Well games like GTAIV could use that space ... but seeing that its for the 360 to , I dont think it will ever take full advantage of it :(

Yes, more space is necessary given the bigger texture sizes and all the add-ons, which eventually enhance the game experience. Who would want to play a Metal Gear game when cut scenes are kept at a minimum.

MS should have included a bigger capacity disc. They suffered from space shortages even in racing games ala PGR 4, and had to work their way around that problem by using lighting instead of different day/night textures.

I agree on you advantages listed the question is how many devs are going to take advantage. These extra perks from blu-ray are only gonna cause games to get more and more expensive to make and unless PS3 numbers really kick up soon how many TP devs are gonna release games that aren't multi-platform?

Blu-ray is good in some ways, but it just extends the development of the game. Which sometimes results in delays and as for storage, Yeah its good but not important at all. Good for Sony to incorporate that in the PS3. But Microsoft is good for this gen with the DVD-9

Even Nintendo is doing good with their regular DVD's. Seeing how Super Mario Galaxy is bigger and better now, comparing it to Super Mario Sunshine like last gen on the Gamecube.

i don't think that more space in the medium translates into no loading time...you're not watching a movie and what you see in a game has to be processed in some way by the hardware: you may have a tank with 4 gallons of water but you can't fill up a tiny glass with all of those 4 gallons of water...you still have to drink one glass at a time.

On the other hand more available space could translate into bigger games...but bigger games are also more expensive to produce so in the near future i don't think that we will see anything but longer CG cut-scenes and better audio.

As for the texture quality it's mainly dependant on the power of the graphic adapter..and probably ATI Xenon is more powerful than Nvidia's RSX. 

Bear in mind that as harddrive space grows, connection speeds shoot through the roof and optical formats can store more and more; the compression technology becomes better and better as well, so technically our need for space diminishes over time.
Still, the amount of sheer information one can store on any media in the future will be staggering, so this is a good thing.
It's kinda like building faster cars and better roads at the same time, two means towards the same end.

I'm in the "not necessary, but nice to have" camp on this matter. The Wii is definitely fine with just the DVD, heck Twilight Princess was massive, and it fit on a Gamecube disc. There are so many awesomely massive and massively awesome games on the PS2 and Xbox, that I just wish the Wii would get more of them. =P

With the 360 and PS3, space might very well become an issue, since all games on them are required to be in HD, and they support that higher sound standard as well (is it required btw?). All that requires much more space than older technology, and while a good developer will know how to go around such problems, not having the problems allow them to do something they otherwise couldn't. Let's be honest here: While I don't think there is anything on the PS3 so far that wouldn't run on the Wii if the eye-candy was cut back, there are going to be some games that really makes us go OMGWTFBBQ and would never run on Nintendo's little white box, just like there are going to be games on the Wii so weird that nobody would dare make them with the development fees of the PS3.

I suppose it's a bit contradictory, as I generally support Nintendo's "use old tech to do something new" approach, but at same time I really want to see what happens when Sony give a shitload of money to the guys who made Shadow of the Colossus so awesome on the PS2, and tell them to make whatever they want on the PS3. I just hope the huge losses Sony are making doesn't force them to cut back on great niche games that don't sell well, like Ico and SotC. ;_;

All those nice things being said, I think the limiting factor that has made so many great recent games short (Gears, Heavenly, Uncharted, CoD4 etc) is the sheer expense of making HD graphics, rather than disc space. The developer of Gran Turismo has said that it took them 1 man-day to make a car on the PS1 version, 30 on the PS2, and 180 on the PS3. The attention to detail in GT (as racing games in general) is probably way higher than in most games, but if this is any indicator of what the ratio of time needed on the different systems, then I'm just slightly worried.

The really famous exclusive games that everyone has labeled AAA+++ years before their release will probably be pretty epic, but I'm worried of how large risks 3rd parties will be willing to make when it requires so great sales to make a decent profit. Now I don't know all that much about this, but I believe that if MS and Sony would've stayed with SD, or even "just" 720p graphics, then producing content to games wouldn't cost so damn much, and we'd be playing much better games in general.

This is also one of the reasons I like Nintendo a lot nowadays, but to be honest there is probably a feedback loop of "likes Nintendo -> thinks SD graphics are a good idea -> like Nintendo..." going on in my head right now. =P

I agree largely with Parokki here.
I believe that the Wii is more attractive to people who don't have a 2-3000$ hardcore setup in their living room.
Believe it or not, here in Norway, those VHS/DVD combo machines still sell well!

My perspective:

For the PS2 and Wii this would be overkill.

For the XBox 360 and PS3 it's very desirable. Uncharted is already taking up 91% of the space available on a single layer Blu-Ray disc (and like with Ratchet and Clank TOD combined with reduced loading times), now with the technology in place and basic game concept worked out Naughty Dog can make Uncharted 2 an even bigger game the next time and maybe use a dual-layer Blu-Ray disc instead like Final Fantasy XIII, so they don't have to make any sacrifices while still being able to shoot even higher.

Necessary? Of course not. Desirable? Maybe, but probably not at the expensive level that it seems to come at.

However, statements such as "game X uses Y% of the disc's capacity" mean nothing. Space is not a big bottleneck on the PS3, so it's natural that developers don't worry about optimizing for space.

There are some things which Blu-Ray allows but are not an advantage for most people, such as uncompressed audio. Very few people have the hardware and wetware necessary to tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed audio (good speakers and extremely good ears respectively).