I am sorry, but you are arguing from the position that more space on a delivery medium would never offer an advantage, and that's just not the case.

As for a direct answer to your question, splitting Lost odyssey on multiple disks cost money too. If they had just put it on one disk, that would have saved them money that could be used to better the game in some way.

Look, adding a limitation is never better then removing it. 50gig is better then 9gig. period. Choose to take advantage of it or not, but saying it's meaningless is just a poor argument.

What makes you say this?  The word of Sony developers?

Fact:  Lionhead studios (Fable) recently demonstrated how almost any game data can be compressed to one hundredth of it's original size with no noticeable quality loss.

Fact: Sony claimed that Motorstorm could not have been less than 22gb in size, an obvious lie for anyone that has seen the game and its size.

Fact:  Ubisoft (a multi-platform studio) have said that Splinter Cell: Conviction could not be faithfully reconstructed on the PS3 due to the Cell's inability to render AI as well as the 360.

Fact:  An inability to match the 360's AI capabilities this early in a generation is FAR more debilitating than space issues that can be rectified with DLC and multiple disks.

Fact:  By the time the economics of the PS3 allow developers to make those huge games your talking about (which once again could simply being compressed or done with multiple disks), the next generation would be well underway.

OT:  Worst case scenario is that Epic could simply put Gears on Two disks, one for single player, one for multiplayer, at the cost of $0.17 per unit.  End of discussion. 

GTAIV is meant to be 100 hours long (the cut-down version).  However, the complete version will be on 360 due to it's more established and comprehensive online service.

All possible due to DVD9;)

Oh and btw, the most limiting factor in GTAIV's development was the PS3's lack of memory and programming difficulties, same with Assassin's Creed. 

What makes me say this? It is indeed the word of sony developers. You hit the nail right on the head my boy and for that I'll quote the article.

"If you ever hear someone say “Blu-Ray isn’t needed for this generation,” rest assured they don’t make games for a living. At Insomniac, we were filling up DVDs on the PS2, as were most of the developers in the industry. We compressed the level data, we compressed the mpeg movies, we compressed the audio, and it was still a struggle to get it to fit in 6 gigs. Now we’ve got 16 times as much system RAM, so the level data is 16 times bigger. And the average disc space of games only gets bigger over a console’s lifespan. As games get bigger, more advanced and more complex, they necessarily take up more space. If developers were filling up DVDs last generation, there are clearly going to be some sacrifices made to fit current generation games in the same amount of space. 

Granted, some really great Xbox 360 games have squeezed onto a DVD9. Gears of War is a beautiful game and shows off the highest resolution textures of anything yet released, partly because of the Unreal Engine’s ability to stream textures. This means that you can have much higher resolution textures than you could normally fit in your 512 MB of RAM. It also means that you’re going to chew up more disc space for each level. With streamed textures, streamed geometry and streamed audio, even with compression, you can quickly approach 1 GB of data per level. That inherently limits you to a maximum of about 7 levels, and that’s without multiplayer levels or mpeg cutscenes. 

Sometimes people ask us, “If Resistance takes 14 gigabytes, why doesn’t it look better than Gears?” Well, for one, Resistance didn’t support texture streaming, so we had to make choices about where we spent our high-res textures. Resistance also had 30 single-player chapters, six multiplayer maps, uncompressed audio streaming, and high-definition mpegs. That all added up to a lot of space on the disc. Starting with Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction we are supporting texture streaming, which will make the worlds look even better, and will also consume even more space on disc. 

There’s no question that you can always cut more levels, compress the audio more, compress the textures more, down-res the mpeg movies, and eventually get any game to fit on a DVD. But you paid for a high-def experience, right? You want the highest resolution, best audio, most cinematic experience a developer can offer, right? That’s why Blu-Ray is important for games, and why it will become more important each year of this hardware cycle. "

That was Al hastings the Co Ceo of Insomniac Games.

And now it's the end of the discussion. 

So what your telling me is that your going to take the word of highly biased Sony first-party developers over those of Microsoft's and third-party developers? Any reason for that?

And do you want to actually deal with some of the facts I posted? Or are you conceding that I was right about all of them?;)

If you are conceding that, I'd say what you just posted is fairly debunked.

 You criticize my sources while not quoting, but paraphrasing the words of a developer that is known for lashing out against other consoles besides the 360. Knowing Microsoft, the company with a larger GDP than half the countries in South America paid them to say stupid things like this. Now, with literally perfect reputation of Insomniac games and Microsoft's track record, who do you trust? And you can't even name the source. You really make me sick you fanboy. But if it makes you happy I'll answer your questions.

For fact one the article I posted in much more detail discredits any point you made there. Apparently you're not intuitive enough to realize that. 

For Fact two, I'm sure the game takes up 22gigs. I'm also sure that they didn't do everything in their power to compress it but then again, why should they? They have the space, so why use up the time and resources to compress. Another thing, you call Bullshit but do you have any proof? I thought not. So now what you can call fact and fiction isn't credible. 

For so called facts three and four, they would be facts if they were true. But unfortunately for your argument the cell is the name for the PS3's cpu, and it's a known FACT that the PS3's cpu is about 2 and a half times as powerful as the 360's. Think about it: the 360 has 3 processors running at 3.2 GHz each. The PS3 has 8 running at 3.2 GHz. Can you tell me which is more powerful? Now that I think about it you were completely talking out of your ass. I read the article you got that info from and not once does Ubisoft mention the Cell or give a reason for why the PS3 wouldn't be able to run their game.

As for fact number 5, those are 100% your opinion and words, and based on your new found track record, I'm taking nothing you say for granted. Insomniac specifically states that Resistance and Ratchet would not be possible on DVD's and whether you like the games or not it's true. 

I'm not going to lie you pissed me off a little but you're just defending you're favorite console which I happen to own as well. As a matter of fact, I have bought two because one had gotten the RRoD. I Can't live without Halo:). But to be honest you have really made a fool of yourself but you can redeem yourself by apologizing. Until then make sure you know what you're talking about and don't bluff, because I will always call you on it.

^^All he'd said was that one DVD-DL isn't enough. So why can't Gears use 2 or 3? Now I'm sure DVD will become outdated and we'll be having 200GB discs in the future but it still begs the question, how is the size limitation of DVDs hindering developers from making long games? And...why would a developer necessary make a longer game just because he/she can fit it onto a single disc? Now, Far Cry, I think, came out on 5 CDs and one just one DVD but at the end of the day, it's was the same game. Granted PCs are different from consoles but it serves the main point. DVDs are not preventing developers from making long games. They merely decided against it.

 My god, the fanboy talk is thick with this one.

So your telling me that more media storage means nothing? If that's the case, the 360 should never have put a DVD drive in it. It should have just stuck with CD. The DVD drive is only has about 15x the storage of a CD, yet all data can be compressed 100x. DVD =  stupid then right?

Come on, more storage space = beter for gamers. I could understand if it was slower (and it's not), or if it had some other fault, like susceptible to shock or something, but to have practically the same delivery mechanism, yet gain over 5x the storage space = very good thing.

You just hate it because it's in a Sony product. If MS had 5x the delivery medium, you would love it. 

The other things you bring up have absolutely nothing to do with Blu-Ray. We can debate those all you want, but to somehow say because they exist, 50gig storage means nothing? Come on. Unless Microsoft is paying you, it's time to stop the PR campaign.

 The statement I have highlighted has really discredited you. Generally because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. 

Just read the article I posted by Insomniac. Developers can and choose to make their games longer not all the time but on no occasion is blu-ray ever a bad thing for the console. Putting a game on multiple discs especially when you have more than 2 is annoying and it drives production costs up. Think about it: if you make 5 million copies of Gears and each extra disc costs 17 cents you just lost about million dollars of profit which in the big scheme of things isn't really all that much but never is an appealing plan. And that comment had nothing to do with you and you have not disproved anything. You're joining the argument very late so I'm not debating with you anymore.