Slashdot Mirror


Games Already Filling Blu-Ray Discs

Eurogamer reports that according to Sony's Phil Harrison, PS3 launch titles are already getting close to the 25 GB limit on Blu-Ray discs. He views this as a positive thing, and suggests that the company will up the limit on the media format to 50 GB sometime next year. From the article: "Harrison also responded to questioning about the claim that the capacity of Blu-Ray will be used simply to provide more high definition movie sequences, effectively filling the discs - and games - with non-interactive content. 'It's not just about graphics,' he said. 'It's about 7.1 audio, it's about speech, it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game; it's high-res textures, it's animation, it's everything that goes into making a very rich and varied next-gen experience. Partly it's visual, partly it's sound, and partially it'll be down to gameplay benefits as well - more levels, more detail, richer experiences.'"

334 comments

  1. Wow...25 Gigs of content! by sgant · · Score: 3, Funny

    Though look at it this way, 25 gigs of crap is still crap.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Nintendo may be a little shortsighted in is lack of support for HDTV, but at least they haven't forgotten about gameplay COMPLETELY (as Sony seems hell-bent on doing). I think Sony has gotten so much into this "we're building a media center that will dominate your living room" mentality that they've forgot to design a game console too.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by name*censored* · · Score: 1

      Yeah.... they should think about switching the gameplay up a little, instead of churning out the same thing with different graphics and changing all the names.

      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    3. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Canthros · · Score: 1

      Yes, but now it's 25 gigs of crap that takes all afternoon to load!

      --
      Canthros
    4. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Nintendo completely redesigned their controller to make games more fun, while Sony added capacity so people can watch high-resolution cutscenes. Just because a large group of people all disagree with you doesn't mean you're the one doing the thinking.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    5. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by JohnSearle · · Score: 1
      Nintendo completely redesigned their controller to make games more fun, while Sony added capacity so people can watch high-resolution cutscenes. Just because a large group of people all disagree with you doesn't mean you're the one doing the thinking.
      Perhaps you're overgeneralizing the concept of 'fun'...? I'm probably more pro-Nintendo than the next guy, but I find myself hard pressed to say that Nintendo is attempting to add entertainment, whereas Sony is not.

      It may be that my idea of entertainment consists more of visual immersion, rather than physical immersion. Perhaps I would like fuller cinematic experience, rather than a differing style of interface. Perhaps my notion of 'fun' differs from yours.

      Attacking Sony as not attempting to increase the fun factor is a little shortsighted, and seems to me to be more of a stereotyping of wants of 'gamers' than any sort of conclusive fact.

      - John
    6. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by ResidntGeek · · Score: 0

      Gamers want to game. They want to enter a virtual world and interact with it. That's what games are for.

      You want to sit back and watch movies. That's fine, but don't think of yourself as a gamer. Think of yourself as an interactive movie watcher. Gamers care about the _games_, not their interfaces.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    7. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Necreia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, what's the deal with this.
      1- Game developers no longer have to struggle to stuff textures / data / whatnot into small packages and use customer extractors in order to not run out of space.
      2- Pre-instantiated level data (ect) can be stored in the free space, cutting down in loading speed in some commonly repeated code blocks.

      That's not all, but I am EXTREMELY excited about these in particular as a developer. This gives a lot more workroom to fight less with hardware restrictions in order to make a great game... meaning they can work more on a great game!

      What's with /. lately? I know that bashing Sony is the 'cool' thing to do, especially when people karma whore-- but is that really worth rejecting expansions in technology?

      Don't people remember "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates 1981?

    8. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That's my biggest fear as far as the PS3 is concerned. Nintendo opted out of optical media on the N64 because at that point optical media wasn't ready, and they didn't want their customers to have 2 minute loading times on games. With the GC, loading times were really good on most titles, and almost non-existent most of the games I've tried. However, whenever i've played PS2, I get really frustrated at the load times. I'm not sure how much faster Blu-Ray is than DVD in read speeds, but I've head that the PS3 load times are more than PS2, and that's not something I want out of a gaming system.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't people remember "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates 1981?

      They do. And they also remember that Bill Gates never actually said those words. Urban myth my friend.

    10. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Necreia · · Score: 1

      Myth or no, the humor in the statement still represents the negitive mentality people are assigning to this. (I didn't know it was a myth by the way, interesting)

    11. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by hords · · Score: 1

      The larger capacity is not just for high-resolution cut scenes. Resistance: Fall of Man is using over 12 Gigs just for their level data (with compression.) HD video could be used for more than cut scenes though, like making of videos and other bonus content. I beleive that is being done with R:FoM too.

    12. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by JohnSearle · · Score: 1
      Gamers want to game. They want to enter a virtual world and interact with it. That's what games are for.
      You want to sit back and watch movies. That's fine, but don't think of yourself as a gamer. Think of yourself as an interactive movie watcher. Gamers care about the _games_, not their interfaces.
      Gamers want to enter a virtual world, yes - that is what I was talking about. Visual immersion, for some people, will do that for them much more than increasing physical immersion. And as for gamers not caring about interfaces... a controller is a piece of the interface, just as graphics, which is exactly what Nintendo is revolutionizing, and which is why you seem to believe Nintendo is focusing on fun (I think).

      All I'm stating is that there are several aspects involved in games, of which you seem to be overgeneralizing, and thus ignoring. Nintendo's controller is an example of a physical aspect, a part of the physical interface. Sony's graphics are an example of a visual aspect, a part of the visual interface. Game content, which can probably be broken down into story, genre, etc., is something completely different, and I hope you're not saying that Sony is just outrightly ignoring game content (story, etc), because that's pretty unsubstantiated.

      I think your sweeping claim of 'gamers want to game' has very little thought put into it... I think gamers are looking to be immersed in story, visuals, and feel - all the aspects of the game which shouldn't be neglected - and I think that Nintendo and Sony are merely focusing on two different categories.

      Oh, and before you say Sony is neglecting game content... both Nintendo and Sony rely on third party game manufacturers, so content (aside from a small number of games) is out of their control.

      - John
    13. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Nah, they'll make it up with volume.

    14. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Chi-RAV · · Score: 1

      one proper game does not negate the point of the original poster

      If Sony is so hell-bent on making an entertainment machine they should focus on other elements than just the space a game takes up. remember that good things can also come in small packages.

    15. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by blighter · · Score: 1
      Maybe I'm conflating another thread in this discussion, but I think there's something here I'm might be missing.

      While I agree that the visual aspect of games is an element of immersion and that some might put more of an emphasis on that than on physical immersion, I don't see how increasingly rich and lengthy HD cut-scenes add anything that a "gamer" would enjoy.

      If enjoying being immersed in rich visuals and story presented through cinematic cut-scens is the definition of a gamer, then Roger Ebert is a gamer. And so far as I know he doesn't play video games, he just watches the lengthy HD cut-scenes that we traditionally term "movies".

      Now I like movies. I like 'em a lot. But they're not games. And sticking them into games doesn't make them games. Metal Gear Solid 2 had easily more cut-scenes than gameplay. They were interesting, if you like that kind of thing, and the game might have made a good movie, but having a good movie interspersed with short bursts of gameplay just ruined the gameplay and the movie.

      To me, at least... I really agree with your point that it's a "to each their own" kind of world. You consider yourself a gamer but what you consider gaming, I would consider watching movies. Que cera, cera. You can enjoy the PS3 and I will play with my Wii... wait that came out wrong...

    16. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably all the same graphics, just uncompressed this time over ;)

    17. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by hords · · Score: 1

      It is true that good things can come in small packages. Nintendo never has the largest capacity media (at least since the N64) and some of their games are my favorite. With the Wii they are going to have the same capacity of the 360, but since the Wii doesn't do HD it will be more usable space for gameplay and not just graphics.

      I do think the Blu-ray drive will end up being a good thing for Sony, but that it will take a few years for it to happen. Heck, I know a mostly non-gamer (plays one PC game a year or less) that wants to buy one because of how cheap it is as an HD player, and the gaming part of it is a bonus for him.

    18. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by JohnSearle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll agree with you to a certain degree... I was more defending Sony's system as a whole, and not just their increasing the storage capacity of the system. It seems to me that what Sony has done, or is doing, is increasing all of the aspects that are found in a traditional console system (aside from physical interface), whereas Nintendo has instead opted to focus on the physical interface. Both of these choices seem to me to be putting tools into the hands of the actual game makers. As others have said, the storage capacity could be used for more than just cinematics, but when you combine storage with sheer power, that seems to me to be where they are heading... towards immersion.

      I'm sorry if you thought I was only talking merely about storage capacity, I was more focusing on the tactics of each company (replying to the parent thread), rather than the overall point of this whole article (storage capacity)...

      - John

    19. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by miyako · · Score: 1

      I disagree with this statement completely. I should say that I currently own a PS2, Gamecube, and an XBOX360 (as well as older consoles that do not really have an effect on this discussion) and I plan on buying both a PS3 and a Wii as soon as I am able to - I will probably get a Wii near launch and a PS3 sometime after Christmas once they (hopefully) can be found (I wasn't able to get a preorder in on either one of them, sadly, nor will I be able to take a day off work to wait in line to get one, so I expect I will have some waiting to do).
      Basically, the way that I see it, both Sony and Nintendo are taking different but equally valid approaches to making their next-gen machines fun. Nintendo is adding novelty with their controller, as well as focusing a lot on nostalgia with the virtual console. I think that some fun games will come out of this, but I also expect a lot of really hokey lame and gimmicky games will come out for the Wii as well. In the end, I think most people are pretty aware of what Nintendo is bringing to the table this time around. I think a lot of people are disregarding what the PS3 can offer however.
      Sony is basically using the brute-force method of creating a console. The tilt controller thing is stupid and I suspect that they will replace the default controller down the line (like they replaced the standard PS1 controller with the Dual Shock controller mid-way through the life of the PS1), but other than that, sony's philosophy seems to be try try to relax the limitations put on developers because of hardware and see what they come up with. As much as you might think that graphics were as good as they could get for the PS2/GC/XBOX era, and that gameplay was as good as it was going to get, but there is a lot that can be done with more power in the system. Graphics are important, sure, but one thing that I've began to notice in this current new-gen of games is that a lot of focus seems to be going into physics and AI. Both of these things can really have an effect on gameplay. I've also noticed a major upgrade in the amount of "stuff" on the screen in 360 games compared to, e.g., PS2 games. Sure a lot of the time this is eye-candy, but take Dead Rising for example, one of the core aspects of the gameplay in that game is that there are a LOT of zombies- more than could be reasonably rendered on the PS2, GC, or XBOX, and probably more than could be rendered on the Wii.
      What I see happening is that Sony (and Microsoft, though to a lesser extent) enlarged the dimensions of the hardware, giving developers more room to realize their vision. Nintendo didn't bother enlarging the existing dimensions much, and instead focused on adding a new one. Both of these approaches are going to allow developers to do new things with their games, and I think both will lead to fun games, because some types of games are going to only be approachable from one way or the other. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter much what the hardware is, it's what the developers do with it, and I think BOTH approaches will allow the developers to do good things if they are so inclined, and will allow them to make crappy games if that is what they are going to do.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    20. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by blighter · · Score: 1
      Ah, I see your point and agree completely.

      More tools and, perhaps more importantly, more different kinds of tools for game-makers makes for better games for everybody.

      And may I just say that I truly enjoyed your sane, rational response. The interactions on Slashdot of late, particularly in the games section, seem to be more and more irrationally hostile. But here we are having a nice discussion. What a rare pleasure.

      I thank you, sir.

    21. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Hawkxor · · Score: 1

      I'd rather play a game in high resolution on my HDTV than in low resolution on an old TV. Simple as that - you're out of your mind.

    22. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 0

      But take a look at the available memory of the PS3: 256 MB system RAM, 256 MB video RAM. If you're not stuffing your textures and data into small packages and using custom extractors, then your single 512 MB texture (Doom 3, for example, offered larger texture sizes than this, and was released over 26 months ago) isn't going to fit.

      This exemplifies two of the biggest weaknesses consoles have (games are not installed to the hard drive, video cards and other hardware is outdated before release date), and why the PS3, though certainly a capable set of hardware, is rapidly being eclipsed technologically.

      I'm not saying the PS3 isn't going to be popular or that it won't be a great gaming platform. I am saying that having a 25 GB optical disc is no different than having 3x8 GB DVDs, and having last year's hardware with larger disc capacity doesn't put the PS3 at the cusp of some great new era in games development. When I play PS3, I'm going to expect a lot of LOADING messages and loutish behavior from PC fans. That's just how it goes with consoles.

    23. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by tbannist · · Score: 1

      That's not the argument that's being made. The argument that's being made is that good things only come in small packages.

      And yes, one counterexample does negate the point of the original poster, which can be accurately summed up as "extra disk space will never make a game more fun" and "a different controller will always make games more fun". Neither statement is true, and I have a feeling that the novelty of the Wii controller is just that, novelty. Nintendo has been making different controllers for a long, long time.

      Feel free to tone down the argument to "most games won't use the extra space", but remember we're looking a 1 game that definitely does use it, and 0 games that definitely don't right now, which moves the onus onto you to show us some games that definitely won't use the extra space to make the games better.

      If you can even show that, we'd then have to look at whether the additional processing power and graphics capability will make the games "more fun". Good luck proving that more is, in fact, less.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    24. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      Google HD Advance for a way to put PS2 games on a standard hard drive. It cuts down load times dramatically. I don't work for them (in fact I don't think they sell it anymore). You need either an older model PS2 (pre-slim), or a solder kit for the slim to attach an IDE connector.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    25. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Sony is the only one putting tools in the hands of the masses. Sony is going to have Linux on their consoles and Nintendo isn't. This means that it will be easier for just about anybody with the console to develop for the PS3 but you'll need to buy a horribly expensive devkit to develop for the Wii. But I don't plan on buying any consoles in the next decade(my last console was a PS1, I do all my gaming on the PC now) so my opinion doesn't really matter here.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    26. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      And yet when the same thing happens with Zelda you obsess over how cool it is.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    27. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Think of yourself as an interactive movie watcher. Gamers care about the _games_, not their interfaces.

      This comment about "interfaces" doesn't make any sense. Movies are not a part of the interface. Interfaces are critical in gaming. Would you rather control an action/arcade/FPS game by typing commands into a command line, or would you rather use a joystick/gamepad/mouse?

      It just seems like such an incongruous statement. How did you get from discussing the merits of movies and cutscenes to the interface of a game? Often the interface makes or breaks a game, and is what makes it more playable and enjoyable. other parts of the interface are visual status indicators - how well those are done can also impact a game in a big way. Intuitive visual often cues make a game more playable and visually appealling, rather than a bunch of numbers. You can absorb more information at a glance if it is presented well.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    28. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content! by Kodros · · Score: 1

      Wait...what? So you are telling me that no original titles came out of SNES, N64, GameCube, GameBoy Advance, DS, PS2 and Sega Genesis? In case you haven't noticed, every one of those systems were an upgrade to graphics, audio, and storage capacity. So, for the past 20 years, every system was just a technological upgrade to the previous generation. Both systems are in a their own market. Cover your ears Nintendo fan boys, but not everybody wants to come home from an 8 hour work day, turn on my Wii, and have to stand there and swing the controller to play a golf game. If I want to swing a club...I will go out and swing a real club at a driving range. If I want to play a football video game, I don't want to have to make a throw movement in there air. The Wii IS a toy.

  2. Hi Rez Content by Neo_piper · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's worth it because, you know, EVERYONE has a 1040i tv now

    1. Re:Hi Rez Content by ebingo · · Score: 1

      not me. I have a 1080i tv set.

    2. Re:Hi Rez Content by malzraa · · Score: 0

      Yeah, along with there 136V electricity and 11/120 Ethernet. Not to mention those three-wheeled cars.

    3. Re:Hi Rez Content by rayde · · Score: 1

      me too. and the numbers are growing every day. and we want content that takes advantage of it.

    4. Re:Hi Rez Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3rded or 4thed.

      nice coincidence: captcha is 'splurge'. Presumably they mean on a decent TV.

    5. Re:Hi Rez Content by Canthros · · Score: 1

      Everyone has a 1040i set? Blast! The Sorny salesman told me they were new, and I'd be the first on my block!

      --
      Canthros
    6. Re:Hi Rez Content by Hawkxor · · Score: 1

      and what about in 5 years at the END of this console's lifespan? the same people paying big bucks for a ps3 are same people with the HDTVs. especially, it's the same people that would be interested in the next gen format war - and sony wants to win it. if you don't want a ps3, it's probably because they're not selling it to you.

    7. Re:Hi Rez Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really too bad, are you going to upgrade to 1080p anytime soon?

    8. Re:Hi Rez Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue the anal-retentive fuckwads who will nitpick the minor technical error in your post and COMPLETELY miss the point in the meantime.

  3. Interesting.. by tont0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It reminds of me when there is a road that is far too busy, then they spend 5+ years expanding the road, only to have it not be wide enough for the new amount of traffic.

    1. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      True, and it happens quite often. When you build new roads, you don't reduce congestion (except in the short term), you just encouarge more people to live along those roads, until you're back where you started. I've always thought it would make more sense to toll the roads at peak hours until congestion isn't much higher than off peak hours. That -- the hit to the pocketbook -- would do what petty little "tax credits to buses" or what not, haven't done, which is to get people to use more efficient forms of transportation. If you don't like the idea of "paying for a road twice", then redistribute all proceeds net of operating costs to the residents of the area equally. Don't drive, you get free money.

      But back to the topic of BluRay: this seems to me like they're just not even trying to use better compression algorithms.

    2. Re:Interesting.. by supabeast! · · Score: 1
      But back to the topic of BluRay: this seems to me like they're just not even trying to use better compression algorithms.


      That's the whole point! Instead of icky, downsampled, compressed images and sound we'll finally have high-quality stuff.
    3. Re:Interesting.. by jandrese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always thought that "building bigger roads just causes more people to move there" argument was flawed myself. Those people didn't appear out of nowhere, they were going to have to live somewhere, the fact that they filled in the area just as the road expanded probably doesn't mean that much either, since road expansions are often correlated with new housing developments anyway.

      It drives me nuts when the anti-suburban-sprawl types try to argue that everybody should live in the city along the mass transit lines when nobody can actually afford to do that, and they can't afford to do that because the new housing growth has been choked up so much that demand far outstrips supply and the prices skyrocket. Couple that with the fact that renting is a losing proposition monetarily and your choices for living in the city are basically nonexistant.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if you're calling me an "anti-suburban-sprawl type" who argues "that everybody should live in the city along the mass transit lines", but that would be an error. All I want is to be able to live in a large city, affordably, without an extremely long, stressful commute across overcrowed roads. I'm fortunate in that I found work in a smaller (though still internationally famous) city that doesn't have traffic problems, but it would be nice if I didn't have to live so far out to avoid it.

      I wonder if people really consider their alternatives appropriately. For "free" roads into town, you get a long, stressful, ~2 hour/day commute. How much of your life are you missing because your commute is ~3 times longer that it has to be? Would it be that bad if tolls made it so you could take a private bus to work in 1/3 of the time (or drive alone if you could afford the tolls)? (NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS MISREAD MY POSTS: I'm not saying people "should" ride buses, or that they should be forced into it specifically, or that there should be some petty system of incentives to push them in that direction. I just expect that to be the emergent result of appropriate peak hour pricing.)

      As for "more roads bring congestion", I don't see why it's hard to grasp. At the moment the roads are widened, the farther-out sites are more attractive: "Hey, cheaper land, farther from the rabble, same commute time." But then EVERYONE thinks this way, and the aggregate effect is that those wider roads are no longer so sparse. You can ask anyone involved in transportation engineering for 20 years, and they'll tell you the same thing.

      And as for better city-living alternatives, the sprawl-hating power-trippers are part of the problem in wanting to micromanage every such development, even though developers would love to build nicer, denser, safer housing there.

    5. Re:Interesting.. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      How many nerds remember getting their first 1-gigabyte hard disk, and being amazed at ever having to use so much space? Or finally being able to burn your own 700 meg CD-roms? How many older nerds remember enthusiastically upgrading to a 40 meg hard drive after a lifetime of using floppies? As the tech grows, the platform supports more infrastructure (data) to drive it, which eventually outgrows the platform and forces the tech to grow further, and so on.

    6. Re:Interesting.. by K'Lyre · · Score: 1

      I drive on a 'free' road into work all the time. It takes me 15min tops to get to work. If I speed I can get there in 8. I live in BFE and work in a different BFE. City life isn't necessary by any stretch of the imagination. I know plenty of programmers, television people, etc, that chose against big city life and have made quite a living for themselves in small towns. Granted, most of us go to the 'big city' (not that big) for major shopping and movies. But that's luxury and can afford to be taxed more. My point is... I have no point. Carry on.

    7. Re:Interesting.. by jandrese · · Score: 1
      All I want is to be able to live in a large city, affordably, without an extremely long, stressful commute across overcrowed roads.
      And a pony.
      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:Interesting.. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't think that people would not drive on the roads if they tolled them on peak hours. People need to get to work when they need to get to work. I'm sure that cutting your travel time in half would be enough incentive to travel during off-peak hours. If people didn't have to travel during peak hours, than they wouldn't.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      don't think that people would not drive on the roads if they tolled them on peak hours.

      Sorry if I wasn't clear: the idea was that they would *use* the roads, but not necessarily as drivers, i.e., they would use transportation methods that cause less traffic per person, such as buses and vanpools.

    10. Re:Interesting.. by drsquare · · Score: 1
      I've always thought it would make more sense to toll the roads at peak hours until congestion isn't much higher than off peak hours.


      Yeah, financially punish people for going to work. Brilliant. Just so the rich in their SUVs have more room on the roads on the way to the golf course^W^Wboard room.
    11. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Normally, I'd ignore crap like this until you actually make an argument, but since you'll probably get modded up and I know what you're getting at anyway, I'll respond.

      I understand that there are tradeoffs between those goods, but my point was you can satisfy those specific constraints by sacrificing elsewhere -- specifically, the free peak-hour roads. If roads were priced in accordance with demand (i.e., such that peak hour is only a little worse than off peak), housing would still be cheaper (can pack people denser in the city, and can live farther out, and the monetary cost of using the roads bids down land prices), and the commute is less stressful because you don't have to drive (and you don't have to double the commute time to have someone else drive you) and the roads have been priced to the point that they are not overcrowded.

      There is a cost -- the toll. I propose this is far below the benefits in terms of giving people more freedom from having to use a car, giving them more dense-living options, and giving them shorter commutes, all despite the immense psychological barrier to "paying for roads twice".

    12. Re:Interesting.. by drsquare · · Score: 1
      Would it be that bad if tolls made it so you could take a private bus to work in 1/3 of the time


      Considering that public transport doesn't (and never has), served my route to work at the times I work, all tolls would do would cost me even more money. There are already busses, but no-one uses them because they're slow, never go where you want them to go, and are full of criminals.

      I'm not saying people "should" ride buses, or that they should be forced into it specifically, or that there should be some petty system of incentives to push them in that direction.


      That's not an incentive it's a punishment. Financially punishing people for having the audacity to go to work is one of those elitist policies designed by the rich, to get their poor of 'their' roads so they have more room for their SUVs.
    13. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this "punishes people for going to work" any more than it "punishes people for going to work" that they have to pay for any good. With roads, demand is well exceeding supply.

      Nor do I think you understand the dynamics of it all: yes, you pay a monetary cost. You also have significantly less commute time. Same work hours, more opporunity to earn or have free time. That's why I say people aren't considering the alternatives appropriately: instead of paying peak-hour prices, you prefer the long and stressful, but free, goddamnit commute. That's fine -- if you're consciously making that tradeoff. But is this how most people feel? Two hours in stressful traffic everyday is "just the price we have to pay not to ride buses*" ? I'm amazed people have that kind of preference.

      *privately run buses, of course, that keep the bums and urine out

    14. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Considering that public transport doesn't (and never has), served my route to work at the times I work, all tolls would do would cost me even more money. There are already busses, but no-one uses them because they're slow, never go where you want them to go, and are full of criminals.

      Would you kindly consider the impacts of a large portion of the population suddenly wanting to travel by bus? Is it that hard to believe that, with real, middle-class people actually using buses now, that private companies would set up more useful routes, and have non-smelly seats, and keep assholes off?

      That's not an incentive it's a punishment. Financially punishing people for having the audacity to go to work is one of those elitist policies designed by the rich, to get their poor of 'their' roads so they have more room for their SUVs.

      Cut the demagoguery. This isn't punishing people "for having the audacity to go to work". It's making them pay the costs they impose upon the infrastructure by clogging it at critical times. (no different than peak hour electrical pricing) It would charge the worker just as much as someone leaving on a vacation that morning. And if you think the elite, rich, suburban sprawl hating, power-tripping crowd wants anything like this proposal, you're seriously mistaken.

      Is your free, long, stressful commute, really that valuable to you?

    15. Re:Interesting.. by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Hell, my first computer had a whole 1K of memory.

      It still blows me away to think that the little 512Mb miniSD card on my phone is half a million ZX81s (or TRS-80s, for the US) And that's in quarter of a century.

      Oh dear God, I'm getting old....

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    16. Re:Interesting.. by blighter · · Score: 1
      You keep talking about these "privately run buses that keep the bums and urine out". I'm wondering how realistic that is...

      I'm sympathetic to your idea of appropriately pricing road usage based on demand, I like that. The issue I'd be concerned with there would be privacy, ie. to price that way you have to know who's on the road and when. What gets done with that information could be problematic.

      And once road usage is more expensive in money (so that's it's less expensive in time...) I can see the newly increaed demand for mass-transit options quickly expanding those options so that private firms enter the bus market.

      But can you honestly see a company refusing service to the smelly and homeless not getting sued into oblivion until they stop "discriminating"?

    17. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree there are some rough spots to overcome, but today there are a lot of chartered buses that are very high quality. I think if some bus line just checked off the right boxes, they would qualify as a "private club" or something and be exempt from these rules, much like those chartered buses or vanpools are. (Or, outside of transportation, how country clubs and some bars and casinos are. Or even the Boy Scouts.) You could still have government buses running alongside the private buses too, to alleviate their concerns. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the same people who thought that government buses were "enough" for the bums, turn around the next day and say that they "need" access to the private buses too!

      So you're right, there's no telling what city administators, forever on a power trip, will come up with, but I still think it can be done.

    18. Re:Interesting.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, people don't have to commute on the roads during peak hours -- they have the option of simply moving closer to their work! Tolling roads during peak hours would be a great idea, because it would make that option more attractive.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be forgetting one little detail: the toll plazas on those roads are one of the major causes of congestion in the first place. Hey, all very well if you can monitor the traffic somehow with tags on the cars without slowing down traffic at all, but there are plenty of people who prefer to pay cash and not be tracked (yes, yes I know, privacy is dead, so you must accept tracking, circular argument, blah blah blah). Now, in your world view, that's a good thing, because it will clear up traffic nicely for the remainder who still get to use the road. I shouldn't need to tell you that "solving" a usage problem on a public resource by making it no longer public doesn't solve anything for the people who get excluded.

      Anyway, personally I'm sick of my 33 mile commute, which is 95% on roads where you can travel 65 miles an hour, taking an hour and a half. Why does it take that long? It takes that long because, even though I'm able to go 65 most of the way, for a two or three mile stretch before the toll plaza traffic travels at an average of about five miles an hour. Frankly, I don't appreciate the suggestion of doing that to even more roads.

    20. Re:Interesting.. by theelectron · · Score: 1

      Just live in the midwest. Here, in a fair sized city, I live two blocks from a bus route in a house that is less than $60k in a decent neighborhood. Granted it is not a new house and only has two bedrooms, I still think it is very comfortable and reasonably priced. Traffic's not bad, and it's only about a 15 minute drive to work about 10 miles away.

    21. Re:Interesting.. by Yakko · · Score: 1

      Don't "pay for the road twice," then. Simply pull all state and federal funds and finance the ongoing maintenance and expansion via the tolls.

      That'll be the day, though. Governments like money and won't give more back to the citizens than they absolutely must to stay in power.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    22. Re:Interesting.. by Yakko · · Score: 1

      The cost of moving closer most likely outweighs a toll. People will find other ways to deal with the toll.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    23. Re:Interesting.. by Yakko · · Score: 1

      You can argue for mass transit until the cows come home, but unless they run whenever I need it, I can't use it. A vast majority of the bus routes that make sense where I live don't run but weekdays, 7-6. Not acceptable even for going to work (I'd have to walk home every time. That's 7 miles. No.)

      If push came to shove, I'd just drive using any number of slow altroutes. Ooh, it'd take me 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    24. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      How exactly is your comment responsive to mine?

      You can argue for mass transit

      -I didn't argue for mass transit, just mentioned that one form of it (buses) it would probably result from what I did argue for.

      but unless they run whenever I need it, I can't use it.

      -They don't need to run "whenever you need them" just when you are unwilling to pay the tolls.

      A vast majority of the bus routes that make sense where I live don't run but weekdays, 7-6.

      -Yes, buses today run *differently* from how they would in an environment where there is high demand for workarounds for high peak hour tolls. What that has to do with an environment ripe for opportunties to start a bus or van line since it would save people a lot of money, I really have no idea.

      (I'd have to walk home every time. That's 7 miles. No.)

      -You'd never have to walk home under any scenario.

      If push came to shove, I'd just drive using any number of slow altroutes. Ooh, it'd take me 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes.

      -If you have a feasible alternative to the main routes, then yes, you should be using them, and being charged for the load you put on the infrastructure, rather than clogging it up for the other drivers, would be exactly what would lead you to use this alternative. Although I don't see it working if *everyone* was avoiding the high tolls this way.

      I don't know if your post was a clever attempt to satirize the views of people who would oppose my proposal, or what. If you're being serious, I would submit that you didn't actually read my proposal, which was to charge for peak hour road usage commensurate with demand, or it didn't occur to you what transportation alternatives it would lead to. Either way, reading my posts is always appreciated.

    25. Re:Interesting.. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Or they could get up earlier and avoid the toll. If the person can't do either thing, they should look for a new job.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    26. Re:Interesting.. by tricorn · · Score: 1

      It seems likely that if the buses aren't running at a particular time, then the peak-use tolls also wouldn't be in effect.

    27. Re:Interesting.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Your strategy of leaving earlier only works because most others leave later. If others adjusted their schedule, your strategy wouldn't look so hot. It's not a scalable solution for shortening commute times all around.

      I disagree with the GP about "living near work" being an ideal solution to commuting, unless you like moving every time you change jobs. Tolls are the only way I see of shortening commute times all around with minimal side effects.

    28. Re:Interesting.. by tricorn · · Score: 1

      No one had a "lifetime of using floppies", though. Floppies were an upgrade from using cassette tapes. Before that there was really only paper tape (card punch machines were too big, heavy and expensive).

      My first computer had a 10MB hard drive, second had 20MB, third had 40MB, then 80MB at work. I got an external 170MB SCSI drive, then a 320MB SCSI drive (both cost about the same amount, 1 year apart). My next computer at work had a whopping 2GB, then another with 4GB. Next upgrade was an added 100GB drive. Current machine at home has 250GB plus 300GB. I think somewhere on that machine I have images of all the other machines as each was retired (each one nested within the next one up). I'm guessing I won't be upgrading again until 1TB drives are around $200-300.

    29. Re:Interesting.. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the strategy as a way of avoiding the tolls if they were placed into effect only during peak hours.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    30. Re:Interesting.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Your strategy of leaving earlier only works because most others leave later. If others adjusted their schedule, your strategy wouldn't look so hot. It's not a scalable solution for shortening commute times all around.

      The closest thing to a scalable solution would be for an equal number of people to be coming and going each hour. Sure, it would result in some people working from 9 to 5 (PM to AM), but it would be efficient.

      I disagree with the GP about "living near work" being an ideal solution to commuting, unless you like moving every time you change jobs.

      If your city is properly dense and properly designed (e.g. New York City or Boston, but not Atlanta or Los Angeles), there are many jobs "near" where you live.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    31. Re:Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble is, Tolls roads don't always work.
      Sydney is a good example of that...they're opening new toll roads all the time that are supposed to make things easier.

      The result - a 30 minute average increase in commute times, and around $20 a day in tolls to get to work and back for some.

  4. No real surprise by cjmnews · · Score: 2, Interesting

    HD-DVD movies are filling their disks, without the extras, already too.

    It's kind of like a law, give them space, and it will be filled.

    Let's just hope the game play is good enough to justify all that additional sound and 1080p graphics.

    --
    You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
    1. Re:No real surprise by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Been the law since I got my first Hard Disk. 260 MB seemed like so much. I bet even older people felt the same way about their 40, 20 or even 10 Meg drives.

    2. Re:No real surprise by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1

      Exactly how old are you? I'm 23, and my first hard disk was 20MB. I wouldn't consider myself to be old.

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    3. Re:No real surprise by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i am 23 too.. and i remember not having a hard disk for along time...

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:No real surprise by theanorak · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget that most devs are planning to produce a single disk for all territories (or all territories within a region) - so they'll have all the different-language versions of the game on a single disk.

      --
      === Ask yourself if it's really necessary...
    5. Re:No real surprise by 1010110010 · · Score: 1

      I'm 25 and my first hdd was 30mb. Ah... the good old days.

    6. Re:No real surprise by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's kind of like a law, give them space, and it will be filled.

      Yup. Take the original Halo for the Xbox as an example. Makes full use of the DVD storage - so much so that it almost fills a disc. Numerous gigabytes of content, with a fair amount duplicated between different maps.

      Now compare with the PC version of Halo. Comes on a single CD - and contains more content too. Much less than a gigabyte, thanks to heavy compression, reuse of textures, sounds and models between maps, etc. Much more efficiently laid out, but requires a decent amount of processing grunt to decompress to a computer's hard disk. This could have been done with the Xbox version, but there simply wasn't the need. There was space available on the DVD, and there wasn't so much content to justify more aggressive compression...

      It'll be more interesting to see how a blockbuster PS3 title of, say, 2010 might fill that 25 or 50 gigabytes of space. Assuming, of course, that Sony hasn't collapsed into bankruptcy and the ColecoVision 3000 isn't ruling the roost with its authentic rat-neuron-powered parasympathetic whatsit-matic gameplay.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    7. Re:No real surprise by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      I'm 26, almost 27 - and my first hard disk was a thundering 230MB.

      Okay, I was a bit late in buying it - but it was a SCSI device attached to an Atari ST. What do I win?

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    8. Re:No real surprise by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      I usually hear the law expressed as "Data expands to fill its container", sort of like air.

    9. Re:No real surprise by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      Data abhors a vacuum?

    10. Re:No real surprise by docrmc · · Score: 1

      The analogy was close, but lacked a cigar... More to the point, its like gas in a bigger container. Oh, sure, the volume has changed (larger disk), but its less dense (different encoding), but the mass...? What we arrived at is the same old hot air, larger packaging - the proverbial waste of space.

      Its kinda like UPS shipping in that way....

      --
      "Moral indignation is just jealousy with a halo."
    11. Re:No real surprise by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Halo for the Xbox...almost fills a disc

      Which I wonder why, when the Library level itself could have been reduced to no more than maybe 8K. 7K for the basic layout, and 1K for all the locations of all the repeated places that first 7K goes to.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    12. Re:No real surprise by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which I wonder why, when the Library level itself could have been reduced to no more than maybe 8K. 7K for the basic layout, and 1K for all the locations of all the repeated places that first 7K goes to.

      I think you're being a bit generous there. The Library could have been reduced to just four bytes - 0x53, 0x48, 0x49 and 0x54...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    13. Re:No real surprise by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      MOD THIS UP! +1 Hilariously True

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    14. Re:No real surprise by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Exactly how old are you? I'm 23, and my first hard disk was 20MB. I wouldn't consider myself to be old.

      I'm not the original poster, but I'm 46 and my first computer didn't have hard disks. I built my first one on an S-100 bus, hand-soldering (sautering) the boards and pushing in the memory and other chips onto the boards, laying tracks.

      My next computer didn't have hard disks either, it was an Apple II+ with 48K (yes, K) of RAM (a lot, then) that I bumped up to 172K with an add-in 128K board and dual floppies (5.25 inch). I sometimes used 8 inch CP/M and IBM floppies on mainframes and mini-computers (they go in upside down).

      My third computer had an external 20 GB hard drive on a SCSI II connector that was faster than other Macs (it was a Mac SE with dual floppy 3.5 inch drives). Other Macs at the time had 10 GB internal drives that ran more slowly. The hard disk weighed more than a heavy laptop does now.

      Your mileage may vary.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    15. Re:No real surprise by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      30, and my first computer was a C64, and the second was an Amiga. Didn't have a hard disk until I splashed out a huge amount of money on a PC.

    16. Re:No real surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I believe you mispelled "Blu-ray" as "HD-DVD". You see, Blu-ray movies have filled up their discs after about 90 minutes of artifact-riddled video and no extras because Sony only uses crappy, ancient MPEG2. In contrast, HD-DVD can accomodate movies like "Grand Prix" and the "Searchers" that are over two and a half hours in length and still have room for hours of extras because HD-DVDs use a codec made during this century.

    17. Re:No real surprise by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "the ColecoVision 3000"

      Sweet zombie Mr. Do! Where do I preorder?

    18. Re:No real surprise by rodoke3 · · Score: 1

      It also depends on when your family was able to afford / decided to buy their first computer. I'm also 23, but my first computer came with a 3600 MB hard drive.

      --
      There's nothing like a good gunfight to uplift the spirit--Calvin
  5. "content" by techpawn · · Score: 0

    Are they talking large pretty images or actual game "content".
    FFI had a lot of "content" without filling 25gig worth of space even if the graphics where 8bit.

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:"content" by the+Gray+Mouser · · Score: 0

      Heh, I was playing Final Fantasy last night :) Going through the series again. I sometimes wonder how large a game you could create using the sprite based graphics of FFVI. I would buy it, as long as the gameplay and story was as good as the classics.

  6. What does the size matter if it isn't fun? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

    hmmm, kinda like that whole "its not the size, its how you use it" sexual innuendo line. Seriously though, why does a game need 30 GB unless there's a freakin ton of voiceover work, cutscenes (which are not gameplay, yo), and large useless textures?

    1. Re:What does the size matter if it isn't fun? by DorkusMasterus · · Score: 1

      Typically, though, while the game could look exactly (EXACTLY) the same, older (last-gen) used a lot of compression to get their higher-res stuff on one game DVD. So, the only real difference, (unless they've really done some truly amazing things with renders and such) is that load times may decrease by not having to compress the graphics and such. That is a good thing, though. I'm still not sure if it's $600-worth-it, but it's a good trend.

    2. Re:What does the size matter if it isn't fun? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Funny

      hmmm, kinda like that whole "its not the size, its how you use it" sexual innuendo line.

      Sorry, but what the girls never told you is that they want both the size AND have it be well-used.

      Some game companies will waste the space, but it's best to have it there for the ones who will use it to completely blow you away.

    3. Re:What does the size matter if it isn't fun? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      ah, but a man needs not more size to get blown

      now excuse me while I go buy a porsche to console myself

  7. You know... by Kirin+Fenrir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People piss and moan about Blu-Ray, "You don't need it!" or "Most people don't have HDTV's!" Well, some of us do. And if you don't, I'd hope that you'd prefer a format that will upgrade with you should you ever choose to get a 7.1 audio system or HDTV. When you're posting your Sony flames, just think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology.

    --
    Caffeine is my anti-drug!

    Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, the blue ray discs will make solid coasters.

    2. Re:You know... by coop247 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, just like "No one will ever need more than 640k of memory", these anti BR flames are completely shortsighted. So you don't have a HDTV or the developer doesn't fill up the disk today, what about two years from now. Xbox people can say over and over again that they won't ever release games on HDDVD or on multiple disks, but I refuse to believe it.

      --
      //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    3. Re:You know... by MeanderingMind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a reason people piss and moan, and it isn't because Blu-Ray sucks. Blu-Ray isn't bad, but that doesn't make it desirable. DVDs have only very recently become truly ubiquitous, and many people have just finished assembling DVD collections. The idea of buying all of that again without any immediate benefit save "Someday when I get an HDTV this will benefit me" isn't very compelling. Even less so because of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray confusion.

      I have an HDTV, and I'm sticking with regular DVDs until there's a clear winner for the next format and maybe even afterwards. The look great, maybe not fantastic, but good enough that rebuying my movie collection isn't appealing.

      There isn't any irony in saying we don't need a new technology when we don't.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    4. Re:You know... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 5, Interesting
      People piss and moan about Blu-Ray, "You don't need it!"
      Why do I need DRM?
      When you're posting your Sony flames, just think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology.
      I bought a Mini-disc player from Sony, the format and devices flopped in the end.
      I bought a (what was considered at the time) next-generation MP3 player from Sony that couldn't play MP3s -- Flopped too in the end.

      Give me reason to trust any more Sony technologies?
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:You know... by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      I have a very nice 1080i plasma and a 7.1 audio sytem. Care to venture a guess as to what console I have on pre-order? Wii will be happy to give you an answer. To be honest, I love my discoveryHD and my upconverting DVD player. I watch movies/tv and a huge part of that is the visuals, but I rarely even notice a games graphics. I suppose the other half of my reasoning is that I'm tired of re-purchasing media. Why is it so difficult for them to understand that I want to be able to download media and keep it is a compact digital format?

      You'll have to forgive my rambling and terrible spelling as I was called in at 2am this morning.

    6. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they did away with BluRay, I might actually be able to buy one.

    7. Re:You know... by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a tangent to the conversation. Blu-ray may end up flopping for movies (I doubt it, but it may).

      We are talking about a GAME CONSOLE FORMAT. Your comments don't make much sense in that context. What you are saying is basically...

      I bought a Dreamcast from Sega but the GD-ROM format flopped and no movies were released for it.

      What does it matter if they are releasing things on Blu-ray, DVD, Hard Drive, HD-DVD, or punch cards? The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart one (on that issue, price could be argued otherwise).

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    8. Re:You know... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Well, some of us do."

      I'm sure they do. However, the question is ultimately whether or not that "some" can support a console to the point of making it mainstream. Because unless these 25 GB games are anthologies of PS or PS2 games stamped on one disk, that "some" is all that these new games are aiming for, the ones that can actually utilize that new content.

      I have yet to see any reason to believe that the PlayStation 3 is aiming for anybody but the old NeoGeo market.

      "I'd hope that you'd prefer a format that will upgrade with you should you ever choose to get a 7.1 audio system or HDTV."

      It might be nice to have a console that can upgrade to the new a/v technologies, as you say. But unless and until I do get that 1080p television and 8-speaker sound system, all that I would be paying for is "potential." And at $600, it makes more financial sense to wait until after I get that television and sound system, rather than have a $600 paperweight that does little more for me than my $250 Wii; even the Wii's 480p capabilities will be wasted on me, but the price for this underutilized console will be more acceptable.

      "just think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology."

      I don't need to argue. My ATSC television speaks for itself.

      Besides, if we were half as technophilic as you seem to think we are, we'd all be riding Segways.

    9. Re:You know... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      We are talking about a GAME CONSOLE FORMAT. Your comments don't make much sense in that context. What you are saying is basically...
      Parent poster I was replying to didn't seem to be specifically referring to that at all.
      The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart one (on that issue, price could be argued otherwise).
      Really? I didn't read about about next-gen games taking up the space, only cut scenes and other crap many gamers complain about in games are taking up that space.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    10. Re:You know... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "So you don't have a HDTV or the developer doesn't fill up the disk today, what about two years from now."

      Two years? I've had my GameCube for over three and I still don't own a 480p television.

    11. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to pay attention to the source of this supposed new info. Sony claims that their Blue-Ray format is awesome and everyone needs it. This is news somehow? Show me some DEVELOPERS saying that they need 25gb to put a game on next-gen consoles and I might start believing it.

      I hope you don't really think that Sony is putting blu-ray in the PS3 because it actually needs it. They're doing it because they want to use their popular game console to push their movie format. At this point we'll just have to see if the high price tag caused by the blu-ray drive is going to effect sales of the PS3 compared to the PS2. Unless the PS3 does extremely well - putting a blu-ray drive in every household - then blu-ray will flop just like every other sony format.

      Don't think for a second that the blu-ray drive in the PS3 has anything to do with games. It has everything to do with Sony wanting to extend their near-monopoly on the last two generations of game systems into other markets.

    12. Re:You know... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart on"

      You're assuming that the games would be spanning 25 GB even if BluRay weren't used. From what I've seen, code (especially from game companies) is like a gas: it always fills up and takes the shape of the container it's in.

      (And, running with that metaphor, with such a large container, the near-vacuum within will leave gamers gasping for true content.)

      BluRays aren't needed until DVDs are filled. If BluRay were around fifteen years ago, "Sega BR" games would still have consumed the entire disk.

    13. Re:You know... by wuie · · Score: 1

      What does it matter if they are releasing things on Blu-ray, DVD, Hard Drive, HD-DVD, or punch cards?

      Oh hell no. By the time that I'd load San Andreas from punch cards, I could have stolen a car, gone to jail, and been released.

    14. Re:You know... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      By the time most people have HDTVs, we'll be three or four console generations further along anyway. Not only do the prices have to come down massively, but a lot more content has to be produced in HDTV to make it viable, and they have to make smaller versions (believe it or not but most people don't even have the room for a 50" TV).

    15. Re:You know... by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Just because cut-scenes are the most obvious way to use space that's mentioned does not mean that's all that they are being used for. Think of playing a FF game where EVERYONE talks. Every throw away line, not just the important conversation. Also, with all that new geometry (which takes space) you also have all the high-rez textures so things look good when you're NOT 10 feet away.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    16. Re:You know... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "When you're posting your Sony flames, just think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology."

      That's a nice little over-simplification. Let me clarify that for you: "I don't need to spend $600 for that new technology."

      The bitching about Blu-Ray is over the price. I'm not anti-Sony, I'm just not impressed with what $500-$600 buys me.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:You know... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      I think you got it backwards. A PS3 is something you buy for your HDTV, not the other way around.

      --
      +0 Meh
    18. Re:You know... by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      I bought a Mini-disc player from Sony, the format and devices flopped in the end.
      I bought a (what was considered at the time) next-generation MP3 player from Sony that couldn't play MP3s -- Flopped too in the end.

      I bought a game console from Sony, the PlayStation, with games on CDs instead of cartridges, the format and device succeeded in the end.
      I bought a (what was considered at the time) next-generation game console from Sony, The PlayStation2, with games on DVDs instead of CDs, the format and device succeeded in the end.

      Guess what? Every company has both successes and failures. Sony had the mini-disc, Nintendo had the Virtual Boy.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    19. Re:You know... by ozbon · · Score: 1
      We are talking about a GAME CONSOLE FORMAT. Your comments don't make much sense in that context. What you are saying is basically...

      Three letters : PSP

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    20. Re:You know... by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      You mean like Oblivion? Too bad that didn't fit on a DVD...

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    21. Re:You know... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, code (especially from game companies) is like a gas: it always fills up and takes the shape of the container it's in.

      Interesting then that "code" was not among the things listed as filling the disk. For games, data tends to expand more rapidly than the actual executable code, being the fuel you need to feed to the engine.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    22. Re:You know... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      think of the irony in Slashdot posters arguing that we don't need a new technology.

      I don't think it's ironic that Slashdot bemoans planned obsolescense.
      We LIKE old, reliable tech 'round here... And get off my lawn!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    23. Re:You know... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      What does it matter if they are releasing things on Blu-ray, DVD, Hard Drive, HD-DVD, or punch cards?

      $$$

      The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart one (on that issue, price could be argued otherwise).

      Give devs more space, and they'll spend less time compressing data. It's not smart, it's lazy.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    24. Re:You know... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      Just because cut-scenes are the most obvious way to use space that's mentioned does not mean that's all that they are being used for.
      No, but most.
      Think of playing a FF game where EVERYONE talks.
      You know, I really hate FF as a RPG, because well. It wasn't really a RPG, how about they make the next FF game, one where I can have a dynamic role, and not set to really linear story lines. Or, what about embedding a text2speech engine, we've had the technology for years and had very reasonable results with preprogrammed dialog and their expressions, where the characters can even speak YOUR DEFINED NAME -- That's next generation for me.
      Also, with all that new geometry (which takes space) you also have all the high-rez textures so things look good when you're NOT 10 feet away.
      You're not going to convince me that, that alone can take 25GB of drive space, especially with all the nice file formats we have available.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    25. Re:You know... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure, Mini-disc and ATRAC3 flopped -- but my Betamax, MemoryStick, and UMD stuff is still going strong! : P

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    26. Re:You know... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      The point of the article is that next-gen games are already taking up 25 gigs so Sony's move to not use DVDs (like MS did) seems like it was a very smart one (on that issue, price could be argued otherwise).

      Well, duh! Everybody knows that games will eventually fill up however much space you want to give to them. The real issue is that Sony is making a dumb move by doing it too soon, when the technology is still to expensive.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fileformats won't change the fact that HD graphics take up more space. Smaller formats /always/ mean more compression, and more compression leads to slower load times and loss of quality.

    28. Re:You know... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I was watching Studio 60 last night with my wife and when Sting started performing in full DD 5.1 I cranked up my livingroom system to about 65% and just enjoyed the near-perfect sound. Then I looked at her and said "that's why I bought a good receiver and 5.1 speaker system" and she just said 'shhh'.

      If you aren't enjoying HDTV and high quality sound from good speakers, I wouldn't expect you to care about SACD or BD or HDDVD or the PS3 either, but for [insert higher life form's name here]'s sake, just realize you're out of the loop and this isn't about you. Its about those of us who want high definition beauty.

      PS, for the rest of you, the PS2 is going to be supported for a long time to come -- God of War 2 is coming out in a few months in fact and should be an awsome game. Sony will be promoting and pushing the PS2 for many years just like they have the PS1 (PSOne) which allows them two tiers of game production and marketing.

      Last I checked, a PS2 is only $130. Buy one. Or an XBox for that matter (but I wouldn't expect too many new games on it).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    29. Re:You know... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Its been studied already. The results are already in. Survey says around 10 million people are presently willing to purchase a PS3 at full price. The problem isn't pricing -- its going to be whether Sony manages to move the 8 million consoles out the door by March as they planned on doing.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    30. Re:You know... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      There are quite a few multi-disc games already for the PS2. And a lot of > 4GB games on DVD9. I'm pretty sure if PS2 games were filling the discs (and more) then raising the resolution by 3 to 7 times the on-screen pixels (higher resolution textures required times the amount of extra detail required to not make in-game areas look sparse and boxy) would certainly require a larger disc format for the same content.

      God of War is huge and looks awsome, Black is huge and looks awsome, both are already pushing the limits on the PS2 in storage capacity and resolution. If 720p or 1080p versions of the same games were released today, they would not fit on a DVD, and I expect my next-gen gaming system not to require disc swapping.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    31. Re:You know... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      Smaller formats /always/ mean more compression, and more compression leads to slower load times and loss of quality.
      BMP vs PNG.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    32. Re:You know... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're really trying extremely hard to be a short-sighted dipshit, and your comparison between BMP and PNG is retarded.

      The real comparison you're looking for is BMP => JPEG. Lossless compression simply isn't enough to fit modern games on a DVD. Perhaps with Blueray, if the developers just don't need the whole disc for content, they can use lossless compression in that case.

      Now, you can criticize Sony all you want for the expense they went to in order to add the extra storage, but to deride the fact that they added more storage is short-sighted and stupid.

      After all, 640K is not enough for everybody(yes, I realize Bill Gates didn't actually say that).

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    33. Re:You know... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Really? I didn't read about about next-gen games taking up the space

      Yet.

      It's like this. You live in a 15-mile radius bubble. There are a lot of people who live there with you, but the space is efficiently used, and you've got enough entertainment to keep you happy... then progress hits. Your bubble expands to a 100-mile radius. Many people just expand their houses, and use the extra space for the same old things, since they don't know anything else. The people with grand ideas, though, are the ones to watch - pretty soon they've got huge areas of land being used for entertainment, farming, parks, and just generally improving life. After a certain amount of time, you'll start to wonder how you ever used to live without it.

      Over the years, this has been how it is with storage space. I never thought I could fill an 80MB hard drive, then I started putting games on there... Then I never thought I could fill a 540MB hard drive, until I started putting music on there... Then I never thought I could fill a 6GB hard drive, until I started putting video on there... Now? I have around 300GB full and I'm thinking that I could never fill 1TB. What next? Who knows, but now that the space is available, someone will come up with a great idea of how to use it, and we'll eventually wonder what we did without that.

      Think - 15 years ago did you ever think you'd have full song albums and movies on your computer? No, because nobody THOUGHT to do that since storage was so small, but at the same time, people thought they had tons of space and that any more would be unnecessary. "640k should be enough for anyone..."

      More storage is ALWAYS welcome, and people will ALWAYS find a good use for it.

    34. Re:You know... by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      When I want high definition beauty, here's my solution: I step away from my 27" old school TV (which suits me just fine for all my needs) and go outside. It's a hell of a lot cheaper, the resolution is great, and it often has a pretty good storyline, too.

    35. Re:You know... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 0

      ... I hope that was intended to be funny.

      The storyline in God of War, Black, Grandia III, Jak & Daxter, Maximo, Ratchet & Clank, Donkey Kong Country, etc. cannot be easily replicated outdoors ... and definately not legally.

      You go join a fight club, I'll play Tekken and save myself the concussions.
      You can go snowboarding and get arrested for punching out other people on the mountain and/or break your neck while I play SSX on Tour.

      Outdoors is great, and I quite enjoy it on my mountain bike, but I'm not allowed to drive my car the way I do in Burnout 4 (so the officers keep telling me).

      Real life does have its limitations (fatality being a minor one).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    36. Re:You know... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      You're really trying extremely hard to be a short-sighted dipshit, and your comparison between BMP and PNG is retarded.
      Yes, they are both graphicy things!
      The real comparison you're looking for is BMP => JPEG.
      When it takes me, 12 minutes to view a huge BMP file stored on a CDROM VS a good fifteen second load of a PNG, I see the difference.
      Lossless compression simply isn't enough to fit modern games on a DVD.
      Uhm, most games can do this already for huge resolutions on a DVD, what is your point?
      Now, you can criticize Sony all you want for the expense they went to in order to add the extra storage, but to deride the fact that they added more storage is short-sighted and stupid.
      At the moment, no I don't see the need for it -- Worst comes to worst, we will see games with two DVDs -- which by the way, we don't see people constantly switching DVDs to play - Think final fantasy.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    37. Re:You know... by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Why do I need DRM?

      Well, what console games can you buy that don't have DRM? Basically, they all do at this point. That goes for most PC games, too. I guess you shouldn't buy any games then.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    38. Re:You know... by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      REALTIME 7.1 requires no more space than stereo. What it requires is a processer capable of mixing the various samples and sound effects in realtime.

      The only thing that would take up more space is prerecorded video, which I hate in games. I'm much happier with fully in-engine cutscenes, even if they don't look as good.

    39. Re:You know... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're still being a short-sighted... nevermind.

      First of all, many games use lossy compresion for textures in order to fit on a DVD, so you're wrong there.

      At the moment, no I don't see the need for it -- Worst comes to worst, we will see games with two DVDs -- which by the way, we don't see people constantly switching DVDs to play - Think final fantasy.

      Have you seen FF recently? The videos are very visibly compressed.

      Sure. We could use multiple DVDs. But, eg. UT2k4 already ships on two DVDs, with no single player campaign and no FMV. How many DVDs are you willing to shuffle for one game?

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    40. Re:You know... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      The videos are very visibly compressed.
      Yes, let's get rid of pre-rendered cut-scenes, most people from what I've seen -- don't want them.

      How many DVDs are you willing to shuffle for one game?
      Honestly? It really depends on how long the game is. If it's every half an hour changing to another DVD, no. If it's after say, seven hours of game play to get another set of stages, sure.

      It's not like older games which ran on disks where you had to constantly swap disks 1, 2 and 3 for every map. You get to a certain stage, then you starting using DVD 2 only, later on, DVD 3 only etc.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    41. Re:You know... by TommyBear · · Score: 1

      640KB should be enough for anyone...

    42. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...sounds like someone has an unnatural attraction to it's TV...

    43. Re:You know... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's get rid of pre-rendered cut-scenes, most people from what I've seen -- don't want them.

      That is laughably ridiculous. Some genres practically demand them. Fans of FF VII - X would be pretty fucking pissed off if you took away their FMV.

      OTOH, I am one of those people who would prefer all new games to use the game engine for cutscenes instead of re-rendered FMV.

      Honestly? It really depends on how long the game is. If it's every half an hour changing to another DVD, no. If it's after say, seven hours of game play to get another set of stages, sure.

      So seven hours. I can easily see filling a DVD with less than seven hours of content. Is that *necessary*? Of course not. But necessity is a retarded argument. Games aren't necessary, period. Why complain about developers having more resources to use?

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    44. Re:You know... by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      *grins*... Yes, I did intend it to be silly.

      At the same time, I appreciate that people like immersion and realism, but I'm amazed at the amount of money they're willing to pay for it. Then again, I found it was easy for me to get completely immersed in the old games like Ultima IV, Bard's Tale, etc. because the storylines were rich and the gameplay fun, so maybe I'm easily pleased compared to most.

  8. Gameplay by techstar25 · · Score: 1
    partially it'll be down to gameplay benefits as well - more levels, more detail, richer experiences
    For a $500 system with $60 games, the extra space should be COMPLETELY for the gameplay benefits. Nobody cares about a cut-scene in 1080p and 7.1, really nobody.
    1. Re:Gameplay by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of people who would disagree with you. They think cut scenes and graphics are very important.

      Personally I think they could probably save a fuck load of space (money and time) if they just did the cut scenes in real time RE4 (Gamecube) style.

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Gameplay by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      really nobody

      You mean, besides Sony's execs

    3. Re:Gameplay by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I don't think they count as the "body" in nobody i belive is ment to mean "human" which am quite sure they are not. but i could be wrong

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:Gameplay by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice job on the bias/assumption. I, and a ton of people I know, play the game SOLELY for the cutscenes, storyline, voiceovers, etc. The gameplay is more of a bonus for us. It all comes down to preference. I play through FF games just to experience the story. We play games as a form of interactive movie, if you will. And if this will enhance our experience, good! Just because new technology doesn't enhance YOUR experience, it doesn't mean it doesn't enhance ANYONE'S experience.

    5. Re:Gameplay by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      They might just be an army of QRIOs

    6. Re:Gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sad. The gameplay is a bonus? I threw up a little bit in the back of my throat when I read that... thanks! If gaming is heading down that road then it is doomed.

    7. Re:Gameplay by westlake · · Score: 1
      Nobody cares about a cut-scene in 1080p and 7.1, really nobody.

      The reality is that the next-gen consoles are competing in the market for HD content:

      The NFL on cable or satellite. The video rental from Netflix.

      Once you make the commitment to wide screen, large screen, HD projection and theatrical quality digital sound you don't look back. No more than the PC gamer looks back to the MIDI soundtracks and 320x240 graphics of Doom.

    8. Re:Gameplay by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Then I would recommend you to:

      1. Buy a book
      2. Rent a DVD
      3. Go to the cinemas

      These days, a lot of games get their movie like Final Fantasy, Doom (a movie for a FPS hahaah), Resident Evil, Silent Hill (that was good), etc.

      Whatever happened to the "create your own adventure" spirit of the ROLE playing games?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:Gameplay by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I don't understand that though. If you're playing the game for the story, you want immersion, as suspension of disbelief, alternate world, etc. I would think you'd prefer the cutscenes to be integrated seamlessly with the rest of the game (i.e. have the game's logic give commands to the characters' models rather than run a pre-rendered scene with better graphics than the rest of the game and all objects out of place -- RE4 GameCube vs. PS2). So why would the extra space for detailed FMV's be better for you?

    10. Re:Gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, and that "ton" of people you know (less than a dozen does not equal a ton) are a significant minority.

    11. Re:Gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why the gaming industry has been in major suck mode lately. Thanks for fucking up the industry, ass.

      Games are about GAMEPLAY, not watching pretty stuff fly across your screen.

      Yeah, this is trollish. Anonymous ON!

    12. Re:Gameplay by SpeedyDX · · Score: 1

      I prefer FMVs to scripted in-game-engine cutscenes, because FMVs provide "prettier pictures", more natural movement, etc. I am not "against" scripted in-game-engine cutscenes, per se, I just don't think that they are of the same quality as FMVs. In fact, if the level of detail in scripted cutscenes were close to the level of detail in FMVs, I WOULD prefer scripted cutscenes. Now, here's another question: What if the developers are now using the space for high-res textures, more realistic looking models, so that they can make scripted cut scenes of the same quality as FMVs? Why is it that we are assuming they're for detailed FMVs rather than high-res texture packs?

    13. Re:Gameplay by SpeedyDX · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the recommendations. I already do all of that.

      However, the reality is that there is an entire genre of games tailored towards my preferences. As are there genres of games tailored to other people's preferences. I fail to see how my preferences are inferior to yours. They may be completely different, sure, but since when did the word "game" come to mean anything other than interactive activities of entertainment? Football is a game. Baseball is a game. Call of Duty is a game. Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Chess is a game. Are all those games the same? Are any of them superior to another?

      I take it you like RPGs. Well then, your preferences are different than people who like FPSes. Does that make FPSes or RPGs or Football or D&D or any other game any more inferior or superior to another?

      I expect different things from the games that I like than you do from the games that you like. It's just that simple.

    14. Re:Gameplay by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Nice job on the bias/assumption. I, and a ton of people I know, play the game SOLELY for the cutscenes, storyline, voiceovers, etc. The gameplay is more of a bonus for us. It all comes down to preference. I play through FF games just to experience the story. We play games as a form of interactive movie, if you will. And if this will enhance our experience, good! Just because new technology doesn't enhance YOUR experience, it doesn't mean it doesn't enhance ANYONE'S experience.

      I walk away really mixed with cut-scenes. I just don't see the need other than to add glitter and shinies. I've liked FF and KH cutscenes, but you know my favorite part about KH2? Pressing pause and skip to get through it all. I'd really like a similiar feature for FF summons. Once upon a time FF summons were cool to look at or use. Summons have gotten to be too much trouble to bother with. You have to wait through really long squences just for damage effects similiar to your main party members. I don't mind a long summon scene during a boss fight or cut-scene, but waiting through them things through random encounters for effects similiar to using your other characters just gets annoying after the 20th or 30th or 40th time. I'd rather them work on using a much better physics engine and instead of just hitting random monster with sword X and having a small handful of effects to cycle through, having a model of the enemy with arms being cut or burnt off being slightly different each time.

      Wii looks to be moving in the direction that I'd like. I'm thinking that it's remote will just detect movements though and not accurately follow that swords path through the exact path through the monster. I can envision playing FF and having variable damage to do how well you perform with your sword or staff rather than just your stats. Its an entire area that we could explore more.

    15. Re:Gameplay by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how my preferences are inferior to yours.

      Well, apparently you're inferior in more ways than one!

    16. Re:Gameplay by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd offer a cutscene-free version then, so I don't have to pay for the part I never, ever watch, but undoubtedly added to the production costs. In my opinion, cutscenes are to games as blank pages are to books.

    17. Re:Gameplay by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      I agree completely with SpeedyDX. The benefit of extra space for more detailed FMV's is prettier cut-scenes. Obviously, real-time cutscenes don't cut it with pre-rendered of live-action cutscenes. These cutscenes cat be considered a reward for playing the game, something to look forward to and spur on progression. I don't really mind if there are a few objects misplaced or the main character is wearing different clothes in the cutscene; it's not a huge deal. Of course, I like a good combination of pretty in-engine rendered cutscenes and good pre-rendered cutscenes, so if the graphics engines get improved to the extent that they are capable of reaching pre-rendered levels of quality and effects... then, I'd be all for more in-game cutscenes. Yes, I like cutscenes in games and I'm not ashamed to admit it!

  9. That's just the PR by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

    But of course, after buying that much high def textures and videos, there is no money left for the scenario (and don't tell me a DVD wasn't enough to put decent interactions, some of my favorite games only required a couple of 3"1/2)

  10. In other words...just like every other generation? by RichardMarks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    New generation of console hardware arrives with more storage. Developers use the space.

    Shocking.

  11. cutscenes by name*censored* · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see why they don't just downgrade the cutscene quality; barely anyone watches the cutscenes more than once anyway. I can't imagine sitting there thinking "WOW LQQK AT THE 1080i CUTSCENE!!!! WHAT QUALITY!!!!!!". I CAN, however, imagine sitting there thinking "come on, come on, get back to the game already!"

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    1. Re:cutscenes by Franio · · Score: 1

      I CAN, however, imagine sitting there thinking "come on, come on, get back to the game already!"

      Metal Gead Solid 2? I think the game actually had more cutscenes than gameplay.

    2. Re:cutscenes by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Prerended cutscenes are so 90s. I though the PS3 was powerful enough to give us high quality in game rendered cut scenes.
      Besides that it's always nicer to stay within the game's world representation instead of getting a completely different view during the game.

    3. Re:cutscenes by crswanny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why I hate EA games. The inability to skip through the opening EA Logo splash screen, or when playing through a game numerous times and having to watch the same cutscenes over and over is such a pain in the butt. Sure, some I may want to watch additional times but for the love of everything holy, when I die on a level and need to attempt it again, don't make me watch the same opening video every f'ing time!

    4. Re:cutscenes by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      On the crummy HD-ready TVs people have bought - I sure won't be thinking "what quality".

      The HD-ready logo used here is not very helpful - all it tells you is that if you stick in a HD signal, you get a picture. So many of the models being sold here for 1000 and more are crummy low-res sets, that don't even handle normal TV (not good on the interlaced PAL) and rescale *both* 720p and 1080i. For some, the only way you would get native res is to feed it with a low-res signal from your PC.

      Samsung have a nice CRT HDTV that seems pretty genuine (it properly changes the picture geometry for widescreen for example - no rescaling, and handles interlaced signals - i.e. normal TV); unfortunately the large size models aren't readily available here in Ireland.

      There are some decent LCD ones too, but they are all several grand, and sit alongside models of the same price that are rubbish. Try figuring out from the salesperson's answers which set is good, and which bad. (Oh, and they are fed with analogue Antenna input - so much for judging based on the picture; although it'll let you know how the set handles basic TV I guess).

      It's hard to keep a straight face at the proud owners of HD ready TVs showing them off as one looks at a horribly rescaled picture with action smearing across the low-response LCD screen.

      Wait a couple years before buying HD TV, blu ray players, HD DVD players or PS3s. I still think the Xbox 360 is bad value too (you probably have to own a PC anyways - so adding the cost of a basic PC to the cost of Xbox 360 = PC that will do you for years of gameplaying unless you are a quality-crazed tech follower).

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    5. Re:cutscenes by sowth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wouldn't mind the cutscenes so much if I could play the damn game while they were running.

    6. Re:cutscenes by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the cutscenes be rendered real-time with the game engine anyway? Isn't the PS3 supposed to have "near photo-realistic graphics"? That's not good enough for cutscenes?

    7. Re:cutscenes by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      Your post is unfortunate. You're judging technology based on store demos and people who have no idea how to take advantage of the technology. Being in PAL land doesn't make it any easier.

      In the US, you can get a decent TV for $1000 or less and if you know what you're doing, set it up so the picture is absolutely phenomenal.

      I do agree that waiting isn't a bad idea. If it seems to expensive or not good enough yet, wait a year or two. And no, there is no need to have a PC to have a 360. It can operate without one.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    8. Re:cutscenes by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Prerended cutscenes are so 90s. I though the PS3 was powerful enough to give us high quality in game rendered cut scenes.

      Chalk it up to lazy programmers and tight shipping schedules. Many game design companies will not take advantage of the full capabilities of the PS3 when it is cheaper and acceptable to just pre-render especially when you have all the data storage available on BR - and the pre-render can be used on any architecture console or computer.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    9. Re:cutscenes by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      Dunno if you still have any EA games, but for the Battlefield series it works quite well to rename the appropriate .bik files to something else. The .bik files can most of the time be found in the (\mods\bf2) \movies folder.

      Renaming them will not cause any purity-conflicts (with Punkbuster for example), and the intro movies won't be shown anymore after this.

    10. Re:cutscenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail on the head. HD isn't ready yet. They're rushing it because they want people to buy all their movies again on a new format. Plus they want to ram all the new DRM down everyone's throat since they fucked it up on DVD. And to top it off, this is probably the most minor innovation in the whole video entertainment industry ever. "Oooh, higher res.. big whoop"

      Sure, there's good HD out there, but all the confusion surrounding everything (HDTV "ready" Vs. actual HDTV, HDMI, interlaced vs. progressive scan, Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, etc..) doesn't help the consumer one bit, and DRM has completely driven me away till the fallout settles. I probably won't pick up an HDTV until I have to, either because they don't make regular-def sets anymore, or there's no content for them.

      Many early adopters will get screwed.

    11. Re:cutscenes by ghostcorps · · Score: 0
      unless you are a quality-crazed tech follower

      READ: "PC Gamer"

      --
      axis discrepancy indicates hexagons beyond control anomaly
  12. W000t by xtracto · · Score: 4, Funny

    W00t for the 3122131 maps of 8000x6000 sqr ft Doom 6!!! I for one cant wait to shoot-shoot-jump-shoot-jump-shoot-run-strafe-shoot -crouch-shoot-shoot-shoot-jump-shoot-jump-shoot-ru n-strafe-shoot-crouch-shoot-shoot-shoot-jump-shoot -jump-shoot-run-strafe-shoot-crouch-shoot-
    shoot-shoot-jump-shoot-jump-shoot-run-strafe-shoot -crouch-shoot-shoot-shoot-jump-shoot-jump-shoot-ru n-strafe-shoot-crouch-shoot-
    at 1620x1280 !!

    Seriously, is anyone still turned on by this??

    (sorry this is a not-so-old-man rant).

    I am waiting for my humble Wii =o)

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:W000t by TwoScoopsOfPig · · Score: 1

      You missed the reloading. That'll be worth 1080p graphics alone! Ugh.

      --
      #include <disclaimer.h>
      #include <beer.h>
    2. Re:W000t by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I'm more turned on by that than by Zelda 16.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  13. My dissapointment by Taulin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The one thing I was dissapointed with at the TGS was that the next gen titles still used old techniques. For example, instead of using true type fonts that use vectors, and would look nice at any resolution and scale, they still used plain old bitmaps. Even worse, proper physics are still not used in games like Virtua Fighter 5 and you still get a foot through the stomach. I would expect them to use some of that extra power to calculate and fix some of these artifacts of the elder systems. If not from these first gen titles, then from the next batch at least.

    1. Re:My dissapointment by Salamande · · Score: 1

      If you're waiting for a fighting game with proper physics, the Virtua Fighter series will definitely not be it. The game's far too balanced at this point to worry about the randomness that can come with true physics. Many players plan their strategies through knowing exactly how far a certain move will stagger/stun/juggle a player, every time. I agree that those high-flying juggles are rather ridiculous, but by now it's part of the game, like it or not.

      Of course, I'm not saying a fighter with real physics wouldn't be great fun, just that you'd have to build it from the ground up. You couldn't just tack something like that on and expect people to run with it.

    2. Re:My dissapointment by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For example, instead of using true type fonts that use vectors, and would look nice at any resolution and scale, they still used plain old bitmaps.

      Truetype fonts for text and other graphical elements? That's so last-generation...

      Also, don't stab me in the eyes for this - but Flash could be an interesting addition for a game's controllable panels, interfaces and so on. Doom 3 was nearly there, but if you manage to get the game to run at a high resolution, you'll soon discover that it's all based around relatively low-resolution bitmaps.

      If one of these über-games-consoles dedicated a core to rendering Flash elements where necessary, then there'd be loads of new possibilities. And, being an excessively common design target already, everyone knows how to design Flash animations anyway...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:My dissapointment by sowth · · Score: 1

      Why use flash when you can make a real interface in 3D?

    4. Re:My dissapointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash is already being used in the game industry for front-ends.

      For example, EA uses Flash for its front-ends and there's a 3rd party library (don't recall the name) that uses it as well. I believe there's a even a Flash plug-in for the Torque Game Engine.

      Flash works well because artists can easily create the screens as they appear in-game using the Flash editor.
      Just don't let them write any Actionscript. :)

  14. It's about graphics... and sound. by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    'It's not just about graphics,' he said. 'It's about 7.1 audio, it's about speech, it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game; it's high-res textures, it's animation, it's everything that goes into making a very rich and varied next-gen experience...

    And yet, with all that, still no content. You can fit--how many Libraries of Congress?--onto that disc, and they're just pouring in huge textures and cinematics, higher resolution audio. Not that I'm saying that video games need to have a lot of text; maybe it's more true that video games don't really need to fill so much space.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: wake me up when we need a daughterboard for the AI or, better still, the PLOT.

    1. Re:It's about graphics... and sound. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Not that I'm saying that video games need to have a lot of text;

      You've never played Morrowind, have you?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:It's about graphics... and sound. by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the SegaCD. All the devs got ahold of a storage medium that was near-unlimited for the period and they didn't know how what to do with it.

      So we got a bunch of crappy FMV games because that was the only thing capable of taking advantage of CD-ROM at the time.

      They're doing the same with the PS3. They feel like they HAVE to fill it, or people will feel ripped off. They'll jack the resolution on cut-scenes that 5% of the gaming population care about. They'll crank the audio sampling rate to 192kHZ for the seven people who will detect the difference. They'll stop using compression on video and audio even though there isn't any noticable benefit to doing so. In fact, they'll probably just aggravate load times by doing this. Wonderful.

    3. Re:It's about graphics... and sound. by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      EVERYONE asks me that. No, I actually played a LOT of Morrowind. I realize, though, that many people didn't enjoy that kind of game, slower paced with lots of text to read, and also that there _may_ be better ways to spend what ultimately end up being project dollars or man-hours on writing "flavor" text. I would personally love to see more games include more text, but that's not likely to happen--especially in the flash and glam console world where a pretty picture is worth US$599.

  15. Cut Scenes by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game;

    I was hoping that the power of the next-gen consoles would mean developers finally stop using cut-scene movies and do everything in the game engine. Why waste disk space on movie files when doing it with the game engine is smaller and better for immersion?

    1. Re:Cut Scenes by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why waste disk space on movie files when doing it with the game engine is smaller and better for immersion?

      Companies do this because it's easier/cheaper to farm out cutscenes to an animation studio than to program a good scripting system and pay people to program in the cutscenes.

    2. Re:Cut Scenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't listen to consumers, I'm guessing. I too *loathe* FMV. I play Dead or Alive 2U all the time (it has in-engine cut-scenes) but rarely play Dead or Alive 3 (which has FMV) because it just ruins the experience. There is a jarring change in visual style (largely because FMV is ray-traced and uses different models) and in games where your character can have a different appearance (whether this is different costumes as in Dead or Alive or a particular weapon out or whatever) the FMV doesn't reflect this.

      In fact, I can't think of a single good thing about FMV - it's ugly, it takes up more space and it ruins the immersion. I'm at a loss as to why they use it. Maybe it's a case of "We've always done it this way and we've got a ton of FMV artists on the payroll" or something.

      I'm not saying lose the cut-scenes: In-engine cut-scenes good, pre-rendered ones bad!

    3. Re:Cut Scenes by tygerstripes · · Score: 1

      Although, Max Payne's "cutscenes" did a lot for the feel and immersion of the story, I felt. But then they took even less space, so I guess that doesn't really refute the argument...

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    4. Re:Cut Scenes by British · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that the power of the next-gen consoles would mean developers finally stop using cut-scene movies and do everything in the game engine. Why waste disk space on movie files when doing it with the game engine is smaller and better for immersion?

      If there were no cutscenes in games, what the heck would reviewers use for "screenshots"(and oh do I liberally use those quotes) in magazines and websites? What? UH, ACTUAL screenshots? NO way!

    5. Re:Cut Scenes by DingerX · · Score: 1
      getting agents to do those things in three-d space to the level of refinement of a cutscene takes a lot of work.

      Of course:
      'It's not just about graphics,' he said. 'It's about 7.1 audio, it's about speech, it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game; it's high-res textures, it's animation, it's everything that goes into making a very rich and varied next-gen experience. Partly it's visual, partly it's sound, and partially it'll be down to gameplay benefits as well - more levels, more detail, richer experiences.'"


      :translation: 'It's not just about graphics, it's about audio as well.'
    6. Re:Cut Scenes by mikael · · Score: 1

      I would have the thought the amount of time used to write a Python/Perl script to convert the animation data into a game engine script would be a one-off expense that would save itself through the elimination of rendering time?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:Cut Scenes by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      What's this crap about immersion exactly? Do you only play FPSs or something?

      Cutscenes can be an awsome part of the gaming experience. Consider Jak 2 -- you play 90% or more of the game time, but new missions and debriefs and shots of the side-effects of your behaviours are all in cut-scenes.

      How about Resident Evil 4? It has some great cut scenes and none of them detract from immersion or gameplay and quite often its the opposite (for those who haven't played, Resident Evil will let you die in the middle of a cut-scene if you're not paying attention with your fingers on the buttons).

      Sure, FFX overdoes them, so don't play japanese style fantasy games. Simple.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:Cut Scenes by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that the power of the next-gen consoles would mean developers finally stop using cut-scene movies and do everything in the game engine. Why waste disk space on movie files when doing it with the game engine is smaller and better for immersion?

      I can't wait till a FF game does everything with just the game engine rather than having any cut-scene movies. FFX, FFX-2, KH, KH2 are all really good looking, but they all have cut-scenes. I'd love for them to use the game engine and instead of having a cut-scene movie having a playable event.

    9. Re:Cut Scenes by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Acutally... they did it 20 years or so ago. It was named Final Fantasy 1. :)

    10. Re:Cut Scenes by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      I think he meant stop doing pre-rendered cut scenes.

    11. Re:Cut Scenes by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Acutally... they did it 20 years or so ago. It was named Final Fantasy 1. :)

      Hey, FFI actually has a 2 features that I really liked the most out of the entire FF series. 1 the option of picking the class of each of the 4 characters. 2 I don't think that the hero was a stupid dork that needs sword shoved up his butt. I liked several off the more recent FF games gameplay wise, but plot wise, I've hated their male leads and their whole evil bad guy behind evil empire is trying to cut down the scared mana tree and use the life force of the planet as a non-renewable fuel source. I'm sorry I hated the whole damn social structure of the world of Spira in FFX. (It was a fun game, but I wanted to slaughter the Tidus, Yuna, their church, and most of the supporting cast.) I guess that I'd be happy if they had FF worlds let me pick which FF characters and have 5-7 kingdoms that are always having either border skirmishes or little wars.

      I don't need the entire world falling appart to have fun. I just need alittle plot, some conflicts and some tasks to do some optional and some needed to advance the plot.

    12. Re:Cut Scenes by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Its possible he did -- but the only case where I'd agree is something like Tekken where the cut scenes and the gameplay are so completely discongruous as to be strange (or Armored Core Nexus).

      Even there -- I played through many characters in Tekken 5 just to see those end cut scenes, not because the gameplay was particularly fantastic (although perfecting moves against your friends is just good fun). ... then I got GameShark and unlocked all characters and all cut-scenes so I could just watch them all instead and use any characters I wanted when friends came over without "wasting" all that time playing against the computer to unlock them.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    13. Re:Cut Scenes by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish more games would do things the way the old Command and Conquer games(up to RA2) did things--with real actors. Tiberian Sun even had James Earl Jones.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    14. Re:Cut Scenes by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      You see, this is what I liked about the SNES Final Fantasy games: the cutscenes were rendered using the game engine. Technology has gone downhill since then.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  16. Alternate Explanation by mikeisme77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe, due to the compression problems of the Blu-Ray disc (or PS3, I forget which and too early in the morning for me to look it up) the discs are being filled because they simply aren't compressing the data as much as something that they would put on a DVD. Alternatively, maybe they are filling the discs by not compressing them simply for propaganda such as this... I don't doubt that Blu-Ray/HD-DVD discs will, indeed, eventually be necessary and very beneficial to games (short of everything being downloaded to the HDD)--especially for full 1080P. I just doubt that any game currently being made REALLY fills the entire thing using the same level of compression as a DVD (especially since I was under the [mis]understanding) that few, if any, of the launch titles would actually be full 1080p.

    1. Re:Alternate Explanation by Saige · · Score: 1

      Not only are they surely reducing the amount of compression they're doing since they have the room to not do it, I'm sure they're also reusing assets in multiple places on the disc to make it easier to load them as needed - and probably reusing them even more times than a game on DVD.

      So, yeah, they're filling the disc, but only because they don't have to worry about how they use their space.

      The worst part? If they're leaving the data uncompressed, then it's going to make the loading times EVEN WORSE. A compressed piece of data on a faster DVD drive is going to load a hell of a lot quicker. And well written decompression algorithms that make use of the processors to decompress while loading and perhaps even as the level starts playing could make sure that you don't get additional delays due to that decompression.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  17. More information here by denisbergeron · · Score: 1
    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  18. HD on PC by eldimo · · Score: 1

    Games on the PC has had "HD" content for years. I remember playing Quake 2 at 1025*768! And we had 5.1 sound for some time too (my first true 5.1 game was Doom 3 in 2004). How come they could fit the game on a batch of CD then?

    1. Re:HD on PC by KillerBob · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Games on the PC has had "HD" content for years. I remember playing Quake 2 at 1025*768! And we had 5.1 sound for some time too (my first true 5.1 game was Doom 3 in 2004). How come they could fit the game on a batch of CD then?


      Two main reasons... firstly, the ingame cinematics that actually played at that resolution were almost always rendered in real time using your graphics card's rendering power. If you take a look at the cines in a game like GuildWars, for example, you'll notice that until recently there's no lip movement at all, and even now, the lip sync leaves a lot to be desired. I mention that the cines that actually played at resolution were rendered on the fly... that's because a *lot* of games packages low-res movies to play. The movies in Civilization 2, for example, were 320x200 resolution. In KOTOR, they were 640x480 stereo. And they were all short. The Mechwarrior series? They were all short, low-res movies. If you played the game at high resolution (back when I played those games a lot, I had a 21" CRT, and usually played at 1920x1440), it became glaringly obvious when they dropped the res to play a movie full screen, then increased it again.

      The other reason that they could fit those games on a CD is that there's a *huge* difference between a series of sound effects that get played back in 5.1 and an actual 5.1 soundtrack. The latter requires 6 channels of cd-quality audio for the full duration of the recording, while the former requires short audio clips and information about which speaker(s) to play them through and which volume level to use. Think of it as the difference between a MIDI file and an MP3.
      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:HD on PC by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Several reasons:

      1) Just upping the resolution doesn't mean much. If all the textures are still designed for 640x480, the image quality doesn't get better and of course the disk space used doesn't go up. Quake 2 didn't have anywhere near the level of detail of today's games - it was designed when having 2 texture units was considered high end, wasn't it?
      2) Compression. PC games are decompressed from a CD/DVD to a hard drive. Console games are generally streamed from the disk during play, limiting the amount of compression that can be used.

    3. Re:HD on PC by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      If you take a look at the cines in a game like GuildWars, for example, you'll notice that until recently there's no lip movement at all, and even now, the lip sync leaves a lot to be desired.
      Freelancer had lip movements and did not use pre-rendered movies for those. Also, didn't some xbox games have lip sync on characters of players integrated when someone spoke on a mic?
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:HD on PC by el_womble · · Score: 1

      Because Quake 2 looks like shit. Yes, you could turn the resolution up to 11, but the textures and models looked awful in comparison today so all you ended up with was a hi-res, blocky polygon (with no rag doll physics and canned animation). The also HEAVILY re-used models and textures - to the point where many levels looked the same.

      Thats why Half Life came on a CD with space to spare, and Half Life Source doesn't. Has the game play improved? No. Has the experience improved? (I'd actually say it got worse, my MacBook struggles to play HL Source). But you have to admit that the graphics actually look good at HD reolutions (I'll be eating my words in another 5 years when Half Life is released with the next engine). Where did the storage space go? Bigger textures and huge models.

      Then you can look at Half-life 2. Nearly 4 GB and not a single, pre-rendered cut scene. Everyones biggest critism of HL2 was that it was too short. Is it that hard to imagine that a 40 hour + version of HL2 could have approached the limits of BluRay? Is it impossible to think that given the power of new consoles that each enemy could have its own model, texture and behaviour as opposed to facing an army of drones?

      Thats when the question of gameplay starts to get interesting. Is a game better if each of your opponents actually is different. MMORPG would certainly point to yes, I don't see why that shouldn't be the same for AI based games. FPS have been hinting at this for years, but the seeing the same model running or hiding definately takes the edge off the effect.

      --
      Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
    5. Re:HD on PC by moloko_synthemesc · · Score: 1

      While I'd have really liked a 40+ hour HL2, I wouldn't have liked the extra 2-3 years it would've taken to get it that long. Or the price we'd have to pay for those extra years of developement/cost of hiring double the employees to get the work done in less time. This is the biggest barrier I see with complex modern games filling 30GB or more (with real gameplay, not CG crap). Of course they'll be more expensive, whether they take 6 years to develop or 2.

    6. Re:HD on PC by syrion · · Score: 1

      Not sure about xbox games, but Team Fortress Classic has dynamic lip sync.

  19. Re:Thank You Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wiiiii!

  20. Better Usage of 25 GB by Artie_Effim · · Score: 0

    Pr0n, nothing but Pr0n !!!

  21. typical by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

    That seems like a typical response from Sony these days. When asked whether they're simply going to use the space for high-def cutscenes, they respond with, "No, we're going to synergistically leverage the high capacity and bandwidth of the new BluRay media format to deliver super high-resolution full motion video and multichannel surround audio."

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  22. Duplication... Seek Times by adam31 · · Score: 5, Informative
    One key piece here is the duplication of game data. See, while the disc capacity and the amount of RAM to be filled have increased 15x, the disc bandwidth and seek times have improved only ~2x. So there is this huge bottleneck getting data into the game.


    Now, you commonly have models that reference the same textures or normal maps, and these models might be very far away from each other in the game world. You could seek around scooping up all the shared resources, but that would be really slow and loading times would be attrocious. What you really want to do is load up a giant chunk of data pre-packaged, and the only way to do that is to duplicate the shared resource. With giant disc capacity, there really is no downside except that some data gets squished further toward the "slow-read" inner ring.

    Higher capacity helps gameplay by improving load times, allowing denser data to be loaded and flushed more frequently, and making the game world richer. As far as 25 gigs of pre-rendered movies goes, I don't think you'll see that. It's just not cost effective. Those cinematics cost an ass-full of money, and maybe a few games will go nuts with it. But it certainly won't be the state of the industry in 2 years or anything.

    1. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to my understanding since psx 1 the discs have a table of sectors for each "resource", unless they stick all in a huge file there is no problems with seek time, this is not a PC...

    2. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by Darkfred · · Score: 1

      The drive still has to physically position the head. Do you think that only PC dvd drives have moving parts? In your world are console dvd drives operated via some magic not available to normal consumers? Perhaps it's alien technology, woooooooo spooky.

      On a side note: this problem is the reason that many console game dvds are filled with blank data. So that the most of the important data gets written near the edge of the disc. The edge of the disc is faster because the head has to move less distance to seek through the same amount of data.

      --
      ----- 70% of all statistics are completely made up.
    3. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You sound like a game dev who has actually had to work with streaming content on a console :) I have tried to explain this exact same thing to so many people, and they just don't understand. Like the other response to this message.

      In response to the other guy:

      Yes, the disc based media used by all consoles has a directory, but no sane developer who wants decent load times would even think of using it. You will notice that most games do not have a million little files in their directories. The files are packed into large archive files. Most of these archive files contain all of the assets needed for a certain level, or zone. The developer will usually have the console read the sector list once, cache it in memory, and then seek to the archive file they want to use. They then do a read of that entire archive file into memory. This is done because Seeks (the drive finding a specific sector) is orders of maginitude slower than doing a read. If you tried to seek across the disc for every little bit of data you needed, your load times would be total ass.

      In the PS2, sony went so far as to allow game data to be multiplexed into Cinematic sequences. This meant the game was loading while you were watching an intro. (The next time you find yourself complaining that you can't skip an FMV on the Ps2.. this is probably the reason why.)

      As for everyone else who seems to be posting today:

      I don't understand why people think that more space is useless. I know they don't like the cost of the PS3, and seem to attribute that to the bluray drive, but, as everyone has seen, optical drives are one of the fastest things to become commodity components. How cheap can you buy a DVD drive for now?

      Sony positions their consoles for a 10 year lifespan. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were not forward looking. Believe it or not, console software hits peak sales about 5-6 years after the consoles are introduced to the market. Will you have an HDTV in 5 years? Will you expect to have content that supports this? With Blue lasers being commodity at this point in time, would you pick up a PS3 for $150-$200? I'm sure millions will, and this is what sony is banking on. The console race is not about who can sell the most launch units. It's about who has the the consoles the casual buyer wants 5 years after launch. The first 5 years of a consoles lifetime is a time of building userbase, and a title library. Sony understands this. Microsoft chose (at least this generation) to stop driving XBOX sales. Sony will be making money on the PS2 for 5 more years, as they find their way to other consumers as hand me downs. (This is why older consoles have a much larger selection of children's titles)

      The anti-sony "me-too" sentiment on these boards really shocks me. Sony has been like a multi-headed hydra at times, true, with each division having different agendas. I assure you, SCEA, and Sony electronics had nothing to do with Rootkit DRM, and were probably not even aware of it. That was a brainchild of Sony Music/Columbia. SCEA has kept the entire corporation afloat for years.

      I am just as excited as anyone else here about the wii. I am going to purchase one and enjoy it, and it will sit next to my XBOX360. The PS3 is a little expensive for me right now, so I am probably going to wait a few months before I get one. Does that mean that sony is doomed? Not at all. But 3 years from now, I do believe that the WII will be relinquished to the kids' room, where the only Standard Def TV in the house is. And the Xbox360 will have a whole lot of disc switching, or less content/quality due to size constraints. And the PS3 will be the only one left that really fills the needs of the millions of people who will be purchasing HDTVs because of SDTV's impending obsolesence.

      Just my 2 cents. Not that anyone will read this because i'm posting as an AC :P

    4. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Repost of AC comment above using my karma bonus:

        by Anonymous Coward on Tue October 17, 11:13 AM (#16469285)
      You sound like a game dev who has actually had to work with streaming content on a console :) I have tried to explain this exact same thing to so many people, and they just don't understand. Like the other response to this message.

      In response to the other guy:

      Yes, the disc based media used by all consoles has a directory, but no sane developer who wants decent load times would even think of using it. You will notice that most games do not have a million little files in their directories. The files are packed into large archive files. Most of these archive files contain all of the assets needed for a certain level, or zone. The developer will usually have the console read the sector list once, cache it in memory, and then seek to the archive file they want to use. They then do a read of that entire archive file into memory. This is done because Seeks (the drive finding a specific sector) is orders of maginitude slower than doing a read. If you tried to seek across the disc for every little bit of data you needed, your load times would be total ass.

      In the PS2, sony went so far as to allow game data to be multiplexed into Cinematic sequences. This meant the game was loading while you were watching an intro. (The next time you find yourself complaining that you can't skip an FMV on the Ps2.. this is probably the reason why.)

      As for everyone else who seems to be posting today:

      I don't understand why people think that more space is useless. I know they don't like the cost of the PS3, and seem to attribute that to the bluray drive, but, as everyone has seen, optical drives are one of the fastest things to become commodity components. How cheap can you buy a DVD drive for now?

      Sony positions their consoles for a 10 year lifespan. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were not forward looking. Believe it or not, console software hits peak sales about 5-6 years after the consoles are introduced to the market. Will you have an HDTV in 5 years? Will you expect to have content that supports this? With Blue lasers being commodity at this point in time, would you pick up a PS3 for $150-$200? I'm sure millions will, and this is what sony is banking on. The console race is not about who can sell the most launch units. It's about who has the the consoles the casual buyer wants 5 years after launch. The first 5 years of a consoles lifetime is a time of building userbase, and a title library. Sony understands this. Microsoft chose (at least this generation) to stop driving XBOX sales. Sony will be making money on the PS2 for 5 more years, as they find their way to other consumers as hand me downs. (This is why older consoles have a much larger selection of children's titles)

      The anti-sony "me-too" sentiment on these boards really shocks me. Sony has been like a multi-headed hydra at times, true, with each division having different agendas. I assure you, SCEA, and Sony electronics had nothing to do with Rootkit DRM, and were probably not even aware of it. That was a brainchild of Sony Music/Columbia. SCEA has kept the entire corporation afloat for years.

      I am just as excited as anyone else here about the wii. I am going to purchase one and enjoy it, and it will sit next to my XBOX360. The PS3 is a little expensive for me right now, so I am probably going to wait a few months before I get one. Does that mean that sony is doomed? Not at all. But 3 years from now, I do believe that the WII will be relinquished to the kids' room, where the only Standard Def TV in the house is. And the Xbox360 will have a whole lot of disc switching, or less content/quality due to size constraints. And the PS3 will be the only one left that really fills the needs of the millions of people who will be purchasing HDTVs because of SDTV's impending obsolesence.

      Just my 2 cents. Not that anyone will read this because i'm posting as an AC :P

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      "Click to read the rest of this comment". That's great -- I click, hoping to get more content, and what's missing? ( :P ) Thanks, /.

    6. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      First of all:

      Those cinematics cost an ass-full of money

      Yes, good ones do. Bad ones cost less than game-graphic cinematics. Just use whatever hi-res models you made for box art anyway, or even use the in-game graphics, but since you have an "ass-full" of space, there's no reason to use the game graphics. In fact, it makes it easier, since you no longer have to watch your polygon count.

      But more relevantly, I wonder what issues people really are running into with respect to load time? Last I checked, no one will wait longer to load a scene than it takes to play it, barring a few hideous monstorsities like Enter the Matrix. In fact, most load times are ludicrously fast compared to play time, especially on my desktop computer.

      So, to what extent could you avoid this problem by doing progressive loading? (And not duplicating your shared resources.) Basically, have your unskippable branding cinematics at the beginning also load your initial game scene, so you should be able to get right into the game. Maybe wait a bit more when first starting. But not as long as it would take to load a full "level", even without seeking, and no more loading screens the rest of the game.

      The PS2 was fast enough to do this for some of the best looking games it had. The attention to detail in games like Prince of Persia was fantastic, and Jak 3 didn't look too bad, either. Both of them could be played through, from beginning to end, with a grand total of maybe two loading screens. Is the PS3 drive fast enough to do the same thing for games with piles of HD content?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:Duplication... Seek Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually since I have absolutely zero intention of purchasing an HDTV until any one of my current TVs bites the dust, at which point I will undoubtedly be forced into the purchase of an HDTV as that is all that will be available. I am not so tied to my TV set that OMFG I must ABSOLUTELY rush out and buy that new 200" HDTV, and tear down some walls to make it fit. (i.e. I don't use or care about TVs enough to bother spending much money on them, and no HDTV, 7.1 sound, etc really and truly do not increase my enjoyment of using them as I find the content just makes or breaks the entire usefulness of just about any system and HDTV/7.1 content just isn't there, unless you're very shallow.)

      As to the PS3 lasting 10y. They'll be lucky to last 5, as MS has already started design work on the XBOX 360 replacement.

      Wii. Sorry, but I have better things to do with my money than to float Sony with their overpriced console and games. Sure if the PS3 ever gets down to $200 or less in a year or two I might consider, but only if their game prices also drop. Anyways this is all moot as I haven't seen a decent console style game in a while(the Wii is most likely to have some as MS continues hijacking PC games, and it appears that Sony is falling into that trap in addition to their other stupidities and arrogance), with the best games on consoles just be hijacked PC games which I just buy the PC version of anyways as it will be moddable, and, generally, have much better multiplayer support for those types of games with good multiplayer, eg. FPS.

      Blu-ray. No thanks. I'd rather have the more widely support, higher cap HD-DVD anyways, but again, only when I'm forced into it. DVD suits my need adequately ATM not to mention it is not entirely encumbered.

      Hey! It would appear that Sony has their little fanboys pretty well trained. Do you think that they'll have to do tricks like sit up and beg, or roll over before a Sony retailer is allowed to sell them a Sony product? Will they have to commit hari-kiri if they even look at another platform?

  23. sloppy programmers by dlc3007 · · Score: 1

    Virtually unlimited storage has only made programmers more lazy. It has done nothing to make better games. One of my all-time favorite RTS games (Serf City/The Settlers) came on a single floppy disk.
    More stuff != better game

    1. Re:sloppy programmers by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      Virtually unlimited storage has only made programmers more lazy. It has done nothing to make better games.
      I have to agree here. I still find my self playing old adventure games that came on disks and small games like Frontier: Elite II. Very few new games have interested me in a while.

      I am however quite interested in getting a Wii though (the price is right and some of the games I hear are promising), particularly if I can get network gaming (requires decent games to come out before I will get one) with my online friends. This is coming from someone who hasn't owned a console other than the NES his parents bought him many years ago.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:sloppy programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elite is kind of special. It used procedurally generated content.

    3. Re:sloppy programmers by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
      Elite is kind of special.
      It is :)
      It used procedurally generated content.
      Some of it wasn't -- but yes, a lot was. I don't see the problem with that though.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  24. Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah... Remember back in the day when games didn't worry about having THE flashiest graphics, but rather focused on being, oh i don't know, good games? I mean how much of that 25 gig do you think is actually playable content? How much of that game is actually good stuff?

    1. Re:Remember by Maxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Ah... Remember back in the day when games didn't worry about having THE flashiest graphics, but rather focused on being, oh i don't know, good games? I mean how much of that 25 gig do you think is actually playable content? How much of that game is actually good stuff?


      Back in the day, games were ALWAYS worried about the flashiest graphics. Always. Every game had screen shots on the back of the box, usually picked from the best of many supported platforms, and bragged about their great graphics. I remember what a 'waste' VGA was and what an outcry there was about VGA games 'ruining the game with fancy graphics'. Who needs 256 colors! it's about the gameplay, and 16color EGA games are just more fun!! Besides a 386 with a VGA card was outrageously expensive.

      Don't even get me started on CD ROM based games - what an outrage, 800MB of PURE UTTER CRAP how could they possibly need all that space? it must be junk!


      etc, etc.


      10 years from now, when BlueRay2 is out we will here the same old complaints...1Terabyte? why? oh why? I had tons of fun playing 4.3G DVD's..developers are just greedy and lazy.


      Duh.


      Duh.


      JON

    2. Re:Remember by MojoBox · · Score: 1

      All true, but doesn't change the fact that Sony has decided to target the smallest possible market niche: The early adopter. Good for them, or something. I for one don't have the thousands of dollars to spend on the PS3, HDTV, and 7.1 home theater system to enjoy any of it.

    3. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said you had to plug a fancy new PS3 into a 7.1 sound system and HDTV. You can plug it into a standard definition TV just fine. (Although games might not be designed to play well in 4:3 NTSC.) And later, you have the option to replace that SDTV box with a new HDTV LCD panel, or replace the built-in stereo speakers with a fancy 7.1 receiver.

      Consoles need to be designed to be future-proof, because you can't change the specs later and still call it a console. (Hence why the HD-DVD add-on drive for the Xbox 360 won't mean the Xbox 360 will et HD-DVD games.)

      The price of this future-proofing is that the first units have to be aimed at the early adopters, but face it, all of the next gen consoles are aimed at "early adopters." By definition, they're the ones who adopt any new technology or product first. And even though they're small, they're also profitable. Early adopters help subsidize R&D costs for later production runs.

    4. Re:Remember by Tz-Auber · · Score: 1

      Interesting comment. Now I'm curious if you can apply the same argument to something like say... sound technology.

      The last big jump in gaming technology that I recall (please someone correct me if I'm wrong), was EAX (A3D actually), and that was around 2001 I think. So IMHO we have audio technology licked, so arguments of something only slightly newer/better (EAX 2.0, 3.0, etc..) being the next big deal, sound fairly thin to me.

      Similarly, the difference between rendering the broad side of a barn between 480i and 480p are rather significant as is the difference between 480p and 720p to 1080i. But I'm curious if folks *REALLY* see a significant difference between 1080i and 1080p of that same old side of the barn, and if the gigantic price difference between a 1080i TV and a 1080p TV match up?

    5. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a decent point at best. But you only need to look around at current game sizes to see what is currently needed. Take XBox games for example. Very, very few even used more than a single layer a standard DVD. Then you could actually strip the FMV out of many games and drop the game sizes by 100 MBs and often over a GB. There islots of worthless FMV those... crap like demos for other games, the 'attract' FMV (the video that play when you let a game sit at the title screen), various story sequences. If developers had simply replaced these with scene using the actual 3D engine most games would have only used about a 1/4 of a DVD.

      Then look at the Gamecube. It's disc were only 1.5 GB in size. And how many games are there that are on multiple discs? One? Two? Only one I can think of off the top of my head is RE, but there might be a couple of others. So how did Nitnendo manage this? Yeah, by not filling games with pointless FMV.

      Now look at 360 games and PC games. Both use HD resolutions, yet they all fit easily onto DVDs. I think most of the 360 games weigh in a little over 6 GB. How much of that is just pointless videos? I'm not sure myself since I haven't tried strip anyof them down.

      Anyway, you totally misunderstand the argument being made. It's not that we (or at least I) don't think the space will be needed in the future, simply that's it's not need now. You honestly expect my to believe that games that took up, on average, about 2.5 GBs in last generation suddenly now require 25 GB with a jump to 50 GB by next year? Yeah, right.

      That's especially hard to believe considering that games seem to be getting shorter and short with more emphasis on making a flashy short game with a heavy emphasis on multiplayer than a truly great long game single player game.

    6. Re:Remember by Kodros · · Score: 1

      Sound Technology could get better...nobody really knows at this point. What Sony is trying to do is stay ahead of the game. Why plan for today's technology when the console is going to be around for 7 years?

  25. Re:Something's law by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there a name yet for "The enjoyability of the game is inversely proportional to its graphic design and art budget"?

  26. Re:No real surprise : OFF TOPIC by illeism · · Score: 1

    Here is little hard drive history http://pcworld.com/article/id,127105/article.html

    --
    Help test the /. effect at my min
  27. We all know it's movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More hype. He's just trying to make it look like Sony is offering more than the competition. If they are indeed filling up the BR discs then it is pretty much just movies. It has little to nothing to do with in-game graphics. The 360 and PC seem to be getting along just fine with DVDs.

    FMV movies can be great at times. Square Enix, for example, makes some awesome FMV cut scenes. But overall I honestly prefer that the in-game 3D engine be used to create cut scenes. It helps the continuity of the game if the character(s) in the cut scenes look like the character(s) you are actually using in the game.

  28. .kkrieger, anyone? by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Check it here. A fully modern-looking first person shooter, in 96kB. Procedural synthesis for teh win!

    1. Re:.kkrieger, anyone? by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 1

      Also see http://www.roboblitz.com/

      It's a pretty massive Unreal Engine 3 game heavily utilzing proceedural textures targetting Xbox Live Arcade (games must be under 50 MB).

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
    2. Re:.kkrieger, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then someone smart notices that it takes 5 minutes to re-encode the procedures into readable format, and realizes that streaming heavily encoded algorithms on a console is not feasible. Not to mention other smart people who also realizes that development time to write a mathematical function to define art takes enormous amounts of time, which increases development time and development costs. It worked in Oblivion and Spore because it is used to generate _organic_ environments. Thinking that procedural synthesis is the end-all-be-all solution to capacity problem is nothing but believing in Microsoft BS.

  29. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Though look at it this way, 25 gigs of crap is still crap.

    IMHO, 25 gigs of crap is a lot worse than 4.7 gigs of crap!

  30. This could be bad by the-stringbean · · Score: 1

    This strikes me as a really bad sign. Sony has given developers 25Gb of storage and they are filling it already - This implies to me that either developers are being lax about how much space their games require or Sony is forcing them to use inefficient data formats.

    Developers have 3 times the amount of storage on a disc than the previous generation (over 20 times if you count the gamecube). Some of the biggest games on the original Xbox were nowhere near the 9Gb limit, IIRC Morrowind was a mere 5Gb.

    I don't know what the data rate is on the BluRay drives in the PS3 but no matter how high they are there's going to be serious amounts of loading from disc. If all this space is just for high def cut scenes then it isn't too bad.. but isn't the PS3 meant to be the death of this practice due to it's enormous power?

    1. Re:This could be bad by Manmademan · · Score: 1
      I don't know what the data rate is on the BluRay drives in the PS3 but no matter how high they are there's going to be serious amounts of loading from disc.
      Did everyone forget all versions of the Ps3 come standard with hard drives? Load time will not be an issue this gen.
    2. Re:This could be bad by coop247 · · Score: 1
      Did everyone forget all versions of the Ps3 come standard with hard drives?
      Yes, all MS fanboys seem to leave this out. I thought that the hard drive was the best part of the original Xbox. Data could be cached for fast read times. For some reason MS removed the HD, so now X360 developers can't rely on the HD being there, which makes no sense. The processor speed was the only improvement, they removed the HD and kept DVDs 8Gb storage limit.
      --
      //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    3. Re:This could be bad by edmicman · · Score: 1
      Did everyone forget all versions of the Ps3 come standard with hard drives? Load time will not be an issue this gen.
      Are they loading every game disc onto the hard drive, then? So, what, you can fit one game on the drive, and then when you want to play another, you have to delete and copy the new one? Sounds fun!
    4. Re:This could be bad by Manmademan · · Score: 1

      Console games don't work that way. Game content will be cached as needed to the drive and read from there, and deleted by the game when no longer necessary. Come on now, look at the original Xbox. it's not like this is a new thing.

    5. Re:This could be bad by iainl · · Score: 1

      I had an original XBox, and now I've got a 360 Premium.

      So I'm fully aware that the presence of a hard drive doesn't stop some games having painfully slow loading times, thanks.

      If anything, having 25Gb of data on the disc to fit into the cache is going to make things worse than the 9Gb of a 360 disc, not better, quite apart from the PS2's BluRay drive have slower transfer and seek times.

      The Gamecube generally had the shortest loading times of the three machines last-gen, XBox in the middle and PS2 last. So it's all about how you prepare for these things, rather than just whether or not you have a HD to cache to.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    6. Re:This could be bad by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      actually in ripping Morrowind GOTY to my hdd it was 1gb. . . I think about 940mb to be somewhat precise.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    7. Re:This could be bad by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      It's a 20GB hard drive on the base unit. They're 25GB discs.

      Way to think that one through, genius.

    8. Re:This could be bad by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      You can only cache so much on a 20 gig drive when all your ages are 25 gigs or larger and they're alread talking about games using up to 50 gigs?

  31. The Problem for sony.... by Killcrone · · Score: 1

    Thr REAL problem for sony is the competion mainly, the 360 has halo 3 (I think) coming up and that could produce a threat in itself, then combine that with the new and improved Xbox Live (includng possible updates) and there you have one-half of the equation, add Nintendo in with it's totally loyal fanbase and the "basis on fun" theme, AND the high price of the ps3 compared to the other consoles, and that all equals an uphill battle for despite the general opinoin of the public.

  32. shovelware by Speare · · Score: 1

    I read the title and the first thing I thought was shovelware. Even if it's just one big title like a huge Final Fantasy Epic, it still smacks of "we have to add 1.2 GB more stuff, I don't care if it's pencil-sketched drug-induced paranoia-invoking laser light shows, just fill the frickin' disc."

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  33. Sony obviously forgot about this by automattic · · Score: 1

    I have 2 words for 25GB of data Load times.......

    1. Re:Sony obviously forgot about this by Faust · · Score: 1

      yes please?

  34. Next-gen FPS's by rlp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, your character may be moving through a dimly lit room where you can't see anything. But, your character is moving through a dimly lit room where you can't see anything at 1080p!!

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Next-gen FPS's by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      That only sounds right when your only experience is something like Doom 3, which was just a technology preview anyways. Try Half-Life 2, it tends to not be as dimly lit.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Next-gen FPS's by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "But, your character is moving through a dimly lit room where you can't see anything at 1080p!!"

      You are likely to be eaten by a pre-rendered grue.

      Maybe you should use your real-time weapon-changing ability to whip out a flashlight. Or tape one to your gun, etc.

  35. will the games be 1080p? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if the actual game elements run at say, 720p, and the video cut scenes run at 1080p will sony claim that the "game" runs at 1080p? Seems like an easy way to make their games appear to be running the highest resolution without raelly doing so...

  36. Load Times? by WndrBr3d · · Score: 1

    I mean, I'm no game development expert, but 25GB of assets? I'm sure a good portion of that is video content just encoded at super high bitrate, but if by chance half of that is game assets, wouldn't that lead to horrid load times?

    1. Re:Load Times? by Shiptar · · Score: 1

      Of course. One of the most important features of any next-gen console is to drasticly increase the load times and lag within the game. As long as it looks good while it's loading.

  37. Even without RTFA by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "Harrison also responded to questioning about the claim that the capacity of Blu-Ray will be used simply to provide more high definition movie sequences, effectively filling the discs - and games - with non-interactive content. 'It's not just about graphics,' he said. 'It's about 7.1 audio, it's about speech, it's about having up to 1080p movies built into the game;"

    Translation: "Are we filling the disks up with cutscenes? Damn right we are!"

    Why else would reviewers be describing the SIXAXIS as "cheap" or "flimsy" if it's Sony's intent that the "player" never actually pick the thing up?

    1. Re:Even without RTFA by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Harrison doesn't develop games. If developers use the space to fill their game with cutscenes that's not Sony's fault.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    2. Re:Even without RTFA by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Of course:

      "I see nothing wrong with having non-interactive, full HD sequences as part of the game," he said. "That's all part of the production value and the experience that you get when you buy the game. I don't see that as a weakness at all."

      I have no problem with them filling up the disc with HD content, unless we're talking about games that would've fit into 8 gigs without prerendered cutscenes. Then: Problem.

      I keep coming back to Jak 2 and 3 for the PS2 -- beautifully rendered cutscenes, but not a single one prerendered.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  38. overall experience by the+dark+hero · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You can say all you want about a lack of compelling content, but saying no one cares about 7.1 sound and 1080i cutscenes is a bit ironic because no one cares about your bitch rants.

    The truth is, sound does enhance the overall experience as well as the visuals. Voice overs (if done well) can add dimension to characters. Yea sure, none of that really stands out if the game is crap, but that's not the point. I'm not such a technphile, but one reason i play games is for the immersion or the escapism. If added capacity on a disc will enhance my gaming experience, then i welcome the change.

    --
    You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.

    Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies

    1. Re:overall experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK what the hell has 7.1 sound got to do with space requirements in games??? If you have 2.1, 5.1 or 7.1 wouldn't make any difference apart from the console knowing to send the sound to different outputs. The size of the sound wouldn't change, it's the same sound with different directions. Also out of a 4Gb movie less than 10 percent is audio, the typical DVD audio track is ~400Mb. It's the same as saying that running a game on dual monitors needs to be bigger cause it's dual monitors.

  39. Re:Something's law by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That depends upon if nudity is involved in this budget..
    Oh gameplay enjoyment... that kind of enjoyment.. I get you..

  40. Elder Scrolls Oblivion fits on 1 dvd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oblivion, a game with thousands of lines of spoken text, 100+ hours of gameplay, some of the best graphics of any game running at higher quality HD graphics than the PS3 is capable of, FITS ON A SINGLE DVD.

    What is wrong with PS3 developers? Do these 25GB games have 500 hours of gameplay and thousands of lines of spoken text stored as uncompressesed WAV files? WTF?

  41. Weak correlation between fun and game size by interiot · · Score: 1

    DS ROM's are a couple megabytes. Xbox 360 discs can hold .8GB. PSP ROM's can be up to 1.8GB. PS3 games can be up to 25GB. Are PS3 games 10,000 times more enjoyable than DS games? Are some DS games not more enjoyable than an average PS3 game?

    Larger ROM size allows the game creator more flexiblity, but there's not necessarily a correlation between ROM size and more enjoyable games.

  42. RTWC! by Masque+Noir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Come on! Real Time Weapon Changing ought to take a whole lot of ressources... that's a couple of Gigs right there...

    1. Re:RTWC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Giant Enemy Crabs?

  43. How fast is it gonna read those movies... by aapold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Already in something like Dead Rising, it is annoying to have to wait for the cutscenes to load. If these scenes are gonna be that much bigger in 1080p (and I have a 720p tv), are they going to take that much longer to queue up? I'm assuming the drive has to read movies fast enough to play them at your standard 29.97 fps (no, wait, progressive scan so I guess its 59.94 fps) when showing the movie, so I'd guess it is fast enough for that. Right?

    Say something nice about sony? okay... um... Sony-Ericcson makes good phones.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:How fast is it gonna read those movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PS3 has to be fast enough to play Blu-ray movies, so other than the time it might take to hand over video decoding to the hardware, there shouldn't be any appreciable "load time." Just imagine waiting for your DVD player to "load" the movie... silly question, isn't it?

    2. Re:How fast is it gonna read those movies... by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Actually, Dead Rising's cutscenes are in realtime, so movie playback is not a factor here. Apparently, the PS3 drive can move the same amount of data as the 360 per second off a disk. It spins slower but has higher data density, so they are about the same.

      You were half right tough because if you are playing cutscenes in 1080P, you might want to have higher resolution textures than 720P games since you are rendering at higher resolution. But I don't think companies will create 1080p textures when they make their games, they'll concentrate to make 720P-good-looking textures. So it won't be any faster on the PS3 or 360.

    3. Re:How fast is it gonna read those movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Not the same. The movies the PS3 are trying to play are several times bigger so if its reading at the same speed then it will do it several times slower.

  44. Disk size (was Re:No real surprise) by sowth · · Score: 1

    I'm 33 and my first computer didn't have a hard drive, just a floppy. I think each floppy could hold 128k on each side. Yes, you had to flip it over.

    For hard drives, I think my first was 1 Gig. Maybe less, because I can't remember how big it was on my first IBM compatible. Old age can make the memory fade. ;-)

    Unless you count my dad's TI computer--wasn't really mine. It didn't even have a floppy or any storage at first. I think it had 16k of RAM. Eventually he bought a cassette tape drive...

  45. Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25gig of crap that's hard to remove from the game is probably intentional, to make it harder to pirate and distribute electronically, (they're likely presuming their other copy protection mechinisms get pwn3d).

  46. Better means better, not worse by norminator · · Score: 1
    But back to the topic of BluRay: this seems to me like they're just not even trying to use better compression algorithms.
    That's the whole point! Instead of icky, downsampled, compressed images and sound we'll finally have high-quality stuff.

    He said "better", not more lossy.
  47. I LOVE PGC by tygerstripes · · Score: 1
    Procedurally-generated content is an amazing philosophy in gaming - whether for making fantastic textures fit on a pin-head (as in .kkrieger) or for making a game truly unique and customisable to the nth degree (as in Spore), the possibilities seem to be endless! It just means, sadly, decent programming and careful design from the start.

    Which, it seems, is certainly not the norm among games developers these days.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
  48. Quality not quantity.. by mattpointblank · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Half-Life 2, surely a game most /.ers can agree was (one of?) the best in recent years, takes up only a few gigabytes on disk. Its graphics still look better than anything I've seen a console render, and its gameplay is a thousand times better than most games that rely on flashy FMV sequences to tell the story. What developers should be focusing on is not how many flashy videos that are not interactive they can cram onto a disc, but how good a game they can create with these wider limitations. If I wanted to see high-quality computer generated movies I'd watch Star Wars.

    1. Re:Quality not quantity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half Life 2 + CS Source and + HL2 DM is like 8 GB. And it was DESIGNED to fit into the constraints of modern disk media. Valve can't sell games that people can't get on disks.

      On a related note, HL2 is coming to PS3 on a bluray disk near you soon. With both expansion episodes, and all the little spinoffs like CS:S and Portal. Now THERE is good use of disk space.

    2. Re:Quality not quantity.. by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Half-Life 2 was a great game, and looked great too. But if you want to see what a console can do, take a look at Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfare on the 360 sometime - better than HL2 IMHO.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:Quality not quantity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve can't sell games that people can't get on disks.

      Yeah, if only Valve had a disc-free content distribution method...

  49. More true than you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though for a different reason: the access speed/data transfer rate for the PS3 Blue-ray is not fast (the 360's drive access is much quicker) - how much is all that storage space really worth if you cannot quickly get the information off the drive? Point being (and I don't know the answer) how much of that high def and big time audio can you pull off the drive at the same time?

  50. Wow its going to be CGI Hell! XenoSaga times 100!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Blue-Ray and HD-DVD games!

  51. I disagree, LESS audio please by cliffski · · Score: 1

    I disagree. High res textures can be nice (providing the card gives a good FPS and the load times dont go crazy), but I wish games would have LESS audio than they do now.
    Heres a typical game of battlefield 2 in audio-only-o-vision

    "Get Ammo here!"
    "enemy infantry spotted"
    "ok"
    "thanks"
    "we are losing this battle! start fighting or ill find someone who can!"
    "enemy boat spotted"
    "i need a medic here"
    "thanks"
    "ok"
    "thanks"
    "get ammo here"
    "im bingo on ammo"

    elapsed time... maybe 10 seconds. If I wanted to endure constant, repetitive brain-melting nagging in both ears at once, I'd move in with my mother. I do NOT need it in video games. I ESPECIALLY do not need to 'hear' my characters voice. That actually BREAKS immersion, because I'd bet good money that:

    1) my character will be male 100% of the time. (ok im male too, but not all gamers are)
    2) my character will be young, probably early 20s at most
    3) my character will have a US accent
    4) my character will speak slowly so that everyone can follow what he says
    5) my character will have a tendency to 'quip' be 'irreverent', sarcastic, and generally behave like any action-movie cliche going.

    Adding audio to cutscenes or gameplay does NTO automatically enhance it. In the same way that adding video does not automatially enhance a story. If it did, books would have been relegated to museums long ago.
    This is just a sad excuse to fill the disc, and claim that games that ship on a 'mere' DVD arent as good. More != Better.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:I disagree, LESS audio please by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      wow I think you entirely missed the point of battlefield 2. If battlefield 2 was entirely devoid of any spoken word it would end up with a squad or two at most on either team doing stuff together then the other 90% of the team running in circles blasting themselves up. Ever play CounterStrike on a pub server? It would be exactly like that except magnified.
      I do agree that it sucks that each character sounds the same and that there are no female characters at all, except for the nice lady who tells you about the artillery your noob commander just dropped on your head. That would be an easy fix though, ADDING more VOAs!
      One other thought though, is that if they would have shipped a headset with every copy the game they could have done away with the VOAs.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    2. Re:I disagree, LESS audio please by the+dark+hero · · Score: 1

      As i mentioned, voice overs only work when well done. That's a true rarity in games. I often turn down the volume when playing BF2 and turn up my squad members on vent'. Believe me, I like to read. I don't need fancy visuals or books on tape to enjoy a book. I have an imagination. It's not necesesary to use up 25 gigs when 300 megs will suffice. The advent of blockbuster movies/games have been the bane of creativity in each respective media. Utilizing big budgets, and in this case higher capacity, in a compelling way is also rare. I'm all for the capabilities of a media, but not necessarily the product. Potential only gets you so far.

      --
      You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.

      Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies

  52. PS3 = Minidisc + SWG by PaulMorel · · Score: 1

    I am with you 100%, and, although I think this point has been well-trod on the slashdot forums ... I think it is the primary reason why there is so much negativity surrounding the PS3.

    Take the Walkman for example. An excellent piece of hardware (at the time) that perfectly fit a customer need. What did Sony follow up with? Crappy Minidisc and mp3 players that rely on proprietary Sony technology.

    Everquest is another example of the same trend. EQ1 was a classic game that defined the direction of future MMOs and had fans drooling for sequels. What does Sony follow up with? Star Wars Galaxies and EQ2. EQ2 is not a great game by any means, but SWG is the biggest disappointment in gaming history (in my opinion). It was the first MMO follow up to EQ1, with the best possible license (SWG had more pre-release forum members than any other game ever) ... and it turned out to be a big sham. The game was throttled by suits and killed by execs.

    Now enter the PS2. The best, most popular gaming system ever. Gee, how will Sony follow that up?

    And that's exactly why people have negative feelings about the PS3. I think we all feel as if our gaming system of choice is being killed by executives who would rather push next-gen movie formats than make a great game system, and when you look at Sony's history, that doesn't seem like a pessimistic point of view, it seems like a realistic one.

    --
    burrocrisy
    and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
  53. cutscenes can still be good by PaulMorel · · Score: 1

    Prerendered cutscenes are somewhat outdated, however, if they are done well, they can really add to the game.

    Check out Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 for the best examples. Yes, they are both still on video game store shelves, years after their release.

    --
    burrocrisy
    and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
  54. Jumping and ducking i n video games(was Re:W000t) by sowth · · Score: 1

    You obviously haven't played many games from the '80s. A good portion of them were just jumping to get to platforms and avoid various objects. Take a look at the original Donkey Kong. Wikipedia article -- Appears to be a free flash version...

  55. Re:Something's law by ozbon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't that known as "the Daikatana effect"?

    --
    I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
  56. Hardware Division vs. Software by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Sony's engineer's are touting how much they are giving the developers power to do what they want to.

    It comes down to this from the article:
    Partly it's visual, partly it's sound, and partially it'll be down to gameplay benefits as well - more levels, more detail, richer experiences.

    Having better hardware does not necessarily make the games less innovative. I don't see why people seem to think it's mutually exclusive. I see few drawbacks to more powerful hardware in the longterm that will come down in price fast (the newer the tech, the more expensive it is but the faster the prices will come down).

    Believe it or not there are people who like cinematic rpgs and like to look a luscious graphics while playing them. Your console can both appeal to these people and those who have virtually no powerful cinematics and still be an awesome game through gameplay (gta), katamari damacy. Or better yet a mixture of both like God of War.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  57. Occams Razor by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Or maybe, just maybe, there is no vast conspiracy to fill disks with needless fluff and instead they are actually using the space for game content.

    Don't forget they may in fact be reducing compression to free the CPU for other work like AI...

    To paraphrase another poster, it's hilarious to see all the "A DVD of space outg to be enough of anyone" style quotes going around Slashdot. You'd think the site was devoted to Amish techophobes whenever we see a Sony story.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Occams Razor by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but 25GB should be able to hold more than 2 cars and 30 tracks.

    2. Re:Occams Razor by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      The compression point is a good one -- if you use uncompressed (or barely compressed MPEG-2) video instead of CPU-hungry VC-1 type codecs, you have more horsepower left over for everything else. And since the BD disc format gives you 10x or more space for storage, you can take advantage of this situation in a way you couldn't on (for example) a 360.

      As for hard drives, the hard drive would best be used for caching of in-game data (like live savegames) and executable code. With a 20 or 60GB hard drive and a possibly 50GB game, the drive won't help you much if you start trying to 'install' the games like a PC does.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:Occams Razor by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Except, as another poster pointed out, less compression means larger files which in turn means longer load times.

      The PS3 is not supposed to be short of horsepower, the Cell is well suited for decompressing video, and would not be doing much else during a cutscene anyway. There is no reason not to compress the video as much as you can, using the most sophisticated algorithm you have. With H.264 and VC1 you can get around 4-5x the compression ratio of MPEG2, for the same quality, and therefore load 4-5x faster (while the decompression is done in parallel).

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:Occams Razor by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      "if you use uncompressed (or barely compressed MPEG-2) video instead of CPU-hungry VC-1 type codecs, you have more horsepower left over for everything else."

      Well, if you're playing a cut-scene (not sure what else you'd be doing with MPEG2/VC-1) then the system probably isn't doing much else at the same time, so it doesn't matter.

  58. use that space for good. by uberjoe · · Score: 1

    I would rather they made the games longer, instead of more detailed. More levels, more planets, more maps. But I guess that would mean we would buy less games. . .

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    1. Re:use that space for good. by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's necessarily the best scenario in all cases. I've beaten about half the games in my vast collection, the other half of which remain undefeated as they ended up being too long.

      If there are enough interesting new abilities, concepts, challenges (as in Ninja Gaiden) it's extremely easy for me to get sucked into even a very long or punishing game and keep playing. However, if for any reason the game slows down (Windwaker) I lose interest and stop playing, even very near the end of games.

      As long as the additional length isn't at the cost of fun, I'm all for it. But if it creates grinds, slow, or boring phases screw it.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  59. Funny you mention Virtua Fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Virtua Fighter 3, when you blocked an attack, you can see the blockee deflect the attack. Attacks didn't just pass though forearms of invincibility, doing no damage. Roundhouse kicks had special, longer recovery animations when blocked, as the attacker tries to regain balance.

    This way back in 1996... Shenmue and Shenmue II also have block animations. Virtua Fighter 4 got rid of the block animations, for some strange reason.

    Plus, Suzuki puts too much work goes into tuning how VF plays (Should the recovery time be 10/60ths of a second or 11/60ths of a second?)... such complex collisions (people are squishy) could throw off the gameplay and balance.

  60. Not flimsy. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Please find a review with the word Flimsy in it before you go making up stuff again.

    Ohj that's right, you and the other anti-Sony trolls can't do it because there is none except in your bizzare universe of SOny hatred.

    Try objectivley looking at and admiring all the NextGen systems instead of sticking your mind in this dark hole.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not flimsy. by Jerf · · Score: 1
      Compared to Microsoft's uber-comfortable Xbox 360 pad, the SIXAXIS feels cheap, plasticky, uncomfortable and disconcertingly light - almost as if it's going to fly out of your hands during those more extreme gaming moments. Playstation 3 Hands-on
      This was on Slashdot just yesterday. The article doesn't contain the literal word "flimsy" but I'd say it's not an unreasonable conclusion.
    2. Re:Not flimsy. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Go back and read that review again. That statement comes after the authors practically drooling over every aspect of how futuristic and smooth the PS3 looks and feels. Then when they got to the controller, they were underwhelmed. They complained that is felt cheap and plasticky in comparison. Nowhere did they say flimsy or any synonym of flimsy (easily broken or not durable). You can derive what you will, but it wasn't said and the misquote shouldn't live on.

      The jist of the review was "this system is awsome, I wish the controller were just as awsome, but we'll probably get used to it"

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:Not flimsy. by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      On the second page of this review they describe the controller like so:

      the SIXAXIS feels cheap, plasticky, uncomfortable and disconcertingly light

      They don't use the actual word flimsy, but it sure isn't a positive description.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    4. Re:Not flimsy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. Argue over semantics, but the point still remains.

    5. Re:Not flimsy. by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, what was your point?

      The post you're replying to pointed out a reviewer's opinion of the controller, nothing more and nothing less. You're posting as though wild conclusions were drawn about the entire system being cheap and flimsy, which they weren't.

      As an AC has pointed out, the original point remains.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  61. Re:Something's law by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    No, Daikatana was friggin ugly. Maybe the Epic Effect? The iD effect?

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  62. Re:Something's law by ozbon · · Score: 1

    Fair Point. For some reason it was just the first one to come to mind. (viz Hype, Graphics, and filling as much space as poss)

    --
    I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
  63. Why does a game need to be 700mb to be fun by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Why do modern games need to come in such massive packages. I'm sure one can fit tetris in a floppy disk and it's a pretty fun game. I don't get all the whinage here anyway. I've never seen such a large group of tech oriented folks so much against having new tech. If this helps speed up adoption rates of higher capacity removeable discs then what's the complaint.

    Bleeding edge product's prices will fall fastest as with equal time and mass manufacture. In 4 years the ps3 will be more expensive then the wii but you have the hard drive to mostly blame then (components of blu-ray, a much smaller cell chip, along with cheaper video/system ram, will have reduced to near ps2 lvls now--with blu-ray taking a $5-$10 dollar component cost increase at max over dvds).

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  64. Re:Jumping and ducking i n video games(was Re:W000 by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You obviously haven't [verb]ed many [objective]s from the '80s. An [adjective] portion of them were just [verb]ing to get to [subjects] and avoid various objects. Take a look at the original [substantive]. Wikipedia article -- Relevance percentage: 0%

    You fail.

  65. Load times by Endo13 · · Score: 1

    That's what my concern is about. I mean really... which is worse, having to pop in a second DVD for the odd game or waiting minutes instead of seconds for loading times... not only when initially starting the game, but at various points throughout the game as well. The longer access time of BluRay discs will more than make up for anything gained by not having to decompress files in real-time.

    Now if you could 'install' your 10 favorite games from the BluRay discs to a local hard drive, it would be much less of an issue.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  66. wrong, sorta by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    DS ROMs are not limited to a couple megabytes, although many of them may indeed be that small. The storage capacity of a DS cart is actually quite large, considering, at 1GB.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:wrong, sorta by dagamer34 · · Score: 1

      DS games can hold up to 128MB or 1Gb (Gigabit). Geez, I thought /.-ers would know the difference between a GB and a Gb.

    2. Re:wrong, sorta by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      I know the difference between a GB and a Gb you assface. It was just an honest mistake.

      Geez, I thought /.ers weren't the type to jump to conclusions... :)

      Seriously... unless you haven't been paying attention, it's blindingly obvious that most /.ers probably don't know the difference between a Gb and a GB.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    3. Re:wrong, sorta by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to figure out how the DS intends on playing good music with just one G flat.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  67. compressed vs uncompressed by angrymilkman · · Score: 1

    25 gb of game data, assuming we can compress graphics/textures/audio with a factor 10 to 1 and leaving 500mb for the uncompressed game engine we can ship 245 gb of art/audio with each game. This seems to be very high to me. Are we talking about uncompressed data here? The real problem is not the bandwidth etc as most games are very sequential and you know exactly what to load when but the problem is in the content creation, how do you create this 245gb of art?

    --
    ...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
  68. SHOCKING!!! by Boreras · · Score: 1

    you don't have to use 25 GB! k?

  69. How the HELL by Kamineko · · Score: 1

    How are we supposed to download that? (I'm talking Steam-like downloading here. Although, a 25gb torrent wouldn't exactly be smily faces either.)

  70. A known fact by Hangeron · · Score: 1

    Software grows to use all resources. It's been like that for some decades.

  71. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This makes the most sense out of any post I've seen in here in AGES.

  72. Richer, Deeper Experience Fills Blu-Ray by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Translation: More unnecessary splash screens, more in-game ads, more non-skippable scenes between action, and longer time to play what should be a short game.

    Information exands to fill the space available. And so does dreck.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  73. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of GIGO by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Nintendo completely redesigned their controller to make games more fun, while Sony added capacity so people can watch high-resolution cutscenes. Just because a large group of people all disagree with you doesn't mean you're the one doing the thinking.

    Every time I want to play a game, it's amazing how often I say to myself "You know, this game needs more cutscenes so that I can sit there and watch the same thing over and over and over and not get to play the game for an even longer period of time!".

    While I'm sure this is great news for graphics artists, wire frame designers, and pixel plotters, it doesn't mean we gamers will thank them for it.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  74. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of GIGO by antek9 · · Score: 1

    The single-mindedness of some people is just amazing. Who ever said that everything BluRay will add is cutscenes? I guess you will be better off then, re-buying the same game over and over (cf. Nintendogs), just for some more choice in game character and content?
    It remains up to the game publishers how bloated their games will turn out in the end. 25GB (or 50Gb for that matter) might pave the way to mayhem, if nobody is forced to trim out the garbage anymore before shipping, but all it actually offers to the vendors is c h o i c e.
    To you as well, btw. You have got the right to not buy, and the right to be part of a self-reassuring fanboy community.

    --
    A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
  75. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of GIGO - or not? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    t remains up to the game publishers how bloated their games will turn out in the end. 25GB (or 50Gb for that matter) might pave the way to mayhem, if nobody is forced to trim out the garbage anymore before shipping, but all it actually offers to the vendors is c h o i c e.

    Exactly. However, in our experience in the gaming community, we should pay attention to the reality that what is likely to grow in terms of data storage on game disks is likely in-game ads, cut-scenes (both in length, in number, in alternative choices, etc), game previews, movie previews, and mini-games (add-ons). The addition of alternative cut-scenes (based upon play) is actually a very good thing, in the hands of a good game story editor, in that they are less restricted. I don't know how many times I've run across a game cut-scene where it said things like "now you will grow up to be a warrior with this powerful weapon" when my character already had: a. more powerful weapons and b. was pretty danged huge as I'd maxed out physique and strength by that point.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  76. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content for HDTV? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I'd rather play a game in high resolution on my HDTV than in low resolution on an old TV. Simple as that - you're out of your mind.

    And I'd rather save the $2000 for a decent sized HDTV like the 85 percent of consumers, and wait a few years until 2010 to buy one for only $300 that's the same size.

    I think the PS3 will probably sell for $250 by that point as well. And it might have more games I'd actually play by then.

    In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my Wii and playing fun games that work now, not living on the bleeding edge.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  77. Re:You know... (MOD UP PARENT) by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    By the time most people have HDTVs, we'll be three or four console generations further along anyway. Not only do the prices have to come down massively, but a lot more content has to be produced in HDTV to make it viable, and they have to make smaller versions (believe it or not but most people don't even have the room for a 50" TV).

    Exactly. By the time we reach 50 percent utilization of HDTV it will be 2010 - most people will use their 2001 or older TV sets with their digital cable boxes quite nicely to see HDTV (at lower res). Market adoption curves currently projected - as I read in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal - show that we won't have full adoption of 1080p HDTV until at least 2015.

    No matter what Sony wants, them's the cold hard facts.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  78. Re:Something's law by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I had an order of magnitude more fun with Half-Life 2 than Half-Life 1. Guess which one had a bigger graphics budget. Sure, HL2 would still be fun even if it didn't have the awesome graphics(gravity guns for the win) but your statement rings of argumentatum ad foeditatem.(argument towards ugliness)

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  79. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content for HDTV? by Hawkxor · · Score: 1

    then ps3 has achieved it's goal. it WILL sell you to, and at exactly the price you are willing to pay. perfect economics. where exactly has sony gone wrong?

  80. I LOVE SUCKAGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Which, it seems, is certainly not the norm among games developers these days."

    Yes, those F/OSS game developers suck.

  81. Re:Wow...25 Gigs of content for HDTV? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I never said I wasn't buying a PS3. I'm just not going to buy one now. I have a GameCube, and xBox, and a PS2 at home.

    I bought the GameCube when they came out, bought the xBox probably a year after they came out - once they had a few games I wanted (but am disappointed with the lack of titles still), and my son bought the PS2 just this summer - he got lots of games used from his friends - cheap.

    I've preordered a Wii and am probably picking up a bundle at CostCo or Fred Meyer or ToysRUs or Target on release day as well - since a friend of his missed out on a preorder and I know marketing and sales and where to hunt.

    I'm down on the 360, but might get one if I can find a store that sells Japan-release games they pushed that will work with a US box and do English subtitles, don't care for sports or FPS titles on the whole. Especially now that the price dropped. Don't have HDTV until 2009 at the earliest when they will sell for $300 for a decent set (classic market price curve).

    I'll probably buy a PS3 - with a lot of Japanese games that work in US region - when the price drops to $250 retail. By that point I might actually want to buy HDTV, of course. Should be able to get used US game titles for $20 by then.

    But buying it now is a waste. Especially with all the first-release tech problems. I'll let others be the guineau pigs.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  82. Content breakdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's my prediction of how 25GB breaks down in a PS3 game:

    10 MB : Programs
    200 MB : Models and animation data
    1000 MB : Textures
    500 MB : 7.1 sound
    24 GB : 1080p cut scene movies

    yea yea mod down as flaimbait, but you know it's true.

  83. Compression by Nin10dude · · Score: 0

    Have there been any problems with the 360's disc storage? Would the PS3 really need THAT much more space? Sony needs to start actually compressing stuff for PS3 games. If they are, I'm expecting some pretty huge games for the PS3.

  84. Karma whore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karma police, arrest this man.

  85. Good habit to fill the disks... by WoTG · · Score: 1

    It makes it harder to pirate the disks in the future. Imagine if the Dreamcast had a strict policy of filling all game disks to the full 1GB with garbage data that was inseparable from the game code. It would have been much, much, harder for people to distribute pirated games. The same goes for the Xbox and DVDs. Mind you, now that dual layer writeable DVDs are affordable, this is a bit moot.

  86. OMFG!! Children please.... by ghostcorps · · Score: 0
    I have been watching the Next gen console story with little more than a passing interest for years now. Not because I don't want one; but, because I'm not buying one till I can rape it like my xbox.

    With that pointless introduction out of the way; can I say that the majority of you sound like whinging children!

    Logic is dammed if it comes between a whinging slashdotter and ...what exactly? Can someone please tell me why the anti-$ony army insists on pooh poohing every little announcement that comes out from $ony? If you don't like the company fine, but if all you can do is regurgitate the same old sentiment regardless of the news, please shut the fuck up

    They have made some horrid PR moves, to be sure. Only time will tell if forcing Blu-Ray is one of them.

    Consider:
    The 360 Will NOT have HD-DVD games; it simply can-not because not everyone will upgrade the drive. It can NOT rely on preloading games to the HD for the same reason. It was rushed out to win the "first in store" race; but it will die a quick death. Hence the neXtBox is already being hyped.
    Ok, it has an established net service, but so what? The Wii-Wiis' will tell you that Wii also has an online service and that "It will be the bestest for ever and ever so nerrr". This, despite having no facts about the service, other than; you can pay for what you can do for free with an xbox (emulate the old systems). Oh, and yeh you even get to pay for a free browser! Yay!! Oddly the wii-wiis' will also tell you that the P$3 service will suck. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's an online service for, if not for multiplayering and communicating? Both of which (and more) is ... yep, free! Don't complain.
    So, we know that the 360 will not get much better than it is now. It simple doesn't have any scalability. So it has lost the race already, this can be stated clearly as it is out and we know what it is fully capable of and its not exactly making an impression, what about 5 years from now, when HD is commonplace?

    Then there's the de-facto favourite (AKA wii). Admit it; no one really thinks it's any more than a toy. It's just that the only other choices are being an M$ fanboy, or a $ony fanboy; neither of which are socially acceptable right now. So we have a bunch of wii-wiis' claiming that GC V2.0 + power glove V2.0 (be honest, you know it is) will be the greatest thing to g33kdom since caffeine. Sure, it has a fun new gimmick that detects motion (so does the P$3. BTW you can not copy new tech and adapt it in a week without being shutdown). So, compare the wii controller to the P$3. One is Bluetooth, which can be wired to recharge while play is uninterrupted. The other has batteries that must be removed to recharge and requires line of sight to work!!! Are we in the 80's or something? I am a slouch, I'm happy to move my hands, but I refuse to stand in queue with my friends so we can take turns at standing directly in front of the TV to pretend that our motions are being accurately translated on screen.

    The P$3 like all bleeding edge tech before it is (as has already been mentioned, [on a side note what's the acronym for Read the Fucking Posts? Oh yeh RTFP! Silly me]) is not geared to today's standard household, or even next years average gamer. It is designed to last for many years to come. It has a HD that can be upgraded with any old laptop drive (confirmed?), it comes with a *nix OS preinstalled (granted its Linux, but beggars cant be choosers), so my biggest fear is allayed, that is I can use it as a PVR/media server to the rest of the house, leaving my PC as the back end. Its standard media can hold 25 gigs possible 50 gigs of content. Boo hoo some game houses might fill them with pre-rendered cut scenes; read a review and avoid those FFS! Try being optimistic and figure that as production methods improve the standard of content will improve and so that space will be better utilised, leaving the wii and the 360 to either dumb down the quality or provide up t

    --
    axis discrepancy indicates hexagons beyond control anomaly