Ken Kutaragi Calls the Xbox 360 the "Xbox 1.5"

[quote name='javeryh']Paying a lot for something has nothing to do with being rich. It was an expensive purchase but was still only about 1/4 what the average person would pay for a new car. I'm pretty sure just because you can afford a new car does not make you rich by any stretch of the imagination.[/QUOTE]

I can't believe you comparing the purchase of a car to the purchase of TV. It should tell you something when you are putting a tv set up there with the price of vehicles.

:rofl:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I can't believe you comparing the purchase of a car to the purchase of TV. It should tell you something when you are putting a tv set up there with the price of vehicles.

:rofl:[/QUOTE]

What, exactly, should it tell me? See, I completely disagree. It's all about priorities and what is important to you. As long as a car can reliably get me from point A to point B and it has a radio/CD player I could care less what it is. I'd rather spend $20,000 on a modest car and $10,000 on a kick ass TV than drive around in a $30,000 car any day of the week. People laugh when they hear how much I spent on my television but I'm laughing just as hard when they pull away in their $35,000 SUV.
 
My new car cost me $20,000, and you said you spent "1/4 of what an average person spends on a car"..... $5000?

That's a LOT of money. Why not get a cheap $500 model from Wal-Mart?

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']My new car cost me $20,000, and you said you spent "1/4 of what an average person spends on a car"..... $5000?

That's a LOT of money. Why not get a cheap $500 model from Wal-Mart?

troy[/QUOTE]

Because a $500 tv from Walmart sucks in comparison....

$500 at Walmart (30" Non-HD LCD):



My TV (50" HD plasma):



I haven't been to the movies since Spiderman 2 and I honestly don't ever plan on going again since the picture and sound is about a billion times better in my living room... (Star Wars may be an exception though because I really really want to see it and I'm a Star Wars junkie)...
 
If you guys were in charge, the PS2 would still be using CDs. You would have decided, in 1999, that DVDs were "too expensive" and picked the 0.7 gig CD..... thereby destroying the PS2's potential (FF10 & Xenosaga & Syphon Filter would have been impossible).

DVD is to PS2 ---as--- High-Capacity-DVD is to PS3

- DVD was brand-new in 1999, with very few consumers, but now it's commonplace. The same will be true with High-Capacity-DVD in 2011.



[quote name='Apossum']HDTVs aren't a problem to me. Rich people are buying them up now so that the price will drop for everyone else later...but It's this proprietary Blu-ray media that gets me-- it's overkill and no customer is in a position to give a crap about it yet.[/QUOTE]Not just rich people have HDTVs. And those people who own HDTVs also want to buy HDTV-quality movies (like Star Wars in 1600x1080 resolution). You can't do that with DVD. You need *High-Capacity* DVD that can hold 50-100 gigabytes.

That need is here *now*. HDTV and High-Capacity-DVD complement one another. HDTV is the display & High-Capacity-DVD is the storage method.




(By the way, HD-DVD is *also* a proprietary standard... just like Beta or VHS. Whichever wins, Blue-Ray or HD-DVD, you'll be using a proprietary standard. Get used to it.)

troy
 
i dont understand why people are so worried about replacing dvds, next gen players, bluray or hddvd, are both backwards compatiable
 
We'll need Blu-ray discs for a game console when we are running low on space.

Tell me, how many multiple DVD games exist for PS2 or Xbox? How many for PC. The answer is virtually none. From the release of PS1 and for quite some time in the PC world, CDs didn't really have engough space (think RPGS - almost all multiple disc). The extra space is totally unecessary- which is why Microsoft and Nintendo aren't doing it.

As far as hi-def DVD, it would be nice, but honestly, blu-ray or HD-DVD won't be mainstream for years and years.

VHS -> DVD - lots of changes -
no rewinding, higher rez, chapter selection, better Fast forward/rewind/pause, special features, DTS/Dolby Digital 5.1 & 6.1.

DVD -> Hi Def DVD - better resolution for those with HDTVs

As a format these will have about as much success as Laserdiscs in achieving mainstream acceptance...a lot of people, even us Home Theater buffs, think it unlikely. Especially with the HD-DVD/Blu-ray competition going on.

Still, if Sony wants to absorb the cost of bringing Blu-ray to the masses, I'm for it, by all means. Via the PS3 they should be able to win the format war, and maybe I'll pick up a few higher-rez movies at the (most likely) much higher price - stuff like Star Wars, LOTR, I'll bite. But DVD is not to be supplanted by a new format,
not in this decade.
 
[quote name='GreenMonkey']We'll need Blu-ray discs for a game console when we are running low on space. Tell me, how many multiple DVD games exist for PS2 or Xbox? The answer is virtually none.

DVD -> Hi Def DVD - better resolution for those with HDTVs. As a format these will have about as much success as Laserdiscs in achieving mainstream acceptance...a lot of people, even us Home Theater buffs, think it unlikely. [/QUOTE]


WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE: If Square does what they usually do (push graphics' boundaries) we'll be seeing Final Fantasy upgraded from 640x480 to 1600x1080. That's roughly 5 times as many pixels requiring 5 times as much space. FF10 at 4.5 megs would become 25 megs.... requiring *3* dual-layer DVDs.

Or just 1 High-Capacity DVD. I think Square would rather choose the cheaper option of 1 disc, not 3.



ACCEPTANCE of High-Capacity DVD: You raise a good point about acceptance. But having ~50 million PS3s sitting on people's TVs, each capable of playing the new 1600x1080 movies, will go a long way towards that goal. You get 2 pieces of equipment (games & hdtv movies) for the price of 1.

Laserdisc & Super VHS never had that advantage.

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE: If Square does what they usually do (push graphics' boundaries) we'll be seeing Final Fantasy upgraded from 640x480 to 1600x1080. That's roughly 5 times as many pixels requiring 5 times as much space. FF10 at 4.5 megs would become 25 megs.... requiring *3* dual-layer DVDs.

Or just 1 High-Capacity DVD. I think Square would rather choose the cheaper option of 1 disc, not 3.



ACCEPTANCE of High-Capacity DVD: You raise a good point about acceptance. But having ~50 million PS3s sitting on people's TVs, each capable of playing the new 1600x1080 movies, will go a long way towards that goal. You get 2 pieces of equipment (games & hdtv movies) for the price of 1.

Laserdisc & Super VHS never had that advantage.

troy[/QUOTE]

Why do you keep saying 1600x1080? The 1080i and 1080p formats use 1920x1080 pixel resolution. The ratio between 1080i and NTSC's pixels per second is almost exactly 6:1.

Counting pixels is only a useful measure for uncompressed data. FFX's FMV is encoded to and played by the PS2's native MPEG-2 hardware. There are far better codecs now available that will be supported on next gen consoles. Their level of efficiency is substantially greater than that provide by MPEG-2 but even that scales up to greater efficiency with increased resolution. As the res goes up the chances increase of a single block being composed of identically colored pixels and using a minimal amount of data space after compression. While DVD uses an average data rate of about 5 megabits per second (with a maximum of 9.8 Mbps) broadcast HDTV uses a constant rate of 19.4 Megabits per second. So compared to DVD you get six times the visual data in only four times the data volume. And that is only comparing to DVDs that stay near the predicted average for the format. Superbit discs can run close to the 9.8 Mb maximum throughout.

the quality of HDTV broadcasts aren't the best for the most demanding scenes but the effect is no worse than commonly seen on DVDs compared to the uncompressed source.

The newer codecs improve things quite a lot. The compression ratio for the same quality increases quite a bit and allows a lot more to be done in the same space. This can be used to implement higher resolution or pack in much more

You can already buy Windows Media HDTV videos on regular DVD playable on a PC and some dedicated players. They have several DVDs available that demonstrate 720p and 1080i on ordinary DVD-ROMs using DVD data rates. The most popular, Terminator 2 Extreme Edition, uses a mode in between 720p and 1080i as a compromise because it can be used on a 1600x1200 monitor, which is the best most PC users are equipped to display. It's fairly demanding in hardware terms but the same was once true of MPEG-1. Dedicated players based on custom chips have shown that it can be done very cheaply if you commit silicon to the task. PC video cards are expected to start including hardware accelleration for the newer codecs in the coming generation.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/dvd.aspx

It won't be a problem to feature FMV in HD modes on the Xbox 360. At worst a game might use a second DVD. It won't be a problem for developers like Square to support HD video on DVD if they chose to support those platforms. The amount of FMV found in the games most reliant on it still falls well short of feature film length and increasingly the game engines offer sufficient quality to do the job while keeping consistent with the appearance of the gameplay.

Putting Blu-ray in the PS3 has little to offer game developers until it becomes reasonable to produce a game that can only be played on a 1080i display. Other than that the only developer advantage is if Blu-ray movie playback is a big winner and leads to an improved installed base for the PS3.
 
does anyone remembers when the ps2 was officialy unveiled, kutaragi claimed that nothing will come close to the power of the emotion engine in a few years........then a month later nvidia unveiled its nex graphics card the geforce3, at the time it was better than the EE , HAAHA.....ITS THE SAME THING AGAIN.......just give a couple of months and we will see that the new graphics cards will outdo the ps3, since the ps3 is nvidia based , heheh....!!!!!!!is hell time all over again!!!!
 
[quote name='CheapyD']After playing many (if not all) the playable 360 titles at E3...i have to admit, he isn't wrong.
Then again, its probably too early to tell.[/QUOTE]

Right now, I'd have to agree with you...he isn't necessarily wrong about the Xbox 360. However, I'm also willing to bet that he isn't right about the PlayStation 3.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Or just 1 High-Capacity DVD. I think Square would rather choose the cheaper option of 1 disc, not 3.[/QUOTE]

Blu-ray discs cost more than a regular dual layered DVD disc. Keep that in mind. Similarly to how CDs are cheaper than DVDs to produce. The capacity costs.

Also, a big disadvantage of a "high-capacity DVD" in the blu-ray format is that it will require much higher up-front costs.
 
[quote name='GreenMonkey']We'll need Blu-ray discs for a game console when we are running low on space.

Tell me, how many multiple DVD games exist for PS2 or Xbox? How many for PC. The answer is virtually none. [/QUOTE]

I'd say there are no multiple dvd games for pc, but there are plenty of 4+ disc cd games that I hate! good god i've had a dvdrom drive since 1998 when are we going to start getting games on dvds?! I know there are exceptions but like WoW usually the dvd version comes as a special edition with useless junk that you have to pay extra for. I just want a one disc install. Sorry that was off topic but lack of pc games on dvd is a pet peave of mine.
 
Heres the deal if you think that Sony putting blu-ray into the ps3 is wrong and will drive up the cost (which im sure it will ) then dont buy it thats it . The reason why sony is doing it IMO is that the ps3 is going to be their trojan horse for blu-ray .

I think they a very confident about the outcome of the Hi def DVD wars , thats why they wanted to include the blu-ray .Maybe the ps3's drive will be compatible with both HD-dvd and Blu-ray sony and toshiba if they can come to an agreement .

If sony is shooting themselves in the foot with the blu-ray idea let them its our money that dictates if it was a good idea or not . I dont really care what they do with the format just as long as the games are there thats it.
 
[quote name='Milkyman']I'd say there are no multiple dvd games for pc, but there are plenty of 4+ disc cd games that I hate! good god i've had a dvdrom drive since 1998 when are we going to start getting games on dvds?! I know there are exceptions but like WoW usually the dvd version comes as a special edition with useless junk that you have to pay extra for. I just want a one disc install. Sorry that was off topic but lack of pc games on dvd is a pet peave of mine.[/QUOTE]

Most multi-CD games have DVD versions if you check with the publisher. (I ended up with a dozen copies of Wing Commander IV DVD because it was bundled with nearly every early DVD/decoder board kit when I was doing review work.) The DVD versions aren't always carried by retailers but you can sometimes do a media trade-in with the publisher.

Even with muliple CDs the hassle factor is far less than the days when games were coming on a dozen or more floppies but CD-ROM hadn't become widely supported yet. Hard drive space was often too tight (or non-existent) to do a single install. But today it's a rare PC that doesn't have space to dully install a multi-disc game.
 
Well... when 2008 comes along, and Square (or some other developer) announces their new RPG "is the world's largest video game at 40 gigabytes"...

...then maybe, just maybe, you guys will admit that putting High Capacity DVD in the PS3 was a good idea.




Of course by then, you'll just pretend you supported high-capacity DVD all along, and forget this thread every existed, rather than admit you were wrong. ;-) (Just as many of you have forgotten you thought DVD was a dumb idea, back in 1999.) ;-)
troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Well...

When 2008 comes along, and Square (or some other developer) announces their new RPG "is the world's largest video game at 40 gigabytes"...

...then maybe, just maybe, you guys will admit that putting High Capacity DVD in the PS3 was a good idea.




Of course by then, you'll just pretend you supported high-capacity DVD all along, and forget this thread every existed, rather than admit you were wrong. ;-) (Just as many of you have forgotten you thought DVD was a dumb idea, back in 1999.) ;-)
troy[/QUOTE]

I'd think some other parameters would need to considered, like the game selling worth a damn or being more than a mass of FMV with the occasional user input required.

But I'm sure somebody liked 'The Bouncer,' one of the biggest games around in terms of disc consumption then. I've never met such a person but they're out there, somewhere, plotting their escape from the room with the bouncy walls.
 
it makes sense for them to include a new storage medium because they probably intend the ps3 to last them a good 5 years or so. how old is the ps2 now? they're just thinking ahead.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Well... when 2008 comes along, and Square (or some other developer) announces their new RPG "is the world's largest video game at 40 gigabytes"...

...then maybe, just maybe, you guys will admit that putting High Capacity DVD in the PS3 was a good idea.[/QUOTE]

If the PS3 is as powerful as Sony says it is, then FMV won't be needed ever and it would be easier to have smaller sized games, since FMV takes up a lot more space than a realtime animation. So a higher capacity disk wouldn't be manditory.

I, for one, would be willing to admit that Blu-Ray was a good idea for Sony if Blu-Ray turns out to be the predominant disc format in the future. However, if I'm not mistaken, Sony and the Blu-ray standards board joined together with the HD-DVD standards board to devise an compromised universally accepted high-density DVD just a few weeks before Sony released the PS3 specs.
 
[quote name='alongx']If the PS3 is as powerful as Sony says it is, then FMV won't be needed ever and it would be easier to have smaller sized games, since FMV takes up a lot more space than a realtime animation. So a higher capacity disk wouldn't be manditory.

I, for one, would be willing to admit that Blu-Ray was a good idea for Sony if Blu-Ray turns out to be the predominant disc format in the future. However, if I'm not mistaken, Sony and the Blu-ray standards board joined together with the HD-DVD standards board to devise an compromised universally accepted high-density DVD just a few weeks before Sony released the PS3 specs.[/QUOTE]

Those negotiations fell apart with no agreement. Instead, both parties have demonstrated higher capacity versions of their formats to up the ante.
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163105629
 
I don't like HD-DVD. It only holds 30 gigabytes.... that's like setting yourself up for obsolescence.

Blu-Ray holds 100 gigabytes... double what's needed to hold a 3 hour HDTV movie... thereby providing lots of room for future growth.

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I don't like HD-DVD. It only holds 30 gigabytes.... that's like setting yourself up for obsolescence.

Blu-Ray holds 100 gigabytes... double what's needed to hold a 3 hour HDTV movie... thereby providing lots of room for future growth.

troy[/QUOTE]

Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

Fair is fair. The HD-DVD people have done live demonstrations of triple layer 45 GB discs and drives in action. THe Blu-ray folks have only spoken of intent to have a four layer 100 GB product with no date set for a demonstrable prototype.

Why make expensive plans for a future that will take care of itself when the time comes? If the attitude you're presenting was present in the 90's then DVD would never have launched because it wasn't HD ready. The people creating HD-DVD aren't novices. They're many of the same engineers who created DVD. THere is a reason why the DVD Forum favors HD-DVD. It was designed with the transition in mind and allows a lot of the existing factory equipment to be used for the new format. This in turns means lower costs to be passed on to consumers in the early days of the product.

HD-DVD is more than adequate to presnt a feature film in 1080i at very good quality, and is intended to have a low cost for players and softwarea t launch compared to DVD hardware and software prices at launch. The intent is to achieve parity as soon as possible to drive adoption of HD screens and content.

In case you haven't noticed, many people are still reluctant to make the investment in a good quality HD display. It will be quite a while before displays of greater resolution than 1080p (i and p are both 30 fps for the same data rate) are a factor in the market. There is not yet even committee work on establishing a ATSC standard profile for such. By the time a higher capacity disc format becomes genuinely necessary the advances in technology will make it far more accessable than pushing for that today at little advantage in terms of cost. The publishers don't really care if a season box set ships on three discs instead of two. The cost difference is nickels and dimes and is dwarfed by the valuation of the content itself before any physical materials are involved.
 
[quote name='epobirs']THere is a reason why the DVD Forum favors HD-DVD. It was designed with the transition in mind and allows a lot of the existing factory equipment to be used for the new format. This in turns means lower costs to be passed on to consumers in the early days of the product.[/QUOTE]

You may be right. That's the argument that made VHS win the war, even though Beta had a better picture (240 vs. 300 horizontal lines). VHS looked inferior quality, but it could hold more hours per tape... thereby making it cheaper to the customer.

troy
 
P.S. The cost difference between a DVD and a High-Capacity DVD is about $.30~0.40, so it wont cost developers that much extra. Also the PS3 can still use the older/cheaper DVDs for smaller games.
 
The "revolution" in the Nintendo Revolution better not just be about the controller. Just thinking about a stupid touch panel controller makes me want to take a shit all over Nintendo and Miyatmoshiomo. I'd take the standard buttons and analog sticks over a touch pad any day. Honestly, the only system that interests me right now is the PS3. Due to that tech demo of Fight Night. I'm thinking about the Xbox 360, if the graphics get better (yes I am a graphics whore, or I would just skip this generation entirely considering all the great games out now), and Nintendo if they actually deliver something revolutionary, instead of a special controller. It better have a penis slot, or it can go to hell.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']You may be right. That's the argument that made VHS win the war, even though Beta had a better picture (240 vs. 300 horizontal lines). VHS looked inferior quality, but it could hold more hours per tape... thereby making it cheaper to the customer.

troy[/QUOTE]

There were two other big factors, one each for the manufacturers and consumers.

Sony's licensing cost for producing Beta compatible VCRs was very high. Many times the cost for a VHS license. This quickly made for a much wider selection and increased competition among VHS models.

Porn. Sony tried to dictate what kind of content could be offered on their format. The VHS folks kept a completely hands off attitude to content and VHS soon became the primary delivery system for porn, geowing to several time s the size of the theatrical business in a very short time. Younger people might have trouble believing how common X-rated theaters once were in big cities. Being able to buy tapes at low-ish prices killed off most of the theatrical business in less than two years and drew a massively wider audience.

The average TV was so bad in those days that few people could see the difference in quality and that factor had a lot less influence in the mass market than it is credited. Price, convenience, and content are bigger factors than differences in quality that only a small portion of the market appreciates. To this day plenty of people say they can't tell the difference between VHS and DVD. It's quite apparent to most of us but it is those other issues that made the format preferable in every way for content delivery.
 
[quote name='Apossum']Beta, MD, what orther dead formats has sony tried?[/QUOTE]

MD's are actually very popular in Asia.
 
i like em too, but they fell flat on their face in america. I guess those two are the only real sony failures here in the u.s....just curious, I wasn't trying to make a point or anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top