By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft: Xbox doesn't need Blu-Ray

EdStation3 on 10 March 2010
dobby985 said:
Blu-ray is not the next DVD and Digital Distribution will likely take over.


Yeah movies I can't lend to friends...I can't take a movie from my collection and bring it over to a friends/girlfriends house to watch...

 

Movies which require us to anchor Terrabyte and greater HDD to our TVs.  Most of my friends and me personally like keeping my Bluray and DVDs on a shelf so ppl can view our collection.

 

HD movies which Im limited to 3 per month due to my 45GB cap.

 

Most ppl listen to music on and go, on the bus, working out, between classes so downloading music makes senes.  Most ppl watch HD quality movies in their home theatre/living rooms where keeping it together in a "convienient" HDD doesn't matter...good luck getting DD to catch on.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
mOeR-rpGee on 10 March 2010
nightsurge said:
Scoobes said:
leatherhat said:
What does streaming movies have to do with games?

Precisely what I was thinking. Are these quotes taken out of context?

OT: They don't really need Blu-Ray, but I'm sure developers would prefer it if they removed the masses of copy protection from their DVDs so they could squeeze a bit more stuff on. I mean is it really acceptable that the Wii and PS2 DVDs have more space available when the 360 is the HD console?

Especially considering that the disc copy protection doesn't help them at all since all you need to do is flash the disc drive itself...

I think they just need to release a "better" larger file version of games via DD.  I've got plenty of HDD space.  Either that or have their most demanding resource games be DD only.

the real question you should be answering is why the fuck are you playing ff13 on the 360 when you have both consoles (going by sig)... that is like owning both consoles and playing bayonetta on the ps3... or bioshock 2... just wrong.



Twistedpixel on 10 March 2010
EdStation3 said:
dobby985 said:
Blu-ray is not the next DVD and Digital Distribution will likely take over.


Yeah movies I can't lend to friends...I can't take a movie from my collection and bring it over to a friends/girlfriends house to watch...

 

Movies which require us to anchor Terrabyte and greater HDD to our TVs.  Most of my friends and me personally like keeping my Bluray and DVDs on a shelf so ppl can view our collection.

 

HD movies which Im limited to 3 per month due to my 45GB cap.

 

Most ppl listen to music on and go, on the bus, working out, between classes so downloading music makes senes.  Most ppl watch HD quality movies in their home theatre/living rooms where keeping it together in a "convienient" HDD doesn't matter...good luck getting DD to catch on.

You already anchor a disc player, and possible a stereo system to your TV. In any case most people have access to portable rewritable storage mediums like flash/portable HDDs/media players etc.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

sanadawarrior on 10 March 2010
EdStation3 said:
Twistedpixel said:
EdStation3 said:
If compression is the key, the PS1 would of used cartirdges, and PS2 would of used CDs etc...they didnt...

As time goes by games get bigger. Very easy to understand, before you could get games on those little floppy discs and computers came with 2GB HDD...then games started coming out on CDs and HDD were 30GB...then DVDs and HDD are 200GB...

360 will soon hit a bottle neck in space constraints...the PS3 outsells it every week and is closing in on total sales....without the hassle of mass compression and games on 4 discs...what do you think developers will do then? Once the Ps3 overtakes the 360 in sales and breaking even is no longer a concern because the PS3 has more marketshare and can sell more games do you think develops will hold their ideas and technological break thoughs back? No they'll develop to their hearts content...

It's like buying a house and you know you have kids on the way...do you buy a studio condo(360) which will run out of room fast or buy the family home(PS3) which will accomodate your family?

In my opinion the 360 is doomed to an early exit this generation...we seen how quickly the Xbox was done...PS2 has over twice the life...Im not going to pay for something when the competition offers double the life span.

Its funny that you're completely wrong.

If one was to make a graph with low graphics on the left side of the X axis all the way up to high graphics on the right side and the Y axis was sales then it would appear to the casual observer that games need to have poor graphics to succeed and that games with good graphics are a waste of time.

Look at the games which sell the most and assign a score to their graphics with 1 being Wii Sports and 10 being Uncharted 2. You'll lol at Sony if you do.

1  WiiSports sells on movement...not on graphics.

2  I never said better graphics mean more sales/more fun.

 

 

What I said can be explained by making a graph from the dawn of video games till now, and then made a line showing the growth in space requirements.  It will go up as time goes on...  Now draw a line that says 7GB(DVD) and one that says 45GB(Bluray).  Which line crosses the space requirements line first?  The 7GB line does...  while the 45GB line has space to handle years and years of growth.

 

Take me and my cousin:

He bought an XBox ($230) plus 2 years of Live ($120) for a total of: $350

I bought a PS2 ($180)

Support of his console went -poof- after ONLY 4 and a half years while mine is still supported.

$180 x 2 is $360.  He paid $350.  Ive played my PS2 twice as long but he paid twice as much...

 

 

I bought a Ps3 ($499),

He bought an Arcade 360($299)...he had to buy a charger set ($40) has bought two years of Live ($120) a HDD ($120) WiFi antenna ($120) for a total of $699.

He's paid $200 more than I have...yet chances are my PS3 will be able to play games well into this generation as it will outlast the 360 due to it's space capabilities and will be able to support games for years to come.

 

He paid more - but I play more...I'll play a lot more...well into threshold of the post-7GB days which is coming soon.

Lol, keep on believing that developers will abandon however many 10s of millions of consoles 360 will have sold by the time the PS3 outsells it(if it ever does). In the end it isn't their call to make, as that decision will be made by suits who will see the 360 install base as large enough to make games for.



Twistedpixel on 10 March 2010
EdStation3 said:

1  WiiSports sells on movement...not on graphics.

2  I never said better graphics mean more sales/more fun.

 

 

What I said can be explained by making a graph from the dawn of video games till now, and then made a line showing the growth in space requirements.  It will go up as time goes on...  Now draw a line that says 7GB(DVD) and one that says 45GB(Bluray).  Which line crosses the space requirements line first?  The 7GB line does...  while the 45GB line has space to handle years and years of growth.

 

Take me and my cousin:

He bought an XBox ($230) plus 2 years of Live ($120) for a total of: $350

I bought a PS2 ($180)

Support of his console went -poof- after ONLY 4 and a half years while mine is still supported.

$180 x 2 is $360.  He paid $350.  Ive played my PS2 twice as long but he paid twice as much...

 

 

I bought a Ps3 ($499),

He bought an Arcade 360($299)...he had to buy a charger set ($40) has bought two years of Live ($120) a HDD ($120) WiFi antenna ($120) for a total of $699.

He's paid $200 more than I have...yet chances are my PS3 will be able to play games well into this generation as it will outlast the 360 due to it's space capabilities and will be able to support games for years to come.

 

He paid more - but I play more...I'll play a lot more...well into threshold of the post-7GB days which is coming soon.

 

PS: He paid more but his HDD is 20GB is smaller than me 80GB (odd huh?) and he needs the 120HDD soon...so $200 in the near future

Graphics don't sell games very well, you don't need more than 7GB for a 10+M selling game.

As for your cousin, its pretty irrelevant to anything here. Games will still release for the Xbox 360 for as long as the PS3 is around. Sony however will abandon serious effort on the PS3 once the PS4 is out.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Around the Network
xenogears1234 on 10 March 2010
Scoobes said:
leatherhat said:
What does streaming movies have to do with games?

Precisely what I was thinking. Are these quotes taken out of context?

OT: They don't really need Blu-Ray, but I'm sure developers would prefer it if they removed the masses of copy protection from their DVDs so they could squeeze a bit more stuff on. I mean is it really acceptable that the Wii and PS2 DVDs have more space available when the 360 is the HD console?

If you ask me this just sounds like sour grapes the 360 did so many things right at the start of the console war and sony took a gamble on blue ray and it has served them well. Not only for storage reasons, but one thing alot of people forget is the blueray disc's have Durabis which is a polymer coating that makes them very scratch resistant which if you guys remember how easily the old discs could be scratched at the drop of dime is a distinct advantage over dvd-9.  It does not matter though i think we all know that that the next xbox will have blue ray by that time they will have completely penetrated the market and will be more financially advantagious over the old dvd-9's.  Also i keep hearing about digital distribution which by the way has been promised for like how long now, and may never be fully implemented as most gamers still prefer a hard copy not to mention xbox gamers who still have a smaller hard drive why should they have to go out and buy upgraded hard drives for their 360 when they could just buy the hard copy.



sguy78 on 10 March 2010

Honestly, if Microsoft is going to do Blu Ray, they'll do it next gen anyways.



BW_JP on 10 March 2010
nightsurge said:
BW_JP said:
nightsurge said:
BW_JP said:
nightsurge said:
Damnyouall said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of DRM and digital distribution, where you don't own the movies and games you purchased.

On topic: No physical media needed for distribution? Good luck with those 30-50 GB downloads of future games, of which a whole bunch will fit on those enormous internal hdds.

Please check up on what I posted earlier.  Games via DD would be much smaller file sizes.  For example, a 50GB Blu Ray game on DD would probably only be about 25GB and maybe even a lot less.  So much data is duplicated on discs to ensure they load and are accessible as quickly as possible.  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.

The PC equivalent to an HD console game is usually 10-15GB MAX and yet it still looks better and supports higher resolutions/audio formats.  I'd be perfectly fine buying a 250gb HDD and downloading those games.  My internet could do one game ever 2 hours or faster.

snip                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

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.

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.

You assume I have no knowledge?
Nice try.
I graduated with a degree in Computer Engineering 3 years ago and I work in game development, specifically focusing on hardware optimization for stream code.

 

You dont need the disc to play borderlands on the 360? That's interesting. 

Your claims are completely off and based on attempting to belittle the importance of blu-ray. It's a desperate move.



nightsurge on 10 March 2010
BW_JP said:
nightsurge said:
BW_JP said:
nightsurge said:
BW_JP said:
nightsurge said:
Damnyouall said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of DRM and digital distribution, where you don't own the movies and games you purchased.

On topic: No physical media needed for distribution? Good luck with those 30-50 GB downloads of future games, of which a whole bunch will fit on those enormous internal hdds.

Please check up on what I posted earlier.  Games via DD would be much smaller file sizes.  For example, a 50GB Blu Ray game on DD would probably only be about 25GB and maybe even a lot less.  So much data is duplicated on discs to ensure they load and are accessible as quickly as possible.  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.

The PC equivalent to an HD console game is usually 10-15GB MAX and yet it still looks better and supports higher resolutions/audio formats.  I'd be perfectly fine buying a 250gb HDD and downloading those games.  My internet could do one game ever 2 hours or faster.

snip                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

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.

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.

You assume I have no knowledge?
Nice try.
I graduated with a degree in Computer Engineering 3 years ago and I work in game development, specifically focusing on hardware optimization for stream code.

 

You dont need the disc to play borderlands on the 360? That's interesting. 

Your claims are completely off and based on attempting to belittle the importance of blu-ray. It's a desperate move.

I never claimed you had no knowledge.  I merely claimed that I did have knowledge and likely more than you.  As for Borderlands.  I have it on 360.  I have it installed for a total of 3.3GB, and when I play it the disc never spins at all.  My claims are completely factual.  Also, not once did I ever try to belittle Blu-Ray.  Ever.  I was only trying to praise DD.

It seems you keep inferring things that simply are not there.  You infer that I am claiming you have no knowledge when I did not.  You infer that I am trying to belittle Blu-Ray when I have done absolutely nothing of the sort.  For someone who must be in his late 20s I would have expected less ridiculous behavior.

Please don't try to take everyone in a hostile manner as you are creating conflict where there is none.



Legend11 on 10 March 2010

It wouldn't make sense to use Blu-Ray for gaming when it would split the 360 userbase.

A better solution for Microsoft would be to remove the tiered licensing fee so that developers would have a lot more space without any kind of financial repercussions.