Face it, Blu-Ray is needed

paintba||er said:

It may be more of a hassle for the developers, but it can be done, and it wouldn't make too big of a difference for the consumers.
Click to expand...

well, when you go to work in the morning. You could walk or you can drive. I suppose both can be done, but realistically, walking is a bit too much of a hassle to be worth it. Thats why we drive. Thats also why you do not see many multipul disc games anymore for consoles. Its not much an option anymore. It COSTs more and is far from being efficiant. Its not logical anymore to do so, and the publishers usually do not allow it.
 
Shiftfallout said:
well, when you go to work in the morning. You could walk or you can drive. I suppose both can be done, but realistically, walking is a bit too much of a hassle to be worth it. Thats why we drive. Thats also why you do not see many multipul disc games anymore for consoles. Its not much an option anymore. It COSTs more and is far from being efficiant. Its not logical anymore to do so, and the publishers usually do not allow it.
Click to expand...

Walking is better for you - and the environment... It also costs less.
I have worked in manufacturing before and I can tell you that right now producing 3 DVDs for a game compared to 1 Blu-ray disc - the 3DVDs would be cheaper as DVD technology is well established and won't require upgrading the manufacturing machinery, as you would need to in order to accomodate blu-ray.
 
Shiftfallout said:
Wow man, you really have some issues now dont you? First you claim that I live in my parents basement, then start making up **** and when I tell you the truth you flip out.



Yes, compared to the 32k I made in 2 months thats not bad for someone my age.


Thats what you were enquiring about by saying I do not. yes.

more like know personally. Of course she hates him, he cheated on her mother and yet, I dont think that hate will last. He is famous in his own light, actor John V.


lol ok kid, believe whatever you want. You are so confident you know me and you have no idea how wrong you are.


wait, so you are saying that anyong on this wiichat website cannot have an "awsome life"? good job.

Look kid, im not trying to impress anyone with how I choose to live. YOU said i live in my parents basement. That was an invitation to correct you. Nothing more.

How I choose to live my life is my own. I love games and computers. Why shouldnt I get to enjoy that and working in the film industry.


I enjoy surfing the interwebs and writing my own projects. Whats suprising that If I am at my desk, that I could check and respond to a retard on the internets?

no actually it was took by a friend for their portfolio. I am not acting actually to your dismay. Therefore I do not need head shots. I am more or less working along the lines of producing son. You familiar with that? I never claimed to be a star or the top dawg. Im no bottom feeder, but im no king fish either. That takes time and money and quite frankly, getting investors take quite a bit of time.

And no, i do not wish i could get commercial work. I would hate to be type casted as the type to do that crap.

never said it was impressive kid. But its a lot better than using your sad dreamweaver comments. I never said I was a programmer, what part of that do you not understand retard?



Yes, you succeed at slander. Would you like cookie? or how about a life.
Click to expand...

I invented fire. And i also own most of North America. :wtf:

Seriously you guys, you need to stop posting about your flippin lives on here. NOONE CARES. 95% of people on the web lie about how they live such amazing lives, since its hard to proove. And the other 5% who actually tell the truth get bashed since noone believes them anyways.

What is amazing is how you all fight over how your lives are better then what the other people are saying. If that is how you live, then you know that - now stfu, noone else needs to know, especially someone over the cursed internet. Its just showing how much LESS of a life you all have when arguing about those pety matters. =.=

Why do i even come on forums anymore, I have my space shuttles to wash down tonight.. Buh.
 
you are entitled to your opinion. Doesnt make it right, but you can say it anyway. Just like talking about ones self.

If someone swore on their life you were a kid living in africa, and you were actually a 30 year old living in Canada, wouldnt you want to correct that funny and quite strange accusation? Hell I would and I did. To each his own.
 
Shiftfallout said:
looks like you didnt read the article. It talks about regular dvd as well champ. Good job.
Click to expand...

The article hardly mentions DVD. its about "

"while HD DVD media can be produced by modifying existing DVD manufacturing hardware. But is there a significant cost difference?"
First mention

Second mention below...
"$1.30 per single layer Blu-ray Disc (25GB), assuming a quantity of 25,000. For comparison purposes, a run of 25,000 Dual Layer DVD (DVD9) discs would cost about $0.50 per disc at this same facility."
- So a single blu-ray disc is more than twice as expensive (0.80$ more) to produce than a regular DVD? My point exactly...

Also one guy had this to say about the article - A lot of the points I was going to make - but he says it all really...

"Can you please correct your seriously flawed analysis? You have neglected to included the initial setup costs for each format, which is a major component in the cost of replication (currently, it is more of a factor than cost per disc). The reason HD-DVD is cheaper to replicate is because the setup costs, when compared to Blu-ray, and much cheaper. Couple that with small volumes for both HD-DVD and BD, and then factor that the cost per disc is less for HD-DVD.
This is how the claim the HD-DVD is signifigantly cheaper than Blu-ray is arrived at. Your incomplete and inaccurate analysis only takes into account one of three factors in the cost of replication.
The author also appears to have left out the cost of BD-50 replication, which is currently being subsidized by Sony for major studios. So far this year, somewhere around 70% of BD discs have been BD-50.
I really can’t believe this even passes as an article. Someone went around the web and looked at online prices for replication. I doubt that the author actually contacted a replicator as claimed, or the replicator would have explained the setup costs to them. More lies from the Blu-ray camp! "
Basically that article does not paint the full picture.
 
Last edited:
BrandonMcAuslan said:
The article hardly mentions DVD. its about "

"while HD DVD media can be produced by modifying existing DVD manufacturing hardware. But is there a significant cost difference?"
First mention

Second mention below...
"$1.30 per single layer Blu-ray Disc (25GB), assuming a quantity of 25,000. For comparison purposes, a run of 25,000 Dual Layer DVD (DVD9) discs would cost about $0.50 per disc at this same facility."
- So a single blu-ray disc is more than twice as expensive (0.80$ more) to produce than a regular DVD? My point exactly...

Also one guy had this to say about the article - A lot of the points I was going to make - but he says it all really...

"Can you please correct your seriously flawed analysis? You have neglected to included the initial setup costs for each format, which is a major component in the cost of replication (currently, it is more of a factor than cost per disc). The reason HD-DVD is cheaper to replicate is because the setup costs, when compared to Blu-ray, and much cheaper. Couple that with small volumes for both HD-DVD and BD, and then factor that the cost per disc is less for HD-DVD.
This is how the claim the HD-DVD is signifigantly cheaper than Blu-ray is arrived at. Your incomplete and inaccurate analysis only takes into account one of three factors in the cost of replication.
The author also appears to have left out the cost of BD-50 replication, which is currently being subsidized by Sony for major studios. So far this year, somewhere around 70% of BD discs have been BD-50.
I really can’t believe this even passes as an article. Someone went around the web and looked at online prices for replication. I doubt that the author actually contacted a replicator as claimed, or the replicator would have explained the setup costs to them. More lies from the Blu-ray camp! "
Basically that article does not paint the full picture.
Click to expand...

"In fact, we found that Blu-ray is actually cheaper per GB in many situations! It is also interesting to note that at this point, most HD DVD-ROM movies are DL, while most BD-ROM movies are SL, which would make HD DVD more expensive to replicate in most situations. " http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed/111/
 
We're talking movies now...
I still think that Sony would have been better to implement a tried and tested product into its latest games console. Storage mediums have to increase in size for the future - thats not debatable. But as for games tech just now, I think the 360 proves that you don't "need" Blu-Ray. The wii proves that you don't even need high end graphics to have great games.
 
BrandonMcAuslan said:
We're talking movies now...
I still think that Sony would have been better to implement a tried and tested product into its latest games console. Storage mediums have to increase in size for the future - thats not debatable. But as for games tech just now, I think the 360 proves that you don't "need" Blu-Ray. The wii proves that you don't even need high end graphics to have great games.
Click to expand...

what we are talking is single layer to dual layers. A single layer for hd-dvd is 15gigs, a dual layer is 30 gigsl. 1 Single layer blue ray is 25 gigs.

So games do not need to use a full dual later disk for blue ray. Movies are just showing how they are being used right now. Sony is the only company using blue ray for games at the moment because microsoft's HD-DVD 360 addon is only for movies, not games.
 
What that post failed to say was how horrible it is to program for the ps3. When you have to waste so much programming to do simple things you need to have tons of space. it has been said over and over that the 360 is much easier to program for which translates to better use of space. Also if need be I am sure Microsoft can put out a patch and allow the HD-DVD drive to be used for games. Then whalla more space. I still don't think PS3 will win this war. As long as they keep the price as it is and the average person can not afford it. No matter how much space, what media, how good the gfx, how cool it looks it still wont sell. Thats the bottom line.
 
theiceman72 said:
What that post failed to say was how horrible it is to program for the ps3. When you have to waste so much programming to do simple things you need to have tons of space. it has been said over and over that the 360 is much easier to program for which translates to better use of space. Also if need be I am sure Microsoft can put out a patch and allow the HD-DVD drive to be used for games. Then whalla more space. I still don't think PS3 will win this war. As long as they keep the price as it is and the average person can not afford it. No matter how much space, what media, how good the gfx, how cool it looks it still wont sell. Thats the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Well the price will drop eventually. It isn't always going to cost $600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

manred
Blu-ray Cannot Contain Metal Gear Solid 4's Awesomeness
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
zeon9881
Z
blueradio
Warner Brothers goes Blu Ray
Replies
6
Views
1K
SensesFail
SensesFail
G
Blu-ray winner by KO in high-definition war - LA Times
Replies
6
Views
2K
sagema
S
H
Sony to force Blu-ray upon us
2 3 4
Replies
55
Views
8K
wii love gamin
W
Dinner
CES 2008 stuff & Blu-ray on PSP?
Replies
1
Views
954
branandlee
branandlee
Back
Top