Do you think Microsoft will use bluray with theyre next console?

[GiantRedButton]

No. It's owned by Sony.

ps It was limited by bad optimization, not disk size. You're thinking of the audio tracks.

They had to use lower resolution textures for dragon age origins, because the bigger ones didn't fit on a dvd.
Pc had two dvds copied to the harddrive, ps3 blue ray, 360 worse graphics.
The best version was the pc version anyway but still having the lowest capacity for date can and does cost you graphical quality

 

[Fenring]

No. It's owned by Sony.

ps It was limited by bad optimization, not disk size. You're thinking of the audio tracks.

They had to use lower resolution textures for dragon age origins, because the bigger ones didn't fit on a dvd.
Pc had two dvds copied to the harddrive, ps3 blue ray, 360 worse graphics.
The best version was the pc version anyway but still having the lowest capacity for date can and does cost you graphical quality

Nope. While the 360 version did have worse graphics, the disk itself had more grapical information on it than the PS3 version. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-23?page=2

 

[thahat]

I love my 360 to bits but one of its biggest failings is that the DVD disk size is starting to age a bit for example final fantasy having to be cut downa bit graphically because it wouldnt fit on the disk so do you think microsoft will adopt bluray into their next console or do you think they might have something else up their sleeve?

Edit: and yes thats meant to say their next console im not perfect.)

why the hell would they, multiple disks man! no one minded them much XD? right?
i'd rather they inovate on good games instead of on consoles.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I'd prefer to see them using those experimental DVD's of 500 Gigas or 1 TB seen on BBC technology...

 

[Something Amyss]

With Download caps and bandwidth limitations becoming the norm, I'd say the odds are against no physical media unless something radical changes.

I'm guessing you're from America? Download caps are something that we aussies have had to deal with from day dot. One point I will begrugingly give our telcos, they do have pretty good competition which means that high-end caps and unlimited plans are getting cheaper. In 5 years I do expect most data to be direct download, even here in the technologically retarded shadow of the labour gubbmint.

As far as download throttling goes, do you REALLY think that MS is not going to have itself on the 'open the goddamn floodgates' list for every ISP in the world?

Competition would be awesome. We have an effective duopoly in the States, with Comcast and Time Warner owning more than half (almost two thirds) of the market between them. What's happening here is we're getting charged more and getting stingier download caps. Given that we're one of the big consumer markets, a DD system is a poor idea.

Download throttling, as you put it, wasn't my concern. What was my concern was the tendency to have really low transfer speeds for the price. Australia's in a similar boat, bu our price is going up while service is effectively going down. Microsoft is not getting around that.

We also recently had a report posted right here on the Escapist dealing with how gaming was being treated as a tertiary concern. That's unlikely to change in five years.

For DD to become a a standard in the US, pretty much every paradigm will have to shift. And that's unlikely, when the majority ISPs and many of their smaller brethren are pushing in the opposite direction.

Will Microsoft go DD only? Well, it'd work in Japan, but Japan's a pretty poor marketplace for Microsoft. Europe still has a lot of territory with high costs and low saturation related to broadband. America's moving backward. Australia's gonna carry all that weight?

No.

Things might change in five years, but we're talking radical shifts needed. I wouldn't exactly hold my breath. I understand how you might want it to be otherwise, but wanting it to be so is hardly going to make it so.

 

[GiantRedButton]

No. It's owned by Sony.

ps It was limited by bad optimization, not disk size. You're thinking of the audio tracks.

They had to use lower resolution textures for dragon age origins, because the bigger ones didn't fit on a dvd.
Pc had two dvds copied to the harddrive, ps3 blue ray, 360 worse graphics.
The best version was the pc version anyway but still having the lowest capacity for date can and does cost you graphical quality

Nope. While the 360 version did have worse graphics, the disk itself had more grapical information on it than the PS3 version. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-23?page=2

Interesting, why would the lower res textures take up as much space as the higher res ones from the ps3 version?
If you look at screenshots the textures certainly aren't the same
Odd that they didn't fill the blueray.
I mean it can't be a ram issue the 360 is more flexible with memory.

 

[Fenring]

No. It's owned by Sony.

ps It was limited by bad optimization, not disk size. You're thinking of the audio tracks.

They had to use lower resolution textures for dragon age origins, because the bigger ones didn't fit on a dvd.
Pc had two dvds copied to the harddrive, ps3 blue ray, 360 worse graphics.
The best version was the pc version anyway but still having the lowest capacity for date can and does cost you graphical quality

Nope. While the 360 version did have worse graphics, the disk itself had more grapical information on it than the PS3 version. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-23?page=2

Interesting, why would the lower res textures take up as much space as the higher res ones from the ps3 version?
If you look at screenshots the textures certainly aren't the same
Odd that they didn't fill the blueray.
I mean it can't be a ram issue the 360 is more flexible with memory.

iirc it was something to do with how the PS3 loaded them from the disk that made them clearer. I haven't read that Fave-Off for a long time.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

Sony owns Bluray so tough luck for Microsoft and a win for PS3.

 

[Altorin]

I was thinking. Why is it that no one complains about multiple discs for PC games?

most PC games with multiple discs don't require disc changing except during installation. If you're talking about back in the day when they did, people did complain about it. a lot. I'm not sure about the PS3 (if the PS3 even has them, which I doubt), but the 360's multiple disc games all require disc changing, making them a major pain in the ass, compounded by the fact when you're at your computer, the disc drive is right in front of you, on your console the disc drive could be (and probably is) across the room

Yeah, cause getting up once every 10-20 hours to change a disc is a real pain in the ass. You get up more often than that to:

- go to the bathroom
- go to the kitchen
- go to bed
- go to work
- on and on and on

I still don't see how that is any different than PC. In fact, with PC you have to change the disc sooner. Within a half hour you will put every disc in as you install and then back to Disc 1. With the console, it takes many many hours before you have to put all the discs in.

I just think it's a pretty lame excuse. Someone looking for a reason to complain about the 360.

I'm not complaining about the 360. I own a 360. I love it. I'm just telling you why the PC disc changing is different then the 360's disc changing and why people might complain about it. You might think that it's lazy or stupid to complain about it, but that's not the point. If I get close to the end of a disc on a multidisc game and have to stop playing for whatever reason, I dread playing it because just when I get comfortable, I'm going to have to get up and change it.

But that's me, I'm lazy.

 

[Danzaivar]

No. It's owned by Sony.

Completely false.

BD

lol good one.

Blu-Ray was developed and is owned by the "Blu-ray Disc Association." the members of the BDA are Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung.

So yes, they do own part of Blu-ray and would thus benefit from a Xbox 720 with Blu-ray tech.

The point of BDA is to promote the use and spread of blu-ray. They wouldn't stop Microsoft from using it.

It's like Pepsi stopping cans because Coca-Cola employs the guy who invented the ring-pull.

I don't think Pepsi would use a ring pull if they had to pay Coke a royalty for every can they make.

They would when the alternative is plastic bottles (Or, DVD's), which Coca Cola (Or Sony) also helped develop and are entitled to royalties for using.

Or are they not using DVD's now?

Yes they are, but I'm just going to guess they don't pay royalties to Sony or the DVD standard was too commonplace for them to care.

Well you'd be wrong, there's a few dollar charge per unit for a DVD player (Which is why the Wii doesn't have DVD playback) and 10 cents per disc produced. Then again if you didn't guess otherwise your argument would kinda lose weight.

 

[ferv0r]

Yes, a royalty (or whatever it's called) of some amount will probably have to be paid for Xbox NEXT (or 720 or whatever) to include a blu-ray player.

But what can MS do? They lost the hidef format war.

Is it better for them to not include the standard hidef media format? I really don't think so, if MS is serious about wanting to be the standard family room media box.

Using another media format would be starting another format war against blu-ray? Is that a good idea?

In 5 years or whenever, blu-ray will be even more common and the games will be even bigger than they are today.

 

[Ashsaver]

I don't see why not: Bluray stores more data.

I think that alone is good enough reason.