100Gb Blue Ray to work on PS3
- Thread starter msmalls74
- Start date
omg what is wrong with you people? All I am saying is that as things advance, devs will need more space on the media, if this is not the case then why are we still not using Atari 2600 cartridges for our 360 and PS3 games?
I'm not saying its going to happen overnight but it will happen...
I'm not saying its going to happen overnight but it will happen...
Yes it will be needed in the future, by not by a PS3, PS3 is a gen behind current hardware, and even the current hardware doesn't use 50GB yet, so when we hit PS4; when games use 4096x4096 textures and an FPS lasts on average 20hours then we will see the need for that space.
Samione, you might want to clarify 'a PS3 is a gen behind current hardware', otherwise a few people might take swipes at you. 
I'm sure you mean PC hardware in which case you're absolutely correct; I've yet to see any PC games go more than a DVD's worth except for World of Warcraft. I believe Crysis takes up only a DVD, so that goes some way in showing that you don't really need tons of space if you want to reenact large open environments with plenty of graphical lustre.
(and Mass Effect for the Xbox 360 but that's just opening a can of worms with some people really)
I'm sure you mean PC hardware in which case you're absolutely correct; I've yet to see any PC games go more than a DVD's worth except for World of Warcraft. I believe Crysis takes up only a DVD, so that goes some way in showing that you don't really need tons of space if you want to reenact large open environments with plenty of graphical lustre.
(and Mass Effect for the Xbox 360 but that's just opening a can of worms with some people really)
Samione, you might want to clarify 'a PS3 is a gen behind current hardware', otherwise a few people might take swipes at you.
I'm sure you mean PC hardware in which case you're absolutely correct; I've yet to see any PC games go more than a DVD's worth except for World of Warcraft. I believe Crysis takes up only a DVD, so that goes some way in showing that you don't really need tons of space if you want to reenact large open environments with plenty of graphical lustre.
Yes I mean PC hardware
, DX10, Multicore CPU's etc. And yeah, Crysis is testament to the fact you don't need this tech at current, and that it certainly won't be properly and effeciently utilized by a PS3, enjoy your multilingual audio
lol, I'm not going to say that more space is pointless, there just aren't that many arguments for why a game would take up 100Gb instead of 7ish Gb...
From your examples:
More textures: The number of textures in games really isn't limited by the disk space, it's more to do with the platform's memory performance.
More sounds: How many sounds do you want, I can't remember last time I played a game and thought "omg there's no car sound that pants..."
Better quality Sound: Most people do not have the equipment or could even notice with the right equipment the different between Digital 5.1 and uncompressed audio.
More cutscenes: Wow, because we want more of those.
The PS3 uses a custom variation of OpenGL which is equally as capable as Direct X 10. Longtime PC users would know that OpenGL is a very powerful and flexible API. It was with this API that bumpmapping and parallax mapping and such was made possible even on GeForce 2 video cards (see Doom 3 and John Carmack-related stuff on OpenGL).
MGS will probably use all the space for 300 hours of movies to watch, exciting stuff I am sure
MGS cutscenes are rendered in the game engine, so they don't take up a whole lot of space.
Change MGS for Final Fantasy and you are spot on
What an amusing thread.
Bluray isn't used only for games!
Imagine having an optical burner in your PC, that you could backup 100gb at a time onto one disk?
When I first spotted this thread, the first thing I thought of was movies.
HD-DVD dual layer can only hold 30gb, bluray was 50gb.
Meaning the bluray versions could use a higher bitrate/more extras etc, as well as 7.1 uncompressed audio.
The argument that not many people have equipment capable of using uncompressed 7.1 will naturally change during the bluray and PS3 life cycle, as prices drop, meaning when people go back to play older films/games, they can take advantage of it. Better to add it now, even if you can't use it yet?
As far as games goes, I'm no software developer, but if the software developers ARE stating that they're finding DVD9 too limited, how can people on here argue? People stating about how much extra time it would take to fill a bluray. What about the amount of time it takes to optimize your game/textures, or cut bits out, to make it fit on a DVD9?
It is the same old argument all over again.
When games like Wing Commander 4 were coming on multiple floppies, or a CD. People saying how pointless it was, and how they'd never fill a CD.. we were wowed by the CD-ROM video cutscenes etc.
Then came DVD. On the PC it seemed to take an eternity (to me) until games used DVD. I was buying games with 2-3 CDs (which people thought they'd never fill) rather than a single DVD.
Most PC games now seem to be a rather full DVD9, and even games like Stranglehold use 2xdvd9! On the PC of course, it doesn't matter so much, as it's installed to a HDD. Why does the XBOX360 version only take up 1 dvd9? I've no idea, maybe they lowered the quality of the textures/sound, I've no idea, but the fact remains it takes up 2xdvd9 on the PC.
Games are getting bigger, they need more storage. Simple as that!
Once games start taking up multiple DVD9, then of course it will be better to use a single bluray, just as it was better to game with a single dvd, rather than multiple CDs.
As for people saying how pointless 100gb blurays are, what should the boffins do? Say, "ok boys, we'll never need more than 50gb storage, let's give up and go down the pub?"
IMO good that they've managed to squeeze 100gb onto a bluray.
Good that the PS3 is (or will be) compatible with them, so that if a game/movie uses these disks, my current drive will do fine.
Good that progress is being made, well done!
Phew, sorry, turned into a bit of a rant there, as I simply can't understand why anybody would argue that managing 100gb on a bluray, and it being compatible with current hardware, is anything other than a good thing?
V1N.
EDIT: oops! and now I see where the argument about games came from I didn't notice the post under the quote in the OP. There is was said that he doubts PS3 gamers would have to change disks. Well, he is right though
Bluray isn't used only for games!
Imagine having an optical burner in your PC, that you could backup 100gb at a time onto one disk?
When I first spotted this thread, the first thing I thought of was movies.
HD-DVD dual layer can only hold 30gb, bluray was 50gb.
Meaning the bluray versions could use a higher bitrate/more extras etc, as well as 7.1 uncompressed audio.
The argument that not many people have equipment capable of using uncompressed 7.1 will naturally change during the bluray and PS3 life cycle, as prices drop, meaning when people go back to play older films/games, they can take advantage of it. Better to add it now, even if you can't use it yet?
As far as games goes, I'm no software developer, but if the software developers ARE stating that they're finding DVD9 too limited, how can people on here argue? People stating about how much extra time it would take to fill a bluray. What about the amount of time it takes to optimize your game/textures, or cut bits out, to make it fit on a DVD9?
It is the same old argument all over again.
When games like Wing Commander 4 were coming on multiple floppies, or a CD. People saying how pointless it was, and how they'd never fill a CD.. we were wowed by the CD-ROM video cutscenes etc.
Then came DVD. On the PC it seemed to take an eternity (to me) until games used DVD. I was buying games with 2-3 CDs (which people thought they'd never fill) rather than a single DVD.
Most PC games now seem to be a rather full DVD9, and even games like Stranglehold use 2xdvd9! On the PC of course, it doesn't matter so much, as it's installed to a HDD. Why does the XBOX360 version only take up 1 dvd9? I've no idea, maybe they lowered the quality of the textures/sound, I've no idea, but the fact remains it takes up 2xdvd9 on the PC.
Games are getting bigger, they need more storage. Simple as that!
Once games start taking up multiple DVD9, then of course it will be better to use a single bluray, just as it was better to game with a single dvd, rather than multiple CDs.
As for people saying how pointless 100gb blurays are, what should the boffins do? Say, "ok boys, we'll never need more than 50gb storage, let's give up and go down the pub?"
IMO good that they've managed to squeeze 100gb onto a bluray.
Good that the PS3 is (or will be) compatible with them, so that if a game/movie uses these disks, my current drive will do fine.
Good that progress is being made, well done!
Phew, sorry, turned into a bit of a rant there, as I simply can't understand why anybody would argue that managing 100gb on a bluray, and it being compatible with current hardware, is anything other than a good thing?
V1N.
EDIT: oops!
and now I see where the argument about games came from I didn't notice the post under the quote in the OP. There is was said that he doubts PS3 gamers would have to change disks. Well, he is right though
Last edited:
yes
limited by 256mb gfx memory
anyway, who wants to watch cutscenes?
BF2 only takes 1.9Gb of a DVD , although i imagine those textures are compressed
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,564
- Location
- West Sussex
OMG "X" game is using blu-ray disc and can never be done on a Dual Layer = Sony Blu-Ray Hype machine
and if you can honestly say, that you believe that in the future, ALL games will fit on a dual layer DVD, as in, inside of 9gb, than you must surely realise that you're deluded?
With regard to cutscenes, yeah a lot of games aren't worth watching, but some games, like the C&C games have great cutscenes. If they have the space to do them in full HD, rather than cut the resolution, and compress to fit, then surely having the space is a good thing?
Saying putting uncompressed 7.1 on a disk is pointless, is like saying putting DD5.1 in games/dvds was pointless. Years ago, not many people had 5.1 decoders, yet now it's commonplace. Maybe it was a bad idea to make games in HD? Seeing as so many people only have SDTVs, what a waste?
Speaking of space, if PS2 games used dual layer disks, with their all round lower graphics quality, then why would you not believe that a 360 game, using all its fancy graphical trickery wouldn't require more space again?
V1N.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,564
- Location
- West Sussex
for the 360 and whats left of its lifespan compared to the PS3 -Its not needed
It is great that there could be space on the disks, there isn't a down side to it. However, the argument is over if there is a benefit to it. Lets face it, 50GB is way more than 99.9% of games need at the moment. This addition is hardly going to help the PS3, or help Blu-Ray much either. Disk capacity is already the formats strong point.
Gears of war had to be cut to fit on a DVD as far as I'm aware.
Mabye Forza could have had more cars and tracks?
We are getting great looking games at the minute on both formats but they are too short.
One system (360) seemingly has a decent excuse in that it only uses DVD's and seeing as to make money titles are more and more becoming cross platform releases the PS3 having a larger disc capacity is going to be an irrelevance apart from in house games.
Mabye Forza could have had more cars and tracks?
We are getting great looking games at the minute on both formats but they are too short.
One system (360) seemingly has a decent excuse in that it only uses DVD's and seeing as to make money titles are more and more becoming cross platform releases the PS3 having a larger disc capacity is going to be an irrelevance apart from in house games.