National Geographic Goes Blu-Ray Exclusive

OnAxis writes:

"National Geographics today sent out to retailers information on the day and date about their upcoming title, Sharkwater. The title will not be coming out on HD DVD even though it releases on 4/8, which is before Warner's HD DVD June cut off date."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TheSadTruth3858d ago



Mr_Kuwabara3858d ago

Time to see them legal uncensored boobies. lawl

Hydrollex3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

Just stop making HD-DVD players. This battle is over and Blu-ray won.

Stupid Microsoft. What is the point of having HD-DVD when Blu-ray can hold up to 50GB - 200GB and the quality is better ?

CNIVEK3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

Just stop making stupid posts. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Stupid Sony. What is the point of having 50GB-200GB Blu-ray...crammed down the consumer's throat...when 95% of your games don't even utilize more than DVD-9, and 360 version's quality is still better?

Mr_Kuwabara3858d ago

The hell does the 360/DVD9/Games have to do with this news?

CNIVEK3858d ago

Hydroflex brought up MS going with HD-DVD. My point is, MS is primarily concerned with quality, affordable gaming, and digital downloads. Obviously they weren't going to support Sony...their biggest the beginning of a "format war". The fact that MS didn't even want to wait for HD-DVD, rather than go ahead and launch with DVD-9, absolves them of ANY criticism in this format war. They were a silent partner, for the most part, with Toshiba. They offered an add-on player, but did not even market it...AT ALL.

So, I had to explain to Hydrolex that there's no reason to mention MS in this, because their console doesn't outwardly support EITHER format. Their stance, all along, is that a higher capacity disc is not necessary for the current gen...and they are right.

MikeGdaGod3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

you must be smoking rocks!

what part of the 360 has MS shown they're concerned about quality? it has at least a 33% failure rate. even their driving wheels break down. and most of the games in their library are from third party devs.

what part of the 360 has MS shown they're concerned about affordable gaming? you have to pay extra for EVERYTHING.

you pay extra for playing online, you pay extra for charging your controllers, you pay extra for wifi, you pay $60 for games that were on the same format last-gen (DVD).

sorry for jumping on you but i just couldn't let you get away with that bullsh!t

ambientFLIER3858d ago

"what part of the 360 has MS shown they're concerned about quality? it has at least a 33% failure rate. even their driving wheels break down. and most of the games in their library are from third party devs.

what part of the 360 has MS shown they're concerned about affordable gaming? you have to pay extra for EVERYTHING.

you pay extra for playing online, you pay extra for charging your controllers, you pay extra for wifi, you pay $60 for games that were on the same format last-gen (DVD).

sorry for jumping on you but i just couldn't let you get away with that bullsh!t"

I think he meant that the GAMES are quality, which they are. If you look at 360's lineup, you'll see a very high ratio of AAA titles to average ones, much higher than the PS3's, or Wii's. Why does it matter if they are first party or third, as long as they are good? Yeah, the hardware is faulty, but at least they will replace it.

Also, 360 IS very affordable for a high-def system, if you realize that all you need is a basic version, at $279 to play games. What's the cheapest PS3, $399? The Xbox is $120 less, and only $30 more than the Wii, which isn't even in HD. You certainly don't need WiFi to play online, it's just convenient not to have an extra wire along the floor. Also, you don't need a disk drive to play games either. A $5 memory card will work just fine.

Once again, who cares if the games are on DVD, as long as they are good. Maybe Sony fanboys do, for bragging rights. I don't remember anyone playing a 360 game and saying "Oh man, I wish this was on blue ray, so it would have 50 gigs of empty space left!!!" Besides, aren't some PS3 games more expensive than on the 360?

MikeGdaGod3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

1) no, all PS3 games are $60 unless you're buying a special edition or the game comes with an accessory. (Lost Planet for PS3 is actually $40)

2) maybe you don't care about changing disk, but i do. and with games already on the 360 coming on 4 disk, it's just gonna get worse as the years pass. if devs do decide to keep the games on one or two disks, you better believe they'll be leaving some things out that they originally wanted to be in the game. ex.....(UT3 for 360 won't have all the maps that came with the PC and PS3 version)

3) who told you memory cards take the place of HDDs? they're good for game save data, but there's no way they substitute for a HDD. thats just crazy. most games on PS3 you can load 1-3GB of data onto the HDD so it runs very fast with no load times. memory cards can't do that.

4) to me, the 360 is not a HD system. i know people will argue this point all day and night but to me, its not. it upscales its games to HD, but the games are on regular DVDs and not HD DVD or Bluray. if you put in a regular DVD to watch a movie, it will not upscale it to HD. you have to buy the HD DVD add-on for that. i know it sounds petty but thats the way i see it.

5) the price is all relative to what you get and what you want. the $600 PS3 was a good deal to me when it launched because i knew what i was getting and i knew what i wanted and i can afford it. the $279 360 may sound like a deal, but for what you get its not. the $349 is a much better buy IMO.

6) lastly the games.....this is pretty simple. the ps3 has been out for one year (less in some areas) and will get plenty of AAA games this year. of course with the 360 being out for a year longer it would have more games and a better chance of having more AAA titles. that will all change this year. 360 really doesn't stand a chance with the ps3 '08 lineup. sony has a sh!tload of GOOD 1st and 3rd party devs in their stable.

ambientFLIER3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

1) I remember seeing a story on here not too long ago that some PS3 games are going to be more expensive than 360 ones, maybe here, maybe in another country. I don't remember if it is because of higher developing costs, or the disk costs.

2) I have a nice stack of all the 360 hits, and all of them are on a single disk. Granted, there are no RPG's, because I hate them, but still, to a lot of people it won't be a big deal, and some will never even own a multi-disk game. Btw, I think it's pretty ridiculous that developers need a trillion gigs of space just to make a decent game these days. I understand that HD requires a lot of detail and storage, but are 10 hours of cut-scenes really needed?

3) Most games on the PS3? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was only one or two games that have this feature. It IS nice to be able to stream the data and skip the loading times, but then again, for $120 less many people wouldn't care. It's just not an essential feature, and the lack of it makes the 360 cheaper, and affordable. As I said, if you are buying the core system, then you are probably more of a casual gamer, and won't need any kind of storage or super duper options, and will appreciate the lower price.

4) You are right. The 360 is NOT an HD movie player. Once again, this was done for affordability. However, it IS an HD game console. It doesn't just upscale the games, it actually runs them in HD. There are 720p and even native 1080p games on it. Maybe you just don't know at what resolution something is considered HD, which is 720p. If you want it to be an HD movie player as well, then buy the drive add-on, but not many people care, according to the sales. Also, the fact that games are on DVD, has nothing to do with their resolution. It just means that you can store less content on it. The PS3 has blu-ray, and most of its games are at the same resolution as the Xbox.

5) You are right, the price IS relative. A $500 PS3 is a good deal because it has many features that would cost more on their own. However, the base Xbox is still much cheaper, which does uphold the "affordability" principle. You get everything you need to play a game, and nothing more.

6) The fact that PS3 has only been out for a year has nothing to do with the fact that Xbox has many quality games, which was the whole point of my original comment. Even if the PS3 catches up to the 360 in the amount of AAA releases, it won't change the fact that there is a very high ratio of good games to bad games on the Xbox. Also, the PS3 will have a good year in 2008, but from what I've seen so far, the Xbox will come out with many good titles as well, so my point will remain valid even then.

7) Thanks for being mature in this argument, unlike 99.9% of Sony fans. I have nothing against the PS3, but I DO have a problem with idiots bashing the 360 because the PS3 can do slightly more math calculations, in theory, which never translates to games (yet).

MikeGdaGod3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

1) no, all games cost the same

2) no, 10 hours of cut-scenes is not needed, but its nice to at least have the option if the devs want to use it.

3) no, i have about four or five games that use that feature (UT3 is the most recent). but the HDD is also great for the ability to download FULL ps3 games (Warhawk, Tekken:DR), those two games take up about 2GB together. need alot of memory cards for that.

4) true

5) true

6) no, the ps3 will eventually pass the 360's library # because of the amount of devs working just on the ps3 solely. look at Insomniac, they're releasing one AAA game a year! that's BIG

7) i had a 360 when it first came out and i enjoyed some games on it. but i really only bought it to pass the time until the ps3 launched. after two hardware problems (1 RRoD, 1 disk read and scratch) and the ps3 launch, i gave my 360 to my cousin and bought a ps3.

i still enjoy playing the 360 and have no hatred toward it, or any piece of electronics. i just enjoy the games on the Playstation platforms more than any other. the ps3 has great games out and the only thing i miss feature wise from the 360 is custom music and in-game chat, which both should be coming soon.

and now that the one game i wanted for the 360 (Left4Dead) could be headed to the ps3 i'm extremely happy.

you might as well cross over to the darkside like me LOL

LastDance3858d ago

whats with you kiddies having so much money haha... seriously.

I had to cut of an arm to buy my ps3...some people are like.... Yea i might buy another 1 soon.. ahha wtf..

AbientFLyer I believe i read somewhere that even resistance used 17gb on the blu ray disk.
And other games made for the xbox have to cut down to fit the DVD. Fact is very soon devs will be using this space because they have it available. In 2-3 years it will be interesting to see how the DVD holds up in the world of gaming. 4 disks for a game is just not going to happen.

ambientFLIER3858d ago

I don't really need a PS3 right now. My favorite games are first person shooters and racing games, and the 360 is the one to have for that. It's true that GT5 is coming out soon, but that's the only game I would want. I have no interest in MGS or any kind of rpg like Final Fantasy.

Also, I don't know if any more developers would work exclusively on the PS3 games. So far all their products have not sold well. Uncharted and UT3 are good examples. Extremely-well reviewed, but sold poorly. 360 is still the place to be to make money. Maybe that will change in the future.

By the way, aren't disk scratching problems the buyer's fault, since I've heard that it's because the system is moved while it's spinning the disk?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3858d ago
Le-mo3858d ago

You lose at life too. Blu-ray gives the developers more space to work with and while I do agree with you that most PS3 games right now don't utilize the capacity but as time goes by you will see the importance of blu-ray. As for the 360's version's quality is better, that depends on the developer and have nothing to do with blu-ray.

heyheyhey3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

cry all you want mate, but DVD9 is rapidly becoming obsolete for use in games (LO is on 4 disks) and in about a year or two, every 360 game will be on two disks or more

and look who will come crawling to sony's feet- begging for some Blu love

EDIT: erm.. ok then have fun paying for yet another console while M$ drop the 360 completely and leave consumers annoyed and angry

this is why the next xbox will flop just like the 360:

-PS3 will have built up a sizeable install base and therefore 3rd party support

-as i said, consumers might be reluctant to buy the 720 in fear of M$ dropping after 3 years to make another console

-it will take M$ ages to develop a CPU more powerful than the cell and if they release 720 with an inferior CPU yet again- they will be criticized heavily and no one will buy their console

-M$ has poor 1st party support- the only thing they have is halo- which wont be developed by Bungie anymore

-3rd party will have learned the PS3 architecture and will be producing excellent PS3 exclusives and might not even bother with the 720 so it will be a bit like PS2 vs XBOX

-more and more people are refusing to buy M$ products nowadays (like me) because they have been cheated, fooled and lied to too many times

-M$ just sucks with hardware full stop (see RROD, disk scratching, the abysmal Zune etc etc)

-only fools like you will be prepared to dish out cash year after year for a product that gets worse and worse (presumably to play halo)

-who knows if the BDA will let M$ join them, and using HD-DVD not only limits the consumer with what HD movies they can watch- but HD-DVD also has a much lower capacity than blu-ray so yet again, games will appear on multiple disks eventually while blu-ray capacity will last for a LOOOOONG time (1000gb is the theoretical limit for blu-ray)

CNIVEK3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

In a year or 2, MS will announce their 360 successor, which will trump the PS3 in every way. ;)

Edit: Travelguy, I've been telling people that all along. Some people don't seem to understand, that when you design a GAMING CONSOLE for GAMES FIRST, you aren't bound to ANY specific format. MS is just sitting back, watching all the new media technologies being developed...ASIDE from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD...and will make the best decision that suits the gamers. Win or lose, Sony was ONLY concerned about themselves.

travelguy2k3858d ago (Edited 3858d ago )

when Microsoft does bring out a new machine, i bet it has a combo -player hd-dvd/blue ray and that its games will be on HD dvd not blue ray. The only reason to put Blue ray in for Microsoft is to add value for the consumer, but they don't need to support it with games.

Blue Ray FTW!!!

bootsielon3858d ago

In 2 years Microsoft will start on ground zero with no install base. In 2 years, Sony won't need another console because PS3 is future proof. The next Wii will be similar in power to the PS3. Xbox 720 games will be too expensive to produce, and the main platforms will be Wii 2 and PS3 because of install base and cheapness to produce. Microsoft set themselves up for failure when they put DVD9 on 360.

rofldings3858d ago


It fascinates me that you argue about the PS2 being "obsolete technology" in this thread:

Yet, you'll defend everything about your 360. Don't forget to mention it's off-the-shelf PC parts from 2005.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3858d ago
Show all comments (36)
The story is too old to be commented.