Xbox 360 Premium or Elite or Playstation 3? [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Xbox 360 Premium or Elite or Playstation 3?

tgworm
19 Feb 2008, 16:38
I'm trying to decide on whether to buy an Xbox 360 Premium at £230 or an Elite at £280 or a playstation 3 (probably 40 gb). I want a generally fun experience with online activity (I don't have wi-fi in my house though). Any thoughts?

Shadowmoon
19 Feb 2008, 17:03
For a great online experience, get the Xbox 360, and not the Playstation 3. And get the Elite, because its better than the premium.
And you don't need wi-fi for the Xbox 360, but you have to pay to go online, but you get a free trial for a month when you get it.;)

Muzer
19 Feb 2008, 17:24
The PS3's online is free, so it may add up to being cheaper. That doesn't need WiFi either, however it's not as good as the 360's.

Plasma
19 Feb 2008, 17:30
Just so you know, XBLgold costs £40 a year.
Also, remember that the Playstation3 DOESN'T support Playstation2 games, unless you're buying a second-hand 60GB one.
I'd reccomend you go for the 360 Premium, they don't say the PS3 has "nogaems" for nothing. As far as I know, the only hardware difference between the two is that the Elite has 120GB instead of Premium's 20GB. And you'll have a hard time filling 20GBs on a console.

Shadowmoon
19 Feb 2008, 17:33
Just so you know, XBLgold costs £40 a year.
Also, remember that the Playstation3 DOESN'T support Playstation2 games, unless you're buying a second-hand 60GB one.
Definitely a month. My cousin told me, but i'm not sure if he has a gold membership.

MtlAngelus
19 Feb 2008, 20:24
Definitely a month. My cousin told me, but i'm not sure if he has a gold membership.
If your cousin pays £40 a month for a Gold Xbox Live account, then he's an...
Oh, so it does run in the family, then.

Shadowmoon
19 Feb 2008, 20:34
Kay, i've just been speaking to him, and he said that its £40.00 a year, not a month.
And yeah my cousins crazy enough to do that. He needn't worry! he's quite rich.

Star Worms
19 Feb 2008, 20:56
PS3 is also set up for the future now with the success of Blu-ray.

Shadowmoon
19 Feb 2008, 20:57
Its just a pity its a rip-off.:mad:

yakuza
19 Feb 2008, 21:05
I suggest you read some internet reviews from websites you consider reliable. Don't expect to get an objective response in this forum regarding Sony products. Having said this, Xbox seems to beat the PS3 in online games, the fact that you have to pay for it aside, you can't go wrong with games like Gears of Wars and such.

Plasma
19 Feb 2008, 21:38
PS3 is also set up for the future now with the success of Blu-ray.
The Blu-ray hasn't succeeded, it's just that now that Toshiba dropped out, they're the only HD disks avaliable. Non-HD DVDs still completely trounce them in sales figures.

tal05
19 Feb 2008, 22:13
Xbox 360 elite
More than enough storage space for videos,games,music etc
:D
and i disagree with the comment about having a hard time filling a 20gb hard drive as it took me about 3 months to fill 20gb of my xbox elite and im not much of a gaming fanatic.

*Splinter*
19 Feb 2008, 23:03
If your playing online PS3 is definately the way to go

yakuza
19 Feb 2008, 23:13
The Blu-ray hasn't succeeded, it's just that now that Toshiba dropped out, they're the only HD disks avaliable. Non-HD DVDs still completely trounce them in sales figures.
I know you can't help being biased but please stick to the facts. Blue-Ray did succeed, most big manufacturers and companies have chosen it and so it will be the next generation format, wether you like it or not. Toshiba didn't just drop out, they were forced out by Sony, who won the next generation format war, it was official as of yesterday.

Star Worms
20 Feb 2008, 01:50
The Blu-ray hasn't succeeded, it's just that now that Toshiba dropped out, they're the only HD disks avaliable. Non-HD DVDs still completely trounce them in sales figures.Right. Because they are the only HD disks available, they have won the format war.
It's all down to the PS3 really, which Sony clearly planned from the start. The PS3 wasn't meant to be primarily a console; it was a blu-ray player. No-one in their right mind would buy a blu-ray player or HD-DVD player on its own during a format war. However, since PS3 owners already have blu-ray players, there will already be a demand for them.
Sony were always going to make more money from blu-ray being successful than another games console. That's why the release date was put back as they had sort out the blu-ray player issues.
People will gradually switch over to blu-ray whether they like it or not, provided the price is right. Just like with CDs, DVDs will get replaced by blu-ray disks, which will inevitably drop down in price similar to a regular DVD.

[UFP]Ghost
20 Feb 2008, 02:26
i agree with that however:
a) Xbox has a better online setup and interface then the ps3 hands down.
b) The PS3 has better hardware or at least it did until they downgraded it, don't know a lot about it now, i did before.
c) Don't make your decision based on blu-ray. If it becomes the norm so will the price of players like cheap dvd players these days.
d) Look at the game selection. Both have very good games coming but it depends what you'd rather own.
personally I took the 360 for Halo 1, 2 & 3. I wouldn't call it the best game ever but I do enjoy it a lot. The PS3 has MGS and resistance which is supposed to be an excellent game.
-No matter which system you choose you won't be disappointed. Just make a decision primarily based on what YOU will use it for.

Muzer
20 Feb 2008, 10:31
Toshiba did have quite a few exclusivity contracts, though, and could've had a chance, so IMO I think Toshiba didn't want to start a format war, but knew Sony wouldn't drop out (arrogant *******s)

yakuza
20 Feb 2008, 13:55
Yeah, I'm sure multibillionarie business works like that. Don't be so naive even if you're a Nintendo fanboy.

Shadowmoon
20 Feb 2008, 16:19
I suggest you read some internet reviews from websites you consider reliable. Don't expect to get an objective response in this forum regarding Sony products. Having said this, Xbox seems to beat the PS3 in online games, the fact that you have to pay for it aside, you can't go wrong with games like Gears of Wars and such.
It is a ripoff. Might not be where you live, it is where i live.

Plasma
20 Feb 2008, 17:09
BTW, how much does that PS3 cost there anyway?
Right. Because they are the only HD disks available, they have won the format war.
They won the HD format war, yes, but they're still doing terrible when compared to the disk format war.
Just like with CDs, DVDs will get replaced by blu-ray disks, which will inevitably drop down in price similar to a regular DVD.
Umm... DVDs only replaced CDs when in regard to PCs and consoles. The PS3 is not a PC, and it doesn't matter in terms of other consoles because the PS3 can't play games from other consoles anyway. And the DVD didn't even come close to the CD in terms of music players. The DVD beat video casettes because video casettes are, well, rubbish in comparison, while Blu-rays can only boast HD-quality over DVDs.
Heck, if TGworm doesn't even have a HDTV, then the entire feature is void!
If your playing online PS3 is definately the way to go
Right... and you get this impresson from where?
I mean, you don't even make any sort of attempt to explain why you think that.

yakuza
20 Feb 2008, 17:40
Umm... DVDs only replaced CDs when in regard to PCs and consoles. The PS3 is not a PC, and it doesn't matter in terms of other consoles because the PS3 can't play games from other consoles anyway. And the DVD didn't even come close to the CD in terms of music players.
The DVD was never intended to be a music format.
The DVD beat video casettes because video casettes are, well, rubbish in comparison,
It also beat the Video CDs, which were also rubbish.
while Blu-rays can only boast HD-quality over DVDs.
And space, so that's already two things as opposed to one the DVD had over the CD, and, like I said, look now. The Blue ray will eventually be the generic format once blu-ray players become cheap and games start being bigger and bigger, like it always happens, history tells us.

Shadowmoon
20 Feb 2008, 17:42
If your playing online PS3 is definately the way to go
What? i think you'll find that the X360 Is clearly a great online experience, you can chat with your friends, send them messages, and other stuff.
Don't really know what PS3 is like online, but i've heard that the X360 Is the best online experience.
I also believe your saying that because you like playstation 3 the best.

yakuza
20 Feb 2008, 17:45
What? i think you'll find that the X360 Is clearly a great online experience, you can chat with your friends, send them messages, and other stuff.
Don't really know what PS3 is like online, but i've heard that the X360 Is the best online experience.
I also believe your saying that because you like playstation 3 the best.
And you're saying that after admiting your total ignorance on the PS3 online experience, which not only you admit but it shows after you highlight XBOX live features which are also aviable on the PS3, please do not compare when you ignore one of the parts, it's silly.

Shadowmoon
20 Feb 2008, 17:50
says the person who cannot spell available.:p
I think its pretty obvious that the X360 is a better online experience, i've looked at polls, discussion on other forums, and its pretty obvious.

Plasma
20 Feb 2008, 17:50
The DVD was never intended to be a music format.
I know, I'm just saying.
It also beat the Video CDs, which were also rubbish.
I didn't know there actually was any.
And space, so that's already two things as opposed to one the DVD had over the CD,
Have recent movies used up the maximum capacity of a DVD?
and, like I said, look now. The Blue ray will eventually be the generic format once blu-ray players become cheap and games start being bigger and bigger, like it always happens, history tells us.
If and when that happens, it's bad news for the PS3, because it means it loses its unique feature as a Blu-ray player. If a future console that TGworm intends getting starts using it, or if it becomes the norm for PCs, then he'll have a Blu-ray player then anyway, and won't need a PS3.

yakuza
20 Feb 2008, 17:55
I didn't know there actually was any.
Just proves how crap the VCD was, and the VCD players.
Have recent movies used up the maximum capacity of a DVD?
Nope, but many movies come with two DVDs, one for extras and whatever else, also movie packs, or even TV shows (the packs you buy that are usually 10 DVDs) could see a benefit from the Blue Ray, which might be something minor, but still, I guess the quality improvement is the important feature here although I admit I couldn't care less, DVD's look as good as I'd care, heck, I usually watch DivX because they're smaller and the quality is good enough for me. People will eventually own HD TVs though, some day...
If and when that happens, it's bad news for the PS3, because it means it loses its unique feature as a Blu-ray player. If a future console that TGworm intends getting starts using it, or if it becomes the norm for PCs, then he'll have a Blu-ray player then anyway, and won't need a PS3.
I think the strategy is that the PS3 is the first Blue Ray player aviable and that it's also a console, I believe the first Blue Ray players to be pretty expensive which would make the PS3, when it lowers its price to be the best buy if you're looking for a Blue Ray player and 'something else'. Add to that that the format is Sony, I don't think they mind hurting the sales of their console by a tiny margin if it means the Blu Ray becoming generic seeing as they will probably earn more this way.

Plasma
20 Feb 2008, 17:58
Add to that that the format is Sony, I don't think they mind hurting the sales of their console by a tiny margin if it means the Blu Ray becoming generic seeing as they will probably earn more this way.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm arguing for 'how good a PS3 is for TGworm', not 'how good the Blu-ray/PS3 is'.

Muzer
20 Feb 2008, 18:22
Yeah, I'm sure multibillionarie business works like that. Don't be so naive even if you're a Nintendo fanboy.
Yeah, well do you see any other reason? I mean, as I said, they did have a few exclusivity contracts, and they could've waited it out and possibly got more money. Also, I respect the PS3 and the 360, I think the online plays of those two completely own the Wii's, Nintendo really need to pull their act together. I just prefer the Wii because of the innovation, and from yesterday the ability to run homebrew using a difficult to patch method. I also think there are quite a few good games on all three. Just Galaxy is amazing.
Oh, and yakuza, I hope you're not talking about that franchises thing when you say I'm a fanboy.

Metal Alex
20 Feb 2008, 18:41
Showing my opinions:
CDs: are good to have enough ammount of data for casual stuff, and can be actually debunked by mp3 players or USB memory sticks... it'd be in great danger if the music industry didn't use it. And I can't see them switching soon... Then again, I can't see the future.
DVDs: Great to get good image definition, and the image quality fits into a good TV screen. Can even have subtitles, and great sound. Good overall.
Blu-ray: Too much space. I mean, there is more than enough for a movie in here, and the resolution would be EPIC, if there was a 100% usage of the memory... ANYWAYS, the quality would be the same for a DVD, considering we don't have epic TVs that gives us better resolutions... The only use for it, from my point of view is to make video games that can have lots of stuff... or for a collection of movies. 10 movies can easily fit in there. Then again, it's useful for full series on a disc. Anyways, I don't see the last two options making good profits...
My conclusion: FORGET THAT, and go back ontopic :p
The PS3 can go online, but if you want to go into online more and willing to pay around 40$ a year (as far as I know), pick the Xbox. I haven't tryed any, so maybe I'm not a very reliable source, but apparently, the Xbox has more to offer. (on a side note, Wii has online, but don't count on it)
Anyways, you can try asking anywhere else where people don't start talking about whatever they want.

Muzer
20 Feb 2008, 19:35
considering we don't have epic TVs that gives us better resolutions...
Which rock have you been living under?
CoughHDTVCough

MrBunsy
20 Feb 2008, 21:33
Which rock have you been living under?
CoughHDTVCough
Do you actually know anyone who owns one? I know people who still don't own a widescreen telly. I highly suspect something like itunes for films, or even cheaper flash memory, will come along before blu-ray really gets much of a hold; since the time it will take will be much slower than DVDs succeeding VHS.

yakuza
20 Feb 2008, 21:41
Do you actually know anyone who owns one? I know people who still don't own a widescreen telly. I highly suspect something like itunes for films, or even cheaper flash memory, will come along before blu-ray really gets much of a hold; since the time it will take will be much slower than DVDs succeeding VHS.
I know HD versions of movie files being extremely popular in the torrent scene, so I suppose quite a few people own HD TVs or monitors, I do, for one.

Metal Alex
21 Feb 2008, 00:00
Which rock have you been living under?
CoughHDTVCough
What I actually mean is that if it looks awesome now, you can hardly tell the difference if it improves a bit more :p

Melon
21 Feb 2008, 00:06
If it does improve anymore, you won't ACTUALLY be able to tell the difference. Some HDTVs supposedly have a resolution that's higher than the human eye can distinguish, which makes it all a bit pointless unless it's really really big or you're really really close, although I'm actually convinced that it's a bit of a scam because very little is broadcast at that sort of resolution. And I can't see the day where everybody has cinema screens in their house.

Squirminator2k
21 Feb 2008, 00:29
This thread is bad, and you should all feel bad.
Right, now to hear some advice from someone who owns both a 360 and a PS3.
Xbox 360
Game selection
The 360 obviously has a bigger library of games. It also has a fairly nice selection of exclusives, which is more than can be said for the original Xbox. Games such as Gears of War and Dead Rising are rather enjoyable, and there is a large amount of games which can be purchased online on the Xbox Live Arcade and Xbox Classics services, including the single greatest Bomberman game ever released.
Online
As mentioned, there are a fair few games available to purchase online, ranging from original titles to re-releases of original Xbox titles such as Fable and Farenheit. The interaction between other Xbox Live users is also fantastic and incredibly well implemented. The major turn-off for many people is that this service comes with a monthly fee ranging from 35 to 40 GBP depending on where you're buying your membership from.
Film Playback
Picture quality on a HDTV is excellent, and the 360 is capable of downloading the latest HD-DVD firmware update instantaneously, meaining that the 360 will never be an outdated HD-DVD player. However, with the recent collapse of the HD-DVD empire, buying a 360 for HD film enjoyment may currently prove to be a bit of a bugger being as the HD-DVD drive is an additional expense that ultimately won't pay off. With that said, this may well prove to be a good opportunity to get a selection of HD titles at a low price. Films such as Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Stardust and The Matrix Trilogy aren't currently out on Blu-ray and you can start to pick these up at less than retail price now.
Additionally, HD-DVD has no region encoding, so you can cut the cost even more by importing films from the US. Of course, once your HD-DVD drive dies that's probably it. I can't see Microsoft supporting an accessory for an obsolete format.
Standard DVD playback on the 360 varies depending on the type of video cable you're using and the type of television you have. HDMI upscales beautifully on a HD tellybox.
There are rumours, but nothing confirmed of course, of Microsoft releasing a Blu-ray drive in the future.
Misc.
Not much else, really. The controller is comfortable and intuitive being as it is a SuperNES controller with extra triggers and two analog sticks. The 360 version of Rock Band is better than the PS3 version for a variety of reasons including cross-controller support with Guitar Hero II and III, and in-game voice-chat which the PS3 version lacks. Overall, I'm very impressed with the 360. The 360 isn't wireless out of the box and requires an additional adapter, but it's inexpensive and well worth snagging.
PlayStation 3
Game selection
The PS3 has been about for less time than the 360 and so has fewer titles available, but it does have some cracking games, including Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchett & Clank, and Super Stardust HD. Cross-platform games (that is, games released on both thr 360 and the PS3) vary in quality - The Orange Box is a travesty on the PS3, while The Eldar Scrolls IV: Oblivion features better load times and improved graphics.
Online
PS3's online is free, but seems less communal than the 360's online service. Many games do not feature in-game voicechat, and Sony's official headset costs a fortune. Still, the PS3's online store is very swish indeed, and a number of PSone and PSP titles can be downloaded.
Film Playback
The PS3 is the best Blu-ray player on the market at half the price of a standalone Blu-ray player. The quality, as with HD-DVD, is absolutely superb on a HD tellybox, and you really do notice the difference between HD and a regular DVD. The PS3 also has the best implementation of futureproofing and Blu-ray firmware updating out of any player on the market, so you'll never find a Blu-ray disc your PS3 can't play.
If you're using HDMI out, the PS3 will also upscale DVDs with wonderful clarity. The picture quality on a DVD will never look as crisp and clear as a Blu-ray, but with the PS3's upscaling you'll come pretty damn close.
Misc.
The PS3 is wireless out of the box, which is good. Depending on which model you go for, you may have a bunch of slots on the front for Memory Sticks, SD cards, etc. - later models have removed these, however. The PS3 has four USB sockets on the front as opposed to the 2 available on the 360. As previously mentioned, the PS3 version of Rock Band features no in-game voicechat for online play, and songs appear on the PS3's download service a day later than they do on the 360.
On the subject of HD movies
Anyone who says HD is stupid is stupid. Simple as. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a HDTV, but then I work in Hollywood* so that may explain it.
*Which is a lie. The film industry doesn't exist in Hollywood. It's mostly in Burbank, where I work. Hollywood is just for show, really.

Metal Alex
21 Feb 2008, 02:14
Anyone who says HD is stupid is stupid.
Just to make things clear: I mean that if the increase on quality is almost unnoticeable, it's not worth it. The step from VHS to DVD was huge, but not that much from DVD to Blu-ray.

Star Worms
21 Feb 2008, 02:16
On the subject of HD movies
Anyone who says HD is stupid is stupid. Simple as. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a HDTV, but then I work in Hollywood* so that may explain it.
*Which is a lie. The film industry doesn't exist in Hollywood. It's mostly in Burbank, where I work. Hollywood is just for show, really.I don't even have digital, let alone HD.

Squirminator2k
21 Feb 2008, 02:24
Just to make things clear: I mean that if the increase on quality is almost unnoticeable, it's not worth it. The step from VHS to DVD was huge, but not that much from DVD to Blu-ray.
Clearly you've never seen the two side-by-side. The quality improvement is most definitely comparable to the VHS-to-DVD jump.

SupSuper
21 Feb 2008, 03:45
I have an HDTV but no HD films so I win.

MtlAngelus
21 Feb 2008, 07:55
Clearly you've never seen the two side-by-side. The quality improvement is most definitely comparable to the VHS-to-DVD jump.
But not in a very helpful way. I mean, VHS was downright horrible; they wore off pretty fast, horrible quality, rewind-fastforward was almost useless, and bad sound quality. DVD introduced great durability, great image quality, great sound, a menu interface, being able to skip chapters, additional content, etc. Now from DVD to HD, you just get better picture quality. I personally don't need any better picture quality than I get on DVD's. I can see everything clearly, and that's about all I need.

franpa
21 Feb 2008, 08:25
And space, so that's already two things as opposed to one the DVD had over the CD, and, like I said, look now. The Blue ray will eventually be the generic format once blu-ray players become cheap and games start being bigger and bigger, like it always happens, history tells us.
uh vcd is a cd, so dvd has more space AND better video quality over a cd and blu-ray has even more space and even better quality videos.
the theory that game companies will make games with **** loads of stuff is stupid. that is what everyone thought when Sonic CD was released till people played it and found it to not have that many more levels then a cartridge game at the time. they could have fit thousands of levels for Sonic CD on the disc.

MtlAngelus
21 Feb 2008, 09:23
the theory that game companies will make games with **** loads of stuff is stupid. that is what everyone thought when Sonic CD was released till people played it and found it to not have that many more levels then a cartridge game at the time. they could have fit thousands of levels for Sonic CD on the disc.
Um, maybe it didn't happen with the Sega CD, but using CD's for games did bring the ability to add more content to them. Currently, games do take a sh*tload of space, so offering a sh*tload of available space for them is a good idea. And I can most certainly assure you that the space will be used.

MrBunsy
21 Feb 2008, 11:48
I know HD versions of movie files being extremely popular in the torrent scene, so I suppose quite a few people own HD TVs or monitors, I do, for one.
Computer monitors have been 'hd' for years and years though.

franpa
21 Feb 2008, 13:23
Um, maybe it didn't happen with the Sega CD, but using CD's for games did bring the ability to add more content to them. Currently, games do take a sh*tload of space, so offering a sh*tload of available space for them is a good idea. And I can most certainly assure you that the space will be used.
games take a ****load of space because of "graphics" not because of "gameplay" and "levels". i base a games "size" on how much gameplay and the number levels it has to offer and not how gorgeous it looks.
anyone wanna play W:A?

*Splinter*
21 Feb 2008, 13:50
I mean, you don't even make any sort of attempt to explain why you think that.
Who made you the thought police? I dont have to explain myself to you people...

MrBunsy
21 Feb 2008, 14:31
games take a ****load of space because of "graphics" not because of "gameplay" and "levels". i base a games "size" on how much gameplay and the number levels it has to offer and not how gorgeous it looks.
anyone wanna play W:A?
Audio, textures, models and maps take up most of the space of 3D games. The biggest factor in how much space a game takes up is probably going to be the compression (if any) used.

yakuza
21 Feb 2008, 14:59
the theory that game companies will make games with **** loads of stuff is stupid.
Lol. It's not even a theory, it's a fact, see what that makes you. Just because people still play WA, or Peggle, or whatever, doesn't mean games don't weight more and more every year. Games are already on th 10GB margin and some games, including record breaking ones like WoW almost hit the 20s.
We can stand here arguing about the Blu Ray and HDTV, but most of the people against it are those who own neither or haven't even seen either. In the end, we will all use it, period.

Squirminator2k
21 Feb 2008, 15:37
But not in a very helpful way. I mean, VHS was downright horrible; they wore off pretty fast, horrible quality, rewind-fastforward was almost useless, and bad sound quality. DVD introduced great durability, great image quality, great sound, a menu interface, being able to skip chapters, additional content, etc. Now from DVD to HD, you just get better picture quality. I personally don't need any better picture quality than I get on DVD's. I can see everything clearly, and that's about all I need.
When you have a fairly large HDTV like we do, the difference is highly noticeable. It makes a real difference, believe me. For a comparison, if you have Worms 3D try running it in 320x240 for a while. When you're fed up of that, try running it in as close to your monitor's native resolution as possible (for me, that's 1440x900, which neither W3D or W4M actually support, so I use as near as I can get to that). There's a stark difference there, but it's comparable to the difference you get on a nice HDTV. Watching regular DVDs on that is akin to watching a VHS cassette on an old CRT SD television.
There are other advantages as well. DVD supports 5.1 surround, as does HD-DVD. But Blu-ray supports a whole bunch of other audio options (which, interestingly enough, are what take up more disc space - not the video). The menus and interface are coded using Java as well, which means that Blu-ray players are capable of doing much more interesting things using their menus. I'd be very interested to see some of the Extra Features we'll get on future Blu-ray discs, and I'm curious as to whether we'll start to see something vaguely approaching "applications" for Blu-ray. Not to mention that Internet-ready Blu-ray players such as the PS3 and most new Sony and Panasonic players will be able to access and download brand new additional content for your films. Imagine buying a film, being disappointed that a special feature was not included on, say, the CGI snow, and then discovering that such a feature has been made available two weeks after the film is released. Blam - download it, watch it, love it. Some Blu-ray films already come with damn near console-quality games on them...
I'm really impressed by what Blu-ray is capable of. It's definitely not just an improvement in picture quality, although that in itself is an impressive leap.

Plasma
21 Feb 2008, 19:11
Btw, as a reference point for arguments regarding if space is needed, The Orange Box (which includes HalfLife 2, HL2 Episode 1, HL2 Episode 2, Team Fortress 2 and Portal) takes up only 3.4 GB of the DVD its on, which leaves 30% of the DVD completely unmodified. Which looks to end both of Yakuza's points about how regular games are pushing the margin on the DVD memories and how game developers like to cram in as much stuff onto disks as they can (really though, I don't know where the heck he got that impression from!)

Squirminator2k
21 Feb 2008, 19:14
The disc for Heavenly Sword on the PS3 is choc full of content, and Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360 comes on four (count 'em!) DVDs.
Ah'm jes' sayin'.

yakuza
21 Feb 2008, 19:33
Btw, as a reference point for arguments regarding if space is needed, The Orange Box (which includes HalfLife 2, HL2 Episode 1, HL2 Episode 2, Team Fortress 2 and Portal) takes up only 3.4 GB of the DVD its on, which leaves 30% of the DVD completely unmodified. Which looks to end both of Yakuza's points about how regular games are pushing the margin on the DVD memories and how game developers like to cram in as much stuff onto disks as they can (really though, I don't know where the heck he got that impression from!)
3.4 GB? Lmao, only Episode 2 is already 4.2 or so GB, please double check your sources (OB is around 9 GB). But what exactly is your point? Are you really trying to debate that future games will not require more space? I mean, seriously, even if the OB was 3.4 GB, that's one game, my original point was that more space will eventually be needed and nowadays is already practical as hell (no one likes 4 DVDs for one game), and not something pointless like you seem to want to imply, seeing as most top notch next generation games already need the use of several DVDs, and game companies should never be limited by that.
Most new high production* games are already reaching the 8 GB mark, some surpass it, so really, please get a clue. It is an evolution change, films use better special effects, production costs are higher and higher, games will weight more, simple as.
*Gears of Wars, Stranglehold (12gb woopie doo), C&C 3, Splinter Cell, Kane Lynch, hell, even Viva Piñata takes 7 something GB out of a disc

Plasma
21 Feb 2008, 19:39
My scources? I'm realding it directly from...
Oh wait, crud, I forgot it comes on two DVDs. Nevermind.

MtlAngelus
21 Feb 2008, 20:11
My scources? I'm realding it directly from...
Oh wait, crud, I forgot it comes on two DVDs. Nevermind.
P wned .

SupSuper
21 Feb 2008, 21:37
That's still 2.5 games per DVD though. And dual-layer DVDs can store up to 9GBs.
Just because the space is there doesn't mean everyone immediatly jumps to the chance. PC games only adopted the CD by 1995 and the DVD by 2004, not counting the time until they actually used them all up without resorting to filler content. With consoles you have no choice but to use its only supported format, but for other media it'll still be a few years before a new format is universally used with the players and discs finally being reasonably priced and widespread among the market. Until then companies are happy to use multiple discs if it means cheaper manufacturing and a bigger market.
Fine, it's bigger, it's badder, it's better. But don't rush it, eventually we all will have HD goodness and not even remember what it was like before, and you won't have to steer threads off-topic just for petty arguing and showing off your pimping hardware.

yakuza
21 Feb 2008, 21:39
DVDs can get up to 17GB, but I believe those are more expensive to produce than Blu Rays
edit: V Weirdness. Well, I guess they're still more than 4 times more expensive to produce than a normal DVD?

Squirminator2k
21 Feb 2008, 21:40
Let me check with the Authoring team here at work.
Edit: According to my sources, a 17GB DVD is quad-layer, and they are marginally cheaper to produce than a standard Blu-ray disc.

franpa
22 Feb 2008, 04:20
Audio, textures, models and maps take up most of the space of 3D games. The biggest factor in how much space a game takes up is probably going to be the compression (if any) used.
a short game with awesome graphics and gameplay is not something i would like to fork over $$$ for.
a long game with average graphics and awesome gameplay is something i would fork over $$$ for.
music is also a large thing i consider when buying a game too.

MtlAngelus
22 Feb 2008, 06:49
a short game with awesome graphics and gameplay is not something i would like to fork over $$$ for.
a long game with average graphics and awesome gameplay is something i would fork over $$$ for.
music is also a large thing i consider when buying a game too.
Well I bet RPG's are gonna be epic on the PS3.

Squirminator2k
22 Feb 2008, 16:38
a short game with awesome graphics and gameplay is not something i would like to fork over $$$ for.
a long game with average graphics and awesome gameplay is something i would fork over $$$ for.
music is also a large thing i consider when buying a game too.
Game length doesn't bother me. So long as I enjoy the game, I'm happy. Portal was ridiculously short, for instance, and that was the single greatest game of 2007.

yakuza
22 Feb 2008, 16:49
I found Bioshock to be very short too, but I guess I just loved it too much.

Paul.Power
23 Feb 2008, 11:32
Lol. It's not even a theory, it's a fact, see what that makes you. Just because people still play WA, or Peggle, or whatever, doesn't mean games don't weight more and more every year. Games are already on th 10GB margin and some games, including record breaking ones like WoW almost hit the 20s.
We can stand here arguing about the Blu Ray and HDTV, but most of the people against it are those who own neither or haven't even seen either. In the end, we will all use it, period.But I don't want big massive games. They eat my hard drive (case in point: Supreme Commander, which at 8GB of hard disk space is about 200 times bigger than its spiritual predecessor, Total Annihilation. Also a case in point: the ridiculously bloated Sonic Mega Collection, which is 4GB of hard disk space for what is essentially a mediocre emulator, fifteen or so legal ROMs, some fancy menus and a bunch of other stuff that I don't really want).
"So get a new hard drive". Yeah, but it won't be too long before that gets eaten too. Especially if I stick with laptops.
Given the choice, I'd rather have a hundred good games from ten years ago that take up 100MB each (or heck, a thousand good games from fifteen years ago that take up 10MB each) than one good game from now or the near future that takes up 10GB.

Plasma
23 Feb 2008, 14:48
case in point: Supreme Commander, which at 8GB of hard disk space is about 200 times bigger than its spiritual predecessor, Total Annihilation.
Wow, really? Man, I'm glad I didn't pick that game up after all. I mean, this laptop only has 80GB (52 in one hard drive, 17 in the other) and it's only 1.5 years old and cost €1,000.
Heh, just a thought, but if games really were to use up that 20GB of Blu-ray memory, then I could hold an entire... two of those games on this computer!

SupSuper
23 Feb 2008, 19:25
But I don't want big massive games. They eat my hard drive (case in point: Supreme Commander, which at 8GB of hard disk space is about 200 times bigger than its spiritual predecessor, Total Annihilation.You better not try Forged Alliance then. :p
In any case, you'll be hard-pressed to find a game that isn't big and massive these days:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/supsuper/gaaaaaames.png

Muzer
23 Feb 2008, 20:14
Which program is that? Is it freeware?

MtlAngelus
23 Feb 2008, 20:24
My steam folder is 17 gb. :-/

SupSuper
23 Feb 2008, 22:12
Which program is that? Is it freeware?Well it's free for 30 days: http://www.tune-up.com/ :p

kikumbob
1 Mar 2008, 10:13
At the moment its as if computer games are ballooning faster than today's hard drive capacity will comfortably allow. Tomorrow, however (metaphorically) will see Terrabyte hard disks becoming the norm. The games just couldn't wait for tomorrow.
So soon, Paul, 8GB games should stop being a problem for you.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.