NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/15/tosh_touts_51gb_hddvd/

well, the format wars are truly underway i guess. i wonder what percentage of people have actually already bought HDDVD/blu-ray drives? i'm not going to until a) the war is over and there's a clear winner, and b) until somebody truly convinces me i NEED an HD movie player. i mean, DVD resolution is fine for pretty much everything imho.

however, if the price is right (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/22/microsoft_xbox_360_hd_dvd_player/)...


anyway, in other console news: Xbox 360 dominates US next-gen console December sales (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/15/us_console_sales_npd/)
the PS3 should really, really be selling a lot better than that in its launch period, and coming up to christmas as well...
though the old PS2 outsold any of the new next-gen consoles, interestingly, and the Nintendo DS outsold the lot (including PSPs).


any thoughts?
edit: other than this should have gone in the new news thread..... damn.

51 GB is pretty good storage!

Sorry to one-up, but do you know what has really good storage? The Holographic Versatile Disc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc), or HVD. One of these babies can store up to 3.9 terabytes of information -- 6,000 times the capacity of a CD, 830 times the capacity of a DVD, 160 times the capacity of Blu-ray, and about 12 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives.

http://img.zol.com.cn/article/2/403/liIJvBl8eW3yg.jpg

For context, it has been estimated that the books in the Library of Congress contains about 20 terabytes of text. Not including images from the books, the content could be stored on a little more than 6 of these discs. Also, a 3.9 TB HVD could hold over 26.5 years of uninterrupted stereo audio.

Now that is pretty good storage...

Well, I'm buying a PS3 soon so I hope Blu-ray wins out.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/15/tosh_touts_51gb_hddvd/

well, the format wars are truly underway i guess. i wonder what percentage of people have actually already bought HDDVD/blu-ray drives? i'm not going to until a) the war is over and there's a clear winner, and b) until somebody truly convinces me i NEED an HD movie player. i mean, DVD resolution is fine for pretty much everything imho.

however, if the price is right (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/22/microsoft_xbox_360_hd_dvd_player/)...


anyway, in other console news: Xbox 360 dominates US next-gen console December sales (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/15/us_console_sales_npd/)
the PS3 should really, really be selling a lot better than that in its launch period, and coming up to christmas as well...
though the old PS2 outsold any of the new next-gen consoles, interestingly, and the Nintendo DS outsold the lot (including PSPs).


any thoughts?
edit: other than this should have gone in the new news thread..... damn.

Why you think the PS3 should sell more? It's overpriced and there no good games not to mention a non existant online serivce. (I did play Resistance at a friends house though; thats almost worth the huge price tag)

50 terabyte germ disk! (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7259.html) :eek:

Why you think the PS3 should sell more? It's overpriced and there no good games not to mention a non existant online serivce. (I did play Resistance at a friends house though; thats almost worth the huge price tag)

Well, the main reason for me is because of Sony's huge game library which includes a lot of great titles, and the likelihood that games of similar caliber are going to appear on the PS3. I mean, in all honesty the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii don't really have that many games that I want, and don't really have that many good games to begin with relative to Sony.

And I don't play online, so that doesn't matter to me. I play PC games online, but not console ones.

Sorry to one-up, but do you know what has really good storage? The Holographic Versatile Disc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc), or HVD. One of these babies can store up to 3.9 terabytes of information -- 6,000 times the capacity of a CD, 830 times the capacity of a DVD, 160 times the capacity of Blu-ray, and about 12 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives.

http://img.zol.com.cn/article/2/403/liIJvBl8eW3yg.jpg

For context, it has been estimated that the books in the Library of Congress contains about 20 terabytes of text. Not including images from the books, the content could be stored on a little more than 6 of these discs. Also, a 3.9 TB HVD could hold over 26.5 years of uninterrupted stereo audio.

Now that is pretty good storage...

:eek:
I want, I want.
I could put most of my life on one of those things!

:eek:
I want, I want.
I could put most of my life on one of those things!

I could my entire life on there, and still have some space left over!

Sorry to one-up, but do you know what has really good storage? The Holographic Versatile Disc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc), or HVD. One of these babies can store up to 3.9 terabytes of information -- 6,000 times the capacity of a CD, 830 times the capacity of a DVD, 160 times the capacity of Blu-ray, and about 12 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives.

http://img.zol.com.cn/article/2/403/liIJvBl8eW3yg.jpg

For context, it has been estimated that the books in the Library of Congress contains about 20 terabytes of text. Not including images from the books, the content could be stored on a little more than 6 of these discs. Also, a 3.9 TB HVD could hold over 26.5 years of uninterrupted stereo audio.

Now that is pretty good storage...
i remember reading about an FMW disk several years back that promised 500gb of storage... never went anywhere. i'm not saying 51gb is great (or that HD content is that great either (though HD gaming on the xbox 360 kicks ass!)), just passing on the news i read :)

Why you think the PS3 should sell more? It's overpriced and there no good games not to mention a non existant online serivce. (I did play Resistance at a friends house though; thats almost worth the huge price tag)

from a business perspective it should be selling a lot more than that. a) its launch. b) its christmas. and it wasn't just not selling well, it was 3rd out of three... bottom of the pile.

from a personal perspective i'm quite glad its not doing well. partly cos i love my xbox360, and partly because i never liked the playstation brand.

Well, the main reason for me is because of Sony's huge game library which includes a lot of great titles, and the likelihood that games of similar caliber are going to appear on the PS3. I mean, in all honesty the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii don't really have that many games that I want, and don't really have that many good games to begin with relative to Sony.

And I don't play online, so that doesn't matter to me. I play PC games online, but not console ones.

So you want one for the future games?

So you want one for the future games?

Both for future games and for the ones I already have. I've got a hundred or so PS1 and maybe 50 PS2 titles, and there are a few games on PS3 I'm looking forward to. Not to mention my brother already has a Nintendo Wii, and there just aren't that many games on the 360 that I want to justify the purchase.

So, obviously my loyalties lie with Sony. I've been a Sony fan since 1996, so there's no reason to abandon the brand now.

Both for future games and for the ones I already have. I've got a hundred or so PS1 and maybe 50 PS2 titles, and there are a few games on PS3 I'm looking forward to. Not to mention my brother already has a Nintendo Wii, and there just aren't that many games on the 360 that I want to justify the purchase.

So, obviously my loyalties lie with Sony. I've been a Sony fan since 1996, so there's no reason to abandon the brand now.

Ah... I don't really care for consoles to be honest. I'm more of a PC guy. FPS's and strategy games dont translate well to a controller...

Ah... I don't really care for consoles to be honest. I'm more of a PC guy. FPS's and strategy games dont translate well to a controller...

That's why online doesn't really matter too much to me; the games I play online aren't the kind that work well on consoles because they're mainly turn-based and RTS. The PC really is better for online gaming, IMHO. It just gives you more options than you could have in a comparable console game, which makes it a lot more fun.

On consoles, I'm mainly a platformer, RPG, and puzzle game player. FPS for consoles are fun, but I don't play them online because I suck.

The PS3 is the superior technology. That said, so is the Blu-Ray. The laws of physics require that the blue laser disc can always exceed the capacity of the red laser disc.

Which means, of course, nothing. The technologically superior Betamax lost out to the inferior VHS, so superiority is far from being a guarantor of success.

The PC really is better for online gaming, IMHO.
PCs are just better for gaming, period.

The mouse and keyboard is a more precise controllers for any FPS, there simply isn't enough complexity in a console controller to allow for the varied gameplay of RPGs or strategy games. Unless you're playing platformers or fighting games, I don't see what strengths consoles have.

PCs are just better for gaming, period.

The mouse and keyboard is a more precise controllers for any FPS, there simply isn't enough complexity in a console controller to allow for the varied gameplay of RPGs or strategy games. Unless you're playing platformers or fighting games, I don't see what strengths consoles have.

They require less frequent upgrading and no knowledge of computer specs what so ever.

They require less frequent upgrading and no knowledge of computer specs what so ever.
And if that were relevant, aircraft would be inferior to bicycles because they require special knowledge to operate them.

They require less frequent upgrading and no knowledge of computer specs what so ever.

That's true, but given the boost in quality and variety I would say that such a hassle is worth it. Even so, with all of the tutorials and update wizards on computer software these days it's hardly a challenge to keep up. In fact, a lot of it is done automatically as long as you've got an internet connection.

Why you think the PS3 should sell more? It's overpriced and there no good games

It's called reverse compatibility, there are years of good games.

It's called reverse compatibility, there are years of good games.

That's it, not to mention the developers producing games for Sony are all very good at what they do; having that huge library and having almost all of it reverse compatible is a major asset when it comes to selling units of the next generation console.

I mean, if we really look in to it Sony has sold 85% of the units it has shipped and is more or less in line with its estimates; it's not doing that bad.

And if that were relevant, aircraft would be inferior to bicycles because they require special knowledge to operate them.

I never said computers were inferior gaming machines to consoles, I just mentioned some of the strengths of consoles. Kind of like how some of the strengths of bikes are that they're cheaper, require no special fuel, give you exercise and are much easier and safer to use.

That's true, but given the boost in quality and variety I would say that such a hassle is worth it. Even so, with all of the tutorials and update wizards on computer software these days it's hardly a challenge to keep up. In fact, a lot of it is done automatically as long as you've got an internet connection.

It's the hardware upgrades that take a bit more effort. Not much, but it's a lot easier to buy a console and not have to do anything for a few years.

It's called reverse compatibility, there are years of good games.

i don't get buying a new console to play old games.
why not just buy the old console?

oh wait, that's what people have been doing.


which means the PS3 lags behind its competitors in its launch period and the annual christmas sales boom.
doesn't sound like a great stategy to sell PS3's to me

It's the hardware upgrades that take a bit more effort. Not much, but it's a lot easier to buy a console and not have to do anything for a few years.

That's the main problem; generally, you can't own a gaming computer for more than 3 years (4 tops) without falling behind when it comes to hardware.

In fact, if you really wanted to have optimal performance you'd upgrade every two years or so. And that's not cheap by any stretch, especially for high-end gaming PCs.

i don't get buying a new console to play old games.
why not just buy the old console?
Then you can't play new games, the concept isn't exactly difficult.

i don't get buying a new console to play old games.

why not just buy the old console?

The idea is that you can continue to play old games on the new system while still being able to buy new ones as well; if you've spent money amassing a collection of PS2 and PS1 games, you're probably not as likely to just ditch that system and buy another console because of the fact that you'd have to buy games all over again. If you buy the PS2, you can't play PS3 games, but if you buy the PS3 you can play games on all three systems; it's an excellent idea, actually.

I mean, there are some PS1/2 titles out there that I definitely don't want to give up, and some good titles for PS3 as well that I'm looking forward to.

which means the PS3 lags behind its competitors in its launch period and the annual christmas sales boom.

doesn't sound like a great stategy to sell PS3's to me

I'd give it a little while to see how it turns out. Just because the Wii is doing well now doesn't mean it will later, especially if the games suck. The 360 will hold its own due to the online factor, but in all honesty I just don't think the Wii is as good as people make it sound. I mean, yeah, it's more interactive but that's hardly enough to keep up sales unless games are produced that use that interactivity.

IMO, the only reason the Wii seems to be selling well is due to novelty; if they don't deliver on content, that thing is going to sink like a rock.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/15/tosh_touts_51gb_hddvd/

well, the format wars are truly underway i guess. i wonder what percentage of people have actually already bought HDDVD/blu-ray drives? i'm not going to until a) the war is over and there's a clear winner, and b) until somebody truly convinces me i NEED an HD movie player. i mean, DVD resolution is fine for pretty much everything imho.

however, if the price is right (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/22/microsoft_xbox_360_hd_dvd_player/)...


anyway, in other console news: Xbox 360 dominates US next-gen console December sales (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/15/us_console_sales_npd/)
the PS3 should really, really be selling a lot better than that in its launch period, and coming up to christmas as well...
though the old PS2 outsold any of the new next-gen consoles, interestingly, and the Nintendo DS outsold the lot (including PSPs).


any thoughts?
edit: other than this should have gone in the new news thread..... damn.
Frankly I still prefer the idea behind the Blu-Ray format but we shall see. I certainly won't purchase a PS3 until a significant PS3 library develops that I'd be interested in.

Why would we need a 51 GB HDDVD.

That's the main problem; generally, you can't own a gaming computer for more than 3 years (4 tops) without falling behind when it comes to hardware.

In fact, if you really wanted to have optimal performance you'd upgrade every two years or so. And that's not cheap by any stretch, especially for high-end gaming PCs.
But if you're not keeping it upgraded, there's no point in buying a high-end gaming PC. Just buy a mid-range gaming PC and replace it every 24-30 months.

I last bought a new box in the autumn of 2004 (in order to play EQ2 - gods, that was disappointing) and haven't felt the need to upgrade, yet. Spore might do it, but that's months away.

Why would we need a 51 GB HDDVD.

Why? Larger games, more voice acting, better graphics, ect ect ect. There are always reasons for needing such excessively large amounts of space. Remember, to peeps back when the PC was first introduced, the idea of a harddrive with, say, 40 megabytes was ridiculously huge, let alone the 320 gigabyte hard drive I've got in my computer.

Frankly, I'd love to get my hands on a player that could utilize one of those HVDs, or that organic 50 terabyte disc. :D

Why? Larger games, more voice acting, better graphics, ect ect ect.
Not hardly. Graphics and audio can only improve so much, quality of voice acting has no relevance to file size, the only thing that will increase is quantity not quality.

The only thing 51GB disc can be useful for for an uncountable years is using less discs in tv series season boxes.

Remember, to peeps back when the PC was first introduced, the idea of a harddrive with, say, 40 megabytes was ridiculously huge, let alone the 320 gigabyte hard drive I've got in my computer.
And even the biggest games now only takes up a several GB after installation, thus after decompression.

Frankly, I'd love to get my hands on a player that could utilize one of those HVDs, or that organic 50 terabyte disc. :D
Yes, the frivolous size is amazing. I'd prefer a portable harddrive.

Not hardly. Graphics and audio can only improve so much, quality of voice acting has no relevance to file size, the only thing that will increase is quantity not quality.

The only thing 51GB disc can be useful for for an uncountable years is using less discs in tv series season boxes.


And even the biggest games now only takes up a several GB after installation, thus after decompression.


Yes, the frivolous size is amazing. I'd prefer a portable harddrive.

Well, yes, I mainly meant quantity. Have you seen the size of Final Fantasy XII? I'm approximately 3/5ths of the way through the storyline, and I've been playing for close to seventy hours. This, of course, includes a whole bunch of side stuff, but even so, it's utterly MASSIVE. I rarely see a game this huge. And that's just with a PS2 disc. Imagine what they can do with Blu-Ray/HDVD/HVD.

(And sure I'd like a portable 50 terabyte drive too, but if I could only have the disc, I'd still settle for it.)

Not hardly. Graphics and audio can only improve so much, quality of voice acting has no relevance to file size, the only thing that will increase is quantity not quality.
Buyt the addition of oice-acting and normal-mapped textures has dramatically increased the size of game content. That's one reason games are much shorter than they were 8-10 years ago.

Playing a PC RPG now takes perhaps 30 hours. 50 on the outside. 1997's Baldur's Gate ran 80-100 hours. Its sequel doubled that.

Well, yes, I mainly meant quantity. Have you seen the size of Final Fantasy XII? I'm approximately 3/5ths of the way through the storyline, and I've been playing for close to seventy hours. This, of course, includes a whole bunch of side stuff, but even so, it's utterly MASSIVE. I rarely see a game this huge. And that's just with a PS2 disc. Imagine what they can do with Blu-Ray/HDVD/HVD.
Adds more movies, but they wouldn't use up a fraction of the space.

(And sure I'd like a portable 50 terabyte drive too, but if I could only have the disc, I'd still settle for it.)

There is no 50 terabyte anything.

Buyt the addition of oice-acting and normal-mapped textures has dramatically increased the size of game content.
Voice acting has been in games for a while, only excessive quantity of it can increase size significantly any more. And intricacies of texture mapping are reaching physical impasses.


That's one reason games are much shorter than they were 8-10 years ago.

Playing a PC RPG now takes perhaps 30 hours. 50 on the outside. 1997's Baldur's Gate ran 80-100 hours. Its sequel doubled that.
Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Increasing disc size is not going to increase a game's playtime, only increasing a game's playtime will do that which relies upon developer's creating more storyline and content, which can be with minimal, if any, size increase.

The idea is that you can continue to play old games on the new system while still being able to buy new ones as well; if you've spent money amassing a collection of PS2 and PS1 games, you're probably not as likely to just ditch that system and buy another console because of the fact that you'd have to buy games all over again. If you buy the PS2, you can't play PS3 games, but if you buy the PS3 you can play games on all three systems; it's an excellent idea, actually.

I mean, there are some PS1/2 titles out there that I definitely don't want to give up, and some good titles for PS3 as well that I'm looking forward to.

i don't doubt that backwards compatibility is a great idea, but i just seriously have reservations about a business model that puts it as a key factor in sales. marketing is all about hype and making a noise, and to do that you need to have something to shout about, the result of which is temporary high sales. you keep stringing together a series of well-timed events and launches to generate PR and you'll have higher sales in the long run.

however that idea of people buying the (arguably overpriced) PS3 on the offchance they might get some games for it down the line, and maybe one or two right now, will lead to more like a drip-drip of PR and sales (as evident with those december numbers)

maybe it'll work, but its just not a business strategy that makes a whole load of sense to me. if the new, big-hype console on the block can't get huge sales just after launch and in the christmas period, and its year-old+ competitor is still outstripping it, then something's wrong according to the standard business model consoles have been following imho. especially not when a lot of fans seem to be talking more about backwards compatibility over other features, and others stating the only reason they'd get one is because of their library of PS(2) games...

just seems like Sony have made one big mistake somewhere here.
then again i may be proved wrong ;) maybe their model is slower, steady sales. we shall see

I'd give it a little while to see how it turns out. Just because the Wii is doing well now doesn't mean it will later, especially if the games suck. The 360 will hold its own due to the online factor, but in all honesty I just don't think the Wii is as good as people make it sound. I mean, yeah, it's more interactive but that's hardly enough to keep up sales unless games are produced that use that interactivity.

IMO, the only reason the Wii seems to be selling well is due to novelty; if they don't deliver on content, that thing is going to sink like a rock.

i think we'll have to wait and see. one thing's for sure though... MS truly have muscled their way into the console market. no doubt about that.

Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Increasing disc size is not going to increase a game's playtime, only increasing a game's playtime will do that which relies upon developer's creating more storyline and content, which can be with minimal, if any, size increase.

Well, yes, but it gives them more flexibility to do so while maintaining the increased amount of space taken up by the graphics, sound, and all that jazz. ('Course, I'd go for a sprite game straight out of SNES if it had great gameplay, length, and story. I'm hardly the kind of guy who'll refuse to play a game that doesn't have SHINYGRAPHICS!)

Also, you are wrong about the fifty terabyte bit. It was linked earlier in this thread, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7259.html

but i just seriously have reservations about a business model that puts it as a key factor in sales.
I question any business model that dismisses old games. The inability to play old games ways heavily on purchasing a new system. Why buy a new system if it is useless without new games? If you buy a new system and you can continue to use your pre-existing library, you would be less inclined to not buy it.

however that idea of people buying the (arguably overpriced) PS3 on the offchance they might get some games for it down the line, and maybe one or two right now, will lead to more like a drip-drip of PR and sales (as evident with those december numbers)
Systems don't sell systems, games sell systems. It doesn't matter when the game releases.

Well, yes, but it gives them more flexibility to do so while maintaining the increased amount of space taken up by the graphics, sound, and all that jazz. ('Course, I'd go for a sprite game straight out of SNES if it had great gameplay, length, and story. I'm hardly the kind of guy who'll refuse to play a game that doesn't have SHINYGRAPHICS!)
Size limitations only effect the length of demo games. Full games are limited by the developers. One or two games in the past with long playtimes do not mean anything, how many others had 10 hour or less playtimes?

I question any business model that dismisses old games. The inability to play old games ways heavily on purchasing a new system. Why buy a new system if it is useless without new games? If you buy a new system and you can continue to use your pre-existing library, you would be less inclined to not buy it.

i'm saying there's a difference between dismissing old games and fans actually putting the old games first.

Systems don't sell systems, games sell systems. It doesn't matter when the game releases.

PR sells systems, and PR can come from anything related to the system or its games.
but there's always an element of timing to things.

Size limitations only effect the length of demo games. Full games are limited by the developers. One or two games in the past with long playtimes do not mean anything, how many others had 10 hour or less playtimes?
Well...um...okay, I suppose you've got me there. Developers choose to make games the length that they make them. I would hope that they would choose to make longer games in the future, but they may or may not.