lol, what are you smoking?
2x Blu-ray = ~9MB/s
12x DVD = ~16MB/s (peak)
Blu-ray throughput is a consistent 9MB/s throughout the entire disc, unlike DVD where the peak (~16MB/s) is mainly theoretical and the average speed is generally lower.
So the PS3 is a few MB/s slower but lets not forget it has a mandatory hard drive which can be used as a cache/virtual memory if required and without the constant deafening noise in the background.
Also, to say "Media storage space is not a real concern." is a joke in itself considering some PS2 games were pushing the DVD9 barrier, especially when you realise 360 discs can only store 7GB of game data max.
You ahve completely missed the point. I don't care about the read speed of Blu-ray vs DVD9. My point was that developers would rather have more system and gfx memory than larger media discs. They would rather put up with a custom 4Gb DVD standard and have 2GB of unified memory rather than 100Gb Blue-ray.
Blu-ray allows developrs to be lazy with game data and compression, and to bundle multiple different languages on a single disc.
IF developers get pushed for space on DVD9 then they can invest more time in better compression.
Have you seen the 64Kb gfx demos. 64KB has to include all sound, gfx, music, 3d data, sound liary, gfx libaray, every bit of logic and component.
Procedurally generated textures, sounds, anmations and 3D data is a massively under used concept. John Carmack though is pushing in this direction.
Even standard compression techniques can have some big used. Look at Jpegs. You can get a 10-1 compression without noticing the difference at all (a la, your pictures from your digi cam). The exact same algortithm is not suitable for game textures due to blending issues, but similar algortihms can be employed leading to more robust compress textutures with a 7:1 compression ratio.
You guys are all forgetting what developers did to fit games onto the N64 cartidges. Games on the PS1 that came on a Cd fitted into 32Mb cartridges.
