Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Garside, 17 Oct 2006.
sony havent heard of optimization then? i dont care that the ps3 is next gen theres no way its bettr than a pc and to take up 25gb is just stupidity. developers can make games that look better on the 360 with only 9gb so why the need for 50gb. im shocked really
on another note ill be getting a 360hd player when they come out, i am hoping the cheaper hd-dvd setup will prevail.
ps what price were blu-ray films? as i expect hd ones to be the same
I know it's a new technology and all that, but I'd rather spend a grand on something else (new PC perhaps?).
Are Sony forcing standalone BR manufacturers to sell their products at a high price, in order to make the PS3 look more attractive? Surely there's not £1000's worth of electronics inside that case?! Or are the connections gold-plated, with diamond heatsinks on all the MOSFET's?
I think it's just developers can use 25Gb of space, so why bother with compression when the space is already there? Not really a big surprise to me, but that doesn't mean those games wouldn't fit on a DVD9
Considering the MPEG2 codec that's used on Blu-Rays is what? 10 years old now? I wouldn't expect the quality to be that great.
HD-DVD with h.264 = sexy!
P.S. since when is the common abbreviation for "For The Win" a swear word?
Is sony Fsking serious? They are close to using up the 25gb already. Oh please....
Honestly I cant see how they can be that wasteful.
Though, tbh, I'd actually prefer content with less compression so this might not be all bad.
i will wait until all the bugs are ironed out, i will buy it when it gets as cheap as when i started buying dvds.
So it is!
You can see whats being offered on HD DVD and BR by going to play.com. BR looks cheaper typically though most films are cack.
actually a lot cheaper than i expecterd the discs to be. not a great choice tho. should hopefully be a big push at xmas tho
If you guys want to be impressed, pick up an HD-DVD player and a few of the good movies You won't look back.
HD-DVD please. I just saw on the ITV news someone who works in currys. 'The war has already been won, blu ray is the better format' Yeah, right.
if someone in currys said blu-ray is best then the winner must surely be hd-dvd. people who work in electrical shops no nothing
VHS vs BetaMAX........
A normal DVD with h.264 is sexy enough, I personally don't see the point in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD
**** the world
What's with this "25GB for a game is wasteful" talk so many people are making? Hate Sony all you want...I kindof do too...but at least come up with an argument with some meaning behind it instead of just finding a complaint in every sound-byte you hear from a Sony employee.
The fact that a game takes up more space isn't always an indication of being 'wasteful.' What the heck do you even think is being 'wasted?' If the game costs the same amount whether its on DVD for the 360, or BluRay for PS3, they're not wasting your money. If it's just that they're 'not optimizing' or 'not compressing,' then they're SAVING time, if anything. So the only thing they might be 'wasting' is Gigabytes??!! Last I heard, GB's aren't a limited resource.
Did you complain when games moved from single floppy disk to multiple floppies to CD to DVD? Nooooo...as soon as you saw the games, you saw not only better picture, but more detailed games in terms of how big the game world was and how much you could do in it. You haven't seen PS3 games yet AFAIK...so you can't really say with any certainty that they look better on the 360 (unless your 'certainty' comes by way of the blinders you wear because you love the 360 so much and can't find any good in it's competitor?). There's more to a game's Gigabytes than just the looks anyway, so even if some games do look better on the 360, there just might be some other purpose to the 15 extra GB's on a PS3 disk.
So if I understand correctly, even if I spend $1000 on a new machine to play my new Blu-Ray movies, I won't notice any marked improvements on my standard definition television coupled with my 12-year-old stereo receiver?
No thanks. I'll stick with DVD for now. I'd be willing to bet that most people can't honestly tell the difference anyway.
Forgot where i read this, but doesnt the PS3 (blu-ray in particular) take something like 2x the time to grab the same amount of info as does the current 360 DVD does? (it was either that or the blu ray took 2x as long compared to HD-DVD) either way, if you compress less, and use more space, they are just increasing load times... esp if they arent compressing anything because "there is no need with 25GB" blah blah crap...
say you have Game X on 360, and PS3, on the 360 it takes up the full 9GB, compressed and all, and the 360 needs to access a GB of that compressed info, while PS3s version is uncompressed completely, and is using say 18 GB, so now ps3 needs to access the same info, but its now a 2GB chunk because of no compression (assuming an even compression % throughout, not bloody likely though) so that just doubled access time again, now its at 1:4. Of course this isn't including processing time to uncompress it on the 360.
According to Wikipedia's HD-DVD article, the format has a maximum transfer rate of 36.155 Mbit/s (the same as "3X DVD", and three times as fast a regular DVD). On the other hand, Blu-Ray's maximum transfer rate is given as 54 Mbit/s in the corresponding article. Early drives have a 2x rating, i.e. 2 x 36 Mbit/s = 72 Mbit/s.
Also, the point of uncompressed textures is to achieve a higher level of quality, AFAIK.
Separate names with a comma.