Has MS screwed up now with the 360?

[BlueFalcon7]

Wrong, a standard dvd that we buy and burn ourselves is 4.7 gb, the companies like Microsoft and others use dual layer discs which hold twice the amount of data, 4.7gb wrong again! You really haven't researched this have you, a DVD5 only holds 4.38gb of data not 4.7. DVD9 what Microsoft use for their xbox360 holds around 8.76gb

Even so what does this prove? A CD is tiny compared to a DVD9 and its not like DVD9's aren't good enough for the time being - for the xbox360 its perfectly fine... maybe the next generation needs this crap but not yet.

Im going with Scott on this one, I mean 8.7 GB Vs 24 GB at much higher cost for the Blu Ray disc. A system currently does not need that much storage. almost every game that I have seen the file structure to uses the highest percentage of data deticated to videos. Not models, not misc commands, not textures/UI not particle/bone effects. And of the games that dont have a lot of videos, use no compression what so ever. The system has something called Random access memory, and a lot of it. Enough to store a whole level with all the models and textures, including all the levels of detail of the models and textures, and all the sounds including all the sound effects. So with proper data use, you can fit all you need on a single Double layer DVD.

 

[ScottJC]

Yeah and the fact that you smeg brought up ff7 as your example of a game is saying something; FF7's majority data is the FMV's for sure, the main game data asides from the FMV's is less than a cd (Much less in fact). The FMV's are poorly compressed but at the time the hardware wasn't powerful enough to run these high-spec video decompression codecs.

If that game had been using DivX you could've had a lot more fmv's in the space it had or higher-quality ones. The FMV's are barely 320x240 on that game so I could've compressed them all in under a few hundred megabytes easily.

Now, If software developers are smart they'd use HD-DVD and DivX/XviD, with these files at dvd bitrates it is extremely impressive at much higher resolutions. 700mb (around 800 bitrate) compresses a 1 hour and a half dvd movie these days at high-quality so imagine a DivX using a bitrate of 8000! But they'd have a job and a half filling even an 8.5gb dvd...

Not to mention there are such a thing as double sided dual-layer discs, these dvds can hold 17gb of data! HD-DVD/Bluray isn't even that much of a bloody advancement if you ask me. All we need to do is build a dvd drive that reads both sides of the disc at the same time and we'd have a match even for bluray.

 

[Doomulation]

First: H264 is much more advanced and provides better compression. Then, you must take into account that usually movies are compressed in mind for 17-19 inch computer screens and not 32 inch TVs. Granted that if you stay away from the TV, it will look better. But then again, they want to compress artifact-free movies (which requires a high bitrate) - unlike for DS where there is limited space.

 

[ScottJC]

Not completely true, usually artifacts are more evident on monitors because they run at much higher resolutions - yeah the HDTV's are high-res but monitors still have the edge as far as that goes. When I watch a divX movie on my tv with tv-out, it looks better than it does on my monitor by quite a fair bit.

Also this is one of the reasons why I suggest high-bitrate divX/Xvid/x264, at dvd bitrate they can be pretty much 99% artifact free. DVDs are not immune from artifacts either btw... x264 isn't practical just yet, I like it yeah, it saves space but... it is awfully slow compared to the other two, especially for high-res (really, lower res ones take a fair bit of processing power as it is). XVid/DivX however are perfect for a games console.

There is no such thing as an artifact free movie as long as we need to use video compression - but DivX/Xvid is far better than mpeg-2 at high bitrates. Even at high-bitrates it doesn't use as much space, we're talking like 16000 bitrate for a HDTV quality picture right? stick a 8000 bitrate divX and it'll kick mpeg2's 16000 bitrate ass. I know a lot about video compression

Edit: Btw, has the HD-DVD addon been announced as compatible for PC, i'll get one then - I love stuff like this, not really bothered about it for games.

 

[Doomulation]

It will be even more so worrysome as TVs resolution increases. Especially with HDTV. It is true that x264 may be a tad slow, but it's really top of the notch compression, so it's natural it would be slow. That witten, however, how fast it compresses can also depend on your settings. I can get 15-16 fps on medium quality and 8 fps on high quality which is acceptable to me.

Ther actually IS something such as artifact free - if we use lossless. It saves quite a bit of space compared to raw, but nothing like lossy codecs like DivX/XviD/x264. Though at high bitrates, you can barely see any loss of detail at all.

I believe there was some statement that a HD-DVD drive would come to PC. Maybe a Blu-ray too. Dunno how feasibly they are now, though.

 

[smegforbrain]

maybe the next generation needs this crap but not yet.

I guess you missed the boat: XBox 360, Wii, and PS3 ARE next generation.

If you had actually bothered to read

When you go and design your own video game, then you can tell me works and what doesn't. I'm sure there are a hundred good reasons as to why games are designed the way they are.

I'd rather take a wait and see approach than be like you and blindly follow one of them in,

Well, I guess it's your turn to improve your reading comprehension, because I *never* said I was getting a PS3 as soon as they come out.

Probably some day, but *gasp* I'm waiting awhile. Just like you! OMFG! LOLOLOLOL

(Sorry, I had to inject some more sarcasm in there, as if there wasn't enough already.)

Also for next time, don't make such obvious mistakes and actually learn what a DVD is...

Do try to not lose your marbles while nitpicking over the little things.

The fact remains that DVD's are larger than CD's, and HD/BR DVD's are larger than DVD's.

And, yeah, it's pretty damn obvious that most disc space goes to movies. There's a problem with this how, exactly? Maybe some of us actually enjoy FMV's in games after the work we put into getting to them? Or is that too much to ask?

It seems pretty simple to me: game designers are not willing to sacrifice the quality of their FMV's for compression. And, after the work THEY put into them to make them look as good as possible, I can't blame them in the least.

You know, one thing you haven't taken into account is the royalties issue, the same reason why Sony outright dropped rumble support for the PS3. If most codecs are proprietary, it's yet another reason companies aren't going to bother to use them.

All we need to do is build a dvd drive that reads both sides of the disc at the same time and we'd have a match even for bluray.

You're joking, right?

I've never bought a double-layered disc for use. Ever. Not a movie, not a cd, nothing. And you think game companies are going to do this?

Not to mention, I'd have to think that part of the upside to HD/BR DVD's are read speeds, as well as storage capabilities, compared to DVD's, and this would definately have an effect on movies & games.

 

[ScottJC]

Wrong, PS3, Xbox 360 and the Wii are current generation, moron. Just as PS2 and Dreamcast are last generation. Given the fact that almost all three of them are out now and that new ones are likely already being developed.

You seriously have a mental problem smegforbrain because you have completely missed out my rants on VIDEO COMPRESSION, space is not always the answer to these issues and if you think that it is you are seriously mistaken. you keep telling me how superior bluray is to dvd; who cares? DVD is cheaper at the time being and there is no need to use new expensive media it for games yet when video compression exists! Learn to read you total joke. XviD isn't proprietary its on the open source licence, anyone can use it and XviD is better than divX a lot of the time.

Compression doesn't mean loss of quality, in fact at higher-res's Xvid does better than MPEG-2 does with LOWER bitrates SAVING SPACE.

I've never bought a double-layered disc for use. Ever. Not a movie, not a cd, nothing. And you think game companies are going to do this?

THIS PROVES HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW, ALL GAME COMPANIES USE DUAL LAYER DISCS FOR THEIR GAMES [especially x360], THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PURE IGNORANCE THAT YOU ARE SPELLING. Using your logic, companies would never buy an HD-DVD or a bluray because they cost even more than dual-layer.

Oh and btw it doesn't matter how sarcastic you are to me I will always respond like this to you so you are wasting your time trying to insult me. You know next to nothing about dvd technology and you know it - you have a hole in your pocket and you are willing to buy everything you see because it has more space, fine do it then I won't stop you.

You won't get one over on my smeg because unlike you I actually know what i'm talking about, I didn't spend three years in college for nothing. Smeg is now my mortal enemy no doubtg because he responds like this to quite a few posts so I suspect he's just trying to make me look stupid, but to do that you actually have to be right and you aint smeg.

Get a life smeg. People actually agree with my comments, and all you're doing is making my post count grow and you look stupid. Wait until I post something questionable then you can make your move smeg since you enjoy it so much trying

People might ask the relevance of what I have to say is, sure... there might be plenty of bluray things as games but ps3's future is questionable, xbox360 doesn't need hd-dvd and since the addon costs extra people will buy the dvd versions of the game meaning hd-dvd will flop as a games media deliverence system since it just DOESN'T NEED IT.

Let the battle begin!

 

[Doomulation]

Wrong, PS3, Xbox 360 and the Wii are current generation, moron. Just as PS2 and Dreamcast are last generation. Given the fact that almost all three of them are out now and that new ones are likely already being developed.

I find this questionable. Many sites still call them next-gen.

You seriously have a mental problem smegforbrain because you have completely missed out my rants on VIDEO COMPRESSION, space is not always the answer to these issues and if you think that it is you are seriously mistaken. you keep telling me how superior bluray is to dvd; who cares? DVD is cheaper at the time being and there is no need to use new expensive media it for games yet when video compression exists! Learn to read you total joke. XviD isn't proprietary its on the open source licence, anyone can use it and XviD is better than divX a lot of the time.

Actually, royalties are not tied to the codec itself but to the video compression technique. You don't pay royalties to XviD, but to those bastards who came up with the standard.

 

[ScottJC]

Yeah well, one of us has to stop being a dick about the subject so it may as well be me, I'm quitting this argument because arguing with smeg is like arguing with a brick wall - better than wasting my time trying to explain something to someone with such ignorance of technology. Later.

 

[SlimickGamer]

Wait....can't the developers compress textures, backgrounds, sprites, and 3D models and put them into 7-Zip or something? It would make a lot of space in the CD/DVD and the space can be used for improving the enemy's A.I. or maybe putting more interactive commands. Plus compressing doesn't cost anything.....

 

[Doomulation]

It costs way much. In order to access the contents it needs to be decompressed. And decompressing takes a lot of memory. Furthermore, where should it store everything? In memory when decompressing? There just isn't enough memory for that.
Plus a gaming console is NOT designed to do things like compression.
That just doesn't work.
But there are other ways to compress things, and developers HAVE done that and IS doing that on systems such as DS when there is not much space.

 

[SlimickGamer]

Oh....that means developers are doomed to decompressing....

 

[smegforbrain]

THIS PROVES HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW, ALL GAME COMPANIES USE DUAL LAYER DISCS FOR THEIR GAMES [especially x360], THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PURE IGNORANCE THAT YOU ARE SPELLING.

Well, I don't know what is you think I'm spelling, but at worse, my comment was poorly worded.

So, before you blow a gasket, read carefully:

Dual-layer, as I believe most people are familiar with it, would mean you have double the capacity, but you have to use BOTH SIDES of the disc. Ie, you record to one half, then flip the damn thing over and use the other half.

When you say a drive that can read both sides at the same time, then, quite obviously, this would have to be the kind of dual layer you're talking about: a disc that has been recorded to on both the 'top' and 'bottom'... no labelling on the top like it standard on music and game discs.


But hey, I don't own an XBox 360, and I'm looking at a list right now of PS2 games that use DVD9, and wouldn't you know it, it's a VERY short list.

On top of that, I DON'T OWN ANY OF THEM.

I guess I was right after all.

I didn't spend three years in college for nothing.

"Oh, you have an MBA. Here, let me show you."

If you don't get the reference, I suggest looking it up. It's highly applicable in your case.

Smeg is now my mortal enemy

Sorry, you're just not that important to me.

People actually agree with my comments,

And people also disagree with your comments. It's called civil discourse. You should try it some time, instead of thinking you're all high and mighty.

meaning hd-dvd will flop as a games media deliverence system since it just DOESN'T NEED IT.

That is a matter of opinion only, one which you certainly cannot prove at this time. See, it's that disagreeing bit again.

Like I said before, if you were right in all things, as you believe yourself to be, you'd be King of the Earth. You're not, so apparently there are people out there who know something you don't (big shocker there).

Otherwise, I think Doomulation sums up anything else that needs to be said regarding what is next-gen and what isn't, and compression/decompression.

 

[Doomulation]

Actually, Dual Layer isn't recording to both top and bottom of a disc, but recording to several layers on the disc. Normally, you'd only have one layer, but with Dual Layer, you have TWO layers on top of each other - hence, DUAL layer
And companies are struggling to get more layers hence more data storage.

 

[smegforbrain]

Actually, Dual Layer isn't recording to both top and bottom of a disc, but recording to several layers on the disc. Normally, you'd only have one layer, but with Dual Layer, you have TWO layers on top of each other - hence, DUAL layer

Alright, fair enough, I'm wrong on this one.

 

[gokuss4]

DVD9 which is dual layer can hold 8.5gb. DVD18 which is double sided dual layer, holds 15.9gb or 17gb. I'd thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.