@SXGi1b0 While your time approximation is totally off (it'd take about 3 seconds for the disk to even come out after pressing eject), I understand your point. However, no matter how fast the 360's disk drive is, it really can't hope to compare against streaming it off the hard drive.
@EvoAnubis Well actually youre wrong, the 360 has the option to install any game to the hard drive in its entirity, this can not be done with the ps3. Also ps3 installs are only partial and still reads data off the disc in addition to some data from the hard drive, thats why the 360 is still faster from the disc alone and even faster straight from the hard drive.
@SXGi1b0 Um...not sure where I'm wrong here. What I said was that the 360's disk drive speed can't compare to streaming it off the hard drive. Which is true. I'm perfectly aware that 360 games can be installed on its hard drive...which is STILL faster than its disk drive. HDD>>>Disk drive. That's what I said, and, well, I'm right. This isn't a 360 vs PS3 discussion here. I was talking solely about the disk formats, and by extension, the disk drives. You're the one that brought up installs.
@EvoAnubis I thought you mean 360 discs cant compare to streaming off the ps3 hard drive, I know HDD> disc drive. Yes I brought up installs. Yes you did say that in your first post I replied half way through reading it then read the rest, im cool like that. I didnt know the transfer speed on bluray was the same wherever on the disc, how can this be true, it doesnt make physical sense? More surface area to cover further out on the disc equals longer time to spin the disc and read it?
@SXGi1b0 First party developers will put as much data on the inner ring on both layers, they layer the data properly so no installs.3rd party dump all on one layer i believe, they dont split it. However, when first parties start using the full 50gb i think installs will be unavoidable even for them
There is nothing wrong with the blu-ray format itself, it holds more data and has a scratch proof surface. The issue is the speed of the bluray drive sony put in their consoles requiring forced mandatory installs on most of their games, shame really but sony rushed their console out with a slow drive to compete in the format wars and gamers suffered. $600 on a console plus $hundreds on HD upgrades is bad.
@SXGi1b0 That thing with installs is odd. Ever notice that with PS3 exclusives like Killzone 2/3 and the Uncharted series, no installs are required? GT5, as you mentioned, was a notable exception, but for the vast majority of first party games, installs aren't really something that happens.
@EvoAnubis Yes I have noticed, but did you notice that nearly all ps3 games that do not require an install are first party developers? They are the only ones that bother layering data to bluray correctly where as third parties and multiplats dont care and just dump the data on the disc forcing users to install. This trend still continues today over half way thru ps3 life cycle and install sizes are getting bigger, rage, brink both 8gb, and many others.
@SXGi1b0 Yes, I noticed. In fact, that's exactly what I said.
The reason why is exactly what you depict; first party devs are simply better at knowing where to put the data on the disk to get the most out of it. Given that the data transfer speed is the same on a Blu-Ray no matter where on the disk it's located, it's totally different than a DVD9 where the speeds can wildly vary under the same circumstances. Third party devs just...well, do what you said.
@EvoAnubis In PS3's defence (although still greatly outweighed by the negs of bluray adn mandatory installs) the blurays are starting to be more beneficial despite the install as well. Example, Rage and BF3, to experience full HD gfx only 8gb install on ps3 which is still mandatory, no install on 360 for SD but up to 22gb full install on 360 if you want the HD texture pack added on. Its making me indecisive which versions to go for these days, and I think this trend may continue.
@cyrutvirus Cramped? A Blu-Ray could hold 5 DVDs worth of space and still have room to spare. That's not even an exaggeration: Blu-Ray for the PS3 hold 50GB, double-layer. DVD9 holds about 9GB, double-layer. Not sure how less than 20 GB of data would feel 'cramped' on a storage format that holds both disks at double-layer on a single layer (25GB) Blu-Ray disk.
I would much rather spend 3 seconds disc swapping than 1800 seconds installing a game (GT5).
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
@SXGi1b0 While your time approximation is totally off (it'd take about 3 seconds for the disk to even come out after pressing eject), I understand your point. However, no matter how fast the 360's disk drive is, it really can't hope to compare against streaming it off the hard drive.
EvoAnubis 2 months ago
@EvoAnubis Well actually youre wrong, the 360 has the option to install any game to the hard drive in its entirity, this can not be done with the ps3. Also ps3 installs are only partial and still reads data off the disc in addition to some data from the hard drive, thats why the 360 is still faster from the disc alone and even faster straight from the hard drive.
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
@SXGi1b0 Um...not sure where I'm wrong here. What I said was that the 360's disk drive speed can't compare to streaming it off the hard drive. Which is true. I'm perfectly aware that 360 games can be installed on its hard drive...which is STILL faster than its disk drive. HDD>>>Disk drive. That's what I said, and, well, I'm right. This isn't a 360 vs PS3 discussion here. I was talking solely about the disk formats, and by extension, the disk drives. You're the one that brought up installs.
EvoAnubis 2 months ago
@EvoAnubis I thought you mean 360 discs cant compare to streaming off the ps3 hard drive, I know HDD> disc drive. Yes I brought up installs. Yes you did say that in your first post I replied half way through reading it then read the rest, im cool like that. I didnt know the transfer speed on bluray was the same wherever on the disc, how can this be true, it doesnt make physical sense? More surface area to cover further out on the disc equals longer time to spin the disc and read it?
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
@SXGi1b0 First party developers will put as much data on the inner ring on both layers, they layer the data properly so no installs.3rd party dump all on one layer i believe, they dont split it. However, when first parties start using the full 50gb i think installs will be unavoidable even for them
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
There is nothing wrong with the blu-ray format itself, it holds more data and has a scratch proof surface. The issue is the speed of the bluray drive sony put in their consoles requiring forced mandatory installs on most of their games, shame really but sony rushed their console out with a slow drive to compete in the format wars and gamers suffered. $600 on a console plus $hundreds on HD upgrades is bad.
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
@SXGi1b0 That thing with installs is odd. Ever notice that with PS3 exclusives like Killzone 2/3 and the Uncharted series, no installs are required? GT5, as you mentioned, was a notable exception, but for the vast majority of first party games, installs aren't really something that happens.
EvoAnubis 2 months ago
@EvoAnubis Yes I have noticed, but did you notice that nearly all ps3 games that do not require an install are first party developers? They are the only ones that bother layering data to bluray correctly where as third parties and multiplats dont care and just dump the data on the disc forcing users to install. This trend still continues today over half way thru ps3 life cycle and install sizes are getting bigger, rage, brink both 8gb, and many others.
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
@SXGi1b0 Yes, I noticed. In fact, that's exactly what I said.
The reason why is exactly what you depict; first party devs are simply better at knowing where to put the data on the disk to get the most out of it. Given that the data transfer speed is the same on a Blu-Ray no matter where on the disk it's located, it's totally different than a DVD9 where the speeds can wildly vary under the same circumstances. Third party devs just...well, do what you said.
EvoAnubis 2 months ago
@EvoAnubis In PS3's defence (although still greatly outweighed by the negs of bluray adn mandatory installs) the blurays are starting to be more beneficial despite the install as well. Example, Rage and BF3, to experience full HD gfx only 8gb install on ps3 which is still mandatory, no install on 360 for SD but up to 22gb full install on 360 if you want the HD texture pack added on. Its making me indecisive which versions to go for these days, and I think this trend may continue.
SXGi1b0 2 months ago
2 disc sucks though u can lose one all types of shit its just a inconvenients
rocnation2222 5 months ago
You , do know that battlefield 3 is going to run smoother on xbox 360 because everything is not cramped up into one disc
cyrutvirus 5 months ago
@cyrutvirus Cramped? A Blu-Ray could hold 5 DVDs worth of space and still have room to spare. That's not even an exaggeration: Blu-Ray for the PS3 hold 50GB, double-layer. DVD9 holds about 9GB, double-layer. Not sure how less than 20 GB of data would feel 'cramped' on a storage format that holds both disks at double-layer on a single layer (25GB) Blu-Ray disk.
EvoAnubis 5 months ago
@EvoAnubis XBOX - 2 discs
PS3 - 1 disc
PC - discs optional
PC WINS THE DISC WAR!
alopez1374 5 months ago 2
@alopez1374 Not sure where I mentioned PC gaming in this video, but thanks for your input.
EvoAnubis 5 months ago