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

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

Gballzack on 14 June 2007
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
windbane said:
z64dan said:
Gballzack said:
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"?

Yeah having 25 gigs is pretty useless when 15 of the gigs are just extra copies of important info, stored close to other data so its faster for the laser to find...

I guess whenever games actually NEED 25 gigs, the loading will go from slow to incredibly frustrating.


Heh...you guys are funny. The Oblivion guy complained that load times would be worse on the PS3 so he used duplicate data on the disc. Okay. However, seeing as how the DL discs actually read slower than blu-ray and blu-ray is the same speed throughout the disc, there isn't much to be worried about.

I'd also like to point out that all PS3s can install critical files like RR7, Oblivion, and others already do. Ninja Gaiden Sigma will have a full install option. In case you guys don't know, hard drives are much faster than optical drives.

PS3s will always have the load-time advantage. Btw, Oblivion loaded twice as fast on the PS3. A rather awesome port considering it also looked better and ran smoother. I think it'll be ok.


1. When did I say anything about load times being longer or shorter between the 360 or PS3? And why are you going to refer to both of us when you don't respond to anything I said. I asked about the possibility of eliminating the need for redundant data on the Blu-Ray to try and find some justification for the nightmare Blu-Ray is, not how fast my PS3 games are going to load by installing them onto the hard drive first.

2. The real question though is why in gods name should a console ever need to install a game first before playing it? Why not just sell a monitor with it and call it a PC? Hell, better yet, why bother with a disc at all? Oh that's right, because a certain someone is trying to force Blu-Ray on the consumer market, that's why. Hey I know, let's make an overly large disc format handicapped by redundant data, boast about how much data it can hold then turn around and make you install your games anyway to compensate for the format's shortcomings, brilliant.

JSF said:
Gballzack said:

We also have to take into consideration that the majority of the space taken up on a Blu-Ray disc game is redundant information that wouldn't be needed on a DVD-9.

This isn't true for multi-disc games however. When you have a multi-disc game, you will need to have some redundant data between discs because the core game files need to be read and re-read now and again. If there is no redundant data, you would have to do a lot of swapping back to disc 1 and then back to whatever later disc again.

 

Yes while this is true, it doesn't change the fact that Blu-Ray's size is basically its own worst enemy if its using a larger part of it for redundant data to reduce load times. Obviously there will be redundant data to play the game's essential functions in a multi-disc DVD9 too, but it wouldn't be redundant data for the same reason and it wouldn't be taking up a fraction of the space Blu-Ray redundant data would. Furthermore, my original point in this statement was to say that you might be able to fit a theoretical Blu-Ray game onto a single DVD-9 if you didn't have to deal with the redundant data which accounted for the space taken up on the Blu-Ray disc.

 


Yeah, ignore half of what I say. I responded to what you said by stating that HD installs improve load times over Wii and 360. Most people consider that a great feature, it was the best part of the xbox. However, you ignore the fact that DL dvds read slower than blu-ray, and blu-ray is the same speed throughout the disc whereas a dvd is only fast on the edge.

There is not much need for redundant data. You are just wrong...as usual.


When did I ever say anything read faster than Blu-Ray? And if the Blu-Ray, whether it be Redundant data or HD installs, needs something extra to make it work, then its obviously not the superior format everyone claims it is. Are you going to have to install the Blu-Ray movies you watch to avoid loading times? *rolls eyes*

Ah and well isn't this a surprise Windbane, arguing against the entire thead again I see, it almost seem that you were wrong or something. That could never be true though right? Oh and before I forget: Inb4 another troll pic by "Your Mother". BTW, I'm sure that pic is an ogre, not a troll. :) *wink*


1. The only downside to the PS3's blu-ray player is that is only reads at 2x.  That is not a fault of blu-ray as a format, it is the limitation of the PS3.  Newer players will read faster.  It is obviously the superior format compared to hd-dvd and dvd.  How companies use it is another story.

2. Again, DL-DVDs read slower than blu-ray at 2x.  Are you saying 360 games should be limited to 4.7GB in order to keep load times higher?  They should have included a hard drive. 


1. Well that's all I was asking in the first place, I politely and objectively asked if there were any future plans to correct the shortcomming of Blu-Ray and you attacked me. A Typical trend isn't it? I'm the one following the rules, then you attack me and start a flame war. If you had bothered to read my initial reply and given me this information, we wouldn't be having this trouble now would we?

2. I had never made mention of any such issues, I think you're arguing the wrong person Windbane, perhaps you should be arguing with the others in this thread? You know, everyone else in this thread who dissagrees with you.



Around the Network
windbane on 14 June 2007

@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.

 



your mother on 14 June 2007

ex-boyfriend perhaps?



windbane on 14 June 2007
Gballzack said:
windbane said:
 

1. The only downside to the PS3's blu-ray player is that is only reads at 2x. That is not a fault of blu-ray as a format, it is the limitation of the PS3. Newer players will read faster. It is obviously the superior format compared to hd-dvd and dvd. How companies use it is another story.

2. Again, DL-DVDs read slower than blu-ray at 2x. Are you saying 360 games should be limited to 4.7GB in order to keep load times higher? They should have included a hard drive.


1. Well that's all I was asking in the first place, I politely and objectively asked if there were any future plans to correct the shortcomming of Blu-Ray and you attacked me. A Typical trend isn't it? I'm the one following the rules, then you attack me and start a flame war. If you had bothered to read my initial reply and given me this information, we wouldn't be having this trouble now would we?

2. I had never made mention of any such issues, I think you're arguing the wrong person Windbane, perhaps you should be arguing with the others in this thread? You know, everyone else in this thread who dissagrees with you.

 

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.



Gballzack on 14 June 2007
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.
 



Around the Network
windbane on 14 June 2007
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.



Legend11 on 14 June 2007

You guys need to cool it before this thread gets locked as well.



windbane on 14 June 2007
Legend11 said:
You guys need to cool it before this thread gets locked as well.

Is there a reason for that post?  Is it the back and forth that annoys you, or what else about the thread should be locked?  Try adding to the discussion and maybe it won't need to be locked, heh. 



Gballzack on 14 June 2007
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? :)

windbane said:
Legend11 said:
You guys need to cool it before this thread gets locked as well.

Is there a reason for that post?  Is it the back and forth that annoys you, or what else about the thread should be locked?  Try adding to the discussion and maybe it won't need to be locked, heh. 

Now lashing out at Legend who was only trying to warn us about our bickering? For shame. You really do have confrontational issues don't you?



windbane on 14 June 2007
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.