| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (98)

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
maybe in a 27GB BD, 2GB is used up for file allocation table and various system stuff, like rewriteability, encryption etc.

have Sony even successfully mass produced the 2-layer BDs yet?

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like how the 360 is being call the xbox 1.5
I still havent seen any pretty video from the sony camp that looks better than gears of war and im not going to even talk about too human. so that must make the new playstation the ps2.8. how about the ps finally on par with the xbox. or even better the gimmicstation. can we say blu-ray sales gimmic.
and just so my post is relevant I dont think that a disc, blu-ray or dvd, will be around for 10 years as the dominant from of next gen game media. I see larger detachable hardrives on consoles with simple user interfaces and being the next step in media storage.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#49 stop taking your words from bill gates with that bull shit hard drive mess. and xbox 360 is being called xbox 1.5 because it is just a weak upgrade from xbox .

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would not be surprised to see a 25 GB game in 3 or 4 years. Considering games like God of War are already over 7 GB. When the ps2 launched did anyone say "no one will ever make a 4 GB game on dvd". I thought the whole point of next gen gaming was to move beyond what was achieved the previous gen.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I kinda hate how microsoft and sony are pushing this stuff on people. I dont really care for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, sure they're new technologies and can do some neat stuff whatever. I just wanna play some games, if developers still love the dvd format let them use it and its cheaper with dvds format then stick with it, I dont mind playing with several dvds for one game than paying more for a console and games. I mean look at ps3 and games will be more likely to be pricey because of the blu-ray no one really ask for it.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I cant help but think that the vast majority of posters to this site are just as idiotic as the people they rant against.

1) the 360 will use 12x DVD which is faster then a 1x, 2x BDROM. That being said, unless sony intends to release in 2007 or spend a buttload of money expect 2x BDroms on ps3 with load times longer then that found on the 360.

2)BDROM is NOT the media of the future, high capacity flash cards and mini HDDS are.

WHY? because of what HDDVD is trying to accomplish. HDDVD wants to set up content management which allows CONSUMERS to make LEGAL copies of intellectual property. This means you buy the movie ONCE and you can play it on your HDDVD player, stream it to another room in your house through a 360, load it into you video IPOD on the go, or import tracks to your MP3 player. the BluRay groups wants you to purchase the SAME intellectual property MULTIPLE times for different formats, IE buy DVD version, buy bluray version, buy UMD, version, buy CD soundtrack etc. If the movie studios have their way you will be paying $100 for the same exact intellectual content which they made ONCE but you must purchase MULTIPLE times to use in other methods. MS and the HDDVD group wants to eliminate that and let media/content be interchangable through all types of devices. This is what the computer companies back HDDVD, but its also whay movie companies back BluRay because use stupid consumers are so taken with the idea of bigger is better that we dont realize Hollywood plans to charge us for every cent of it MULTIPLE times. If sony gets their way you will buy spiderman at least 3 times, UMD,DVD, BDROM. If HDDVD gets it way you buy it once and it works on everything. To be fair the drawback is that you dont own the copies unlike BDRom where you can sell each copy you own, but personally Id prefer the right to use the content a purchased however i want when ever I want.

Now in reference to gaming, the 12x DVD in the 360 will VERY, HIGHLY likely have a better transfer rate and lower seektimes, (not to mention fewer Disk Read Errors) then first generation BD-Roms. in addition preveious generation games like San
Andreas were so large for the fact that multiple copies of the same files had to be placed on disk due to the terrible seektimes. Higher transfer rates and lower seektimes can reduce or eliminate the number of duplicate files in a streaming seemless world. The 360 ALSO allows the GPU and cpu to directly access each other without first using memory which 1) saves ram bandwidth and resources and 2) allows procedural synthesis to occur where using middleware such as SpeedTree the additional threads or even the gpu itself can be programmed to generate geometry on the fly with blueprints stored on the disk. thus the console is powerful enough to generate the content on the fly as the game Elder Scrolls: Oblivion makes HEAVY use of procedural synthesis and the the game MINUS the spoken dialogue uses on HALF the space of a DVD. Disk space is completely irrelevant because a game designed from the bottom up to utilize the power of next gen consoles has MANY methods of space conservation which actually make the game world MORE believable when implemented. For instance the use of procedural synthesis can make every tree in a forest look different or the face of every NPC in the game unique thus the base assets are accessed from the rom, but the hardware turns it into art and frees the devs to work on other more important work then modeling 15,000 trees.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Notwithstanding the many advantages of Blu-ray, we anticipate the Blu-ray Disc could disadvantage Sony as the price of Blu-ray Disc games and movies are expected to be higher than HD-DVD games and movies.”

Somehow everybody is forgetting that the PS3 will also still support both DVD's and old fashion CD's as well...

I think most (if not all) launch titles will be released on good ol' DVD rather than Blu-Ray Discs. (The same goes for Xbox.) It's probably because of this that Nintendo opted to go for just the good ol' DVD: It works, it's fast (at 16x), it has more than enough storage for most games that will appear in the next five years (and if not, producing a game on four DVD's is still cheaper than producing a game on one Blu-Ray/HD-DVD...) and it's much cheaper to implement into the console.

I really don't get the hype around HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Sure, it aint too hard to fill up a Blu-Ray disc: Just fill it up with 1080p prerendered content. But since the PS3/Xbox/Revolution will be able to produce such wonderfull realistic real-time graphics (Woooh, MGS4 :P) I think next gen games will have less and less prerendered movies.

Only really big games full of FMV like Final Fantasy XIII will profit from using Blu-Ray.

But, when it comes to it, I personally prefer Blu-Ray to HD-DVD. Why? Because Blu-Ray has more potential. HD-DVD is praticly the limit of what you can do with a red laser... Blue laser tecnology has a lot more future.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It all comes down to how much GIGity your media holds.... giggity giggity giggity

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"#12 b,

Since you think you're all knowledgeable about everything. Let me prove wrong once again.

"And get your facts right: PS3's BD holds 27 GB on one layer, and 54 on two, not 25 and 50."

From the Blu-ray Disc Association, (http://www.bluraydisc.com/general_information/Section-13564/…), in the first paragraph reads "Blu-ray Disc provides 67% more capacity per layer at 25 GB for a single layer and 50GB for a double layer disc."

Why don't you shut your pie-hole because everyone is tired of your badmouthing Xbox360 or anything other than PS3? You think you know things, but in reality, you know JACK!"

Hey dipshit, way to do your research. Did you know that there are three types of blu-ray layers: 23.3, 25 and 27?

To quote:

"There are actually three data capacities with a single-layered disc: 23.3 GB, 25 GB, and 27 GB. A dual-layered double-sided Blu-Ray Disc can hold up 46.6 GB, 50 GB, or 54 GB, without “flipping” sides."

http://timefordvd.com/tutorial/HDDVDTutorial.shtml


Also here:



/this piece of shit doesn't let me add the full URL for translation, so i'll put the original URL/

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/New/cnews/2002/0219b/

which says:

"Main merit

1. Large capacity record of largest
27GB"

"- Main specification
  Record capacity: 23.3 / 25 / 27 GB "

"everyone is tired of your badmouthing Xbox360 or anything other than PS3?"

I'm still buying a 360, but that doesn't stop me from seeing which is superior, get used to it.

I love it when morons try to prove me wrong.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yogarine, HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Ands the problem is more about seek times then anything else. A combination DVD/BR drive has a higher seek time then pure DVD drive. if the first gen drive has horrible seektimes developers will have to put multiple files on a single disk to compensate for the high seek times. if the games are large then they have to launch on a BR-Drive which results in longer load times anyway. So either way the Ps3 will have longer load times which likely wont be too noticeable depending on how effienctly the ram bandwidth is used, however the lack of edram could pose a problem for sony as it has no "hardware" frame buffer.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Keep in mind Resident evil was all prerendered backgrounds and FMV. Stuff that can be compressed using lossy techniques. Something most data on games these days can not.

The N64 offering a better experience is debatable. I for one liked the PS1 with RPGs better.

XBOX360 will not use HD-DVD

"2)BDROM is NOT the media of the future, high capacity flash cards and mini HDDS are. "

Flash is not the medium of the future. The cost/capacity ratio sucks in comparison to optical (DVD/bluray/hddvd) They also have limited write cycles before becoming read only and are very prone to data wiping failure. And no publisher is going to make their games on hard drives.

"DVD 16x (360 DVD drive)"

360 uses a 12 speed

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The report has one glaring omission: the Xbox 360 hard drive. With third party hard drives that could be measured in hundreds of gigabytes or even terabytes and with online distribution of game content to those hard drives, this whole format war might be a red herring."

Uh, what? So everyone is going to be required to buy a 500GB drive for their Xbox360? I don't think so. Games are developed for the lowest common denominator. By your logic, the ability for Nintendo to release a second version of the Revolution with a BlueRay drive also makes this a "red herring". You can't bring non-standard extras into the equation. If this article is true, it doesn't matter if the 360 can add huge hdds or not. It will ultimately be a failure. Any system "could" add anything later, but the base system is what must stand on it's own two feet.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Flash is not the medium of the future. The cost/capacity ratio sucks in comparison to optical (DVD/bluray/hddvd) They also have limited write cycles before becoming read only and are very prone to data wiping failure. And no publisher is going to make their games on hard drives. "

Let alone that Optical discs are MUCH more reliable than flash memory, let alone bullshit hard drives.

54 Gb BD-Disc: 20 dollars (in the beginning)
20 Gb Xbox Hard drive: 100 dollars

Good point

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think when the PS3 ships, the 360 will be updated to HD-DVD to compete, and will still be compatible with the 360 DVD games released to that point.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bandit..

For once it's nice to hear a voice from someone who actually knows what is going on.

I would like to add some insight to that and possibly have people learn why SONY is having trouble with getting the PS3 out so soon. What most don't realize is that the PS3 was designed from the begining to be a media device and not necessarily a "next-gen" gaming machine (It may have been SONY's idea of what next-gen would be). The cell processor performs best as a multihead DVR capable of streaming, decoding and encoding multiple streams of video. It does that because that's what SONY really designed it for. Ken Kutaragi was probably under the impression that making a unified CPU for media and gaming functionality will allow SONY to market their failed "PSX" device a lot cheaper. SONY's understanding of next-gen gaming was that the main CPU of the cell (running at 3.0GHz) would be next-gen enough along with the 7 SPUs used as GPU pipes to process vertex and pixel streams. With the challenge from the XBox camp with their XNA tools, SONY needed to counter that with an easy to use SDK. In doing so, it was only then that they realized their mistake. They may have been building the ultimate media center device, but in gaming capabilities, the PS3 would fall flat on it's face due to it's inability to implement powerful and efficient GPU functionality with it's 7 SPUs. Their assumption of extrapolating the 2 VPUs of the PS2 to 7 SPUs in the PS3 was a pathetic attempt at making a next-gen console considering the technological advances happening in the PC gaming markets, not to mention the state-of-the-art gaming GPU that they heard ATI was making exclusively for the next-gen XBox. You can imagine the trouble Kutaragi San must have gotten into when he realized that he would not only have to increase the cost of the hardware significantly by including a GPU and all the plumbing, etc required to accomodate it, but also have to push out the release of the console significantly in order to accomodate these changes. In such desperate times, was the SONY nVidia alliance born to proclaim the PS3 as a nex-gen game console rightfully. On the brighter side, going with nVidia brings some really nice things to the PS3. nVidia is one of the strong voices on the OpenGL ARB and also have their own dev tools that have been deployed in the PC gaming world and the PS3 gets to use all of those. They now have a decent counter-attack for XNA. With E3 looming up and Microsoft poised to make a sure-shot announcement to release their next-gen console, SONY had to show up and steal the show somehow. They did exactly that. Announcements like BlueRay DVD inclusion and impressive demos stole the show. Having come this far, there are still troubles with the PS3 as a gaming device. To name a few..
- Cache coherency and the transfer of data between the CPU and the SPUs. Basically different game threads will have trouble sharing data. To their disadvantage, XBox 360 just rocks in this department.
- BlueRay is bleeding edge technology and as a result the first-gen drives are not going to be smooth in terms of various perf. characteristics (like the seek times and transfer rates) and doubling them as DVD drives has it's own issues as well.
- Their software emulation layer for the backwards compatibility isn't going as smooth as they want it to be. The sheer number of games that made PS2 a success is coming back to haunt them in their backwards compatibility story. They included the PS hardware in the PS2 and can't do the same in the PS3. As is the costs are skyrocketing!!

Basically, because of the late changes in design, SONY is vigorously trying to iron out all the kinks that are coming in. To make things worse they have announced an aggresive release schedule. How well they fight it out is yet to be seen, but so far we are yet to see the promised playable demos.

One thing I can be sure of. When the PS3 comes out, it will be one amazing media center DVR like device. As for the BlueRay, expect to see problems with the first batch of PS3s. These problems will quickly be corrected before their US launch.

Seeing the problems that SONY is facing, it surely begins to make sense why Microsoft steered away from a next-gen DVD drive and announced limited backwards compatibility.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've been holding out on getting an HDTV until the standards and prices settle down. I'll be doing exactly the same for the next DVD standard. If these big wig studios think we're going to get into a buying war over the standards they have another thing coming. Come on guys, joing the standards, bin one, or release dual standard players. I certainly won't be buying one or the other, I want both in one player!

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#56 b,

Once again you're wrong. You attack the facts:

"And get your facts right: PS3's BD holds 27 GB on one layer, and 54 on two, not 25 and 50."

The link you've pointed to indicates that it does support 25 GB per layer and 50 GB on two layers So the article wasn't wrong to begin with.

Unless you work with Sony, how the hell you know whether PS3 will have 27 GB per layer and not 23.3 GB or 25 GB? You're a being a fortune teller again huh?

Again, shut your pie-hole because no one cares about what you think or say.

"Let alone that Optical discs are MUCH more reliable than flash memory, let alone bullshit hard drives.

54 Gb BD-Disc: 20 dollars (in the beginning)
20 Gb Xbox Hard drive: 100 dollars"

Optical drives are more reliable than flash memory? Really? I like to see you drop an optical drive from high above and see it still functioning. Flash drives are inherently more reliable deives.

Making assumptions about PS3 Blu-ray disc prices? Give it a rest. PS3 is not going to have a recordable BD drive. It's going to have a BD-ROM drive only. Therefore it won't be able to record to the $20 BD recordable discs, but may be (but not likely) play back those discs since those disc are all cartridge based.

You made a point that 20 GB Xbox drive is $100. I know you meant the Xbox360 drive. So I'll forgive you for the faux pas. Anyways, isn't Sony going to come out with a harddrive for the PS3? Why don't you use your futuretelling skills and let us know the size and price of the PS3 drive? You slam Xbox360 for having a $100 drive when your favorite machine will also be using one, but just f'ing over the consumers by not having one by default in the beginning. Yes, Microsoft made a blunder by having 2 SKUs in the beginning, but at least they still give the consumer the option of buying something with a drive or one without. Sony isn't giving the consumers that option if you believe everything they've been saying is true.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still am dying for someone to explain to me how it's the Xbox 1.5.

If you're going by graphics then I say you're wrong. I have not seen any game on any current console that looks like anything on the 360,Condemned and Dead Rising being 2 examples. I don't see how you can go by graphics anyways and then hug Sony when we havent seen anything from them aside from a few trailers and a duck-in-a-bath demo.The PS3 and the 360 I think will be neck and neck with the PS3 having a TINY bit advantage. So then why happens when the PS3 comes out and the game footage looks almost on par with the 360,you just have a nervous breakdown?

You need to look past the graphics and see everything else the Xbox360 has in it,Live being one of them and the ability to plug in your media devices. Don't bother saying "Well,my computer can do that" because PCs and consoles are 2 entirely different things. If you look at it that way then don't even bother gaming on consoles because a PC will always be better than a console and always do more.

Seriously though,what are you people going to do with the PS3? It'll more than likely just have all the same features as the 360.

360 advantage over PS3 - Live (community),customization.

PS3 advantage over 360 - Slightly better graphics,blu-ray drive.

That's just what I think.I just wish you people would explain to me what makes the PS3 so much more "cutting edge" over the 360 aside from the graphics because if that's the way you look at it just go buy a new videocard for your PC and be done.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"If you're going by graphics then I say you're wrong. I have not seen any game on any current console that looks like anything on the 360,"

doa4 nuff said

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
gamer:

You forgot about "Gun"

'nuff said

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
no no gears of war looks like one long cut scene even when its actually in game footage. thats what nex gen is about. an interactive movie experience. and yes blu ray is the nex gen media for MOVIES. games will out grow blu ray and then what. sony will save us with mauve ray technology

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The average xbox game does not use the entire DVD. I think some people are assuming they all do.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
enoS man that is complete BS.

Gears of war does not look like a video. It looks just like any other game really. Besides, the ONLY reason it looks so good and the story is *supposedly* well done is because of the fact that it will have suhc a shitty online play.

I am not trying to trash the game, I am just acknowledging the fact that in the dev interview, they said the online play will be minor.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
man i hate ms and their stupid disc formats for thier 360... i mean wtf just support hd dvd and move back release until like january 06.i dunt wanna go and buy another 360 with hd dvd built in and i definitly dont wanna buy a attachment to use hd dvd. So if they dont support from the beggining then developers wont use it since not many ppl can buy a 360 and a hd dvd attachment and some games.Also there are ppl saying sony is doing same thing for psp and that they are gonna add a hdd to it... well its just the same thing with built in memory it doesnt affect much except for the fact that u dunt have to buy memorysticks.Blu ray is much better anyways it has more capacity and it is clearly gonna be in the ps3 from launch.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ok gears of war looks better than any other game out.but compared to call of duty 2 it looks so good cause call of duty doesnt even look any different from current gen games except for the fact that it has more 3d objects doing things at once.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ok gears of war looks better than any other game out.but compared to call of duty 2 it looks so good cause call of duty doesnt even look any different from current gen games except for the fact that it has more 3d objects doing things at once.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Umm. Neo. CoD2 is a PC port. It is pretty much a current-gen game.

The fact that CoD2 can only support 8-16 players on Live and 64 players on PC online... Says alot about the Xbox 360.

Please. Do not argue until you know what you are argueing about.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
CoD2 is not a direct PC port to the 360.
The game was rewritten for the 360 to use all 3 CPUs amongst other benefits of the console.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dmirtri,

That says nothing about the Xbox 360. It says a lot about the state of broadband in the United States. When you make a game you have to take into account what the average person can handle and still have a good experience. If you can't understand that logic, well then you have no place commenting negatively on games or the consoles they run on.

Also, it's up to the developer to have a smart network design and good object management so they can push the least amount of information over a connection as possible while preserving the world state. The better a company is at this, the more users they can squeeze into multiplayer. For example, Rare has 32 player support in Perfect Dark which means their netcode is superior to InfWd's for the Xbox 360 (likely because PD0’s initial platform was the Xbox 360).

Something else to be considers is that developers haven't really even tapped the Xbox 360's power to be an advantage for networking yet. With the Xbox 360, data compression can be higher because it is able to decode compressed data faster (and potentially on its own thread on one of the cores). Object information is already pretty compressible, but the possibility is always there to make it better.

The Xbox 360 can also use more power towards simulating the world with less specific and more generic information. The more complex and structured a world is setup (hierarchically), the less information you need to provide to predict what will happen as a result of an action.

Lastly, you should consider that Call of Duty 2 was designed for the PC where dedicated servers for hosting games are more likely to be freely put up by the community for use. These servers run in datacenters and can handle way more traffic than the average home user's connection. The developer could have chosen to make an Xbox 360 dedicated server mode so more players could've been supported, but they chose not to (and there are some good reasons for this, but most are solvable).

Using the features of one game to attack the capability of a console is foolish at best.

Nick

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
With this whole "Im happy to keep getting up and putting new DVDs into my xbox 360" thing, you have to realise that there is a point when we need to upgrade data capacity. Even if you only used the discs to install, it will, at some stage get out of hand. Im sure you could've found someone 10 years ago insisting that there is no need for CD drives, since games would have fit on a few floppy discs, but can you imagine installing 5 CDs worth of ut2k4 onto your pc; replacing the floppy disc 22,000 times?

Obviously the size ratio between Blu-ray and DVD is considerably smaller, but games have a tendancy to grow and there may be a time where it is no longer an just inconvenience using dated technology. The thing is, who really knows how big games could get? The raw power of both the PS3 and 360 means that disc space will probably be the limiting factor.

I am not a major supporter of PS3 / 360 either way, but i think PS3 has the right idea of taking Blu-ray on board. I would like to see an HD-DVD drive if not a Blu-ray drive hitting the xbox 360 sometime so that gamers on both platforms can achieve a similar experience when it comes to content-rich games.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not too sure on that "dumb down" for xbox thing. If I was developing a game and have to do it for both system, I'll craft it to fit both.
thus i won't go crazy and fill up one disc just to subtract from the other.
this article is bias.
$500 for bluray and $800 for ps3 sounds more reasonable.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don-t think the this whole DVD vs. Blu-Ray argument matters:
-Didn't I read somewhere that Xbox games have only been single-layered and 360 games will be dual-layered? If that is the case, already compared to current gen, 360 will have almost twice the space.

-And you couple that with the fact, if a previous poster was correct, that there would be less redundant data because of superior seek time.

-And with developers not filling up a single-layer xbox disc now, if, once again, a previous poster was right.

-Lastly, with real-time gaming looking better than other companies CG (oblivion, gears of war), the use of CG will diminish.

Well, it seems to me, 360 really won't have a disc capacity problem. If worse comes to worst, and a game comes on two discs, then fine. Most gamers enjoyed RE4 for gamecube, and that was two discs. And in previous generation, PS1 RPGs that when to 4 discs didn't stop the games from selling well or the console for dominating.

I don't think capacity will be an issue, ever. I think it will be programming ease, networking capability, and most importantly, good and original games.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess my only question would be is: "Is the hard drive really the current bottleneck?" I mean, sure you can have a 200gb game with all of these fancy and realistic textures, but if the CPU, GPU or memory isn't quick enough to process it in game-time, it really does you no good to have that amount of storage, no?

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
you guys are stuck on blu rays storage ability. It is great and it can hold a lot of information. but for games, I dont think its a good move. hard drives are so much better. think about it. how great would it be to pick up your wireless 360 controller press the xbox guide button, because im too lazy to walk over to the console itself to turn it on, select the game i want from my hard drive, select the music i want to listen to while I play and never have to move my lazy ass from the sofa. Ahhh progress

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Flash is not the medium of the future. The cost/capacity ratio sucks in comparison to optical (DVD/bluray/hddvd) They also have limited write cycles before becoming read only and are very prone to data wiping failure. And no publisher is going to make their games on hard drives. "

Let alone that Optical discs are MUCH more reliable than flash memory, let alone bullshit hard drives.

54 Gb BD-Disc: 20 dollars (in the beginning)
20 Gb Xbox Hard drive: 100 dollars

Good point

----------------
Yea, good point, dvd9's are $1?, just means ps3 and xb360 games will look the same, just the ps3 guys are gonna pay $19 more for all their games, sony aint gonna sell em at a loss!
Bad luck.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
this is about the theory that the PS3 might sell to non-gamers as a lone blue-ray player... one thing you have to think about with that, is, how many non-gamers are going to go to a store looking for a blue-ray player, and in the middle of their shopping they stop and say o yeah i remember that the PS3 is only has blue-ray and its only around $500, i'll get that instead of a blue-ray player

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
54 Gb BD-Disc: 20 dollars (in the beginning)
20 Gb Xbox Hard drive: 100 dollars

HD = rewriteable. Say it with me, rewritable.
BD-disc = read only in the PS3. That means you no write to it. If fact, you'll be lucky if you see an 54GB BD disc on the PS3 anytime soon.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think in the end, Blu-ray and HD-DVD will end up as interim media for the upcoming HD content streaming technology that'll be made possible with WiMax

Imagine watching movies-on-demand, on the go, wirelessly, on a "portable screen" with no harddrives and other unncessary hardware, streamed over the air to any location.

Then we'll finally acknowledge the Phantom was the father of the future :D

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmmmm......

I remember a similar article over on engadget, and i doubt anyone will read all the posts before they comment, but hey ho here's what I learned from that.

Distribution, discs are about distribution, I'd never actually considered the multiple discs option but thats actually leveled the playing field for me on the format war. I am a person who downloads everything, the most seeders and leechers i've ever seen in a torrent is 8000 in total, say that thats hosted over a month or so and your not even close to the amount of people who buy discs. People are slow to take up on new technology, even technology driven gamers I know I was. Fact of the matter is games are going to come out on discs for at least another 2 years, maybe more, and a stupid thing like HDDVD or BLURAY isn't going to stop devs putting things on two discs, hell i'm waiting for sega to lauch their HVD based console and rip off the arm of the 'leaders' and beat them with the soggy end. I joke of course, i play sony and msoft consoles equally.
So yeah, I terms of gaming I think the disc format war is a waste of time, whatever read speed you've got it's no substitute for ram, which I think both consoles are lacking. I would like to shoot more that 50 bullets in a game before the shells start to go missing, you can't read that info of a disc now can you.
Comments appreicated

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I get sick of all these damn ps3 fanboys calling the 360 the xbox 1.5 shut the hell up ok look at halo and halo 2 in graphics big change why you cause they learn about the xbox power over the few years you cant take a 360 and make a next gen game look great right away look at gears of war great looking y cause its not coming out till next year so they have time to learn about the 360 power everything also DOA3 on xbox and DOAXBV on xbox XBV looked alot better cause they learned the power of it so give the 360 time to see truely great looking next gen games and nit prerended ps3 shit

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Joystiq's readership sure has deterioratied recently.

This is the stupidest console fight I've read in ages. How can you fight about which console will be better when one of them doesn't even exist yet? Maybe it's time to reserve judgement. I remember all of the hype that the PS2 never lived up to, and that's made me bitter towards Sony. Nonetheless, their console doesnt have a physical existance in this realm yet, so deciding whether it will be better/worse is a slightly presumptuous.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
xbox 1.5 what!

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#56 b,

”Once again you're wrong. You attack the facts:”

"And get your facts right: PS3's BD holds 27 GB on one layer, and 54 on two, not 25 and 50."

”The link you've pointed to indicates that it does support 25 GB per layer and 50 GB on two layers So the article wasn't wrong to begin with.”

”Unless you work with Sony, how the hell you know whether PS3 will have 27 GB per layer and not 23.3 GB or 25 GB? You're a being a fortune teller again huh?”

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/playstation-three5.htm

There, 54 GB.

”Again, shut your pie-hole because no one cares about what you think or say.”

I’ll be sure to once I see everyone want your uninformed opinion.

"Let alone that Optical discs are MUCH more reliable than flash memory, let alone bullshit hard drives.

54 Gb BD-Disc: 20 dollars (in the beginning)
20 Gb Xbox Hard drive: 100 dollars"

”Optical drives are more reliable than flash memory? Really? I like to see you drop an optical drive from high above and see it still functioning. Flash drives are inherently more reliable drives.”

Umm, can you read? You even copy pasted: It says Optical DISCS, not drives. An optical disc, meaning: CD, DVD, BD, HD-DVD, etcetera. They are very reliable for storing information for a lot of time, longer than flash drives which could sometimes have damaged information (as in memory cards), and much longer than the (dated) Hard Drives that may fail some time. Just do some research.

”Making assumptions about PS3 Blu-ray disc prices? Give it a rest. PS3 is not going to have a recordable BD drive. It's going to have a BD-ROM drive only. Therefore it won't be able to record to the $20 BD recordable discs,.”

I don’t remember when I said “PS3 will record BD discs”, but if you would be so kind to tell me, I’d appreciate, thank you. And the point of the initial BD prices was about the initial cost of Blu-ray games. Not like all PS3 games will be on a BD if they don’t need to. I think only masterpieces that would deserve having almost one layer of a BD will cost that much anyway (because of development costs and especially the cost of the disc of course). Also, the point of mentioning that the cost of a much more dense blu-ray disc compared to the 360 Hard Drive is that Microsoft wants to, in the future, stop using the more reliable discs and charge us rent for games installed on (unreliable) hard drives. So I want my games STORED on reliable discs, no fucking rent.

”but may be (but not likely) play back those discs since those disc are all cartridge based”

Disc Media
CD PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD, DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side)
DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614682p1.html

“You made a point that 20 GB Xbox drive is $100. I know you meant the Xbox360 drive. So I'll forgive you for the faux pas. Anyways, isn't Sony going to come out with a harddrive for the PS3? Why don't you use your futuretelling skills and let us know the size and price of the PS3 drive?”

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/games/news/2005/06/21/ps3harddrivewillbe80gig.html

“You slam Xbox360 for having a $100 drive when your favorite machine will also be using one, but just f'ing over the consumers by not having one by default in the beginning. Yes, Microsoft made a blunder by having 2 SKUs in the beginning, but at least they still give the consumer the option of buying something with a drive or one without. Sony isn't giving the consumers that option if you believe everything they've been saying is true.”

I’m dying to know, so you have foretold the future and said that Sony isn’t going to have 2 SKUs, or are you taking it out of your ass? Oh, and the difference is that 360 needs the Hard Drive for backwards compatibility.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How can u call xbox 360 xbox 1.5. You guys havent even played it yet. The xbox 360 has practically the same tech specs as the ps3....except the blu-ray.... which is a bunch of b.s. No game will ever fill up 50gb... most people dont even have a hdtv yet, why would they want to spend more money buying the ps3 and a hdtv... you guys have this mental block against xbox 360 because you have ps2 now and think that it is better than xbox....where in fact xbox is better than ps2...... just like the xbox 360 will be with the ps3. I mean the graphics are so good now that the differences are small. You guys are basing your opinoins on what the graphics of the 360 looked like at E3 and what the ps3's looked like. The ps3's will not look that good....its a bunch of hype like sony always does. How can u say xbox 360 is weak when it has basically the same hardware, is cheaper, will have xbox live and you havent even played it????????

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
xbox 1.5 still! you jealous fanboy and i did not know you can see in to the the future to know the ps3 games will not look as good as the e3 demos. so stop this jealous bs like oh the ps3 demos look to much better than xbox 360 its not possible.

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Xbox 360 is much betta then da shitty PS3; fukin £450. RIP-OFF. R.I.P PS3 u deserved to get shitted on

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All of you are crazy. Don't you think by the time they are able to make a 50gb game that hddvd well have a new format to hold it? I mean think about it and lets just end this retarded arguement. Xbox rocks and you know it don't hate what playstation can't imatate. Xbox 1.5 pssssha right ... more like ps3's IDOL! 54 Gb BD-Disc: 20 dollars (in the beginning)
20 Gb Xbox Hard drive: 100 dollars" you'll only have to buy that once, more then likely oh wait it comes with it ... and are the ps3 games gonna be blank ... $20 hahaha more like $70-$80 for each disk ... come on lets think before we post people. and who can you compare a disk with a harddrive in the first place ?!?!?! Crazy man ... one more ting the battle between bd & hddvd is between them two developers it should have nothing to do with the X and ps3 in the preformence and quality of game play ... and that's what matters isn't it not the damn disk the game is on but how it fugging looks and plays ... later Debators

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 9:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 specifications have been announced, it is possible to do a real world performance comparison of the two systems.

There are three critical performance aspects of a console:

* Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance.
* The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell.
* Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance
* The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU.
* Memory System Bandwidth
* The memory system bandwidth in Xbox 360 exceeds the PS3's by five times.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW