The PS3 is good for Blu-Ray, but, is Blu-Ray good for the PS3? - Page 5  

Amen brother.

I can understand the complains about game prices for the X360 and PS3, but I am not sure that either Microsoft or Sony could do anything about it. Both consoles are still expensive, which means there won't be a huge consumer market for these games for a while. On the other hand, games that really use x360 or Ps3 capabilities have between twice and four times the quality of art content, to keep up with increased resolutions, as well as more complex graphics engines, game engines and even audio. This means increased costs to produce these games(and remember that many game publishers are having money problems...). Somebody has to pay for it... :-(

Allan

It's all relative. The more the game costs, the more the developer has to work to convince me their game is worth spending my hard-earned money on. Whereas if the game cost less, more people might buy it on impulse.

Definitely good for PS3.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/153...21/index.jhtml
And Resistance: Fall of Man is a launch title. It will only increase.

good find

Having seen Untold Legends game play, it's just not that good. And not for $60+.

Wow. Guess we have our answer! That sounds awesome, especially once the big game studios step up to the plate with a game or two.

I could even see normal cross-platform games from the 360 ported to the PS3 having that stuff added in.

already happening, read up on the The Darkness

Considering the problems that the ps2 had with playing DVD's, Im sure that the ps3 will also share the same amount of problems considering that the ps3 is not dedicated blue ray player. However sony are pitching the ps3 to be doesn't change a thing, the ps3 is designed primarily for games, and I will question the quality of the ps3 blue ray player. If the samsung player is anything to go by; then this will not be a pleasant christmas for the ps3 and blue ray.

I would like to know exactly what is making Resistance: Fall of Man 22GB. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, a MASSIVE game with no FMV, is only 5GB. The later Myst games got up to 8GB, but they had a ton of FMV.

I've seen footage of Resistance: Fall of Man, and it doesn't look as good as Oblivion. So, where, exactly, is that 22 GB going? Does it have an hour's worth or more of HD FMV?

Somehow the MTV article has been updated to give more specific breakdown
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/153...21/index.jhtml
So most likely 22GB are huge graphics resources such as textures which contain many, many variations, if not super detailed. Games like oblivion use the same graphics data repeatedly.

sloppy programmers trying to justify the needed space

marketting, that's sony for ya

Insomniac Games has a history of making great games (some of the highest rated games) :D I doubt many people in the business would consider them sloppy programmers ;)

about them:

http://www.insomniacgames.com/about.html

sadly, you seem to have already fallen for the marketting hype, again

Don't be sad, I'm quite happy the game is shaping up quite well. It was playable at E3 and recieved great feed back :D

Don't be left out in the cold :cool:

It's a generic FPS in every respect.

Have you ever read a poor preview of a game? LOL!


More on the Sony use 22gb marketting ploy/hype.

http://digg.com/gaming_news/Resistan..._Be_Over_22_GB

To each his own. I like FPS's :)

Yes, I have read plenty of poor previews on many games ;)

FYI, Insomniac does not equal Sony ;)

Yup, some fall for the hype. :rolleyes:

What's further shocking about all this is that it doesn't really even look better than Half Life 2. So if you need that much space to create a good looking PS2 game, well, that's just a joke. But them I am not a fanboy of sony and buy very little of what they say.

Sounds cool. Excited to play huge games next gen. Epic's VP also stated they have a 20+GB game in development for PS3 a while back, I think it was UT2007... and several other developers have stated that DVD will be a limitation for next gen so I'm not surprised that even at launch we will see a 22GB game. Exciting times! Can't wait to see how developers creatively utilize all that space.

Yup, it's only the beginning. Just think of 1st gen PS2 and xbox games compared to games later along on the consoles :D

That 22gb is uncompressed. A 360 game uncompressed would take up the same amount of space. Also that game is called Resistance:the fall of man and isnt nearly as great as you would think imo. Screens available at playsyde if you want to take a look.
On the plus side having uncompressed code (as long as it isnt lazy programming) will definitly be a plus for the ps3. This allows the processors to not have to decompress the code freeing up some processing power. Unfortunately the ps3 architecture of split ram will most likely negate this positive sicne you will only have 256mb for textures. See said game for ugly textures, or pretty much any ps3 launch game imo. See dead rising on 360 for good textures, GRAW, Fight Night.

Went to Sears today to pick up a new cable and yukked it up with the sales guy (actually a 20 year old kid).
We got into games and he filled me in on the details of the upcoming gaming systems. His personal view was the wii was going to crush the PS3 sales. His biggest issue was the cost (says the $500 isn't really an option, it's either the $600 or nothing), and his biggest issue was the price of the games ~$80. Apparently he's not the only one as he said his friends wouldn't be buying either.
When I pressed him about it's abilities to play Blu-ray, he said his plan was to get the add-on since he already has the 360. I told him, not a bad idea since it's probably goign to be in the $200 range. Not a bad price for an HD player.
This is only one gamers perspective, but I wonder if this more common in other parts of the country?

I work for EB Games, and I've talked to several people about the BD/HD situation. Not one person has been excited specifically about the PS3 playing BD. They simply mention it as another feature. The people who want the HD add-on, though, are very vocal and can't wait for it. The PS3 people just want the games. The 360 people already have the games, and want that add-on.

Everything you've stated -- with the sole exception of a single opinionated comment (ie. "ugly textures") -- is comprehensively wrong.

Something to contemplate is that when you work with uncompressed data, the systems relative bandwidth shrinks by the reciprocal of the compression ratio. Just because you have the room to store data uncompressed (a comment, which, in itself, is wrong) doesn't imply that you would, could, or should. In reality, the PlayStation3 is quite balanced and inline with PS2’s ratios; it's the competition which is so unbalanced by its use of DVD that the comparison makes it look relatively skewed.

Several problems here:

(1) There is

no global downside to compression on PS3. The RSX has hardwired functionality to decompress S3TC|DXTx at a speed which can saturate the cache; to not use it is unheard of.

(2) RSX has hardwired logic, to not use it is wasting gates. Cell rips threw compressed data; the types of decompression that are applicable here constitute a fraction of a frame's processing time.

(3) PlayStation 3's memory architecture is NUMA-like, from the perspective of each processor; there is 512MB of RAM. It appears as a logically unified 512MB, but with a preformance differential between each pool's access speeds. The RSX can store and fetch textures from all available RAM pools. Just to demonstrate how off-base your comment was, there are cases in which frame buffer access saturates the GDDR bandwidth and textures are stored and streamed from the XDR over FlexIO.

Current games, due to storage constraints (both RAM and Disc), utilize the same models and textures to exploit the periodicity, the repetition, as a form of data compression. So current games use the same models over and over, the same textures are repeated thought every level, etc.

The new trend is toward unique game entities and variation in the game world. Ken Perlin was a significant early figure in this (Perlin Noise, Hypertextures), and more recently John Carmack has been vocal with his Megatexture technology. Perlin's work is great at what it does and quite space efficient, but function derived randomness - while good for organic entities - is horrendous for creating the man-made entities that compose most of the game world. These things need to be defined in a set-piece manner and require explicit space, and BD gives developers the space they need. 20GB is not going to be near the upperbound of what a developer can do.

I wouldn't criticize Resistance: FoM untill you play it or see it on HDTV first hand. Oblivion and it's cookie-cutter, repetitious, environments don't hold a candle to what I've seen.

I have read a lot about this game and nowhere have I read that this game is uncompressed except for in the minds of people that seem to hate the PS3.

Do you have any proof that this 22GB is "uncompressed?" Please share with the board. You stated very clearly "That 22GB is uncompressed." Not "it's likely" or "I think"---you stated something as a fact. I'd like to see you back this up. Otherwise you just lied to us.

That's assuming that the developer is stupid enough to load all level textures into main memory rather than stream new data into RAM as you play, like most games are built these days.

Also neither you nor I have seen what launch PS3 games look like yet. For that we'll just have to wait. It's unbelievable to me that you are comparing 360 games that are already out to games that are in development and not even out yet. How the heck does that work.

And why would the consumers interested in purchasing a PS3 be excited about the BD? It comes WITH the system. They'll get excited when they have the system in hand and realize they can now go out and buy Blu-Ray movies along with their PS3 games (hopefully PQ will be on par with HD-DVD movies by then, if not, Sony has another UMD on their hands, only useful for their games).

Oh and PLEASE link me to the source for the information indicating that european retailers actually got finalized prices for PS3 games. I find that to be complete and utter rubbish.

Well considering he wouldnt be getting a standalone HD-DVD player and that he already spent $399 on the 360 Premium system, its a rather HORRIBLE price for an HD-DVD player. And Nintendo will have shortages just the same. Aparrently it seems to have become a common occurrance to assume that lower price point = no shortages. Sure Nintendo has more "cash" to spare on creating a bigger output from their Wii manufacturers, but if the DS shortage in Japan is any indication, the popularity of the Wii will cause it to experience shortages just the same. Which basically means it's pretty much impossible for Wii to actually "crush" Sony unless the PS3 completely bombs. At least not this year.
Regarding the price of PS3 games, DONT expect them to be that expensive. As much as consumers are willing to pay for hardware (see Ipod sales), software price hikes are generally VERY looked down upon by the average consumer, especially if its such a drastic price differential between other systems games. At the MOST, expect the prices for aptly named "killer-app" titles to be at 69.99, and the rest to fall in line with Xbox360 game pricing. Remember that Katuragi ALSO said prior that PS3 games would be more expensive than the current prices for PS2 games, and many PS2 games are now going for $40.

Please, please do not use white or yellow text as some of us like to use the AVS White color scheme.

Hey, look, an invisible post!

First time for everything; problem solved.