C/NET - Prizefight: Xbox360 vs. Sony PS3 - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

JToddler · 02-12-2007, 01:24 AM

hey BluManta that was an excellent post! Facts rule! I noticed that its your first post (02/11/07). Welcome to blu-ray.com!

FilmmakingFiasco · 02-12-2007, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluManta

What really anoys me is the fact that people can say the xbox 360 is better then ps3.
Name (if you think 360 is better) one way 360 is better, and i want facts not opinions.

The xbox has 3 processors but the playstation3 has 8.

The ps3 games can hold more data (up to 50gb)then a xbox game (9gb)

The xbox has a blu-ray, dvd player and a cd player built in. Xbox only has a DVD and CD player. Although you can get a HD-DVD player for it.

The playstation3 has motion sensitive controls - the 360 is just an old fashion control.

The Playstation 3 dusnt have a huge external power box.

The PS3 (60gb hard drive version) has built in car readers.

The ps3 can save videos to the hard drive.

The PS3 Net is free.

You get free voice and Video calls with the ps3.

It has the best Exclusive games.

The playstation 3 grafix is about the same as the xbox 360, and the ps3 has just begun, and did you know that the games on 360 that take up most prossesing power (from 75%-90% of all 3 processors together)Take up about the same percentage on just 2 or less of the ps3's Processors! Just remember that the ps3 has 8 processors.

All of these are facts! Just give the ps3 a year, or even less and everyone will see the huge difference between the ps3 and the 360.

I must say that Gears of war was an amazing game! Everything about it was exactly what next gen games should have but just like it had been said already, it took up 95% (94.7% to be exact) of the 360 power to acomplish this amazment. The Ps3 is just a ticking time bomb.

LD

As someone who owns both an Xbox 360 and a PS3 these are my observations:

Comparing the raw power between the 360 and PS3 doesn't always work. From what I understand, the Cell Processor is difficult to program for and the limitations of the split ram system (256 for processing/256 for textures) has hindered developers. Add that to the fact that the PS3 dev systems came out so late and there's a big reason for a lack of games at the moment.

Gears of War does push the Xbox360. I don't know who found out the "95%" statistic but I can imagine it does use the Xbox360 to almost its full potential. However, as we see with all the previous generations, systems don't just max out after the first year. Programmers are getting better at workarounds and there are certain developers who will continually be able to push the abilities of both the 360 and PS3.

Online is becoming more important and just because the PS Store is free doesn't mean that it's better. Microsoft has a great online system. I've avoided XboxLive for a year but finally got it last week to play Co-Op Gears. And the Xbox does free voice chat online for silver members. It might do free video chat too. Sony is way behind in this area and with all the media they own (games, films, music) there is no reason that the PS Store can't get better (hopefully for the Europe launch) but these things are going to take time.

Videos on the PS3 and its ability to run Linux is a plus.

The PS3 may be designed better but it doesn't mean the 360 is invalid. The powerbrick isn't an issue for most people (probably the DVD drive noise is).

The Sixaxis hasn't really done much for me yet. I had fun using it in NHL 2K7 to check people but it doesn't always work like I want (just like the Wii). It's a novelty to many; others think it's great. The lack of rumble is missed but you get used to it. Controllers are a preference. People just love the Wii and after playing hours with my roommate, I still don't see the hype that surrounds it.

Blu-ray is a double-edged sword at the moment. The PS3 might help win the format war but at the cost of lost ground for consoles. The chief complaint I've heard from friends is that the PS3 is way too expensive. Sony's decision to include blu-ray, to push their personal agenda, is seen by many as "forcing the consumer's hand". Many consumers have gone out of their way to avoid a PS3 because of this. Some people are radical but it's their choice. The disc size is nice but Gears of War fits on a 9gig DVD. Again, this is a developer thing. There are many ways to push a system.

The PS3 is being billed as more than just a game system. This is the same as the PSP (which I also have and love). Convergence and tech trends are moving that way and the Xbox360 has multimedia abilities as well.
I've started using my PS3 as my full-time video player. I love the info screen that it has and now that Blu-rays are being encoded in VC-1 and AVC I've stopped buying HD-DVDs and put support behind Blu-Ray.

I am fortunate enough to be able to afford (or at least have the credit to afford) both systems and the hi-def equipment to run them. The PS3 is more feature packed and better designed than the Xbox360 (blu-ray,powerbrick, media reader as an example) but the only feature I've used in abundance so far is Blu-ray. After developers have had more time, Sony gets more feedback and development for the PS Store and more functions are added to the PS3 OS, things will look up. The PS3 can only get stronger and better from here on out.

I just wish that blind loyalty (and blind hatred) wouldn't separate Sony and Microsoft fans but allow them to see that competition is good for the business and that each system does have their OWN benefits.

ProvenFlipper · 02-12-2007, 02:51 AM

All I know is that there are tons of people who buy into the Playstation brand just for sports games alone. People who will go nowhere near the XBX or X360 even though they both have the same sports games. Sports on PS sells system all on its own.

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 03:36 AM

You know... the real reason Sony was able to pick up on the metal gear/final fantasy series was because Nintendo refused to use compact disc as their format of choice (stuck to rom cartridges which were more expensive to make and harder SDK to work with) with the S-NES and N-64. Squaresoft and Konami jumped over to Sony Playstation for the main titles and every now and then would release a baby game to the hand held platforms.

BluManta - The xbox has 3 processors but the playstation3 has 8.

The ps3 games can hold more data (up to 50gb)then a xbox game (9gb)

Actually the 360 has a single cpu with three cores @ 3.2ghz by IBM and the PS3 is a single cpu with eight SPEs (7-SPEs for work & 1 SPE for redundancy) also at 3.2ghz also by IBM (and Sony and Toshiba.. LOL.)

I believe that the GPU (Graphics) on the 360 (ATI) is a lot better than the one on PS3 (Nvidia). This doesn't really matter in that both platforms support 1080p... I think all the games for the most part look great for the first run of the bunch, but I hate that the games have a bubble element to them for graphic quality. (Ninty-nine nights, Gears of War, Resistance: Fall of Man etc...) you'll notice that about 1/3 of the distance from your main view the graphic quality on these games gets pretty gritty. That's just me!

If PS3 net is free, it's because they need to develop a bigger user base, so free is understandable. (How can you charge someone for online multi-player battlefields that don't yet exist?) I like the X-Box live package, in that just about every game made so far has extra content available and it's already got a huge user base. The only thing I've been able to find on Sony Net is a firmware update to make the PS3 allow PS2 games play at 480p now instead of 480i which was one letter worse than the PS2 did before this update came about. Still I wish that Sony would add a feature to allow Anti-Aliasing or a better filtering technique to be used as well. (maybe take advantage of that great GPU

)

As for the media space available... 54g is a double sided Blu-ray disc that will add nothing to the PS3's value as far as gaming is concerned. Fact is that the game industry just started releasing games on dual-layer dvds and the biggest game I've seen released (retail-box) is Vanguard (PC) which consisted of two dual-layer dvds for installation. Which might explain the 360 not having HD-dvd at launch (other than no titles being available.) I hear 360 v2 will have the HD-dvd built into it. Doesn't really matter now... 360 is dropping in price and the stand alone HD-dvd player can connect to a PC as well the 360.
None of this really matters anyways, since the ability to play a HD movie on these rigs is only present due to the media format war for the HD movie experience, and has very little to do with the console as far as gaming is concerned. It's all about money, and if we as a consumer benefit from this format war it's all good.

It's nice that the PS3 has a blu-ray already installed. This helps justify the cost of the system at $500, I purchased the $600 version. People should understand that this was a marketing move to help Sony solidify their Blu-ray dvd format and very little to do with the console as a gaming rig. Honestly, I was a bit disappointed with my PS3 at first because it didn't come with Component cables (it came with composite - I mean, seriously, a game console that advocates HD-Gaming and movies not coming with the minimum cable requirements for the HD format is like packaging a Ferrari with Cinder Blocks for wheels completely ridiculous.) or a universal remote for dvd/bd usage. I mean my 360 came with a component/composite cable and the HD-dvd drive came with a movie as well a universal remote.

I use my PS3 more than my 360 at the moment, but not for gaming. It turns out that the PS3 is a great standard dvd player (much better than the 360 & like the stand alone Sony players before it with the 12mb Vdac.) as well the fact that I own 3 bd movies now. I don't own a single PS3 game yet, which is fine because I've a lot of catching up to do with the PS2 games. Thank goodness for that firmware patch, now I can take full advantage of the Component cable I had to buy from Best Buy, which should have been included with the system. I do own 6 games for my 360 and 3 HD-dvd movies.

I appreciate both of these consoles for the unique features & games they both have. When it comes down to it, for me a PC is still the ultimate gaming rig. PS3 has the Nostalgia Gaming factor going for it since a majority of game design teams went to Play Station during the console wars of the 90's. Wii, will earn a sale from me because of the Zelda/Metroid series, and the motion controller is pretty kewl. If anyone understands what makes a game great it's the design teams of Nintendo & the Zelda, Metal Gear, and Final fantasy series. I like Eye-Candy as much as the next person but just because a game looks good doesn't mean it'll be fun.

bluearth · 02-12-2007, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr0stiE

I believe that the GPU (Graphics) on the 360 (ATI) is a lot better than the one on PS3 (Nvidia). This doesn't really matter in that both platforms support 1080p...

You believe this, but is there any facts to back it up? The PS3's NVIDIA graphics chip runs at 550mhz compared to the 360's ATI at only 500mhz. That's just one factor, but its not a good start for a graphics card that is suppose to be alot better then the other.

As for the RAM issue someone mentioned earlier, the CELL processor and graphics processor can share memory if needed. It's not 256 ONLY for graphics or ONLY for processing

Quote:

If PS3 net is free, it's because they need to develop a bigger user base, so free is understandable. (How can you charge someone for online multi-player battlefields that don't yet exist?) I like the X-Box live package, in that just about every game made so far has extra content available and it's already got a huge user base. The only thing I've been able to find on Sony Net is a firmware update to make the PS3 allow PS2 games play at 480p now instead of 480i which was one letter worse than the PS2 did before this update came about. Still I wish that Sony would add a feature to allow Anti-Aliasing or a better filtering technique to be used as well. (maybe take advantage of that great GPU

)

Xbox Live is ahead of PSN, true. Microsoft has been handling online gaming since the middle 90s with www.zone.com which I use to visit regularly and have a blast. Sony is just now trying to set up their own online network. It's not as good as Xbox's Live due to Microsoft's experience, but at least it is free.

Quote:

As for the media space available... 54g is a double sided Blu-ray disc that will add nothing to the PS3's value as far as gaming is concerned. Fact is that the game industry just started releasing games on dual-layer dvds and the biggest game I've seen released (retail-box) is Vanguard (PC) which consisted of two dual-layer dvds for installation. Which might explain the 360 not having HD-dvd at launch (other than no titles being available.) I hear 360 v2 will have the HD-dvd built into it. Doesn't really matter now... 360 is dropping in price and the stand alone HD-dvd player can connect to a PC as well the 360.

Blu-ray prevents multiple discs. Multiple disc games should have made thier last appearance on the Playstation 1. They are annoying. Metal Gear Solid 4 may be on a 50GB Blu-ray disc. The developers of Final Fantasy 13 said blu-ray's capacity played a vital role in their decision to make the game for PS3.

Quote:

None of this really matters anyways, since the ability to play a HD movie on these rigs is only present due to the media format war for the HD movie experience, and has very little to do with the console as far as gaming is concerned. It's all about money, and if we as a consumer benefit from this format war it's all good.

As I stated above blu-ray has alot to do with games. HD-DVD addon for the 360 is only for movies. Blu-ray also future proofs the PS3 for Sony's expected 10 year lifespan of the console.

Quote:

It's nice that the PS3 has a blu-ray already installed. This helps justify the cost of the system at $500, I purchased the $600 version. People should understand that this was a marketing move to help Sony solidify their Blu-ray dvd format and very little to do with the console as a gaming rig. Honestly, I was a bit disappointed with my PS3 at first because it didn't come with Component cables (it came with composite - I mean, seriously, a game console that advocates HD-Gaming and movies not coming with the minimum cable requirements for the HD format is like packaging a Ferrari with Cinder Blocks for wheels completely ridiculous.) or a universal remote for dvd/bd usage. I mean my 360 came with a component/composite cable and the HD-dvd drive came with a movie as well a universal remote.

Sony's wants the PS3 to be a multimedia entertainment device, not a simple games machine. Blu-ray was added for multiple reasons. Sure the main reason may have been to win the format war which it essentially has, but those with HDTVs will really enjoy it. If you are srapping pennies and own a 19" SDTV you're going to be pretty mad. I have an HDTV so I'm happy. In time most will and we'll all be happy. As for no component/HDMI cables, I already had component, HDMI and DVI cables. Including them would have been an extra cost incurred on me for no reason. That's me though.
[/quote]

Quote:

I use my PS3 more than my 360 at the moment, but not for gaming. It turns out that the PS3 is a great standard dvd player (much better than the 360 & like the stand alone Sony players before it with the 12mb Vdac.) as well the fact that I own 3 bd movies now. I don't own a single PS3 game yet, which is fine because I've a lot of catching up to do with the PS2 games. Thank goodness for that firmware patch, now I can take full advantage of the Component cable I had to buy from Best Buy, which should have been included with the system. I do own 6 games for my 360 and 3 HD-dvd movies.

I appreciate both of these consoles for the unique features & games they both have. When it comes down to it, for me a PC is still the ultimate gaming rig. PS3 has the Nostalgia Gaming factor going for it since a majority of game design teams went to Play Station during the console wars of the 90's. Wii, will earn a sale from me because of the Zelda/Metroid series, and the motion controller is pretty kewl. If anyone understands what makes a game great it's the design teams of Nintendo & the Zelda, Metal Gear, and Final fantasy series. I like Eye-Candy as much as the next person but just because a game looks good doesn't mean it'll be fun.

I enjoy the complexity of PC gaming, but far too often it becomes too complex. When I want a simple, good time I go with my consoles.

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 06:59 AM

Blueart -

1>You believe this, but is there any facts to back it up? The PS3's NVIDIA graphics chip runs at 550mhz compared to the 360's ATI at only 500mhz. That's just one factor, but its not a good start for a graphics card that is suppose to be alot better then the other.

As for the RAM issue someone mentioned earlier, the CELL processor and graphics processor can share memory if needed. It's not 256 ONLY for graphics or ONLY for processing

2>Blu-ray prevents multiple discs. Multiple disc games should have made thier last appearance on the Playstation 1. They are annoying. Metal Gear Solid 4 may be on a 50GB Blu-ray disc. The developers of Final Fantasy 13 said blu-ray's capacity played a vital role in their decision to make the game for PS3.

As I stated above blu-ray has alot to do with games. HD-DVD addon for the 360 is only for movies. Blu-ray also future proofs the PS3 for Sony's expected 10 year lifespan of the console.

3>Sony's wants the PS3 to be a multimedia entertainment device, not a simple games machine. Blu-ray was added for multiple reasons. Sure the main reason may have been to win the format war which it essentially has, but those with HDTVs will really enjoy it. If you are srapping pennies and own a 19" SDTV you're going to be pretty mad.

Answers
1
Actually---- ATI's GPU is better than the Nvidia GPU. I will let you look it up for yourself however as I know you have a internet connection and it sounds like you know something of PC's. But if you are a GPU fanboy then there's no convining you so I won't waste my time with that. You, and anyone else with experience as far as the PC is concerned should know that the speed of a processor only matters if it's running with efficiency. 550mhz to 500mhz isn't a big difference and if ATI is using more pipes than Nvidia per GPU then it all boils down to efficiency. In this I think ATI has the advantage. Neither really matters if the video output if limited to CPU performance.
2
PS1 used multi disc because the media used was cds 700mb in size. DVD's are 8.5gb at tops and that's what has been used up to now. BD/HD 25/30g in size is great. I say bring it on. I can't wait to play the action hero of the next epic film such as MGS4 but if you're going to tell me that a game release on BD is going to cost $60, well that's laughable considering how much the blank media is going for.

Again, BD is in PS3 to help solidify the BD as a format, not because they are being nice and it had nothing to do with the games to come... though that is now in the folds. The only way you can sell the "it's for the games" to me if if at launch the PS3 had a BD game out. Did Sony have a BD game out>>>??? Yeah, that's what I thought.

If anything Sony could have made a PS3 with BD and one without. That way people could save $$$ if they wanted to and by the expansion l8r. Again, this all comes down to Sony pushing to solidify it's new format.

The 360-HD player is only for movies now... but... That's not to say that the 360 can't have a firmware update allowing it the ability for gaming. Again, the reason 360v2 is being tossed around with the HD built into the system. It's not like USB 2.0 can't handle the data transfer required for HD Gaming.

It does future proof the console on that I agree but the 1080p format for video is just this decades mountain to climb now. The 2160p Displays are just around the corner and for you to tell me that the PS3 is made for a ten year lifespan is crazy. I say 5 years at most. Heck, the video cards being used by PC's are about to become external hardware due to power consumption and heat. Just look at the size of the 8800 series by Nvidia (you could barely fit it in a computer tower) and the platform design for ATI's new X2XX series is suggested to be in it's own external bin.
3
360 is already a multimedia device with Media Center already installed. Sony is looking for a linux based media center which is why you can install another OS onto the system. I have two HDTV's, however the opinion of what HDTV is now and what it used to mean has changed somewhat so I will clear what I have. JVC - 32" CRT HDTV and Samsung 50" DLP they both only supports up to 1080i so I guess thats almost HDTV. (I run my games at 1080i and my movies at 720p) My opinion is that these are both true SDTV's since I feel that the little 'p' at the end of the number is what defines a TV and the 1080 needs a 'p' or else it doesn't really count LOL

How can you say that Sony has "essentially" won the format war? Last time I checked HD-DVD's were selling 3 to 1 as stated by Circuit City and Best Buy. This just goes to show that people believe what they want, I actually think it's a tie however in that I own 3 BD and 3 HD movies.

If anything game designers want formats that allow for unlimited content and possibilities (i.e. internet connectivity and new media types.) Playing a game on a 1920 x 1080 display is amazing. With Physics engines and Graphics being the way they are... unless the games can run 60fps minimum without that bubble effect I described earlier (in the former post) I believe that consoles still have a bit to go. I want the games to look like GLASS!!!

bluearth · 02-12-2007, 07:29 AM

Just a few quick points

1 - GPU QPU. The graphics will be more similiar then last generation. It has and always will be about the games.

2 - Blue Dragon, an Xbox 360 game was released on 3 DVDs. That's 27 GBs.

As for did Sony have a BD game out. Every PS3 game is on a blu-ray disc! lol I doubt they use all the space but they are released on BD

3 - Last time you checked HD-DVDs were outselling BD at Bestbuy etc 3-1? Was that July 2006? All the latest numbers overall have BD firmly ahead of HD-DVD and nearly every single report on the format war is nothing but doom and gloom for HD-DVD, and the reason is thought to be PS3

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 07:48 AM

Bluearth....

Nice, nice... thanx for setting me straight on the BD for games on PS3, I am not certain that's entirely true. If it is true though, you're probably right about the disk not being used entirely. I don't know about Blue Dragon for the 360, but if it is on three Dvd's (27g) then it might be because the developer considered the cost of a run on HD and found it cheaper.

Though I do look for dvd versions of games for PC when released. Assassins Creed looks good, and that will be on all systems (PS3, 360 and PC) what media are they going to use? I'd like to know. All in all at the end of the day, it's all about the games. I totally agree with the ease of console use vs PC. A reason I like the PS3 over 360 is the ability to use Mouse/keyboard.

As for who's on first... LoL I'd like to tell you that the info about sales was given to me from two family members of mine about 1 week ago when I went to buy my first BD movie (both work for these companies.) So, it's not info I bothered to try and look up. As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter to me either way, so long as the games look as good as they are and play even better. It's all PR anyways.

Thanks for sticking wit me through this post...

WeApOn · 02-12-2007, 03:25 PM

Fr0stie-

Every PS3 game is on BD. Resistance:FOM filled up something like 16 or 26 gb on the disc? The other games may have fit on a DVD, but you need to wait some time to see the bigger games.

However, one thing that you guys made me think of:

What's the difference in a 3-DVD game vs. a 1 BD game? What are the benefits?

If we were installing games to a hard drive, there would be no difference. Certain areas of the game wouldn't be available to go to I guess on other DVDs? I think back to FF8 on PS1 and you could go everywhere in the world on any disc(besides the 4th). Did they have to do that because of size?

Another question: Why are PC games not that huge? I know there are some, but the majority of them are under 10 GB.

In regards to the 360 HD-DVD drive-- There is no way that will ever be used for gaming. If they do that, they will be forcing everyone to buy the drive in order to buy any new games. They can't cut the market like that.

PS3 could have been released as just a gaming console without BD for alot less, but down the line I believe BD is going to be needed. I probably wouldn't have gotten BD movies if it weren't for the PS3, I've never been big into movies. But now that I have one, that's an EXTREMELY awesome bonus.

BluManta · 02-12-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumYonGuy

hey BluManta that was an excellent post! Facts rule! I noticed that its your first post (02/11/07). Welcome to blu-ray.com!

Thank you very much!

I don't ever listen to opinions, they confuse and miss lead people. Facts are what I go by, they are all the truth.

I don't actually own a PS3 yet as it hasn't come out in England. But I read up everything and I have one research on the 360 and PS3.

I do have a 360 and I must say it is an amazing machine. And yes the 360 Xbox live is spot on. I do think it could be free though. Im not to sure about the free video calls either, one mate said it does and one mate says it dosn't. This is another reason I only go with facts.

I never said the 360 is a rubbish system, it is a fantastic games machine no doubt and developers are smart at pushing consoles to the limit, but that is what they have to do with the 360 now. The have to push. But the PS3 dosn't need to be pushed. It plays new games at ease.

Look at the PS3 games. Not many of them but are any crap? Are any lacking Graffic detail? And they are just as good as the 360 games. BUT PS3 HAVE JUST STARTED! The 360 has been out over a year now.

Im glad I got a 360, it is a great system and it is certainly a next gen console. But I do feel sorry for microsoft. There is a rumor that a new Xbox is being designed as we speak. Well I think they need to.

By the way, look how long a PS2 has lasted and look how long the Xbox lasted. (I know its irrelivant).

Oh also, Rockstar only put GTA4 for 360 aswell because they got a ship load of money for it.

It is harder to program games for a ps3 then a 360 but thats like saying its harder to draw a life looking picture compared to a cartoon.

The harder it is, the better it will become.

BluManta-LD

BluManta · 02-12-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeApOn

Fr0stie-

Every PS3 game is on BD. Resistance:FOM filled up something like 16 or 26 gb on the disc? The other games may have fit on a DVD, but you need to wait some time to see the bigger games.

It took up exactly 21.353gb for Resistance FOM. Although it didn't actually need to use all of that, they just did it becaust they could. They could have used about 16+GB but they still would have needed Blu-Ray.

And yeah, blu-ray is what makes a PS3 brilliant. Its another thing towards winning the console wars.

I know I don't like opinions but I pesonnaly think that blu-ray Makes ps3 a longer lasting system. It will be much better with them. But without blu-ray, the ps3 will still be better then 360. Let me put it this way.

Without Blu-ray

PS3=8

XBOX360=7

With Blu-Ray=

PS3=15

XBOX360=7

Dose that make sence?

BluManta-LD

Amon37 · 02-12-2007, 06:14 PM

Motorstorm also used 16-18GB. I can't get the exact number at work.

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 06:39 PM

I couldn't agree with all you guys more about the BD making the PS3 a better piece of equipment. I think that the console would be fine without, and I am not complaining that I have BD with it. In fact I like that it's embedded and I didn't have to worry about buying it as a separate piece of equipment... like the 360 HD. All that being said, I still think the 360 can utilize the HD as a gaming format, it has a 20g hard drive that can be utilized as a swap, and minimum installation of games can happen, it even has e-sata port.

Though, in response to cutting out those without the drives I think that a game release on HD and a release on the standard format Dvd could happen for a time until HD becomes more cost effective. It's already been impletted in the PC game industry with games coming out in cd-rom and dvd format as marked on the box. I actually look for DVD release of PC titles so I don't have to worry about multiple install disks.

PS3 did just start, I am looking forward to the great games to come on it. As of now however there hasn't been a release worth my money. I think that the games look really great but I find the substance behind the glossy imagery lacking. Which is why I have yet to purchase a PS3 title. The first game I purchased was Dragon Quest 8, and I found the FF/MG games from PS/PS2 online and ordered them so I had something to play. I actually refused to buy the PS2 because of the lack of HD support. It had nothing to do with the games, as I knew I would appreciate them no matter the grittiness. I just found that xbox/360 got me by until the PS3 was released.

The PS3, as I have stated before this, is now my most used console. I just look forward to games that play as good as they look.

theknub · 02-12-2007, 06:48 PM

frostie,
the point is that if games are put on a hi-def format, then you will cut off the original user base. doing this in a consoles lifetime after just over a year would be disastrous. you would lose, immediately, ~8 million users and would effectivly be re-launching the console. this would be a disaster to MS and would effectively end the xbox now that the consumer would see how quick MS will leave them in the dust.

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 07:35 PM

Knub---

Did you not understand what I wrote? I just said that it's understandable for a game to be released in two separate formats. Just like PC and the phasing in of DVD-Rom as the standard media format, the 360 can do this for the HD. No 360 user would suffer or lose out. It would just mean that 2 formats of the same game are available. One as DVD-Rom and one as HD.

You make it sound like it's completely out of the question and the 360 couldn't do it. Maybe try and think of it as a PS3 instead. If PS3 released a BD build and one without, are you going to tell me that Sony wouldn't have an optional format available for the console users? A copy of MSG4 on DVD-Rom and one on BD which gives both DVD/BD user bases the ability to enjoy the title at no additional cost to them. Allowing the consumer to make the same choice that PC users make every day is completely realistic.

Stop trying to fight me about the format and media type as if there aren't any options for the 360 as a console to grow. If that was true Microsoft would've neglected to allow support or design of the future installation of the HD and release a completely different box l8r with backwards compatibility.

theknub · 02-12-2007, 07:47 PM

frostie,
have you not read any MS press releases or other information? the add-on is for MOVIES ONLY. it is not for games. sorry, can't be done. not available, end of story.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18977

stop fighting me on this.

second, think of all the extra time and labor that would go into two different versions of a game for the same console. it would simply be impractical. you couldn't have all the textures at the same resolution (have to rerender), you may not have as many level because of space, audio might have to compromised, and the list goes on. it is a ridiculous idea to think a gaming house would create two seperate versions of the game for the same console. the time, effort, and money make the issue absolutely asinine. if you can prove to me how this is feasible, i'm all ears.

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 08:04 PM

Knub----

You said "it is a ridiculous idea to think a gaming house would create two seperate versions of the game for the same console. the time, effort, and money make the issue absolutely asinine. if you can prove to me how this is feasible, i'm all ears."

Proof is already out there in the PC world friend... From your own Link...

"What we do know is that these formats will bring added cost to game developers, disc manufacturing, and could even result in added costs and longer load times for the consumer, which would negatively impact the game experience...titles such as Oblivion show it's possible to create huge, visually impressive gameworlds for the DVD9 format"

That's what the Hard Drive on the consoles are for. That a game isn't compressed as on BD, doesn't mean that the design team had more room to work, it just means they didn't have to pay for the compression of their working title. It's not like uncompressed video games exist, they all require a media codec and compression of some kind. Most titles utilized multiple compression techniques... Audio, Video, and still images for back drops or GUIs.

That you post a thread showing me one response in favor of your tact is the same as me posting a thread to disprove it. A complete waste of my time and I am not about to do it. Have you seen a working title on PS3 that is similar to one on 360 that doesn't look comparable visually or out of either consoles ability to produce? So is your point to make BD gaming the end all be all of gaming formats, if so then I guess I better junk my computer, cause I still have to use DVD-9.

As for the extra time and labor of using two formats for a game... Well I haven't seen it make much of a price difference in the PC world of gaming. Just that most CE and LIMITED releases are on DVD and not CD-Rom. It's not that it's a separate version of the same title. The game is the same, just the number of discs involved is the only difference.

theknub · 02-12-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr0stiE

Proof is already out there in the PC world friend... From your own Link...

"What we do know is that these formats will bring added cost to game developers, disc manufacturing, and could even result in added costs and longer load times for the consumer, which would negatively impact the game experience...titles such as Oblivion show it's possible to create huge, visually impressive gameworlds for the DVD9 format"

That's what the Hard Drive on the consoles are for. That a game isn't compressed as on BD, doesn't mean that the design team had more room to work, it just means they didn't have to pay for the compression of their working title. It's not like uncompressed video games exist, they all require a media codec and compression of some kind. Most titles utilized multiple compression techniques... Audio, Video, and still images for back drops or GUIs.

That you post a thread showing me one response in favor of your tact is the same as me posting a thread to disprove it. A complete waste of my time and I am not about to do it. Have you seen a working title on PS3 that is similar to one on 360 that doesn't look comparable visually or out of either consoles ability to produce? So is your point to make BD gaming the end all be all of gaming formats, if so then I guess I better junk my computer, cause I still have to use DVD-9.

As for the extra time and labor of using two formats for a game... Well I haven't seen it make much of a price difference in the PC world of gaming. Just that most CE and LIMITED releases are on DVD and not CD-Rom. It's not that it's a separate version of the same title. The game is the same, just the number of discs involved is the only difference.

ok, so now we put the game on multiple discs. yes, that can be done. but, when was the last time you enjoyed switching discs when gaming? yeah, it's a blast.

BD gaming is not the end all, be all. the proof is in the pudding though. so i challenge you, is there a game on both formats that was optimized for each system that looks exactly the same? after all, that would prove your point. looking forward to those links to express that.

as for games on hd-dvd, that is not the only link i can provide to make my point.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-ente...mes-134424.php
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61482
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...php?story=7026
you waste our time by blatantly ignoring facts

powerSURG · 02-12-2007, 08:30 PM

I would appreciate if some of you would take the time to consider my argument.

I know the world is currently comparing the X360, Wii, and PS3. Who will win this next generation? A question that can produce over zealous arguments and create a battle of words.

I ask that you, for a second put aside any bias or loyalties and listen.

I have one question for you. Is the PS3 a machine good enough to succeed the PS2? If you compare the PS3 to anything, try comparing it to it's predecessor. The reason I say this is because we all know we're in the "next gen." All three systems are "next gen," it is simply a matter of maintaining or expanding your fanbase. Will the PS3 be successful in drawing PS2 fans, thus maintaining it's fanbase? I would argue yes. Others might argue PS3 will lose some of the PS2 fanbase. IMO it is not likely Sony will lose half their PS2 consumer base. Especially once the price drops. If Sony were to lose half their fans, the PS3 will still be 60 million strong. If Microsoft were to double it's fanbase they would be roughly 50 million strong. Moreover, if Nintendo were to triple it's gamecube fanbase, they would be 64.56 million strong.

In conclusion, I do not believe that Sony must rely on beating out it's competition. It is simply a matter of beating themselves, and proving to their fans, the PS3 is most definitely the "next generation" playstation. No need to worry about the other two systems.

Fr0stiE · 02-12-2007, 09:09 PM

Knub---

ok, so now we put the game on multiple discs. yes, that can be done. but, when was the last time you enjoyed switching discs when gaming? yeah, it's a blast.

I agree that switching the discs is a pain, which is why I appreciate the BD being used on the PS3. Were you not trying to tell me that games could only look great on a BD disk? Were you not trying to slam my argument about HD having the ability to be a gaming format as well? Your links are laughable to me because I am not trying to ignore the facts that you present to me. I agree with all the link you post, for what they are. But I am not going to suicide a working format just because you grabbed some articles off the internet. It's just that I get the feeling you're only a BD fanboy, who doesn't want o hear that anyother format currently in use as of now might have the ability to encase a great game.

I definetly believe the PS3 to be a HUGE step up from PS2 as a gaming console and a Media Center with all the bells and whistles needed to make it a great addition to anyone with an HDTV. SO, it's a winner in my book. All I am trying to get across is that the 360 isn't a dead console, just because it didn't come equiped with HD. I mean, it did come out a year early right??? It's not like MS has kept it a secret that they're already looking to punch another console out into the market. It sucks, but I guess that's what happens.

02-12-2007, 01:24 AM	#21
JToddler Active Member Member since:Oct 2006 Blu-ray reviews:1	hey BluManta that was an excellent post! Facts rule! I noticed that its your first post (02/11/07). Welcome to blu-ray.com! Last edited by JToddler; 02-12-2007 at 02:53 AM.

02-12-2007, 03:25 PM	#29
WeApOn Special Member Member since:Aug 2006 Location:Rhode Island, USA	Fr0stie- Every PS3 game is on BD. Resistance:FOM filled up something like 16 or 26 gb on the disc? The other games may have fit on a DVD, but you need to wait some time to see the bigger games. However, one thing that you guys made me think of: What's the difference in a 3-DVD game vs. a 1 BD game? What are the benefits? If we were installing games to a hard drive, there would be no difference. Certain areas of the game wouldn't be available to go to I guess on other DVDs? I think back to FF8 on PS1 and you could go everywhere in the world on any disc(besides the 4th). Did they have to do that because of size? Another question: Why are PC games not that huge? I know there are some, but the majority of them are under 10 GB. In regards to the 360 HD-DVD drive-- There is no way that will ever be used for gaming. If they do that, they will be forcing everyone to buy the drive in order to buy any new games. They can't cut the market like that. PS3 could have been released as just a gaming console without BD for alot less, but down the line I believe BD is going to be needed. I probably wouldn't have gotten BD movies if it weren't for the PS3, I've never been big into movies. But now that I have one, that's an EXTREMELY awesome bonus. Last edited by WeApOn; 02-12-2007 at 03:30 PM.

02-12-2007, 08:04 PM	#37
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	Knub---- You said "it is a ridiculous idea to think a gaming house would create two seperate versions of the game for the same console. the time, effort, and money make the issue absolutely asinine. if you can prove to me how this is feasible, i'm all ears." Proof is already out there in the PC world friend... From your own Link... "What we do know is that these formats will bring added cost to game developers, disc manufacturing, and could even result in added costs and longer load times for the consumer, which would negatively impact the game experience...titles such as Oblivion show it's possible to create huge, visually impressive gameworlds for the DVD9 format" That's what the Hard Drive on the consoles are for. That a game isn't compressed as on BD, doesn't mean that the design team had more room to work, it just means they didn't have to pay for the compression of their working title. It's not like uncompressed video games exist, they all require a media codec and compression of some kind. Most titles utilized multiple compression techniques... Audio, Video, and still images for back drops or GUIs. That you post a thread showing me one response in favor of your tact is the same as me posting a thread to disprove it. A complete waste of my time and I am not about to do it. Have you seen a working title on PS3 that is similar to one on 360 that doesn't look comparable visually or out of either consoles ability to produce? So is your point to make BD gaming the end all be all of gaming formats, if so then I guess I better junk my computer, cause I still have to use DVD-9. As for the extra time and labor of using two formats for a game... Well I haven't seen it make much of a price difference in the PC world of gaming. Just that most CE and LIMITED releases are on DVD and not CD-Rom. It's not that it's a separate version of the same title. The game is the same, just the number of discs involved is the only difference. Last edited by Fr0stiE; 02-12-2007 at 08:09 PM.

02-12-2007, 08:30 PM	#39
powerSURG Active Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Shaw AFB, SC Blu-ray collection:42	Please read I would appreciate if some of you would take the time to consider my argument. I know the world is currently comparing the X360, Wii, and PS3. Who will win this next generation? A question that can produce over zealous arguments and create a battle of words. I ask that you, for a second put aside any bias or loyalties and listen. I have one question for you. Is the PS3 a machine good enough to succeed the PS2? If you compare the PS3 to anything, try comparing it to it's predecessor. The reason I say this is because we all know we're in the "next gen." All three systems are "next gen," it is simply a matter of maintaining or expanding your fanbase. Will the PS3 be successful in drawing PS2 fans, thus maintaining it's fanbase? I would argue yes. Others might argue PS3 will lose some of the PS2 fanbase. IMO it is not likely Sony will lose half their PS2 consumer base. Especially once the price drops. If Sony were to lose half their fans, the PS3 will still be 60 million strong. If Microsoft were to double it's fanbase they would be roughly 50 million strong. Moreover, if Nintendo were to triple it's gamecube fanbase, they would be 64.56 million strong. In conclusion, I do not believe that Sony must rely on beating out it's competition. It is simply a matter of beating themselves, and proving to their fans, the PS3 is most definitely the "next generation" playstation. No need to worry about the other two systems.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
PS3 or XBox360?	General Chat	vitadellajan	5	10-19-2009 11:26 AM
PS3 disconnects laptops from the net when booting up	PS3	SBrooks1	30	04-13-2008 06:42 PM
Who´s using the original PS3 Net-Cable ?	PS3	Blu-Style	9	12-08-2007 04:45 PM
movie trailers on PS3 net	PS3	partridge	1	03-22-2007 08:48 PM
C/NET: Top 10 ways the PS3 stinks?	PS3	JToddler	22	03-12-2007 05:57 PM

02-12-2007, 02:51 AM	#23
ProvenFlipper Special Member Member since:Jun 2006 Home Theater Gallery:4 4K collection:335 Blu-ray collection:901 Trading Score:1	All I know is that there are tons of people who buy into the Playstation brand just for sports games alone. People who will go nowhere near the XBX or X360 even though they both have the same sports games. Sports on PS sells system all on its own.

02-12-2007, 03:36 AM	#24
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	You know... the real reason Sony was able to pick up on the metal gear/final fantasy series was because Nintendo refused to use compact disc as their format of choice (stuck to rom cartridges which were more expensive to make and harder SDK to work with) with the S-NES and N-64. Squaresoft and Konami jumped over to Sony Playstation for the main titles and every now and then would release a baby game to the hand held platforms. BluManta - The xbox has 3 processors but the playstation3 has 8. The ps3 games can hold more data (up to 50gb)then a xbox game (9gb) Actually the 360 has a single cpu with three cores @ 3.2ghz by IBM and the PS3 is a single cpu with eight SPEs (7-SPEs for work & 1 SPE for redundancy) also at 3.2ghz also by IBM (and Sony and Toshiba.. LOL.) I believe that the GPU (Graphics) on the 360 (ATI) is a lot better than the one on PS3 (Nvidia). This doesn't really matter in that both platforms support 1080p... I think all the games for the most part look great for the first run of the bunch, but I hate that the games have a bubble element to them for graphic quality. (Ninty-nine nights, Gears of War, Resistance: Fall of Man etc...) you'll notice that about 1/3 of the distance from your main view the graphic quality on these games gets pretty gritty. That's just me! If PS3 net is free, it's because they need to develop a bigger user base, so free is understandable. (How can you charge someone for online multi-player battlefields that don't yet exist?) I like the X-Box live package, in that just about every game made so far has extra content available and it's already got a huge user base. The only thing I've been able to find on Sony Net is a firmware update to make the PS3 allow PS2 games play at 480p now instead of 480i which was one letter worse than the PS2 did before this update came about. Still I wish that Sony would add a feature to allow Anti-Aliasing or a better filtering technique to be used as well. (maybe take advantage of that great GPU ) As for the media space available... 54g is a double sided Blu-ray disc that will add nothing to the PS3's value as far as gaming is concerned. Fact is that the game industry just started releasing games on dual-layer dvds and the biggest game I've seen released (retail-box) is Vanguard (PC) which consisted of two dual-layer dvds for installation. Which might explain the 360 not having HD-dvd at launch (other than no titles being available.) I hear 360 v2 will have the HD-dvd built into it. Doesn't really matter now... 360 is dropping in price and the stand alone HD-dvd player can connect to a PC as well the 360. None of this really matters anyways, since the ability to play a HD movie on these rigs is only present due to the media format war for the HD movie experience, and has very little to do with the console as far as gaming is concerned. It's all about money, and if we as a consumer benefit from this format war it's all good. It's nice that the PS3 has a blu-ray already installed. This helps justify the cost of the system at $500, I purchased the $600 version. People should understand that this was a marketing move to help Sony solidify their Blu-ray dvd format and very little to do with the console as a gaming rig. Honestly, I was a bit disappointed with my PS3 at first because it didn't come with Component cables (it came with composite - I mean, seriously, a game console that advocates HD-Gaming and movies not coming with the minimum cable requirements for the HD format is like packaging a Ferrari with Cinder Blocks for wheels completely ridiculous.) or a universal remote for dvd/bd usage. I mean my 360 came with a component/composite cable and the HD-dvd drive came with a movie as well a universal remote. I use my PS3 more than my 360 at the moment, but not for gaming. It turns out that the PS3 is a great standard dvd player (much better than the 360 & like the stand alone Sony players before it with the 12mb Vdac.) as well the fact that I own 3 bd movies now. I don't own a single PS3 game yet, which is fine because I've a lot of catching up to do with the PS2 games. Thank goodness for that firmware patch, now I can take full advantage of the Component cable I had to buy from Best Buy, which should have been included with the system. I do own 6 games for my 360 and 3 HD-dvd movies. I appreciate both of these consoles for the unique features & games they both have. When it comes down to it, for me a PC is still the ultimate gaming rig. PS3 has the Nostalgia Gaming factor going for it since a majority of game design teams went to Play Station during the console wars of the 90's. Wii, will earn a sale from me because of the Zelda/Metroid series, and the motion controller is pretty kewl. If anyone understands what makes a game great it's the design teams of Nintendo & the Zelda, Metal Gear, and Final fantasy series. I like Eye-Candy as much as the next person but just because a game looks good doesn't mean it'll be fun.

02-12-2007, 06:59 AM	#26
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	Blueart - 1>You believe this, but is there any facts to back it up? The PS3's NVIDIA graphics chip runs at 550mhz compared to the 360's ATI at only 500mhz. That's just one factor, but its not a good start for a graphics card that is suppose to be alot better then the other. As for the RAM issue someone mentioned earlier, the CELL processor and graphics processor can share memory if needed. It's not 256 ONLY for graphics or ONLY for processing 2>Blu-ray prevents multiple discs. Multiple disc games should have made thier last appearance on the Playstation 1. They are annoying. Metal Gear Solid 4 may be on a 50GB Blu-ray disc. The developers of Final Fantasy 13 said blu-ray's capacity played a vital role in their decision to make the game for PS3. As I stated above blu-ray has alot to do with games. HD-DVD addon for the 360 is only for movies. Blu-ray also future proofs the PS3 for Sony's expected 10 year lifespan of the console. 3>Sony's wants the PS3 to be a multimedia entertainment device, not a simple games machine. Blu-ray was added for multiple reasons. Sure the main reason may have been to win the format war which it essentially has, but those with HDTVs will really enjoy it. If you are srapping pennies and own a 19" SDTV you're going to be pretty mad. Answers 1 Actually---- ATI's GPU is better than the Nvidia GPU. I will let you look it up for yourself however as I know you have a internet connection and it sounds like you know something of PC's. But if you are a GPU fanboy then there's no convining you so I won't waste my time with that. You, and anyone else with experience as far as the PC is concerned should know that the speed of a processor only matters if it's running with efficiency. 550mhz to 500mhz isn't a big difference and if ATI is using more pipes than Nvidia per GPU then it all boils down to efficiency. In this I think ATI has the advantage. Neither really matters if the video output if limited to CPU performance. 2 PS1 used multi disc because the media used was cds 700mb in size. DVD's are 8.5gb at tops and that's what has been used up to now. BD/HD 25/30g in size is great. I say bring it on. I can't wait to play the action hero of the next epic film such as MGS4 but if you're going to tell me that a game release on BD is going to cost $60, well that's laughable considering how much the blank media is going for. Again, BD is in PS3 to help solidify the BD as a format, not because they are being nice and it had nothing to do with the games to come... though that is now in the folds. The only way you can sell the "it's for the games" to me if if at launch the PS3 had a BD game out. Did Sony have a BD game out>>>??? Yeah, that's what I thought. If anything Sony could have made a PS3 with BD and one without. That way people could save $$$ if they wanted to and by the expansion l8r. Again, this all comes down to Sony pushing to solidify it's new format. The 360-HD player is only for movies now... but... That's not to say that the 360 can't have a firmware update allowing it the ability for gaming. Again, the reason 360v2 is being tossed around with the HD built into the system. It's not like USB 2.0 can't handle the data transfer required for HD Gaming. It does future proof the console on that I agree but the 1080p format for video is just this decades mountain to climb now. The 2160p Displays are just around the corner and for you to tell me that the PS3 is made for a ten year lifespan is crazy. I say 5 years at most. Heck, the video cards being used by PC's are about to become external hardware due to power consumption and heat. Just look at the size of the 8800 series by Nvidia (you could barely fit it in a computer tower) and the platform design for ATI's new X2XX series is suggested to be in it's own external bin. 3 360 is already a multimedia device with Media Center already installed. Sony is looking for a linux based media center which is why you can install another OS onto the system. I have two HDTV's, however the opinion of what HDTV is now and what it used to mean has changed somewhat so I will clear what I have. JVC - 32" CRT HDTV and Samsung 50" DLP they both only supports up to 1080i so I guess thats almost HDTV. (I run my games at 1080i and my movies at 720p) My opinion is that these are both true SDTV's since I feel that the little 'p' at the end of the number is what defines a TV and the 1080 needs a 'p' or else it doesn't really count LOL How can you say that Sony has "essentially" won the format war? Last time I checked HD-DVD's were selling 3 to 1 as stated by Circuit City and Best Buy. This just goes to show that people believe what they want, I actually think it's a tie however in that I own 3 BD and 3 HD movies. If anything game designers want formats that allow for unlimited content and possibilities (i.e. internet connectivity and new media types.) Playing a game on a 1920 x 1080 display is amazing. With Physics engines and Graphics being the way they are... unless the games can run 60fps minimum without that bubble effect I described earlier (in the former post) I believe that consoles still have a bit to go. I want the games to look like GLASS!!!

02-12-2007, 07:29 AM	#27
bluearth Blu-ray Guru Member since:Feb 2007 Blu-ray collection:92 Blu-ray reviews:2	Just a few quick points 1 - GPU QPU. The graphics will be more similiar then last generation. It has and always will be about the games. 2 - Blue Dragon, an Xbox 360 game was released on 3 DVDs. That's 27 GBs. As for did Sony have a BD game out. Every PS3 game is on a blu-ray disc! lol I doubt they use all the space but they are released on BD 3 - Last time you checked HD-DVDs were outselling BD at Bestbuy etc 3-1? Was that July 2006? All the latest numbers overall have BD firmly ahead of HD-DVD and nearly every single report on the format war is nothing but doom and gloom for HD-DVD, and the reason is thought to be PS3

02-12-2007, 07:48 AM	#28
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	Bluearth.... Nice, nice... thanx for setting me straight on the BD for games on PS3, I am not certain that's entirely true. If it is true though, you're probably right about the disk not being used entirely. I don't know about Blue Dragon for the 360, but if it is on three Dvd's (27g) then it might be because the developer considered the cost of a run on HD and found it cheaper. Though I do look for dvd versions of games for PC when released. Assassins Creed looks good, and that will be on all systems (PS3, 360 and PC) what media are they going to use? I'd like to know. All in all at the end of the day, it's all about the games. I totally agree with the ease of console use vs PC. A reason I like the PS3 over 360 is the ability to use Mouse/keyboard. As for who's on first... LoL I'd like to tell you that the info about sales was given to me from two family members of mine about 1 week ago when I went to buy my first BD movie (both work for these companies.) So, it's not info I bothered to try and look up. As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter to me either way, so long as the games look as good as they are and play even better. It's all PR anyways. Thanks for sticking wit me through this post...

02-12-2007, 06:14 PM	#32
Amon37 Power Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:USA,Arizona PSNetwork: Amon37	Motorstorm also used 16-18GB. I can't get the exact number at work.

02-12-2007, 06:39 PM	#33
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	I couldn't agree with all you guys more about the BD making the PS3 a better piece of equipment. I think that the console would be fine without, and I am not complaining that I have BD with it. In fact I like that it's embedded and I didn't have to worry about buying it as a separate piece of equipment... like the 360 HD. All that being said, I still think the 360 can utilize the HD as a gaming format, it has a 20g hard drive that can be utilized as a swap, and minimum installation of games can happen, it even has e-sata port. Though, in response to cutting out those without the drives I think that a game release on HD and a release on the standard format Dvd could happen for a time until HD becomes more cost effective. It's already been impletted in the PC game industry with games coming out in cd-rom and dvd format as marked on the box. I actually look for DVD release of PC titles so I don't have to worry about multiple install disks. PS3 did just start, I am looking forward to the great games to come on it. As of now however there hasn't been a release worth my money. I think that the games look really great but I find the substance behind the glossy imagery lacking. Which is why I have yet to purchase a PS3 title. The first game I purchased was Dragon Quest 8, and I found the FF/MG games from PS/PS2 online and ordered them so I had something to play. I actually refused to buy the PS2 because of the lack of HD support. It had nothing to do with the games, as I knew I would appreciate them no matter the grittiness. I just found that xbox/360 got me by until the PS3 was released. The PS3, as I have stated before this, is now my most used console. I just look forward to games that play as good as they look.

02-12-2007, 06:48 PM	#34
theknub Blu-ray Guru Member since:May 2006	frostie, the point is that if games are put on a hi-def format, then you will cut off the original user base. doing this in a consoles lifetime after just over a year would be disastrous. you would lose, immediately, ~8 million users and would effectivly be re-launching the console. this would be a disaster to MS and would effectively end the xbox now that the consumer would see how quick MS will leave them in the dust.

02-12-2007, 07:35 PM	#35
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	Knub--- Did you not understand what I wrote? I just said that it's understandable for a game to be released in two separate formats. Just like PC and the phasing in of DVD-Rom as the standard media format, the 360 can do this for the HD. No 360 user would suffer or lose out. It would just mean that 2 formats of the same game are available. One as DVD-Rom and one as HD. You make it sound like it's completely out of the question and the 360 couldn't do it. Maybe try and think of it as a PS3 instead. If PS3 released a BD build and one without, are you going to tell me that Sony wouldn't have an optional format available for the console users? A copy of MSG4 on DVD-Rom and one on BD which gives both DVD/BD user bases the ability to enjoy the title at no additional cost to them. Allowing the consumer to make the same choice that PC users make every day is completely realistic. Stop trying to fight me about the format and media type as if there aren't any options for the 360 as a console to grow. If that was true Microsoft would've neglected to allow support or design of the future installation of the HD and release a completely different box l8r with backwards compatibility.

02-12-2007, 07:47 PM	#36
theknub Blu-ray Guru Member since:May 2006	frostie, have you not read any MS press releases or other information? the add-on is for MOVIES ONLY. it is not for games. sorry, can't be done. not available, end of story. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18977 stop fighting me on this. second, think of all the extra time and labor that would go into two different versions of a game for the same console. it would simply be impractical. you couldn't have all the textures at the same resolution (have to rerender), you may not have as many level because of space, audio might have to compromised, and the list goes on. it is a ridiculous idea to think a gaming house would create two seperate versions of the game for the same console. the time, effort, and money make the issue absolutely asinine. if you can prove to me how this is feasible, i'm all ears.

02-12-2007, 09:09 PM	#40
Fr0stiE Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Southern California	Knub--- ok, so now we put the game on multiple discs. yes, that can be done. but, when was the last time you enjoyed switching discs when gaming? yeah, it's a blast. I agree that switching the discs is a pain, which is why I appreciate the BD being used on the PS3. Were you not trying to tell me that games could only look great on a BD disk? Were you not trying to slam my argument about HD having the ability to be a gaming format as well? Your links are laughable to me because I am not trying to ignore the facts that you present to me. I agree with all the link you post, for what they are. But I am not going to suicide a working format just because you grabbed some articles off the internet. It's just that I get the feeling you're only a BD fanboy, who doesn't want o hear that anyother format currently in use as of now might have the ability to encase a great game. I definetly believe the PS3 to be a HUGE step up from PS2 as a gaming console and a Media Center with all the bells and whistles needed to make it a great addition to anyone with an HDTV. SO, it's a winner in my book. All I am trying to get across is that the 360 isn't a dead console, just because it didn't come equiped with HD. I mean, it did come out a year early right??? It's not like MS has kept it a secret that they're already looking to punch another console out into the market. It sucks, but I guess that's what happens.

Best PS3 Game Deals