Print

[iLLNESS]

lol yeah this is so badd cuz it uses multiple discs.

cache will be out of the question. %50 through the game is more likely..

if this is anything like gta for the xbox compared to ps2, well, that bluray is proly maxxed out heh while the 2 dvds will likely share common files, and still be less in total size for the pc/360

[m_hael]

QUOTE(iLLNESS @ Aug 5 2007, 05:51 PM)

cache will be out of the question. %50 through the game is more likely..

care to enlighten us as to why?

[m_hael]

The discussion here is in regard to a game requiring 2 DVD's...

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(Chancer @ Aug 5 2007, 08:38 AM)

Seems to me people forget how guys and gals moaned when some DVD movies were double sided in the early days. It may only be a quick job to load another disc but it will make a difference to some people and let's all be honest here, not having to change discs is better.

I think having to switch discs in a game is quite a bit different than switching with a movie. In general movies are designed irrespective of the delivery format, and they're also designed to be viewed in a single sitting without interruption. So in general movies don't usually have a nice tidy break point where changing discs is appropriate. Swapping discs becomes an interruption where there was no interruption intended.

Games on the other hand are designed to have frequent breaks, you don't usually play through them all in one sitting but broken up over a number of days, or even just a number of save points. Also games are designed with the delivery format in mind, which means a nice tidy intermission can easily be built without feeling out of place or disrupting the way the game was intended to play.

I agree that NOT changing discs will always be better than changing discs. But it DOES come at a price. And in my opinion that price is not worth the benefit of not changing discs.

Because Sony decided to use Blu-Ray:
-The PS3's release was delayed a number of months while the format was finalized
-The PS3's price became $100 higher or more
-Sony lost a whole lot more per unit which left them with less money to play with in terms of making deals with developers, and undoubtedly other shortcomings.
and as a result of those things the market shrunk which resulted in...
-Developers became more heavily oriented on the competitors meaning less exclusives and less x-plat resources spend on Sony's platform

If not swapping discs come at ^THAT^ price... then I'm sorry but I'll happily get up off the couch for the <1% of the games that require more than 1 disc.

If Sony hadn't included Blu-Ray I would be willing to bet they'd be right behind the Wii in terms of Sales at this point (if not stronger) with MS in a distant 3rd.

[Chancer]

Yes but not  needing to swap discs was not a major factor in Sony using Blu-Ray in the PS3. Sony wanted to offer a Blu-Ray player in the machine.
I would not suggest someone buys a PS3 just so they don't have to change discs during a game. It is not really a selling point to that extent

[throwingks]

^
The DVD Medium was a technology revamp. HD-DVD is not going to revolutionize movies the way DVD did to VCR. Hell, there are D-VHS tapes, and they never caught on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS

People like DVDs/CDs because they don't have to rewind and they have chapters. Blu-Ray offers the same capabilities.

[m_hael]

QUOTE(chipD @ Aug 7 2007, 10:34 AM)

since they dont install to hdd's...yet...

Yes they do... they simply do it without letting you know. I have worked on several games that install to the 360 HDD a fairly large number of files before the game can be played.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(Swahili @ Aug 7 2007, 04:36 AM)

Sony did the exact same thing with the ps2 offering a larger mostly unused storage medium, driving up the price of the console. And that ended pretty well for them.

Oh and a 500$ ps3 without bluray would not have sold any better then it does today, it would have sold even worse. For the ps3 to achieve wii sale numbers you would have needed it to cost 300$. People aren't willing to spend this much cash on videogames.

DVD wasn't some new fangled storage medium... DVD was actually availble in the PS1 days... Sony could have included it there if they really wanted to.

DVD was already the standard when the PS2 came out, it's format war (yes there was one) was over before it really took hold and DVD was already solidified and well on it's way to overtaking VHS when the PS2 was released Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is not the standard, and there is question as to if either will become the standard. It's not a like comparison and Sony using Blu-Ray in the PS3 is analogous to if they had used DVD in the Playstation 1. I think most would agree that had Sony used DVD in the Playstation 1 it probably wouldn't have sold nearly as well, nor would it have been all that beneficial to the platform, so what makes that situation appropriate now?

And yes Chancer I understand WHY Sony included the Blu-Ray but I'm speaking strictly from the consumer standpoint. I could give a rats ass what it does for the market share and format persuasion... what does it do for me as a consumer aside from jack up the price and scare developers to the point where I've got significantly less of a gaming experience than I would have otherwise? It certainly doesn't do me any favors by forcing my hand in terms of the format I'd like to support.

As for the cost... Estimates show that Blu-Ray at launch was costing Sony an extra $100 to $150 per unit...
Considering that they had a $500 unit at launch.. I means they could have been selling as low as $350 without Blu-Ray..

I guarantee if they had a $350 PS3 at launch or even a $400 PS3 at launch it would be selling quite well at this point.

[Chancer]

QUOTE

For the ps3 to achieve wii sale numbers you would have needed it to cost 300$. People aren't willing to spend this much cash on videogames.

 
 There lies my whole argument on this. The PS3 is not just aimed squarely at gamers. If you want a cheap ass games only machine then the PS3 is not for you, I agree on that.
What most people seem to miss is that there is a market for the PS3 and the extra features it offers.
It probably will never compete as a pure games machine with the 360.
I did not buy mine as a videogames machine, it has much more than that for me. The games are a bonus and if the catalogue ends up huge then that is also a bonus. I bought mine with Blu-Ray in mind and knew I could use it to stream media and audio which I also wanted, Blu-Ray was the main focus for me and I bet it was for many others as well.

[Giga_Death]

QUOTE("Twisted")

I think having to switch discs in a game is quite a bit different than switching with a movie. In general movies are designed irrespective of the delivery format, and they're also designed to be viewed in a single sitting without interruption. So in general movies don't usually have a nice tidy break point where changing discs is appropriate. Swapping discs becomes an interruption where there was no interruption intended.

Games on the other hand are designed to have frequent breaks, you don't usually play through them all in one sitting but broken up over a number of days, or even just a number of save points. Also games are designed with the delivery format in mind, which means a nice tidy intermission can easily be built without feeling out of place or disrupting the way the game was intended to play.

That was well written, when you put it like that I can see how the movie-swap comparison is a bad comparison in the end.

[derf]

I personally don’t think changing disks is a problem when it comes to games as said in the thread earlier, remember the PSOne I remember at least two games being on three discs    and loads on two..

[Mr Invader]

As long as its $60 still for a game to have 2-3 DVDs, then its all good. The only way it could get annoying is if I had to switch disks for different multiplayer maps.