There is no denial in my statement Enos. Chill. Sony promised that blu-ray would be used to increase game content and length. It has not. In fact, the PS3 has the shortest games of the generation so far. All you are listing are graphics and sound effects, which have nothing to do with game content or length.

The thread is hardly premised on the PS3 not being the best BluRay player. That's -one- reason why -one- potential outcome isn't that great for the PS3. Sure, technophiles who don't already have a PS3 or a high-end BluRay player might end up getting a PS3 if BluRay wins. These are exactly the sort of people that would have bought one already, though, and they're a tiny market to begin with. The more important point being made in that section is that casuals are going to opt for cheaper players.

The point of the thread is that the inclusion of BluRay was generally a bad idea as far as PS3 sales/profitability are concerned. That's not to say that it was necessarily a bad idea for Sony as a company, but it doesn't seem like the PS3 is going to derive that much benefit from a successful BluRay format, while an unsuccessful BluRay could drag it down significantly.

Enos, you've entirely missed the point. Obviously BluRay -can- be used to fit more data on to a single disc. No one's arguing that, and that's an absurd strawman to attack.

When we talk about BluRay being 'necessary' for gaming, we mean that the extra space allowed by BluRay makes games so much more compelling that they're simply head and shoulders above the competition. Sales numbers seem to show that, in fact, they're not. Gamers are not actually convinced that all that extra space makes games appreciably better, and many seem to have noticed that, in fact, PS3 games are often worse than 360 versions of the same games, which isn't helpful when many of the most popular games are multiplatform.

Similarly, one could argue that supercomputers are 'necessary' for gaming because you can have better physics simulations. That's nice and all, but no one cares, or at least no one cares enough to pay significantly more for it. The sense of 'necessary' at work here is literal - most games have to need it in order to be well-received.

 Prove it, you cant.

Would Ratchet be as long with out BR, who knows.

All you are doing is posting your opinion as fact.

Are you being serious now... or is this sarcasm? 

     How can a game's length ever be opinion.  Would Ratchet still be a short 12-15 hours (on your first time through) without BluRay?  That's really a short game.  Just like Heavenly Sword can be beaten in 6-8 hours.  If BluRay is so important to games because of it's extra storage allowing more content and more length, than I think it's safe to say so far BluRay is doing nothing for games.  I'm sure at some point it will come in to it's own, but right now it's certainly not delivering anything that isn't already being done on other systems.

Enos you really need to calm down.  First of all, the burden of proof lies on the people making the claim that they are able to do something more.  Sony claimed that Blu-ray will be used to make games longer than they could be without it.  It has nothing to do with the capability.  It has to do with developers actually spending the time it takes to make games longer.  Until games are longer on the PS3 than they were last generation, Sony has failed to deliver on this promise. 

Case in point, you brought up Ratchet & Clank.  Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction is about a 15 hour game.  Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal is more than a 20 hour game.  It also has more content than F:TOD does.  It has a co-op mode and a battle mode as well as online multiplayer.  So, on the PS2, which used DVD-9, I played a 20 hour game with more game modes and content.  I know.  I own it and I have beaten it at least 6 times.  On the PS3, I can play a 15 hour game with none of that content.  

Now, as the company claiming the Playstation 3 will make games longer than they would be otherwise, it's up to Sony to show us games of not just ordinary length, but extraordinary length.  Uncharted is reported by the developers to be 12-15 hours, so that game will not be proving Sony's claim either.  Again, there are Gamecube games that are totaling 40-50 hours on discs that are 1.5 GBs.  The PS3 has yet to deliver the extended gameplay time and content that it promised. 

I'm not saying it's not capable of delivering that.  Obviously more size gives you more options for game length.  I'm saying developers aren't capable of delivering that.   I think the difficulty of development for the PS3 has made the benefits of Blu-ray a moot point.  Developers can't spend the kind of money it takes to make longer games on the PS3, so they use up the space with miniscule improvements like uncompressed audio or duplicating data to reduce load times.  Blu-ray is not being used to increase content and length.  

Maybe you need to come down, look what you are posting but first put away your bias and just think a bit.

- comparing a rpg to some adventure shooter game is just pointless and proves nothing at all.

- comparing two different titles proves nothing

- no matter how right you think you are, its juts your opinion backed by no facts.

Can you prove Uncharted would be exactly the same, would be the same length as it is now had it been done on dvd ? no you can't.

Reality is Br is being used to make PS3 games better, and no one with a brain can argue having more of something is not a good thing.

I compared a Ratchet game to a Ratchet game. If you want to compare action-adventure to action-adventure then Metroid Prime 3 is more than 20 hours and Uncharted is 12-15. Zelda doesn't have a comparable match on the PS3. Maybe Folklore, which is about 10 hours. Either way, the PS3 is full of short games.

The point isn't that Uncharted would be longer or shorter with Blu-Ray than with DVD. Uncharted is still shorter than many games last generation and many other games on other consoles with far less storage this generation. Sony's claim was that it would make games longer than they ever were before, and they have not done that. I'm sorry if this is hard to understand but it's a very simple concept.

Sony says: We can make games longer than they were before with Blu-ray.
Sony does: Make games shorter than they were last generation.

Again, Blu-ray has the capability to make games longer, but it simply hasn't been done. There is really no argument against that because there is concrete proof all around us that PS3 games aren't any longer than last gen games were. Some of them like Heavenly Sword are much shorter. Developers haven't done it. Sony hasn't done it. And back to my original point, Sony hasn't followed through with their promise to use Blu-ray to deliver longer games with more content. That's all there is to it.

Like shouting at a brick wall.

Well in my case, watching someone shout at a brick wall.

Also, I'm done discussing this with you. You seem obsessed with this idea that I'm trying to attack Blu-ray, which I'm not. You also don't seem to be grasping the concept and are constantly redirecting the argument to something I was never discussing in the first place. I've proven my initial statement beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is your replies are far from reasonable, and I don't see anything to be gained by continuing this with you.

Actually, the Wii has the shortest games of the generation so far, just because they aren't popular doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted. And it also has a lot of no storyline games that depend on how fast you get bored of it. Pretty unfair to say the PS3 has the shortest games when those games don't require half as much work as the games being developed for the other 2 consoles and PC.

I love how Enos' comment's are immediately ignored even if they are right.

Also, Sony never promised anything, i really hate that "they lied" attitude. They said blu-ray allows developers to put more content in games, never said they HAD to so its not a promise, just that they were able to, never specified what kind of content, nothing. Even if they did, they still have a lot of time to do it, so you dont really have an argument here. Everything Enos said is right, just because it isn't how you want it, is not a reason not to count those. As far as i know things like extra uncompressed audio count as content. 

@Gotchayex: The extra space won't simply make the PS3 games look better you know? those games are multiplatform for a reason, they can't simply put more content on the PS3 version cause they want to, and making them look better much better than the 360 versions would take more time, so to put it simple, it can't be done.

@Nick: First of all, since when is 15 hours short? second, game lenght is NOT a valid point here, i've already said many times that the time a game lasts doesnt necessarily mean it will last more. You are all forgetting that models and textures take up a lot more space on a disc and that's where R&C is doing it right. Now this brings the question, how do you know R&C would only last like 8 hours without blu-ray? How do you know that with a DVD it wouldn't look as good cause they didn't have the space to put the high res models? You don't.

And i remember that the demo of just the first level took up 1.6 GB, that says a lot.

The whole argument is just bad cause your logic is wrong.

EDIT:

@naztatips again:

Folklore lasts more like 20-30 hours, even more if you bother to do absolutely everything, i don't know where you got that it lasts 10 hours... anyway, Don't you realize that there's no point in comparing old generation games with new generation games? it's amazing that the original point was "blu-ray isn't necessary" yet the only reason that you can give is length, which is not as important as textures, models, audio and video when talking about space in a disc. It's not even close.

 The point is, blu-ray is being used, if you are going to continue with your length crap, fine.... this argument is a joke.