Seeing how Sony is INSISTING that games NEED to be on Blu-Ray discs (25GB?) or gaming will cease to be, I don't see downloading games as a replacement for optical media being a reality anytime soon. I mean, even the $600 PS3 would only be able to store two of those 25GB games that NEED to be on Blu-Ray.. and imagine how long it'd take to download that much.

No, more likely those bluray discs will contain 2GB of actual game and 23GB of movie trailers and demos.

Grand. I'm so happy we're getting into another awesome format war.

His statement didn't really have anything to do with a format war. Even with the PS2/XBox/Gamecube generation, many games didn't fill up the disc.

Which is exactly why many question Sony's insistence that B-R be included on the PS3 at all when DVD seems sufficient for the foreseeable future. The fact that it is included is because of the impending format war which Sony hopes to tips the scales on based on PS3 penetration (heh heh, he said penetrate).

Actually there were a few gamecube games that needed two discs. They only held 1.4 gigabits of data and big well done games like Resident Evil 4 required a second disc. The way I see it Xbox 360s DVDs will be like Gamecubes discs most won't have a trouble with DVD but you know there will be few games down the line that are bigger then a DVD can handle which is why having blue laser gaming is a good idea. However I don't agree with Sony mandating Blu-Ray gaming on every disc. Most games don't need the extra storage so it seems like a waste.

First of all, the Gamecube discs were roughly 1.5 gigabytes, not gigabits. A dual layer dvd is 9 gigabytes, 6 times as much space as a Gamecube disc.

I think the rest of your logic is quite flawed as well.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that there are games that go over 9 gigs and there are some 2 disc games released for the 360.

Is it worth an extra $200 to not have to switch discs? For the vast majority of people who won't be using it as a Blu Ray movie player, the answer would be a resounding no.

I've never heard anyone fault Final Fantasy 7, Resident Evil 4, Lunar, Gran Turismo, or the countless other PS1 RPGs for being multi disc games. It's never smart to make people pay $200 to get rid of something that is a non issue for 99% of the gaming population.

Especially when you consider that those 4 discs games took up about 200MB a pop when stripped of their full motion videos. :lol:

Actually DVDs hold 8.5 gigs not 9.

Whether you believe its worth $200 is your proagative but blue laser gaming can be an advantage in some cases. When a game comes out that requires two discs on the Xbox 360 and only one on the Playstation 3 that will be an advantage. Of course no doubt the Blu-Ray drives prime purpose is defeating HD-DVD. The Playstation 3 seems to be more in competition with Toshiba then Microsoft.

No doubt this day will come, but is it alone a feature worth shouting from the rooftops? I don't mind getting up to change my LOTR:EE discs after an hour and a half or so, I seriously doubt I'm going to have a problem changing DVDs for a game after 15-20 hours of play.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Blu-ray isn't essential to the PS3 as a gaming machine, it is a Trojan Horse. Can't blame them for doing it, but it'll be a long time before it makes a difference to a gamer.

Blu-Ray isn't essential for gaming but it could have advantages from time to time. Really though I am damn happy we are getting a Blu-Ray drive in the Playstation 3. Its essentially a 1080p, HD audio Blu-Ray player for only $200. Thats probably about 1/4 the cost of a stand-alone player with the same capabilities. Blu-Ray in the Playstation 3 saves me alot of money.

Me too, but in a different way ;)

I still don't really know about the PS3... I don't see how it could be #1 at $500-600. To be #1, you need the hardcore gamer, the casual gamer, the children from the suburbs, and the children from the projects. You know? I think the price point is just so high, it's simply out of alot of people's hands. Make the Blu-Ray argument as much as you want to, but I think you'll be talking to alot of people's backs. They want to know about a videogame system, not a new-age DVD player. I still don't know which I will get between the PS3 or the 360, but NCAA 07 in July just might make Microsoft the winner. The Wii is a given for me...

The cost will outweigh the advantages for the majority of people with the exception of the extremely lazy.

The Blu Ray player is also worthless for people who are HD-DVD supporters and have no interest in BD movies.

I wouldn't count on launch PS3 systems supporting the next gen audio formats as HDMI 1.3 still isn't finalized yet. Not saying it's 100%, but HDMI 1.3's track record isn't in Sony's favor.

:up:

I'm right there with you.

This might have been mentioned before but I dont feel like reading 34 pages. I have been reading in the buisness weekly I believe and it said that the PS3 could be delayed due to the controller issue they are having with immersion. Immersion sued sony because sony stole the dual shock design. Sony lost and was forced to pay 90 million dollars to the company. With this going on it could delay the PS3 for an unkown amount of time. It was also stated that the controlers do not have rumble at this time. I will try and find the artice this came from.

Immersion's lawsuit was over the rumble features in the dual shock, not the overall design. Since Sony removed rumble in favor of the tilt sensor, there would be no reason to delay it over that.

Interestingly, Immersion did tell Sony that they have some ideas to get rumble to work in conjunction with the tilt sensor. The caveat is that Sony would have to pay the $90 million from the lawsuit and license the Immersion tech for the PS3.

:up:

That's the way I'm looking at it.

The same capabilities? Maybe so, but hardly the same quality. I've yet to see an all-in-one product perform 'x' task better than it's stand alone counterpart.

I wish I had an HDTV like yours that can accept and display a 1080P signal.

This is true - I've never liked an "all-in-one" solution to any technical thing. I like my cell phone to be a cell phone, my MP3 player to play MP3s, my DVD player to play DVDs and my console to play video games.

This is the number one reason why I can't justify the cost for the PS3: I'm paying for technology that a) I don't want and b) can't use to it's fullest potential, since my HDTV doesn't have an HDMI input.

Here's a very interesting 2-page editorial on the PS3 and Sony's inclusion of B-R.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...PS3-gamble.ars

I have an HDTV that has a DVI input but not HDMI. It will not display 1080p that I know of. Here's my question: I am a DVD buff like everyone else here on the boards, do I go with PS3 w/ BluRay and hope for some kind of HDMI/DVI converter cable or go with the Wii and play Zelda to my heart's content and save lots of money? :) I currently have a PS2 and a Gamecube.

PS3 vs. Wii....help me choose!

Go with a game console based on games you want to play. Not the other nonsense.

Thanks. Good advice and that's a major thing I am considering. I haven't seen but a few titles for the wii I am interested in. The retro gaming sounds fun though. I am more excited about PS3 games at the present.

HDMI -> DVI converter cable should do the trick for your games. HDMI ~= DVI + Digital Audio.

However, it probably won't work for HD movies though, unless your DVI input supports HDCP. HD movies will require HDCP compliant hardware to play in HD format. I doubt games would require that, it's not like bootleggers want to copy the HD video stream of a gameplay!

Yeah, I checked into the HDCP compliancy of my TV (a Sony) and it is. So I can play BluRay movies on my 4 year old HDTV :)