You want to know why DD isn't cheaper all the time right this minute?  Because the DEVELOPER is producing games both ways.  If it were ONLY DD the games would be cheaper for the developer to produce which means distributors could charge less, too.

lots of flaws here. PC HD games are about 10-15gb but the design methodologies for those games are different. You load/run/read games on a PC a hell of a lot differently than you do on the 360. 

For instance, Gears of War for the PC required a 12GB install, yet fit on a much smaller disc on the 360.

There is absolutely no way you can compare the size of PC files to those on the consoles. Console development, especially high end console development is an entire different world.  

PCs have a lot of brute force. You can succeed by having decompression during run time, and you can also succeed by having the hardware upscale and force certain graphical effects into the game. 

Most importantly with regards to spacing, the PC can afford to load a single set of assets and store them in memory due to the massive bandwidth available. Consoles just don't have that. you need to constantly be loading from the disc. The reason most impressive ps3 games use a lot of the blu-ray disc is because in order to create games that impressive you NEED 30-50GB of space. On the pc, sure, go ahead and do it with 15-20. But not on a console. It's just not possible. You need to include very very high res native textures that typically get scaled down when they are put onto the screen. Graphical effects may have entire run time operations devoted just to them. Meaning there is an instance of the game being run at the same time as the main game, on another CPU. 

Any cut scenes, especially those like uncharted 2, god of war, final fantasy 13 that really push the hardware beyond what is possible on the consoles use what is called in engine rendering. The cut scenes are created using the engine on a much more powerful machine, and then scaled down and presented on screen.  Sorry, you cant do this with 15GB of space. Final Fantasy 13 for instance, used 30GB to do this was it? PC isn't going to have that any smaller. In fact, PC will most likely have that larger in order to make sure every possible resolution gets a proper image quality. My monitor is 1920x1200, if i played a video in 1080p it would be stretched and rather ugly without black bars around it.

Physical media is here to stay. Blu-ray? probably not. Blu-ray 2.0? Absolutely. It will not be a new proprietary format. it will be Sony/Toshiba/Whatever's format. They control the Television market and they are the ones with the power to push these. 

about 90% of the world cannot possibly download 15-20 GB games enough anyway. Americas broadband system would never have it. You'd cap out after like 5 games. Sure some people will be satisfied, but most will not.

Until american can improve its broadband service 10 fold, you will not see this. It simply is not viable. The DVD9 is really starting to show its limitations now, and it's going to get much, much worse over 2010 and 2011. 

"They could easily take a game like FF13 on 360 and release it for DD at only 8GB or so since each disc is filled with duplicated data."

Do some research before you speak. No they could not. The blu-ray disc is not filled with duplicated data. about 12 of the 18 GB for the game are CG cut scenes. Absolutely horrendous quality CG cut scenes. Are we supposed to sacrifice the quality of our games for DD? Unacceptable. The 360 version of this game was butchered enough. 

I really don't think you fully understand the tech behind it, and that's fine. But let me just make sure you understand that a lot of processing inabilities of current generation consoles are overcome by extensive use of space.

Is there a place for DD? yes. For some games it's fine, for some impressive games it's fine. But game design and tech is moving forward. From now on you're going to constantly see things that cannot be done without the blu-ray disc. this is just the start.

The last Remnant on the 360 is a vastly inferior game to Final Fantasy 13. They cannot even be compared. the PC install for this game is 15GB.

Wow, hello 3 years ago. Didn't MS say that Digital Distribution would be the main form of getting game in about 18 months, like 36 months ago?

BS, they are allready recovering their costs from the physical media with their sales of the physical media. Why do you think PC games cost less than console games, because their associated costs are less...

I don't think that console makers care to have you as a customer. If all you do is buy used games they'll fire you as a customer and ask that you look elsewhere for your games. (No they aren't going to send you a letter, its more that they will close off this means of getting games and once you stop buying their stuff they just won't give a damn and infact be very happy that you have).

Dude, I do know what I am talking about.  Sure my guesses for games may not be correct, but what I am arguing about is true.  DD games take less space than physical media in every circumstance.  Sometimes even half the space or less.  Borderlands, for instance, is only a 3.3GB game once installed, but on the disc is a 6GB game.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying, bud.  With DD, the games would be developed almost identically with PC and 360.  The architecture is already very similar to begin with, but I wasn't trying to argue PC to console disc sizes.  I was merely making the factual claims taht DD games would NOT be anywhere near the file size of their disc based brothers.

No, they did not say this.  I don't think they ever even began speaking about DD until last year.

er.. no. Borderlands does not install the entire game. It only installs some of it to help the game play.

You are completely incorrect. DD games on PC are very big. Team Fortress 2 is almost 20gb on my hard drive. 

The architecure is similar? er.. yeah. Similar to a 7 year old PC maybe.  

DD games will be smaller, because they will be of far less quality, if you want to make them fit on the 360s hard drive reasonably. 

Borderlands is a 7GB download on my PC, and after it installs its much larger. It's compressed for download.

Installing games takes MORE space. I really don't understand why you dont get this. Content on discs is compressed. It's decompressed when it's processed. this takes time and processing power. That's a reason why PS3 games look so much better, you can compress much less of the game. 

OMG you seriously are way off.  Borderlands on 360 INSTALLED and NEVER USING THE DISC AGAIN TO PLAY is only 3.3GB.  I have it on my console right this very moment.

DD games of CONSOLES will always be smaller size for the SAME quality as their disc based brothers.  Again, I think you are misinterpretting things because I was never making the claim that PC DD games are smaller than PC disc based games.  The only reason I ever tried to include the comment regarding PC game file sizes was to emphasize that a game running off of the hard drive requires less space than games that only run off of discs (which doesn't even happen on PC so I think you need to calm down as I was never trying to bring this much PC off topic-ness into it).

As a PC enthusiast, programmer, and hardware expert myself, I likely have a higher knowledge on these PC related topics than you or the majority of people on this forum, but alas I was only trying to make the DD vs disc comparison on consoles themselves.

Hmmm, Sorry, Still have to dissagree. I went to game spot 3 weeks ago and traded in 6 games +$60.00 for FFXIII PS3, BFBC2 (360) and GOW 3 (PS3). The Developers got Full price for their games, Like $200+Canadian......... If GameSpot was not taking old games on trade, then I would only be getting 1 game. GOW 3, so no money for EA and Square ENIX. Downloadable content will crush new game sales. Developers will start to cry again. IMO