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

Forums - Gaming - Is DVD-9 enough this generation?

KoopaKidBilly on 14 June 2007

I think that alot of the pro Blu-Ray supporters forget the following differences about Blu-Ray addoption and DVD Addoption.

-DVD's provided customers with true value added (No Rewinding, Improved Quality, Quality didn't degrade over time, Much easier to store, extra content)
--Blu-Ray only promises slightly better picture quality and possibly more extra content... Which I believe consumers have mostly gotten over the idea of DVD extras.

-When the DVD format was released I don't recall anyone belly aching and feeling like a new format was being forced on them. I think this was primarily because there was only one new format being introduced. The VHS to DVD movement was unique in that there was no format war. However we are now in same battle that consumers feel that they have gone through before (I.E. VHS vs. BetaMax). I think if the Sony would have worked to make a compromise with the HDDVD camp and created one instead of two new media formats this wouldn't be an issue. Although people would still be complaining about the cost...

--Just like the fanboyism's we see between PS3, Xbox360, and Wii no one wants to waste there money on a format that could possibly go away and no longer be supported.
--With the Blu-Ray/HDDVD war those willing to make the investment into either format will be slow to believe that they may have made a mistake.

I still don't know why some people believe the PS3 inclusion of Blu-Ray DVD is just like the PS2 including DVD. The PS2 was not the first device on the market with a DVD drive. The PS3 is the first device that any consumers have seen that has the Blu-ray Drive.

I remember before the PS2 was released I had watched Movies on DVD and they were already being adopted as drives in PC's. Think about it when the PS2 came out the idea of getting a DVD movie to play in it wasn't that far fetched.

Blu-Ray on the other hand is still very early in it's introduction to the public.

I think wikipedia disagrees with the idea of Sony owning/benifiting from DVD. I believe Toshiba (http://www.dvd6cla.com/) gets most of the rolayties the only idea that Sony provided was the EFMPlus technology.



Around the Network
Gballzack on 14 June 2007
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
windbane said:

@gballzack:

Let me try a step by step for you.

1. You said blu-ray required 1/3rd (made up stat) redundant data on the disc.

2. The only reason for that would be to help load times.

3. #2 means you were talking about load times.

4. Oblivion shows that when using the hard drive the load times can be twice as fast on the PS3.

5. Load times are slower for DL-DVDs when compared to blu-ray.

6. You continue to ignore #5 because you are trying to act like you were not referring to load times.

7. Blu-ray does not need redundant data as much as you claim because of fact #4 and fact #5.

Got it?

 

Edit: Please don't use curse words. Thanks.

 


Windbane, Windbane, Windbane... I've already addressed all the points you've brought up and there are plenty of other people in this thread you haven't responded to yet, maybe you should try and follow up with your questionable claims against them instead of trying to troll me... Or are you trying to avoid having to put your money where your mouth is? This whole fiasco was your doing like most of the other drama in this thread, so please stop trying to blame others for your own wrong doing, its very rude. Funny how you started out yelling at me for something completely different in this thread and now are widdled down to trying to argue something else, kind of sad isn't it? At least your showing growth in your ability to keep topics in their own threads, I hope to see much improvement in you as you learn how to be civil around others.

windbane said:

Gballzack: "It is kind of sad Blu-Ray's size is virtually useless in that it has to be filled up with redundant data just to avoid terrible loading times. Is Sony banking on faster readers in the future to avoid this 'catch 22?'"

Obviously, readers improve over time just like every optical media. However, the PS3 does not need to improve because on average it will be faster to load with the hard drive and blu-ray's constant read speed versus dvd 12x and the slower DL-dvd on the 12x drive.

Microsoft can't increase the 360's read speed, and neither can Nintendo increase the Wii's. The PS3 will have the best read speeds.

For your first sentence, refer to my above post.

Now see Windbane, if you could have been civil like this to begin with then there would have been no need for all this drama. You really need to do something about your trolling tendencies.


That quote by you was showing that you claimed the PS3 needed redundant data to improve the "terrible" loading times. You then went on to deny in 2 threads over and over that you were even talking about loading time. Obviously, you lied. I've shown several times now that you #1 make things up and #2 when you are proved wrong, ignore it.


Windbane maybe you should try responding to the people who weren't just trying to politely ask a question. Why are you avoiding discussing issues with the other members of this thread? :)


Why do you post when you say nothing?

You were wrong and you lied.  If you have no response for that, there is no need for you to post.  It seems you are trying to fill this thread with BS in order to obscure the fact that you lied. 


It seems you're trying to argue with me to obscure the fact that you're dodging responding to people who've brought up legitimate points against your argument.



your mother on 14 June 2007

I didn't know you've gone out with so many handsome studs before...



Gballzack on 15 June 2007
your mother said:

I didn't know you've gone out with so many handsome studs before...


Oh no, those aren't real people, those are catroon pictures. I found them on google. :)



your mother on 15 June 2007
Gballzack said:
your mother said:

I didn't know you've gone out with so many handsome studs before...


Oh no, those aren't real people, those are catroon pictures. I found them on google. :)

You don't say...

BTW, thanks a lot. You know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... 

 



Around the Network
Legend11 on 15 June 2007

As of right now DVD-9 is obviously enough since I'm not aware of any 360 developers that have complained about storage space (Rockstar may have for GTAIV but I'm not sure). If in the next few years the PS3 starts delivering compelling HD gaming experiences that simply can't be created or adapted to the 360 solely because of storage space limitations then I'll say DVD-9 might not be enough.

Even then a relatively large harddrive for consoles (say 200gig) will likely be *extremely* cheap by that time (less than the cost of an average game) and could be bundled with games or sold to make up for a problem of lack of space if there is one.



Gballzack on 15 June 2007
your mother said:
Gballzack said:
your mother said:

I didn't know you've gone out with so many handsome studs before...


Oh no, those aren't real people, those are catroon pictures. I found them on google. :)

You don't say...

BTW, thanks a lot. You know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... 

 


Hey no problem, glad to make someone's day :)



windbane on 15 June 2007
KoopaKidBilly said:
I still don't know why some people believe the PS3 inclusion of Blu-Ray DVD is just like the PS2 including DVD. The PS2 was not the first device on the market with a DVD drive. The PS3 is the first device that any consumers have seen that has the Blu-ray Drive.

I remember before the PS2 was released I had watched Movies on DVD and they were already being adopted as drives in PC's. Think about it when the PS2 came out the idea of getting a DVD movie to play in it wasn't that far fetched.

Blu-Ray on the other hand is still very early in it's introduction to the public.

I think wikipedia disagrees with the idea of Sony owning/benifiting from DVD. I believe Toshiba (http://www.dvd6cla.com/) gets most of the rolayties the only idea that Sony provided was the EFMPlus technology.

The PS3 wasn't the first blu-ray player.  Blu-ray drives are in PCs, as are blu-ray burners.  If Sony contributed to DVD I'm sure they benefited.

I'm not trying to argue that blu-ray will succeed, even if I think it will, but it is superior to hd-dvd in space, theoritical space, speeds, scratch resistance (very hard to do anything to a blu-ray disc that will prevent it from playing), and studio support (by quantity, since one might think Universal is the best or something). 

As for games...I believe several developers have mentioned the squeeze of space that dvd-9 has.  I think the PS3 versions of games will be superior because of the added space and potentially extra features such as the Hard Boiled pack-in for Strangehold.

We'll see how much of a benefit it is.  It's possible that hd-dvd will hang around too long and blu-ray games won't make a difference, but I believe at least one of those won't happen. 



windbane on 15 June 2007
shams said:
windbane said:
shams said:

Taking into account faster CPUs and more on-board RAM (better compression tech available for use), downloadable content, availability of hard disks (etc) - I think DVD-9 is EASILY enough space.

It would be a very rare game that REQUIRES more than 10Gig of COMPRESSED space - and those can be simply delivered on multiple discs.

BluRay IMO is complete and utter overkill. It lends itself to lazy development practices more than anything else (wasting space). And its ironic that a BluRay drive (PS3) is slower than the DVD-9 drive in the 360.

If they should have improved anything, it should be an ungraded DVD-9 drive with faster seek/access times, and faster read rates. That would have been much more useful!

 


1. CPUs and RAM do not make up for texture sizes and 1080p videos. If it did, why are sizes of everything increasing? That logic just makes no sense.


2. Not all 360's have hard drives, developers can not depend on them.

3. People said the same crap about DVDs back in 2000. The only difference this time is people are holding on to hope that the inferior hd-dvd format will succeed. It is unfortunate that the dual-format players may succeed. Either way, blu-ray is making money so it's not going away.

1.You can use advanced compression techniques to keep the textures in main memory/disc (a whopping 512MB of main memory!), then decompress them to the texture memory as needed. So larger textures can take less space than they did on older generation machines. Coupled with the fact that unlike the PS2, the PS3 actually has some nice compressed texture formats that are supported.

EDIT - throw in procedural texture generation..

2. 360's have DVD-9 drives - so what's your point? Just another reason why the PS3 doesn't need BluRay!

3. What crap? The DVD format is now the most common format on the planet, and its even superceded CD burners on PCs (something that surprised me, but was inevitiable when the cost came down). Sony should never have included a BluRay drive in the PS3. Its caused them untold damage, delayed the launch, pushed up the price of the hardware (etc).

The only reason for the inclusion of BluRay into the PS3, is as a trojan vehicle to force a new digital format onto consumers - something Sony are notorious for. Its completely unnecessary!

PS - what I find ironic is this: since most non-Sony companies will be developing x-platform 360/PS3 titles, most studios will be sticking to the DVD-9 size limit anyway. PS3 might get some extra high-def movies, or something else to fill up the remainder of the space.

 


1.  Well, developers don't seem to use that since their games keep getting bigger and bigger.

2.  You can't put all your full games on the hard drive unless you upgrade it.  Obviously, having the blu-ray media is still very useful.  Not all the data needs to be installed anyway.  A HD and blu-ray drive are great complements to each other.

3.  I mean that the same things people say about blu-ray now they said about DVDs then, especially that the PS2 doesn't need DVDs.  I think you may be right that including blu-ray keeps the system too expensive and will prevent them from having the same domniance they've had, but as a consumer I really enjoy having the blu-ray drive for games.  I think it's more than worth the price.

PS:  Being a trojan horse, I assume to "conquer homes," is not the only reason they included blu-ray.  I think Sony, like many developers, feel that the extra space blu-ray provides is worth having for games.  It's a bonus that it is one of the best blu-ray players available and now upscales DVDs/PS1/PS2 games as well.  I think it's a really great machine.



windbane on 15 June 2007
Gballzack said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
windbane said:

@gballzack:

Let me try a step by step for you.

1. You said blu-ray required 1/3rd (made up stat) redundant data on the disc.

2. The only reason for that would be to help load times.

3. #2 means you were talking about load times.

4. Oblivion shows that when using the hard drive the load times can be twice as fast on the PS3.

5. Load times are slower for DL-DVDs when compared to blu-ray.

6. You continue to ignore #5 because you are trying to act like you were not referring to load times.

7. Blu-ray does not need redundant data as much as you claim because of fact #4 and fact #5.

Got it?

 

Edit: Please don't use curse words. Thanks.

 


Windbane, Windbane, Windbane... I've already addressed all the points you've brought up and there are plenty of other people in this thread you haven't responded to yet, maybe you should try and follow up with your questionable claims against them instead of trying to troll me... Or are you trying to avoid having to put your money where your mouth is? This whole fiasco was your doing like most of the other drama in this thread, so please stop trying to blame others for your own wrong doing, its very rude. Funny how you started out yelling at me for something completely different in this thread and now are widdled down to trying to argue something else, kind of sad isn't it? At least your showing growth in your ability to keep topics in their own threads, I hope to see much improvement in you as you learn how to be civil around others.

windbane said:

Gballzack: "It is kind of sad Blu-Ray's size is virtually useless in that it has to be filled up with redundant data just to avoid terrible loading times. Is Sony banking on faster readers in the future to avoid this 'catch 22?'"

Obviously, readers improve over time just like every optical media. However, the PS3 does not need to improve because on average it will be faster to load with the hard drive and blu-ray's constant read speed versus dvd 12x and the slower DL-dvd on the 12x drive.

Microsoft can't increase the 360's read speed, and neither can Nintendo increase the Wii's. The PS3 will have the best read speeds.

For your first sentence, refer to my above post.

Now see Windbane, if you could have been civil like this to begin with then there would have been no need for all this drama. You really need to do something about your trolling tendencies.


That quote by you was showing that you claimed the PS3 needed redundant data to improve the "terrible" loading times. You then went on to deny in 2 threads over and over that you were even talking about loading time. Obviously, you lied. I've shown several times now that you #1 make things up and #2 when you are proved wrong, ignore it.


Windbane maybe you should try responding to the people who weren't just trying to politely ask a question. Why are you avoiding discussing issues with the other members of this thread? :)


Why do you post when you say nothing?

You were wrong and you lied. If you have no response for that, there is no need for you to post. It seems you are trying to fill this thread with BS in order to obscure the fact that you lied.


It seems you're trying to argue with me to obscure the fact that you're dodging responding to people who've brought up legitimate points against your argument.

 

Trying to be a hypocrite except I've not ignored anyone, so that didn't even work for you.  You really make no sense.