What's your opinion on Blu-ray technology?
- Thread starter PSman
- Start date
What prevents 50GB discs to be used for games in the future?
The first DL game DVD's for PS2 games didn't start appearing until GT4 right? Is it too far fetched to think storage requirements in third or fourth gen PS3 games would already be so big as to need more than 25GB of data, be it redundant or not.
Or is the PS3 not capable of reading dual layer Blu-ray discs?
The first DL game DVD's for PS2 games didn't start appearing until GT4 right? Is it too far fetched to think storage requirements in third or fourth gen PS3 games would already be so big as to need more than 25GB of data, be it redundant or not.
Or is the PS3 not capable of reading dual layer Blu-ray discs?
deathkiller
Newcomer
[SIZE=-1]Black Hawk Down movie will be released in Dual Layer BD this summer, one PS3 launch game have been said to be also in [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Dual Layer BD.NANOTEC said:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2719079#post2719109
[/SIZE]
rabidrabbit said:
It's perfectly capable of that.
NANOTEC said:
ERP said - I'd much rather have a disk with less capacity but lower seektime than a disc with 10x the capacity and 2x the seektime. I asked what would happen to seektime if you used that extra capacity to replicate your data 10 times more than on the other disc. It was a question. I semi-suggested David Braben's comments might be an answer.
Though you can draw a parallel with the BD/DVD situation, if we're to concretise the example like that, we'd need to know how seektime compares in the first place. We already know how capacity compares. I don't think there's been official info on BD seektime, though the earlier, pre-BD-Rom Blu-ray drives apparently had seektimes very similar to DVD drives, a little less in some instances even.
Last edited by a moderator:
BD50 is a solution looking for a problem. It's simply a marketing ploy to get people to believe it's needed when it simply isn't. BTW nobody claimed a couple of token BR movie titles will not use BD50. Let's see what if any benefits come with that BHD movie.
I will be looking forward to seeing load times for PS3 games to see if these claims of repeated data has any realworld affect on load times. It didn't happen on PS2 DVD games compared to GC games so it doesn't look good for PS3.
I will be looking forward to seeing load times for PS3 games to see if these claims of repeated data has any realworld affect on load times. It didn't happen on PS2 DVD games compared to GC games so it doesn't look good for PS3.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, nobody claimed movies won't use 50GB BD, but somebody did claim BD was only 3 x DVD capacity.
What is the maximum bitrate for video and audio the Blu-ray standard supports, and how much space would a three hour movie like Peter Jackson's King Kong need if it were coded at maximum or close to maximum bitrates for DD+ and DTS Losless audio and MPEG-2 video?
Or are you saying 50GB of space isn't needed because it doesn't use H.264 or WM9 (or does it? I think I've fallen off the boat when it comes to latest news) ?
Still, you're forgetting these new storage formats aren't used just for games and movies... (although I'm aware this discussion should be about Blu-ray and games).
What is the maximum bitrate for video and audio the Blu-ray standard supports, and how much space would a three hour movie like Peter Jackson's King Kong need if it were coded at maximum or close to maximum bitrates for DD+ and DTS Losless audio and MPEG-2 video?
Or are you saying 50GB of space isn't needed because it doesn't use H.264 or WM9 (or does it? I think I've fallen off the boat when it comes to latest news) ?
Still, you're forgetting these new storage formats aren't used just for games and movies... (although I'm aware this discussion should be about Blu-ray and games).
NANOTEC said:
Well this is a side point. But to answer that, I'm not sure how "token" it'll be. Last I heard, apparently Disney wants to use 50GB discs pretty much exclusively. If a whole studio is only going to use them, that's significant. They cost more for Disney, so I presume they have good reasons to use them.
NANOTEC said:
No claim is being made about load times. A question was asked about streaming. Not the same thing. Initial load time is as much or more dependent on transfer rate, probably.
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you therefore say that if a game takes 3 GB on PS2 (excluding video), a game at 5x the assets would take 15 GB next-gen? Or do you see areas where better compression would fit 5x the assets into 3x the space? Also, there's me bandying about a 5x figure, but what sort of ratio would you expect next-gen to increase things by on average? Texture space should be increasing considerably with more texture at higher resolutions, whereas mesh density might not increase as much as 5x. Is next-gen likely going to need in the order of only 3x the space for 3x the assets, or perhaps as much as 10x the space (ignoring alternative compression schemes such as lossy texture compression)?Fafalada said:
one said:Yeah, let's stick to GD-ROM in DC and mini-DVD in GC...
It doesn't make a lot of sense when you have 512 MB RAM.
Ah, OK, your post wasn't about sense, it was about supporting Sony and bashing MS. Fine.
Ask the developers if the would exchange BD by extra RAM. I would rather prefer more RAM or GPU power by the money I am going to pay for the BD drive.
That kind of "let's get X MB memory by ditching Y" idea is not applicable to all cases. I guess you got this idea from what MS explained as the reason why they didn't make HDD standard. Adding HDD to Xbox 360 is likely to make them lose money unless HDD is the definite source of huge revenues to offset the loss but it's not clear if microtransactions and online download stores in Xbox Live can do it.DarkRage said:
On the other hand, the reason why PS3 could get 512MB RAM and HDD may be because it has a Blu-ray drive. Sony Electronics / Sony Pictures et al. can subsidize the adoption of Blu-ray by Sony Computer Entertainment, and SCE can use that money to add goodies in PS3. Even the development of Cell might not be possible without the investment expected to be recovered by the Blu-ray business. If the price of PS3 is reasonable like the PS2 launch and a consumer is not forced to pay outrageous money it's a win-win situation. If you want other configurations just build it yourself as a PC
Last edited by a moderator:
one said:That kind of "let's get X MB memory by ditching Y" idea is not applicable to all cases. I guess you got this idea from what MS explained as the reason why they didn't make HDD standard. Adding HDD to Xbox 360 is likely to make them lose money unless HDD is the definite source of huge revenues to offset the loss but it's not clear if microtransactions and online download stores in Xbox Live can do it.
On the other hand, the reason why PS3 could get 512MB RAM and HDD may be because it has a Blu-ray drive. Sony Electronics / Sony Pictures et al. can subsidize the adoption of Blu-ray by Sony Computer Entertainment, and SCE can use that money to add goodies in PS3. Even the development of Cell might not be possible without the investment expected to be recovered by the Blu-ray business. If the price of PS3 is reasonable like the PS2 launch and a consumer is not forced to pay outrageous money it's a win-win situation. If you want other configurations just build it yourself as a PC
Do you REALLY believe that?
Any subsidy is going to be paid for you (and me for that matter).
IF BD costs 100$ you can be 100% sure we are going to pay for it. It can be royalties in games, in films, or in adquisition price, but we will pay for it.
We were discussing about games. I would like to know the opinion of developers if they would rather prefer, for making a better game, to have 1GB RAM and 8 pixel shaders more or a 256 bit bus, instead of a BD drive. All of them are going to improve their lives, but I don't see the BD drive is going to give me more, as a game-player, than other options by the same price. Not even close.
Now, if we want to look at PS3 as an High Def player, fine, it makes sense. If we want to place in Sony's position and the massive amounts of money on royalties they can earn, fine. But as a player, I don't want to pay for it.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Shifty Geezer said:
Why in the world would you assume a 5x increase in ALL assets. In a last gen game, majority of the assetts will be audio and video. There's no reason for these to grow too much, other than the video being HD.
Most games have <1gb of textures. The big question is textures. How big are they gonna be? Are you going to need 6, 7, 8 GB of textures? If not, dvd is fine, they might have to ditch CG movies entirely, but c'est la vie. Could be a problem for ports I guess...
How are textures going to grow so much when the transfer speeds only increased 3.5x from last generation? For the sake of argument, what if it's even slower in PS3? ERP identified transfer speed as the biggest limiting factor, not space, so I don't see how textures are going to be able to grow by 5 or 6 times over.
Lycan - 6 years is not premature. Sony delayed launch to push their own proprietary disc format, simple as that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please don't fool yourselves, you will pay for these royalties many times over. Just liek they want us to buy the same movies over and over again (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray/HDDVD and whatever comes next), they will want to charge us over and over for the same things. How do you expect they would make money to produce new hardware otherwise?
(The above was a bit tongue in crack, but not too much)
(The above was a bit tongue in crack, but not too much)
I love it when people use these examples. Don't you think Oblivion fit in 4.5GB because it had to? It's not like there was much choice...
Platon said:
Probably, and it's undeniable a few more high-res textures in the game wouldn't have hurt. There's always something more that can be added, if the space is there to begin with.
thenefariousone
Newcomer
Exactly.
There is also the example of PC Games.
PC games are on a platform where they have virtually no limitation of space, since the games are installed to the drive. The latest PC games use insanely high texture resolutions and high quality art assets and require hardware similar in performance to the ps3 and xbox360.
If the latest PC games use only on average 4 GB of space, despite having "next-gen" art assets, "next-gen" hardware requirements, and no space limitations, why will the 7.92 GB of a dvd rom be a factor?
There is also the example of PC Games.
PC games are on a platform where they have virtually no limitation of space, since the games are installed to the drive. The latest PC games use insanely high texture resolutions and high quality art assets and require hardware similar in performance to the ps3 and xbox360.
If the latest PC games use only on average 4 GB of space, despite having "next-gen" art assets, "next-gen" hardware requirements, and no space limitations, why will the 7.92 GB of a dvd rom be a factor?
scooby_dooby said:
DarkRage said:
one is correct. You cannot assume anything about how PS3 would have turned out if they didn't include a BD drive. The entire project, the strategy surrounding it, and the resources thrown into it were planned with the idea that it would be a composite of a number of key technologies for Sony, Blu-ray amongst them. That placed it in a certain position in terms of importance to Sony, with all that this implies. You cannot simply look at the component cost for Blu-ray and ask how much of something else that would have bought.
thenefariousone said:
You could have used the argument with the transition to any new disc media. And current PC games do not represent the technical extent of next-gen console games, not by a long shot.
