Blu-ray Wins (HD-DVD gone)

[kaysee]

Just thought I would post this interesting article to support my viewpoint:

"Even worse, the window of opportunity is closing. This battle will end with both HD-DVD and Blu-ray retreating in the face of a new challenger: digital downloading. Disney movies can already be downloaded via Apple iTunes, cable companies offer videos on demand, and consumers can record shows and movies in high definition on their HD-compatible digital video recorders. The ability of consumers to perceive this challenger just over the horizon further stalls DVD player adoption. Why bother investing in a player when it may soon be obsolete? "

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/what-are-the-lessons-of-the-blu-rayhd-dvd-battle-a-freakonomics-quorum/

 

[HBK619]

So why the great carry on about storage capacity?

Because it can hold more.

Fact is something anyone is allowed to point out.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Just thought I would post this interesting article to support my viewpoint:

"Even worse, the window of opportunity is closing. This battle will end with both HD-DVD and Blu-ray retreating in the face of a new challenger: digital downloading. Disney movies can already be downloaded via Apple iTunes, cable companies offer videos on demand, and consumers can record shows and movies in high definition on their HD-compatible digital video recorders. The ability of consumers to perceive this challenger just over the horizon further stalls DVD player adoption. Why bother investing in a player when it may soon be obsolete? "

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...e-blu-rayhd-dvd-battle-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Kaysee, sweetheart, this is just an opinion piece (poorly worded and badly written at that), it doesn't support you argument, it just agrees with it.

If digital distribution is the chosen format of HD movies within the next 5 years, I will eat a piece of dog poo, film it, and upload it to youtube for everyone here to see.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

So why the great carry on about storage capacity?

Because you asked me to list advantages BR had over HD-DVD - and storage capacity is one of them.

When Br burners become widely available, having 100gb of space to move data on is definitely preferable to having 25gb, wouldn't you agree?

Not to mention, as a gaming medium it gives developers infinitely more to work with than the crapbox 360's god awful load times and 8gb storage space.

 

[beaumont911]

Not to mention, as a gaming medium it gives developers infinitely more to work with than the crapbox 360's god awful load times and 8gb storage space.

Load times are worse on the PS3. The BR drive only spins at 2x and the 360s DVD drive spins at 16x. Not to mention the 360s HDD has a high rpm rate.

The only thing the PS3 can do to speed up times can be to put the game on the HDD... and the 360 used the HDD as cache memory, so the specifications shows that the PS3 loads slower.

Use facts instead of biased opinion Karl.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Load times are worse on the PS3.

No they aren't. I have both, they're much worse on the 360.

The BR drive only spins at 2x and the 360s DVD drive spins at 16x. Not to mention the 360s HDD has a high rpm rate.

The HDD on the 360 has no effect, because all games are designed to work without using it - without a HDD as standard on the machine, load times become horrendous.

The only thing the PS3 can do to speed up times can be to put the game on the HDD... and the 360 used the HDD as cache memory, so the specifications shows that the PS3 loads slower.

the 360 can't use the HDD to cache, because not all 360's have a HDD. It's one of the main reasons I hate the 360 and the fact it is holding the gaming industry back.

Use facts instead of biased opinion Karl.

I am using fact,s and I'm also using informed opinion. As an owner of both consoles, I'm completely unbiased - before my PS3 my original Xbox was my favourite console ever - I'm just honest about what's better. I am telling you load times and freezing are much worse on 360 (in fact, I've NEVER had a freeze on my PS3).

 

[beaumont911]

the 360 can't use the HDD to cache, because not all 360's have a HDD. It's one of the main reasons I hate the 360 and the fact it is holding the gaming industry back.

Poor poor Karl, we went through this before you were banned.
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=63988
Shame you can clear the 360s cache on the HDD. All the game requires is a simple If statement to see if a HDD is attached, if it is, use it, if not, dont.

Thought you'd research before you assume.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Poor poor Karl, we went through this before you were banned.
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=63988
Shame you can clear the 360s cache on the HDD. All the game requires is a simple If statement to see if a HDD is attached, if it is, use it, if not, dont.

Thought you'd research before you assume.

For a start, even with the HDD, in my experience having owned both consoles - the 360 has far worse load times. What are the load times like on your PS3, by the way? And if a 360 elite has worse load times than a 60gb PS3 (which it does), how bad must it be for the poor suckers who bought the 360's with no HDD?

 

[beaumont911]

Making up again facts again, KP. How sad.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/51938.html?id=51938 - Tony Hawk, 360 owning the PS3 in load times.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/04/ps3-to-load-games-slower-than-the-xbox-360/ - Actual explanation.

Personally I dont care, but when you make up facts Karl, it really does look pathetic.

 

[HBK619]

It's true, the load times on some PS3 games are shocking, The Orange Box would have to be the worst.

On the 360 it is about 2-3 seconds, where as on the PS3 it is about 10-15, and with a heap of loading points it can get a bit frustrating.

Though I have to say, the load times on games made for the PS3 whether first or exclusively are far better than that of the 360 ports.

 

[beaumont911]

It seems MS is considering to offer a BR for the 360. I would consider it, if it can be modified to be used on the PC, like the HD-DVD drive was.

I would definitely if games come out on them, but I doubt that, as they are probably more likely to load games to the HDD.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Because it can hold more.

Fact is something anyone is allowed to point out.

Yes, but it could hold 100000000gb, and it would make no bloody difference!

As for KP's statement about when burners are avbailable, it will be a long time before a 100gb blank BR drive is more cost effective than buying HD space.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Because you asked me to list advantages BR had over HD-DVD - and storage capacity is one of them.

When Br burners become widely available, having 100gb of space to move data on is definitely preferable to having 25gb, wouldn't you agree?

Not to mention, as a gaming medium it gives developers infinitely more to work with than the crapbox 360's god awful load times and 8gb storage space.

I'm glad someone else has noticed that you're a god awful liar.

120gb HD DVDs would not have been too far away. Argument destroyed.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The HDD on the 360 has no effect, because all games are designed to work without using it - without a HDD as standard on the machine, load times become horrendous.)

Oh dear.

the 360 can't use the HDD to cache, because not all 360's have a HDD. It's one of the main reasons I hate the 360 and the fact it is holding the gaming industry back.).

What a stupid statement. You really have no idea, do you?

I am using fact,s and I'm also using informed opinion. As an owner of both consoles, I'm completely unbiased - before my PS3 my original Xbox was my favourite console ever - I'm just honest about what's better. I am telling you load times and freezing are much worse on 360 (in fact, I've NEVER had a freeze on my PS3).

Give it up Karl, in this post alone you have made youself look like a fool, if not a liar. Completely unbiased

I'm just worried what the effect of your unsubstantiated bile will be on the lesser informed looking for actual information on this site. It would be better for this forum if you were to disappear, but if that isn't going to happen, someone will have to combat your diatribe with facts.

It's true, the load times on some PS3 games are shocking, The Orange Box would have to be the worst.
On the 360 it is about 2-3 seconds, where as on the PS3 it is about 10-15, and with a heap of loading points it can get a bit frustrating.
Though I have to say, the load times on games made for the PS3 whether first or exclusively are far better than that of the 360 ports.

Oh dear, betrayed by one of his own.

Load times for PS3 exclusives are better than on 360? You don't say? I suppose they would pretty much never load on 360.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I'm glad someone else has noticed that you're a god awful liar.

I'm just speaking from personal experience with both consoles. IMO load times are much worse on the 360.

When was the last time you played a PS3? What were the load times like?

120gb HD DVDs would not have been too far away. Argument destroyed.

What argument? Mate, I don't think this is getting through to you but BR holds more per layer than a HD-DVD, that is just a simple fact and it doesn't matter what "wouldn't have been too far away" considering at the time of it's death, the biggest HD-DVD disc could hold only 25gb.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Oh dear.



What a stupid statement. You really have no idea, do you?



Give it up Karl, in this post alone you have made youself look like a fool, if not a liar. Completely unbiased

I'm just offering my first hand opinion, using both consoles. From my experience, which is significantly more than anyone else here, the 360 has worse load times. Frankly I don't give half a plop if you believe me becuase you're in denial about the 360 as it is.

I'm just worried what the effect of your unsubstantiated bile will be on the lesser informed looking for actual information on this site. It would be better for this forum if you were to disappear, but if that isn't going to happen, someone will have to combat your diatribe with facts.

 

[Borgsta]

you could always upload some videos comparing the same game loading on the PS3 and the 360.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

you could always upload some videos comparing the same game loading on the PS3 and the 360.

Well, I do have Devil May Cry 4 on both consoles, and the load times are quicker on PS3 - but it's not really fair on the 360 considering the game was designed on PS3 and has a 5gb install to reduce the graphic tearing and load times that plague the 360 version.

 

[beaumont911]

Well, I do have Devil May Cry 4 on both consoles, and the load times are quicker on PS3 - but it's not really fair on the 360 considering the game was designed on PS3 and has a 5gb install to reduce the graphic tearing and load times that plague the 360 version.

No video Karl? Everyone knows you are making **** up.

Several reviewers have compared the load times, usually 2 seconds for PS3 and 3-4 for 360. Not bad for the obscene twenty minute installation for only 5gb. Now how is that for a load time?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

No video Karl? Everyone knows you are making **** up.

Several reviewers have compared the load times, usually 2 seconds for PS3 and 3-4 for 360. Not bad for the obscene twenty minute installation for only 5gb. Now how is that for a load time?

Have you played the game on either console? There is an absolute truckload of load screens, and the 20 minute installation is easily made up over the course of playing through the game

 

[HBK619]

Oh dear, betrayed by one of his own.

I am not a PS3 fanboy, I simply do not like people dissing such a brilliant machine.

Load times for PS3 exclusives are better than on 360?

What are you talking about, I did not say that.

I said that the either PS3 exclusives or games made for the PS3 first have far better load times than games made on the 360 and ported to the PS3.

See, everything that I say you seem to try and ram it back down my throat somehow, I wasn't putting down the 360, I was simply stating that if a game is made on the PS3 first the load times will be much better than if it is ported from the 360.

You don't say? I suppose they would pretty much never load on 360.

You are a tosser, honestly, I say one thing about the PS3 and you think I am bashing your beloved XBOX 360.

 

[HBK619]

Yes, but it could hold 100000000gb, and it would make no bloody difference!

As for KP's statement about when burners are avbailable, it will be a long time before a 100gb blank BR drive is more cost effective than buying HD space.

Yes it would dude, just because a game or movie might not take up the full space on it, doesn't mean it can't be used as a data disc.

What is the use of 1 TeraByte Hard Drives, so you can put data on it, it's pretty simple!

If one disc has more space it is a far better feature, why can you not comprehend this?

 

[Borgsta]

If one disc has more space it is a far better feature, why can you not comprehend this?

It's baffling isn't it?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It's baffling isn't it?

OK Borgsta, explain to me the practical difference between a 30gb HD DVD movie available now, and a 25gb BR movie available now.

As KP said, no movies require more than 25gb. The practical difference between a 50gb BR and a 30gb is zero, because neither are needed.

Now once burners are available, the storage issue comes into play. This is also a non-issue, because who would spend $500 on a BR burner, only to have to pay $100+ for a 100gb blank BR.

That's a cost of around $600, for 100gb of storage. Only an imbecile would go with that.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I'm just offering my first hand opinion

The problem is, your first hand opinion is completely incorrect. Take a look at the post I quoted, it's all wrong. Way off the mark. But you just keep going.