UMD is dead, Blu Ray is next

As for loading, whatever the PS3 loses in having a slower drive, it gains in allowing people to load the games partially or totally to the hard drive.
 
[quote name='furyk']As for loading, whatever the PS3 loses in having a slower drive, it gains in allowing people to load the games partially or totally to the hard drive.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.
 
It's possible that hard disk caching is the difference. I've never expressly "installed" a game to the hard disk, but I think some games do cache some of their data to the hard disk anyway. In any case, I really don't see this as being an issue.
 
thats realy strange. A chart a read said that blue ray transfers at 600 units (forget the mesurement) and hdvd (not sure about dvd) transfers about 400 odd units. I would think that dvd would be slower then blue ray (in terms of movies, it would need to transfer more data to equal the same frame by frame equvlant of a dvd). Maybe devs dont know how to write for the ps3 blue ray?, or maybe the ps3 blue ray is alittle slower then most blue rays, or maybe that info is wrong? Who knows.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']thats realy strange. A chart a read said that blue ray transfers at 600 units (forget the mesurement) and hdvd (not sure about dvd) transfers about 400 odd units. I would think that dvd would be slower then blue ray (in terms of movies, it would need to transfer more data to equal the same frame by frame equvlant of a dvd). Maybe devs dont know how to write for the ps3 blue ray?, or maybe the ps3 blue ray is alittle slower then most blue rays, or maybe that info is wrong? Who knows.[/QUOTE]

I just googled it, and supposedly the PS3's transfer rate works out to 9MB/s and the 360's would be 15.85MB/s. That may not be an apples to apples comparison though (the 360's rate is probably 15.85 max on the outside of a disc and half that on the inside, etc.)

Regardless the PS3 can always count on a hard drive to cache stuff (and it's QUIET!!!!) so for load times I'd expect them to be pretty comparable.

Frankly I've never noticed bad load times in good games, going all the way back to the Turbographix 16 and SegaCD. It seems like the good games always load pretty fast regardless of platform.

This whole thing is kind of silly though. Having 5x+ the storage space is clearly a good thing. Having to pay for it is bad (assuming Sony would have taken the same loss per system had they used a DVD drive so it would have been cheaper-which isn't a given).

Personally for the money I'd prefer to put in a Geforce 8800 based GPU and use a regular DVD drive with it.

In a few years the price won't matter. By the later years of the PS3's life, Sony will probably be able to make Blu Ray drives for less than Microsoft can buy DVD drives.
 
[quote name='Wolfpup']I just googled it, and supposedly the PS3's transfer rate works out to 9MB/s and the 360's would be 15.85MB/s. That may not be an apples to apples comparison though (the 360's rate is probably 15.85 max on the outside of a disc and half that on the inside, etc.)

Regardless the PS3 can always count on a hard drive to cache stuff (and it's QUIET!!!!) so for load times I'd expect them to be pretty comparable.

Frankly I've never noticed bad load times in good games, going all the way back to the Turbographix 16 and SegaCD. It seems like the good games always load pretty fast regardless of platform.

This whole thing is kind of silly though. Having 5x+ the storage space is clearly a good thing. Having to pay for it is bad (assuming Sony would have taken the same loss per system had they used a DVD drive so it would have been cheaper-which isn't a given).

Personally for the money I'd prefer to put in a Geforce 8800 based GPU and use a regular DVD drive with it.

In a few years the price won't matter. By the later years of the PS3's life, Sony will probably be able to make Blu Ray drives for less than Microsoft can buy DVD drives.[/quote]

maybe i was thining of video bit rate, but that still doesent seem right... who knows what i was thinking of.
 
[quote name='Wolfpup']I just googled it, and supposedly the PS3's transfer rate works out to 9MB/s and the 360's would be 15.85MB/s. That may not be an apples to apples comparison though (the 360's rate is probably 15.85 max on the outside of a disc and half that on the inside, etc.)[/quote]
8.2-15.9 MB/s according to specs I've seen, which sounds about right for a 12x CAV drive. I've seen plenty of fanboys ramble on about the PS3's admittedly slower drive, but most are looking at the 2x and thinking "omg, ps3 games have super long loading!"
 
[quote name='icruise']If that is true, then why have none of the PS3 games that I've tried had longer loading times than my Xbox 360 games?[/QUOTE]


PS3 = 2X Blu-Ray , capable of 8.6 MB/s
XBOX 360 = 12x DVD drive, capable of a read rate of 8.2-15.9 MB/s

I was under the impression that when it comes down to it, Blu-Ray went with MPEG2, meaning larger file size for the same quality video that the MPEG4 H.264 can compress down to a smaller file. Meaning, that Blu-Ray NEEDS the extra space because of its inferior compressor compared to the 50:1 ratio capable with MP4. Is that not the case anymore?
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']PS3 = 2X Blu-Ray , capable of 8.6 MB/s
XBOX 360 = 12x DVD drive, capable of a read rate of 8.2-15.9 MB/s

I was under the impression that when it comes down to it, Blu-Ray went with MPEG2, meaning larger file size for the same quality video that the MPEG4 H.264 can compress down to a smaller file. Meaning, that Blu-Ray NEEDS the extra space because of its inferior compressor compared to the 50:1 ratio capable with MP4. Is that not the case anymore?[/quote]

Blu-ray can use a number of different video codecs.
 
my fav is h264. that one compresses really nicely with almost no knoticeable quality change. I tend to work in that any chance i get.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken'][FONT=&quot]Using space and wasting space are totally different things.

Doing something in an inefficient way in order to fill up a disk does *not* justify the larger format.

If I stuffed my car so full of packing peanuts that I couldn't sit in it, Would that mean I need a bigger car?

I see a glut of prerendered videos in this generation like packing peanuts.. they could script using the in game engine, and it could look amazing (like in Gears of War)... doing it all as prerendered really balloons the space 'need'... but it's not a good way to USE the space.

Look at Resident Evil 4: A lot of the scenes in the game are very cinematic, and could have very well been prerendered... but the knife fights.. and dodging were all scripted, so I wasn't watching, I was still playing.. waiting for the 'A' button to pop up, if i missed the 'A' button, I'd get stabbed or chainsawed -- It was cinematic but also kept the player immersed in the game -- If it was a prerendered cinematic, it would have been less interesting and exciting.

When a developer uses the space to have exceedingly complex AI, and textures, and character models... *then* I can see a use for the space, but for the time being, realistically, the 'need' for Blu ray or HDDVD for games is manufactured.

Someone WILL eventually make a game that truly *uses* the space on a Blu ray disk, but.. to be honest... DVD9s are cheap, and since multiple disks don't add ANYTHING to the price to the consumer, I couldn't care less about changing a disk every 20 hours of gameplay -- but that's my opinion.

edit: I might be wrong about RE4, It's been ages since I've played it, and I don't recall if there's a ton of FMV in it -- Gears is still a really good example of using the in-game engine.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I think you misunderstood me. I never said that blu-ray was needed. I don't think anything that large will be needed for a while, I just say that it is being used. I'm sure every game this gen will be able to be done on DVDs. The problem with that, is that it adds extra and unnecessary effort on the developers part to make a multi-game disc, or to try and budget space so that it does fit on one disc. Extra time and effort that could be going towards making the game quicker or better. For the consumer, it isn't such a big deal, though. I could care less how many discs I have to swap. I didn't mind it in the PS1 days, and I wouldn't mind it now.

[quote name='happy']I would be shocked to find a game with a world big enough to justify constantly switching disks. My concern would be the disk size affective quality of graphics.

For example, if a game were to eventually look like advent children in HD, which presumably should not be that far out of next gen reach, how much actual gameplay could fit on a single dvd. I have no idea what the answer to this question is, I just know a 2 hour movie not in hd takes up a good portion of a dvd. (I also know graphics can be compressed, but that means loss of quality)

I also don't think graphics are everything, which is why I do not want a majority of disk space beings devoted to them[/QUOTE]


Graphics will never really take up an excessive amount of storage space. The things that take up the most space are audio and video. Even games with the greatest graphics could take up little space if audio and video were toned down.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']You do realize each charicter for final fantasy spirits within (not sure about AC), had around 1 gig of textures per a charicter. even blue ray wont help that. Hell the gen after then gen couldent even render a gig of texture memory per a charicter. I know games can have shortcuts for optimization, but we are talking about fmv's and they arent quite optomized in terms of size are they? So if a game is optomized, it shouldent need more then 1 dvd. Basicly blue ray would let devs be sloppy or add lots of fmvs. Blue dragon, if it does have fmvs is a example what not to do. If fmvs are used, it better be worth it.


So did it need the cinematics pre renders if they look just like the ingame graphics? mostlikely, no. Re is a good example of how to do ingame cinimatics. It was fully animated with full range, not just half assed stuff you see alot were they dident add any new animations to the in game cinimatics.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how a developer using what is given to him makes him "sloppy". That is really some BS statement made by the PR team at MS to cover their choice to go with DVD. Blu-ray gives developers extra space. Developers using it is just logical. Even if they fill it with FMVs, it is not sloppy developing. Maybe they could produce a better product, or produce it more efficiently this way. Or both. Sure it COULD be done without the extra space, but that is using extra effort and time to create something with less space that will be about the same as the original (and sometimes not as good as the original)
 
i dont see it that way, Giving devs more then they need can lead to sloppy habbits. But seeing as how the have other bottle necks, i dont think blue ray really is needed.

I guess we can look at it like this. If blue ray helps make a few games (like blue dragon) fit on one disk, is it worth it to shell out an extra 100$? Some may say yes some may say no.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']i dont see it that way, Giving devs more then they need can lead to sloppy habbits. But seening as how the have other bottle necks, i dont think blue ray really is needed.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're right. In fact, we should go back to CD-ROM and last-gen graphics as well. All of this horsepower and storage space in the current gen is making developers lazy! :roll:
 
fine by me. zelda link to the past is still a good game. In fact who needs 3d games anyway. it just leads to an overwelming load of bad animation in most cases.

my point is why have blue ray when you only have 256 megs of ram to work with. while its ram is better and faster, it still limits what can be on the screen at any given moment.

Think about the the first nintendo. It had almost nothing to work with, it had to use many tricks to optimize the game and get the game to fit. So what if they had a dvd to work with on mario brothers. would it make the game better? The game would probably be not as tight and optomization would be much of a concern, but that can hurt the game anyway. I think giving too much space without the power to use it can lead to sloppy looking games.

honestly, if fmvs arent used, why would that much space be needed? the gen after this gen may need that space but i dont think it will this time. Its a wast. Will you feel cheated if blue ray titles are padded? or are not full?
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']fine by me. zelda link to the past is still a good game. In fact who needs 3d games anyway. it just leads to an overwelming load of bad animation in most cases.

my point is why have blue ray when you only have 256 megs of ram to work with. while its ram is better and faster, it still limits what can be on the screen at any given moment.

Think about the the first nintendo. It had almost nothing to work with, it had to use many tricks to optimize the game and get the game to fit. So what if they had a dvd to work with on mario brothers. would it make the game better? The game would probably be not as tight and optomization would be much of a concern, but that can hurt the game anyway. I think giving too much space without the power to use it can lead to sloppy looking games.

honestly, if fmvs arent used, why would that much space be needed? the gen after this gen may need that space but i dont think it will this time. Its a wast. Will you feel cheated if blue ray titles are padded? or are not full?[/quote]
Dude, what the F?
What is your problem with superior formats?

Blu-ray gives you space for high-definition video and high-definition audio.
No, Mario on a cartridge wouldn't give you that, and no, Mario on a DVD wouldn't give you that.
What games offer on DVD in terms of video and audio right now is good enough for most people, but it won't be good enough forever.

Mario of course, doesn't NEED video, but audio is always welcome.

And if the storage and blu-ray discs gives the developers the option to give me the most for my money, so let them.
We should never encourage them to be limited.
 
[quote name='MarkMark']you assume space on a disc means it is superior? For that one reason?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

theres many reasons that the regular cd is still the most commonly used fomat to store data.......[/quote]

Umm, yes! The whole point of a new media format is storage.

I realize BD and HDDVD are not the be all end all formats.
But they're going to be (or one will) be the standard movie format for the upcoming years.

The reason the CD is so common is because you don't need that much space for simple drivers for computer products, or 60 mins at most of standard stereo audio.

It's just a new format, and it's better, plain and simple.
 
In my fantasy world, we'd use solid state memory for games.
In other words, cartridges.

The only problem is they'd have to be huge in memory size, and it's super expensive.

But no loading, ever. No, loading.

That's why we use optical discs, they're a lot cheaper, and hold a lot. CD > DVD > BD/HD-DVD > HVD or whatever.
Plus the size is nice.
 
[quote name='dallow']

It's just a new format, and it's better, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

good sir the betamax was better than the vhs in many ways.


ah and for cartridges dont count them out yet. DS still uses them to great success and flash memory is fairly popular. Its not what it used to be but it has evolved to stay with us
 
[quote name='MarkMark']good sir the betamax was better than the vhs in many ways.


ah and for cartridges dont count them out yet. DS still uses them to great success and flash memory is fairly popular. Its not what it used to be but it has evolved to stay with us[/QUOTE]

I don't know why morons keep on brining back the Betamax argument. The reason why betamax died was not BEACUSE of its superiority, but because of Studio support. Bluray does not have that issue and has the majoriy of studio support (practically all except Universal studios) and back Then Sony did not have Columbia pictures or MGM.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']I don't know why morons keep on brining back the Betamax argument. The reason why betamax died was not BEACUSE of its superiority, but because of Studio support. Bluray does not have that issue and has the majoriy of studio support (practically all except Universal studios) and back Then Sony did not have Columbia pictures or MGM.[/QUOTE]

methinks you should run to the nurse as your eyesight is failing or you failed to actually read. I did not say it failed because it WAS superior...are you smoking the crack? i pointed out that while technically superior, the betamax died. Now run to the hospital or quit your failed flaming. call yourself the moron or learn to read.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']i dont see it that way, Giving devs more then they need can lead to sloppy habbits. But seeing as how the have other bottle necks, i dont think blue ray really is needed.

I guess we can look at it like this. If blue ray helps make a few games (like blue dragon) fit on one disk, is it worth it to shell out an extra 100$? Some may say yes some may say no.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it as sloppy as all. It is really more efficient. Instead of spending effort and time budgeting their space, they can be releasing the game sooner, or spending that time on other content. I'll take sloppy + more content/sooner release anyday.
 
[quote name='MarkMark']methinks you should run to the nurse as your eyesight is failing or you failed to actually read. I did not say it failed because it WAS superior...are you smoking the crack? i pointed out that while technically superior, the betamax died. Now run to the hospital or quit your failed flaming. call yourself the moron or learn to read.[/QUOTE]

Wow you really don't understand anything do you. Let me put in a nice easy timeline format so even YOU can understand.

Dallow says:

It's just a new format, and it's better, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

So his argument is that the format's superior features are a positive to lead it to victory.

You say:

good sir the betamax was better than the vhs in many ways.
Click to expand...

So then you use the classic irrelevant Betamax argument about how better doesn't always win ignoring all the fine context and asumptions that go along with Dallow's statement which I so courteously pointed out in my previous post.

And now you come back claiming that's not what you meant?
So this is what backpedaling looks like eh?
 
[quote name='Zoglog']Wow you really don't understand anything do you. Let me put in a nice easy timeline format so even YOU can understand.

Dallow says:



So his argument is that the format's superior features are a positive to lead it to victory.

You say:



So then you use the classic irrelevant Betamax argument about how better doesn't always win ignoring all the fine context and asumptions that go along with Dallow's statement which I so courteously mentioned in my previous post.

And now you come back claiming that's not what you meant?
So this is what backpedaling looks like eh?[/QUOTE]


i merely point out that being better does not assure success what dont you understand? that is the only thing I said.. he attempts to say that it is better it will succeed. I point out a case in which this was not true. Plain and simple. accept it and be done it. there is no other statement

now if you have had other people that had stated beta died BECAUSE of its superiority go ahead and bash them with my blessings. I however am not one of them.
 
[quote name='MarkMark']i merely point out that being better does not assure success what dont you understand? that is the only thing I said.. he attempts to say that it is better it will succeed. I point out a case in which this was not true. Plain and simple. accept it and be done it. there is no other statement

now if you have had other people that had stated beta died BECAUSE of its superiority go ahead and bash them with my blessings. I however am not one of them.[/quote]

Yes, Betamax died because of lack of support.

Which is a real pity.

And there seems to be a lot of gamers who don't want to support Blu-Ray, merely because Sony is using it.

I remember reading one quote, some CAG wished both BD and HD-DVD would fail, idiot.


Cartridges are perfect for portable gaming, I wish even the PSP had used high density cartridges for their games. The largest PSP games just go over 1 GB, that's pretty small, and suited for a cartridge.
But they don't suit consoles because of size issues, which is why we went to CD-ROMs long ago.
 
Actually, it died because it was propritary (sony) versus like 20+ other manufacturers all doing VHS, and the other important reason: JVC offered 4 hour tapes, Betamax was like 1 hour per tape I think......(might have been 2). Back then Tapes weren't cheap, and movies could fit on a 2 hour VHS cassette....

FOr the record I knew lots of people who owned VCR's before my family did, but I knew of nobody at all who had BetaMax. This was long before Video Rental shops became popular.
 
[quote name='dallow']Yes, Betamax died because of lack of support.

Which is a real pity.

And there seems to be a lot of gamers who don't want to support Blu-Ray, merely because Sony is using it.

I remember reading one quote, some CAG wished both BD and HD-DVD would fail, idiot.


Cartridges are perfect for portable gaming, I wish even the PSP had used high density cartridges for their games. The largest PSP games just go over 1 GB, that's pretty small, and suited for a cartridge.
But they don't suit consoles because of size issues, which is why we went to CD-ROMs long ago.[/QUOTE]
It's more because of cost. CDs are a lot cheaper than cartridges.
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']Actually, it died because it was propritary (sony) versus like 20+ other manufacturers all doing VHS, and the other important reason: JVC offered 4 hour tapes, Betamax was like 1 hour per tape I think......(might have been 2). Back then Tapes weren't cheap, and movies could fit on a 2 hour VHS cassette....

FOr the record I knew lots of people who owned VCR's before my family did, but I knew of nobody at all who had BetaMax. This was long before Video Rental shops became popular.[/quote]

Granted I was a child when they battling it out.
I only knew one family with a Betamax player, and I think I have a couple Betamax tapes in my garage.

VHS and Betamax had similarites, and were comparable.
However, BD just blows DVD away.
 
[quote name='dallow']
However, BD just blows DVD away.[/QUOTE]

See while I agree with that overall, I still dont think developers are ready to use all that extra space. Wasnt resistance for ps3 padded or something? It could have fit on a regular double layer dvd. I could of swear I read this somewhere... For movies I personally dont care about a super high def resolution, the only thing that intrigues me slightly is the ability to have a complete series on a single disk which wouldbe cool
 
[quote name='dallow']Umm, yes! The whole point of a new media format is storage.

I realize BD and HDDVD are not the be all end all formats.
But they're going to be (or one will) be the standard movie format for the upcoming years.

The reason the CD is so common is because you don't need that much space for simple drivers for computer products, or 60 mins at most of standard stereo audio.

It's just a new format, and it's better, plain and simple.[/quote]

I agree in terms of Movies, and disagree in terms of games.

The speed in which data can be read from the disk is very important, while Blu Ray/HD DVD aren't the slowest things out there, they're a lot slower than DVD -- which, unless a game uses HD caching, can increase the load times a lot.

IMO, I still see Blu ray/HD DVD in current gen systems kind of like putting a $500.00 video card in a computer with 256 MB of RAM... the graphics card may be awesome and badass, but there were more important things to upgrade BEFORE the video card that would cost less and provide more of a benefit.

Speaking of which the PS3 would handily crush the Xbox 360 in terms of overall power if they had put in a better video card/RAM architecture in the PS3 with the money they would have saved by not putting Blu ray in it.
I personally would have rather had the graphical/RAM muscle than the space, and most game developers would agree I think -- as it stands, though, the PS3 and the Xbox are on more or less equal footing Hardware wise with the exception of Blu Ray (this post is NOT saying "ZOMG, PS3 iz teh weaksawse)
 
[quote name='MarkMark']See while I agree with that overall, I still dont think developers are ready to use all that extra space. Wasnt resistance for ps3 padded or something? It could have fit on a regular double layer dvd. I could of swear I read this somewhere...[/QUOTE]
You might have read it here, but that doesn't make it true. It's totally false, based on a dumbass misunderstanding that people jumped to believe. And Joystiq later retracted the story, as you can see.

By the way, I find this quote from a related story VERY interesting:
Insomniac's Ryan Schneider called MTV News to clarify what exactly is on those 22GBs. "While the music and vocals in Resistance take up only about 1 Gigabyte of disc space, graphics, level data and programming code occupy most of the remaining 21."]
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='MarkMark']See while I agree with that overall, I still dont think developers are ready to use all that extra space. Wasnt resistance for ps3 padded or something? It could have fit on a regular double layer dvd. I could of swear I read this somewhere... For movies I personally dont care about a super high def resolution, the only thing that intrigues me slightly is the ability to have a complete series on a single disk which wouldbe cool[/quote]

You probobly initially read about it on Joystiq, -- thing is, the person who parsed the disk made an error. there was a lot less padding than expected -- resistance would not fit on a DVD9 as it was compressed without the pad files.
 
Possible, yes. Practical? Not at all. Gig flash sticks cost between $30-70 alone. Add on the cost of the game and royalties...

However, it would be nice if PSP games were also optimized for being run off a memory stick. However, that'd really only promote piracy.


[quote name='dallow']Yes, Betamax died because of lack of support.

Which is a real pity.

And there seems to be a lot of gamers who don't want to support Blu-Ray, merely because Sony is using it.

I remember reading one quote, some CAG wished both BD and HD-DVD would fail, idiot.


Cartridges are perfect for portable gaming, I wish even the PSP had used high density cartridges for their games. The largest PSP games just go over 1 GB, that's pretty small, and suited for a cartridge.
But they don't suit consoles because of size issues, which is why we went to CD-ROMs long ago.[/quote]
 
Kayden, not at all on topic.. but I keep imagining the baby in your pic there with its eyes and mouth wide open and a caption saying 'for the horde!'

Does that make me a bad man?
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I agree in terms of Movies, and disagree in terms of games.

The speed in which data can be read from the disk is very important, while Blu Ray/HD DVD aren't the slowest things out there, they're a lot slower than DVD -- which, unless a game uses HD caching, can increase the load times a lot. [/quote]

You don't even have a PS3 do you?
Don't comment on load times.

Things have been pretty speedy so far.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']Kayden, not at all on topic.. but I keep imagining the baby in your pic there with its eyes and mouth wide open and a caption saying 'for the horde!'

Does that make me a bad man?[/quote]

No, but it does make you a WoW junkie and a Horde n00b.
 
[quote name='dallow']You don't even have a PS3 do you?
Don't comment on load times.

Things have been pretty speedy so far.[/quote]

I said 'if a game doesn't use HD caching' it's slower.

Most PS3 games do as far as I am aware.. so the HD makes it faster, if it was JUST reading from the drive it would be slower than an equally well coded DVD9 game. 2x blu ray *is* slower than DVD9. HD DVD is also slower than DVD9.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I said 'if a game doesn't use HD caching' it's slower.

Most PS3 games do as far as I am aware.. so the HD makes it faster, if it was JUST reading from the drive it would be slower than an equally well coded DVD9 game. 2x blu ray *is* slower than DVD9. HD DVD is also slower than DVD9.[/quote]

Depends on the speed of the DVD drive no?

2xCD is not the same as 2xDVD is not the same as 2xBD is not the same as 2xHDDVD

Does anyone know the speed equivalents? Were they posted aboved and I just passed them over?
 
Blue-Ray and HD-DVD will be rendered obsolete by some other form of media. There are a few types out there but these Movie companies are going to turn to some kind of less hackable.....less pirated form of Home movie . Downloads and maybe like a flash drive type of media will be more where these studios go.
 
[quote name='lowgear26']Blue-Ray and HD-DVD will be rendered obsolete by some other form of media. There are a few types out there but these Movie companies are going to turn to some kind of less hackable.....less pirated form of Home movie . Downloads and maybe like a flash drive type of media will be more where these studios go.[/quote]

I know they will.

We all have to say good bye to physical media sometime, in our lifetimes.
Probably not even that long.
 
[quote name='icruise']You might have read it here, but that doesn't make it true. It's totally false, based on a dumbass misunderstanding that people jumped to believe. And Joystiq later retracted the story, as you can see.

By the way, I find this quote from a related story VERY interesting:[/quote]
You did notice how old that article is, right? When all was said and done, the game was about 16 GB full when Insomniac realized that they didn't need two copies of each video formatted for both NTSC and PAL. If developers take that kind of care to make one disc for all regions like Insomniac did, that would be great to eliminate localization time between countries/continents.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']There is no e in Blu Ray. You may a great pint when you can't even type it correctly.[/quote]

I could go for a pint.
 
Blu Ray and UMDs are not at all comparable with one another. UMDs were never intended to take over any kind of movie market and become the mainstream for watching movies or for putting data on. UMDs are comparable to the DS cartridges. Both formats are specialized to their specific systems and not intended for use outside of those formats. Of course, if UMD managed to somehow amaze the world Sony would expand on the idea, but that was not the intention of Sony.

On the other had, Blu-Ray is meant to replace DVDs and become the king of all formats.

Let's look at its problems and some possible solutions and fixes:

1) It is not that well known.

- Compared to the VHS, the DVD was carried a completely different look and it was noticable different. The leap was huge, and there was a buzz for it. Not so much here. Sony's fix is to launch its Playstation 3, the predecessor of the highly successful Playstation 2, in order to create a media buzz around Blu-Ray. Arguably, without Blu-Ray in the PS3, Blu-Ray would not be as well known.

2) It's very expensive. Only solution? Time. Time will drive down costs. You could also of course, underprice the player and lose profit as well as net profit but that only works for very rich companies (i.e Microsoft's Xbox)

3) It has competition. HD-DVDs are pushing strong and they can also be played on regular players. They are cheaper, but can not hold as much data and are arguable inferior. Right now Sony is gathering developers on their side in order out weigh the HD-DVD. Will it work? Only time will tell.

Personally, I think the Blu-Ray will succeed even though I am not a full fledge Sony fan myself. Sony has made a lot of mistakes this generation with the Playstation 3, and it will not sell nearly as much as the Playstation 2 nor will it keep that humungous market share it had. But I believe when the Playstation 3 will fall in price, to $400.00, $300.00, and as seperate Blu-Ray players will drop in price, Blu-Ray will gain momentum. Sony has also made a lot of mistakes in the past, such as with the Beta Max, but if the company is run by multi-million dollar payroll geniuses, they should be able to figure out what they should do to guarantee a success in their format.
 
I love when a thread goes on long enough and then someone pops in to post their opinion which ends up just mirroring the exact discussion that's gone on for the previous 12 pages. It always happens and its always amusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top