Support NeoGAF

[sugarhigh4242]

is it taken for granted that Microsoft is shortening console lifecycle? or are they echoing Sony's "10 year" mantra?

obviously neither system will be relevant for 10 years, but what's MS's PR on the subject?

 

[dark10x]

It's great that PS3 will have BR for ROM, but PS3 still only has 512MB of toytal RAM. And yes streaming is great too

What about redundant data? Surely the extra storage will come in handy on this front and allow for faster access to necessary data which would in turn reduce load times. Just a thought.

 

[monchi-kun]

Blu-Ray = bloated games....it doesn't make devs think of efficiency because they have all this headroom. Honestly, Square Enix is the only developer that will benefit from Blu-ray. Your next Madden game will probably NOT take advantage of Blu ray at all because COGS (cost of goods) on that sucker is going to...well....suck!!!

 

[gofreak]

It's great that PS3 will have BR for ROM, but PS3 still only has 512MB of total RAM.

That in itself doesn't really say much though. PS2 had 1/16 of that RAM size and was using DVDs.

And yes streaming is great too, but the fact comes down to that if the vertex, texture, animation, audio, etc grows significantly, we're talking about longer games. I mean if those things increase substantially but RAM stays constant, that means the game is much longer/bigger in scope and that means the development time and budget will be much higher as well (more staff, more time). Unless you forsee dev time for next gen titles increasing significantly then it is already (pushing $10M for many of them already, which prompted the oh so popular $60 pricepoint for next gen titles) which will make the whole thing cost much more, I don't think the increase will be as big as some make it out.

There'll certainly be technical growth over the generation, and that'll be born out of growing experience with the systems as with previous generations, not necessarily more money and longer dev times (though I do expect games will get more expensive over the generation, as I'm sure they did in the last).

 

[Shogmaster]

You don't see how having an inferior version of GTA4 would kill popularity? Come on now shog.

GTA4 (and most of other big multi plat titles) would probably be designed around 7GB because of MS moneyhats. :lol

 

[Mrbob]

is it taken for granted that Microsoft is shortening console lifecycle? or are they echoing Sony's "10 year" mantra?

obviously neither system will be relevant for 10 years, but what's MS's PR on the subject?

Yes, this is about the closest I see things.

Xbox 360 = 4 to 5 year cycle

PS3 = 8 to 10

PS2 is going to be going on 8 years strong soon. 10 years isn't out of the stretch of the imagination for PS3.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Yeah, and here's one for you. If PS3 textures will be 4x the size, but the disc reads at only 9mb/sec, how long will the load times be? And further, how much will fit in the active memory in the console at a time?

that's where the standard HDD comes in. Maybe the first time you play the game, there's an initial load that's longer than average, but on subsequent visits, loads are short.

 

[soul creator]

but when PS2 launched without a HDD, online gaming wasn't anywhere near where it is now. Even Xbox didn't launch with online. It has a good 6 months before the HDD was much more than a complimentary memory card.

Esepcially on Microsoft's platform, online is the single biggest strength. And online without HDD is a somewhat incomplete experience.

well yeah, I would agree...but for the millions of PS2/Xbox/GCN owners who are on 56K and/or don't really care about online games (they do exist), it's probably not a problem. And if it suddenly becomes an issue for them, they can buy the hard drive later.

The thing is, within the first couple years of the system's launch, it's difficult to really judge the use of the core system. When the core drops to $160-$200 in 2008, that's when it becomes more important for those who just want to play some shiny new games on a system without worrying about downloadable content and online gaming. Seems useless to us...but then again, we post on message boards about video games. Online will be bigger, no doubt, but it's hardly something 100% of users can take advantage of anytime soon.

 

[GhaleonEB]

NM

 

[Shogmaster]

What about redundant data? Surely the extra storage will come in handy on this front and allow for faster access to necessary data which would in turn reduce load times. Just a thought.

The HDD is something that the devs can utilize for this. There is a reason why we can only access 13 out of the 20GB in them bastards. The games can cache on to HDDs if it's detected. It's really a small tweak that can be made by the devs to make this happen (like Oblivion).

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Yes, this is about the closest I see things.

Xbox 360 = 4 to 5 year cycle

PS3 = 8 to 10

PS2 is going to be going on 8 years strong soon. 10 years isn't out of the stretch of the imagination for PS3.

well, maybe if 360's lifespan is ~4 years, they'll get by on DVD-Rom.

its a tough call. On the PC, it often does make sense to spend less money and upgrade more often. Sony is obviously taking the opposite approach with PS3.

but on the PC, the architechure doesn't change nearly as much as new consoles, so it doesn't affect programmers when upgrades happen.

 

[dark10x]

The HDD is something that the devs can utilize for this. There is a reason why we can only access 13 out of the 20GB in them bastards. The games can cache on to HDDs if it's detected. It's really a small tweak that can be made by the devs to make this happen (like Oblivion).

Yeah, but they still have to find time to pull the data from the disc. In addition to the usage of redundant data, the BR drive itself has several hardware advantages over DVD which allow for faster access. Between those three facets, the PS3 could potentially offer much faster loading times than what we've seen on XBOX360 (which have been anything BUT quick). Of course, it all depends on how developers put this to use.

 

[Shogmaster]

Yeah, but they still have to find time to pull the data from the disc. In addition to the usage of redundant data, the BR drive itself has several hardware advantages over DVD which allow for faster access. Between those three facets, the PS3 could potentially offer much faster loading times than what we've seen on XBOX360 (which have been anything BUT quick). Of course, it all depends on how developers put this to use.

Longer load time didn't kill PS2 against Xbox. Also, unlike then X360 does have faster drive this time. However it shakes out for load times, it's not that big of a deal in the big picture me thinks.

 

[Pseudo judo]

That is exactly the trade-off hear. The compression schemes are up and above the normal texture compression schemes, which makes them an extremely heavy load on the CPU. Not a good trade-off if you ask me.

That's incorrect.

The 3Dc compression format is a 2 component format that was created by ATI as an effective means to compress texture data.The purpose of the 3Dc format is to compress our images while retaining the highest level of detail as we can. The 3Dc compression can allow us to compress images at a 4:1 ratio. That is like getting four images for the price of one! The compression is also hardware accelerated so there is very little performance impact on the applications using this technique when it comes time to uncompress the data.

3Dc is being used by both ATI and Nvidia and unlike other compression technologies it compresses texture data, including normal maps, losslessly and with little to no hit on the CPU. I fully expect that this is the tech that devs are probably using to create their 360 games.

More Here.

 

[snatches]

Yes, this is about the closest I see things.

Xbox 360 = 4 to 5 year cycle

PS3 = 8 to 10

PS2 is going to be going on 8 years strong soon. 10 years isn't out of the stretch of the imagination for PS3.

I disagree. I think MS is looking to adopt the Sony model of console shelf life. They realized the mistake they made with the xbox. The 360 is designed from the ground up to shrink costs and make profits. The system will eventually sell for $149 at a profit for sure. I also believe that the next MS system will be 100% backwards compatible with 360 (but not xbox).

I should add that I firmly believe we will see a new xbox in 2010 though. I just expect the 360 to be a relevant console until 2013.

 

[dark10x]

Longer load time didn't kill PS2 against Xbox. Also, unlike then X360 does have faster drive this time. However it shakes out for load times, it's not that big of a deal in the big picture me thinks.

I'm not talking about how it will effect sales here.

While there were plenty of high quality PS2 games without loading issues, I feel that it detracted heavily from those that did have issues. Same for PSP games that have poor loading and once again same for 360. I hate load times and anything that could aid developers in solving the problem is a big deal for me. I can't stand playing PGR3 as a result of the load times. They are too long, too frequent, and book ended by short gameplay sequences (many events are VERY short). Add in the "restart race" loading and it just becomes annoying. Just cutting that in HALF would have allowed me to enjoy it much more.

 

[open_mouth_]

I disagree. I think MS is looking to adopt the Sony model of console shelf life. They realized the mistake they made with the xbox. The 360 is designed from the ground up to shrink costs and make profits. The system will eventually sell for $149 at a profit for sure. I also believe that the next MS system will be 100% backwards compatible with 360 (but not xbox).

I should add that I firmly believe we will see a new xbox in 2010 though. I just expect the 360 to be a relevant console until 2013.

agreed, except I think Microsoft will make the next system backwards compatible with 360 and the original Xbox (using the emulation they're currently working on).

 

[antiloop]

What about Blu-rays extraordinary streaming capabilities I have about on these forums? (compared to DVD)

Is that all bogus or is it actually some truth in there?

 

[Core407]

Blu Ray Assassians Creed = Uncompressed content
DVD Assassians Creed = Compressed content

 

[sugarhigh4242]

That's incorrect.

The 3Dc compression format is a 2 component format that was created by ATI as an effective means to compress texture data.The purpose of the 3Dc format is to compress our images while retaining the highest level of detail as we can. The 3Dc compression can allow us to compress images at a 4:1 ratio. That is like getting four images for the price of one! The compression is also hardware accelerated so there is very little performance impact on the applications using this technique when it comes time to uncompress the data.

3Dc is being used by both ATI and Nvidia and unlike other compression technologies it compresses texture data, including normal maps, losslessly and with little to no hit on the CPU. I fully expect that this is the tech that devs are probably using to create their 360 games.

More Here.

there's two things happening. there's texture compression, which is used to get more data into the system's ram. and there's overall data compression, which is used to get more data on the storage media.

because of DVD-ROM limitations, 360 will likely be forced to use quite a bit of compression on the data stored on the disc, which means processing on the other end to decompress.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Blu Ray Assassians Creed = Uncompressed content
DVD Assassians Creed = Compressed content

Given todays technology, compressed isn't such a dirty word.

 

[Pseudo judo]

there's two things happening. there's texture compression, which is used to get more data into the system's ram. and there's overall data compression, which is used to get more data on the storage media.

because of DVD-ROM limitations, 360 will likely be forced to use quite a bit of compression on the data stored on the disc, which means processing on the other end to decompress.

The vast majority of the space being used is texture based data so that's what I'm focusing on. After all the debate is on over all storage capability and so the focus should be on the game elements that take up the vast majority of that space, textures.

 

[Mrbob]

Oh, I'm sure MS is going to want to push the 360 much longer than the Xbox.

I just don't think DVD is going to allow for a quality gaming experience in about 3 to 4 years. Games are going to be bigger than what DVD capacity allows, so it puts the 360 at a crossroads it cannot pass.

Which may not be a bad thing overall. MS will then be able to offer a system with higher capacity when it is truly needed. If the PS3 is still around $299.99 in 2010, and MS has a next gen HD DVD system at $399.99 it's next gen time.

 

[Faizal]

The vast majority of the space being used is texture based data so that's what I'm focusing on. After all the debate is on over all storage capability and so the focus should be on the game elements that take up the vast majority of that space, textures.

Actually I think sound is what will take up most of the space, especially in RPG/adventure games. This is one area where the greater storage of BR will become apparent....PS3 versions of games might have more/clearer speech and sound effects.

 

[Zombie James]

Given todays technology, compressed isn't such a dirty word.

Unless it's lossless, compressed assets will always take a quality hit and be less than ideal.

 

[jjasper]

for 99% of games, the $299 model is still valid. When the Xbox 1 came out, people didn't go "omg you have to buy the $99 hard drive for PS2 just to get the equivalent of the Xbox. PS2 is more expensive!", because 99% of PS2 games worked just fine without the final fantasy hard drive/bundle. And for a few years, the PS2 didn't even have a network adapter.

As much as it sucks for xbox live users and the "hardcore" gamer (which MS is obviously emphasizing so far, and makes up a big percentage of the xbox userbase), the core model isn't "useless". I can go home right now, remove the hard drive, and play every 360 game I own.

For better or for worse, the core system is the new PS2 (least common denominator development)

I never said it wasn't useful I just said that:
1) the $499 vs. $399 is the only battle of comparable systems
2) the $299 has an extra $49 Memory unit charge to it to be able to enjoy the games.

 

[element]

I find it funny that people are so down on compression when Insomniac talking about Resistance said that it was faster to load compressed items then uncompressed. mostly because the decompression is built into the hardware, especially texture compression.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

The vast majority of the space being used is texture based data so that's what I'm focusing on. After all the debate is on over all storage capability and so the focus should be on the game elements that take up the vast majority of that space, textures.

two different compressions. S3TC or something similar is used to load textures into ram, and another compression will be used on the disc.

maybe we can get an industry person to confirm, but i think texture data would be compressed on the disc, and then recompressed into the RAM.

 

[aaaaa0]

If you're smart, you store the textures on the disc in JPG or something like that, then as you load them into memory, you recompress them to S3TC or whatever else the GPU supports.

Loading from disc is gonna be the slowest part, and if you can get 20:1 on your textures by storing them on the disc in JPG, you speed up your load times 20:1, at the trade of some CPU power during the loading screen, of which you have gobs and gobs anyway.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

If you're smart, you store the textures on the disc in JPG or something like that, then as you load them into memory, you recompress them to S3TC or whatever else the GPU supports.

Loading from disc is gonna be the slowest part, and if you can get 20:1 on your textures by storing them on the disc in JPG, you speed up your load times 20:1, at the trade of some CPU power during the loading screen, of which you have gobs and gobs anyway.

thank you. i was pretty sure that's how it worked, but this thread is starting to get tense, and the stakes are high...

 

[gofreak]

I find it funny that people are so down on compression when Insomniac talking about Resistance said that it was faster to load compressed items then uncompressed. mostly because the decompression is built into the hardware, especially texture compression.

I think there are two prongs to this

- compressing to accomodate the system's memory and bandwidths, which I think everyone understands happens and is necessary regardless of storage capacity

- and then beyond that, the question of further compression on top of that to just fit on a disc - will this happen, what's the cost, the benefit etc.?

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

The vast majority of the space being used is texture based data so that's what I'm focusing on. After all the debate is on over all storage capability and so the focus should be on the game elements that take up the vast majority of that space, textures.

You are wrong. There are other types of decompression schemes being ran. That is the whole point of my original gripe. Example # 1 (I can give you example part deux if you like):

Audio processing and File Decompression take up a 1/3 of the CPUs capability. And I've seen that on a number of games so far. This is not the only slide of its kind.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

I think there are two prongs to this

- compressing to accomodate the system's memory and bandwidths, which I think everyone understands happens and is necessary regardless of storage capacity

- and then beyond that, the question of further compression on top of that to just fit on a disc - will this happen, what's the cost, the benefit etc.?

Refer to my post above. Case in point.

 

[soul creator]

I never said it wasn't useful I just said that:
1) the $499 vs. $399 is the only battle of comparable systems
2) the $299 has an extra $49 Memory unit charge to it to be able to enjoy the games.

I guess "comparable" can be read in different ways. As far as direct specifications lists (which is what you were referring to I suppose) go, the $399 and $499 are the closest, but I was reading it more along the lines of "which games will the system be able to play"

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I guess "comparable" can be read in different ways. As far as direct specifications lists (which is what you were referring to I suppose) go, the $399 and $499 are the closest, but I was reading it more along the lines of "which games will the system be able to play"

in terms of what seems to be the consensus about next-gen (high definition, Wireless controllers, online, downloadable content, digital surround sound, etc), i think he's right that Xbox360 Premium and PS3 20GB are really the sweet-spot.

 

[Pseudo judo]

You are wrong. There are other types of decompression schemes being ran. That is the whole point of my original gripe. Example # 1 (I can give you example part deux if you like):

Audio processing and File Decompression take up a 1/3 of the CPUs capability. And I've seen that on a number of games so far. This is not the only slide of its kind.

I think you just qouted and responded with out reading my post. It clearly states compresion using 3Dc takes little hit on the CPU and that it was my focus because the debate was storage space (Blu-Ray vs DVD) and the limits there of. If you want to talk about CPU usage then the debate is no longer simply about storage space, considering both the PS3 and 360 have unique elements that effect usage in different ways and are dealt with in a variety of means.

The amount of space on one storage medium versus another and how best to utilize that space is a far simpler discussion and the one I was attempting to stick to, especially considering the thread topic.

 

[----]

The major problem with Blu-ray is the cost. Blu-ray is the reason why Playstation 3 costs "599 US Dollars" and since the technology is so expensive it's the main reason why some features/performance have been cut back from PS3. Sony would have been able to keep with their pattern of releasing $300 consoles had they not included Blu-ray and they probably would have had a superior gaming system. Is demand for PS3 this generation really going to be as high as PS2 when it's almost double the price and it's bonus Blu-ray movie feature is only applicable to the relatively small percentage of people who own an HDTV? With the huge loss they're taking on PS3 it just doesn't seem like Sony could ever make a profit off of the machine.

The issue of slow loading times for Blu-ray games I don't think will be a big deal, but is another aspect that makes you feel like they put their desire to win the movie format wars over their desire to make the best game machine. At this point I really don't believe there is a huge benefit to games with Blu-ray outside of being able to include more non-interactive video footage on the disc. People say they could put higher resolution textures on the disc, but with a 9MB/s transfer rate from the disc to the machine and an OS that is using 96MB of the available RAM it just doesn't seem like games are going to have these amazing uncompressed textures. That plus the GPU does not seem to be the very top of the line of what's already out there. Top of the line PC games which are still using DVD seem to have better quality textures than any of the PS3 games I've seen. Personally I think Sony would have been completely unstoppable with a cheaper DVD based machine with a top of the line GPU at $300. Starting the console at $600 it's going to take PS3 forever to reach a mass market price point. The Wii and even the Xbox 360 are probably going to be "impulse buys" years before PS3.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

But, anyway, it comes down to different design philosophies. You can essentially upgrade a game's resolution (models and textures will of course scale in quality, too), but not add depth to gameplay via available technological affordances (better physics, animations, more varied high quality audio, more varied textures/models, higher quality textures/models, realistic lighting, and simulations that make things move and react realistically/naturally). I feel that many developers on the X360 have the former design philosophy (up until this point at least), and I think they should step it up a notch. The technology is there. Use it. It requires more effort and money, but the reward will be grand in the long run in convincing your consumer base next-gen is worth it IMO.

 

[jax (old)]

great interview/comments by the ubisoft guy. With regards to his streaming comments (data transfer), I thought it was funny he didn't comment on the larger capacity harddrives on the PS3 and their abilty to aid the BLURAY drive.

and whoa @ the core usage for decompression for Kameo. I didn't know it used up that much cpu power.

 

[bud]

The issue of slow loading times for Blu-ray games I don't think will be a big deal, but is another aspect that makes you feel like they put their desire to win the movie format wars over their desire to make the best game machine.

but there's an hdd in every system so that shouldn't be such a big deal.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

The major problem with Blu-ray is the cost. Blu-ray is the reason why Playstation 3 costs "599 US Dollars" and since the technology is so expensive it's the main reason why some features/performance have been cut back from PS3. Sony would have been able to keep with their pattern of releasing $300 consoles had they not included Blu-ray and they probably would have had a superior gaming system. Is demand for PS3 this generation really going to be as high as PS2 when it's almost double the price and it's bonus Blu-ray movie feature is only applicable to the relatively small percentage of people who own an HDTV? With the huge loss they're taking on PS3 it just doesn't seem like Sony could ever make a profit off of the machine.

The issue of slow loading times for Blu-ray games I don't think will be a big deal, but is another aspect that makes you feel like they put their desire to win the movie format wars over their desire to make the best game machine. At this point I really don't believe there is a huge benefit to games with Blu-ray outside of being able to include more non-interactive video footage on the disc. People say they could put higher resolution textures on the disc, but with a 9MB/s transfer rate from the disc to the machine and an OS that is using 96MB of the available RAM it just doesn't seem like games are going to have these amazing uncompressed textures. That plus the GPU does not seem to be the very top of the line of what's already out there. Top of the line PC games which are still using DVD seem to have better quality textures than any of the PS3 games I've seen. Personally I think Sony would have been completely unstoppable with a cheaper DVD based machine with a top of the line GPU at $300. Starting the console at $600 it's going to take PS3 forever to reach a mass market price point. The Wii and even the Xbox 360 are probably going to be "impulse buys" years before PS3.

Both the PS3 and X360 have top of the line GPUs. Just because they are limited on one end to 128-bit memory buses does not make them any less cutting edge from a power to cost ratio perspective and, in relative terms, for a closed-box system.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Top of the line PC games which are still using DVD seem to have better quality textures than any of the PS3 games I've seen.

you can't compare PC and Consoles in this way. PCs use major compression on the DVD, which is unpacked on the HDD.

Just as an example, World of Warcraft comes on 5 CDs (< 3.5GB), but when installed, it takes 6GB.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

great interview/comments by the ubisoft guy. With regards to his streaming comments (data transfer), I thought it was funny he didn't comment on the larger capacity harddrives on the PS3 and their abilty to aid the BLURAY drive.

and whoa @ the core usage for decompression for Kameo. I didn't know it used up that much cpu power.

Here's another case in point. PGR3:

More than approximately 1.25 cores out of 3 were used for Texture decompression schemes and Audio processing.

 

[soul creator]

in fairness mr. dash man, the PS3 doesn't start at $600. It's $500.

Now if they mess things up, and availability is so screwed so that the $500 is hard to find, then yeah, that would be a problem, heh.

 

[sangreal]

If you're going to post those slides you should post the other relevant slides and their notes. Or better yet, the whole presentation: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...ab-df6c7a2580b9/Coding_for_Multiple_Cores.ppt

 

[jax (old)]

thanks for the link to the powerpoint. cool.

 

[[Nintex]]

Jeez.... 32GB for a game, after this Generation they will be shipping games on hard drives!

 

[thorns]

http://ozymandias.com/archive/2006/...0_-We_2700_re-in-Violent-Agreement_2900_.aspx

Saw that Mark Deloura (former head of Sony Developer Relations and an industry friend of mine) had some things to say about my recent Blu-ray disc speed/capacity post. Not a surprise considering his background, but I have to say the most interesting aspect of the conversation is that we're basically in violent agreement on most aspects. Strange but true.

Some quotes and comments:

My good friend Ozymandias has been going off lately about the decision to put a Blu-Ray drive in the PlayStation3. Aside from the fact that he works for Microsoft, I really don't see how he could argue that the Blu-Ray drive is not exactly the right move for games on PS3, when it comes to capacity. Here are two reasons why.

Mark goes on to list a historical perspective discussing how games have grown over time, as well as a content perspective where he gives some hypothetical numbers to illustrate why he believes games will need significantly greater capacity in this generation than afforded by DVD-9. I won't quote his entire article here - it's worth reading for yourself - but I'll say that we're in a bit of an argument bind in that the numbers we have to play with are a bit apples to oranges. Here are just a couple of examples:

The texture resolutions have increased closer to 16x, which would push us to 32GB if all that data was texture. Yikes!

Resolutions have increased, but so has compression technology - especially over what was available five years ago for the PS2. Add to that the greater real-time decompression capability of today's more powerful hardware, and that it's really not possible to compare the two without a great deal more sophisticated side-by-side testing on common assets. And that'll be tough, unless Mark has an old PS3 devkit he might want to bring over for an afternoon? Wink

Audio on PS2 was mostly stereo, two channels. PS3 is 5.1. That's a 3x size increase without even considering fidelity.

True, but the Xbox had 5.1 audio and managed to fit just fine on standard DVDs. Sure, you might have multiple languages and other localized content stored on the disc, but you don't have to have it there for the game. Shipping distinct localized versions of the game works just fine (and has been common for years).

Default video format has moved from 480i, or roughly 640x480 at 30 frames per second (9.2 million pixels per second), to 720p. 720p is 1280x720 at 60 frames per second (55.3 million pixels per second). That's about a 6x size increase. 6 x 2GB would again push us over the DVD-9 size.

This one comes back to codecs and compression again. We don't know what these numbers are based on (MPEG2? VC-1? Super Special Sony Fractal Compression Technology? Wink), nor do we have common assets and tools (aka Sony/Microsoft Devkits and SDKs) to get real numbers off of common assets. But as with texture resolutions, significantly more powerful hardware enables the use of much more efficient compression mechanisms that just weren't possible on the PS2 or Xbox.

Mark had some other candid thoughts as well, particularly around Blu-ray vs. DVD throughput and market demand. This is where the "argument" gets a bit odd, because... well, we're basically in agreement.

The Other Sides of the Coin: Throughput and Market Demand
Admittedly, Blu-Ray looks dicey from several non-capacity angles. Blu-Ray movies require a 1.5x Blu-Ray drive, or 54Mbits/second. Sony announced that PS3 uses a 2x BD drive, which is 72Mbits/second or 9MB/second. The Xbox360 uses a 12x DVD, which should give it about 16MB/second. That is significantly faster for games and will result in shorter load times. And that 12x DVD drive should be a whole lot cheaper. (Note that the PS3 drive will do 8x DVD, and even that is faster than 2x BD.)

What can I say? This is pretty much what I've been saying regarding drive speeds. <shrug> A good example of where we're pretty clearly agreeing. He goes on to poke a hole in the "cheap Blu-ray player" theory (which basically states that Blu-ray will drive PS3 sales just as DVD support did for PS2 sales).

Of course the big play from Sony is that Blu-Ray will not only be popular for games, it will also be popular for movies. One of the reasons the PS2 initially sold so well in Japan is that it was very inexpensive for a DVD player. But unfortunately we're just a bit early on Blu-Ray awareness at this point for something similar to likely happen with PS3.

According to Wikipedia, DVD players launched in Japan in 1996. They came to the US in 1997, and by the spring of 1999, DVD players had reached down to the $300 price point. PS2 launched in the US in 2000.

Contrasting that with Blu-Ray, BD players launched in Japan in 2003. They really didn't hit the US significantly until this year, 2006. BD players currently are around $1000 in the US. And the PS3 is launching this year, 2006. From one perspective PS3 is launching just one year earlier than the time from DVD launch to PS2 launch in Japan. But Blu-Ray drives and discs have been very sparse so marketplace awareness is slight - it is more accurate to compare against the BD launches of 2006, which would make Blu-Ray for PS3 significantly earlier in the marketplace than was DVD for PS2.

The result is that the Blu-Ray drives for PS3 are expensive, and the demand for Blu-Ray movies in the marketplace has not flowered open yet. PS3 could stoke that fire, but it doesn't seem likely that Blu-Ray will significantly drive sales of the PS3 beyond a small hardcore market, in the short term.

It seems the decision to include Blu-Ray on PS3 must have been a difficult one. Long term it seems like a smart move, at least from the perspective of capacity. But short term that decision has definitely had some striking ramifications for PS3.

Again, we seem to generally agree from across the (former) divide. Blu-ray as a system driver would be a lot more effective if there wasn't this whole format war thing going on. Until that's satisfactorily resolved (or dual-format players come on the market), consumers are just going to hold off. From my perspective it doesn't really matter as I'll have both a PS3 and an Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive the day they come out. But people with families to support or less disposable income are going to be deciding their PS3 purchase decision based on the system's merits as a game player, not a movie player.

Mark's final quote?

Now don't get me started about the idea of shipping an HD-DVD drive for Xbox360!

A consumer choice, my friend... a consumer choice.

interesting read.

 

[Luckyman]

OS that is using 96MB of the available RAM

This is getting old and unconfirmed.

Personally I think Sony would have been completely unstoppable with a cheaper DVD based machine with a top of the line GPU at $300.

$300 was impossible even without Blu-ray. Hell, MS is bleeding at $400.

 

[Pseudo judo]

you can't compare PC and Consoles in this way. PCs use major compression on the DVD, which is unpacked on the HDD.

Just as an example, World of Warcraft comes on 5 CDs (< 3.5GB), but when installed, it takes 6GB.

I'm lost on what your point is on compression for PC games on DVD not being simular to compression on DVD for console. The fact that the data is decompressed and dumped onto the harddrive for PC games does not negate the fact that the textures were compressed, stored on DVD, and in ---'s opinion, look better then PS3 textures.