Wow, thanks. That really answered my questions. You found that pretty quick!

Yes.

I read it under the whole HD-DVD vs normal DVD debate.

I see.
Oh, Quez...
You...



forgot to mention the source again

I really don' t believe that. Most developers are completely happy with DVDs. Sony didn' t put the BluRay drive in for developers, they put it in to save their company. They know the gaming branch of their company is the only thing keeping them afloat. In order to make more money out of it they decided to force a new storage medium on the consumer through it. If they win the console war they have effectively forced a new storage medium on consumers whether they wanted it or not. If they control the new storage medium it helps to save their dying company. If you think they did it for consumers or developers you are way off.

If most developers are happy with the DVD, they can allways publish their product on DVD' s.

Sony as a company cannot live unless they are making money.
They have made a product wich they think is a medium wich they can sell content on, and that way gain royalties from that optic medium, they will need to get bluray disk-readers out on the market for that to happen.
Then they can start earning money to pay their bills and produce more new technology for us consumers.
Sony does also sell products on various other formats, therefore PS3 can read both CD, DVD, SACD, BD, so you as a consumer can play all those formats in your hardware.

The PS3 ain' t a product intended to rid the world of disease, or make the world a better place. It' s only function is to make money for Sony, just as XBox 360' s only function is to make money for Microsoft.

That dosn' t mean that the products can' t be used for other things.
You can still have fun playing both the consoles.

It seems there is a concensus on the net, Bluray is a trojan horse, however nobody questions who get the money on the compression-codecs used on the 360, are they free, or is that a different trojan horse?

If most developers are happy with the DVD, they can allways publish their product on DVD' s.

Someone once said that Sony is forcing the developers to put the games on Blu-ray. I don' t know if that' s correct.

the Reason Resistance is 22 Gigs is because one, they aren' t compressing, and two, because they just want to show off the Blu Ray for Sony. the game would look just as good if they compressed it and slapped it on a DVD. Resistance doesn' t look any better than CoD3 graphically and I doubt it' s going to be epically long so I' m not seeing how BR is an advantage with this game.

According to Ted Price at IGN:

The 20Gb debate

The second topic that has been surfacing a lot lately is our support of Blu-ray as a medium. Yes it is true - we are currently using more than 20 gigs. And yes, we do compress our level data. The fact that we store so much on disc is actually not that surprising when you look at the numbers. Consider that even with compression, each of our “levels” (or loaded areas) has more than 300 megs of unique data. And keep in mind that we’re also streaming data during level playthroughs. It doesn' t take too much level data before you' ve gone past what can be stored on a dual-layer DVD. And between single player and multiplayer we have a lot of level data (over 40 different large loaded areas) – yes, more than will fit on a dual layer DVD.

We also include a lot of data in the form of game movies in both HD and PAL formats, high quality audio streams for all supported languages and some of those Insomniac “extras” that our fans have come to expect.

I realize that some people will still be skeptical unless we provide an actual layout of the disc. But for now I wanted to give you some better info.

And according to Eurogamer.net; the E3 build of Resistance looked like CoD3 with aliens instead of Nazis.
But the TGS-build looked much better..
I dunno, I' ve just seen shaky-cams on both games..

I hope this will answer some of your questions. :)

Resistance FoM its over 22 GB and THEY ARE COMPRESING

Well, for one, if they are compressing it, they absolutely suck at compression. Again, if Oblivion can fit into 6.5 Gigs, Resistence can. Secondly, I played Resistence at E3. Back then it looked no better than CoD2, not CoD3. Right now from what I' ve seen it looks on par with CoD3.

Fernanindo compress doesn' t mean every file gets compressed to the same amount of size.

Its diffrent for diffrent hardware.
Perhaps Cell isn' t meant for compressing files,and with ps3 they skip compressing.

Nvm its still fucked up that its over 22 gb.
Something here is fishy.

yes there is a need for blu-ray, without a doubt...

How many times has there been a game that has had to leave out the japanese language track because they couldn' t fit it on... like Yakuza. More space, more options, it' s a positive feature, especially if you intend to get into hd movies.

As for cg in games, a 1080/720p game with what a 480 fmv sequence? and if they put hd cg on, they have to put a SD version on for those without HDTV.more space for more audio languages, more dialog time, sure oblivion had 50+ hours, how about the next shenmue or something as an example, maybe it' ll need 100+ hours or more, now that is possible and in japanese or english VO, maybe european voices too (doubt it though, but it could fit).

Im not saying blu-ray is essential, but i can see the bright side, and i like it.

Back then it looked no better than CoD2, not CoD3. Right now from what I' ve seen it looks on par with CoD3.

Are you trying to say cod 2 looks better then cod 3?

TBH have anyone here seen some nice big HD footage of COD3 yet?

I only seen some crap small videos.

Why would you need to compress it much when storage isnt a issue??

Read the post next time,compressed files leads to lesser pressaure on the ram.
That' s why its good to compress evben if you dont need it.

Well, for one, if they are compressing it, they absolutely suck at compression. Again, if Oblivion can fit into 6.5 Gigs, Resistence can. Secondly, I played Resistence at E3. Back then it looked no better than CoD2, not CoD3. Right now from what I' ve seen it looks on par with CoD3.

Ted Price, did say they were compressing it... So I guess we can operate under the assumption that they are, so there should not be a IF..

Weather it' s sucky compression, or just effective for their game, I have no idea..

Comparing Insomniacs Resistance, with Bethesda' s Oblivion, is stupid, because they do not use the same tools, it' s not the same people making it, and Insomniac is a much smaller studio.

Heck, Oblivion ain' t available yet on the same plattform, wich Insomniac has ever made a game on.

It' s basically the same as expecting that MS should make the next Windows on 800KB, because Commodore delivered a OS wich did basically the same on a different platform, so if Workbench fit a 800KB disk, it should be enough for Windows Vista aswell.

However there are room for improvement in Bethesda Softworks Oblivion aswell, forinstance...

One of the things I found very annoying were all the resirculated textures, and materials.

It were especially extremely obvious inside the Oblivion gates.

After I had done 3 Oblivion gates, I knew the layout on every single one (with the exception of the last), and I felt I had seen it all, there were absolutely no point in exploring them. So I put on my feather-armour, and just ran all the way up to the top ignoring all the enemies, and obstacles, and 1,5 minutes later I were closing the portal, on my way away from the area.

I also found it very annoying when you met persons who didn' t have their own body, and you could see the cut from where the neck-material should connect with the body-material.
Basically it happened with every two out of three female characther wich were dressed in a V-neck outfit. I' m not sure if it were bad procedural texturing, or if the characther just didn' t have their own body-textures, and were lending others textures, atleast I think it should have been done better. :-/

Otherwise it were a decent game, even tough I didn' t like the way levelling were pointless in the game. :-/

Read the post next time,

Too much work.

Sometimes I feel I have to grade you guys after reading those massive essay posts.

I also dislike them.

But if someone here write 1 sentence,you often get 10 questions back in the reply.

thus people tend to drag ou tthings...

Americans think that the price is steep, perhaps you can explain why?

That' s simply untrue, americans are perfectly fine with the price, we aren' t retards that just adopted DVD technology last year like most of europe, we keep up with the times. It' s easier for americans to accept the price because we aren' t so short-sided, like the typical clueless european that doesnt even know what bluray is. We understand 100% what we' re getting with the systems and realize it is actually a bargain. Hell, most of us think Sony is stupid for selling a next gen Movie player and Next Gen console combo for just $500, they could easily get away with more.

If you' re that poor making $500 a week then put it on a credit card and pay it off.

That' s simply untrue, americans are perfectly fine with the price, we aren' t retards that just adopted DVD technology last year like most of europe, we keep up with the times. It' s easier for americans to accept the price because we aren' t so short-sided, like the typical clueless european that doesnt even know what bluray is. We understand 100% what we' re getting with the systems and realize it is actually a bargain. Hell, most of us think Sony is stupid for selling a next gen Movie player and Next Gen console combo for just $500, they could easily get away with more.

If you' re that poor making $500 a week then put it on a credit card and pay it off.

You must mean short-sighted. Anyways the issue here is not the value of a ps3 because I think we can all agree it has good value especially with a BR player (even if many of us are disgusted with the DRM implementation of next gen media). The reason price of the ps3 is even a worthy topic of disscussion is because the competition is priced more competitively. If people belive that Wii or 360 is a better deal then ps3 will lose developer suport if they lose too much marketshare. Which begs the question, why should we buy the most expensive console if they are losing developer support? Not to mention the fact that Sony is ramming BR down our throats (why I' m not getting one).

At the same time I feel as though BR can only be good for games. You can compress a lot of data and have it fit on a DVD9 but that will degrade the quality and put more strain on the cpu as high compression methods use more proccessing power (this matters when you are streaming the data while playing).
I wish 360 had HD-DVD but it doesn' t because the tech wasn' t ready when MS wanted to release 360. I have no intention of supporting either format until they change their anti consumer protection methods. But having more space on a disc for games can' t possible be a bad thing. The HD-DVD add on is worthless for me if its not used for games. and their whole giving players a choice propaganda is bullshit, if HD-DVD was ready when they were designing 360 it would be in spec.