What's your opinion on Blu-ray technology?

[Bad_Boy]

Using PS2 as an example is flawed. For one, a dual layer DVD is 10 times the capacity of a CD. A 25GB BR disc is only 3 times the capacity of a DVD.

I dont see how using a PS2 as example is flawed. If anything That furthers my point.

Look at how drastic the size changed, from CD to Dual Layer DVD as you said. Thats 10 times the capacity as you said. All this, on one console in just a few years. Now think about a console that has much more memory, and a 60GB hdd at that. You dont think for one second that games will need more than 9.5 gigs in a few years?

 

[NANOTEC]

And a dual layer Blu-Ray is 50Gb which is around 6 times the capacity

So what? If you want to dream about 50GB games then at least inject some reality into it like using two 25GB discs instead of one.

In any event I think his point is that more allows for more freedom.

I already got his point thank you.

Using last generation to point that this generation may not require more storage may also be a flawed analogy, since last gen received more disc space than the generation before it . Each generation has used higher resolution textures, better models, music, bigger levels, more features, etc. And we also take it that they need more data redundancy to offer better loading for these features so that load times due to disc seeks / failed reads / extra compression in order to fit in stuff from other platforms () do not become a problem.

..and that's why I said there will be games using 2 DVDs..

Look at how drastic the size changed, from CD to Dual Layer DVD as you said. Thats 10 times the capacity as you said. All this, on one console in just a few years. Now think about a console that has much more memory, and a 60GB hdd at that. You dont think for one second that games will need more than 9.5 gigs in a few years?

Two dual layer DVDs are 15GB, that's enough for 99% of next generation games. Hey it's not my problem that PS2 games are bloated. Check out RE4 which uses less than 3GBs of game data and that's for 40 hours of start to finish gameplay. Finally the jump from PS1 to PS2 is much bigger than the jump from PS2 to PS3 in terms of game data size.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I guess thats where the difference between me and you are. Id rather have 1 disc to use, than to have multiple discs. (not just for games)

Why would you use two dual layer discs, when you could use 1 blu ray disc?
Why would you use two 25GB disc, when you could use 1 50GB disc?

 

[NANOTEC]

I guess thats where the difference between me and you are. Id rather have 1 disc to use, than to have multiple discs. (not just for games)

Why would you use two dual layer discs, when you could use 1 blu ray disc?
Why would you use two 25GB disc, when you could use 1 50GB disc?

It's cheaper for publishers. Like I said for me I don't care if it's on 1 disc or 2 because I don't sit on my butt for 10-20 hours straight playing a game without eating sleeping showering going to the restroom. Do you?

 

[rounin]

So what? If you want to dream about 50GB games then at least inject some reality into it like using two 25GB discs instead of one.

The point is that your comparison/analogy was weak

..and that's why I said there will be games using 2 DVDs..

Which would provide double the capacity whereas previous gen provided ___ times the capacity. In any event, I'm just going along with the comparison.

Two dual layer DVDs are 15GB, that's enough for 99% of next generation games. Hey it's not my problem that PS2 games are bloated. Check out RE4 which uses less than 3GBs of game data and that's for 40 hours of start to finish gameplay. Finally the jump from PS1 to PS2 is much bigger than the jump from PS2 to PS3 in terms of game data size.

But you know any of this how? Based on what? I think the bolded parts are the main assumptions you're basing your argument on (obviously apart from your personal preference). That, along with the 2 BD discs will be cheaper than 1 50 gig one......

 

[NANOTEC]

The point is that your comparison/analogy was weak

It's only weak if you didn't get it. In fact I wasn't the one who brought up the PS2 analogy. Actually going with that analogy PS3 games will be 50GB in 2007...chuckle.

Which would provide double the capacity whereas previous gen provided ___ times the capacity. In any event, I'm just going along with the comparison.

And reality supports what I'm saying since last time I checked Xbox360 games are still using a single DVD let alone two let alone three.

But you know any of this how? Based on what? I think the bolded parts are the main assumptions you're basing your argument on (obviously apart from your personal preference). That, along with the 2 BD discs will be cheaper than 1 50 gig one......

2 BD discs is cheaper than one..if you don't agree then come up with a valid argument with supporting evidence.

Also if you hadn't noticed this whole thread is conjecture. I suggest grasping that concept before yelling who is claiming what.

 

[rounin]

It's only weak if you didn't get it. In fact I wasn't the one who brought up the PS2 analogy. Actually going with that analogy PS3 games will be 50GB in 2007...chuckle.

I still don't get it. What was your point in comparing the top end of a technology with the last gen's top end (DVD9 vs 700mg CD) while looking at the lowest capacity offered by the upcoming technology (DVD9 vs Bluray single layer)? What relation does that have with the PS2, PS1 comparison and subsequent comparisons between console generations?

And reality supports what I'm saying since last time I checked Xbox360 games are still using a single DVD let alone two let alone three.

The comparison was between the capacity offered by CD's (700 megs) and the capacity offered by DVD/DVD DL.

2 BD discs is cheaper than one..if you don't agree then come up with a valid argument with supporting evidence.

Not too much evidence but I only read this just today where the retail price is $10 over double the price. It may or may not be related, but the point is that you're the one with the assumptions being doubted, so I suggest you be the one to back up your arguments with proof (along with the other ones)

Also if you hadn't noticed this whole thread is conjecture. I suggest grasping that concept before yelling who is claiming what.

No one is yelling anything but you can start if you want. Being conjecture though I think we can at least try to do so within reason.

 

[NANOTEC]

I still don't get it. What was your point in comparing the top end of a technology with the last gen's top end (DVD9 vs 700mg CD) while looking at the lowest capacity offered by the upcoming technology (DVD9 vs Bluray single layer)? What relation does that have with the PS2, PS1 comparison and subsequent comparisons between console generations?

The point is comparing PS2 disc capacity to PS1 disc capacity is flawed that's why I wasn't the one to bring it up. I used the 10x factor to show that PS3 games would need to be 10x larger than PS2 games.

The comparison was between the capacity offered by CD's (700 megs) and the capacity offered by DVD/DVD DL.

Yes read above. Do you honestly believe we'll be seeing 80GB games during PS3's lifetime? I don't.

Not too much evidence but I only read this just today where the retail price is $10 over double the price. It may or may not be related, but the point is that you're the one with the assumptions being doubted, so I suggest you be the one to back up your arguments with proof (along with the other ones)

There are people in the industry that post over at the AVS forum that say a 50GB BD is more expensive than two 25GB BDs. This makes sense because a single layer disc is a lot easier and cheaper to make than a dual layer one. This has been known for years as it's the same with DVDs.

No one is yelling anything but you can start if you want. Being conjecture though I think we can at least try to do so within reason.

I don't see anything unreasonable about what I've said.

 

[Edge]

All this arguing is senseless. Sony has decided on 25 GB at the very least as standard, and 25 GB lends itself to more content. Maybe 50 GB is not cost effective now, but in a few years, the cost will be a none issue.

I'm glad Sony decided on a superior standard.

 

[NavNucST3]

All this arguing is senseless. Sony has decided on 25 GB at the very least as standard, and 25 GB lends itself to more content. Maybe 50 GB is not cost effective now, but in a few years, the cost will be a none issue.

I'm glad Sony decided on a superior standard.

What do you consider a few years? From a retail perspective I don't see TDK going from $48 (50GB BD-R) to $5 anytime soon.

My opinion of BD-ROM and HD-DVD, is that I don't EVER want to see a re-release again. If I buy a movie this year, don't try and sell me the same damn movie and call it the director's cut, or special edition, or Ultimate Edition (I'm looking at you Stargate). They both have enough room to put all of that stuff on the initial release, and I would prefer them to use it for things like that instead of commercials that I CAN'T skip!

 

[randycat99]

Are you comparing the cost of a recordable media BR to a stamped media BR?

 

[rounin]

What do you consider a few years? From a retail perspective I don't see TDK going from $48 (50GB BD-R) to $5 anytime soon.

I see it quite easily. Just look at the price history of DVD-writeable media.

I'll just add in that the first DVD-RW were around $30, which corresponds to the single layer BR-RW that TDK is currently selling. Plus right now they're the only ones on the market ...

 

[scooby_dooby]

I personally feel that Blu-ray is a great technology that will gives developers a lot more space and freedom. There are people out there that bash and downplayed Blu-ray, saying how it isn't need etc..., I honestly don't see anything wrong with giving developers more space to work with. I'm really glad that Sony included Blu-Ray in the PS3, it'll definitely give the PS3 a sweet advanatge down the line. The only possible negative thing i see about Blu-ray is that, games on Blu-ray might suffer from slower load time, but then again we don't know how fast the PS3 Blu-ray drive is.

^All of this is just my personal opinion, I want to hear how you guys feel about Blu-ray. And sorry if this have been discuss to death

I think it's unnecessary for games over the next 5-6 years, and not worth the drawbacks. Takes money away from the other components of the machine and/or increases the cost , delays the launch, and is less robust/reliable than standard DVD.

All in all, not worth the trade-offs IMO. DVD's are not near their capacity, and multiple DVD's will be just fine for many years after that.

 

[JasonLD]

I think it's unnecessary for games over the next 5-6 years, and not worth the drawbacks. Takes money away from the other components of the machine and/or increases the cost , delays the launch, and is less robust/reliable than standard DVD.

All in all, not worth the trade-offs IMO. DVD's are not near their capacity, and multiple DVD's will be just fine for many years after that.

Well, it is more political than technological...PS3 is capable of being a difference maker when it comes to movie format war so it makes perfect sense politically...but it doesn't hurt to have more capacious medium anyways.

 

[NANOTEC]

DVD's are not near their capacity, and multiple DVD's will be just fine for many years after that.

Agreed and to use a real example for this generatiion GC uses 1.5GB discs while PS2 uses 8GB discs...woah..PS2 games must be that much better if if needs 5 times the capacity!

 

[NavNucST3]

I see it quite easily. Just look at the price history of DVD-writeable media.

I'll just add in that the first DVD-RW were around $30, which corresponds to the single layer BR-RW that TDK is currently selling. Plus right now they're the only ones on the market ...

I don't recall ever paying $30 or anywhere near that price for an RW, but I rarely used RW, and I bought the first Sony DVD burner the day it dropped in the states. I think my first RW cost maybe $10-$12, but again that memory is fuzzy. I remember buying my DVD-Rs for about $1-3/ disc a few years ago. The most I have ever paid for a DL was $5/disc. Those are all a far cry from me dropping $50-60 on a disc, regardless of storage capacity, this holds true, for me, with HD-DVD as well, I am not singling out BD-Rs, I would rather drop that money on a larger hdd.

to randycat99...
I am only speaking from a consumer standpoint of buying discs which is why I said retail, and I do realize what we pay and how much they actually cost are completely different things. I also realize, Edge, was talking about from a mfrs. standpoint. I should have separated my comments better.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I think it's unnecessary for games over the next 5-6 years

As said before, This has yet to be seen. We really have no idea how much space devs will use on the new media in the next 4-6 years. We can answer this question in a few years, but until then i'll keep saying the same ol line about this subject... "I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

, and not worth the drawbacks. Takes money away from the other components of the machine and/or increases the cost , delays the launch, and is less robust/reliable than standard DVD.

Sure in the beginning. But I think we can both agree that more space can be used to "future proof" the console. Now lets think about that. Future

-in the future, costs will be decreased dramatically. DVD reduced in price dramatically, CD has, and every media before it, and so will blu-ray.
-a delayed launch really wont matter to people who buy the console a few years in the future, or to devs who have been working on their titles even before launch, and anyways-i hardly doubt blu-ray was the single cause of the november delay
-all new tech is always less reliable than tech that has been around for much longer (years), its common sense. so with that you dont see the tech becoming more reliable just as DVD has over the years? I mean with that logic, we would still be using cartridges for our games.

Seems like your arguments are over things that will be faced in the beginning and forgotten in the future, which is basically the point to the format besides political reasons as JasonLD has mentioned.

Me personally, I just see that the pros outweigh the cons.

I guess in a few years we can come back to laugh at this, and see if it were actually worth the jump to a better format.

 

[rounin]

I don't recall ever paying $30 or anywhere near that price for an RW, but I rarely used RW, and I bought the first Sony DVD burner the day it dropped in the states. I think my first RW cost maybe $10-$12, but again that memory is fuzzy. I remember buying my DVD-Rs for about $1-3/ disc a few years ago. The most I have ever paid for a DL was $5/disc. Those are all a far cry from me dropping $50-60 on a disc, regardless of storage capacity, this holds true, for me, with HD-DVD as well, I am not singling out BD-Rs, I would rather drop that money on a larger hdd.

In 1999, DVD-RW was expensive (http://www.proactionmedia.com/dvd_media_formats.htm#DVD-RW)

On reliability : at least Blu-Rays are less scratchable than DVD-ROMS (by necessity )

 

[NANOTEC]

I also don't remember RWs costing $30, more like $10-$12 initially. Regardless BR is even more expensive than recordable DVD when it initially launched and with BR PC drives costing $700, it doesn't look like BR will come down in price anytime soon. Recordable DVDs came down in price mainly because of PC DVD burner drives. BR will take a long time to come down in price.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Recordable DVDs came down in price mainly because of PC DVD burner drives. BR will take a long time to come down in price.

You do know there will be Blu-Ray burners, right?