starcraft said:
Rainbird said:
starcraft said:
Rainbird said:
Starcraft, just because we haven't seen any real benefit to the blu-ray yet, doesn't mean developers can't use the blu-ray for what it offers. Afterall, all that extra space can easily lure a developer who knows their vision and can tell that they need this extra space. So if it is true that R* have plans to "fill a BD", it is perfectly reasonable to assume it wont be on the X360. About the multiplatform games, it's true that they aren't "restricted" by the DVD, but I'm sure that some of the games would have been different on some levels because they weren't restricted by space. But then again, you can never showcase a console by showing games that are multiplat, because the developers usually strive to make the games look and feel the same on both consoles. EDIT:
Good one about PGR4, I had completely forgot about that! http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/30/bizarre-confirms-pgr4s-cities-comments-on-dvd-constraints/ |
I think so far Blu-Ray's lower read speeds have hindered rather than helped PS3 games. It is dicussed extensively in this thread: http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=22092 |
I still feel convinced that with the right streaming system and placing of files on the BD, the BD drive read speed is not enough to counter a minimum of 25 GB of available space. But this of course only makes sense if you plan to use all that space. |
But to counter the read speed issue, many devs are having to put the same data (duplicated) on various parts of the disc to make it easier to access.
Whats the point in having extra space if your only using it to counter a lower read speed? All that does is cost developers money. At the end of the day, Blu-Ray simply isn't delivering the longer, better games it was promised it would. All it is doing is increasing game prices. |
This is retarded and an outdated arguement. Read speeds for 2x blu-ray is faster than a DL DVD and faster than the slow half of a 4.3GB DVD. Only the fastest parts of a single-layer DVD are faster than the PS3's blu-ray. Blu-ray read speeds are uniform across the entire disc.
Not only that, but hard drives are much faster and being able to install games enables the blu-ray to hold 50GB that is not redundant (and the parts that are needed to be loaded faster go here instead of the part of a DVD that reads faster than 2x blu-ray). We have seen several games that would require several DVDs to hold (look at Blue Dragon and Lost Odessey). The situation for MGS4 (or other games if you don't believe it actually needs 50GB of space, whatever) will have a similar effect than trying to put FF7 on the N64 and requiring lots of catridges (granted discs are cheaper).
Read speeds are not an issue, and extra space is already proving to be a great boon for developers.
Blu-ray isn't supposed to deliver "the longer, better games." Who says extra space automatically means games need to be longer? I like shorter games. That space can also be used for better graphics, more sound tracks, blu-ray movie add-ons (Stranglehold), etc. More space has always been a great thing for so many reasons. Acting like it's failed because Heavenly Sword isn't a long game is just ridiculous. As for better games...try looking at Uncharted's graphics and then think how awesome it is to play with NO LOAD TIMES. I'd say the read speed is just fine there.
Increasing game prices? Not for the consumer, so who cares? The prices will drop, especially since more factories will be focusing on the discs because of the end of the format war.
I've got a great idea, though. Why don't we just go back to using CDs since more space doesn't matter? Why should we repeat our past mistakes of transitioning to a format with more space? Afterall, many PS2 games were released on CDs so clearly that was enough space!
Geez...
