Re: More Developers praise blu-ray: Slam Microsoft for DVD desicion

by **Zillah** Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:12 pm

BlackStigma wrote:

Nope, the PS1 and 360 were using the biggest disk formats available at the time of their release.

Looks like you just negated yourself.

by BlackStigma Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:24 pm

Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:

Nope, the PS1 and 360 were using the biggest disk formats available at the time of their release.

Looks like you just negated yourself.

I don't see how I did.

by **Zillah** Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:27 pm

BlackStigma wrote:
Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:

Nope, the PS1 and 360 were using the biggest disk formats available at the time of their release.

Looks like you just negated yourself.

I don't see how I did.

PS1 was using the biggest format right?

by adro Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:38 pm

BlackStigma wrote:Yes you do, all you did was a face desk and didn't explain anything. You swap a disk one or twice, it only takes like 15 seconds each time. And what ever other thing you said

using multiple disk, dev's need to comprss the game (they don't want 10disks), and devide it, and thats more thing to worry about and more time to spend on, and I doubt they want either of them. especialy that they don't considere any of this for ALL the other platforms.

now castlvania dev's are complaining about it, lost planet dev's too, and who knows how many others, Kojima have said that he would never make a game on multiple disks. it's just a pain in the ass that they don't want to deal with.

your're saying that the PS1 dev's didn't complain about it, first they didn't have other choices (i mean the n64 was using cartridges More Developers praise blu-ray: Slam Microsoft for DVD desicion - Page 2 Icon_rolleyes

), using multiple disks was something new they would't complain about extra developing time or money, that gives them ALOT of space 2-3Go and more that seems impossible back then (even PC games didn't use that much space, well just a rare minority).

BlackStigma wrote:Nope, the PS1 and 360 were using the biggest disk formats available at the time of their release.

i'm kinda confuse now, what are we arguig about. who gives a shit about
release date dev's are complaining now, not 05, not 06, NOW

by BlackStigma Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:59 pm

Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:
Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:

Nope, the PS1 and 360 were using the biggest disk formats available at the time of their release.

Looks like you just negated yourself.

I don't see how I did.

PS1 was using the biggest format right?

Was there a bigger one? Cause I know the PSone's CD disks held more memory than the N64's Rom Cartridge. I think the Saturn used CD's too, but if it didn't the Saturn used multiple disks anyways.

@adro
I don't see where you are going, if a game would take up "10 disks", then it would need to be compressed even further to remain on 1 disk.

The rest of your post makes no sense. It does not take extra time to put a game on 2 disks. All that you need to do it put out a few more cents for the extra disks then copy and paste the data (not literally) onto the disk. It doesn't cause a burden on developers putting games on multiple disks. The biggest I can imagine is where to make the player swap disks.

From article

“Microsoft actually sent their tech guys to the studio to see the game and look at [how we're] compressing it, but they said: ‘Okay, it’s good. You’re doing all you can.’ I think it’s something Microsoft are going to experience more and more – that they need to help developers overcome the storage problem.”
He added: “I mean, each console has it’s own issues [360's smaller disc capacity and PS3's slower loading times], but you have to work around them.”

Yeah, some 360 games get multiple disks, some PS3 games get forced installs.

The last part of my post meant that the PS1 had the largest disk format available when it released. And it had to have multiple disks because it wasn't big enough. Same with the 360, Blueray and HDDVD weren't around when it released, it had the largest disk format available, and now it deals with multiple disks issues.

by igame Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:17 pm

BlackStigma wrote:
Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:
Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:

Nope, the PS1 and 360 were using the biggest disk formats available at the time of their release.

Looks like you just negated yourself.

I don't see how I did.

PS1 was using the biggest format right?

Was there a bigger one? Cause I know the PSone's CD disks held more memory than the N64's Rom Cartridge. I think the Saturn used CD's too, but if it didn't the Saturn used multiple disks anyways.

@adro
I don't see where you are going, if a game would take up "10 disks", then it would need to be compressed even further to remain on 1 disk.

The rest of your post makes no sense. It does not take extra time to put a game on 2 disks. All that you need to do it put out a few more cents for the extra disks then copy and paste the data (not literally) onto the disk. It doesn't cause a burden on developers putting games on multiple disks. The biggest I can imagine is where to make the player swap disks.

From article
“Microsoft actually sent their tech guys to the studio to see the game and look at [how we're] compressing it, but they said: ‘Okay, it’s good. You’re doing all you can.’ I think it’s something Microsoft are going to experience more and more – that they need to help developers overcome the storage problem.”
He added: “I mean, each console has it’s own issues [360's smaller disc capacity and PS3's slower loading times], but you have to work around them.”

Yeah, some 360 games get multiple disks, some PS3 games get forced installs.

The last part of my post meant that the PS1 had the largest disk format available when it released. And it had to have multiple disks because it wasn't big enough. Same with the 360, Blueray and HDDVD weren't around when it released, it had the largest disk format available, and now it deals with multiple disks issues.

See the thing is that there wasn't really a console with a bigger format than the ps1 in that generation, so really you couldn't complain about this other one console using a bigger format. The 360 in the other hand is not using the largest format this generation.

The ps1 did use multiple disc, and there weren't really other games in other consoles that used as much space, you couldn't port em to the nintendo 64, thats why there were so many good exclusives on the ps1, cuz they were only possible on the ps1. You can't really say that about the 360.

by **TRF** Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:32 pm

igame wrote:
See the thing is that there wasn't really a console with a bigger format than the ps1 in that generation, so really you couldn't complain about this other one console using a bigger format. The 360 in the other hand is not using the largest format this generation.

No, but it used the biggest format that was available at the time, which was BlackStigma's point in the first place.

igame wrote:The ps1 did use multiple disc, and there weren't really other games in other consoles that used as much space, you couldn't port em to the nintendo 64, thats why there were so many good exclusives on the ps1, cuz they were only possible on the ps1. You can't really say that about the 360.

Well, yes, I can say that about the 360, but you equate technological superiority to game quality, which is simply not true. God of War 3 isn't an amazing game because it takes up 35GB of space. It's a great game for other reasons. The Nintendo 64 had as many great exclusives as the PSone did. It had nothing to do with disc space.

by SlySonji™ Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:06 am

BlackStigma wrote:
Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:
Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:
adro wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:But you know, when 5 out of like 700 retail games require multiple disk you know it's obsolete.
the problem is upcoming games

Nobody complained when half of the PSones library had 3/4 disk games.

You kinda purposely set your self up to fail there. Unless, you weren't?

Care to elaborate on that?

I need to explain that?

Stop.

Yes you do, all you did was a face desk and didn't explain anything. You swap a disk one or twice, it only takes like 15 seconds each time.

. What happens when each time is 10 times? 20 times? It isn't the amount of time that is the problem, it is the fact that you need to do it at all.

by Reaper Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:34 am

ŦЯӺ wrote:
igame wrote:
See the thing is that there wasn't really a console with a bigger format than the ps1 in that generation, so really you couldn't complain about this other one console using a bigger format. The 360 in the other hand is not using the largest format this generation.
No, but it used the biggest format that was available at the time, which was BlackStigma's point in the first place.

igame wrote:The ps1 did use multiple disc, and there weren't really other games in other consoles that used as much space, you couldn't port em to the nintendo 64, thats why there were so many good exclusives on the ps1, cuz they were only possible on the ps1. You can't really say that about the 360.
Well, yes, I can say that about the 360, but you equate technological superiority to game quality, which is simply not true. God of War 3 isn't an amazing game because it takes up 35GB of space. It's a great game for other reasons. The Nintendo 64 had as many great exclusives as the PSone did. It had nothing to do with disc space.

It does help though, it gives the devs enough space to express themselves. Can you imagine what MGS4, Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 etc would be like if they had to be crammed on to a mere DVD...i shudder at the thought.

by TWILIGHTRULEZZZ Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:49 am

It is true DVD is finally showing its age and I do expect M$ to change there disk format next gen.

I do however praise Sony for using Blu-Ray it's was and still is expensive but the major gamble has payed off and 08 saw the 1st assault on Blu-Ray with MSG4 and from then on we are seeing that we really do need it Smile

We gamers want to see more content on the disk and not as DLC, I think devs are using the DVD format as an excuse for the lack of space (we all know every map pack on MW2 is more than capable of fitting on a Blu-Ray disk with MW2) - EA, Activision

Just to think games like UC2, MGS4, GOW3 might not of been AS good if not for the BLU !!

Fun Fact - 1st party devs put more effort and more work into games then 3rd party - excluding Kojima ILU !

by **TRF** Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:48 am

Reaper wrote:
It does help though, it gives the devs enough space to express themselves. Can you imagine what MGS4, Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 etc would be like if they had to be crammed on to a mere DVD...i shudder at the thought.

It would falter in the graphics department, but the gameplay would still be there, as well as the scale. They could easily fit in on two or three discs if they cut down the graphics a little.

Look at all of the amazing XBLA and PSN titles that are under 1GB in space. That's proof that you don't need Blu-Ray or a super-processor to make great games.

by igame Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:58 am

ŦЯӺ wrote:
igame wrote:
See the thing is that there wasn't really a console with a bigger format than the ps1 in that generation, so really you couldn't complain about this other one console using a bigger format. The 360 in the other hand is not using the largest format this generation.
No, but it used the biggest format that was available at the time, which was BlackStigma's point in the first place.

igame wrote:The ps1 did use multiple disc, and there weren't really other games in other consoles that used as much space, you couldn't port em to the nintendo 64, thats why there were so many good exclusives on the ps1, cuz they were only possible on the ps1. You can't really say that about the 360.
Well, yes, I can say that about the 360, but you equate technological superiority to game quality, which is simply not true. God of War 3 isn't an amazing game because it takes up 35GB of space. It's a great game for other reasons. The Nintendo 64 had as many great exclusives as the PSone did. It had nothing to do with disc space.

Yes the biggest format at the time of launch, but my point was that its not the biggest this generation. His point is of course still valid.

Yeah but the Nintendo 64 could of had ports of great games like FFVII if it used the same or a bigger format than the ps1, and it would of had a much bigger advantage over the ps1. The space that the ps1 provided with its format was the cause of games made only for the ps1, i never said anything about equating technological superiority to game quality.

by gamer22 Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:59 am

There are a couple of things everyone needs to understand. First off MS has no invested interests in formats. The reason they didn't go with HD-DVD is because it's not their format. People are starting to see DVD's limitation but make no mistake, this limitation was present at least two years ago.

You see in 2008 John Carmack talked about his game Rage and how he wasn't able to fit his game on one DVD for 360. He needed two and maybe three. His biggest complaint though was that MS charges extra royalties to anyone that uses more than one DVD without their permission. Every extra DVD used results in more fees. This was back in 2008.

So now picture every developer who wants to make a game on 360 will suffer extra fees (cutting into their profits) for making a game on two discs or more. What decisions do you think the businessmen who are in charge of these companies made? They obviously opted for cutting content and maybe even selling the content as DLC.

The absolute fact is the Xbox brand is the only brand that went from one hardware to another that made a significant jump and yet still maintained the same storage space. I mean really, next gen systems such as the PS3 and 360 are using the same format as the PS2 and Xbox?

Everyone had to cater to the lowest common denominator and that LCD was the 360. MS charged for extra fees and they were the market leader. Plus the content cut could have potential to be sold as DLC.

PC can handle more than 8GB cause you install the games. PS3 obviously can handle more than 8GB cause of BR. 360 cannot unless you went with more than one DVD and if MS is charging you extra then why bother.

MS has truly done a disservice in this regard simply because they wanted to launch first.

by igame Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:03 am

gamer22 wrote:There are a couple of things everyone needs to understand. First off MS has no invested interests in formats. The reason they didn't go with HD-DVD is because it's not their format. People are starting to see DVD's limitation but make no mistake, this limitation was present at least two years ago.

You see in 2008 John Carmack talked about his game Rage and how he wasn't able to fit his game on one DVD for 360. He needed two and maybe three. His biggest complaint though was that MS charges extra royalties to anyone that uses more than one DVD without their permission. Every extra DVD used results in more fees. This was back in 2008.

So now picture every developer who wants to make a game on 360 will suffer extra fees (cutting into their profits) for making a game on two discs or more. What decisions do you think the businessmen who are in charge of these companies made? They obviously opted for cutting content and maybe even selling the content as DLC.

The absolute fact is the Xbox brand is the only brand that went from one hardware to another that made a significant jump and yet still maintained the same storage space. I mean really, next gen systems such as the PS3 and 360 are using the same format as the PS2 and Xbox?

Everyone had to cater to the lowest common denominator and that LCD was the 360. MS charged for extra fees and they were the market leader. Plus the content cut could have potential to be sold as DLC.

PC can handle more than 8GB cause you install the games. PS3 obviously can handle more than 8GB cause of BR. 360 cannot unless you went with more than one DVD and if MS is charging you extra then why bother.

MS has truly done a disservice in this regard simply because they wanted to launch first.

THIS!

by **TRF** Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:20 pm

gamer22 wrote:There are a couple of things everyone needs to understand. First off MS has no invested interests in formats. The reason they didn't go with HD-DVD is because it's not their format. People are starting to see DVD's limitation but make no mistake, this limitation was present at least two years ago.
Too bad the 360 came out five years ago.

You see in 2008 John Carmack talked about his game Rage and how he wasn't able to fit his game on one DVD for 360. He needed two and maybe three. His biggest complaint though was that MS charges extra royalties to anyone that uses more than one DVD without their permission. Every extra DVD used results in more fees. This was back in 2008.
Yes, it's an inconvenience, and Microsoft probably shouldn't be charging extra royalties.

So now picture every developer who wants to make a game on 360 will suffer extra fees (cutting into their profits) for making a game on two discs or more. What decisions do you think the businessmen who are in charge of these companies made? They obviously opted for cutting content and maybe even selling the content as DLC.
Selling the DLC very well may rack up the same costs due to Microsoft and Sony charging the developer for space on their online stores.

The absolute fact is the Xbox brand is the only brand that went from one hardware to another that made a significant jump and yet still maintained the same storage space. I mean really, next gen systems such as the PS3 and 360 are using the same format as the PS2 and Xbox?
Two out of the three consoles this generation don't use Blu-Ray.

by adro Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:05 pm

BlackStigma wrote: It does not take extra time to put a game on 2 disks.

it needs extra time and extra money , why the hell do you think their complaining for.

ŦЯӺ wrote:Two out of the three consoles this generation don't use Blu-Ray.

well, only two of those three need more space,

EDIT :
ps1 cd were the biggest formats available that GENERATION
360 DVD are not the biggest formats available this generation

did developrs that gen complained about the systme whit the least capacitie (n64) yep they did.
are developrs this gen complaining about the systme with the least
capacitie (360) yep ther doing it.
and don't bring the wii or the PC cause we all know there not the same as the ps3/360.

by BlackStigma Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:28 pm

adro wrote:it needs extra time and extra money , why the hell do you think their complaining for.

Think about it, how would it take extra time? You make the game, you have the data on a comp. The data is too large to fit on a DVD so you need two. You just cut part of the data out and put that on one disk, and then put the cut out data on the second disk, and some data from the first disk on the second for some backtracking. Okay, I'm not a game developer but that couldn't take more than an hour to complete. And then what extra money do you need? All you need is the money for the extra disk, and Bluerays cost more than DVD's anyways. And when you think about it games are easier to develop on the 360 than the PS3 and easier to port as well. So it cost less money and takes less time to develop on the 360 to begin with. As for the complaining part, developers have bitched about developing on the PS3 since it came out but they do it anyways.

adro wrote:EDIT :
ps1 cd were the biggest formats available that GENERATION
360 DVD are not the biggest formats available this generation

Except that when the 360 came out DVD was the biggest format. And the first DVD player came out in 1996 and PC's had DVD drives. So CD's were not the biggest format in the PS1 gen either, but they were when it came out.

adro wrote:and don't bring the wii or the PC cause we all know there not the same as the ps3/360.

So does the PC count or doesn't it? It counts during exclusive talk but it doesn't now?

by **TRF** Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:38 pm

BlackStigma wrote:So does the PC count or doesn't it? It counts during exclusive talk but it doesn't now?

It counts when it supports their argument of choice. Laughing

by **Zillah** Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:24 pm

@Stigma, no, games don't count for 360 unless it's PS3 Vs. 360 because the important thing is that's it's not on the other console.
Same for a PS3/PC Game.

by Reaper Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:37 pm

BlackStigma wrote:
adro wrote:it needs extra time and extra money , why the hell do you think their complaining for.

Think about it, how would it take extra time? You make the game, you have the data on a comp. The data is too large to fit on a DVD so you need two. You just cut part of the data out and put that on one disk, and then put the cut out data on the second disk, and some data from the first disk on the second for some backtracking. Okay, I'm not a game developer but that couldn't take more than an hour to complete. And then what extra money do you need? All you need is the money for the extra disk, and Bluerays cost more than DVD's anyways. And when you think about it games are easier to develop on the 360 than the PS3 and easier to port as well. So it cost less money and takes less time to develop on the 360 to begin with. As for the complaining part, developers have bitched about developing on the PS3 since it came out but they do it anyways.

adro wrote:EDIT :
ps1 cd were the biggest formats available that GENERATION
360 DVD are not the biggest formats available this generation

Except that when the 360 came out DVD was the biggest format. And the first DVD player came out in 1996 and PC's had DVD drives. So CD's were not the biggest format in the PS1 gen either, but they were when it came out.

adro wrote:and don't bring the wii or the PC cause we all know there not the same as the ps3/360.

So does the PC count or doesn't it? It counts during exclusive talk but it doesn't now?

On their own, Blu-Rays do cost more than DVD's, but there is something called licensing fees. Microsoft have a policy of charging extra fee's for any extra discs used. So a game with two or more DVD's (Rage, FF13 etc) will have two or more fees compared to a game on a Blu-Ray with just one fee.

It costs more for two or more DVD's with their respective licensing fee's than one Blu-Ray and one fee, otherwise the Devs would not be complaining.

by adro Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:21 pm

BlackStigma wrote:
adro wrote:and don't bring the wii or the PC cause we all know there not the same as the ps3/360.

So does the PC count or doesn't it? It counts during exclusive talk but it doesn't now?

euuh lol, wut? i'm just saying it's not the same, the games on PC get installed and take the space they need from the harddrive. so you can't say "oh the pc use dvd's too" that's all More Developers praise blu-ray: Slam Microsoft for DVD desicion - Page 2 Icon_rolleyes

BlackStigma wrote:Think about it, how would it take extra time? You
make the game, you have the data on a comp. The data is too large to
fit on a DVD so you need two. You just cut part of the data out and put
that on one disk, and then put the cut out data on the second disk, and
some data from the first disk on the second for some backtracking. Okay,
I'm not a game developer but that couldn't take more than an hour to
complete.

you seem to think that a game is like a video "cut them on part and make every part on a disk", it's much more complicated, it needs more coding.

BlackStigma wrote:Except that when the 360 came out DVD was the
biggest format. And the first DVD player came out in 1996 and PC's had
DVD drives. So CD's were not the biggest format in the PS1 gen either,
but they were when it came out.

ok tell me one pc game that came out on DVD, before the next generation before the dreamcast before 1998. cause blu-ray drive are available for PC now, and we can't say that the pc use blu-ray, can we??

by BlackStigma Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:13 pm

adro wrote: euuh lol, wut? i'm just saying it's not the same, the games on PC get installed and take the space they need from the harddrive. so you can't say "oh the pc use dvd's too" that's all

What's so different? You come with multiple disks and you can install them and then play the game off the hard drive. That isn't so different. You can install the first disk of Castlevania and then play the game off the second disk. And besides. Swapping a disk once or twice takes way less time than installing disks. Even if you played multidisk games over 3 times that's 6 or 9 swaps which still takes way less time than an install.

adro wrote:you seem to think that a game is like a video "cut them on part and make every part on a disk", it's much more complicated, it needs more coding.

I'm going to need some proof on that. Besides like I said. Developing a game on the 360 is easier so it takes less time to develop and therefore costs less. So that argument is offset anyways.

adro wrote:ok tell me one pc game that came out on DVD, before the next generation before the dreamcast before 1998. cause blu-ray drive are available for PC now, and we can't say that the pc use blu-ray, can we??

The Dreamcast didn't use DVD's (I know you didn't mean it used it, but I'm making a point), it used a custom GD rom. And the fifth generation lasted from 1993 - 2002 anyways. There were plenty of PC games that used DVD roms within that time frame.

by **TRF** Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:33 pm

adro wrote:
ok tell me one pc game that came out on DVD, before the next generation before the dreamcast before 1998. cause blu-ray drive are available for PC now, and we can't say that the pc use blu-ray, can we??

No, we can't, because Blu-Ray drives aren't standard in all PCs like DVD drives are, and they're not used for gaming. PC games are stored on DVDs and are played with standard DVD drives.

by adro Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:00 pm

ŦЯӺ wrote:No, we can't, because Blu-Ray drives aren't
standard in all PCs like DVD drives are, and they're not used for
gaming. PC games are stored on DVDs and are played with standard DVD drives.

yep and that's exactly my point, DVD drives wern't standard in all PCs that gen like CD's drives, and they wern't used for gaming.

BlackStigma wrote:The Dreamcast didn't use DVD's (I know you didn't mean it used it, but I'm making a point), it used a custom GD rom. And the fifth generation lasted from 1993 - 2002 anyways. There were plenty of PC games that used DVD roms within that time frame.

the Pc switched to the other generation way earlier than 2002.

BlackStigma wrote:What's so different? You come with multiple disks
and you can install them and then play the game off the hard drive. That isn't so different. You can install the first disk of Castlevania and
then play the game off the second disk. And besides. Swapping a disk
once or twice takes way less time than installing disks. Even if you played multidisk games over 3 times that's 6 or 9 swaps which still takes way less time than an install.

what's different is the games should be playable on multiple disks, dev's are doing that work, are paying that extra fee and they complain about it, that's it.
the game have an option to make it playable on one disk that's great for the player not the dev's.

by **TRF** Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:16 pm

adro wrote:
yep and that's exactly my point, DVD drives wern't
standard in all PCs that gen like CD's drives, and they wern't used for
gaming.

You still haven't addressed the fact that there are no Blu-Ray games on PC, but even when DVD wasn't the norm, there were still DVD games on PC.

by Sponsored content