Analyst: Sony from first to worst?

Alwayzbusi, at least I can spell properly. As far as your beloved technological improvement, it is NOT NECESSARY IN CONSOLE GAMING. For the last friggin time, it it not needed. If it was needed, PC gaming would follow suit, and guess what, it isn't. Why? Because PC developers do not feel the need to pack their games full of pre-rendered movies that cannot be done with the engines they're basing their work off of. The only developers I know of who are compelled to put more HD pre-rendered cinematics than actually game play onto a disk are the Japanese developers and, as of right now and for the next few years, they will be the only ones bitching about the limitations to DVD storage. Furthermore, Alwayz, have you actually looked at what the Unreal 3 and Crysis engines can render? IF you have, then you would realize that the storage-hogging pre-rendered cinematics need to be killed off, and there would go the only reason those Japanese developers are bitching.

I'm ignoring blu-ray because yeah, it may be an improvement, but it is not a necessary improvement. If those select few developers would pull their heads from their asses and actually try to make a game look visually stunning, you'd have a $300 or $400 PS3 with a DVD-rom. It takes a great developer to make a game look photo-realistic without having to resort to cutscenes. The lazy ones who don't feel like making their dev kits sweat blood for every last polygon are the only ones who have to resort to such cinematic trickery.

Furthermore, Alwayz, it's a technological improvement that few will actually make use of. HD movies? HD movies would fit quite easily onto a dual layer DVD if Toshiba and Sony didn't feel like using Mpeg 1 and Mpeg 2 file formats, both of which are known for taking up a lot of space. The only consumers who would ever make good use of blu-ray discs solely for their storage are PC enthusiasts who regularly back up data.

You say I'm ignoring console history, but I beg to differ. In the N64-Playstation era, CD's were a god send because they offered a lot more space than what would ever be available on cartidges, but most importanty, they were CHEAPER to develop for (and in the long run, cheaper for the consumer) than the technology they were replacing. I remember mutliconsole games costing over $60 on the N64 while being less than $50 for the same title on the Playstation. Back then, CD's had a discernable edge over cartridges. DVD's had an advantage over CD's in that there was an actual need for the technology. CD's couldn't hold a candle to DVD's when it came to in game data storage. Blu-ray, on the other hand, has no discernable advantage over dual layer DVD's in terms of in game data. Furthermore, unlike CD vs. Cartridge technology, Blu-ray IS NOT cheaper to make than dual layer DVDs and it is NOT CHEAPER to develop for than dual layer DVD's. Sorry, that's how the cookie friggin crumbles. It'll cost developers more to put their games onto Blu-ray than it will on the only other format they have to contend with, and in the long run, it'll cost the consumer a lot more. That means fewer multiconsole titles, and it'll mean developers will shy to whom ever offers the cheapest solution. It happened to Nintendo over a decade ago, don't think it can't or won't happen to Sony. Also, have you actually ever considered that most PS3 titles won't take up 1/2 the space offered by a single Blu-ray disc? If you're playing a game that only takes up 9 gigs, wouldn't you be paying for a premium unnecessarily? If you paid $70 for a port of a $60 Xbox 360 title with no extras or improvements, wouldn't you feel just ever so stupid?

Go ahead and keep on drinking Sony brand kool-aid. Keep on eating the bullshit their marketing gives you by the boatloads. I'll be content knowing that, when I play a PC, Xbox 360, or Wii title, I didn't pay a premium for a technology I'm never going to use and that my game's developers never asked for nor needed. I'll also be content knowing that while I do so, you hardcore, pro-Sony "I'm blind to reality" idgets cry over how much playing your console is going to cost you.

@ 81 you think blu ray will catch on at a price of 600 dollars for the first year with 6million ps3 sold the 1st year according to sony i highly doubt it espicially since the price of the ps3 alienates most of the mass market espicially the infamous and trouble some casual gamer. Both HDdvd or blu ray wont catch on, dvd still has a good 4 years left in its life and with such devices as media centers coming into the market, it seems possible that DVR with digital distribution will replace dvd instead of blu ray or hddvd. Of course gamers want more expansive worlds with more characters and content but gamers want that for cheap. What about madden is madden going to have mroe atheletes more stadiums no. More on a disc makes the game more expensive, something that the playstation fanbase dont really want except if its in GTA and GTA only. Plus the ps3 has not come out yet so there is no ps3 fanbase at the moment unless your assuming 100million people will buy a ps3 like they did with the ps1 and ps2. IF sony does not drop the ps3 to 300-400 dollars by xmas 07 then expect the casual gamer not to buy a ps3 to play madden 08 or gta4. And oh yeah the apple ipod is the most popular music player on the market but how many people will pay 400 dollars for a 60gigabyte music player, not much. Most music listeners either purchase the nano 2 gig or the video 20 gig. 400 dollar ipod is hardcore music listenres teh same way the 600 dollar ps3 is for hardcore gamers, unfornantely 500-600 dollar ps3 is still too expensive for the masses of casual gamers and image concious pre teens and teens who want to be cool.

I've been predicting this for a while now. Keeping track of what's going on in the console and handheld markets is (sort of, I don't get paid for it) my job. I'll admit, I have a Nintendo bias, but between all of the polls and E3 response, I'd say that the PS3 will almost certainly bring Sony down to third place in market share. As for who's first, it'll be close, but assuming the Wii turns out to be as fun for those who tried it at E3 (and I interviewed one of them myself) I'll say Nintendo will be able to claim that distinction. Microsoft undoubtedly made a good decision to come up with the Wii60 idea for marketing. There's also the issue of Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD that the PS3 is a major factor in. If Blu-Ray loses, then what market is left for the PS3?

#99 You keep talking about need. Is a Ferrari needed? No. Do I need $1,000,000.00? No. Does any consumer really NEED any game console? No. Don't you see the pattern here? Right, BluRay's not needed but it lets game developers think on a larger scale. In the end letting gamers play on a larger scale. You mention the N64 VS PS1, the big factor that you overlook is that PS1 had a much LARGER STORAGE CAPASITY for a RELATIVELY CHEAPER COST PER MB. How much would it cost for DVD9 to have the same storage as BluRay? It would take 5 DVD9s to compete with a Single BluRay (Witch do you think has the better COST PER GIG?). On launch day, PS1 games were barely using a 10th of the CD. But developers knew that more storage at a cheaper cost was the way to go and backed the PS1 more. And yeah, If I pay more for my Madden than you I wouldn't feel stupid because I know I can play that plus the other stuff that couldn't have been made on DVD. Hey, does a Lamborgini owner feel stupid for buying premium gas? I don't think so.

#96 "BluRay is overkill. Like dropping a nuclear weapon on a deer instead of using a .30-06 rifle."

Your analogy isn't accurate. Deer are not constantly getting bigger, smarter, faster or more agressive. But games are constantly getting bigger and more advanced with each generation. If deer were like games then the .30-06 would be like CD, the deer would just walk away when you shoot it.

@ ALWAYZBUSI

I see your point in your response to part of my post. That is why i suggest the Blu-ray as an add on. I think you may be slightly deluded and uneducated at just how long and how costly(cash and production hours) a 50Gb game would be to all but the fewest, biggest devs out there. Would, and should they be prepared to take the financial risk that Bluray gaming MAY pose to them and their business? I guess thats why huge huge devs such as Sega and Ubisoft want a PS3 price drop in '07 bud. I am now taking bets that MGS4 and FFXIII will come on DVD format

alwayzbusi-

That wasn't the point of the analogy. A tactical nuke and a .30-06 round will both kill a deer with a single attack, but one costs millions of dollars and the other is $1.75. Both get the job done to the same level since in either case the deer has died, just one is clearly more economical.

Deer (PS3) needs to be taken down with a .30-06 (DVD9). Deerzilla (PS4) will need the tactical nuke (BluRay).

At the end of the day, BluRay costs more for space that won't be needed FOR THE PS3. We're not going to see many PS3 games that require more than 9 gigs when the unecessary pre-rendered movies are stripped from the disk.

Yes, it is inevitable that gaming, and every other application that optical media has, will eventually need to grow beyond the ~9GB of data per side possible with the DVD format. But I don't think that day has come for gaming yet, and I don't think it will come in the next 4-5 years. That makes Blu-Ray a waste of money.

I remember swapping floppies dozens of times while playing through King's Quest IV; it was a pain, but it didn't kill my enjoyment. Certainly no more than the 30+ second load times that are all too common on single-disc games of today.

I could have avoided all that swapping, too, if I had installed KQIV to hard disk instead of playing from removable media. With the prices of multi-multi-gigabyte hard drives falling every day, I wonder how long it will be until console makers start encouraging developers to have games that install to hard disk, as the PC game makers did 20 years ago.

No game this gen, as far as I'm aware, passed the 4.7GB single-layer mark. If any did, it wasn't by much. Most games I've seen are around 2 to 3 GB.

A game can be expanded across several DVDs without the need to limit the player; though I agree it takes some thinking. Example - say the game world, minus one-time cinematics, one-time music, etc, is about 6GB. Put it on each of several discs, then put all the one-time clips in the remaining 3GB.

For instance, FFXIV could be on 3 DVDs. In this example, the game could be 6GB, while the HD videos could total another 9GB. You would change discs at a certain point in the game, but you'd always be able to go back to the areas from disc one, without changing back to that disc.

There have been plenty of games that expanded several CDs, why can't the same be done of DVDs?

What's interesting is that it's HD content that takes so much space; so the 360 will be the console that has to manuever around content if games expand that much. The Wii will be fine since it won't be pushing HD and has discs that store about 5 times as much as the GC discs.

I don't expect games to instantly quadruple in size just because the storage space is there. To me, using Blu-Ray in the PS3 is like putting a DVD in the original PlayStation (ok, DVD wasn't out at the time, but you get the point). It's plain overkill.

Instead, I think the Blu-Ray is there to promote the HighDef discs and to get players to the consumers. It's also an attempt at piracy control.

Yes, you get the ability to play movies in a new format, out of the box, with the PS3. But, even for the consumer who can afford a $600 machine, who wants to make that kind of investment on an unsolidifed format? The Blue Ray vs. HDVD argument isn't settled, and nobody wants to own a $600 Betamax device. The biggest mark against the PS3 is not it's price, but it's attempt to sell us a piece of hardware, with a main selling point (A Blue-Ray player) that may be worthless once the dust settles on the format war.

@51, Staticneuron said:
"There is no issue with discussing but it seems as if most are assuming what the general market is going to do. No one will spend that much on the ps3 is whats being said. But i just overheard a conversation in Gamestop where this entire group of teens, after reeling from the price, said they would get the system if the games were worth it. That is pretty much what sums up this next gen arguement. It's not the Price, graphics, Motion sensing tiddly sticks, Its the games pure and simple."

Um....whose money will this group of teens be spending? If mom and dad don't want to spend that much money on their kids, they better have a whole bunch of x-mas and b-day moeny saved up. Oh yeah, and if they do, and they have it in the bank, they need their parents approval to take it out. Do you think that a lot of parents are going to want their kid to spend a thousand dollars worth of their college savings ($1000 = a PS3, extra controller and 3 games) on a video game system? I doubt it.

PS3 will sell out at launch, but come Feb PS3 sales are going to nose dive!

vidGuy -

The "HD Factor" isn't really all that big. The above examples I gave are uncompressed PC games, which have been doing HD for years. HD doesn't exactly require a lot more storage space. In fact, because of the console's standardization, they'll likely require less than the PC counterpart.

#107 "No game this gen, as far as I'm aware, passed the 4.7GB single-layer mark. If any did, it wasn't by much. Most games I've seen are around 2 to 3 GB"

I beg to differ. I have a copy of MGS3 Subsistence and it is over 7Gigs. I beat the game in under 20 hours and all cutscenes are done with the in game engine. DOA 4 is a mere fighting game witch wieghs in at a hefty 6.6 Gigs. if either of these titles had 2.5 more Gigs of data they would not fit on a single DVD9. The point that some people are missing here is that this game idustry is a market share competition (even for developers). So every developer wants to make the best game possible to sell the most units. Of course they will not be using the whole 50GBs of data on BD off the bat. But they don't have to make a game thats 30, 20, or even 15GB all it takes is 10 or more Gigs of pure data in a "free rome" style game to eclipse DVD for games. And no, the developers are not using this space now because they are not even thinking on that scale YET. Think about this. No, I don't need $1,000,000, but do you think for one second that I wouldn't use it if I had it?

Alwaysbuzi,
You know what the difference is between the PS3 and the Ferrari? With the Ferrari, they fabricate their vehicles specifically for a niche, rich or speed freak market and they don't cram bullshit down your throat on a regular basis. Everything from the carbon fiber body to the super V10 or V12 engines they implement revolves around that particular niche; if you aim for the most financially capable market, they pay to get the best of everything. Every little technological improvement that is to be found in their vehicles is built in specifically because their cars have a need for it. Like carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is far stronger than fiber glass, has a tensile strength which rivals or surpasses steel, and it is an extremely light weight material. Why make most of the parts for their cars from the material? It may be exotic and expensive, but shaving weight off makes the for a more fuel efficient and less load burdened vehicle. Furthermore, strength in regards to the body of any vehicle is a relatively important thing and as of right now, carbon fiber cannot be beat. Essentially, that technology was implemented almost immediately because it had a practical application that warranted its use. The same can't be said for Blu-ray, or to some degree, the CELL processor you fanboys lust over. Are they technological improvements? Yeah. Does this mean that they need to be shoved into a product that will make little, if any use of them? NO.

And you say I overlooked the CD vs. Cartridge statement in regards to the Playstation generation. Did you not just parrot what I had written? CD's were cheaper to develop for than cartridges; cheaper to develop for means that they offered a lot higher capacity than what cartridges ever could while keep the cost per Mb minimum. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to make it so blatantly fucking obvious. I just assumed that, when someone reads, "Higher capacity, cheaper to develop for" he would generally assume that the cost per Mb on CD's was minimal compared to cartridges. Silly me, I mistook you for being just a little bit more intelligent than what you actually are.

As far as your little, "Which do you think has the better cost per gig?" Seeing as how several dual layer DVD's are a fraction of the cost of a single blu-ray disc, dual layer DVD's are still cheaper per gig. Go ahead and keep on eating the Sony "you need blu-ray in the PS3" bullshit that they are currently feeding you, because, no matter what you say, there is not a game in the foreseeable that will even come close to taking up half the space on a single layer blu-ray disc. THE ONLY WAY a game will take up that much space, and I've said it so many times in my posts that if you can't accept or comprehend it CJD is surely eating away at your brain matter, is if developers choose to pack a game full of storage hogging HD pre-rendered material which SHOULD NOT BE PRESENT IN NEXT GEN VIDEO GAMES. The whole point of next gen gaming is to eliminate the need for pre-rendered material. If you have a 25 gb disc, and only 1/4 of it is occupied by material that is actually playable, you don't have a game; you have a movie that is barely interactive and you paid a premium for it unnecessarily. Go take a look at Crysis, UT 2007, Resident Evil 5, or (to some degree) Gears of War. All look fantastic, almost cinematic running in real time and if there is a brief cutscene, it's running off of the engine. And guess what? All will fit comfortable onto the dual-layer DVD format, with the exception of UT 2007 (Epic decided to put it on the PS3). You can say, "More expansive worlds" all you friggin want to, but as better compression technology evolves next to the video games that will be using them, you will simply be astounded at how much will fit into a 9 Gb disk. In 3 years time, a game with thrice to even 4x the amount of space, characters, and scenarios than what is currently offered by Oblivion will still be able to fit onto a 9 Gb disc if compressed properly.

Oh, and alwayzbusi...I'll still be playing my PC, Wii, and Xbox 360 titles at a cheaper cost than what their ports are going to cost you all the while chuckling at how you're getting screwed. But hey, if delusion helps ease the pain, by all means, stay delusional. By the way, Lambourghini drivers never feel stupid for having to buy super unleaded simply because they have a V12 engine THAT ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES IT. I mean, who would've guessed that a performance engine needs performance gasoline?

#112 "Seeing as how several dual layer DVD's are a fraction of the cost of a single blu-ray disc, dual layer DVD's are still cheaper per gig"

And exactly how smart are you supposed to be, making statments like the above one? You can't be talking about DVD-R versus BD-R becuase noone knows BD-R prices yet. So what are you saying? That you can buy 5 copies of a DVD movie but the BD version will cost more than all 5? You may be able to talk more bullshit than me (you = tons of bs, me = zero bs), but in no way can you match my logic. Technicaly speaking, what can the 360 do that PS3 can't? Nothing. But what can the PS3 do that the 360 can't? 10 or more Gig fighting games, racing games, multiplayer FPSs, and any other games that could benefit from more space but can't be multidisk.

alwayzbusi-

Here are figures of the Metal Gear series on the PS2 and how much disk space they used:

MGS2: Sons of Liberty ---------- 4.25 gb

MGS3: Snake Eater ----------- 4.39gb

MGS3: Subsistence --------------- 4.35gb

As it stands, they only used a single-layer DVD, 4.7 gigs, to run, not the 7 you're claiming. If anything, improved programming and compression methods SHRUNK Subsistence, even after adding in multiplayer and the original Metal Gear games as extras over the original release.

Few PS2 games come on dual layer disks, the most notable being the two Xenosaga games because of the high cutscene content and Gran Turismo 4, because of its massive model database. Still, both fit comfortably on a DVD9 with plenty of room to spare.

DOA4 could have saved 1.5 gigs of space by cutting the pre-rendered cinematics it had in the game and using the game engine instead, pushing it close to a single-layer DVD capacity.

Again, BluRay is unecessary for PS3 development and will do nothing but promote sloppy programming, which is bad for everyone.

#115 "MGS3: Subsistence --------------- 4.35gb"

No, your wrong, either your copy is missing disk 2 and you don't know it, or you purposely excluded half of the game to trick people. Disk 1 is 4.35GB but disk 2 is 2.79GB Giving MGS3 Subsistence a total of 7.14GB of game data. So everything you said after that has no real point.

Disk 2 is the supplemental disk, meaning extras. So, what we have are folks whining that they need BluRay to tack on extras. Great argument. I think I'm done here.

Wait? MGS3: Subsistence is 7GB? Cool!

But it comes on two DVDs?

Gotcha.

Two dual-layer DVDs = 18GB. Almost enough room for MGS3:Subsistence to triple and not need another disc.

Thanks, LaughingTarget, I just assumed that HD content tended to be big since HD movies are in the 20-40GB range, where SD movies are 3-7GB. There is a world of difference between a 2 hour movie and a dozen one or two minute clips, though, so I don't think we'll see a games' cinematics weigh in at 10+ GB in the next decade.

#118 If you call the entire multiplayer mode extras then you don't have a clue about games and need to stop typing. Multiplayer is on Disk 2 NOT Disk 1.

#115 "Again, BluRay is unecessary for PS3 development and will do nothing but promote sloppy programming, which is bad for everyone."

More bs. So where is all of this "bad programming" going to come from? So your saying that when a developer begins programming for the PS3, all of the sudden their standard codeing knowledge goes out the window? That's like saying if a Data Entry clerk gets an upgraded computer, then he/she will make more typing mistakes. Total bs. Developers will not develop poorly unless they want to be poor. Instead they will continue programing the way they do, and have more time to add whatever they want to their game rather than spending development time compressing what they've already done.

Did a bit more research.

It turns out that most of the MGS3: Subsistence disk 2 is just a straight copy-paste of files from disk 1.

Konami had two options for Subsistence:

Option 1 was to rework the entire game to allow the multiplayer aspect to work and place it on one single dual-layer disk. This would have pulled around 500-600 megs according to various rips of the disks to a PC hard drive. The problem with this is it would take extra work to re-do the front-end menu system to properly take advantage of the new multiplayer feature. Not a good idea given that Subsistence would not garner much sales to warrant the extra development cost.

Option 2 was to simply re-include Snake Eater as the stand alone game it was (essentially the exact same DVD) and put in a second disk with the additional content. This would result in cheaper development costs to add the new feature, but would result in a much larger game. Konami had to take all the models, graphics, textures, engine information, sounds, and AI from disk 1 and stuff it on disk 2.

Essentially, you cannot just add the two disks together and come up with 7 gigs of space. 90% of disk 2 is redundant data. Half-Life 2 would take up 8 gigs if I installed twice in two different folders, that doesn't mean it is an 8 gig game.

Subsistence, at most, is around 4.8 gigs when all the duplicate files are removed. It CAN be construed as sloppy programming to use 2.5 gigs of space when 500 megs could have been used to the same effect, but due to time and financial aspects, this time around it wasn't.

Alwayzbusi,
Yes, several dual layer DVDs are cheaper than a single blu-ray disc. Furthermore, manufacturing blu-ray discs is more expensive due to several reasons. 1) Whereas dual-layer DVDs can be manufactured on existing DVD presses without a problem or extra cost(as could HD-DVDs), blu-ray requires an entirely different press all together. 2) Because blu-ray layers are extremely thin and delicate (if they weren't, you couldn't burn up to 8 layers worth of data onto the disc), TDK had to make a specialized coating specifically to protect the disc. This coating effectively makes the blu-ray disc a lot more scratch resistant than any DVD (single, dual layer, or HD DVD) but it's relatively expensive to do (if everyone else was using it, that wouldn't be the case). When you figure in the manufacturing costs, yes, several dual-layer DVDs cost less per gig than a single layer blu-ray disc.
Old formats inevitably get cheaper (even you can't deny this) while new formats start off high and progressively work their way down the fiancial ladder over a period of several years based on how well consumers recieve it.

As for your 10 or more gigs for fighting games, I honestly say I can do without the pre-rendered cinematics which make up the bulk of any game's storage needs. Multiplayer FPSs exist NOW ON single layer DVDs, are in development for dual layer DVDs, and they will fill a 9 Gb rather comfortably. As I said before in one of my first posts, the only developers that MIGHT make use of single layer blu-ray disc are Square Enix and Hideo Kojima, simply because they like to match or exceed gameplay with cinematic crapola. Furthermore, both are relatively a moot point to Xbox 360 owners because most of their titles are Sony exclusive; Hideo Kojima has stated repeatedly that MGS4 will only be on the PS3 and Square Enix hasn't shown further commitment to the Xbox 360. I'd gather that their decision is based less on disc storage capacity (they could make their games fit if they so desired or put them onto two DL DVD discs) and console limitations than it is on which console will sell more titles in their home nation (but will do relatively well outside of the pacific); the PS3 is virtually guaranteed to sell more consoles in that nation within a year than the Xbox 360 will within its entire life span. If you were a Japanese developer, Alwayzbusi, what console would you want to put your console selling games on? One which will dominate in Europe, North America, but certainly not Japan, or one which will dominate in Japan but will have ever so slightly less than equal footing in the other two continents mentioned? If you're looking to sell the most units of your game in the shortest amount of time, you'd probably take the second route, would you not?

Did a bit more research.

It turns out that most of the MGS3: Subsistence disk 2 is just a straight copy-paste of files from disk 1.

Konami had two options for Subsistence:

Option 1 was to rework the entire game to allow the multiplayer aspect to work and place it on one single dual-layer disk. This would have pulled around 500-600 megs according to various rips of the disks to a PC hard drive. The problem with this is it would take extra work to re-do the front-end menu system to properly take advantage of the new multiplayer feature. Not a good idea given that Subsistence would not garner much sales to warrant the extra development cost.

Option 2 was to simply re-include Snake Eater as the stand alone game it was (essentially the exact same DVD) and put in a second disk with the additional content. This would result in cheaper development costs to add the new feature, but would result in a much larger game. Konami had to take all the models, graphics, textures, engine information, sounds, and AI from disk 1 and stuff it on disk 2.

Essentially, you cannot just add the two disks together and come up with 7 gigs of space. 90% of disk 2 is redundant data. Half-Life 2 would take up 8 gigs if I installed twice in two different folders, that doesn't mean it is an 8 gig game.

Subsistence, at most, is around 4.8 gigs when all the duplicate files are removed. It CAN be construed as sloppy programming to use 2.5 gigs of space when 500 megs could have been used to the same effect, but due to time and financial aspects, this time around it wasn't.