Blu-ray was worth it - Sony

By Ellie Gibson Published 1 August, 2007

"Games need more space."

Following comments by Bizarre Creations about the struggle to fit Project Gotham Racing 4 onto a single DVD, Sony has gone "Look, see, that's why Blu-ray's a good idea!"

All right, that's not a direct quote. But SCEA spokesperson Dave Karraker did tell GamesIndustry.biz, "We took a lot of heat at launch for including Blu-ray in PS3. Now it looks like that investment is being justified.

"Next generation games simply need more space on the disc to contain all that high definition content," he continued.

"Take a look at Lair, for example, already pushing 25GB of content, and that is a first-generation title. At 50GB storage capacity, Blu-ray gives the PS3 plenty of headroom for developers to fully realise their visions well into the future."

Sony's comments come after Bizarre confirmed on its forum that you won't see different times of day in each of PGR4's racing locations.

"This involves recreating all the textures again (one for day and one for night). Whilst this wasn't a problem for our dev team, it was a problem fitting all this data onto a single DVD," Bizarre explained.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (189) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Uncle_Fishboy #1 5 years ago

    I have a 360 and think PS3 is a bit of a balls up. But I have to admit the sony guy has some merit in what he is saying. I feel like my mum just showed me her old wisened breasts

  • AcidSnake #2 5 years ago

    Recreating the textures?...Couldn't some dynamic lighting system be put in?...

  • mkreku #3 5 years ago

    He is right. But it's still annoying.

  • morriss #4 5 years ago

    This gets priority over HALO 3 WILL HAVE 4 PLAYER CO-OP OVER XBOX LIVE??!!

    :)

  • Eighthours #5 5 years ago

    Yawn.

    By the way, the Bizarre comment (from Ben, the web guy) was very soon corrected by Alan (one of the designers of the game).

  • drumbaby #6 5 years ago

    "Games need more space."

    No shit, Sherlock.

  • Aretak #7 5 years ago

    Indeed.

  • Tonka #8 5 years ago

    They were right all along? Naaah. It must be lazy people handling the compression over at Bizzare Creations.

  • Nobuo #9 5 years ago

    "It's all about the balancing costs thought isn't it?"

    A +1 to Xbox for balancing costs?

  • Scimarad #10 5 years ago

    "By the way, the Bizarre comment (from Ben, the web guy) was very soon corrected by Alan (one of the designers of the game)."

    What did he say? "Don't listen to him, HE'S A MADMAN!! Look! A picture of a kitten!"

  • SilasMalkav #11 5 years ago

    Devs will make games that fit onto DVDs before putting them on Blu-Ray, rather than making them bigger. That way they can still sell a game for all formats, rather than just making one for the ps3. Which is a shame.

  • DanWhitehead #12 5 years ago

    As long as games like Oblivion can fit on a DVD, I don't think the absence of nighttime in a racing game is going to sound the death knell for the format.

  • Darren #13 5 years ago

    Well Bizarre Creations did themselves no favours by admitting to not using dynamic lighting, which would surely have meant that PGR 4 would have fitted on DVD, possibly with another city. Stupid really. Games like Oblivion and Saints Row have day and night cycles but use dynamic lighting to simulate it rather than two sets of textures (presumably).

    Sony do have a point though... BD allows developers to make the games they want to without worrying about having to cut bits out, span it across multiple discs (and, thus, alter the level design) or overcompress everything. Even if they only use 10 or 15 GB of a BD disc, it's still more than what the Xbox 360 has access to as it doesn't even have 9 GB of space on a DVD, only 7 GB!

    Could we see exclusive PS3 games that look more polished and varied in the coming years and smaller exclusive games on the 360 but more in the way of downloadable content to offset the reduced storage space of DVDs?

    Multi-disc games are an option, Blue Dragon, out this month, comes on THREE DVDs but I reckon most developers will choose to squeeze the game onto a single disc for convenience. RPGs are usually linear so disc swapping isn't really a problem but it would be a hassle for a FPS, sports or racing game, particularly when it comes to the online multiplayer. Maybe we'll see future Xbox 360 games that have their multiplayer and single player components on separate discs. That would suit me fine as I don't play games online anyway, I could just leave that disc in the box! LOL

  • AtomicBanana #14 5 years ago

    Lair has got poor reviews, so hardly a title to bring up is it?

  • Steroyd #15 5 years ago

    Here we go again.

  • deepmenace #16 5 years ago

    meh, i knew this all along.

    there's some law that dictates that cpu speed gets faster isnt there? moores law or summat. well my law is that with each generation of console the storage medium for games must get lots bigger.

    not rocket science.

  • Rirekon #17 5 years ago

    "Data will expand to fit the space available."
    All that Blu-ray really means for games is that Developers will get lazy with compression and start adding all kinds of "extras" to their games. It just isn't cost effective to spend the time developing a game which uses all that space efficiently and still only retail it for £40.

  • kangarootoo #18 5 years ago

    @Darren

    Dynamic lighting never looks as good as baked in lighting though. Dynamic lighting is only something to use when necessary (i.e. when stuff is moving around and NEEDS to be lit dynamically).

  • Dizzy #19 5 years ago

    Space looking for games!

  • Wayne #20 5 years ago

    I've ranted in the past about Sony forcing Blu-Ray on people, but I'm starting to believe that maybe they're right now.

  • GChris #21 5 years ago

    "Meanwhile, most PC games come on multiple CD's are a single DVD."

    Most PC games also install onto hard disk, so that's hardly a fair comparison.

    When Microsoft first announced they were sticking with DVD for the 360 I thought it was a short-sighted decision and I still do. Blu-ray has certainly caused the PS3 a lot of short-term issues, but to be honest, there's not even that much point in the PS3 going mainstream yet anyway as the games simply aren't there yet.

    Hopefully Sony can bring the price into line just as the PS3's games line up is also starting to look tempting and all of a sudden it will take off. If the PS3 follows a similar timeline to the PS2 then we're in the equivalent of 2001. I remember seeing the PS2 on store shelves that year and there was nothing out for it then, either. The only difference is that Sony have strong competition from Microsoft (which is a good thing as it will drive them forwards faster and lead to competitive pricing sooner)

    If developers are already having trouble squeezing games onto a DVD *now* then the 360 is going to wind up being left behind in years to come unless Microsoft make some sort of change to the system, and they have only themselves to blame for that, as they rushed the 360 out to ensure they got there before Sony. (Although ironically they ended up having a huge lead on Sony due to all the delays - if they'd waited as long as Sony delayed the PS3 they probably could have had integral HD-DVD for not a huge amount more)

  • Arcadiian #22 5 years ago

    @ doormat101.

    We are ? Damn, maybe i should take my 360 games back and buy Resistance.

  • kangarootoo #23 5 years ago

    @northy

    For the average gamer I don't think that is really what makes a difference. I firmly believe it is all down to the games that are available. The only real thorn in Sony's side right now is there is bugger all out there for the PS3. If there was a raft of decent games for the system right now, I don't even think the expensive console cost would be so much of an issue for many people.

    I think that the Wii is riding a dangerous wave in that regard too. I think its a great system which deserves to do well, and of course it has already sold in bucket loads, but there are barely any decent games for it and that will eventually become a real problem.

  • kangarootoo #24 5 years ago

    @doormat101

    The 360 is also a great console. All three of them are.

    And ffs, using terms like xbodge360 just makes you look about 11 years old.

  • GChris #25 5 years ago

    "Stupid really. Games like Oblivion and Saints Row have day and night cycles but use dynamic lighting to simulate it rather than two sets of textures (presumably)."

    Dynamic lighting may be all well and good, but surely for any buildings you'd still need two textures to be able to turn the lights on at night? Might still save you some space though.

  • Nobuo #26 5 years ago

    @northy

    Low price doesn't always mean good cost management. For a start the consoles keep breaking. Have they actually fixed the problem yet or have they just committed to keep on replacing them all?

    Not that Sony are doing any better, I just think it's strange to put MS over Sony for the way they're handling their costs. They both suck.

  • Darren #27 5 years ago

    @SilasMalkav - "Devs will make games that fit onto DVDs before putting them on Blu-Ray, rather than making them bigger. That way they can still sell a game for all formats, rather than just making one for the ps3. Which is a shame."

    I agree, many will, but already there are developers making their games for the PS3 first, like Criterion with Burnout Paradise and Free Radical with Haze, so more may follow their lead once PS3 sales take off. Not all of those games will take advantage of the PS3's BD format but it's possible that some might. It's also feasible that two years down the line we might see Xbox 360 devs pissed off at having to squeeze their games onto DVD and defecting to the PS3 instead with it being dropped for the 360. That might sound far-fetched now but that does happen and the Xbox 360 might not always be the leading format...

    And what about games like Metal Gear Solid 4? That's heavily rumoured to be headed for the 360 at some point but it's clearly been made for the PS3 so it's likely to be a multi-disc game if it does. Not a big deal you might think. True, but given the choice I'd rather have the game on a single disc for sheer convenience.

  • Ceatlan #28 5 years ago

    The comment that the Bizarre employee made has nothing to do with whether they are using dynamic lighting or not. It has to do with the fact that buildings (and there are an awful lot in PGR), and other scenery looks more than just lit differently at night. At night you want to see buildings with lights on in the windows, where as at day you expect to see something through the windows instead. So the texture for the walls of the buildings does indeed need to be different during the night as opposed to the day. Unless you are supposing that the buildings are actually fully 3D models with interiors that have then own light sources, which the software can turn on as night draws in. I think we are still an awful long way from systems that can render those kinds of environments, and we probably wouldn't bother even if we could.

  • Darren #29 5 years ago

    @GChris - There's a mod for PC Oblivion that adds lights to windows in the game at night (they aren't there by default) and it uses a few megabytes at most... ;)

  • Wayne #30 5 years ago

    I've just had a thought? Why couldn't Bizarre stick as much as they can on the disc, then put the night time textures on Xbox Live and let net users download them?

  • drumbaby #31 5 years ago

    "Lair has got poor reviews, so hardly a title to bring up is it?"

    God forbid a game needing more than DVD's storage ever comes out, to much critical acclaim.

  • lambtron #32 5 years ago

    "True, but given the choice I'd rather have the game on a single disc for sheer convenience."

    It depends what you mean by this. If its:

    a) Halfway through a 60 hour game you have to get up and change the disc - who cares.
    b) You are drivng round a GTA like environment you have to change the disc everytime you go over a certain boundary - this is unacceptable :).

  • Fernando #33 5 years ago

    "I've ranted in the past about Sony forcing Blu-Ray on people, but I'm starting to believe that maybe they're right now. "

    agreed

  • TheMoonRat #34 5 years ago

    "Data will expand to fit the space available."
    "All that Blu-ray really means for games is that Developers will get lazy with compression"

    Lazy with compression? You do realise that the more something is compressed, the more cpu power is needed to decompress it, leaving less cpu power for the game....

    I can't see how anyone could argue that 9gb DVD is better than 50gb Blu-Ray. More is always better; developers always find a way of using what they have.

    The real point is; the games. Maybe a game could only be done on a 50gb blu-ray disc... but who cares - if the game sucks the game sucks. If the games is great the game is great

  • Arcadiian #35 5 years ago

    "I've ranted in the past about Sony forcing Blu-Ray on people, but I'm starting to believe that maybe they're right now."

    Sony are right. But they're not right yet. They'll be right when a good game comes out on PS3, that is impossible to do on the 360.

  • Mox #36 5 years ago

    Will the mass-market consumers pay for the additional content? If the price of games doesn't go up, and the sales figures don't improve, what developer is going to pay to produce five times as much asset data than is in titles that currently sell well?

  • Nobuo #37 5 years ago

    Did the PS2 get any flak for using DVD?

    Not a rhetorical question. :D

  • Darren #38 5 years ago

    @northy - This discussion is about storage space for games not 720p vs. 1080p.

    @Rirekon - Compression results in a loss of quality in not only the audio but the textures and FMVs as well and it's not something you particularly want in a high-definition game. It'd be fine for games on a standard definition TV but hi-def ones running on an HDTV show up these deficiencies more. Thus BD allows devs to maintain the high quality and only compress when it's absolutely needed, e.g. to fit the textures for a level into the memory footprint of the PS3.

  • Eighthours #39 5 years ago

    Did the PS2 get any flak for using DVD?

    No, because it was a necessary upgrade with so many big PS1 games appearing on more than one disc.

    See the massive difference this time round?

  • Fernando #40 5 years ago

    "Did the PS2 get any flak for using DVD? "


    yeah i remember owning a couple of dreamcast mags at the time, they criticised it for being expensive for devs and people were only buying PS2s to watch the matrix.

  • optimusprym8 #41 5 years ago

    yeah but they should be more concerned about how bloody long it takes to load anything on PS3, especially if there is potentially more data to load. I had my first proper taste of PS3 last night and was shocked at how long everything took to load from the simplest of menus to different colours on cars and the levels themselves. dayum, that needs addressing seriously.

  • Darren #42 5 years ago

    Wayne - "I've just had a thought? Why couldn't Bizarre stick as much as they can on the disc, then put the night time textures on Xbox Live and let net users download them?"

    I'm sure that what will happen because I get the impression that Bizarre had already created those textures but just couldn't squeeze them onto the disc because PGR 4 is twice the size of PGR 3. If that's the case, then it would make perfect sense for them to release them as downloadable content as it's easier than making entirely new tracks. The crunch will be whether that content will be given away free or sold. My money (no pun intended) is on the latter but it would be nice to be proven wrong!

  • G3org3 #43 5 years ago

    i laugh xbox fans tent to downtalk blu ray because they think its sony trojan horse whlist might be true but i cant see why someone in their right mind would consider more space as something bad?

    i don't disagree that the point is how it is used but the option of 50+GB is better than makin 6DVDS its common sense.

    that fooking excuse for a demo Heavenly sword was 996MB its 1.5times bigger than what you used to play 6-7 years ago as full games. get a grip if you dont mind having games split over 5 dvds that doesnt mean blu ray isnt or wont become a necessity in the future and PS3 is already equipped for it you might not
    like paying the price for it neither do i but ps3 is more future-proof, Sony is right.

    on the plus point experimental blu ray disks reach 100+gb just the practical side of things needs to be stated.
    on the bad side of things imagine if MS one day supports HD-DVD format games and forces you to buy the drive for 150+$ that would make the price of 360 even closer to PS3 price point

  • Darren #44 5 years ago

    @optimusprym8 - I presume you're referring to MotorStorm which I agree has absolutely horrid loading times but of the ten PS3 games I own, only that one is unbearable. About two-thirds of the games I have come with an option to install a cache file to the HDD (some automatically install it anyway like Oblivion) and it makes a nice difference to the loading times such that games load far quicker than their Xbox 360 equivalents, e.g. Ridge Racer 7 and Oblivion. The others appear to load as quickly without a cache, i.e. Harry Potter OotP loads as quick if not quicker than the Xbox 360 version.

    I seem to recall playing Xbox 360 games with horrid loading times too, remember PGR 3 or Burnout Revenge or MotoGP '06 or even Oblivion? Granted most 360 games now load pretty quickly but you still come across the odd game where you feel like you're staring at a loading screen more than actually playing the game, e.g. Colin McRae DiRT!
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 10:51

  • Lutz #45 5 years ago

    "xbox 360 is awesome!" - Micsrosoft
    "Wii rocks!" - Nintendo
    "Semi skimmed milk better than skimmed milk!" - farmer who only makes semi-skimmed milk.

    I mean, come one...

  • Steroyd #46 5 years ago

    32MB RAM is enough.

    /runs

  • dcangel #47 5 years ago

    Steroyd - surely you mean 640K? Nobody'll ever have a use for more than 640K of RAM.

  • G3org3 #48 5 years ago

    i wonder if its was xbox that had HD-DVD drive and PS3 a simple dvd drive
    how much of the xbox community would run happily around jumping in joy
    that sony did the greatest mistake ever after eve ate the apple in paradise
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 10:19

  • Darren #49 5 years ago

    @northy - A proper 1080p game should have higher quality assets, that is true, but we're talking about consoles here that have just 512 MB of memory in total so we're not going to see them this generation. All we're seeing at the moment is some games being rendered at 1080p using the same assets as the 720p version and that is fine for now. Until we have consoles that have 1 GB or more of memory, there's a limit to how detailed the textures can be, regardless of how more space there is to store them on. I'd say that PS3 games might have more detailed textures in time than their 360 equivalents but only because they haven't had to be overcompressed in the first place.

  • Les #50 5 years ago

    "This gets priority over HALO 3 WILL HAVE 4 PLAYER CO-OP OVER XBOX LIVE??!!

    :)"

    Halo 3?! ;)

  • Darren #51 5 years ago

    Halo 3... ZZZzzzzz!

  • Eighthours #52 5 years ago

    but i cant see why someone in their right mind would consider more space as something bad?

    You're missing the point. Of course, the more space you have the better.

    The question is: Is it necessary? And at the moment, the answer seems to be no.

  • Arcadiian #53 5 years ago

    Personally, i think if the best thing about your console is larger disc space, then there's a problem.

  • SeesThroughAll #54 5 years ago

    You're missing the point. Of course, the more space you have the better.

    The question is: Is it necessary? And at the moment, the answer seems to be no.

    More storage never really is necessary, but it always gets used, eventually. Think PS1 vs N64.

  • G3org3 #55 5 years ago

    i m not sure if i know how a 1080p game should be but from 32MB/64mb that we had 512MB seem like a good leap forward my friend.

    we cant start now telling how things will/should be when the next console with 3gb RAM and 12Ghz processor will annilate the current ones.
    as to the point here in this generation there are a lot of things that couldnt happen in the last thats all we need to see
    BR isnt the end of MS i doubt it will, just takes a constrain off devs backs that is quite helpful but i m not sure how much it will affect the market leading of MS and its exclusivities.

  • Les #56 5 years ago

    “MS did a great job designing the 360 as a console producing visuals which did 720p HD justice and at a reasonable price.”

    Come on, that’s bull. Designing a console with an approx. 30% failure rate is terrible. And DVD9 turns out to be too small for 720p games. What MS did is rush the HD console cycle. Because they wouldn’t wait, next gen arrived too soon, making this generation a wasted one. It’s currently not possible to create a machine at a consumer friendly price that delivers a HD gaming experience.

    And besides, consumers aren’t even too interested in full HD or HD-ready gaming as the success of the Wii and the disappointing sales of PS3 and 360 show.

  • G3org3 #57 5 years ago

    Wii sells for two reasons

    one is price
    the other i dont know

  • Arcadiian #58 5 years ago

    Why am i seeing Les running around his house, panicking over this generation ?

    This generation is a wasted one ? Well, i might aswell give up gaming now eh, wake me up when the next generation starts.

  • Drpwnage #59 5 years ago

    I remember when the switch to CD's was made and the word's 'Multi-media' were bandied around which basically meant a load of Crappy FMV in games...

    I'm sure at some point the benefit of Blu-ray discs will be seen on PS3 but I bet initially it will be for watch-once, over-long, rendered cut-scenes *cough* Final Fantasy and MGS.

  • G3org3 #60 5 years ago

    so Drpwnage imagine those games not coming to the xbox just because the intro-cut scene of the story doesnt fit....suxs doesnt it
    or even better if you need to download the ending....lol
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 10:38

  • Dizzy #61 5 years ago

    I hope it was worth losing the console war. I guess the sale of movies will make up for it.

  • Goodfella #62 5 years ago

    yeah but they should be more concerned about how bloody long it takes to load anything on PS3, especially if there is potentially more data to load. I had my first proper taste of PS3 last night and was shocked at how long everything took to load from the simplest of menus to different colours on cars and the levels themselves. dayum, that needs addressing seriously.

    Granted, Motorstorm has an overly long load time for the car selection screen but other than that I think blu-ray load times have been massively exaggerated. I went as far as to time track load times for Motorstorm and Forza 2, the results, Motorstorm took just a few seconds longer. Forza 2 taking about 35 seconds. Hardly fast is it?

    Ridge Racer 7 (without the installation option) is very fast to load a race, Resistance load times are fairly fast (no longer than 15 seconds).

    So, once again I say, MS fanboys exaggerating I think.

  • Drpwnage #63 5 years ago

    @G3org3: It doesn't bother me, as soon as it starts to make an unmissable difference to game experience I'll buy a PS3. I'm a gamer not fanboy.

    I was just pointing out what a fanfare the original move to CD's was heralded with, and how long it took before it actually made a difference, (if you hadn't guessed I also dislike out-of-engine cut-scenes).

  • Darren #64 5 years ago

    @Eight Hours - Well Rockstar, Bizarre Creations, Team Ninja, Factor 5, Square-Enix, Insomniac and the creators of Enchanted Arms and Blue Dragon would say otherwise. ;)

  • Qbert2k #65 5 years ago

    It's a shame Bizzare decided to stuff PGR4 with all those CGI cutscenes.

  • G3org3 #66 5 years ago

    Drpwnage i didnt mean it against i figured you hated cut scenes lol you re not the only one but for the games you mentioned they are unavoidable. i m also a gamer not actually a fanboy i like to make fun of everything i dont like in every company but i tend to be a little in favour of Sony on this one even if we have to bare 15-min cut scenes as a side effect at least i know they can be done.

  • bioreit #67 5 years ago

    Okay, I just need to say two things.

    1. Blu-Ray uses compression. DVD uses compression. A Blu-Ray movie disc uses either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 codecs. That's 'codec', as in COmpressor / DECompressor. Using MPEG-2, a 25gb Blu-Ray disc can hold a whopping TWO WHOLE HOURS of HD footage.

    MPEG-4 (or H.264 for the codec geeks out there *waves*) can cram in roughly twice as much in the same space and is fast becoming the norm for all BD movies. Don't EVER fool yourself that Blu-Ray is uncompressed and don't EVER make the mistake that people could compress things 'too much'. Obviously there are limits, but you can decompress a hell of a lot of data without too much trouble.

    For example - do you think the massively long, wonderfully-detailed cutscenes in MGS4 and FFwhatevernumberwe'reupto will be uncompressed, raw HD FMV? No. They'll be compressed, probably using MPEG-4. Do you think THAT will cripple the PS3? No.

    2. All this "Microsoft sucks - everyone knows you can't fit a 720p game on a single DVD" crap - PC games have been doing it for YEARS. Yes, there is an install onto a hard drive, but there are ways around that. And don't for one second think that Microsoft (the corporation which defined the computer age) doesn't have some neat compression/decompression techniques which it shares with its devs.

    Or did you all just think that MS just gives the devs a special dev-kit 360 and a bunch of textures and game engines and tells them to get on with it?


    Way more rambling and far longer than intended. Sorry.

  • Weezer #68 5 years ago

    I find it weird that games like Oblivion or Call of Duty 3, with a multitude of rich, varied environments can fit on an 8.5GB DVD while PGR 4 - a frickin' racing game - cannot.

    I totally believe them, but wonder if they're being super-precious about some finnicky detail on the top of a building that whips past at 100mph... having it photo-real is all well and good, but most of the time my brain is only looking at the edge of the track and the car in front.

    (8.5GB... christ that's a load of space. Ditch the video!!)

    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 11:03

  • spongebob #69 5 years ago

    They're not lying.

    Although it's not the size, but what you do with it :)

  • G3org3 #70 5 years ago

    a simple question regarding the past... could any of a previous generation consoles last till 2007 with just a cd drive instead of a dvd.
    everytime a console stuck to the previous format got pawned
    N64 died GC died DC died

    fast forward to today which is the same question simply with different formats means that space can always be utilized even if not needed now
    the early success of both Wii and 360 makes sure a fall like consoles of the past isnt possible but losing some ground in the future is certain

  • Darren #71 5 years ago

    @bioreit - BD movies now use mostly VC-1/MPEG-4 compression, like HD-DVD, but the extra 10GB of space per layer over its rival format allows for uncompressed audio as well and more extras. A high-definition 1080p movie requires huge amounts of data and has to output a fixed 1920x1080 buffer 24 times a second so it should be no surprise that they use compression as well. But we're talking games here NOT movies. The point is that BD allows games developers to store data without overcompressing it and/or cutting things out to squeeze it on a disc, and rendering a 1920x1080 scene in a game on-the-fly requires far less resources than the equivalent in a hi-def movie. ;)

    And, yes, PC games have been doing high resolutions and coming on mutliple CDs for years never mind DVDs, which has only happened in the last two to three years on a regular basis. Generally though, something suffers in the process. Look at how poor the pre-rendered movies are most of the time? It's only a matter of time before PC games ship on multiple DVDs but since they require installing to a hard drive before you can play them, it wouldn't be a problem as it might be for console owners.

  • Darren #72 5 years ago

    @Weezer - Xbox 360 developers only have 7 GB of DVD space to play with by the way so if Bizarre Creations needed 8.5 GB for PGR 4, well they ain't got it basically! LOL

  • Eighthours #73 5 years ago

    @Eight Hours - Well Rockstar, Bizarre Creations, Team Ninja, Factor 5, Square-Enix, Insomniac and the creators of Enchanted Arms and Blue Dragon would say otherwise. ;)

    Rockstar haven't, they're fitting GTA4 on one disc.
    Bizarre haven't, the game designer corrected Ben Ward's statement that led to this article (something that wasn't mentioned).
    Team Ninja are worried about their big rendered cutscenes with regards to space, not their games themselves.
    Factor 5 and Insomniac are aligned to Sony so of course they're going to push the party line.

    The simple fact is that stuff like Oblivion, GTA, Mass Effect, Halo 3, and the on-the-horizon Alan Wake and Fallout 3 will all fit on one disc. Since all these games are massive, it speaks volumes for the necessity of Blu-Ray at this time.

    The time when more space is necessary will undoubtedly come, but it's not now.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 11:18

  • SeesThroughAll #74 5 years ago

    A Blu-Ray movie disc uses either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 codecs.

    Doesn't the Blu-Ray player codec standard also include VC1?
    I believe the confusions people have with how much fits, and what is compressed/uncompressed comes from the fact that some Blu-Ray movies use uncompressed audio. Just because there's enough space for it.

    For example - do you think the massively long, wonderfully-detailed cutscenes in MGS4 and FFwhatevernumberwe'reupto will be uncompressed, raw HD FMV? No. They'll be compressed, probably using MPEG-4.

    No. No MPEG-4 either. They'll run in real-time. MGS has always been like that.

    Microsoft (the corporation which defined the computer age)

    LOL

  • moggsy #75 5 years ago

    Blu-ray gives the PS3 plenty of headroom for lazy developers to fully realise their visions well into the future.

    The PS3 was here a year later and probably £100 more expensive because of Blu Ray. That's the crux of why people got annoyed with Sony for shoehorning it into the PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 11:29

  • bioreit #76 5 years ago

    @ SeesThroughAll

    "No. No MPEG-4 either. They'll run in real-time. MGS has always been like that."

    So, there's going to be about 30 minutes of FMV on a single disc then? If MPEG-2 can only get them two hours of HD and they aren't even going to use THAT compression, and they need to fit the game on there as well............ Unless they're going to use really rubbish, low-res FMV sequences to show off on the 'True HD' tvs everyone bought, just for that extra jarring discord between in-game and cutscenes.

    And Microsoft HAVE defined the computer age - they brought computing to the masses, they make the products that almost everyone on the planet use. They are the bar that every other major computer company tries to beat.

    Undoubtedly other companies could have done the job better, but they didn't do it. Microsoft did.

  • G3org3 #77 5 years ago

    at least...its not lazy hardware makers

    bioreit you are the first person to make me see MS with angel wings sorry man that aint the case
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 11:32

  • smoothn00dle #78 5 years ago

    Hail to Ken Kutaragi..

  • bioreit #79 5 years ago

    What?

    Where do I give them Angel wings?

    At what point did me saying

    "Undoubtedly other companies could have done the job better"

    mean they were the best company on the planet?

    Please elaborate.

  • Qbert2k #80 5 years ago

    "Rockstar haven't"

    Actually that's wrong, have a look at this quote from Dan Houser in 2004.

    "The danger is currently the storage medium (DVD), and one we thing we’re all praying for in the next round of hardware is that they don’t just go, ‘It’s DVD again’."

    You can see that Rockstar were hoping for a next-gen disc format in both consoles.

  • G3org3 #81 5 years ago

    allow me to elaborate then

    you fail to mention that the other companies can't do so because of the monopoly MS has and made sure to keep with various ways. there is no way a company can make a OS with enough support to keep it going coz everything or almost is made with Window drivers
    you seem to forget how windows started and that while most people can find everything they need through MS many of them also trying to make something better on "simpler software" as in browsers etc etc

    when you say MS defined the computer age make sure you elaborate how you mean it because i find nothing comforting with the way MS defined it

  • Les #82 5 years ago

    "Microsoft (the corporation which defined the computer age)"

    You mean Microsoft that for about a decade stalled technologycal progress for PCs? In that case, you're right.

  • Peew971 #83 5 years ago

    Fair enough, games need more space now... But you can't blame MS for sticking with DVD since HD-DVD is pretty much on its way to death. It was a lose-lose situation for them so the best bet was to go with DVD and keep costs low. By the time every single game needs next-gen discs, we'll be talking about next-gen again.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 11:54

  • Les #84 5 years ago

    "And Microsoft HAVE defined the computer age - they brought computing to the masses, they make the products that almost everyone on the planet use. They are the bar that every other major computer company tries to beat."

    They sure have defined the computer age. Unfortunately in the worst way possible, leveraging their monopolies and destroying far more value than they created with their pre-2000 skyrocketing stock price. The fact that their products are used is not because of consumer choice but because of the lack thereof.

    The bar that other major computer companies try to beat is only that of MS's pre-2000 stock performance.

  • G3org3 #85 5 years ago

    why is HD-DVD dead?

  • bioreit #86 5 years ago

    Did I say Microsoft 'defining' it was an absolutely good thing? Did I say it was an absolutely bad thing?

    No.

    Never put words in my mouth, especially ones I didn't even makes inferences of.

    I made the statement prefectly clear the first time around:

    I was making reference to the fact that Microsoft has possibly the largest grouping of software engineers in its employ and it has experience in every single aspect of operating systems, office products, Interent browsers and a whole raft of other software packages. It has extensive knowledge in all of these fields and many more. Part of this knowledge would be in the realms of compressing/decompressing data and how to ensure high speeds when running software only from optical media instead of copying and unpacking from the optical media to a hard drive.

    Therefore, by saying "the corporation that defined the computer age", I was referring to all of this knowledge and expertise that Microsoft possessed. It was a reference to the knowledge of Microsoft and hinting that if anyone could find a way to ensure high transfer rates of data from an optical medium, while decompressing, Microsoft would be up there with the best.

    I didn't mention all that in the first place because

    1. As I said in that post, it was "way more rambling and far longer than intended", clearly demonstrating that in it's current form, I still considered it to be too long, so adding an explanation for a point I thought didn't need to be elaborated upon was a bad choice.

    2. I was not being specifically praiseworthy of Microsoft - I did not say "defined the computer age in a better and more complete way than anyone else" did I? YOU brought your own assumptions to my statement, added them to my comments and THEN criticised me for it.

    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 11:58

  • mcwildcard #87 5 years ago

    This discussion is far less 'fanboyish' than I was expecting, well done everyone!

    I would lean towards those who think Blu-ray is currently overkill, but people are missing the bigger picture.
    The PS2 had a 5yr lifespan before being superseded, in that time games progressed in leaps and bounds.
    If the PS3 has a similar lifespan, then I fully expect that the extra storage capacity will eventually become a distinct advantage in the market, DVD9 is adequate for today's games, but only the most die-hard of fanboys would argue that in 2 or 3yrs time it will still be sufficient.

  • bioreit #88 5 years ago

    @ Les

    I agree with you on most of that - I don't for one second think that Microsoft is some kind of loving, benevolent charity masquerading as a company.

    However, you cannot deny that Microsoft helped to bring at least basic computing to many more people than other companies would have done:

    Apple - until recently, too expensive and seen as the preserve of artists and people involved in films and advertising. In other words, sneery, looking-down-their-nose-at-the-common-folk types.

    Unix/Linux - again, until recently, far, far too complex and obtuse for regular people to use. Again, the preserve of people who see computing as 'elitist'.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 12:02

  • G3org3 #89 5 years ago

    you made it a lot clearer now

    remember that when you use words like "Define" remember that you emphasise a lot on either good or a bad side of something i apologize if you were offended by my misinterpertation.
    Personally i dont think MS all bad but its veeeeery far away from having the good impact on computer age...and don't confuse the talent and expertise of people within MS to the corporate policy and philosofy which that kinda suxs

    got hungry read ya all later

  • bioreit #90 5 years ago

    @ Les, SeesThroughAll and G3org3:

    Would you deny the fact that Ford defined the automotive age? In fact, the similarities between Ford and Microsoft are similar:

    Both companies were there from/near the beginning.

    Both companies brought their respective products to the people.

    Both companies have been surpassed by their rivals.

    Both companies are synonymous with their respective fields.

    Both companies have been guilty of malpractice.

    Both companies are 'lazy' and often do not come up with solutions as good as the competitors.

    Both companies have 'stolen' ideas from their rivals.


    I would just like to reiterate - I never said Microsoft had defined the computer age for the better, I merely pointed out that out of all the computer comanies, Microsoft has had the greatest impact on the development of the computer industry.

    My personal beliefs about whether it was for the better or worse were not once mentioned by me. They were added by others to my comments after I made my statement, for which I was lambasted.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 12:07

  • EvilSpaceMonkey #91 5 years ago

    @bioreit:
    "SeesThroughAll: No. No MPEG-4 either. They'll run in real-time. MGS has always been like that."
    "So, there's going to be about 30 minutes of FMV on a single disc then? If MPEG-2 can only get them two hours of HD and they aren't even going to use THAT compression, and they need to fit the game on there as well............ Unless they're going to use really rubbish, low-res FMV sequences to show off on the 'True HD' tvs everyone bought, just for that extra jarring discord between in-game and cutscenes."


    No bioreit. You've missed the point. SeesThroughAll was pointing out - correctly - that the MGS games don't use FMV. All parts of MGS are rendered in real-time using the game engine, so the disc space taken up is smaller being a package of scripting, models, textures and audio instead of huge chunks of prerendered video. If you've seen the recent MGS4 demo or played MGS, MGS2 or MGS3 you'd know that by now. Final Fantasy, well that's another matter entirely - FMV central, something that Squenix should really be stopping by now.

    (and yes I know there was a *minute* amount of FMV in the MGS games showing nukes going off in the 60s and stuff, but that was tiny in comparison to the amount of realtime cutscenes)

    Anyway, they're not using the space-hungry MPEG-2 for encoding on video these days anyway. Most BD discs now use either H.264/AVC or VC-1 which are both variants of the MPEG-4 base, and give much better compression with minimal artefacting.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 12:15

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #92 5 years ago

    Shame your amazing blu-ray drive and mystical cell processor can't fix your crippled console, poor sales and lack of good software.
    But hay, Sony keep spinning

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #93 5 years ago

    @AtomicBanana

    where can I see a Lair review?

  • bioreit #94 5 years ago

    @ EvilSpaceMonkey

    Hey, I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about MGS - completed the first one in Japanese in 7 hours (I can't speak Japanese) and MGS2 pissed me off so much with the excessive cutscenes I took it back that day. So my bad on the cutscenes for MGS4.

    But as you say, the Final Fantasy game poses the same problem I outlined - even if they use MPEG-4, the most they can squeeze on is about four hours of JUST footage, with no space for the game.

    Last time I played a FF game (FFVII), there was at least a good hour and a half of cutscenes and what-not. Any idea on what the total running time for the cutscenes for the new one are going to be?

  • miiiguel #95 5 years ago

    hummm, so is it better to have a Blu-Ray that doens't have games or amazing games with no different day times ?
    ok, ok, you can watch one of the 18 movies available in Blu-Ray, lots and lots and lots of times.

  • afghan_jones #96 5 years ago

    Yeah, eventually this will be true. For now, There plenty of amazing games coming out on DVD format, and very few (any?) games which really need to use up all that extra blu-ray disc space.

    This claim doesnt become true until devs start making games that use that extra space in a worthwhile way.

    Given the sort of amazing games that squeezed so much out of the PS2 later in it's life cycle, Im sure games developers will continue to find ways to cram plenty of next-gen goodnes onto DVD.

  • miiiguel #97 5 years ago

    This generation is a wasted one ? (Darren)
    Of course it is, if you have a PS3, try a 360 and you'll see!

    yet about the space, I can't figure out how PC gamers are playing all those games for 30 years, and other to come without the amazing Blu-Ray! We demand a Blu-Ray in every PC, so we can play Crisis!
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 12:25

  • Darren #98 5 years ago

    @Eight Hours - Rockstar have criticised the Xbox 360's DVD for holding them back. GTA IV is a multiformat game so they had little choice but to design it for the lowest common denominator which is obviously the Xbox 360. They've sinced announced that they've working on an exclusive franchise for the PS3, specifically to make use of the Cell processor and BD format.

    The other developers I mentioned have either praised the advantages of using BD for storage or complained about the lack of space on DVD. Whether that's because they couldn't fit FMV on the disc, is irrelevent really, it means that the game they wanted to make wasn't possible. ;)

  • Xerx3s #99 5 years ago

    Multi disc. Nuff said.

  • miiiguel #100 5 years ago

    and why PS-fundamentalists are so worried about ? You're not playing PGR4, we are!
    You are playing all those amazing games, like ...., and ???, and xxx, and I-don't-know-any-really, that are so big on your lovely machine!
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 12:30

  • miiiguel #101 5 years ago

    Darren: the same Rockstar that said GTA's full experience is on a 360, near you.

  • Les #102 5 years ago

    “Shame your amazing blu-ray drive and mystical cell processor can't fix your crippled console, poor sales and lack of good software.
    But hay, Sony keep spinning”

    Same can be said of the 360. Like I said before, it’s not possible yet to create a good quality console that can do proper HD gaming at a consumer friendly price, let alone having enough processing power left to also improve upon the gameplay (AI, physics, etc.).

    Had MS not rushed the 360, the next gen might have been worthy of the moniker.

    As next gen games show, there was plenty of life left in PS2 and Xbox for the non-graphix whores (aka most people).

    “Given the sort of amazing games that squeezed so much out of the PS2 later in it's life cycle, Im sure games developers will continue to find ways to cram plenty of next-gen goodnes onto DVD.”

    The PS2 isn’t a HD console, remember. So that comparison doesn’t hold.

  • Darren #103 5 years ago

    @bioreit - Have you considered that Square-Enix might be using real-time cutscenes rather that pre-rendered stuff for Final Fantasy XIII? Maybe only the front-end video that plays when you leave the game running at the title screen is 1080p FMV footage. Maybe Square-Enix will make the pre-rendered cutscenes 720p?

    Who knows, the game is months away and at this point in time no-one knows whether the game will use pre-rendered or real-time cutscenes, it might be a mixture of both, with the emphasis on real-time ones since the PS3 is clearly capable of doing them (just as the Xbox 360 is).

    Remember the Final Fantasy VII reworking from E3 2006, that was real-time and looked FMV quality? ;)

  • Les #104 5 years ago

    "Darren: the same Rockstar that said GTA's full experience is on a 360, near you."

    At a higher cost and probably with less content than any of the last gen GTA's. Got to love progress...

  • miiiguel #105 5 years ago

    I don't know about the sales, and honestly I really don't care, but what 360 doesn't lack is good software, and for me a device is only worth what it delivers, and it does.

  • Darren #106 5 years ago

    miiiguel - "Darren: the same Rockstar that said GTA's full experience is on a 360, near you."

    ... because it's stuff that would have fitted on BD for the PS3 version but they had to drop because they were also making the game for the Xbox 360. Microsoft just decided to pay $50 million for it to make it exclusive, that's all. ;)

    C'mon, don't be so naive... why do you think that GTA IV had gone back to the single city format of the earlier games? Could it be because they had limited space on a DVD? Maybe? All those high-def textures and stuff will eat away at that 7.2 GB of space...

  • miiiguel #107 5 years ago

    so, and yet again:
    "hummm, so is it better to have a Blu-Ray that doesn't have games?"

  • Kami #108 5 years ago

    Games need more space, perhaps I can agree with that. Shame that more space won't directly correlate to better games.

  • Les #109 5 years ago

    "but what 360 doesn't lack is good software"

    Like I said before, I wouldn't call short HD versions of last gen games good software. Surely not good enough to warrant a hardware upgrade. But then again, I'm not a graphics whore. I’m not saying this is any different on PS3. Both machines were rushed and I blame MS for this generation of crippled hardware and software.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 12:53

  • Darren #110 5 years ago

    The PS3 has been out just, what, eight months, and only four here in Europe. The Xbox 360 has been out over 20 months so shouldn't we waiting until the PS3 has been out that long before we start having a dig at its lack of games? I don't seem to recall the Xbox 360 being swamped with games, quality or otherwise, for the best part of a year and even now it doesn't see as many games releases each week as, say, the PS2.

  • miiiguel #111 5 years ago

    Les: you don't know 360's software..., that's quite noticeable!

  • Les #112 5 years ago

    Come on, even professional games journalists begin to complain that gameplay-wise, there's no such thing as next-gen software.

  • Darren #113 5 years ago

    @Les - Hmmm, the Xbox 360 was certainly rushed, we know that much from the poorly designed, unreliable hardware and many of the launch games were somewhat shoddy, lacking in features and somewhat buggy.

    However, I don't believe the PS3 is quite so rushed but I reckon that Microsoft pushing the 360 onto the market made Sony release it sooner than they might otherwise have done. After all, the PS2 is still the biggest selling console after nearly SEVEN years and probably will be for another year or so so it's not like they had to rush it out, unlike Microsoft whose Xbox just kept losing them money. That's why they dropped the machine as soon as the Xbox 360 launched, rather than letting it exist alongside the new machine like Sony have always done with their consoles.

  • afghan_jones #114 5 years ago

    as much as miiiguel is a militant 360 fanboy, I kinda agree with him.

    I dont particularly love or hate MS or Sony (still have a lot of fun with PS2 & PSP), but I do really really enjoy playing games on 360.

    eventually some games may be improved by having the extra space but for now Im not so sure. When PS3 games become super amazing due to extra size, and all 360 games look toilet by comparison then fair enough but for now its not exactly like 360 games are shit due to lack of size.

  • Drpwnage #115 5 years ago

    Hang on Les, you blame MS for the problems of this console generation including the PS3?

    Why don't we add in Third world poverty and global warming while were at it........

  • afghan_jones #116 5 years ago

    "Come on, even professional games journalists begin to complain that gameplay-wise, there's no such thing as next-gen software."

    If youre talking gameplay then its not a hardware issue then is it. Its two things. Firstly, publishing studios knowing people like guns and cars etc and not always willing to stump up for experimental games due to dev costs. Secondly, the fact that most people do like games with guns and cars etc and its possible to have fun without re-inventing the wheel.

    If MS had held off for another year, or even another 5 years, whatever tech they had come out with the games on it would still be built on similar themes and ideas.

  • ParanoidZombie #117 5 years ago

    I don't give a shit. The x360 has the best games right now, so I have a 360. When the ps3 has the best games, I'll buy one. But we all know that the best machine don't necessarily get the best games and the best sales figures. Xbox1 was a vastly superior machine, but the ps2 (a piece of shit IMO)... ... ... But we all know how this one ended up, don't we?

  • Les #118 5 years ago

    “When PS3 games become super amazing due to extra size, and all 360 games look toilet by comparison then fair enough but for now its not exactly like 360 games are shit due to lack of size.”

    I don’t think PS3 games will ever look much better than 360 games when it comes to pixels. The 360 was clearly designed as an eye pleaser and that’s what it does, nothing more, nothing less.

    “Hang on Les, you blame MS for the problems of this console generation including the PS3?”

    Yes. PS3 would have been better (and cheaper) had it been released next year. With multiple Cell processors it would have been capable of 1080p and have plenty of power left for great physics, AI, etc. But Sony felt itself pressured by the 360 and decided to move forward the release of the PS3 (unnecessarily in hindsight as PS2 is still easily outselling the 360).
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 13:07

  • BadBoyBonner #119 5 years ago

    Xbox 360
    +
    Unreal Engine 3
    +
    19 Levels
    +
    720p
    =
    49.32 MB

    Shots below.

    [link url=http://www.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/gal lery/Game%20Screens/RoboBlitz205.jpg
    ]http://ww w.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/galle...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/gal lery/Game%20Screens/RoboBlitz203.jpg
    ]http://ww w.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/galle...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/gall ery/Game%20Screens/RoboBlitz04.jpg
    ]http://ww w.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/galle...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/gall ery/Game%20Screens/RoboBlitz02.jpg
    ]http://ww w.roboblitz.com/HTML_SITE/galle...[/link]

  • Drpwnage #120 5 years ago

    @les

    What a load of rubbish, it is Sony and Sony alone who take responsibility for their product launch. Blame Sony for poor project management, poor strategic planning and poor decision making if they got caught out by a Nov 2005 launch of the 360 and 'rushed' out a PS3 that didn't meet YOUR expectations.

  • G3org3 #121 5 years ago

    WHY WHY WHY do people rather developers cram,squeeze,compress break into pieces their data eventually waste time on that instead of just being free to use it at will

    if the space is there they will use it...and the time used for magic compression of everything to be used for a little more to optimise the game?

    consider one simple thing could ever GT4 fit in single CD? NO
    would you rather change disk for every region you want to race NO
    given the constrains of a storage medium isnt it better to make sure such things
    don't happen YES it is. Basically Sony says when you need it will have it ready
    MS says when you need it you ll have to buy it or make another console

    which is better???

  • Emth #122 5 years ago

    "No, because it was a necessary upgrade with so many big PS1 games appearing on more than one disc.

    See the massive difference this time round?"

    The difference this time around is that Sony know how long the shelf life is on their consoles. Christ the PS2 is still going hella strong today. Judging the PS3 by todays standards is obviously reasonable, but it's not looking at the whole picture.

    Sony are obviously expecting the PS3 to last at least 5 years where as the Wii and the 360 have decided to focus on the now. There is zero doubt in my mind that long before 5 years, the limitations of the DVD format are going to become far clearer and cause much more of a problem for devs/gamers than they do now.

    This is fine, each console has gone for a different approach this gen which is what makes it interesting. It's far too early to be making any judgements whatsoever on which console will be the 'winner' in the longer term.

  • BadBoyBonner #123 5 years ago

    Les

    "Yes. PS3 would have been better (and cheaper) had it been released next year. With multiple Cell processors it would have been capable of 1080p and have plenty of power left for great physics, AI, etc. But Sony felt itself pressured by the 360 and decided to move forward the release of the PS3 (unnecessarily in hindsight as PS2 is still easily outselling the 360)."

    Totally agree. And that is pretty much what Gabe Newell was stating, but most people misinterpreted it as him being some kind of rabid MS fanboy.

    The reason for me is sound.

    Why bring out something over 12 months later that is arguably only able to put games on screen of similar quality?

    Plus, Sony are now in a very bad position. With a console, that is going to be eclipsed by MS even sooner than the PS2 was in it's life [obviously I mean by the 360, but I guess you could mount a strong argument for the original.

    Sony should have waited. And launched a machine that blasted the 360 right out of the water, with no arguments by anyone about which was best.

    Which is what MS will be doing when they launch the next Xbox, probably in about 27 months time, globally.

  • lance.carter #124 5 years ago

    let's all transport two years into the future and see....

    *Whooosh bang*

    /eyes around cautiously

    blimey...it's a new world. didn't see any of this coming. If only we'd have known.

    *bang whoosh*

  • Les #125 5 years ago

    “What a load of rubbish, it is Sony and Sony alone who take responsibility for their product launch.”

    Of course Sony is to blame for a poor strategic decision first and foremost, I agree. But companies operate in a competitive environment, so not in isolation. Sony’s reaction to MS’s decision to prematurely kill the last gen was a wrong one. And I don’t blame MS for that. But I can blame MS for cutting the last gen short.

  • G3org3 #126 5 years ago

    a PS3 coming later wouldnt mean that it would be better or more affordable and so on greatest example the R.I.P XBOX 1
    came out nearly 2 years after PS2 and died before reaching puberty and even if it was a better hardware sure as hell didnt blow ps2 out of a single drop of water and PS2 still goes on dont know how long but still alive and kicking.

    if xbox fans can't be simply persuaded that more space of a BR can be only a good thing then even if ps3 had 2cells they would say that it suxs because it needs 2 to work properly if it had 2 rsx they would say that all games are nice looking but GoW is the ONLY NEXT GEN till its sequel come and so on
    or hope that MS would pay 50mil $ for each time the wanted a game to celebrate about.

    i m getting a little sony fan here but i grew tired of people not appreciating the value of space...everybody seems to forget that when you fill up you HDD you will play erase and rewind for a while but eventually u will buy a new HDD x times bigger than your last one its a LAW if there is space it will get used if there isnt they ll find it else where

  • Kryon #127 5 years ago

    Nah you guys, Les is 100% totally right as always, it's obviously Microsofts fault that the PS3 is a bit pants and that the last gen ended and that people starve in africa.

  • Kenshin001 #128 5 years ago

    Blu-ray vindicated by PGR4 developers!


  • Les #129 5 years ago

    @ Kryon

    Is it my poor English or your poor wit that you fail to get to the essence of my argument?

  • Kryon #130 5 years ago

    No, its the fact that your 'essence' smells of fanboy nonsense. It's the same as blaming Sony for Sega's former financial problems and the Dreamcasts demise. Or me blaming Sony for the short lived XBox1. It's called business.

  • Les #131 5 years ago

    @ Kryon

    Which is why I don’t blame MS for the disappointing PS3 but I do blame them for cutting the life of a console generation. Given consumer reception, it’s very likely it’ll prove a wrong business decision at that. As a gamer it affects me in the sense that one of my favourite pastimes effectively will not evolve in any significant way for the next 4-5 years.

    I’d be amazed if 360 and PS3 ever earn a positive NPV (as games machines, so not taking into account BluRay licensing fees if it wins the next gen DVD format war). But I’d be glad if I’m proven wrong (both with the NPV prediction as with gaming stagnating).

  • G3org3 #132 5 years ago

    Kryon you do remember how many had sony to blame for the downfall of dreamcast dont you? but lets not go there shall we now.

    Yes its MS fault for rushing but it was only natural how long could MS hold on a sinking ship as Xbox...purely on economics speaking i m not implying anything on games and performance at this point.
    on the other hand Sony created a very expensive piece of hardware you might wanted it too be affordable but how much of a headstart would that give to MS
    perhaps enough to give her more of the market than SONY was willing to give up because of the economics side equally all the RnD costs hell of money no matter how much they profitted from PS2 they couldnt keep it up.

    everybody wishes a little damage over no profit because spawning consoles eventually leads to profit thats the reason both rushed

  • Machiavellian #133 5 years ago

    If devs are putting uncompressed textures on the Blueray is this smart. The time it takes to send a compressed texture from the Blueray drive compared to a uncompressed texture has to be huge. Even caching the data on the harddrive can get very expensive very quickly especially if you are using the system to store things other than game data. Also from what I have heard, the PS3 has to use system memory to stream data from the DVD to the harddrive which can definitely kill performance if the textures are uncompressed.

    This generation, I am really getting tired of the extensive loading times for games. I can only see this getting worst as developers take advantage of the space of Blueray if things are not put in check.


    When all is said and done, do anyone really care if a game is made on Blueray or DVD9. In the end, the game will be judge if it's good or not based on what the developer was able to do with the resources and talent they have not the technical abilities of each console. When all is said and done, people will still purchase either the 360 or PS3 on the games and not the space. We as consumers are not really concerned about how the developer was able to make this game or that, we only care about the quality of the product.

  • Drpwnage #134 5 years ago

    Les, I'd be surprised if the 360 and PS3 didn't achieve a positive NPV, otherwise Sony and MS would have a damn hard job justifying it to their Finance teams let alone their shareholders, but this is all conjecture.

    I really don't know why your so despondent about the state of gaming for the next few years, all increasing system performance and capacities does is increase complexity and make it less likely you will see innovative, risky, developments. If that's what you after go explore the PC indie game scene.

  • Machiavellian #135 5 years ago

    MS did not cut the life of a console generation because the PS2 still outsells all Next Gen consoles besides the Wii but we already know the Wii isn't next gen. Hell you can can easily say the Wii has killed the last gen consoles lifespan since it outsells everything besides the DS.

    Less you are looking for blame thats not there. Just like Sony, MS has a business agenda. You state that Sony would have waited another year to release the PS3 but why the hell should MS or even Nintendo be on Sony timeframe. Without competition do you really think the PS3 would have been cheaper?? If anything it would have been more expensive because Sony would not look to take a lost on the unit. MS and Nintendo would be silly to stick to Sony plan and if the other company has the market you seek to undercut them. This is the good/bad with competition so blaming MS for doing what is right for their business is pretty silly. You can be assured if MS had the Market share, Sony would be looking to undercut them.

  • Atari_Boy #136 5 years ago

    "Well Bizarre Creations did themselves no favours by admitting to not using dynamic lighting"

    How would dynamic lighting help with night time textures?

  • Les #137 5 years ago

    "Les, I'd be surprised if the 360 and PS3 didn't achieve a positive NPV, otherwise Sony and MS would have a damn hard job justifying it to their Finance teams let alone their shareholders, but this is all conjecture."

    I think you mean that the initial business cases for the 360 and PS3 will have shown positive NPVs. But like we all know, not all business cases are met. So far, consumers show apathy with regards to HD gaming and there are few signs that will change in the foreseeable future. The longer it takes for 360 and PS3 to reach substantial sales, the more unlikely it is the NPV will be positive.

    “MS did not cut the life of a console generation because the PS2 still outsells all Next Gen consoles besides the Wii but we already know the Wii isn't next gen.”

    Cut short doesn’t mean ‘killed instantly’ does it? Even the PS2 would have had an even longer life cycle had the next gen started a few years later. And why is the Wii not next gen? I’d say it’s the only console that truly delivers something gameplay-wise that couldn’t be experienced on the last-gen.

    I can’t blame MS for making a business decision but I still think I can blame MS and Sony for delivering disappointing hardware that’s not capable of creating an enhanced gameplay experience as opposed to the previous generation.

  • ronuds #138 5 years ago

    You PS3 owners can have your fancy 50gb capacity discs and the 2 games that take advantage of that while I'll happily keep my 360 along with the multitude of awesome games that don't need 50gb.

    Sorry, but I haven't felt "jipped" because my games are only, at most, 9gb. In fact, the 360 has some awesome games for it and they fit perfectly fine on your standard DVD. All of this blue-ray talk from Sony and there are barely any good games, let alone any games that actually make 50gb of storage look like a huge benefit to gaming.

  • Darren #139 5 years ago

    Microsoft rushed the Xbox 360 out to beat Sony and cash in on the next-gen market. Sony obviously had little choice but to launch the PS3 otherwise they'd risk losing their user base to Microsoft. Sony fans are loyal but it would have been unreasonable to have expected them to wait patiently for years while Xbox 360 owners played the kind of games they could only dream about. Thus Microsoft did bring about this generation and forced Nintendo and Sony to deal their hands, perhaps earlier than they'd have liked. I've read interviews with devs and publishers that have said the same thing.

    Unlike Microsoft with the Xbox though, Sony at least didn't turn its back on its established user base when they released the PS3. That means those people with PS2s will be more willing to upgrade to a PS3 when they feel the time/price/games are right whereas Microsoft have no such luxury.

    That's why it doesn't surprise me to read about sales of the Xbox 360 flatlining in Europe. With everyone seemingly buying the Wii and loyal PS2 owners waiting for the right time to buy a PS3, who is left for Microsoft to sell the 360 to? ;)

  • SEVQA #140 5 years ago

    if you do a 360 you end up where you started! go figure!

  • afghan_jones #141 5 years ago

    "And why is the Wii not next gen? I’d say it’s the only console that truly delivers something gameplay-wise that couldn’t be experienced on the last-gen."

    Sorry but that just isnt true. Every Wii game could have been played on the GC with the addition of a peripheral which is essentially is all the Wii brings to the table in terms of 'newness'.

    In fact, I remember a good while back, playing Soul caliber and Virtua tennis on the Dreamcast with a mate using two of the DC's fishing rod controllers. That was more or less the same thing.

  • smoison #142 5 years ago

    LOL at "afghan_jones"

    Have you ever played the Wii?

  • ronuds #143 5 years ago

    Wow! Look at all of these people with inside information about MS and Sony and their strategies. Maybe you guys can tell me when the right time to buy stock in these companies would be?

    I thought this was a discussion over whether or not blue-ray was needed for this gen instead of how the Sony fanboys think that MS ruined this gen by not releasing a piece of equipment that nobody can or cares to afford? Consoles were never about pushing the boundaries of technology - that's why we have PC's and that's why we can all normally easily afford consoles.

    Storage wasn't an issue until Sony said it was and you're all jumping on board with that notion like Sony's little drones. Are there any games on the PS3 that are better than 360 games because they have more gigabites than an xbox game? How long is RFoM's campaign again? How long is Lair's? 10 - 15 hours for each? I see nothing there that hasn't been happening for the last 15 years.

    And if it is true that GTA had to cut out part of a city because of the disc capacity, suddenly we're all upset with this? Wasn't one of the major complaints for San Andreas that the game world was too big? I'm quite sure GTA will still feature a gigantic world with plenty to do in it.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 17:10

  • afghan_jones #144 5 years ago

    @smoison

    Yes actually, I think I said so earlier in this thread to be honest.

    I found it a good laugh with a bunch of mates in the room but the actual experience itself was a bit lacking and it didnt feel all that responsive or precise.

  • Kryon #145 5 years ago

    @G3org3

    "Kryon you do remember how many had sony to blame for the downfall of dreamcast dont you? but lets not go there shall we now."

    Yes, I do remember, but I thought that view was foolish back then and I still believe those kind of attitudes to be foolish today. IMO you can't in anyway blame a company for doing what they believe to be best FOR THEM. If that has a negative impact on a rival company, they only have themselves to blame for lagging behind/not considering their rivals future plans/underestimating their rivals etc, etc. Sega got themselves in serious financial trouble, they messed up basically, yet fools still blamed Sony. This time Sonys offering was rushed and is pants so fools blame MS... Anyway, they still make games for your precious PS2 so I don't get what all this talk of the last gen being cut short by MS is all about anyway. Like others have stated the PS2 is still outselling the 'nextgen' systems so really it was a poor decision on Sonys part to rush and release what many believe to be an uninspiring/expensive/huge system with seemingly lesser graphical capabilities than a system released months prior to it.

    PS. No offense but I hate people who use wanky net language L1K3 TH15 G3org3.
    ;)

  • kangarootoo #146 5 years ago

    @G3org3

    What is with all of this "blamed for the downfall of" nonsense?

    Sega weren't a bloody charity you know. They didn't recue orphans from evil cotton mill barons or shoot grapes into the mouth of starving baby chimps.

    Two multinational companies were in the same market with the intention of making shed loads of cash, one did really well, the other did badly.

    Yet somehow it became some fight of good against evil for an army of imbeciles.

  • Les #147 5 years ago

    “Maybe you guys can tell me when the right time to buy stock in these companies would be?"

    For MS, that would be the pre-2001 period. You’ll not get much return on their stock anymore as slowly the markets start to realise that the unlimited future cash flows they’d envisioned aren’t that realistic anymore after the Vista, Zune and Xbox debacles (from a financial perspective). Sony will probably be only a good investment if you’re not expecting quick returns. A buy-and-hold strategy will most likely give you a better return than a savings account.

    "Like others have stated the PS2 is still outselling the 'nextgen' systems so really it was a poor decision on Sonys part to rush and release what many believe to be an uninspiring/expensive/huge system with seemingly lesser graphical capabilities than a system released months prior to iLike others have stated the PS2 is still outselling the 'nextgen' systems so really it was a poor decision on Sonys part to rush and release what many believe to be an uninspiring/expensive/huge system with seemingly lesser graphical capabilities than a system released months prior to it."

    Exactly what I said. As in hindsight it was a stupid move of MS to rush the 360. It can’t even beat the lowly PS2, proving that betting everything on the graphics (and rubbish assembly) is a poor strategy. And we, the gamers, are left with the mess.

  • afghan_jones #148 5 years ago

    "Yet somehow it became some fight of good against evil for an army of imbeciles."


    Its our Vietnam mate, our great war, without the good old Console wars, how do we define ourselves as a generation?

    Granted the sega/sony thing was a mere skirmish compared to the violence erupting betwixt fanboys these days. Its brutal stuff, with 'LOL's being fired across the interweb from ROFFLcopters with no thought for the 'massive damage' it might cause to civilians. Then you've got 'casual gamers', nonchalantly waving their way through 'cooking mama' with not a care in the world, plus vast armies of japanese commuters training their brains to immense proportions, to the point where an 'Akira' style awakening is only a matter of time. Hospitals are overrun with fanboys who have literally 'LMAO' and the waiting list for an ass transplant is stretching into 2023.

    So dont belittle or trivialise the greatest conflict this world has seen. Embrace the console wars, pick a side and prepare to '+1' every daft comment you come across!
    Huzzah for teh Console Warz!

    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 17:32

  • kangarootoo #149 5 years ago

    lol

  • Les #150 5 years ago

    @ afghan_jones

    Appreciated :)

  • Kryon #151 5 years ago

    Yeah that was a pretty funny post.

    Not sure if you deserve a +1 though... ;)

  • Machiavellian #152 5 years ago

    Why do people continue to state that Sony is supporting the PS2. Besides from GOD of War, I cannot think of one game produced for the PS2 from Sony first or 2nd party developers since the PS3 released. Yes the PS2 is still getting third party support and yes Sony did not discontinue the PS2 but it's not because Sony care about the userbase it's because the PS2 continue to sell. Hell, you can say that if it wasn't for the PS2, the PS3 would have been in deep water. You can believe if the PS2 stop selling Sony would discontinue making them. The thing that makes the PS2 still a great by today are the games. You can believe if the PS3 is way behind the 360 or Wii in about 3 years, Sony will very easily forget about that 10 year plan and seek to move to the next platform.

    Even though the PS2 is outselling the 360 that doesn't make MS move to come out in 2005 dumb. Since they were already bleeding from the Xbox, why wait until your competitor who has the name and market to release their next offering and have to compete on the same grounds.

    Also could someone tell me exactly what has been released for the Wii that could not be done on either the GC or PS2 not to even mention the 360 or PS3. From all the reviews I have read and my own hands on with a few titles, the Wii definitely has not met my expectations in the game department. Until a game comes out and truly show the uniqueness of the Wii, I would be hard pressed to say it's Next Gen or that it presents a next gen experience. At best I would say that the Wii is average because if you take all the games that have come out for the Wii as a whole you have a pretty average experience.

    So really what we are seeing is that the value of the console is still controlled by the quality of the content not the hardware within the system.

  • Rash' #153 5 years ago

    I'll tell you all something, that PGR4 story from yesterday, it's not the last you'll hear from devs commenting on the lack of space on DVD.

  • Les #154 5 years ago

    "Yes the PS2 is still getting third party support and yes Sony did not discontinue the PS2 but it's not because Sony care about the userbase it's because the PS2 continue to sell. Hell, you can say that if it wasn't for the PS2, the PS3 would have been in deep water."

    I agree Sony didn't continue PS2 support out of charitable motives. Like we've established before, companies are there to earn money. But with the PS2 now being one of the biggest competitors of PS3 maybe they should have put a little less effort in it. MS and Sony thought that consumers would see value in HD gaming. Consumers thought otherwise. If you strip that away, there's little improvement over the last gen hence the disappointing sales.

    "Also could someone tell me exactly what has been released for the Wii that could not be done on either the GC or PS2 not to even mention the 360 or PS3."

    Games like Cooking Mama or Elebits spring to mind.

    "So really what we are seeing is that the value of the console is still controlled by the quality of the content not the hardware within the system."

    Don't agree completely. The hardware makes the software possible. The bigger the possibilities the hardware offers, the more tools/freedom a developer has to shape his game and the more likely it becomes of good and innovative software titles arriving for the platform. Of course in this multiplatform day and age, 90% of the games is designed with the lowest common denominator in mind, meaning we all get screwed.

    But to return to the topic of the thread, anyone claiming Blu-Ray is irrelevant for games is clearly an idiot IMO, with games already reaching the storage limits of DVD9 (Blue Dragon, Gears of War and apparently PGR4). That doesn't mean that all games or even the majority of games needs to fill a Blu-Ray. It's just that certain games will only be possible with the extra storage space. Developing for a console is all about dealing with constraints and this is just one constraint being lifted a bit. Sony boasting that it was worth it is a bit premature. Clearly right now consumers disagree.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 19:06

  • captainrentboy #155 5 years ago

    When Sony show me a quality, worth having, title in their catalogue of PS3 games that could have in no way been developed for the 360, due to it being DVD based, then I'll start taking notice.
    But to be honest, with the amount of great looking games that are coming out for the 360 over the next 6 months or so, I really couldn't give a fook about all of this Sony willy waving at the moment.

  • ronuds #156 5 years ago

    @ Captainrentboy

    Perfectly said. I don't think anyone owning a 360 should feel like they're getting a raw deal by not having blu-ray. The games the 360 has slated to come out for the next year blow away anything Sony's going to release, save for a couple titles.

    We're this far into the war and we've yet to see one title that has shown us benefits to blue-ray? There's something wrong with that.

    @ Les

    Coming from someone who is seemingly anti-MS, I'd expect you might have those stock predictions. I have little doubt, though, that their stock will be solid for some time now: probably longer than you and I are living. If a failed product or two (Zune, most notable - xbox UP TO NOW, but will make profit eventually and Vista, I don't know about it being a "debacle" seeing as it's going to sell billions of copies) meant the death of a company and a stock, Sony would have been dead, along with many other large companies, long ago.

  • GamesConnoisseur #157 5 years ago

    Interesting posts, and not too much of fanboyism. Keep it up.

    I owned all consoles previous and current gen, before the release of X360 I was looking forward to it and thought that after MS signing up to HD-DVD that they would use this as their optical format. But to my horror they said will only do external add on, I knew that this will hand Sony a large advantage.

    Sure I agree that currently, this is not largely an issue as MS starting early and large user base does force devs to keep DVD9 as the common denominator. How long will this be true? I believe that once critical mass tips over to BR with equal or more user base (when?) and majority of devs using BR to full and X360 then be shown to be handicapped by DVD9 then there would be no going back.
    I do believe that the extra space will be useful but so far X360 is the being shown as the visually superior console and having advantage of larger user base kept them from being supseded. So no clear superiority on PS3 part..yet.

    Europe seem to be the main battlefield, PS3 doing best there but not eating away enough to supsede X360 until at least after 2009 at the current rate. So Dont see this being an important issue for a long while yet.

    So worth it? I believe so but only eventually and not now. X360 is still a damn good console to own.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 19:32

  • ronuds #158 5 years ago

    Here's part of what was said in rebuttal to this claim. I guess the guy who initially said this was either taken out of context or speaking out of his bung hole:

    "As I'm sure you've seen, some of the comments made on our forum have been blown out of all proportion. This has been reported on certain web sites. It seems that a number of fanboys have jumped on the topic... sigh. So it's time we cleared this one up...
    When we started designing PGR4 our primary goals were to create a great and unique experience over and above PGR3, to push the hardware as far as we could, and obviously to ensure that we give great value for money. DVD size is absolutely not a factor that we consider when designing our games... and PGR4 is no exception. DVD9 gives us more than we need to create a fabulous experience for you guys.
    The previous game, PGR3, had five environments. That's how much we could create given our time and resources for that game. With the longer development cycle we've had for PGR4, as well as the advantage of having final hardware, we wanted to create a far bigger and better game by this time including 10 environments, as well as a whole bunch of new gameplay features. "


    Sorry...here's the link:
    http://ww w.bizarrecreations.com/article....
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 20:11

  • captainrentboy #159 5 years ago

    After looking at the source of the above post, (Bizarre's site) and then having a gander at some of the screenies for PGR4 they've attached, any slight doubts I had over whether or not they've used the disc space to the best of their abilities have dissapeared.
    I'll take that fannytastic looking weather system they've added over a day and night option any day of the week. (Some of the moodier weather shots look effing great)
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 19:52

  • Les #160 5 years ago

    "Coming from someone who is seemingly anti-MS, I'd expect you might have those stock predictions. I have little doubt, though, that their stock will be solid for some time now: probably longer than you and I are living."

    Anti-MS is a bit strong. Besides some (past?) questionable business ethics, there's not really a reason to be against them, it's a company after all. But I must admit that I can't remember ever having been impressed by one of their products. And having been exposed to Windows and Office for multiple years didn't exactly create much goodwill.

    The problem with stocks, IMO, is that rarely their valuated purely based on economic factors. Human psychology might even be the decisive factor. That's why ridiculous things like technical analysis work: Real valuation of companies is incredibly difficult and not very tangible. Looking at historic data and thinking it might tell you something about the future becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Take MS's stock. Been pretty much stagnant for the past 5 years. While other tech stocks showed a drastic growth (Apple, Google, etc.). Why is that? Because of the Vista delay obviously and what that told investors about the capabilities of the company but now also because analysts and investors slowly begin to realise that MS's monopoly isn't as big a cash cow as it used to be. Because of free Linux and cool Apple (mostly the former though) as well as helped by the first half-decent OS they ever created (XP) consumers couldn't care less about Vista. Sure it'll be the biggest OS in market share in a few years. But it doesn't meet investors' ridiculously high expectations.

    The other factor is that the desktop is slowly becoming irrelevant with applications becoming more and more web-based and using open standards. While in itself a steady stock price, like the one of MS, might not seem a huge problem, it is within the tech sector. Those companies depend on the innovative talent of their employees more than any other sector. Top talent is expensive. Without the prospect of sharply increasing share prices, top talent no longer choses MS. Which affects their potential for being lucky in the future with new products.

    Don't be surprised if in 30 years young people will only remember MS from their economics class. Anyone around here remember Bethlehem Steel?

  • crashVoodoo #161 5 years ago

    @Darren
    because it's stuff that would have fitted on BD for the PS3 version but they had to drop because they were also making the game for the Xbox 360. Microsoft just decided to pay $50 million for it to make it exclusive, that's all. ;)

    C'mon, don't be so naive... why do you think that GTA IV had gone back to the single city format of the earlier games? Could it be because they had limited space on a DVD? Maybe? All those high-def textures and stuff will eat away at that 7.2 GB of space...


    /dis-fuckin-belief
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 20:55

  • Les #162 5 years ago

    "Here's part of what was said in rebuttal to this claim. I guess the guy who initially said this was either taken out of context or speaking out of his bung hole"

    Or now busy covering his ass in fear of MS's wrath... Hmmm, what would be more likely?

    "DVD size is absolutely not a factor that we consider when designing our games... and PGR4 is no exception."

    LOL, Priceless! Probably why they ran out of space in the first place... ;)
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 20:55

  • Les #163 5 years ago

    "I'll take that fannytastic looking weather system they've added over a day and night option any day of the week. (Some of the moodier weather shots look effing great)"

    But wouldn't you agree having both would have been better?

  • crashVoodoo #164 5 years ago

    or some sensationalist blog-tard getting hits pants all wet over something that was mis quoted/taken out of context leading to 'OMGWTFBBQ MEGATON INTERNETTED MELTDOWN'


    some beavers are just too fucking eager for traffic



    /rather have weather ... hates night time driving in games
    Edited by 2 at 01/08/07 @ 21:00

  • kangarootoo #165 5 years ago

    "rather have weather ... hates night time driving in games"

    Seconded.
    .
    .
    ... just keeping my oar in :)

  • Narv #166 5 years ago

    Lair reviews can be found there, no online ones yet and only 2 print ones.

  • AOFanboi #167 5 years ago

    Ah, the "Microsoft brought computing to the masses" myth is spread again.

    No they did not. They provided the low-featured, complicated (in modern terms) operating system for IBM's business-oriented and expensive PC. At the time the public started to afford clones from Compaq and others, Apple and Commodore already were providing computing for the masses.

    Microsoft were a nerd company which bought a limited CP/M clone and sold it to IBM and the clone makers at a time when IBM did not think PCs would sell much. They then started working with IBM on the far better OS/2 but made their own (far less feature-rich than Presentation Manager) GUI shell - Windows, and put the still-sucky DOS undernneath it when they pulled out of the OS/2 project. At that time, Apple were making user-friendly computers with GUIs, and if you had DOS or CP/M running in your computer you had alternatives like GEM.

    Plenty of companies brought computing to the masses. Microsoft were one of them. But their operating system was as pointless without the apps from Wordperfect, Lotus etc. as a console with no games. And their operating systems would have been as unfriendly as DOS without Apple and Xerox.

    Microsoft are followers, not leaders, but they are very good at being that.

  • Les #168 5 years ago

    "Lair reviews can be found there, no online ones yet and only 2 print ones."

    And what exactly does that have to do with this thread?

    @ AOFanboi

    Indeed. Original name (of the C/PM clone) was QDOS: Quick and dirty Disk Operating System. If ever there's been a more suitable acronym... ;)

    MS's strengths have mainly been in buying the right companies, clever marketing, backstabbing of business relations and shrewd lobbying. It's surprising how little they actually created themselves. MS is a typical example of money (of Gates' wealthy parents) making more money.

  • ronuds #169 5 years ago

    I third the comment about night driving. I've never gotten used to it in a game, but of course it's not a bad thing to have.

    @ Les

    You make good points, but I like how MS is trying to shake up their business a little. Their problem is they always have to go big or go home. How about a middle-of-the-line product? Why do they ALWAYS have to compete with the top product and then look foolish when they fail to overtake it? It can obviously go either way in the future for MS, but I think with their clout and stature it will be a hard and long process to take them down. They just have too much cash. Sure, stock holders are losing faith, but MS will find a way to turn it around: they're very competitive in that way, which is a good and bad thing for many reasons. They'll be all right though and reports of their demise are GREATLY exaggerated, especially considering they're still making billions in PROFIT per year.

    I mean, it's bold and all good to say that we won't remember them in a few years, but it's also a bit short sighted and uncalled for. A lot of people hate them, but they make money and that's what counts. They've had to reinvent themselves a little over the past few years, but they'll get back in stride.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 21:57

  • #170 5 years ago

    If anyone can spin that having 50GB of storage is a bad thing, then there is nothing to discuss.

    DVD will be and already is limiting.

  • Les #171 5 years ago

    "They'll be all right though and reports of their demise are GREATLY exaggerated, especially considering they're still making billions in PROFIT per year."

    Yes but there's also billions of dollars invested in the company (it's market capitalization) so per share it's becoming less and less impressive. Profit is what you're able to report within the room the accounting rules leave you. What's important is cash flow. MS's cash reserves are rapidly depleting, but of course still substantial. Maybe they'll be able to turn it around but it will be very difficult seeing that for the past decade they've been more busy defending their monopoly by harassing competitors as well as business partners instead of focusing on creating good products. They might pull it off but many of their business partners wouldn't mind if they'd fail. A very challenging environment. I'm not willing to bet any money on it.

  • bioreit #172 5 years ago

    @ AOFanboi

    Go on then. Point out another company that has sold hundreds of millions of copies of an operating system to people around the world.

    You can't, can you?

    Did I say that Microsoft was original and had invented each and every product they sold? No.

    Yes, Microsoft stole loads of Apple's ideas, just as Apple allegedly stole the GUI off of Xerox. Microsoft stole everyone's ideas and sold them better, to more people. Therefore, they did "bring computing to the masses", because they sold more of 'their' operating system to more people than anyone else.

    I mean, it's got to be one HELL of an achievement to be raked over the coals for abusing a monopolistic position if you have less than half the market share, doesn't it?

    Idiot.

    Addendum:

    Look at it this way. Apple made listening to digital music on a portable device more popular than any of its competitors or predecessors. They "brought digital music to the masses".

    Did they invent the portable digital music player? No.

    Did they take other people's hard work and market it better? Yes.

    It doesn't matter who invents something or who designed what better. The fact of the matter is that the comany that makes something ubiquitous can be deemed to have defined that product/niche/industry/whatever.
    Edited by 1 at 01/08/07 @ 22:36

  • captainrentboy #173 5 years ago

    Les-''But wouldn't you agree having both would have been better?''

    Personally, not at all, if anything the night time tracks fook me off a bit, I'm terrible at them, so the additions/changes they've made are all good for moi.
    Although I get what you're saying, for most racing fans both would have been better, and I'm not disputing the fact that larger disc space is more ideal for game developers. But still, as of yet the PS3 isn't showing me anything at all that makes me think ''Wow, that will never be achievable on the 360''
    But anyway, as was the the topic of the story, there was only so much they could cram onto a dvd, and as it stands the game is twice the size of PGR3, and has fancy weather effects chucked in, Bizarre don't seem to have done a bad job and what they have achieved will do me fine.

  • bioreit #174 5 years ago

    @ Les:

    "Yes but there's also billions of dollars invested in the company (it's market capitalization) so per share it's becoming less and less impressive. Profit is what you're able to report within the room the accounting rules leave you. What's important is cash flow. MS's cash reserves are rapidly depleting, but of course still substantial. Maybe they'll be able to turn it around but it will be very difficult seeing that for the past decade they've been more busy defending their monopoly by harassing competitors as well as business partners instead of focusing on creating good products. They might pull it off but many of their business partners wouldn't mind if they'd fail. A very challenging environment. I'm not willing to bet any money on it."

    Maybe you should read the news a bit closer.

    Yes, Microsoft's Entertainment division lost $1.9 billion, but Microsoft's profits were up this last quarter over last year.

    THOSE are the kinds of figures shareholders look at.

    Shareholder: Is this division losing money?

    MS Guy: Yes.

    Shareholder: Is it bringing down the profits of the entire group?

    MS Guy: No, profits are still increasing.

    Shareholder: Very good. Carry on.


    All this doom and gloom you spout on and on and on about MS's shareholders suddenly withdrawing all their investment because they're losing a tiny proportion of their profits is starting to get very tiresome, especially when you have never once mentioned Sony's far worse financial situation.

    If any company is going to lose investor confidence and shareholder support, it's Sony.

    Not that I think they will - just saying they are FAR more likely to follow the course of action you outline, but you never mention it.

    Wonder why that could be.......

    Edit 1: 'L' blindness. I'm gonna get that alligator. One day. One day......
    Edited by 2 at 01/08/07 @ 23:17

  • crashVoodoo #175 5 years ago

    If anyone can spin that having 50GB of storage is a bad thing, then there is nothing to discuss.

    i dont think anyone is ... are they? just that its not exactly earth shatteringly necessary.

    sony are the ones spinning it like they included it for the benefit of gaming as whole. BOLLOCKS!

    they included it to push the bluray as a movie format over hd-dvd and for that reason only. fringe benefits are just gravy.

  • Machiavellian #176 5 years ago

    I have to say Les this doom and gloom over MS doesn't even sound correct when MS continue to profit over their previous years. Is MS growing as fast as they use to, no but then again they have become so big that it's hard to make the same kinds of margins they did in the past. I have not seen anything report that MS is losing any of their cash reserves. As a growth company, you do wish that MS would move like Google but then again Google is the hotness now who is to say if they can continue their run once competition gets stiffer (which is happening)

  • Ihya #177 5 years ago

    Oh dear the cat is out of the bag and Bizarre are trying to do damage limitation by saying it isn't so. It says plainly in black and white they cut features because the DVD wasn't big enough. I just hope the DVD format doesn't hamper multi platforming games to the lowest common denominator :(
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 00:07

  • Les #178 5 years ago

    @ bioreit

    "Yes, Microsoft's Entertainment division lost $1.9 billion, but Microsoft's profits were up this last quarter over last year."

    But not up as high as you'd expect with flagship products like Vista and new Office released. The share price of MS (like that of any company) is built on expectations of future cash flows. Those expectations used to be very high but are becoming less and less. It's not about being profitable or not, it's about meeting expectations and being profitable relative to the amount of money invested in the company.

    I never said MS's stock will decline very rapidly, surely not for the forseeable future. But if it remains steady, that's worse enough, like I explained above and will eventually lead to a decline.

    "If any company is going to lose investor confidence and shareholder support, it's Sony."

    If the PS3 bombs even more significantly, this might very well be the case (although despite poor PS3 performance, the stock is actually doing fine, because of good performance in other sectors). But investors never had the same high expectations of Sony, a consumer hardware maker spread across numerous segments, as they had of MS. The difference between the two companies is that of one people buy most of their products willingly, while the other sells their products without consumers even knowing they're buying them. Which company do you think will be in bigger trouble once it relies more and more on consumers to actively chose for it's products?

    But of course no single company is a safe investment, it's better to spread.

    "Wonder why that could be......."

    Sure, let's turn it into another fanboy rant. I appreciate my view is controversial and it might very well turn out to be wrong. It's just how I interpret the facts. If it makes you feel better by calling me biased, please do so. Personally, I wouldn't invest in either MS or Sony.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 07:56

  • Les #179 5 years ago

    "As a growth company, you do wish that MS would move like Google but then again Google is the hotness now who is to say if they can continue their run once competition gets stiffer (which is happening)"

    True and other web/tech companies will take over from them (probably Asian). But not MS. I'd sure be surprised. But I would definitely admire it if they succeed in pulling it of.

    As for their cash reserves:
    http://se attlepi.nwsource.com/business/3...

  • bioreit #180 5 years ago

    @ Les

    The problem is, you have ONLY ever stated that Microsoft's performance will make its investors unhappy, that the 'failure' of its Xbox division will make them question the long-term suitability of financial investment in Microsoft as a whole, that Microsoft's profits are not as good as they should be.

    I'm sorry, but that really is a load of horseshit. Microsoft is making more profit year on year, improving and delivering on its investor confidence.

    By comparison, Sony is in far deeper water than Microsoft - historically, the SCE division is the only one to turn any kind of a profit, propping up the entire group. The other groups are making tiny profits compared the massive losses they made over the last decade, which does absolutely sod all to balance out the massive losses the SCE division made in the last quarter of 2007 alone.

    And you're saying that ionvestors don't expect the same kind of success of Sony than they would of Microsoft? One of the premier electronics companies in the world, making first-class mobile phones, televisions, personal music players, radios, games consoles and investors don't expect too much from it?

    'sif.

    "It's just how I interpret the facts"

    Hmm, all I see is you stating that Microsoft is going to go under because one of their divisions is making a loss that barely dents their year-on-year profits.

    Edit 1 Thanks for the link Les. Maybe you should read what it says:

    "But Microsoft has taken a series of steps to reduce its cash balance."

    Not 'Microsoft spending money faster than it can make it back'. Not 'Microsoft unable to retain huge cash reserves'.

    It is a concerted, deliberate effort by Microsoft to reduce its cash reserves, through, and I quote your lovely, wonderfully-linked article:

    "nearly $100 billion [of] dividends and repurchasing its own stock in the past five years."

    The company has done this because it

    "has been focusing mostly on smaller acquisitions, not the kind that would require it to tap into a huge cash reserve"

    and also because:

    "Microsoft has settled many of the disputes that arose from its U.S. antitrust trial, greatly reducing its need for a financial cushion on that front."

    Yes, it does say that the smaller acquisitions "generally don't make the big splash that investors might like", but you weren't arguing that point were you? You were saying it was specifcally the lack of cash reserves that would cause investors to think again:

    "MS's cash reserves are rapidly depleting, but of course still substantial. Maybe they'll be able to turn it around but it will be very difficult seeing that for the past decade they've been more busy defending their monopoly by harassing competitors as well as business partners instead of focusing on creating good products."

    I particularly like the bit where you say "Maybe they'll be able to turn it around".

    THEY are the ones doing it to themselves, according to your source. There are no external influences on Microsoft's 'dwindling' cash reserves - it is business practice, pure and simple.

    Yet you do not see it that way, do you?

    I never said it straight up before, but really, honestly, truly, you ARE a troll, by simple dint of the fact that you are arguing something that your own source has disproven.
    Edited by 2 at 02/08/07 @ 11:33

  • Les #181 5 years ago

    "Hmm, all I see is you stating that Microsoft is going to go under because one of their divisions is making a loss that barely dents their year-on-year profits."

    That shows you don't understand my argument. The trouble MS is in has little to do with the xbox division. It’s about the slow unraveling of their monopoly and its associated huge profit margins. Meaning the company as a whole will generate less cash and will be less attractive for investors, which has an effect on stock price and MS’s capabilities to attract top talent.

    I mentioned the xbox division as one of their many unsuccessful efforts to generate (significant) revenue streams from other lines of business that windows and office.

    “And you're saying that ionvestors don't expect the same kind of success of Sony than they would of Microsoft?”

    This again shows you don’t understand investment. In general, hardware makers are seen as less volatile and less risky investments than software companies. Hence investors require less return on the stock of Sony versus that of MS, Google, etc. It’s all about risk/reward.

    “I particularly like the bit where you say "Maybe they'll be able to turn it around".”

    Nice to take quotes out of context. That was regarding the whole of MS’s position and not the cash balance.

    “Yes, it does say that the smaller acquisitions "generally don't make the big splash that investors might like", but you weren't arguing that point were you?”

    Besides commenting that their cash reserves were depleting but still substantial, I didn’t use it in my argument at all (read my comments closely please). As the main point of my argument is that their monopolies will prove to be less and less profitable. And I don’t see them being capable of turning that around. Only at that point do the cash reserves come into play as they might be used to acquire other businesses, like the article says.

    I'm really amazed by how personal you take this and why this has to turn into a MS vs. Sony argument again. We're discussing business economics here. I couldn't care less if Sony, MS or any other company makes a profit as long as I don't work there or own their shares. I can't help it you don't understand business economics. But maybe this is indeed the wrong place for having such discussions.

  • bioreit #182 5 years ago

    @ Les

    Out of context?

    How?

    You said :

    "What's important is cash flow. MS's cash reserves are rapidly depleting, but of course still substantial. Maybe they'll be able to turn it around but it will be very difficult."

    You mentioned cash flow and reserves, that's what I talked about.

    I'm going to keep this one simple, just because I feel this typifies your attitude.

    You said:

    "MS's cash reserves are rapidly depleting."

    "Depleting" is a very negative word - it implies a situation outside of control. The added use of the word "rapidly" reinforces this. You can try and spin it any way you like but you have inferred that Microsoft are having trouble maintaining their cash reserves at previously high levels, when this is simply not the case.

    Microsoft are DELIBERATELY divesting themselves of their cash reserves, because they simply do not require such large sums of money hanging around, so I ask you, how does Microsoft restructuring their finances become "[their] cash reserves are rapidly dwindling"?
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 12:12

  • afghan_jones #183 5 years ago

    @bioreit & Les

    Dammit guys, if you must have lengthy discussions on MS financials, could you at least throw in the occasional LOL or maybe a LMAO. Maybe refer to Microsoft as 'M$'?

    This high brow numbertalk has driven off the dedicated fanboys. Fanboys are timid creatures, easily startled but can be coaxed back out by a couple of ROFLs or an inflammatory headline...

  • bioreit #184 5 years ago

    @ jonesy

    Sorry dude.

    Wii sucks ballz! Like your Mama!

    OMFGROFLORZ!1

  • afghan_jones #185 5 years ago

    @bioreit

    Much better, dont let it happen again.

  • bioreit #186 5 years ago

    Wouldn't dream of it.

    Fanboy-shill :-P

  • Les #187 5 years ago

    "You mentioned cash flow and reserves, that's what I talked about."

    Read it back, you're right, not very well formulated. My bad. Putting the comments about cash flow and cash reserves together was confusing.

  • bioreit #188 5 years ago

    Ok, I think I'm done here now.

    Should really get on with some work today, especially as I have to install XP Pro on 125 laptops by Tuesday. With one CD....

    Been fun Les, really should do it again some time :-)

  • Les #189 5 years ago

    "Should really get on with some work today, especially as I have to install XP Pro on 125 laptops by Tuesday. With one CD...."

    Surely you mean Vista... ;)

    It was my pleasure!