PS3 game sizes

[TheChefO]

Martha
OOXX

Kaz is that you?

Scoob has a point. The BR player is not something that is an additional side benefit. As a gamer you pay for that feature. But we all know as Patsu stated, BR was strapped onto ps3 in the hopes of riding playstation success into the living room sunset and driving out the wreckless HD-DVD bandit all in one fell swoop. With the side benefit of additional reward money for Sony the Sheriff.


It would be interesting to see if Sony has something in the works that truly takes advantage of BR.

 

[patsu]

Kaz is that you?

No... I am Kenz. I missed lunch. >_<
I would like to challenge the Chinese Chef, Chen Kenichi. Come to think of it, how come no Iron Chef Blu-ray interactive media with online recipes yet ?

Scoob has a point. The BR player is not something that is an additional side benefit. As a gamer you pay for that feature. But we all know as Patsu stated, BR was strapped onto ps3 in the hopes of riding playstation success into the living room sunset and driving out the wreckless HD-DVD bandit all in one fell swoop. With the side benefit of additional reward money for Sony the Sheriff.


It would be interesting to see if Sony has something in the works that truly takes advantage of BR.

It depends on how they do the accounting. I'm not joking when I say Playstation Online can be partly subsidized by the Blu-ray business.

 

[TheChefO]

I'm not joking when I say Playstation Online can be partly subsidized by the Blu-ray business.

You mean like Windows subsidizing Xbox business?

If they contiune making Playstation Online free and bring it up to match xb live that would be a great thing as it would mean MS would likely have to follow suit.

In the meantime I want to see a game (at least in progress) that can't be done on dvd9, made for BR.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But we all know as Patsu stated, BR was strapped onto ps3 in the hopes of riding playstation success into the living room sunset and driving out the wreckless HD-DVD bandit all in one fell swoop.

Except we don't. That's only true if Sony wouldn't have included an HD drive if they didn't have a proprietary format to promote, and no-one can answer that. At least, no-one not under NDA. If they really believed an HD drive would prove important for the next-gen, it's a cost they'd decide the end user should pay for that experience, which is an independent decision to shipping with their own format to promote that format.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

You guys need to see beyond your own noses. I have not argued against blu-ray in general - having more disc space is a good thing. We'll probably see a lot of 2 DVD games on the X360 and some of them will certainly become annoying.

The argument was that the game itself in Resistance is far less then 16GBs (go back and read my first post here please). Let us review the contents of the game disc again, courtesy of Mmmkay I think:

Padding file size = 32MB.
Total padding = 1.9GB.
Total FMV = 7GB.
Audio = 2.24GB. (605MB for music and English language only)
Game Assets = 6.12GB.

The way I see it, a single English release of the game is about 7 GBs of data, and you'd still have at least another GB left for whatever solution of cutscenes. So the point is: Resistance is in no way a demonstration of why a console game absolutely requires the added storage capacity of blu-ray.

We will obviously see games that make good use of the disc space, and games that couldn't possibly fit on a single DVD in any way. But they're not here yet.
Can we move on now, please?

 

[patsu]

You mean like Windows subsidizing Xbox business?

Exactly. MS is obviously leaning on its Windows stronghold to establish and expand its Xbox business. I think Robbie Bach mentioned that one of the hardest problems is to figure out the accounting.

If they contiune making Playstation Online free and bring it up to match xb live that would be a great thing as it would mean MS would likely have to follow suit.

In the meantime I want to see a game (at least in progress) that can't be done on dvd9, made for BR.

I have a different opinion. As a consumer, as long as Blu-ray brings value to the whole, then I'm ok. Why must it be "can't be done on dvd9" (i.e., just looking at the disc space aspect) ? I guess it's nice but the content creation part will take a long time.

 

[TheChefO]

Except we don't. That's only true if Sony wouldn't have included an HD drive if they didn't have a proprietary format to promote, and no-one can answer that. At least, no-one not under NDA. If they really believed an HD drive would prove important for the next-gen, it's a cost they'd decide the end user should pay for that experience, which is an independent decision to shipping with their own format to promote that format.

motive - check
royalty check - check

They're in business to make money. They risked Playstation3 sales by including the drive in the ps3 which significantly raised the price of admission for their games business which at the time of design was their bread and butter.

Sony saw the opportunity to establish their video format with their dominant games brand and rake in significantly more cash than if they just signed up for HD-DVD.

Who knows if it will pay off but to think that BR movie sales are not the driving factor for it's inclusion in ps3 (which has adversely affected it's sales and risked the longterm profitability of the platform in the meantime) is a bit naive.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony saw the opportunity to establish their video format with their dominant games brand and rake in significantly more cash than if they just signed up for HD-DVD.

I've never dsputed that, but it's not the only reason for including an HD format, which a lot of people say - that's some allegation that BRD was 'strapped on' rather than the system was designed around an HD drive from the beginning. If you have documentary evidence or similar that original designs were for a DVD based console, and then BRD was added as an afterthough when Sony decided they wanted to promte the format, I'd love to see it! But IMO, to think Sony wouldn't include an HD player in their all-round next-gen HD capable entertainment device is a bit naive. If BRD didn't exist, PS3 would likely have shipped with an HDDVD drive, no? Meaning BRD wasn't included just to promote Sony's format.

 

[patsu]

Sony saw the opportunity to establish their video format with their dominant games brand and rake in significantly more cash than if they just signed up for HD-DVD.

Who knows if it will pay off but to think that BR movie sales are not the driving factor for it's inclusion in ps3 (which has adversely affected it's sales and risked the longterm profitability of the platform in the meantime) is a bit naive.

The price will drop over time. People who see value in the combo player at any point in time will buy one. We will know whether BR is a bad idea or not in about a year (if at all). Right now, it's generating positive buzz in some people's eyes despite all the bad press and poor execution on Sony's part.

Someone please publish the Iron Chef series, cooking mini-games, online recipes, coupons and eCommerce in 1 Blu-ray (no fingering through different episodes/discs please).

They can even split the 2 series into 2 separate Blu-ray purchases for business reasons.


EDIT:

But we all know as Patsu stated, BR was strapped onto ps3 in the hopes of riding playstation success into the living room sunset and driving out the wreckless HD-DVD bandit all in one fell swoop. With the side benefit of additional reward money for Sony the Sheriff.

I've never dsputed that, but it's not the only reason for including an HD format, which a lot of people say - that's some allegation that BRD was 'strapped on' rather than the system was designed around an HD drive from the beginning. If you have documentary evidence or similar that original designs were for a DVD based console, and then BRD was added as an afterthough when Sony decided they wanted to promte the format, I'd love to see it! But IMO, to think Sony wouldn't include an HD player in their all-round next-gen HD capable entertainment device is a bit naive. If BRD didn't exist, PS3 would likely have shipped with an HDDVD drive, no? Meaning BRD wasn't included just to promote Sony's format.

That's right. I didn't say Blu-ray was strapped on to PS3. I believe it's central to PS3's vision (They spent lot's of resources integrating Blu-ray into PS3).

 

[TheChefO]

That's right. I didn't say Blu-ray was strapped on to PS3. I believe it's central to PS3's vision (They spent lot's of resources integrating Blu-ray into PS3).

I've never dsputed that, but it's not the only reason for including an HD format, which a lot of people say - that's some allegation that BRD was 'strapped on' rather than the system was designed around an HD drive from the beginning. If you have documentary evidence or similar that original designs were for a DVD based console, and then BRD was added as an afterthough when Sony decided they wanted to promte the format, I'd love to see it! But IMO, to think Sony wouldn't include an HD player in their all-round next-gen HD capable entertainment device is a bit naive. If BRD didn't exist, PS3 would likely have shipped with an HDDVD drive, no? Meaning BRD wasn't included just to promote Sony's format.

"Strapped on" was a play on words in my original post. Of course it is central to Sony's strategy which they merged into ps3 strategy. I never said the system wasn't designed to work with BR but really how much does this inclusion affect the system design? Only thing I've seen it affect is the standard HDD to make up for BR load times. Yes I know it also doubles as a download cache and will help their online sales initiative.

Both of these "features" though add cost which limits the viability of the platform. BR inclusion will do a whole lot more for their movie royalties than for their games.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

You guys need to see beyond your own noses. I have not argued against blu-ray in general - having more disc space is a good thing. We'll probably see a lot of 2 DVD games on the X360 and some of them will certainly become annoying.

The argument was that the game itself in Resistance is far less then 16GBs (go back and read my first post here please). Let us review the contents of the game disc again, courtesy of Mmmkay I think:

Padding file size = 32MB.
Total padding = 1.9GB.
Total FMV = 7GB.
Audio = 2.24GB. (605MB for music and English language only)
Game Assets = 6.12GB.

The way I see it, a single English release of the game is about 7 GBs of data, and you'd still have at least another GB left for whatever solution of cutscenes. So the point is: Resistance is in no way a demonstration of why a console game absolutely requires the added storage capacity of blu-ray.

We will obviously see games that make good use of the disc space, and games that couldn't possibly fit on a single DVD in any way. But they're not here yet.
Can we move on now, please?

A director can edit Kill Bill down to 90 minutes, but then it wouldn't be Kill Bill, now would it? By your numbers, game assets alone are already banging on the 360's disc capacity. It's not an issue for the PS3, obviously, so that's why I mentioned it. If you took out the audio and fmv and whatnot, it wouldn't be Resistance. I think it's clear that games sizes are gonna cross the boundaries of a single DVD fairly soon, and the 360 has less than a standard DVD9. Oh, and I think Resistance already qualifies as a game that needs multi-DVD. You take out the fat and the meat doesn't taste the same. PEACE.

 

[inefficient]

This is a valid explanation though one should think that the cutscenes wouldn´t have been a time issue but more a money issue.

Time IS money

 

[patsu]

"Strapped on" was a play on words in my original post. Of course it is central to Sony's strategy which they merged into ps3 strategy. I never said the system wasn't designed to work with BR but really how much does this inclusion affect the system design?

My question is "how much does this inclusion affect the business as a whole". System design is only part of the equation. e.g., how CDROM drive affected PS1's system design vs how it affected the gaming business. I am not saying Blu-ray will revolutionize gaming, but my view is it's inaccurate to see it as "a component with larger space", and it's too soon to judge its impact. When I said "They spent lot's of resources integrating Blu-ray into PS3", I also included all the Cell programming for the Blu-ray run-time. Don't forget the software.

Only thing I've seen it affect is the standard HDD to make up for BR load times. Yes I know it also doubles as a download cache and will help their online sales initiative.

Both of these "features" though add cost which limits the viability of the platform. BR inclusion will do a whole lot more for their movie royalties than for their games.

The HDD inclusion is a different creature altogether. I can't argue against it because the "bigger" SKU sells better this time, and has "higher margin" (smaller loss !). I don't think it limits the viability of the platform next/this gen compared to the Xbox/PS2 generation... because both vendors seem to be able to capitalize on it. Last gen... the Xbox HDD was just a cost (not a business enabler). Again, we will have to wait and see how well digital distribution works for both.

The Blu-ray load time is something debatable. I have seen posts/articles that claim its average performance is similar to reading DVD9, plus it has more space to replicate the data. In any case, I'm sure the developers are smart enough to use the hardware to their advantages.

Both PS3 and Xbox 360 are leagues above last gen afterall.

 

[Acert93]

If you took out the audio and fmv and whatnot, it wouldn't be Resistance.

Yet that is the rub: You don't need to use HD movies to recreate the RFoM cutscenes. They could be implimented differently with the same end user result but use significantly less (a small fraction even) disk space. assen makes a solid point on the outsourcing and ease of implimentation. Going with a movie may have saved time if outsourced, and with a 25GB ceiling there was no reason to use SD resolutions. On a DVD9 SD resolutions may have sufficed with the right codec or for HD cutscenes panning, filters and animation over large high quality pictures. Basically you could get the end result of RFoM cut scenes with movies or still graphics and some minor programming. The point is with BDR you go the route of less resistance: You just use the diskspace. This doesn't prove the game couldn't be done without BDR as some has claiming (which will be a case with some games down the road), only that the space available was used.

 

[-tkf-]

Time IS money

They should have been able to buy an outside production studio to do those cut scenes...

 

[-tkf-]

So the point is: Resistance is in no way a demonstration of why a console game absolutely requires the added storage capacity of blu-ray.

I think the point has been, for a long time, that no game REQUIRES any certain size media but all games potentially BENEFIT from more space. And from you nice little breakdown, ROM is one of those that obviously benefit since they could fit all that on a BR.

 

[bomlat]

It start to be similar to the old "the programs are able to run a half that powerfull rig IF the programmers are not that bad"
From the other side, you have 400 megs that can be filled up with stufs, if you have 10 level you need 4 gig.
That not that much.When the DVD started to get ground in the pc gamming the avarage game started to be on 2-3 cd.I can not see it now.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If BRD didn't exist, PS3 would likely have shipped with an HDDVD drive, no?

No. The negative impact of launching with a $600 machine would have far outweighed the benefits of including an HD drive if Sony did not have BR to reap royalties off of.

It would've been a horribly stupid decision to include HD-DVD if BR did not exist, as they would be giving up marketshare and getting nothing back. With BR, they have made a conscious desicion to give up up marketshare but will make money back on the backend, so it's a viable strategy. Not so with HD-DVD, so it would've been an absolutely terrible strategy, and one I really doubt Sony would've implemented.

They would've lost marketshare, and for what? Nothing. Somehow, I don't see them doing that. They are in the business of making money, bundling a BR drive will make them alot of money in the long run, since it will probably be the major factor that makes BR the standard HD movie format. Bundling an HD-DVD would've lost them money with no way to recoup it, there's just no way they would've done it.

 

[Arwin]

No. The negative impact of launching with a $600 machine would have far outweighed the benefits of including an HD drive if Sony did not have BR to reap royalties off of.

It would've been a horribly stupid decision to include HD-DVD if BR did not exist, as they would be giving up marketshare and getting nothing back. With BR, they have made a conscious desicion to give up up marketshare but will make money back on the backend, so it's a viable strategy. Not so with HD-DVD, so it would've been an absolutely terrible strategy, and one I really doubt Sony would've implemented.

They would've lost marketshare, and for what? Nothing. Somehow, I don't see them doing that. They are in the business of making money, bundling a BR drive will make them alot of money in the long run, since it will probably be the major factor that makes BR the standard HD movie format. Bundling an HD-DVD would've lost them money with no way to recoup it, there's just no way they would've done it.

Yeah, or they just really think it is important that their console has a disc medium that can hold more than last generation's.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah, or they just really think it is important that their console has a disc medium that can hold more than last generation's.

And/or wanted HD movie playback as part of their vision for the PlayStation concept.

Sure, an extra $150-200 on price versus competing platforms is going to affect sales, but at the same time, it's Sony's product that they'll design for their targets. I don't think the entry cost was the one and only concern, which wish trumped when they decided to stick BluRay in there. There was a lot of functionality considered. The choice for an HD drive was one of - 'what costs does it add, versus what benefits? Do people want an all-on-one HD platform for games and movies?' Sony decided 'yes.'

Well, that's a possibilty. Alternatively the argument was one of 'how do we make this machine as cheap possible? What benefit does increasing it's entry price have if we slap a BRD drive in there?' Point being, no-one knows for sure. Arguments like Scooby's come from his idea of what's the right move. By Scooby's estimate, losing out in price isn't worth including HD playback. That might be different to Sony's view, and I think is different when you hear what the intention for the PlayStation brand was. eg. Why has PSP got those multimedia functions when they could have been dropped and the device made cheaper to sell better an gain market share? Because Sony like the idea of multimedia devices.

Thus the idea that BRD was included in PS3 just to promote the format can't be proven by any argument (and shouldn't be stated as fact). It's only personal opinion. If there were no other reasons for an HD drive, I could agree that it's only there for BluRay promotion. As it is, furthering BluRay movies is one benefit of several that contribute to the full feature-set of the PlayStation 3.