Look, I hardly said anything of what you think I said, lol. And I totaly agree with you on 360DVD limiting games. And I might be wrong understanding what you mean by resulution, streaming video or in game rendering. PC games have had resulutions way above 720p for a decade, and that is a fact. Consoles did not bring "HD" gaming, thats just bull adverticing. I only tried to correct you on one point. And that is that disk space is really irrelevant to what resolution you render a game in. That is limited by the rendering capability of the unit you execute the raw data on. Lets say your raw data file from the disk is 10 Mb. If you render it in 720p, it generates 50Mb of data pr. frame, rendering it at 1080p will generate something like 200Mb of data pr. frame. Hence, you will need enough processing power to keep the frame rate on an acceptable level. And the same thing apply for textures, light, shadows AA, AF, and all that. You can execute the raw data at different levels. Disk space is really irrelevant. But yes, DVDs low disk space really limit the games in size, the quality of sound and cutscenes. Even in-game textures for the 360. But in general, what we lack on todays consoles, is the processing power to render games at a better quality. You could have infinite disk space, still the in-game rendering would still look the same.
I was just thinking, Sony dodged a bullet coming out with the PS3 when they did, I don't think they would have fared very well to release during the worldwide recession. They got it out just in time, as for MS, their console was cheap enough I think to not be affected as much but I'm sure their sales would have suffered too. As far as new consoles are concerned, I don't see them investing any R&D into it until the worldwide economy stabilizes.
Right. But you're missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the consoles rendering power or capabilities to PC's at all. You actually started bringing PC's into this, not me. I was speaking in comparison of the 360 vs the PS3. Disk space doesn't equate to rendering power, no. But what good does rendering power do you when you don't have the disk space to include high resolution textures and CGI?
bwahahahaaha the rez has to do with the GPU and available memory. The disc has notha to do with render size
For a start, most people i speak to want to see an end to CGI in games, it was fine when it was the PS1, but these days it should be unnecessary. Me personally, i hate it, as it ruins the atmosphere of a game. Disk space doesn't equal high resolution textures though, both consoles have quite a small amount of video ram, so they have to be kept quite low res to keep the framerate up. crushilista, it would have to be a BluRay video comparison to show up the differences. The 360's are noticeably worse, but they are no worse than what most games, and around the same quality as an 720p mkv.
Yeah guy, you are probably talking about vram not physical disk space when you render stuff. We are talking about texture res. obviously ps3 used higher res textures than 360 so this is where the space on disk matters.
Of course he is talking about video ram, since that is the most important part. No point filling a BluRay disc full of high resolution textures, when there is only 256mb of video ram to fill. The awesome visuals in games like Uncharted2 are a combination of great coding, and alot of great hardware tricks that the PS3 excels at, it has nothing to do with BluRay discs, which in my experience did nothing but make PS3 games feel like a PC game with the many mandatory installs.
Aye, different texture resolutions do not take up any disk space worth mention, and would prob be one of the very last corners they had to cut if they ran low on disk space. Also I am one of those who still plays games for the interaction part, not for the CGI. One can question the purpose of some of Sony's games, where 90% of the disk space is CGI. Clearly they want to rub their ass in Microsoft's face saying: "This is where we went right and you went wrong". It is no secret that the amount of manpower, time spent and knowledge how to harness power out of a rendering architecture, are directly linked to the image quality of a game. They all cost money, and it is a matter of balance if you want to make a decent profit. Maybe the PS3 is slightly more powerfully than the 360. But one has to remember that Sony came 2 year later than the 360, and Microsoft stole a very large chunk of Sony's dedicated Playstation gamers. Strange architecture aside, the PS3 also suffered over a year after launch, with few games, and did not do anything the 360 could not. So what I think you see with the PS3 exclusives especially, is that Sony pumps tons of money into game development, to increase quality. You can tell from their massive developer teams, and the time spent on making those games better. Sony can not benefit from short time profit like MS do on the 360. Sony wants back, what was once theirs. They badly needed, and may still need an edge, to regain marked share. The number of PS3 consoles on the marked is what attract developers, not its slight advantage in quality. And I still think there is room for a slight increase on the 360 as well, but from profit perspective, there is no need for that. But this can change, if it still takes years before we see another console on the marked. Overall, I think those who buy a PS3 today, now when its price is equal to the 360, is in a win win situation.
Well, I have good reading comprehension so I'll point out the word you missed: UNCOMPRESSED. With 1 HD-DVD being bigger than the 3 DVDs they used I'm failing to see how they couldn't have actually done it. Thing is, I don't think many games ever went on HD-DVD, and for obvious reasons. Well, a lot of the space gets taken up by cutscenes and such. Getting a game to render in 1080p using a single DVD shouldn't be too much of an issue, of course that depends on the size and complexity of the game itself. Something like Starcraft should easily be able to run in 1080p, at least assuming no cutscenes. That's not really the point though. Several games have pulled off 720p on a DVD. The sad part is that they couldn't get it at 1080p even using a Blu-Ray. Granted I think at 1080p it's more of a rendering, read GPU, bottleneck than anything else. The GPUs in the PS3 and 360 aren't that amazing so 1080p would be difficult unless it was a game that looked like Sonic 2 or something.
Microsoft were just never interested in putting games on HD-DVD discs, weren't that interested in having movies on it either, after abit it was obvious they were wanting the format to die, as they saw more profit in digital downloads. I got the HD-DVD drive and two movies for £20, even though i didn't even have a 360 at the time:banana: Wonder when/if BluRay PC's games will appear though.
i remember it took quite a while for most games to go DVD. i'm guessing within the next 3 years but thats assuming most OEM's will come with Blu Ray drives as a standard. Once its pretty standard, we'll start seeing some but also most games arent really that big just yet.
Yeah, i remember that too. A few games are starting to hover near the 20gb mark now, and i would love to see PC games start using PCM audio, but its unlikely until the new consoles appear, as i think developers want to make games smaller, so that digital distribution is easier.
Yeah been wondering that myself. With the slow Bluray adoption you see on PC, I doubt the formate will be worth it, since multiple disks on PC hardly is and issue due to HDD install. Things today are different from the swap to floppy, CD, DVD. The marked is rapidly adopting services like Steam, faster than people buy Bluray players. Not saying that retail will be gone all together, but it looks like Sony will be the only platform in the future that use optical disks for games. As long as there are alternatives, Microsoft would rather commit collective suicide, than using Bluray in one of their consoles
i predicted before, and maybe wrong, but i firmly believe MS's next console will be digital download. However i don't think MS will forget Blue Ray as an option. it really does'nt matter much what company has what patent/copyright. All major companies, somewhere down the line use technology from rivals. Look at the auto industry. My Honda Civic has a Mitsubishi Altenator.:3eyes: Other makers use various parts like that as well. I think Ford has something made by Honda but not sure. Look how many of Sony's rivals actually make Blu Ray players and vise versa. Silicon Image invented the HDMI, their rivals make use of it as well, they also make receivers which Sony makes too, so again ...somewhere down the line, they all interconnect. AMD uses Intel's X86 architecture....etc. either way, it all comes down to money more than it does rivalry, as i see it anyway.
Yeah, Digital Distribution services are looking more likely on the PC than a new optical format. Yeah, can't see MS wanting a BluRay drive anywhere near the next console, they will have to do something though, the console world is about a decade away from properly embracing a DD only console.
^The Dreamcast used an oddball format. GD or something like that. MS may ...and likely, use either HD dvd as their games format or create a similar one. However, people could not watch Blu Ray movies but they may rely on Netflix service for HD movies. But them using BR wouldnt really hurt them or help their rivals any more than Nintendo finally going to DVD discs which they tried to avoid for years.
tbh i believe they will adopt bluray for next console whats the point inventing something new... it would just cost way more to do. And well bluray wasn't sony only invention anyways. there was pioneer and philips involved too. and more so i think it would be frikkin stupid not to use blu ray since it will be the major movie format for few years. And most europeans don't have netflix or such crap.
