PS3 Fanboy

Yeah, to hell with capitalism, MAAAAAN!

Reply

i love his attitude
F**K everyone

Reply

David Jaffe knows where I'm coming from. Remove Blu-ray, you have a cheaper price, the PS3 would've shipped alongside the 360, and Sony would've had a 3-peat without a blink of an eye.

Reply

The death of the low end PS3 could open the door for a lower end PS3 void of blu ray. Throwing Sony right back into the leader slot.

Reply

@blasphemizer

I wish that were true, but Sony will NEVER offer a low-end PS3 without Blu-ray.

Why, you ask?

Cause every PS3 game released right now is on a Blu-ray disc, and if a PS3 was released with only a DVD drive, it wouldn't even be compatible with all PS3 titles.

Not gonna happen.

Reply

The only time I felt I didn't want Blu on my PS3 was when I watched the new Omen on it. Hot damn that was craptastic. Other than that Blu has proven quite useful to me.

Also: I wish instead of the symphony my PS3 would scream "I AM THE GOD OF WAR" when I turned it on.

Reply

#4 Will not happen. Even if Jaffe doesnt think so now, Blu Ray is very important for game development. We already see games on the 360 looking less appealing due to running out of space on the DVD disc (mass effect). If you want epic games that have the best graphics, we need the storage space that Blu Ray (or HD-DVD) offers. Sony will not make a PS3 that doesnt have Blu Ray. Nobody wants to play a gorgeous game that only takes 5 hours to beat.

Reply

I now understand why he was voted one of the 5 indusrtries most over-hyped people. Wow....


Also who is forcing companies to make blockbuster games everytime? I know, I don't. Capitalism FTW! (or at least the United States!)

Reply

@Justin

WTF are you talking about? Mass Effect looks bad to people because it might be on more than one disc? Are you on crack? I always say, "Wow, when did society become complete lazy ass people?" They complain about switching dvds, it pathetic. No one ever complained about switching discs in last-gen and even when they were thinking of the next-gen. It wasn't til Blu-ray/HD DVD became apart of what COMPANIES believe is the right thing, not gamers.

On Gears, if you ever listened to the interveiws epic has stated millions of times they weren't going for a long story. Also, I'll gladly play a gorgeous game that kicks ass in Multiplayer. :p

Reply

How much of his "who needs bluray?" can we blame on his new-found love of the smaller game experience? I normally agree with a lot of what this man says, but I still think bluray will make a difference in the long run. Developers are already filling DVDs, and that's with compressed data at that. Bluray just means one less limitation to what can be created, and that's not a bad thing at all.

Reply

Justin if you're referring to those recent new Mass Effect screenshots (which looked crappy), Mass Effect developers came out and said those were never meant to be released. They were low-res shots that are inaccurate to what the game looks like currently.

And it's funny how every thinks we NEED blu-ray all of a sudden.

All of you had so much damn fun on your ps2 games, which was on normal dvd, but now that blu-ray exists, it's "necessary".

Reply

Thank you scott.

Also you have to realize blu-ray is much slower to read from the disc then dvds. So you are replacing the limited space with bigger space but taking away the disc reading speed (unless you have some of the data on the harddrive to help it out) Right now, I want less load screens then having the ability to not have to change disc.

Faster load times > Slower load times.

I'll stick with dvd till nextnext-gen for my gaming.

Reply

Blu-Ray = Why Sony has not gripped the market in a choke hold.

Justin = Douche bag who has no idea of the fundamentals of game development. Should STFU and stop making Sony fans look stupid as him.

Reply

"If you want epic games that have the best graphics, we need the storage space that Blu Ray (or HD-DVD) offers."

That is beyond fallacy. Don't fall for Sony's tricks.

You have no idea what they can cram into a single GB nowadays....Blu-ray just enables laziness. Laziness that can lead to less inventive development. Why clean up code if there is space to spare? Think of how cleaning out "hot coffee" would have prevented a lot of trouble.

My problem with the line about needing 50GB for a game is something like Resistance. The game was annoyingly long, and the levels dragged on after a while. The graphics weren't anything special, and they ended up using story-boards for the most part. So...what was all that 20GB used for?

The line of thinking that more/bigger is better would put us driving 24 cylinder vehicles as opposed to 4 or 6. More isn't always better. Refinement always brings more efficient results.

They've also convinced you that you need the more expensive blue laser rigs to get more data on a disc...when they've been able to fit 50GB on a red-laser disc just fine. Our movie studios are too busy squirming at the idea of piracy to provide us with a pro-consumer product.

Reply

Blu-ray is good its nice to have alot of space but they will always have compression look at mass effect its a huge game big enough for most people blu-ray is just making things more expensive and delaying games for ps3.In the future maybe 3 years from now we will need blu-ray but by then the next consoles will be here or close to it and dont think just cause blu-ray is being used for games doesnt mean everyone needs it xbox360, wii and pc are survivng without it cause only rpgs really need more than 9 gigs 99% of shooters,sports games, and racers and possibly platformers wont need more than that and that is true.

Reply

What the hell?.....Jesus Christ, so let me get this straight,so either you people own ps3s which is why you people are on ps3fanboy.com trying to tell people that blu-ray is not needed which makes no sense because you bought a $600 dollar machine and don't think blu-ray is needed

OR

you people have got to be the dumbest,anti-progress, shitholes, fanboyish people I have ever met, Just trolling this and other ps3 news websites waiting to jump on anything bitch (wii60 fanbots)

So, we can all agree that video games are costing more, not just to make but buy.........so lets take an average price $60 bucks for a game, that is about 10 bucks more then last gen right? so let me get this straight you people will pay more for a game shorter then the current standards of games?......

"My problem with the line about needing 50GB for a game is something like Resistance. The game was annoyingly long, and the levels dragged on after a while"......You have got to be shiting me, so let me get this straight you buy an expensive game that will give you a long experience more bang for you buck, but somehow feel as if its too long.......but gears of war 5 hours long, "Gears pwnssssss!!1111!!!"

"On Gears, if you ever listened to the interveiws epic has stated millions of times they weren't going for a long story. Also, I'll gladly play a gorgeous game that kicks ass in Multiplayer. :p"
Wait, Wait hold on, wait a second......................either you people are some kind of undercover Xbost, or hired by Microsoft (3.2 billion dollar viral marketing can spin the news anyway they please)
So you people like games that cost more, no storyline, no real innovation, "but the mulitplayer pwns!!11!!!)
What the fuck?.. if the game can't stand on its on merits, then why does it get so uber cool when playing against someone halfway across the planet you will never meet?

Here's an interesting thought, That Very same guy said that the ps3 online network will be as good if not better then xbox live, that very same guy said that his 360 got the red rings of death, this guy says good things about the ps3, nobody hears him, but you so called "ps3 owners" like to focus on the one bad thing he says...

but hey what the point of dsl, we have dial up, whats the point of mp3 players we have cd players, what's the point of DVDs, we have CDs,................It's called progress, you shitheads

I expect this crap from Joystiq, or Digg, not here

Reply

Here's the link to the video.
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=4&pt=2

Reply

SuicideNinja: Code has very little to do with disk space, seriously. In fact, clever coding can end up requiring a lot more space with texture streaming... The textures for a single in-game character probably takes up more space than the code.

Any game executable is probably going to fit under 10 megabytes, at the worst (it's been a while since I've looked at one). What takes up space is cutscenes, textures, and geometry. I know a lot of gamers don't like movie scenes, but I'm a jrpg fan, and they're nice to have... a sort of reward. Useless in shooters though. So what do you want to refine? You want shorter levels and blurrier textures because of a hardware limitation? If you thought Resistance's levels were boring, that's a game design problem, extra disc space didn't magically make the game suck.

Then you've got textures and geometry, they tend to go together. But when your main memory of the console is only 32 - 64 MB, that's not a lot of stuff you can load at once, so your level has to fit in that. Now that we've got 512 MB on the 360 and ps3, you've got a lot more to load. But if you're using really high-res textures and tons more polygons, you'll still run into level size limits. Now, what if, instead of loading the whole level up front, we loaded just everything that could be seen, plus a little more? And as we moved around, we loaded more stuff? Now suddenly you can use even bigger, prettier texture maps, and have levels as big as you want them (as long as you can't see everything at once). Granted, this is very hard to do and takes clever coding.

Well, if you're doing that with 512 MB of textures and geometry at a time, hey, guess what, you'll hit 9 GB pretty damn fast. Obviously, you can re-use assets, but you don't want to do that too much. Texture compression can also get ugly.

And as for multi-disk releases, that doesn't work for some games. Sure, if you've got a shooter, you can have split up the levels for each disk, but how much would it suck to have to swap disks every time you crossed the main bridge in Grand Theft Auto IV? If New York fits on one DVD-9, then the ps3 could fit four other cities at the same detail level. London, Los Angeles... Las Vegas maybe? Tokyo? It might cost too much for Rockstar to put together all at once, but it'd be possible.

And while HD-DVD and blu-ray are equally anti-consumer due to the drm crap, that really doesn't affect consoles much, since they're already full of it anyway. I'm not really sure how the color of the laser affects consumer rights, since I'm sure Sony would love to save a ton of money on diodes too. The encryption and key-revocation is the probelm.

Reply

I agree.....fuck capitalism. People who support capitalism are the same people who put money before people and having a life (free-time). What good is having money if you don't have the free-time to enjoy it?

Reply

"It wasn't til Blu-ray/HD DVD became apart of what COMPANIES believe is the right thing, not gamers."

As a gamer and game developer, I truly think Blu-Ray is a good thing. Please refrain from spreading YOUR opinion as to what I feel.

"You have no idea what they can cram into a single GB nowadays....Blu-ray just enables laziness. Laziness that can lead to less inventive development. Why clean up code if there is space to spare? Think of how cleaning out "hot coffee" would have prevented a lot of trouble."

Think of how much more hidden content they could have added. SuicideNinja, you are another that pollutes this and other blog sites with false information. For your information, I DO know how much you can get into a Gig of space. Not having to worry about compression means jack shit for code itself. 99.9% of all space taken up in games, operating systems and programs today is not from code. It's from Assets including Models, Sound, and Textures. Code is such a small portion of any game that it's retarded of you to even talk about it when concern for space is a brought up. Please, crawl under a rock and never show your face around here again. We don't need your lack of knowledge and apparently big mouth. The size of the models and textures determines how much information you can display on the screen at one time. If you compress these, you spend even more unnecessary cycles of "poor code" to uncompress the data. When you do this, you take away cycles that could be used to draw a few more objects on the screen and apply a few more textures from the disc. It's a fine balance of texture size, model count, memory and streaming bandwidth that determines how much you can put on the screen. You like many others have fallen into the lies of the companies as stated above, but it's not the lies that say Blu-Ray is needed. It's the lies of a company to say it's not needed. I'll give you a hint. The same company also said years ago through it's founder (who denies ever saying it in a heated debate to protect his own "face")

"640K ought to be enough for anybody"

Reply