MikeB.

Your answer didn't relate too NJ5's response in the slightest.  And as it happens, he is correct.

It all depends on how the format works. It may allow for this optimal placement or not.

Bottom line MikeB often quotes minimum/average read speeds which might not be relevant for game data.

Here is an incredibly simple model for you MikeB.

The averages you're quoting are based on the total 8.5GB of data the Xbox 360 disk holds (including FAT).  Even then they are misleading, as any sensible developer places commonly used data on the outer DVD tracks, bringing the average seek/read times for those games well below that of the PS3's Blu-Ray games.

But what NJ5 is saying is that in addition to that efficiency increaser you're ignoring, there is another one.

By placing the FAT on the inner-most tracks of the disk, a full 1.7GB of the slowest read data from that original 8.5GB is removed from the average calculation.

Assuming the top of the list is the inner most track and the bottom the outermost it goes like this:

-FAT (read slowly, but accessed only upon game boot-up).

-Game artifacts that are used extrememly rarely (perhaps individual cutscenes, story advances).

-Game artifacts used regularly (textures etc).

So not only is the average you're quoting WRONG because it accounts for 8.5GB instead of 6.8GB, it isn't even relevant as any good developer will have their important data on the outer tracks where load times are MUCH faster than that of a Blu-Ray disk.

Thanks MikeB!!!.. you've just convinced everyone, who hasn't alreay done so, to buy a PS3.

2009 is the year of the PS3.. confirmed.

@ starcraft

Whatever... Whatever he meant, it was worded poorly:

"360 games have the 6.8 GB always on the outer part of the disc"

Yes, Microsoft uses dedicated space for firmware, DRM, localized error messages and such. The 360 can thus store  ~20% less game data on DVD than a PS2.

@MikeB: Three different people have explained you what I meant with different words (me, Fumanchu and starcraft).

I don't think you have reading comprehension problems, so you're simply trying to change the subject by saying I worded it poorly instead of discussing the actual problem.

6.8GB is still a lot considering that the Gamecube got by with just 1.5GB discs and still gave us two of the best games this decade RE4 and Zelda:TP. Also the Dreamcast used 1GB discs and it had over 30 great/good exclusives.

Yeah because PS2 discs don't need a file system right?

My bad, I forgot the PS2 and PS3 were magical systems.

You guys keep talking of filesystems. Doesn't the 360 use iso9660 as your usual DVDs? I was under the impression that it simply reserved some space for security and other systems stuff.

I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "wasted" 1.7 GB includes the filesystem as well as other stuff which also exists on other game disc formats.

I would certainly hope they didn't use 1.7 GB just for DRM.