered on multiple discs.

BluRay IMO is complete and utter overkill. It lends itself to lazy development practices more than anything else (wasting space). And its ironic that a BluRay drive (PS3) is slower than the DVD-9 drive in the 360.

If they should have improved anything, it should be an ungraded DVD-9 drive with faster seek/access times, and faster read rates. That would have been much more useful!

 

1. CPUs and RAM do not make up for texture sizes and 1080p videos. If it did, why are sizes of everything increasing? That logic just makes no sense.

2. Not all 360's have hard drives, developers can not depend on them.

3. People said the same crap about DVDs back in 2000. The only difference this time is people are holding on to hope that the inferior hd-dvd format will succeed. It is unfortunate that the dual-format players may succeed. Either way, blu-ray is making money so it's not going away.

1.You can use advanced compression techniques to keep the textures in main memory/disc (a whopping 512MB of main memory!), then decompress them to the texture memory as needed. So larger textures can take less space than they did on older generation machines. Coupled with the fact that unlike the PS2, the PS3 actually has some nice compressed texture formats that are supported.

EDIT - throw in procedural texture generation..

2. 360's have DVD-9 drives - so what's your point? Just another reason why the PS3 doesn't need BluRay!

3. What crap? The DVD format is now the most common format on the planet, and its even superceded CD burners on PCs (something that surprised me, but was inevitiable when the cost came down). Sony should never have included a BluRay drive in the PS3. Its caused them untold damage, delayed the launch, pushed up the price of the hardware (etc).

The only reason for the inclusion of BluRay into the PS3, is as a trojan vehicle to force a new digital format onto consumers - something Sony are notorious for. Its completely unnecessary!

PS - what I find ironic is this: since most non-Sony companies will be developing x-platform 360/PS3 titles, most studios will be sticking to the DVD-9 size limit anyway. PS3 might get some extra high-def movies, or something else to fill up the remainder of the space.

 

1.  Well, developers don't seem to use that since their games keep getting bigger and bigger.

2.  You can't put all your full games on the hard drive unless you upgrade it.  Obviously, having the blu-ray media is still very useful.  Not all the data needs to be installed anyway.  A HD and blu-ray drive are great complements to each other.

3.  I mean that the same things people say about blu-ray now they said about DVDs then, especially that the PS2 doesn't need DVDs.  I think you may be right that including blu-ray keeps the system too expensive and will prevent them from having the same domniance they've had, but as a consumer I really enjoy having the blu-ray drive for games.  I think it's more than worth the price.

PS:  Being a trojan horse, I assume to "conquer homes," is not the only reason they included blu-ray.  I think Sony, like many developers, feel that the extra space blu-ray provides is worth having for games.  It's a bonus that it is one of the best blu-ray players available and now upscales DVDs/PS1/PS2 games as well.  I think it's a really great machine.