PS3 Price Drop

[Blue Jedi]

Wrong, as I told you it's 50 gig, straight from the horse's (or donkey? ZING!) mouth. I don't mind the generalisations so much, but have to correct this. It's an easy mistake to make, but let's straighten it out.

some of the new blue rays can even hold 500 gig and over double that.

J T never doubt the Jedi I do my research
The horses mouth you got that from was infected with foot in mouth

Panasonic are taking advantage blu ray disk buy adding multiple layers to the blue ray disk this enables them to make capacity 100gig the first ones to be released by panasonic will be the 100 Gig blue ray
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/19/p...ast-a-century/

[J T]

J T never doubt the Jedi I do my research
The horses mouth you got that from was infected with foot in mouth

Panasonic are taking advantage blu ray disk buy adding multiple layers to the blue ray disk this enables them to make capacity 100gig the first ones to be released by panasonic will be the 100 Gig blue ray
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/19/p...ast-a-century/

I see that they have been working an a 100GB disc, but adding extra layers will at first be very very expensive, possibly unfeasible, depending on how much storage the market at the time requires. Does this relate to the PS3? As yet, I don't really think so.

How much data can you fit on a Blu-ray disc?


A single-layer disc can hold 25GB.
A dual-layer disc can hold 50GB.

To ensure that the Blu-ray Disc format is easily extendable (future-proof) it also includes support for multi-layer discs, which should allow the storage capacity to be increased to 100GB-200GB (25GB per layer) in the future simply by adding more layers to the discs.

Still a tad short of the 500GB point. Also, will the players become more flaky when having to deal with more layers? Could a home recorder ever be able to resolve that sort of detail (if a recordable/re-recordable disc with that many layers could even be made reproducibly reliable, at a reasonable price)?

It may well be good for industry use, but overkill (especially price wise) for the home market. Technical one-upmanship is all very well and good, driving forward innovations and all that, but it has to be a balance with what people actually need and (possibly more importantly) are willing to pay for. There's a lot more to making a success of something than simply having the biggest numbers.

[Blue Jedi]

Wrong, as I told you it's 50 gig, straight from the horse's (or donkey? ZING!) mouth. I don't mind the generalisations so much, but have to correct this. It's an easy mistake to make, but let's straighten it out.

some of the new blue rays can even hold 500 gig and over double that.

J T The horses mouth you got that from was infected with foot in mouth
never doubt your friend the Blue Jedi I do my research I am right.

Panasonic are taking advantage of the blu ray disk buy adding multiple layers to the blue ray disk this enables them to make the blu ray disk capacity 4x the standard 50 Gig to an awsome 100 Gig disk. Panasonics 4x dual layer 100 Gig blu ray disks will be relased and if popular. Panasonic have ven said the Blu ray disk can be layered many times and it is not yet know how many times it is capable of being layered Panasonic even have a 20x dual layerd 500 Gig disk in the works and and double that if the 100 Gig panasonic Blu ray disks become popular.

There are also blu ray players with 500gig hard drives but dont get them confused its toatly different to what i am talking about.

Go to this link to see the panasonic blu ray 100 gig disk anouncment.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/19/p...ast-a-century/

I will look for the link on the 500 gig and higher disks because its intresting to read.

Hope this has excited you its the whole reason why harddrives are so cheap know because we can use blue ray disks to store stuff on aswell.

[J T]

[QUOTE=Blue Jedi;9560]

I will look for the link on the 500 gig and higher disks because its intresting to read.

Hope this has excited you its the whole reason why harddrives are so cheap know because we can use blue ray disks to store stuff on aswell.

Something like this (from an ultra brief google), perchance? This has got absolutely nothing to do with gaming, be it PS3, X360 or whatever, it is interesting but right now not really relevant to this discussion.

Hope this has excited you its the whole reason why harddrives are so cheap know because we can use blue ray disks to store stuff on aswell.

BD recorders are hellishly expensive, I very much doubt that this is why HDDs are getting cheaper. In fact, the trend is that they have always gotten larger, and cheaper per byte - from years and years ago. Nothing to do with Blu-ray at all.

[Blue Jedi]

Its true the possiblitys of blu ray mean we can use the disks as storage and with the panasonics massive 100 gig tblu ray and 500 gig and double itds forced Hard drive prices to come down because already pc owners are getting blu ray drives so they can use the blu ray disks for storage and they are also getting blue ray hard drives.

You can buy a segate 500 gig external hardrive now for about £45 and 2 of them for under £100.

[J T]

Hard drives would be getting bigger, and cheaper regardless of Blu-ray or HD-DVD, tape backups, CD-Rs or DD floppies.

They always have done, and will continue to do so. For that I am glad.

[Submeg]

Could you imagine a 1TB Blu-Ray! man that would be cool.

[Blue Jedi]

Could you imagine a 1TB Blu-Ray! man that would be cool.

If Panasonics 4x dual layered 100 gig Blu-ray disk is popular then Panasonic promise that they will release the 500gig and 1TB blu-ray disk.

Panasonic said it is possible to keep increasing the dual layering of blue ray disks beyond 1TB but they belive the 100 gig disks are going to last ages.

Panasonic are even trying out quad layed Blu-Rays but they wont be relaseing those for ages.

For games the 10 gig dual layered DVDs are more than enougth. The PS3's 50 gig blu-ray disks are to big for developers because they dont make games over 10 gig and thats why microsoft dident bother.

The the real reason PS3 has a 50 gig Blu-rays is for the HD movies not games.

[AlexJ]

Except Resistance... took up 23GB. Oh and a normal Dual Layer DVD is about 8 and a half GB not 10.

[Sharingan]

Except Resistance... took up 23GB. Oh and a normal Dual Layer DVD is about 8 and a half GB not 10.

I'm sure someone's going to make a retort along the lines of "Insomniac Games sucks ... if it had been Microsoft developing Resistance, they would've found a way to cram 23GB into a 10GB DVD lolz."

Any time now.

Just because developers are finding 10GB enough for games NOW doesn't say anything about the situation a year down the road. Even a 5-year old can see how the relatively small amount of storage space of a DVD could potentially be a limiting factor in the development of future games. Remember how 15 years ago, games with 880KB worth of data were considered huge? Remember how a couple of years ago CD-ROMs (700 MB) were still 'plenty' of storage space? Then 4.7GB DVDs became the standard.

Going by the increase in storage space needed over the past years, even a dimwit could figure out that this trend isn't going to suddenly stop. Even some of the more recent PS2 games pushed the 4.7GB barrier; so yes, I could see current-generation games passing the 10GB mark easily. Actually, they already have - see AlexJ's example.

If more storage space (HD-DVD and Blu-ray) opens up possibilities for bigger game worlds, more game content, more speech, better music and more FMV movies, without compromising on quality, how the F**K can anyone find anything negative to say about that? Seriously, what the hell.

"No, I don't want that quadcore 8GHz PC with 32GB of RAM and nVidia 9800GTX video card, because I don't have any games that make use of its potential right now."

Does that sound wrong to anyone, or is it just me? Apple Macintosh fans need not react, obviously.