Microsoft Bashes Blu-Ray

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
So wait, if blu-ray is still a loser because of DD, wouldnt that mean Microsoft wasted money on a medium which was doublely inferior? So wouldnt they still be bigger losers in that respect?

Oh, and I dont see DD become standard for next gen consoles anyways.
 

gl1koz3

New member
May 24, 2010
931
0
0
Nihilism_Is_Bliss said:
Don't be a sore loser on this one Microsoft, you wish you had bluray.
Or did your fans enjoy playing FF13 over 4 discs with crappy resolution?

BluRay is the current way to go, complete digital distribution is way off.
Until every household in the modern world has internet speeds capable of downloading 20GB games in 10 minutes, and every game console comes with an in-built 10TB harddrive I don't see that changing. It's impractical and currently impossible.

The only advantages of digital distribution is that it takes up less physical space, and is slightly cheaper (assuming that companies will lower their prices just because they don't have to burn it to a disc). Pretty weak reasons.
What if I want to take my game and play it on my friend's console? Yeah good luck, they'll be copy/fun protected.
And the amount of HD space required would be insane! Not to mention if your system crashes you lose every single one of your games with it....and i hope you have an extremely large monthly download limit.

Which console was the first to attempt distributing games solely through online download? The PSP GO, one of the stupidest creations of SONY ever, and it died for 2 reasons: 1. It was about as comfortable for gaming as a mobile phone, and 2. It didn't have a UMD tray.

I don't know why everyone is so hell-bent on digital distribution, in my eyes it sucks. And if one of the next gen consoles comes out with just digital distribution for its games, I will be staying as far from that console as possible.
I'm seeing the casings being pointless. Not only I have to double manage the cases and computer installed files, a dog can eat them. For what DD is, I download a good game overnight and feel like ten nerves's been saved in my head.

My ISP impose only upload limits, so there's no problem with "Hey, I want to play thesegames worth 30GB right now, but I deleted them a long while ago.". I launch the downloader and forget about it. 2-4 hours later they're all there. What can be easier?

But the publishers/devs sure know how to screw around people by imposing stupid restrictions as you mention. So agreed on that one. The rest is just context to where and how you've used to things.
 

Zer0Saber

New member
Aug 20, 2008
283
0
0
Some people like having bonus features over digital downloads. Plus digital HD downloads can take up a lot of space if you like movies.
 

Evilsanta

New member
Apr 12, 2010
1,933
0
0
Until my connection can download in gigs i wont buy it...

I like my blu ray player on my PS3 and i am quite sure that lowers how many CD's i need.
 

Crimsane

New member
Apr 11, 2009
914
0
0
It's weird, though. When buying for PC, I head to Steam first. When buying for PS3, I head to Amazon or a local retailer first. If you asked me what the difference was and why I prefer physical copies for my console gaming, I couldn't tell you. I just do.
 

CyberAkuma

Elite Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,055
0
41
They are so many arguments why BluRay is unneccesary when it comes to videogames but the way they are presenting them is just bad. The fact that most PS3 games fit on one DVD9 disc [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.231419-Sonys-Failure-to-properly-use-BluRay-for-gaming#8100454] is a good enough reason for dissing BluRay entirely which MicroSoft entirely missed.

Also, the aleged fact that Digital Distribution is supposed to be cheaper than retail is just downright bollox.
Most games on Steam (in Europe anyway) are significantly more expensive than the retail copy not to even mention how the PSP Go failed to deliver cheap downloadable games the same way.
Not also forgetting the fact that 2 out of 3 gamers prefer their games on discs and the fact that most ISPs still to this day have download caps restrictions which makes total digital distribution nothing more than a mere vision.
 

xDHxD148L0

The Dissapointed Gamer
Apr 16, 2009
430
0
0
Some truth to what he is saying, having a blue-ray player, I still stream and download more movies that buying the physical copy.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Nihilism_Is_Bliss said:
Don't be a sore loser on this one Microsoft, you wish you had bluray.
Or did your fans enjoy playing FF13 over 4 discs with crappy resolution?

BluRay is the current way to go, complete digital distribution is way off.
Until every household in the modern world has internet speeds capable of downloading 20GB games in 10 minutes, and every game console comes with an in-built 10TB harddrive I don't see that changing. It's impractical and currently impossible.

The only advantages of digital distribution is that it takes up less physical space, and is slightly cheaper (assuming that companies will lower their prices just because they don't have to burn it to a disc). Pretty weak reasons.
What if I want to take my game and play it on my friend's console? Yeah good luck, they'll be copy/fun protected.
And the amount of HD space required would be insane! Not to mention if your system crashes you lose every single one of your games with it....and i hope you have an extremely large monthly download limit.

Which console was the first to attempt distributing games solely through online download? The PSP GO, one of the stupidest creations of SONY ever, and it died for 2 reasons: 1. It was about as comfortable for gaming as a mobile phone, and 2. It didn't have a UMD tray.

I don't know why everyone is so hell-bent on digital distribution, in my eyes it sucks. And if one of the next gen consoles comes out with just digital distribution for its games, I will be staying as far from that console as possible.
Why everyone is hell bent on digital distribution is obvious. There is a lot of money in it for the game companies. Originally the idea was presented as a way of allowing them to develop games faster, and much cheaper for the consumers since there would be no need for packaging, distribution, and other things.

In reality the gaming industry has shown no sign of actually providing games much cheaper, and all that money saved on packaging, distribution, etc... is pocketed by them directly making things simply more profitable. What's more digital distribution gives them tighter control over the game playing populance, both in terms of piracy, but also in terms of control in letting them cut people off from the product they purchused if the industry so chooses (ie revoking a usage liscence as their EULA allows) for various reasons like modding a game, or being caught using files (art, sound, etc..) for personal project like Youtube videos or whatever. Not to mention that with control they can decide when to cut off access to a game, dealing with issues like "Abandonware sites" that make it difficult for them to profitably decide to re-release an old game to a new audience.

Some of that sounds paranoid and out of context, but understand that all of these things become possible once physical media and brick and mortar stores are gone. Digital distribution does nothing but remove power and control of something they paid for from the hands of consumers. Once that control is gone, it lets Kotick-like greed monsters run even more rampant, and the industry can smell the money.

Mostly it seems to be a case of the industry, and the associated game media, trying to convince people that they want everything to go purely digital, rather than any real demand from the population itself.

-

All of the above cynicism aside, I do agree that Microsoft is being a bad sport. Sony focused it's efforts on winning the format war, and this was a big part of why other areas of their business suffered (like the PS-3 which was released during this), now it is reaping the benefits, and it's competition is taking a big hit in the long term. Sony might have gotten a very slow start with this console generation, and heck might even lose this round of the console wars, but in the big picture it will be worth it when their competition becomes dependant on them... and that is what Microsoft is bellyaching about. They did well in the short term, but Sony's long term actions are paying off.

Truthfully, digital distribution alone isn't going to solve this problem (and is a long way off, perhaps never getting here due to the lack of customer benefits). On the other hand if Cloud Based gaming gets here in the near future that might have some effect on the whole thing.
 

SelectivelyEvil13

New member
Jul 28, 2010
956
0
0
Microsoft has been on the attack lately, and making a fool of themselves in the process.

Digital distribution is good fun, but the clear advantage of having a physical copy cannot be denied. One can always have a movie, CD, or game laying around. Digital content can be lost and suffers from relying on the support of a big corporation who probably does not give a damn if you lose your digital game content or have to re-buy anything. What can be certain is that you will pay what they WANT you to pay, so do not look towards a Microsoft price drop or easy access to a sale.

Microsoft just seems grumpy because they invested in HD-DVD which tanked, the PS3 has been successful with its Blu-Ray, and the general populace is moving towards Blu-Ray for their general and convenient high definition entertainment. Most of all though, digital content means the Xbox's survival The drive has the potential to maul discs or even put the console itself at risk of malfunctioning. Make sure that you have one of their proprietary [overpriced] hard drives then.

I am also skeptical on "keeping costs down" because last I checked, Xbox 360 titles cost the same as those on the PS3. So where do I save? In fact, I can't even play half the game because I don't have an Xbox Live Gold account.
 

Kaymish

The Morally Bankrupt Weasel
Sep 10, 2008
1,256
0
0
yea when i can get a limitless number of blue rays for my bandwidth and the same amount of money dont kid your selves they wont drop the price just because they are no longer using the phsyical media or 3 downloaded movies before i hit the cut off

bandwidth is like gold here and i need to save as much as i can i blast through it on steam alone if i dont watch it then you gotta add in all the rest like youtube the escapist pron general browsing images work pron

if a console with no disk tray came out it would be an unmitigated disaster Digital distribution for everything has far too many drawbacks at the moment for it to be used exclusively and those wont be corrected for at least a couple of years if not more

and on top of all that you have the aged people 40 and up who haven't even heard of digital distribution let alone use it they are still a sizeable market and they wont move unless they have to in my family i am the only one who is computer literate enough to use digital distribution
 

Phishfood

New member
Jul 21, 2009
743
0
0
I'd like to add my voice to the masses that like having a physical copy. I'd also like to point out that bluray is also a good data format. People will use it for backups and file transfers still, especially when home internet has such a slow upload.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
I'm placing money that, if HD DVD had won, he never would have said this. Blu-ray will be around for a long time. There's the whole market of people who buy movies in that format, not just gamers.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Like I said before, all blu-ray does is add more space on one disc. It doesn't give performance increases to any of the other hardware. 360 is fine without blu-ray because in the rare instances that a game doesn't fit on one DVD... *GASP!* You can use another one. And no, getting up to change the disc once or twice during the middle of a game that's more than the standard 10 hours long these days isn't a big deal, you're probably getting up less playing this one game than if you were playing 5 10 hour games and having to swap those discs out of the console.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
I guess Microsoft is a bit mad at the fact that they didn't go with Bluray at the time.
And really, do they need to have more space on the discs since the only games that need more than 1 disc are just a couple of RPGs and JRPGS, wich have more than 10 hours of gameplay on each disc?

Long gone are the days of the PS1 and GameCube era of having 2 discs for games that has 6 hours of cinematics and 3 hours of gameplay (I'm looking at you Metal Gear).

And no, at least for console games, it's still quite a LOONG way for me to prefer downloads to buy physical copies, and download 20 gb of movies just to get "Bluray quality"?, no thanks.
 

tahrey

New member
Sep 18, 2009
1,124
0
0
Digital distro > Physical media, with the coming age of 3D and possibly quad-HD resolution?
Haha... yeah... ok... you work for Microsoft. You've got connectivity that could make God jealous. Come back down to earth for a sec.

My broadband isn't exactly embarrasingly bad - better than my brother's for a start - but I'm on my ISP's base package (Virgin 10mbit), and the heavy-use throttling they have in place means I'd be lucky to snag a full 50Gb (aka 2-layer BR I think?) in a day of full-bore transfer. Not exactly up to the challenge of live streaming current 1080p Hi-Def 2D (remember Blu Ray ALREADY uses MPG4, so no DVD-era DivX space-saving possible). And even if it was cached significantly in advance (uh, no, i'll take either air/cable broadcast HD channels or a quick trip to blockbuster over that kind of error-prone organisation), it's one per day (no good for a weekend-evening movie marathon) and ruins the available bandwidth for anything else. Plus you'll still need a decent bit of disc space to cache it on.

Maybe once we've all got Lightpath-based near-neural-net links to the home it'd be viable.
(I'm not trashing all net-based VoD btw - I do my fair share of YouTubing and iPlayer catchups. But the Beeb's 720p, 25fps, poor audio fidelity "HD" already strains my conn near to breaking point a lot of the time; WVGA/EDTV or even 640x360 (still at 25fps) is more viable most days. It would just about muster normal-DVD streaming quality, if anyone at the corp had the requisite video-encoding chops to set it up properly at those specs. But not Blu-Ray. Would have to shell far more than the speed's worth on a 50+ mbit link to manage that.

EDIT: Plus I must add for this as well as the "would you go diskless" discussion - I have some serious, and I think justified trust issues with the people who would then provide these _services_... whether it's trusting them not to go bust and take the game down with them, or to just decide to stop hosting a particular classic one day. I do kinda like my emulators. It'd be sad if we sort of reached a certain point where salvagable videogame history just... stopped. Like that. I was playing a 20-year old 3D adventure earlier and getting quite absorbed. In a land of software-as-service, that thing would have been down the virtual shredder before the millennium rolled over.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
well at least somebody finally bashed blu-ray

"ooh, I'm Sony look at me, I can make the pixels on your movies smaller. YAY!"
NOBODY CARES

[small]user was awesome for this post[/small]