Hmm, It really has to do with compression and seriously, final fantasy vii was on multiple discs... I really don't understand why people think that games are better when they are on such large capacity media. Depending on the speed of the drive 100 gb could be a lot of stuff to sift through, creating longer load times. The whole blue ray thing is just sony pushing there media format. Anyone remember the mini disc music format? My friend had one in college, that little blue alien was so cute. Why is it so hard to find minidiscs now? Anyway, point being, at this point 100gb is ridiculous for gaming purposes, and drives up the cost, now for data backup and transportability, this is quite nice.

 You do realise in this very thread, only five posts before yours, is a link to a BD burner at $450?

Yeah, I edited it. The last one I saw was 6 months ago in maximum pc and it was $1200.

Umm no, these types of thing never work out.

It wont be playable on PS3.

Take an example the 51GB HDDVD list..they say it's expensive, fragile, and may be compatible with current players.

These things usually only exist in theory, or in a lab. It will never come to market.

>>According to a report from PC Pro, the manufacturer is working to stabilize signal quality before considering a commercial roll-out for the new discs.>>

This means it will never be widespread, just like 51GB HDDVD probably wont be..

This would be useless on the PS3... or any console except the PC.

Just think about it, it would be like this:

Loading...................................................................................................................

Loading...................................................................................................................

Loading...................................................................................................................

They should resolve the physical limitations for reading speed first.

dallas said: This probably won't be used for more than a handful of movies/games combined for several years. It makes no sense to even put a trilogy of games or movies on one disc in case it gets scratched. Either way, the only way I'm going to take this news is as evidence that BD is winning.

 Please. You'lll take anything as that evidence, even if it isn't relevant. Mainstream consumers won't just up and buy BD because of the higher capacity. They have hard drives for that.

 At least when you posted sales reports, they were actually relevant to BD.

 Where is it stated that the 51GB HD-DVD is fragile and expensive? I can understand the player compatibility. That was stated already.

 Plus the 51GB HD-DVD is not stuck in a lab (as your "these things" comment implied). It's been finalized. The HD-DVD forum is working on standardizing new players work with the disc, before it enters the market.

Blu-Ray discs are already big enough that the PS3 games are limited more by development budget and the system's power (oddly enough) than by disc size anyway.

While this is neat, it's completely useless right now. No matter how large the disc capacity is, the PS3's drive still reads at roughly the same speed as the 360 drive, meaning developers are still forced to use compression methods to ease loading times.

I guess games could have loads of uncompressed audio with this and could have hours of rendered video on a disc but last time I checked, that doesn't impact whether a game is good or not (personally, I don't care for rendered video in the first place, it ruins immersion IMO).

This will not impact game quality or game length in the slightest bit. Developers are still limited by budget, not disc size.

I wonder what kind of game you would get if your original goal was to make a game that would take up 200 gigs....