Dude, are you suggesting that you would have using a stop watch? Because if you can't believe they can use one its probably due to you not being able to use one.

i don't believe even my shadow, but shady informations always come from gamespot.

@ nightsurge

Other sources indicate that it takes ~10 minutes to install as well.

so...

we have 10 mins = 600 seconds.

6.8GB/600seconds = ~11.333MB/s ave transfer rate.

groovy!

now all we need is for someone to time a 6.8GB transfer to the PS3 from DVD and BR and we're all set.

@ NJ5

Copying data layer by layer will yield different results compared to how game data is being read from a dual layer disc during a game. (layer switching) This is because if you would treat both layers as two seperate discs, the data would not be well aligned and re-using data will constantly see lots of lens movement (wearing issues, extra seek time penalties). Hence the quoted specs from manuals.

With copying you just replicate the information of 1s and 0s into data on the harddrive (like an image file). But if a game reads, files have to be actually used and executed. And it's not a start to finish thing like watching a movie, only switching layers once.

Also it's more relevant to test the speed of the worst 360 drives than the better ones, as developers will need to take into account worst case scenarios (like having no harddrive).

   <p>@ NJ5<br /><br />Copying data layer by layer will yield different results compared to how game data is being read from a dual layer disc during a game. (layer switching) This is because if you would treat both layers as two seperate discs, the data would not be well aligned and re-using data will constantly see lots of lens movement (wearing issues, extra seek time penalties). Hence the quoted specs from manuals.<br /><br />With copying you just replicate the information of 1s and 0s into data on the harddrive (like an image file). But if a game reads, files have to be actaully used and executed. And it's not a start to finish thing like watching a movie, only switching layers once.<br /><br />Also it's more relevant to test the speed of the worst 360 drives than the better ones, as developers will need to take into account worst case scenarios (like having no harddrive).</p></td></td></table></center><br />
    <p>

    </p>

I'll gladly take a permaban if it will stop this clown from posting for six months. I'm that sick of his drivel.

Well, by now everyone seems to agree with regard to the original topic, namely the 6.8 GB data limit.

Also considering some people are getting upset and resort to childish measures to derail even further, I think this thread is ready for retirement.

Regarding loading times, assets quality and texture pop-in performance for the best PS3 games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune compared to the best 360 games like Gears of War 2, we will surely follow how this all evolves with future games. Maybe we can more easily look back a few years from now.

um no

Blu-ray duble layer discs have 45GB effective storage availabe for games, right?

So it's 6.6 times more than X360 DVDs. That's a lot. Amazing though that it hasnt paid off in this gen yet (not many games are that big that they dont fit on 2 DVDs).

MS made the right choice releasing the X360 in Nov 2005, without a HD disc format. It really paid off.