Hey look, a real example of DVD limiting a game. (PGR4)

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='dallow']Hehe, NOW they say they "rather use"

So still no time differences, just weather changes.

Which is what I said in the OP!

They're trying to soften the blow by saying they didn't cut it, rather, decided not to use it.
When they specifically said it wouldn't fit.[/QUOTE]

So it becomes a game of who do you want to believe, then? Without Bizarre's original doodles and notes, we'll never truly know if it was scrapped due to size. Programmer Ben could have been speaking the truth, or the internet frenzy could have taken his comments too literally. The above Bizarre post could have been the comments clarified, or damage control.

The discussion is still a valid one, but I don't think PGR4 could be used as proof anymore.
 
[quote name='terribledeli']So it becomes a game of who do you want to believe, then? Without Bizarre's original doodles and notes, we'll never truly know if it was scrapped due to size. Programmer Ben could have been speaking the truth, or the internet frenzy could have taken his comments too literally. The above Bizarre post could have been the comments clarified, or damage control.

The discussion is still a valid one, but I don't think PGR4 could be used as proof anymore.[/quote]It's obviously damage control, his original comments are plain as day.

Whilst this wasn't a problem for our dev team, it was a problem fitting all this data onto a single DVD. So we've worked around the problem by providing different lighting models per city.
Click to expand...

I mean, like I said before, THIS DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME BAD.
It's just a little example of how DVD media is starting to affect games.
 
So, you are basically on a mission to try to prove the PS3s relevance, and you had to use disk size as an example? Hm.
 
Hm, someone is on a mission to try to prove the PS3s relevance, and had to use disk size as an example? Says it all really.
 
[quote name='porieux']Hm, someone is on a mission to try to prove the PS3s relevance, and had to use disk size as an example? Says it all really.[/quote]Oh my gosh.... #-o
 
[quote name='Brian9824']Except 20 GB > 8 GB

There is compression and there is limits to it. Try to fold a piece of paper over and over again and see how it gets harder and harder the smaller it gets. Plus heavy compression can cause quality issues.

It's a simple fact that media with more storage IS superior. I mean its impossible to argue it isn't. Thats like saying 10 isn't bigger then 5.[/QUOTE]

That's great, but like I tell the ladies, it's not the size of the storage, it's what you put in it. Or something. Yes, ten is larger than five ... but so what? When that extra space is being put towards filler and overblown features -- really, would Lair be a totally different game with half-sized textures? -- it's not exactly a disk v. cart difference. I repeat: so what?
 
[quote name='trq']That's great, but like I tell the ladies, it's not the size of the storage, it's what you put in it. Or something. Yes, ten is larger than five ... but so what? When that extra space is being put towards filler and overblown features -- really, would Lair be a totally different game with half-sized textures? -- it's not exactly a disk v. cart difference. I repeat: so what?[/quote]If we just look at HD DVD and BD media VS DVD.
Then yes of course greater storage beats out DVD.

There's no questions that both high def media formats are better than DVD.
Let's get away from arguing that.

The only question here is how it affects games, and like you trq, it's the motion in the ocean that counts, not the size of the boat.

Always will be.

Haha, I've always wanted to use that phrase.

Personally, I don't see DVD being a big problem at all for 360 in its lifespan.
It'll be fine.
The next gen however, for all systems, a superior optical drive will be necessary.
(and in secret, i wish we could get back to solid state games, ie: carts)
 
[quote name='dallow']Uh, EVERYONE!
EVERYONE was saying how something larger than DVD media would be needed for the next generation as DVDs were just fine now with all these large 360 games.

This is the whole reason I posted this thread, and a few GOOD 360 fans agreed that this is a good example.
And probably first example that we know of that really affects a game.

Not counting the extra video crap in The Darkness.

I'm not trying to get into the "BD or HD DVD is better!" type of argument, I'm simply pointing out that DVD media is affecting games now.
And will probably do so even more in the next year onwards.[/QUOTE]

Okay, maybe I'm making it seem like I'm arguing your point, but I'm really not. What I am suggesting, though, is that there's a whole subtext here, and that's really the issue. By pointing out that some things may or may not be making it onto DVD based games, the implication is not that Blu-Ray/HD-DVDs don't just lack that specific feature, it's that they don't lack any feature; that the larger capacity somehow lets developers make exactly the games they intend, without restriction. And that's poppycock. Developers are perfectly capable of banging their heads on the ceiling of any format, any tech, any device. If there isn't a dev out there disappointed that he can't cram 120 gigs of super high quality audio onto a Blu-Ray, there will be soon.

And now that we've established that any physical media has limits, and therefore all games are ultimately constrained, even if invisibly because there's nothing to compare them to, the only relevant question is: how much does the exclusion of the feature affect the game? So far? The answer's "not much, if at all."

In simpler terms, why is a feature that can't fit on a DVD any more limiting than whatever hypothetical features developers are thinking up that won't fit on a high capacity disk, either?

EDIT: I do realize this is basically a "games philosophy" question. I'm inclined to agree about next gen storage ... but I wonder if we won't be right back here, making the exact same points about Blu-Ray v. "Green-Ray" or whatever.
 
This thread =

train_wreck-730041.jpg
 
[quote name='trq']Okay, maybe I'm making it seem like I'm arguing your point, but I'm really not. What I am suggesting, though, is that there's a whole subtext here, and that's really the issue. By pointing out that some things may or may not be making it onto DVD based games, the implication is not that Blu-Ray/HD-DVDs don't just lack that specific feature, it's that they don't lack any feature; that the larger capacity somehow lets developers make exactly the games they intend, without restriction. And that's poppycock. Developers are perfectly capable of banging their heads on the ceiling of any format, any tech, any device. If there isn't a dev out there disappointed that he can't cram 120 gigs of super high quality audio onto a Blu-Ray, there will be soon.

And now that we've established that any physical media has limits, and therefore all games are ultimately constrained, even if invisibly because there's nothing to compare them to, the only relevant question is: how much does the exclusion of the feature affect the game? So far? The answer's "not much, if at all."[/quote]

Well yes, of course all media has it's limits. No question.
So far, "not much" is the correct answer. See my above post where I say this isn't significantly hurting games.

In simpler terms, why is a feature that can't fit on a DVD any more limiting than whatever hypothetical features developers are thinking up that won't fit on a high capacity disk, either?
Click to expand...
You could have said the same thing before when the DVD format was in it's infancy.
DVD is reaching it's peak.

For the near future, it's doubtful any game would need more than one BD or HD DVD.

AND THANK YOU FOR COOL COLLECTED DISCUSSION.
This is exactly what I wanted.
 
Hardly munch. See trq as an example, and a few others.

People who come in and post one sentence, or even one word posts are making it so though.

Also, I see I made a mistake in an earlier post:

This:
EVERYONE was saying how something larger than DVD media would be needed for the next generation as DVDs were just fine now with all these large 360 games.

Should have been this:
EVERYONE was saying how something larger than DVD media wouldn't be needed for the next generation as DVDs were just fine now with all these large 360 games.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']you guys are rediculous.. of course its not like that for every game, but in the case of the transformers game.. 60 dollars for 2 DS games that collectively have basically the same game as the 40 PSP game...

[edit] this isnt a DS vs PSP thing its a matter of value, all the transformer games were shitty, but Nintendo is getting over on people with these two game versions, Pokemon Diamond and Peal... same damn game, except for different set of text, and probably pallate swaps of colors on pokemon.[/QUOTE]

You started out making the argument that a game's value is directly proportional to how many GB's of space it takes up. Are we now to believe that you do not stand by that statement any longer?
 
Thomas, I could retract the game size vs quality/value argument you started out with.

Even I had to shake my head to that.



On another note, if you really get both Transformers games on the PSP version vs having to get both seperately on DS, that's kinda shady.

However, I wouldn't buy any of them.
 
[quote name='dallow']Thomas, I could retract the game size vs quality/value argument you started out with.

Even I had to shake my head to that.



On another note, if you really get both Transformers games on the PSP version vs having to get both seperately on DS, that's kinda shady.

However, I wouldn't buy any of them.[/QUOTE]

The Transformers games on DS are seperate from the other versions. The PC, 360, PS2, PS3, and PSP versions are all essentially a port of the same game. The DS versions have an online war mode and are altogether different than the other ones.

Not only that but the DS versions are scoring around 10% higher than any of the other versions on Gamerankings.com.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The Transformers games on DS are seperate from the other versions. The PC, 360, PS2, PS3, and PSP versions are all essentially a port of the same game. The DS versions have an online war mode and are altogether different than the other ones.[/quote]Ah ok, never mind that then.
 
Since Bizzare Creations came "clean" with the DVD issue, It pretty much defeats the purpose of this thread. Like someone else said, we'll never know unless we look at their actual notes or read their minds wether they reached a wall with the DVD size or wether it was just a misunderstanding. This thread is pretty much pointless now.
 
[quote name='LinkinPrime']Since Bizzare Creations came "clean" with the DVD issue, It pretty much defeats the purpose of this thread. Like someone else said, we'll never know unless we look at their actual notes or read their minds wether they reached a wall with the DVD size or wether it was just a misunderstanding. This thread is pretty much pointless now.[/quote]Didn't you read my post?

And his original comments?
 
[quote name='dallow']Didn't you read my post?

And his original comments?[/quote]

Yes I did, and I think my post pretty much sums it up. Your thread title still indicates the issue, yet Bizzare Creations have denied it...thats it, without further proof that it wasn't a "misunderstanding" as they stated, this isn't "a real example of DVD limiting a game".
 
[quote name='LinkinPrime']Yes I did, and I think my post pretty much sums it up. Your thread title still indicates the issue, yet Bizzare Creations have denied it...thats it, without further proof that it wasn't a "misunderstanding" as they stated, this isn't "a real example of DVD limiting a game".[/quote]These were his words "it was a problem fitting all this data onto a single DVD. So we've worked around the problem by".

Obviously it's not a big problem, but how do you still deny that?

I hate to call in your MS bias in this case Linkin.
It's not like the only people who do "damage control" are Sony (who make it an art form I know! :) ).

No day/night textures isn't a huge deal, not a lot of damage. But it's still damage control.
 
I hate to call in your MS bias in this case Linkin.
It's not like the only people who do "damage control" are Sony.
 
[quote name='dallow']These were his words "it was a problem fitting all this data onto a single DVD. So we've worked around the problem by".

Obviously it's not a big problem, but how do you still deny that?

I hate to call in your MS bias in this case Linkin.
It's not like the only people who do "damage control" are Sony (who make it an art form I know! :) ).

No day/night textures isn't a huge deal, not a lot of damage. But it's still damage control.[/quote]
Its not bias dude, I'm just saying why would Bizzare Creations care so much to "hide" whether they hit a wall with DVD size or not, its not like they are a MS first party company...yes I do see the original post and I understand what he said, but at this time, we don't know if he actually fucked up by saying what he said, or if he was misinformed...etc. hence, no "real proof".
 
[quote name='dallow']They care because it kinda makes MS look bad and cause criticism not only on their game, but also on their game.[/quote]

Could be.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You started out making the argument that a game's value is directly proportional to how many GB's of space it takes up. Are we now to believe that you do not stand by that statement any longer?[/QUOTE]

I definitely wasn't trying to say that, because in terms of placing value on something, its not always directly porportional. Oblivion ps3 has more gb than the xbox 360 version, becuase they duplicated data to help increase load times. Same game more gb, but I can't say that either one is more valuable than the other becuase the extra gb of content.

Rainbow six vegas 360, vs ps3 version, in this case PS3 version is worth more, because it has more content, (and thus likely more gb of data) its good for xbox 360 owners that the extra content is free, but you still paid 60 dollars for Rainbow six with no extra data (map packs) vs ps3 owners got rainbow six for 60 dollars w/ extra map packs on disc. its not just about gb data and price, itsa about content as well, game content, that's what we paying for. That's why soul reaver was a rip off. Look at Forza, its a dvd game and I have to admit, its worth 60 dollars because its loaded with content. PGR4 proabably isn't worth 60 dollars, becuase I bet it won't have over 300 cars, and that extensive online component, and car customization.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']
Rainbow six vegas 360, vs ps3 version, in this case PS3 version is worth more, because it has more content, (and thus likely more gb of data) its good for xbox 360 owners that the extra content is free, but you still paid 60 dollars for Rainbow six with no extra data (map packs) vs ps3 owners got rainbow six for 60 dollars w/ extra map packs on disc. its not just about gb data and price, itsa about content as well, game content, that's what we paying for. [/QUOTE]
The content wasn't made when it was released on the 360 in November. They made the content afterwards, put in the PS3 disc because it was done and gave it 360 members for free as DLC.

How can you say the PS3 version is a better value?:roll:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The Transformers games on DS are seperate from the other versions. The PC, 360, PS2, PS3, and PSP versions are all essentially a port of the same game. The DS versions have an online war mode and are altogether different than the other ones.

Not only that but the DS versions are scoring around 10% higher than any of the other versions on Gamerankings.com.[/QUOTE]


yeah, I mean for more than half the price of your direct competitor,(PSP 39.99 transformers game) you get half the game, and a thrown in online mode, which is just you getting missions from online. So if you want the full Transformers experience on DS, you have to pay 60 dollars initially, might as well get the 360 or PS3 version. Nintendo is the biggest scam artist ever... with their slogan gotta catch em all... gotta get Pokemon Diamond AND Pearl, gotta get Transformers Autobots AND Decepticons, and how many Mega Man battle networks games do they have... and you in here talking that the DS version of transformers is worth it because of an online feature - can't even call it a mode.
 
[quote name='zewone']The content wasn't made when it was released on the 360 in November. They made the content afterwards, put in the PS3 disc because it was done and gave it 360 members for free as DLC.

How can you say the PS3 version is a better value?:roll:[/QUOTE]


I'm making the comparison from when the PS3 version was released at 60, and when Rainbow six for 360 was on the shelf at 60. and mind you, in some places the 360 version did get a price drop (or go on sale, I'm not sure if the drop was permanent).

[edit] plus for the 360 version if you have to pay your online bill to unlock the online feature, I wonder if you get an accomplishment [[excuse me - acheivement] for that too. lol
 
[quote name='Thomas96']I'm making the comparison from when the PS3 version was released at 60, and when Rainbow six for 360 was on the shelf at 60. and mind you, in some places the 360 version did get a price drop (or go on sale, I'm not sure if the drop was permanent).

[edit] plus for the 360 version if you have to pay your online bill to unlock the online feature, I wonder if you get an accomplishment [[excuse me - acheivement] for that too. lol[/QUOTE]
lawlz yeah, i wonder if you get a trophy for you virtual room if you can find more than 5 games worth owning on the pstriple. lawlz. :lol:

excuze me..............
 
Didn't Team Ninja say the same thing about DoA Xtreme 2? They were trying to fit a lot of textures into one disc. Now that was weird, as DoA VB was never about textures :)
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']Didn't Team Ninja say the same thing about DoA Xtreme 2? They were trying to fit a lot of textures into one disc. Now that was weird, as DoA VB was never about textures :)[/quote]

I think they said they tried to fit a decent game on the disc, but the crap one for pervs took up all the space so they just left it on there.

That way it left them more time to think of a new name for the next Ninja Gaiden re-release.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']and you in here talking that the DS version of transformers is worth it because of an online feature - can't even call it a mode.[/QUOTE]

I welcome you to show me where I said that.
 
Watching RvB and Thomas go at it is kinda like watching Muhammad Ali in his prime take on some Jr. High kid days after a growth spurt.
 
[quote name='dallow']Saw this at GAF and was hoping to get some reaction without a crapload of popcorn pics.

http://www.bizarrecreations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=14802&p=



Basically, they're changing up weather effects to give tracks a different feel, but no actual day and night type stuff.[/QUOTE]

Meh? As long as it doesn't affect game play, I could care less.

It it had been on PS3, you would have the day-to-night effects, but with muddy textures and frame rate drops that would range from "minor annoyance" to "game breaking". So it's all give and take.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']yeah, I mean for more than half the price of your direct competitor,(PSP 39.99 transformers game) you get half the game, and a thrown in online mode, which is just you getting missions from online. So if you want the full Transformers experience on DS, you have to pay 60 dollars initially, might as well get the 360 or PS3 version. Nintendo is the biggest scam artist ever... with their slogan gotta catch em all... gotta get Pokemon Diamond AND Pearl, gotta get Transformers Autobots AND Decepticons, and how many Mega Man battle networks games do they have... and you in here talking that the DS version of transformers is worth it because of an online feature - can't even call it a mode.[/QUOTE]

I'm calling you out, Thomas. Your Nintendo hate is coming through.. Two of those three examples are third party games, but you still blame nintendo.

Not to mention the 2 versions of Pokemon are about encouraging trading, not encouraging sales. The number of people who buy both are in the extreme minority of that game's fanbase. Trading monsters is a core element of that game, and distributing exclusive monsters to each one encourages that feature. Not to mention D/P make it even easier to get those without buying both games by way of online trading.



Bottom line is PS3 has yet to pull to the starting line as far as software is concerned. The $600 (I don't count clearance of old hardware as a price drop) price doesn't help that.

I can honestly say that nobody could ever put out any game that would make me spend $600 on a system.

There's no reason that a AAA, multi million selling game can't be created on a DVD. Gears, Wii Sports, RS:Vegas, and many others prove that. There's nothing wrong with DVD. NOBODY but sony is or was calling for moving on from DVD.

It's a prime example of creating a need when a perfectly viable option becomes too cheap to profit from. Rather, in Sony's case, they saw an opportunity to own a media format and threw the playstation brand at it.

It says something that 3 of the 4 gaming platforms this gen are using DVD (Meaning 360, Wii, and PC) as the storage medium. Sony is the minority here, Sony jumped the gun, and Sony will continue to struggle this gen because of it.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I'm calling you out, Thomas. Your Nintendo hate is coming through.. Two of those three examples are third party games, but you still blame nintendo.

Not to mention the 2 versions of Pokemon are about encouraging trading, not encouraging sales. The number of people who buy both are in the extreme minority of that game's fanbase. Trading monsters is a core element of that game, and distributing exclusive monsters to each one encourages that feature. Not to mention D/P make it even easier to get those without buying both games by way of online trading.


Bottom line is PS3 has yet to pull to the starting line as far as software is concerned. The $600 (I don't count clearance of old hardware as a price drop) price doesn't help that.

I can honestly say that nobody could ever put out any game that would make me spend $600 on a system.

There's no reason that a AAA, multi million selling game can't be created on a DVD. Gears, Wii Sports, RS:Vegas, and many others prove that. There's nothing wrong with DVD. NOBODY but sony is or was calling for moving on from DVD.

It's a prime example of creating a need when a perfectly viable option becomes too cheap to profit from. Rather, in Sony's case, they saw an opportunity to own a media format and threw the playstation brand at it.

It says something that 3 of the 4 gaming platforms this gen are using DVD (Meaning 360, Wii, and PC) as the storage medium. Sony is the minority here, Sony jumped the gun, and Sony will continue to struggle this gen because of it.[/QUOTE]


You're right on many fronts - I blamed Nintendo and then threw up examples of 3rd party, and I know Capcom has been ripping me off on Street Fighter for a long time, that's why I have Street Fighter 2010, Street Figthter 2 the the world warrior, Street Fighter Collection 1 and 2; Street Fighter Alpha 3, SFA 3 max, SF Anniversary Collection, and it took every bone in my body to keep myself from buying the alpha anthology. The PS3 after almost a year is still launch games that were supposed to be available at launch.
You're right, no one game can be worth 600 dollar system, [thats why the ps3 does more than any other console on the market, if you're gonna spend 600 dollars please dont do it, JUST to play games... in that case your wasting money, use the linux, use, the blu ray, use the hard drive, upscale those dvds, since I bought my ps3, I haven't had to use any other media device.]

Sony made the jump to Blu Ray, maybe a little too soon, but in Sony's defense, if not them then who? Sony wasn't the only one trying to over throw DVDs, HD-DVD would love to be where Sony is right now [in regards to their blu ray format].

Sony was the first to start using DVDs in their system, they are co creators of the DVD format. All new products struggle when they're first introduced to the market. CD players, DVD players, Record players all didn't sell well in the beginning, these products have to price drop and be made available for the masses. Sony has to look towards the future, at least we know that the ps3 will be able to compete with a future Nintendo and 360 consoles. As a matter of fact, Sony doesn't even need to release a system until after 360 and Nintendo makes a new system.

In the next couple of years, everything going to be in HD, DVD isn't the best format for HD content... I felt like some games for Sony ps3 should still come out on DVD, no need to use blu ray for everything, but you know they gotta sell blu ray discs.

I don't hate Nintendo, I love Nintendo, but I'll call them out when I see them doing something scam like. Nintendo gotta get paid... though
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I welcome you to show me where I said that.[/QUOTE]


it was more implied... your post sounded like you were trying to defend the price of the transformer games on DS. all of them should have been 19.99, DS, PSP, PS3, 360, and PC
 
[quote name='Thomas96']In the next couple of years, everything going to be in HD,[/quote]
I am so very tired of hearing and reading this. It isn't even close to true.
 
[quote name='elmyra']I am so very tired of hearing and reading this on these forums. It isn't even close to true.[/QUOTE]


If I give you 700 dollars to buy a TV.. would you buy SDTV, or an HDTV?
 
[quote name='Thomas96']If I give you 700 dollars to buy a TV.. would you buy SDTV, or an HDTV?[/quote]

That's a fascinating question, but what exactly does it have to do with whether or not "everything is going to be in HD?"
 
[quote name='elmyra']That's a fascinating question, but what exactly does it have to do with whether or not "everything is going to be in HD?"[/quote]
Because that's how much HD TV's costs and most stores from now on will only carry HDTV's. I work at Target and we only sell like 8 SDTV, 4 of which are crappy cheap tube tv's, and the rest, which is about 16-20 are HDTV LCD flat panel's. The Market is moving to the digital age and seeing how by 2009 all telecasts will have to be digital, I would guess that making channels HD will not be that much more expensive.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']The Market is moving to the digital age and seeing how by 2009 all telecasts will have to be digital, I would guess that making channels HD will not be that much more expensive.[/quote]
This is the real issue. It is more expensive to broadcast in HD. HD content requires more bandwidth, and it requires upgraded equipment at every step of the production process. There's a reason that only the most popular shows are currently available in HD on network and cable television. To answer Thomas' hypothetical question with another one: if you were a broadcaster, would you use your chunk of bandwidth for one channel of HD content, or 3-4 channels of digital but lower resolution content?

I think that most media will eventually be broadcast in HD, and that most consumers will eventually buy an HD-capable set, but it's not going to be in the next couple of years. Current penetration of HD is pretty low, and people with cable TV don't even need to worry about the transition. Hell, my dad is feeding digital cable to his ancient RCA analog TV right now. Most of the people I know are doing the same with their analog sets.
 
[quote name='elmyra']This is the real issue. It is more expensive to broadcast in HD. HD content requires more bandwidth, and it requires upgraded equipment at every step of the production process. There's a reason that only the most popular shows are currently available in HD on network and cable television. To answer Thomas' hypothetical question with another one: if you were a broadcaster, would you use your chunk of bandwidth for one channel of HD content, or 3-4 channels of digital but lower resolution content?

I think that most media will eventually be broadcast in HD, and that most consumers will eventually buy an HD-capable set, but it's not going to be in the next couple of years. Current penetration of HD is pretty low, and people with cable TV don't even need to worry about the transition. Hell, my dad is feeding digital cable to his ancient RCA analog TV right now. Most of the people I know are doing the same with their analog sets.[/quote]

Well said.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']Meh? As long as it doesn't affect game play, I could care less.

It it had been on PS3, you would have the day-to-night effects, but with muddy textures and frame rate drops that would range from "minor annoyance" to "game breaking". So it's all give and take.[/quote]Even as a PS3 owner you continue to troll.
Same company as guyver and gizmo.
 
[quote name='dallow']
Same company as guyver and gizmo.[/QUOTE]

Guyver is a homophobic dumbass fourth grader. I don't know why anyone would worry about him.

Also, this shit is still going on?
 
IMHO, I think Microsoft has to start allowing games to require HD. If you're not willing to spend the $100 extra (or $80 in a week) to get a hard drive, you probably shouldn't be complaining about not being able to play top of the line games.
 
[quote name='Strell']Also, this shit is still going on?[/QUOTE]

I hope that's not genuine surprise, because it won't ever stop at all, let alone this generation (where the only clear thing we can surmise is that it is highly unlikely that any of the three consoles will be a runaway "winner" in the way the PS2 was the last go-round).
 
Well those of you with SDTVs and thinking that HD isn't coming - The Digital Television Trasition Act, says that we are switing, I think in 2009. So unless something else changes, that's what we're looking at. As a broadcaster, I have to use what the government tell me to use.. its not a choice thing.
With that on the horizon, how can anyone here justify the purchase of a SDTV, thats where the market is heading, if you buy an SDTV, might as well purchase that VHS player to go with it. Its not that SDTVs will be totally obsolete, but in the near future, buying one will be a total waste of money. With products they all depreciate in value, but the one thing that makes them value is their longevitiy, why would anyone buy an SDTV now, when most products are going HD. And to stay on topic... People who are buying up these HDTVs are going to want products to take advantage of them, games, movies, tv broadcasts. DVD games, movies, are going to be obsolete, we're good for now, cause HD is in the infancy stages, but you can't deny its coming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top