just another topic to add. i know im probably wrong on HD games but meh
Thx GeoS for the idea
Personally i hate blueray cause of sony. digital right morons aka drm tech on Cd's it'll happen with blueray sooner or later...
Get used to Blu-ray, because that is all that will be around very shortly. HD-DVD is on its death bed.
why would u want something from the same company who made DRM for CD's and they have it patented ? that's a deathbed
May I take in my liberty to fuel some conspiracy?
As for what I think, they're both the same really, but Blu-Ray has been more successful and deserves to be for all the effort put into it, even if putting in this effort verged near stupidity at times (COUGH, PS3).
Although, to be honest, neither will likely be preferred by Xbox 720 (or PS4 or w/e), as downloadable content rears its virtual head... nice to keep the boxes though, still.
Blu-Ray is much better, coming from a Sony hater. Blu-Ray has an amazing capacity, which makes everything better if used to it's full potential, which I don't think Sony's done yet. Resistence 2, maybe
Actually, Blu-Ray currently peaks at 50GB while HD-DVD peaks at 51GB (although none of these 'triple layer' disks have been released).
It's hard to think of any reason besides 'its on the PS3, so will naturally get more buyers, so should win', which is we're looking at the disk themselves, is a little unfair.
Games won't NEED to be more than a DVD (8GB) for some time. Even then, you can use another DVD (Lost Oddysey has 3 or 4).
Sure BD makes everything better, but was it really worth the delays (European anyway) and the extra amount on the price tag? Is the improvement substantial, or somewhat more negligible? Consider that Nintendo make a profit with every console and game they sell, while Sony LOSES $50-150 with every PS3 sold, which they hope to make back with software and such things.
I think the quality is better on Blu-ray, looks better on big screens
has anyone noticed though, yes ill acknowledge blueray has awesome quality, but it'll also sometime in the future will have some kind of DRM on it. & downloading, M$ want to win? well.. downloading movies eh.. i download alot. and just burn. so ye i am an a-hole. but i don't care for movies though this is side-stepping the point. GAMES shouldn't need more then 8gigs.. why waste so much? plus its also hurting the game developers big time by over-timing like theres no tomorrow.
Thank you to those who buy over-priced games and movies. Now theres even more waste
I think Blu-ray don't win just if it's for capacity. It's not that expensive, considering technology. And for god sake - yeah, right, HD-DVD is backward compatible, but who will use it in that way? Would you put HD-DVD in your DVD player just for those first 8GB or less? I think no... like DVD wasn't compatible with older CD, that the future musn't be compatible. Blu-ray wins in speed, price and all.
And that 51GB goes for three whole layers. It's troublesome to record your data on three layers, because it always needs player to freak out to change the layer, better if you have more on one layer. And thus, Blu-ray is better for HD movies, because you can store much more without splitting into many layers. And more audio will be put (in higher quality, like TrueHD or something).
As for games, normal DVD is perfect right now. If not, HD-DVD could be, but Blu-ray is in anyway meaning better. It's the future.
And it will not matter in the future, because there will be combo drives for HD-DVD + Blu-ray. And maybe combo writers? Who knows...
Do you recall DVD-RW & VHS combos? price was unreal @ first. blueray would be awesome i admit, but only one company has rights too it? this company created DRM? no thank you. i like to play my movies from pc to pc to ipod or my zen, lastly my tv. DRM will only let me to pick one.
Blu-ray discs are better in my opinion!
25 GB on a single layer and 50 GB on a dual layer! That's a huge amount of data on a disc.
If you want to compare unreleased discs fro mHD-DVD to released Blu-ray discs, then let's look at unreleased Blu-ray discs too. There have been quad-layer discs developed (100gigs) which are said to be readable on current blu-ray players; TDK developed a 200gig disc using 6 33gig layers. And last year Ritek announced they came up with a process that increases both formats to 10 layers. So blu-ray still wins there with 250 to 150 gigs.
In any case, it takes HD-DVD 3 layers to so what Blu-ray does in 2. Blu-ray also has high data transfer rates on top of high capacity.
you're a bit behind, my friend. Those already exist from LG and Samsung. They are very pricey, but about the same as if you would buy both players separately.
I don't care about DRM. As long as the movie I buy plays in the blu-ray player that will one day be in my living room, what do I care? I don't intend on copying the disc and sharing it like some sort of scumbag thief, or watching it on some tiny screen which defeats the purpose of HD. If they want to make sure I don't copy the disc, that's fine with me. And HD-DVD has their own DRM, so you would-be thieves are out of luck either way.
As for the conspiracy posted by GeoS, I don't buy it. If that were true, Microsoft wouldn't have backed either format. And who wants to download a 50gig movie? Not me. I like having the physical disc and case and packaging. On top of that, there are still a lot of ISPs with download limits, so downloading one movie would use up the monthly allowance. On top of that, if I want to watch a movie, I want to do it now; not in 5 days or a week; however long it would take to download something that huge.
That's not how the backwards compatibility works. Some HD-DVD discs are hybrids, where they have a regular DVD layer on them so they will play in a regular player. It won't only play the first 8 gigs of the HD movie; the player cant read the HD info before the HD info needs to be read with a blue laser and not a red one. The backwards compatibility means more along the lines of the HD-DVD player being able to read regular DVDs, CDs and such. All Blu-ray players do the same thing except for CD playback, which some cannot do. And I have yet t ofind a DVD player that cannot play a regular CD, so I don't know what you are talking about.
Why the heck would you want to watch a beautiful, highly-detailed HD movie on the crappy little LCD screen of an iPod or Creative Zen? Sony isn't the sole rights holder of Blu-ray. Panasonic, Sony, Pioneer, and Philips are the main companies behind it, along with some others. Sony may be the biggest company in the Blu-ray Disc camp, but they aren't the sole patent holder.
for someone who travels alot? carrying a big thunky player isn't joyful. im just predicting the size of the storage & screen size on icrap & zen's.
FYI i download data [literly MS Words and junk] from friends across the world and i exceed 50gigs easily a week.. so Geos there may have a point with that weird conspiracy. M$ has alot of dreams and not enough sense.
There are a lot of people like me who would rather have a tangible copt of something they buy instead of downloading it, especially with the size everything is becoming. Why worry about how much hard drive space I have left in Device A if I want to download some movie when I can have a small little package with a nice Blu-ray disc in it, which will always be there regardless of whether Device A breaks down or crashes and wipes everything out. I will defiantely not be someone who will download everything instead of having, solid material copies of what I want.
Are you sure about that? I haven't read everything about blu-ray, but I'm definitely sure it's possible to have more then 50gbs.
I have read the same things as eday2010, blu-ray discs gave reached 200gb so far by TDK and if i'm not mistaken blu-ray should be capable of 8 layers deep? so 266gbs is not totally unheard of.
EDIT: Forgot to reply to the part I originally wanted to reply to, lol.
As for Nintendo making a profit on all consoles they sell, and Sony losing money per console sold, it's pretty obvious explanation for me. While I have to agree Sony is willing to take losses on their console sales in hopes of making more money from BR movie rights and such, this has ALWAYS been the case with consoles. All consoles used to take a hit on hardware sales in hopes of recouping costs and making profits on the software sold to be used on it. Only recently has Nintendo started actually making money from hardware sales alone. In part, if you think about it, it makes sense because a Wii is just a modified gamecube with upped cpu/ram/slightly upped video rendering capabilities, and a couple of protocols that are very well established (bluetooth & wifi). They pretty much spent very little in research of hardware, probably more testing to tweak usability, that's it.
Sony had to basically create blu-ray drives from the ground up, which costed them a ton in creating the drives AND media.
And as a last note, 360 also doesn't make money per console sold.
it's called a backup. and downloading honestly isnt that bad. harddrices are becoming cheaper like mardi gras.[sp]. Also how did u manage to get a Device A?
well put in that brief history of consoles ZeroXD. Nintendo is worthless. i think we can all agree that here.
I don't mean a back up. I mean a legitimate copy wit ha case and a cover and a stamped disc; not a burned one.
As for the Wii, I am sure a fair amount of research went into the motion sensing controllers since they can't just copy someone else's method. they didn't just slap the Wii together with a pile of off-the-shelf bits. They had to create some of the stuff from scratch. None of it is terribly brand new technology like the Blu-ray drive, but it still required time and money.
well if i wanted alot of movies, im not one who cares for super ultra omfg high def crap, but theres also 15hr VHS...
WII motion sensor is simply python script and common physics. big whoop.
No, but there are a lot of people who do care. And VHS is pure and simple garbage, no matter how long the tape can play. The longer it can play, the thinnner the actual tape is, and the more at risk it is to stretching and damage.
Let's see you build one then if it's simple. Big whoop or not, it's more than the other two consoles can do.
All I have to say is that Blu-ray seems like an early winner. We need to get our internet speeds jumped by tenfold to keep up with media content because 50GB is a lot and it's making hard drives very antique-looking...
well even so whats the huge demand for blueray? more disc memory? i fill enough for a dvd
why buy two discs of blueray[50gigish] when i can get 100blank dvds... whats the better deal? another reason y i dont use cd-r's for simple stuff.
actually there is a open-source on the codecs + i am in robotics. give me the sensor and boom! motion gaming. well pick on ps3, hate that console w/ my life. but xbox was the first real use of online gaming. nintendo FINALLY is catching up!!! :O.
the price of harddrives are going down [terrabyte hdd. 750$]
$750 is expensive. If you buy them OEM fro ma computer shop (in person or online), you can get a 1TB drive for about $315.
wanna pm this link by any chance i live in Canada too
For games? It doesn't really matter. It's just about the storage capacity which both have. And renting/bringing discs over to friends house works just fine for blu-ray and would work fine for hd-dvd.
no idea where u get these original manufacturers:S
blueray wouldnt work if it gets the DRM on it that was created by sony.
Toy can also check www.tigerdirect.ca and http://btecanada.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/9762
Blueray might as well win
Tobisha gave up on HD-DVD market.
Blu-ray DID win. HD-DVD is done, which means Blu-ray is the grand champion of HD formats. Now you'll see all movies being released on DVD and Blu-ray, and in a few years, movie releases on DVD will become more and more rare, though I think TV show releases will still thrive. TV shows until a few years ago weren't shot in HD, so I don't know how they would transfer a show like Seinfeld or Cheers into HD; I am pretty sure it's not possible. The only reason to release TV shows on Blu-ray is to get everything onto a single disc instead of 4 or 5. I know they are releasing the first season of the Simpsons on blu-ray. I doubt the quality will be better, and it will still be a 4:3 picture, but everything will fit on one disc. No point in getting shows like that if you already own them on regular DVD.
I voted blu-ray for its convience, since its has a larger storage capacity we can expect to have less mutli-dvd games like Lost Odyssesy even though I'm currently playing that game and loving it.
Blue is my favorite color.
just to add some extra insight to some of the discussions already started in this thread...
the 'backwards compatibility' of HD-DVD isn't just being able to play DVDs in the same drive. There are special hybrid HD-DVD discs which have standard DVD content on one side, allowing one disc to hold both HD and DVD quality versions. While handy for making a trip to a friend's (one without an HD-DVD player) to watch the film, it's not really particularly enticing - it's just an extra layer of fear when trying to protect the fragile storage media!
And the console stuff.. in general consoles do always lose money for the manufacturer, which is why the games are so much under their control. They have strict rules over licensing, and they do so to ensure that they can keep as much control over the money they make from their games as they can. For the first few years of a consoles life, that's the only source of profit the console will bring them. Nintendo, on the other hand, choose to ensure that they make a profit on every machine sold, which is why they didn't force the Wii to have such 'next gen' hardware as its rivals in the console market. Of course, their control system (being ultimately the Wii's defining feature) is in many ways more 'next gen' than the other consoles' upgrades - if you're considering things on a matter of evolution. Survival of the fittest, and all that - those with the strongest attributes will propagate farther, and the Wii has proven itself by smashing through barriers in terms of market and appeal.
It's not doing a terribly great job of releasing high quality titles - there are lots of frankly rubbish games out for it - but it does have some crackers (Super Mario Galaxy is fantastic). On the other hand, though, Nintendo are showing that they're not afraid to release games when they're ready - there always seems to be something to look forward to. Mario Kart is the next one for me.. and it won't be too much longer!
Still, on the subject of Blu-ray, I think it's clear that it is the winner, what with announcements for support for HD-DVD being dropped by movie publishers. The popularity of the Playstation brand pretty much guaranteed it, regardless of whether or not you're a Sony hater (there are plenty who aren't!).
We've got all three current-gen consoles in our flat, and the PS3 gets far and away the most use. It might be because of the far more multi-user-friendly online service it has [you don't need to subscribe - on the 360 only subscriber accounts are allowed to use the Live service, which is very annoying]. It might be because the controllers are 'nicer' and don't need batteries or peripheral charger packs. It might be something else entirely... I love the variety of XBOX Live Arcade, it really is wonderful, but - when i move out in a few months time - i'll be getting myself a PS3 to take with me, over the other formats.
Little Big Planet. That game looks like it's being made specifically for me.
well now XBOX360 have another add-on...?
[quote="misterXY"]just another topic to add. i know im probably wrong on HD games but meh
Thx GeoS for the idea
Blue rays rule because they have 50GB while HD DVD have 30GB. The math does not lie, and neither does the image quality coming off Blue ray movies. You can see boogers on TV now.
so there's blueray Porn?
I think Blu-ray is now the decided winner. HD DVD will now go the way of the Beta Max
too bad though cause i didn't mean HD DVD
Depends, if you all remember the Beta vs VHS format war. Beta was a much much better quality format which could record longer and at a better quality. However, VHS came out on top. Why? Beta was so god damn expensive, and marketing for it wasn't up to scratch.
So just remember with Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, the better quality wont necessarily win.
Oh, and in case you're wondering. Sony backed Beta, and not VHS
So how long before we get to see American Gangster on Blue Ray. I think it will take months before this becomes a reality. Sadly there are some great movies that are only HD-DVD. Good movies, bad format, bad combination.
Blu-Ray didn't win yet
Blue ray has won... read on on your tech news...
in fact bestbuy gave out a $50 gift card to everyone who had bought a HD DVD player so they would come back to their store and buy a blue ray player (which was rather nice of them)
For games? Naa, blue ray isn't going to win. Why? Because only Sony supports it of all three main contenders in the console market. The XBox360 and Wii don't support BR, and let's face it - PCs don't have BR players yet so BR PC games are a long way off.
Do you know how much programming you need to fill a 50GB disk? Bearing in mind that us Frihosters get 250MB, and most of that space is filled up with images (or empty). A couple of us have really active forums with a huge database, maybe getting on for 50 meg with several thousand members. Still nowhere near 50 gig, and for a program that big the developers would simply not be able to keep up.
That's probably the main reason why the Wii is winning at the moment: as well as being new and exciting, it is also much easier to develop games on. Games can be made more cheaply, they can be sold more cheaply, more people will buy them (and if the game's rubbish and people don't, it's not such a drama), and the console's overall popularity increases, giving even more reason to make games on it.
incorrect, read up on your tech news.
Blue-ray has won. It has won for movies thus hd-dvd will no longer be made within the next year or so, thus it wont be on games.
2nd) most pcs have blueray.. in fact over half of new computers do, the other have.. hd-dvd.. which, if you read tech news, youll know they will no longer have hd-dvd installed in them, but blueray.
Blue-ray holds more space, and its already been used.. in fact UT3 for the ps3 has content that the 360 does not... can you quess why? thats right, hd-dvd didnt have enough space for it all.
Blue-ray has won.. the 2nd THIS HAPPEND blue ray won....
there is no more debate which one will win.. dont belive me just yet.. heck you dont even have to search hard.
google: blue-ray has won
heck even googling: hd dvd has won everything that pops up there is of blueray winning.. (other than one article dated at oct 12.) lucky got me, my faimly has 2 laptops.. ps3 and 360.. so it didnt matter to me who won, its just kinda annoying seeing people still fight over it. (im gana look for the best buy article about the $50 for all the people who bought hd dvd)
you all know toshiba right.. the main people behind hd dvd? you know right...
I just wanted Blu-ray to win since I have a PS3 and would've liked to channel everything through that. Had the PS3 had HD-DVD, then I would've wanted HD-DVD to win.
Read my post. Did I once mention films? No. In fact, I said explicitly at the beginning that I was talking about games. In any case, the fact that this is a gaming forum should have offered some clue too.
Re-read the quote.
THank you, movies lost *the main reason the dvds were made* thus no reason to continue the use for it on games, blueray is better for games anyway.. holds more space, and as i said in my post they do use it all. Read the full article, games are done too.
Look, I don't know why you're getting so heated about this. You have certainly done your research, but you're reading it the wrong way. HD DVD is no longer being used for games. Tell me where that implies that blue-ray will be used for games.
The fact is, it certainly seems that the format war for high definition movies is over. But games are completely different.
Let's go right back to the dark ages. Games were made by a single person on their ZX Spectrum or BBC Micro or whatever. They would be built by some nerd with oodles of spare time, maybe teams of two or three people if one of them wasn't very good at the graphics but great with programming. Some of the games were published, and people made a little bit of pocket money.
Forward in time, more people are needed. Teams of sixty or more people make the games! You've all seen the ending credits in some game - there are loads of people.
Let's go to your perceived future - a future in which everything is ultra-high-definition graphics with cutting edge technology. The programmer count will double, the number of artists will go down to 0 (because they're all on strike being made to work too hard) and gaming as we know it will die.
The other future is innovation. One which does not require so much space. Fitting a game onto 60 gigabytes of disk is ridiculous. 4.4 gigabytes is often too much as well. As far as graphics go, gaming has reached a peak. I don't think it can get much better than it is now, so the only other road to take is the road of innovation. It may take a little bit more programming, but 99.9% of that 4.4 gigabytes of DVD is taken up by graphics and models anyway, so there would only be a tiny increase in the amount of space required on the disk.
For the tl;dr people out there: I think that games as we know them will never need to be made on anything larger than a DVD for them to be successful.
Interesting theory you have there... but its not very accurate im afraid. Do you script or make games yourself? I do, Im fact Im starting on some 360 Stuff atm (tho its a lot different than what im use to). Your thoughts on how much space a game takes up is way off im affraid. Sound files, graphics of the new age of HD is rather large, even when compressed. throw one of these CDs into your PC you can see the file size.
There is a reason sony picked blueray for the ps3, they knew they would want and need the space of this new format. like I said before, may games already use it such as UT3, the new FF games will be using the blueray to its full content. Games can now have more movies, some games even have FULL movies loaded into them such as the darkness. (did you know that the ps3 version has longer films on the tvs cuase it could hold more?) Games NEED the space. And with HD dvd going, the only place they have to go is Blueray.
the 360... well thats hard to say whats going on there, but the pc world is 100% blueray for games. as they will only have blueray players.
Talk is already on the way for a blueray player addon for the 360, but this is all speculation, but in the end, they dont have much of a choice at all, Blue ray has won the HD war, for everything.
If you cant tell already, I hate giving a fight without facts to throw out LOL. this proves my points here, I already gave lists of games.. now heres a BIG title coming out, metal gear solid 4... now you say noone needs that kind of space....
Yeah, just because the big company's use blue-ray hd-dvd is on its way out. But actually it is not much difference. The quality is the same...
Yes, I do.
I would imagine that MGS4 has a lot of voice overs, is that correct? Sounds do indeed take up a great deal of space. Graphics again, take up space. Clearly, if you're going to use billions of polygons per model you can expect the files to get huge. But how much of a strain is it on the company to produce these graphics - graphics that will take up such a huge amount of space? Since you like citations so much, here's one for you. Here's another.
The only thing that takes up relatively little space is the scripting and coding put into the games. This can be anything from a few kilobytes to maybe a quarter of a gigabyte (very rarely is it that much though) depending on the complexity of the game.
See, strain on the developers equals fewer risks. This would eventually lead to people being too scared to make a game. Think of it this way. Computer games typically come on DVDs. Things like Call of Duty 4 manage amazing graphics with just one DVD disk. There's really no need to get much bigger. If you do, consumers will end up filling their hard drives with 50 gigs of game. Think about it - that would mean for most people that they could only fit about 4 or less games on before running out of space.
I like to know some HD-DVD games out there? For all I know, there wasn't any. For its biggest *console* supporter, Microsoft didn't release a AAA title for it. I also believed it would seriously lag as data has to be constantly read through the USB add-on.
With that in mind and the fact that HD-DVD production as ceased, this argument is now moot. Let's move on this whole format wars and complain how Blu-ray related products have now risen in price.
I believe the whole problem with voiceovers on MGS4 isn't really the space it takes to keep them all. It's rather, with Blu-ray the developers no longer want to compress audio files because they want the best quality.
I don't know if the European version of MGS4 will have En/Sp/It/Fr voiceovers, but if they do there shouldn't be any excuse why Jp can't have En voiceovers and the U.S. can't have Jp voiceovers... that's my opinion anyhow.
The biggest reason why VCR beat the higher quality Beta was simply a timing issue, Beta movies had a higher quality, which came at a much lower usable video. The VCR won simply because movies are typically never longer than the 2 hour high quility settings that vcr use. The Beta tape had to be a shorter time frame, since it had a higher quality.
Blueray sucks, high def is still the best. Do my homework? nah