By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
windbane on 15 June 2007
Edit Thread
shams said:
windbane said:

shams said:

...

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 The DVD format is now the most common format on the planet, and its even superceded CD burners on PCs (something that surprised me, but was inevitiable when the cost came down).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.

1. Really? PS2 games in 2000 were delivered on DVD media. Oblivion for the 360 was also delivered on DVD. And its a hi-def game. I haven't seen any evidence that games are getting "bigger and bigger" - this is a very common misconception - probably banded around by Sony studios, who are encouraged to waste space. Have their been ANY 360 games to date delivered on more than 1 DVD? Don't you think that if devs were running out of space, there would have been at least a few games by now? The 360 has almost been around for 2 years (and heading into its 3rd in a few months...).

2. I'm not talking about installing to hard disc (although ironically, PS3 games seem to do this... to improve loading times - I wonder why??). Extra downloadable content can be stored on hdisk - extreme compression can be used on a disc media, and then partially decompressed to hard disc. If needed - which it isn't, because devs are NOT running out of space!

3. Well - don't forget that early PS2 titles WERE delivered on CD. Why? Because less size for games, and CD's were cheaper to press and manufacture. And there is a big difference between 600MB and 5Gig - for instance, the PS2 title I worked on (AFL Live 2003) has heaps of audio commentary - played straight off the disc. It didn't quite fit on a CD (although we could have made it do so) - but it easily fit on a DVD (I think it came to around 1-1.5Gig).

"but as a consumer I really enjoy having the blu-ray drive for games"

How can you say this? Does it REALLY make any difference to you at all - for games? Every game on the PS3 you have played would have played exactly the same - possible with faster loading times - had it a DVD drive instead of BluRay drive.

Argue the movie point all you want - but this thread is whether DVD-9 is sufficient for games, not movies.

If I was a PS3 owner, I personally would be much more happy with an extra $200 in my pocket, more games released by now, better position in the market for the PS3 (etc..) - than having a BluRay drive.

But I guess that's just me....

 

PS - can we PLEASE stop the obvious trolling on this thread! Otherwise I call for a short ban for everyone involved :((


1. Blue Dragon. More are coming.

2. Why is improving load times a bad thing? It's not like the load times are much worse than the other 2 without the installs, but it helps. When the xbox installed files did people criticize that as showing that the load times would be slower than the PS2 without doing it? No, it's just better and a nice option.

3. Yeah, early PS2 games were on CD until developers ran out of space.

Yes, movies are part of it, and it will make a difference for games. Stranglehold getting Hard Boiled on the same disc (1080p) is awesome. It makes the PS3 version the definitive one and only $10 more for a great movie on the same disc. I am happy investing in something that I know will be worth it. I am not as shortsighted as I think some 360 owners are with being happy paying for everything seperately. I understand if it's a saving-up money issue, but arguing that the PS3 costs a lot more is only true if you use only most minimal of 360 features. And compared to the Wii that doesn't even play DVD movies despite using a DVD drive, I much prefer the blu-ray drive.