TQcast- Yesterday, we posted an article covering the latest bad news for Sony. Hackers have successfully made new PS3 games available for download. What caught our attention the most was the size of some of these games. Is Blu-Ray even needed today?
-__- saw this yesterday!. Like GoW3 being 40sumthing gigs etc etc. same old articles talking bout the same stuff over and over again!
Main thing to get from this article is this, developers who are exclusive to PS3 have nothing to worry about when it comes to disc size and therefore take advantage of the space. Those that are multiplatform are forced to limit themselves to 7GB because of the Xbox 360, or be forced to go over and use more discs (something which is only really acceptable on games like RPGs). For example, Red Dead is something like 4GB, would it be 4GB if it was PS3 exclusive? I guarantee it wouldn't.
Great thanks for the explanantion, and thanks to all for approving the article. /s Not trying to be a a$$, but how is this news or not something we have known for 3 years?
so what about halo odst? would the devs would still used one bluray for the campaign and one for the multiplayer? yeah sure
halo odst could have fit on one disc, the only reason they went with 2 discs was because the multiplayer disc had to be compatible with halo 3 achievements and have the same title ID.
@gaffyh. If Red Dead was 7 gigs I'd agree with your last sentence, but it's only 4.
@kaveti - same thing applies. They have obviously compressed the data quite a bit, they wouldn't have to compress ANY data, and wouldn't have to cut any content.
demon souls is 4.8gb and thats exclusive, infamous is only 7
thats right, there will always be games that dont quite fill the quota. Back in the ps2 days not all games filled those disks neither but you are choosing to miss the point. The fact is its better to have and not need than always have that limit over your head. Its not rocket science but this crap as continued to divide opinions even though it makes total sense to have more space than the last gen NOT less (due to 360 protection whatnot). Some will STILL in 2010 still argue that its not 'needed'.....I say neither is steak or a ferrari. Some will still point to games like infamous and other titles that havent pushed the limits and that is a tad closed minded imo. There have been countless times, reports and games that have suggested that dvd9 is in fact limiting some aspects of SOME games and genre's not ALL. Either way black hole compression can only do so much and from what i hear on here swapping disks is nothing and anybody who complains about that is lazy or something ¬_¬.
The DvDs for 360 dont allow for the use of the WHOLE disc, which is 7.3 gigs or along those lines. M$ reserves 2gigs of disc space per disc for security software and other little things that work in the background. So in reality you only get 5gigs of actual disc space to work with, possibly less. Fanboys that say the DvDs havent limited the xbox this gaming Gen (or limited games PERIOD) are living in la la land. The truth hurts, but just accept it. Microsoft messed up by sticking with a bronze age medium.
most devs arent too worried about some buthurt fanboys opinion. Thats why most games are multiplatform. They want that cash baby...Though expect next gen to be an all Blu-ray format..
Get this correctly damn it, Third parties can't develop bigger games cos they make Multiplat games, that means, PS3 and xbox 360, they CAN'T use the the whole BR-D cos that means: 1 BR-D = 50GB/54GB -> 5,8/6 DVDs (8.5GB per disc and remember the security-something in those x360 DVDs that take useful space for nothing, since x360 games can be pirated easily, which means 6.8/7GB of data) Third parties aim to "parity" = equal version on both consoles and a max of 3DVDs per games by MS rules, so is not like third parties don't need more space, it's just MS that make third parties pay more royalties if they want to use more than 3DVDs...
Actually it's the publishers that want the cash, the developers are often disgruntled having to compress there game to hell to fit it on a DVD. Either way over half of those wouldn't fit on a DVD, not just the PS3 titles. Oh and it lists TFWFC as 200mb? the hell? Edit: LMAO, took less than 30s for the idiot below me to get bubbled down into oblivion. Good stuff.
@gaffyh: "For example, Red Dead is something like 4GB, would it be 4GB if it was PS3 exclusive? I guarantee it wouldn't." why not? you said it yourself, on 360 developers have about 7gb to play with........so why is Red Dead only 4gb? thats only just over 50% of the available space? so why do you think that itd suddenly jump up even more in size if they had 25gb available when they didnt even use all available 7gb? that train of thought literally makes no sense. what people are forgetting is that when they see a game that is say 6gb on 360, it doesnt mean that theres only 6gb of data. when uncompressed, it could be anywhere up to 15gb or more. compression is actually a GOOD thing these days. its not like the old days where compression techniques were lossy and youd lose detail in pictures etc. these days you can take a 10mb image and compress it down to <1mb and the human eye literally cannot see any difference unless you look under a microscope/zoom in and look. this helps with load times, as decompression is basically done 'on the fly' on these consoles. compression combined with the 360s faster read speed are the reasons why most 360 games load quicker - sony like to keep everything uncompressed so they can talk up how big their games are, but by doing so theyre hurting load times. reading 10mb from a disc takes noticably longer than reading 1mb, but you wouldnt notice any difference between the 10mb file and the 1mb one. @Trebius: "Funniest part is ... The DvDs for 360 dont allow for the use of the WHOLE disc, which is 7.3 gigs or along those lines. M$ reserves 2gigs of disc space per disc for security software and other little things that work in the background. So in reality you only get 5gigs of actual disc space to work with, possibly less. " incorrect. a DVD holds 9gb of data. microsoft reserve 2gb. 9gb - 2gb = 7gb. developers have 7gb to work with. @siyrobbo: "halo odst could have fit on one disc, the only reason they went with 2 discs was because the multiplayer disc had to be compatible with halo 3 achievements and have the same title ID." 100% correct, but the sony fanboys wont listen. they dont understand that in order to play xbox live games multiplayer, you literally have to be playing the same game. Halo 3: ODST is NOT Halo 3. they both have their own set of achievements, and when you play ODST it says youre playing Halo 3: ODST, not Halo 3. the ONLY way to let people play Halo 3s multiplayer that came with ODST against people with just regular Halo 3 was to include it as a second disc, which the 360 just reads as Halo 3. it was NOT on 2 discs because of lack of room on the DVD. ODST is only like 3gb when installed, and the entire Halo 3 game is only like 6, so multiplayer would probably be around 2gb.
I don't think developers like EA, Activision or any others are gonna spend the money or the time to make games that take up 30+ gigs. This is something I think only SONY'S in house teams will do.
I would have to agree with you especially with games that are on multiple discs exclusively on the XBOX 360 and multiplatform. Games like Forza 3, Halo 3:ODST, Rage, Lost Odyssey, Final Fantasy 14, Infinite Undiscovery, Blue Dragon etc. The famous games that have surpassed the limit have been raising the bar like the Uncharted Series, Infamous Series, Gran Turismo Series, God of War Series, Killzone Series etc.
you forgot that both games are from 3rd parties! Sucker Punch and From Software are not owned by Sony thus while making exclusives, they don't have THAT much resources like Sony's own studios like Sony SM or PD who can take as much time and resources they need directly from Sony for their games!
UT3: 4gigs, thus there was much free space on the disc, BUT UT3 has heavily compressed movies now why didn't they use uncompressed 1080P movies and sound for UT3?! Laziness? I don't think so: MS had a timed contract with Epic to make UT3 superior on the 360: -extra maps -360 exclusive split screen mode this is why the movies and sound on the PS3 were the same as the PS3, it wasn't allowed to be superior, except for the mod support when the contract expired EPIC released the extra maps and split screen also for the PS3, but 1080P movies were too big for a patch @people who disagree: please explain why they didn't use uncompressed movies and sound
maybe because uncompressed 1080p video takes upto 834GB per hour of footage? also unreal tournament 3 was timed exclusive to ps3
don't play stupid, you know I mean a very low compression codec like MPEG-2, like the ones they use for BD movies the visual quality drop is so low, you can't spot the difference with an uncompressed video
what difference does it matter? it wouldn't have sold better
did you really just.......*sighs whilst slowly raises hand to facepalm*
movies? Im sure that was running on the unreal 3 engine not video.
WAIT!!! UT3 has splitscreen now!?!? BUUUUUT FUUUUUCK!
UT3 has split-screen on PS3 also. *sigh* It was added in the Titan patch...which came with more free content, game tweaks, and added split-screen. :(
@above reading comprehension fail "when the contract expired EPIC released the extra maps and split screen also for the PS3, but 1080P movies were too big for a patch " @gtamike yes this was done with UT3 engine, but it was PRERENDERED, rendered with UT3 and saved as video, the compression artifacts in the video proves this.
and every other 2-disc required game say hi!
Then why do you keep acknowledging retreads of these articles?
...Which is why a lot of people only buy PS3 exclusives; because it's worth it.
blu-ray = less scratches better games cool movie picture...what else do you want? its not needed but its nice to have
Exclusive games are NON compressed thats why they are bigger than DVD any idiot knows this. It means faster loading time and easier for your console to read thus a better gaming experience. Stupid article wrote by people who don't know how technology works. Basically MS choosing DVD hurt game development. They really should have switched to HD-DVD for games even if it didn't take off for movies.
Yeah, most games are lower in size because they're multiplatform and they develop for the lowest common denominator. Not because they can't take advantage of the extra space.
pc still use dvd9 and they have the best looking games so i cant agree that we need blu-ray for this gen. I've been more than happy with what my 360 provides interms of gaming and its the same with my ps3, although i feel it would haver been to 360s advantage to have had an internal hd dvd drive i dont think its been detrimental to the console.
i dont think you'll get a reply, because your statement makes no sense. smh pc games ship with the highest res texures on the disc. and your videocard then limits what can be displayed, by turning off certain filters or applying them. you sir need to do some reading. Pc vid cards also do upscaling ... you can play a sega gen game in 1080p if you wanted to.
pc games ship with all there content on dvd9 so why is it imperitive that we need blu ray this gen when games like crysis come on one dvd
Obviously Blu-Ray is only utilized properly with exclusives, because with multi-plats, the devs have to make it run on 360 aswell. Making a different version for each platform wouldn't exactly be cost efficient. Also, holy shit, GOWIII takes up more space than MGS4. That one took up about 37GB.
Is Blu-Ray even needed today? Blu-Ray Capacity Only needed for PS3 Exclusives and Movies ....what else do you want, those exclusives are all you need
You're absolutely right! PS3 exclusives are all you need. I mean, who would want crap like Assassin's Creed, Street Fighter IV, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, BioShock, The Elder Scrolls, Rock Band, Arkham Asylum, Portal, Dead Space, Battlefield, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Age, and Resident Evil?
Who ever disagrees with you, needs to play some more games and stop holding their PS3 exclusives by a death grip. Even though every game I own for my PS3 is exclusive.........but that's why I got a 360 :)
did you just put cod in youre post
the only ps3 exclusive i can think of that really needs bluray is MGS4, seriously that game is 10%game 90% movie
omg...elder scrolls is cool, same as the other games on that list... you need to play other games not just exclusives...regardless of which console they are on
To be fair, I bought maybe two games on that list! And MGS4 was a PS3 exclusive, whether I need to buy MGSR is still up for debate.(who am I kidding, it's Metal Gear!)
@t9x69 It's not the comment their disagreeing with it's the poster, it he wasn't trolling virtually every positive sony article ect. He wouldn't have gotten all those disagrees for a reasonable statement, but being who he is meh. @crazy So very sorry your mindless killing enjoyment had to be interrupted with a story designed to make you think.
I actually agree with N4PS3Fanboys, even though I know he's being sarcastic. I have played every game in that list, but none were as satisfying as the PS3 exclusives I own.
Dont care for the others. I much prefer the Japanese offerings. The only multiplatform games I've owned this gen are Blaz Blue and Assassins Creed (gave it away). Other multi-plats I'm interested coming this year are Fist of the North Star and Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom; J-Dev games. It's not about, oh it's multi-platform so I'm not interested it's just most I find bland. Not all but most.
there was probably only few multiplatform titles you've listed that i actually like and would buy, the rest would be a rental or just simply dismissed. not negating what you said because i agree with you, just saying most those games i couldn't care less for. EDIT: "It's not about, oh it's multi-platform so I'm not interested it's just most I find bland. Not all but most." well put, my sentiments exactly.
Metal gear solid and most final fantasys and most GTA's are mostly on PS are was on Playstation first and those are the biggest franchises in your little list
and some multiplatform games and some Xbox360 exclusives...
I think you guys may be missing the boat here. He means PS3 exclusives are all you need to justify using Blu-Rays. Yes there are great games not exclusive to a console. Seriously before you guys jump down someone's threat, try to think of things from every side. Nitpicking is pointless in debate. Even with your posts, you illustrate further why Blu-Ray is necessary. All those games you listed are limited in space because of the Xbox 360. Not vice versa. Bottom line here...the Xbox 360 is holding back progress in gaming.
As above says. Only get the PS3 exclusives on PS3 now. Any Multiplatform game I get for PC because it is usually about £10 cheaper and it looks better, on par with the PS3 exclusives... except for maybe a couple of gems which consoles at the moment cannot compete with but they are rarer than the PC fanboys like to make out. I don't see a point in getting the multiplats on a console.
Well... not shit, because if it was bigger than 6GB it wouldn't fit on a 360 DVD...
Metroid: Other M is probably bigger than most 360 games. XD
Yeah, Other M is about 8GBs.
Blame MS for this, this generation would have been 10x better if they just swallowed their pride and put BR in the 360.
I can give you a couple of reasons why they didn't use Blu ray...Of course it will all be in a business perspective. You cannot blame MS. You should blame developers using the 360 to develop the game.
I`m pretty sure it wasn`t the devolpers who decided what storage medium they were gonna use. It`s was being blinded by wanting to out do Sony, like most other irrational choices they`ve made this gen.
Pretty sure MS didn't go with BR because Sony didn't want to go with MS's disc format software. Saw a chance to sabotage it while getting their way with HD-DVD, though they then sacrificed it for the opportunity to the 360 to market early. That's MS's business perspective.
was blu ray even finalized when 360 was being made ?
Add on. Something.
They tried...and it was HD-DVD....it failed...do you want them to add on Blu-Ray after that? That wouldn't make sense.
No but MS rushed the console and now we have the most unreliable piece of hardware ever created. The symbol is a Red Ring (of Death) and that's how the X360 will be remembered for the years to come. It was a miracle that the X360 wasn't forced to be removed from the market, seriously... I mean, there's people that had 5 Xboxs die on them in a span of 2 years! Not even the PS2 was that unreliable!
As a gamer, yes.
@Montoya If you add Blu-Ray, all previous 360's cannot play BluRay based games. Its not a question of whther its worth it to add Blu-Ray, but instead, is it even possible. edit: I understand that releasing an HD-DVD add-on was going to have the same problem, but byt the time HD-DVD failed it seemed like it was a little too late for MS to release an addition attachment
...clearly those ppl can't take care of their Xbox...mine only broke once due to red ring and it still works fine after 4 years
@ Gam3s4lif3 LoL. You said your Xbox 360 ONLY broke once as if that's a good thing. How about owning a console that doesn't break at all. Please see my Wii and multiple PS3 consoles for examples.
can forget some history. MS wanted to push out the X360 before Sony could put out the PS3. Not only that they had pride on the line and went with HD-DVD. HOWEVER HD-DVD just like BluRay was not finalized by the time MS wanted to push out the 360. So they launched the 360 without a HD-DVD support out the box...not only that IF they did launch it with the HD-DVD drive MS couldn't price it as "low" as it was at launch and not only that it would come out around the time PS3 launched. And even if they did add a HD-DVD built into the X360 console they would screw the 1st year adopters. This isn't an iPod where most of people see it as a "disposable" good every time a new generation comes out... Its a system that requires a hard format to do what it was made to do, play games. Not only that consumers without the drive would get screwed out of games if it was on HD-DVD format and couldn't play it. This is why crap like the HDD Drive addon for the PS2 never took off, came to late.
lol at least it only broke once and i was happy wen i got it back within a week and i live in New Zealand too at least i hav a life and dont waste my cash on multiple console like u