Support NeoGAF

[Enigma]

I'd just like to expand on my point: I'm operating on the assumption that polygons take up very little space (This was the way interviews always seemed to treat the matter).

So let's examine HL2. HL2 and CS:Source can both fit on a single-layer DVD. It's cut scenes are way more natural than any crappy CG (And next-gen consoles should be a significant boost on the graphical powers). And the textures in HL2 are most definetely high-resolution. Just because you're potentially supporting 1920*1080 doesn't mean your textures are insane (Screen resolution and texture resolution are independent after-all. Increasing screen resolution has zero effect on texture sizes). Consoles have always been more about polygons than textures and looking at the rumored RAM amounts for both Xenon and PS3, I severely doubt consoless are gonna be trouncing today's high-end PC games in that category. And HL2 was huge. So it's not like this was a small game that explained the small storage size.

Now would I love the Xenon to support HD-DVD? Hell yeah! If DVD playback is comparative to a stand-alone player, this is a huge incentive to purchase. And especially if PS3 supports BR-DVD playback. Sony is gonna really clobber them in mind-share if there cheap little console can play HD DVDs out of the box. Hell, NEC should get their head out of their you-know-what and cut MS a deal on this. Because if they don't have a vehicle to get HD-DVD in homes in-mass before PS3 launches, this format is gonna be DOA.

 

[kaching]

Or the developers could just harness the power of these next-gen beasts and do the cut- scenes with in-game engines. It seems to me the concept has outlived it's usefullness. Why create this jarring effect when in-game will be beautiful if you have any kind of engine what- so-ever? This alone would greatly reduce the needs on storage and even with high resolution textures, would probably make DL DVDs enough. Plus it would eliminate a huge money-sucker.

Assuming one's ambitions for the cutscenes aren't too significant, I'm sure this will continue to be an explored option, just like it is now. But doing a real-time cutscene means you now have to think about optimizing it just like the rest of your game. Or do you want people complaining excessively about how the framerate of your cutscenes "slow to a crawl" or have excessive geometry/detail pop-in? And unless you plan on 100% recycling of in-game objects, textures, animations, sounds and so forth in those real-time cutscenes, there's still additional storage overhead associated with them, and it could be significant. It really depends on how much you want to do with your cutscenes and how much that deviates from what you are already doing in the game engine, because it may turn out that pre-rendering the cutscense may just save you a lot of hassle.

 

[teh_pwn]

"So let's examine HL2. HL2 and CS:Source can both fit on a single-layer DVD. It's cut scenes are way more natural than any crappy CG (And next-gen consoles should be a significant boost on the graphical powers). And the textures in HL2 are most definetely high-resolution. Just because you're potentially supporting 1920*1080 doesn't mean your textures are insane (Screen resolution and texture resolution are independent after-all. Increasing screen resolution has zero effect on texture sizes). Consoles have always been more about polygons than textures and looking at the rumored RAM amounts for both Xenon and PS3, I severely doubt consoless are gonna be trouncing today's high-end PC games in that category. And HL2 was huge. So it's not like this was a small game that explained the small storage size."


Whoa, you can't compare console games to PC games. PC games are installed to harddrives and have much more resources to decompress things realtime.

Furthermore, Half Life 2 is not representive of next gen console games. There's no CG movies. There's hardly any music. The poly count and textures are somewhere between Xbox and PS3 (closer to the later, but still).

 

[GXAlan]

I mean, people talk about not having CG cutscenes, but as long as Square-Enix and Blizzard's CG teams are as good as they are, there's still a role for nice looking cutscenes.
It depends on the game. For some games it would be intrusive, for others, it's a cool break. As good as the latest real-time demos from ATI and NVIDIA are, pre-rendered is still better.

Even then, there's still a role for higher-resolution textures, richer surround sound experiences, etc.

Geometry can be big.

http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/217797/Action/FullPreview

 

[cybamerc]

kaching:

> And unless you plan on 100% recycling of in-game objects, textures, animations,
> sounds and so forth in those real-time cutscenes, there's still additional storage
> overhead associated with them, and it could be significant.

But it's still likely to be significantly less than video.

> because it may turn out that pre-rendering the cutscense may just save you a lot of
> hassle.

If you're just capturing stuff running on the game engine sure. But that's just lazy. If you're doing Square style FMV clips, no.

 

[Panajev2001a]

kaching:

> And unless you plan on 100% recycling of in-game objects, textures, animations,
> sounds and so forth in those real-time cutscenes, there's still additional storage
> overhead associated with them, and it could be significant.

But it's still likely to be significantly less than video.

You also forgot dummy data/repeated data developers put to improove transfer rates and access time reducing the laser head's going back and forth to gather data that happens not to be continuously laid out on the disc, which can happen: think about a big level which uses objects that reside on an inner track while most of the other data is on an outer track... you want to reduce this phenomenon.

 

[teh_pwn]

teh_pwn:

> So developers should expend more resources on compressing games when a more
> viable media is available?

Like I said, no system is perfect. If it's not the media it's something else. Developers are used to this.

Granted that no system is perfect, developers are not used to being forced to compress things. Look at gamecube games. They have video scenes completely taken out, and the ones that remain don't look as good as PS2/Xbox ones.

> That means games need video in 1920x1024.

1080p is 1920x1080. Even so 1080p is not guaranteed to become standard. Xbox developers seem to think 720p will be the norm... on Xbox 2 at least.

Also, I don't see the need for massive amounts of video in general.

You're completely ignoring developers that do need the space for massive video, like Square Enix.

> Sure you can compress this, but that means degrading the video quality.

Development is all about making tradeoffs.

Not to this extent in compression. Forcing DVDs would be like forcing GC discs next gen.

> Compression that high would be disgusting at that resolution.

http://www.wmvhd.com

To be honest, I'm not familiar with this...

> And guess what has the decompress that stuff? The processor does, so game
> performance takes a hit too.

So with the money saved on the disc drive M$ throws in a more powerful processor. Tradeoffs.

Spending $20 on a disc drive would take you much farther than having $20 on a processor that has to decompress hundreds of MB of data realtime.

> Why the hell would console makers be spending so lavishly on hardware, and then use
> DVDs the cripple it?

Because a DVD doesn't cripple anything. It just provides another set of challenges.

Call it what you want, but it creates more expenses for developers and crappier games for us.

> Are you telling me that 6.1 DTS is going to take as much space pro logic 2 audio?
> Please explain.

The encoding is done in realtime. A sample is the same size whether its outputted in stereo or surround.

I don't think that's true. DTS has a much higher quality bit rate and will take more memory.

 

[lexi]

Most people here are pulling figures from their collective asses. So High-res textures are introduced and suddenly we need 25gb capacity discs?

UT2004 and HL2 at 1600x1200 and the games don't even eclipse 5gb.

 

[teh_pwn]

"Most people here are pulling figures from their collective asses. So High-res textures are introduced and suddenly we need 25gb capacity discs?

UT2004 and HL2 at 1600x1200 and the games don't even eclipse 5gb."

Are the textures really 1600x1200? Who's pulling figures?

Again, you can't compare Half Life 2 to next gen consoles games. It has almost zero music, no CG, at least half the polycount, and the textures are lower res. If you walk next to a wall, you see pixels all over the textures. THey aren't that high.

Furthermore, HL2 is installed to a HD, has much more RAM and relative CPU power for the game to decompress (not sure if this game does, but Doom3 does, and just about any new PC games does.)

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Leaked specs and some other rumblings have suggested that they might stay with DVD for the next round.

So far, that's what it's looking like. As a whole, it doesn't matter. Sony will push Blu-ray, Nintendo will go with either HD-DVD or regular DVD, or some lame proprietary format.

The money saved by pressing a game that can fit on a single Blu-ray disk might be offset by the cost just manufacturing. So, using HD-DVDs might be cheaper.

But overall, with compression and such, I don't think storage medium, as long as it's a standard, should be a problem.

The problem is which will consumers support, Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, which might have a slight effect on your buying choice if you use your system to watch movies.

 

[Izzy]

Just checked out the XBox 2 specs - let me type out what it says about storage medium:

-9.4 GB capacity
-~7-16.6 MB/s R(track dependent)
-~115 ms avg. - 180 ms typical max access time(seek distance and rotational latency dependent)

Doesn't sound like a HD-DVD to me...

 

[btrboyev]

the only reason Sony is going to use BR is because they invested quite a lot of money into it and they want to push the format and its probably the best way to do it. DVD is large enough and cheap enough for videogames. Most devlopers would agree that 25GB is a little excessive..they inturn have to find a way to use up that much disc space, other wise its just wasted. By the way, I'd like to think CG cut scenes will not be needed next gen.

 

[cybamerc]

Panajev2001a:

> You also forgot dummy data/repeated data developers put to improove transfer rates
> and access time reducing the laser head's going back and forth to gather data that
> happens not to be continuously laid out on the disc

These things are difficult to quantify. It's the developer's job to make things fit. It's always been that way and they're used to it.

Noone's arguing that more space is a bad thing but a hardware developer's job is to make the best possible system at a certain cost. Noone's gonna throw in a HD-DVD or BRD drive just for the hell of it.


teh_pwn:

> developers are not used to being forced to compress things.

Even if you were right (which you're not) that doesn't mean a thing. New hardware introduces new challenges. It's a developer's job to adapt.

> You're completely ignoring developers that do need the space for massive video, like
> Square Enix.

No. Like I said, a few titles may need the extra storage space. That said, Square Enix has been exploring realtime cinematics as a way to save money. I think the vast majority of Square Enix' next-gen offerings will use realtime cinematics. Even if they're still mostly tied up with Sony.

> To be honest, I'm not familiar with this...

You don't know how to click on a link?

> Spending $20 on a disc drive would take you much farther than having $20 on a
> processor that has to decompress hundreds of MB of data realtime.

You know what they say about assumptions...

> I don't think that's true.

Well it is.

 

[lexi]

Your argument may have merit if this wasn't for the PC. Having to code for an all-encompassing bloated API should be taken into account, with consoles the process is much more streamlined, even with the Xbox and DX7/8. (I don't know if the Xbox GPU has any DX8 instructions.)

There is no way that the 1st or 2nd generation PS3 games will even use a BR disc, and when they finally do work their way into developement, they will most likely be filled with uncompressed audio, FMV and possibly redundant code (From the less afluent developers).

The ceiling is being artificially raised, unnecessarily at that, and it will only drive costs about for the developer, publisher and in the end, the consumer.

 

[Panajev2001a]

the only reason Sony is going to use BR is because they invested quite a lot of money into it and they want to push the format and its probably the best way to do it. DVD is large enough and cheap enough for videogames. Most devlopers would agree that 25GB is a little excessive..they inturn have to find a way to use up that much disc space, other wise its just wasted. By the way, I'd like to think CG cut scenes will not be needed next gen.

Space can be used for content: more geometry, more textures, higher resolution FMVs, more sound channels and higher quality music, etc...

Transfer-rate with BD-ROM is higher than with DVD.

Again, space can be used to allow transfer rates closer to peak ones resulting in a reduction of loading times.

Blu-Ray is a good marketing tool to promote PlayStation 3 with.

I want to have 1080i movies soon .

 

[Duckhuntdog]

damn, that would suck. i would be tempted to just wait on PS3 then, especially if MS also opts out of a hard drive and backwards compatability (like it was rumored awhile back - or has that changed also?). anyhow, that would be a deal breaker for me. i want either HD-DVD or BRD for sure.

I forsee a PS3 and or Rev in your future then, because so far Xbox 2 does none of the above out of the box that you want, so far.

The Xbox 2 isn't about power folks, it's about one thing, making money. If it makes money, MS will continue, if it doesn't, they will pull the plug and hock XNA to console developers. To paraphrase Reggie, "One company doesn't care what platform you develop for, just as long as you use their software to do it with."

 

[kaching]

But it's still likely to be significantly less than video.

So hook us up with some numbers, since that's the thing most lacking in this thread directed to developers.

Let's say we have a 30 second cutscene to be displayed at 720p and 30fps that won't be able to recycle much from the game-engine other than the character models - locations, dialogue, general sound enviroment and scripted actions are different. How significant is the space savings likely to be by doing it in real-time vs. encoding it as high-quality MPEG4 video that makes it virtually indistinguishable from the realtime approach?

If you're just capturing stuff running on the game engine sure. But that's just lazy.

Or just pressed for time/resources.

If you're doing Square style FMV clips, no.

So you're saying its less than or equal hassle to try to wrestle a game engine into doing something smoothly that it's not designed to do in-game vs. simply render a frame? If you're going to invoke "Square style FMV clips" then I assume you're talking segments that contain content significantly beyond the capabilities of the game engine.

 

[Kleegamefan]

You know, there is a certain amout of mis-truths concerning the costs of HD-DVD vs. BRD that REALLY need to be addressed.....the BRD group is doing a Bad, Bad job at this, IMO..

some interesting facts as noted by Richard Doherty from Panasonic Hollywood Labs

Disc prices are still to be determined, but I can certainly tell you in no uncertain terms that the bill of materials for the playback devices are nearly identical(for Blu-ray and HD-DVD). The expensive bit is the blue laser diode, which both formats require. While the ultimate retail price is based on a number of factors, basically there is no difference in cost to actually build the players of either format.(Blu-ray and HD-DVD)

Note also that it is much cheaper to make a Blu-ray recorder than a HD-DVD recoder, since HD-DVD recorders require significantly higher power blue lasers. )

For Blu-ray disc recorders, the delta is small between a recorder and a playback-only device. Most of the cost delta is in things like integrated tuners and more input connectors. I predict (though I cannot speak for all manufacturers) that most of the Blu-ray devices available at launch will have both playback and record functionality built in.

Contrast to HD-DVD, where not only do they have the same delta based on integrated tuners, but they also require a much higher power laser, which can be significantly more expensive. Indeed, it's not even clear the high power lasers (we're talking like 100 mW for dual layer) can yet be mass produced at any reasonable cost. NEC has stated publicly their HD-DVD computer drives will only be used for playback, and public statements from Toshiba suggest the same approach.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=411600&perpage=20&pagenumber=143

HD-DVD, due to the smaller spot size, will be more susceptible to any surface materials than DVD. So if they fail to compensate either by a change in cover material, and/or an enhancement of the ECC, they will be at a disadvantage.

I know what you're looking for in regards to guarantees of replication, but I'm only representing the format. And it doesn't help that I'm from Panasonic, since Panasonic doesn't do ROM disc replication anymore.

All I can offer is what is in the spec -- the spec clearly specifies test tolerances and measurements for hardness (using pin impact measurements) and for scratch resistance (using taber abrasion tests), among others, and discusses recommendations for hard coating to meet these test requirements.

In other words: for a disc to meet the specs, it will need to be more robust than DVD, whatever the method employed.

If you go to CES, you can see several examples of BD-ROM discs from several companies. Let us know if your fingerprints stick to them.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=411600&perpage=20&pagenumber=159


While it is true HD-DVD is physically very close to DVD and it *is* easy to switch production lines between the two (5-10 min., I believe) there are some other issues that should be addressed as well concerning the HD-DVD cost "advantage"


P.S. Every single HD-DVD and BRD hardware product will also play CDs and DVDs

 

[Midas]

For Blu-ray disc recorders, the delta is small between a recorder and a playback-only device. Most of the cost delta is in things like integrated tuners and more input connectors. I predict (though I cannot speak for all manufacturers) that most of the Blu-ray devices available at launch will have both playback and record functionality built in.

That's interesting...

 

[Joe]

this could be dreamcast-cd/ps2-dvd all over again.

dont do it MS.

 

[Mrbob]

I think it is already being done...

If Xbox 2 is going to be the cost efficient model, what are the chances of it launching at $199?

Is it a big issue to switch discs? I haven't done it in years, but with RE4 I actually found it a little annoying to swap out discs. I'm sure I can get used to it again if I have too. Developers can always add a second disc for Xbox 2 games to add another 9 gigs of data on. Would you mind if you had to switch discs mid game in Halo 3?

 

[Shogmaster]

Your argument may have merit if this wasn't for the PC. Having to code for an all-encompassing bloated API should be taken into account, with consoles the process is much more streamlined, even with the Xbox and DX7/8. (I don't know if the Xbox GPU has any DX8 instructions.)

NV2A in XBox does DX8.1 shaders.

this could be dreamcast-cd/ps2-dvd all over again.

dont do it MS.

I don't buy that for a second. Every potential DC/PS2 buyers in 1999~2000 had TV sets that could fully utilize the benefits of a DVD resolution (480i). Not even 1/20th of potential Xenon/PS3 buyers in 2005~2006 will have TV sets that will fully utilize resolutions of HD-DVD of Blu-ray video playback (720p/1080p).

 

[cybamerc]

kaching:

> So hook us up with some numbers, since that's the thing most lacking in this thread
> directed to developers.

Why don't you provide the numbers yourself?

> Let's say we have a 30 second cutscene to be displayed at 720p and 30fps that won't be
> able to recycle much from the game-engine other than the character models

What does an arbitrary example prove? In all likelihood you're not going to have just 30 second of cinematics in a game.

> So you're saying its less than or equal hassle to try to wrestle a game engine into doing
> something smoothly that it's not designed to do in-game vs. simply render a frame?

An engine can't do something it's not designed for. Well, it can but that's called a bug. Anyway, of course it's easier to have the engine render every frame to disc and not worry about framerate. Assuming that there are performance issues to worry about. But it's also very unambítious. Why shouldn't cutscenes be held up to the same standards as the rest of game? Either do it right or don't do it at all.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Format will matter for one reason, the PS3 will have BRD. That doesn't mean devs have to use BRDs. As mentioned countless times, BRD is bc with DVD. So devs can use DVD-9's until the cows come home, but WHEN they need more capacity, they'll have the option of printing BRDs. So there's no realistic increase in cost *unless* devs decide they need the increased capacity. OTOH, a Xenon with just a DVD drive won't have such an option. Will disc swapping be a big deal? I don't see it. But it gives Sony and the PS3 a trump card that will be latched onto by all the gaming press, and promoted heavily by Sony. It will once against pretty much lock everyone out of Japan (who love technology), which could be problematic once again. FWIW, Japan's still quite important in the grand scheme of things. I don't think MS would be stupid enough to give Sony a freebie like this. I expect Xenon to BRD or HD-DVD compatible. PEACE.

 

[cybamerc]

Pimpwerx:

> As mentioned countless times, BRD is bc with DVD.

No it's not. DVD uses a red laser while BRD uses a blue laser. Just because the player has a red laser in addition to the blue one doesn't mean the format is backwards compatible.

 

[sonycowboy]

Pimpwerx:

> As mentioned countless times, BRD is bc with DVD.

No it's not. DVD uses a red laser while BRD uses a blue laser. Just because the player has a red laser in addition to the blue one doesn't mean the format is backwards compatible.

The BRD specification for players, is that they *MUST* be backwards compatible with DVD & CD, so regardless of if they must use multiple lasers, EVERY SINGLE BRD player will read DVD/CD.

I am also unsure that your interpretation is correct. I believe that I've seen interviews where it was stated that the Blue Laser should be able to read DVD/CD information, although the pickup angles and other technical aspects are required to make it work.

Finally, HD-DVD uses a Blue Laser as well, so I really don't know what you're trying to compare it against.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So there's the talk that HD-DVD will be too expensive for MS to use in late 2005. Can anyone estimate what their per-unit savings could be for a decision like this? And going even further into guessworld, what kind of savings they would still be having per unit in 2010?

 

[Odnetnin]

well, nothing to say about the storage medium per say but this:

if sony goes BRD; it will rip them a new a*hole in terms of costs and between this and psp; I see them getting into a mite of trouble if they don't come up as number 1.


Already mentioned but I think the format really doesn't matter - how much space do you need? I think a DVD5-9 are still largely sufficient - when it comes down to it - how many developers can fully utilise a full disc ; which in turn means they'll have to spend big to make a AAA tier PS3 game. If they spend like 40 million on 1 game to get it looking as photorealistic/good/stunning as they can; and then get the assets up to scratch to fit the BLUERAY disc - I'll tell you this; they'd want it to sell big

I see storage as less of an issue than production/costs for developers. Its more about keeping costs on par with development because ultimately storage is the cheap end of town

 

[sonycowboy]

So there's the talk that HD-DVD will be too expensive for MS to use in late 2005. Can anyone estimate what their per-unit savings could be for a decision like this? And going even further into guessworld, what kind of savings they would still be having per unit in 2010?

I don't think we can reasonably speculate at this point. I could easily see the HD-DVD group giving Microsoft a break on licensing. However, given that the first player is going to be ~$1000 late 2005, I can't believe that the cost at that point could be any lower than $500 and I would expect it to be a bit higher.

 

[Gazunta]

(Insert my usual "I am not a programmer / artist, just a designer / producer" disclaimer)

It doesn't make a lick of difference what format is used to be honest. DVD is plenty of enough room. Heck the GC disc format was plenty enough room but GC is a bitch to work with because of the stupidly small amount of RAM and the stupidly expensive machines you need to buy to burn discs for it with. If you want to look at why developers want to shy away from GC dev, look right there. Hopefully Revolution will use an open format that anyone can make builds for to test with, not just two or three people in the office...uh I'm getting sidetracked. Sorry.

So short answer:

The storage medium doesn't matter. The content does

 

[teh_pwn]

> developers are not used to being forced to compress things.

Even if you were right (which you're not) that doesn't mean a thing. New hardware introduces new challenges. It's a developer's job to adapt.

You keep saying that the developer needs to adapt. But why would they needlessly adapt to limitations when an obvious solution is there? Why force developers to spend more money and time?

> To be honest, I'm not familiar with this...

You don't know how to click on a link?

No, I just don't learn about stuff from ads.

> Spending $20 on a disc drive would take you much farther than having $20 on a
> processor that has to decompress hundreds of MB of data realtime.

You know what they say about assumptions...

It's more common sense. $20 more on a processor as complex as Cell would not give you leaps and bounds in power. However, avoiding tons of decompression by making your capacity larger would make a difference. It may not be $20 at first, but Sony will bring the price down, and will profit from software sales. That's how their Playstation market works.

> I don't think that's true.

Well it is.

I think that's bullshit. Give me a link showing that DTS 6.1 or Dolby 6.1 audio takes no more space than Prologic 2.

It doesn't make a lick of difference what format is used to be honest. DVD is plenty of enough room. Heck the GC disc format was plenty enough room but GC is a bitch to work with because of the stupidly small amount of RAM and the stupidly expensive machines you need to buy to burn discs for it with.

Heh, no way. GC's discs were way too small. The hit in audio and video was obvious.

 

[cybamerc]

Gazunta:

> GC is a bitch to work with because of the stupidly small amount of RAM and the stupidly
> expensive machines you need to buy to burn discs for it with.

Eh... I don't think developers in general have more issues the low amount of RAM on GC than PS2. Also, a the price of a GC dev kit is comparable to PS2 dev kits AFAIK. Developers don't burn GameCube optical discs. Various emulation tools are available.

 

[Foobar]

foobar, of course BRD players can read DVD. duh.

wow, thanks for answering my question without being a complete dick.

 

[arhra]

I think that's bullshit. Give me a link showing that DTS 6.1 or Dolby 6.1 audio takes no more space than Prologic 2.

A prerecorded dolby/DTS stream would of course take more space, but the nextgen platforms should all be capable of doing realtime mixing and encoding of a dolby/DTS stream for in-game audio, leaving prerecorded streams only for prerendered cutscenes and the like. <insert rehash of prerendered video versus in-engine cinematics argument here>. The actual samples used for in-game audio shouldn't need to be any larger than they currently are.

 

[Gazunta]

Gazunta:

> GC is a bitch to work with because of the stupidly small amount of RAM and the stupidly
> expensive machines you need to buy to burn discs for it with.

Eh... I don't think developers in general have more issues the low amount of RAM on GC than PS2. Also, a the price of a GC dev kit is comparable to PS2 dev kits AFAIK. Developers don't burn GameCube optical discs. Various emulation tools are available.

We don't burn GC optical discs? Oh, ok. I must have been imagining the ones in the office.

And I'll let our level editors know that 24mb = 32mb now. Thanks! This is gonna be great!

 

[Odnetnin]

We don't burn GC optical discs? Oh, ok. I must have been imagining the ones in the office.

And I'll let our level editors know that 24mb = 32mb now. Thanks! This is gonna be great!

gazunta...aside from TY the kangeroo.. what else have you guys worked on?

 

[Drek]

I'm betting publishers (the guys who really choose, not developers) will prefer BR over DVD for next gen. Why?

Blu-Ray only has one negative for publishers, increased production cost on <9.4gb titles. Comparatively, it gives a performance edge, has stronger protection from piracy (BIG deal here), and has more room for future expansion. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Sony do much like what they did this generation and allow developers to release early games on DVDs to keep initial costs down, but as they get a year or two into the generation developers will be coming up to the 9.4GB line more and more frequently so most all major studios will have changed over to BR.

What they'll fill the disc with to cross the 9.4gb line is anyone's guess. Larger, more scaled worlds, higher res textures, etc. obviously, also, anyone hoping for no CG cut scenes next gen is doing to be disapointed. No matter what we have for gaming hardware the CG for that time will always be able to beat it (until we hit 100% realistic real time graphics), so you'll still have companies out there that'll use the eye candy bonus of CG in their games. Square Enix is one supporter who'll likely never give up CG.

In the end the biggest draw will be increased piracy protection. Every publisher out there wants it and if MS stays with standard DVD they'll suffer for it.

 

[mrklaw]

bluray Vs standard DVD is a big potential PR win for Sony on a couple of fronts:

- They get to trumpet how theirs is bigger than MS. Not a big deal, but another punch on the arm. Depending how many punches Sony have, MS could have a dead arm real quick.

- Probably more importantly, much more space encourages devs to use it. Most likely for hires cutscenes, more music etc. And the liklihood is that PS3 will be the lead SKU next gen for historical reasons. So Square, Rockstar etc fill up Blurays with gorgeous cutscenes or the entire back catalogue of EMI records. Then MS ask for a port. Oops.

No matter how good the port is, if it has to be 'squeezed' onto a DVD, then MS start losing points.

 

[cybamerc]

teh_pwn:

> But why would they needlessly adapt to limitations when an obvious solution is there?

Because that's their job.

> Why force developers to spend more money and time?

Because the alternative costs the hardware developer money.

> It's more common sense.

It has nothing to do with common sense. You're just making up numbers.

> I think that's bullshit. Give me a link showing that DTS 6.1 or Dolby 6.1 audio takes no
> more space than Prologic 2.

The audio encoded in realtime. The sound isn't stored on the disc as a stereo or surround stream. Preencoded audio is only useful for cinematics, menus etc. And even if you have a lot of cinematics sound isn't much of a worry. Two hours of DD sound in the best DVD quality takes up less than 400 mb.

 

[android]

If Sony puts Blue-Ray in PS3, and they don't read DVD's, how will the PS3 be backwards compatible? Wouldn't they have to go with HDDVD?

 

[Odnetnin]

If Sony puts Blue-Ray in PS3, and they don't read DVD's, how will the PS3 be backwards compatible? Wouldn't they have to go with HDDVD?

did you even read the thread? :lol

 

[android]

no. curly lines make brain hurt, want answer now. :lol

 

[neptunes]

I'm sure there will be PS3 games that are released on nomral DVD's, just like the handful of ps2 games that came on normal CD's.

It's just this time we might see a lot more games released on the previous format. (dvd)

 

[human5892]

As long as it doesn't add too much cost to the machine, I don't see how anyone can argue that less space would be a good thing.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

I think people are missing a point here. As has been said, just because the PS3 uses Blu-Ray doesn't mean the dev has to.

If they wanted to they could release a game on CD. If they want, they can release it on Blu-Ray.

Just like the PS2 had release-games on CD, the PS3 will probably have a few on DVD.

But eventually the PS2 moved to pretty much all DVD, and I don't see why the PS3 is gonna be different.

 

[seanoff]

a couple more things.

1 EAs ESPN Madden Superbowl 2007 might come with NFL films review of the 2006 season, a 2 hr hd extraveganza. etc


2 If u look at Sony's powerpoints for PS3 there is a lot of game/movie content creation on the workstation. possibility that the game might ship with the movie on the one disk. BR definitely needed here.


3 If sony really went for it and put a recordable BR in the PS3 they wouldn't be able to make enough PS3s for the demand. Seriously the HT crowd would be mowing people down to get the devices.

who knows tho, i really have no idea what they'll do

 

[Zeenbor]

As a developer, I will say this: If we are to push the limits of the machines in the next generation, I can guarantee you that we will need a larger disc format.

Would a game like GTA be able to have all of that music and all of that detail with the streaming world if it weren't for the capacity of a DVD? Would you be able to have HUGE worlds like in Jax and Daxter? No way. Streaming data of the disc is key to having big worlds and I believe that is what players will expect from now on.

With worlds and characters that are so detailed and expansive, the amount of data for each asset will rise by a factor of at least 8. There is no question that the raw game data will easily surpass 9.4 GB, even in the beginning of the next generation. Then you have to factor in movies. I've noticed that movies were used extensively for tutorials this generation. I think Dark Cloud 2 had something like 50 tutorial movies? That was really beneficial to the player and it was easy for the developer to create. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't continue to be used in the next generation. Don't forget that movies might have to be stored in multiple resolutions for different TV resolutions (1080, 720, 480).

Now someone in this thread said, "Developers don't need a bigger disc format. They could fit all of the game content on multiple DVDs!" I personally don't agree with this notion because I believe it will break the continuity of the game experience to the player. Imagine, if you will, that you were exploring the world of the next Final Fantasy and you had to switch discs to reach another part of the world. It would break the flow of the game and would be a nuisance to the player.

I'm pretty sure there will be other unforseen reasons as to why developers will require more disc space in the next generation, as it was this generation.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Cybermerc, CD and DVD playback is part of the HD-DVD and BRD spec......if your HW doesn't play CDs and DVDs it is not allowed to carry the HD-DVD or BRD license...PERIOD..

When I get the time, I will show you this is true

 

[AstroLad]

Another thing I don't like about switching discs is that it can give you a good sense of exactly where you are in the game; sometimes I like to just let things unfold without having any idea how much is left.

 

[kaching]

Why don't you provide the numbers yourself?

I'd love to, but I'm not a game developer and I don't have developer connections that could provide me the info. The best I can do is cite numbers for MPEG4 storage requirements which are a bit more publically available. 12-15 Mbps bitrate seems to be considered sufficient for high quality high definition video in most of the MP4 derivative codecs, which yields a 45-55 meg clip for a 30 sec cutscene.

In any case, my argument isn't trying to convince anyone that there will be a major shift away from prerendered content next gen like yours is. My argument relies more on the observation that 4 generations of console gaming have seen games use either prerendered content or real-time game engine content, or a mix of both for scripted events and that the proportions of each approach's usage haven't shifted that much over that time, despite changes in technology.

Since you're the one who seems to strongly believe there will be a significant shift away from pre-rendered content for scripted events next gen, I figure you might have some numbers to back it up.

What does an arbitrary example prove? In all likelihood you're not going to have just 30 second of cinematics in a game.

I'm trying to establish a basic unit for measure and estimation of just how big the delta is likely to be between real-time and prerendered content. Every game's needs are abitrary in this regard, so it's a little hard to work around that. If you can think of a better way, by all means, let us have it.

But it's also very unambítious. Why shouldn't cutscenes be held up to the same standards as the rest of game? Either do it right or don't do it at all.

If a cutscene is being asked to put 4-5 times more character models onscreen than than in-game scenarios are ever asked to, while maintaining a consistent 30fps, its already being held to higher standard than the rest of the game. So do you design your game engine to be able to deal with an event that may only happen once in a cutscene or do you deal with the cutscene's needs separately? There's ambitious and then there's impractical. Ideally, you don't want something to be considered both.