Game developers are not the people making decisions about what to pursue – unless of course they do it for free. But most people have bills to pay, etc, so they work for companies. Even if there were such people that did so much in their free time, they are still limited by the resources of their life, time being a major one.
I have talked with numerous people in the gaming industry – from developers, to artists, to musicians, to designers. So when I talked about diminishing returns for large content, I am speaking from the expertise of those in the industry. Believe me when I say, the only way we’re getting such expansive environments is through algorithms, not more content creation time.
On the other hand, we will want higher quality everything, which means bigger textures, more sound channels, etc. This will be the driving force in game size. I am not saying we will always have the same size games.

However, my concern is with the fact that Sony is introducing a technology that has not matured yet to, “…have faster drives, as soon as the technology comes out.” I think this is a mistake, because it has forced them to market a product that has low yield rates, and is extremely expensive, with little immediate return. This is just not sound for the market. Now, if they introduced blu-ray when it was more matured and was actually useful, I would applaud the inclusion of the new technology. But for now, their only selling point is movies with enough DRM to make you want to nuke a small island. (Seems like an odd reaction to DRM, eh?)

BTW: You are wrong about your statement of infinite compression. Here’s my counter-example. Let’s take a string defined as ‘a*’ (where * is the Kleene closure). This string has infinite length. To perform infinite compression on this string, I would need to reduce it from an infinite length, to a finite length. Behold: “a*”. That’s my string. Yes, not only is it finite, but it is only TWO characters! Isn’t that amazing? The wonders of procedural generation….Yes, this is why I said it is the future of expansive universes.

Maybe this is just the PC-gamer in me talking, but those PS3 exclusives made me yawn.

Yeah, except in the case of the Wii, third party controllers are always nice to fit what ergonomics match you best. I just thought you were saying the PS’s controllers were BETTER than the 360’s.

Ahh, I misunderstood your statement about the Wii, sorry about that.

^^^ This post is a respond to MetaMan, however I have not included any quotes from his post. THIS POST WILL NOT MAKE SENSE UNLESS YOU READ IT ALONGSIDE HIS ^^^

You are correct, I was right in saying that Blu-Ray is not analogous to Betamax. Again, it is the most popular format with the most companies backing it. You would do well to remember, though, that Betamax and VHS were very expensive when they first came out, yet I assume you know how popular VHS has since become. Why? Because it was the most popular format and had the most companies backing it. You should also know that when both CDs and DVDs were first introduced, they were just as slow and expensive as Blu-Ray. Future PS3s will have faster drives, as soon as the technology comes out.

What’s more, saying that we don’t need 50 GB of optical storage is your opinion. There is some merit to that statement, and I suppose we don’t need 4.7 GB DVDs and 700 MB CDs. Your stance is that we should not innovate, because what we currently use optical media for does not require such innovation. However, you can’t use something before you have it. We innovate because it allows to do more in the future. Videos on optical disks were not popular until DVDs came around. Sure, I can burn all of my music as MP3s onto one DVD, but now I can burn my whole collection as lossless WAV files onto one Blu-Ray disc.

Why would game developers not want to use 50 GB of storage? For years there have been things game developers have wanted to do with their games that they have not been able to because of storage limitations. Here is my example of what developers can do with their new-found disk capacity:
[quote]If you have ever played GTA, you will understand. Imagine a GTA game, with a world about the size of Vice City, maybe a little larger, with at least decent graphics, and the ability to go into any building.
GTA was 2D until DVDs came and let Rockstar take it to a new dimension. Rockstar’s goal is to create games that are as realistic as possible. Many game developers think of the medium as almost an art, not just a new way to make money. They always praise new technologies that let them take their art further. You say that consoles are weak. If developers did not push the limits of computing power, your PC would be just as weak. And, by the way, there is no such thing as infinite compression.

The 360 can play every XBOX game? The PS3 can only play PS3 games? Where are you getting this from?!?!? The 360 can only play a select list of XBOX games through software emulation. This list is periodically expanded through firmware updates. The PS3 not only uses software emulation but also legacy hardware, allowing every game to be played without upgraded firmware, although with a few bugs with varying degrees of severity. Their firmware updates allow more games to be played without any bugs. Games not completely supported can still be played, anyway.

You said that the 360 is much better positioned software-wise than the original XBOX was. That is correct. I already stated that in my original post. Yes, many games are cross-platform, and essentially the same across said platforms as well. The PS3 already has several released and announced exclusive titles already, though. Among the best are Resistance, Ridge Racer 7, MGS4, Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy 13, and many more. Sony already has many connections with developers who made exclusives for the PS2, many of which will continue to make new exclusives and sequels to said PS2 exclusives.

I did not say that the XBOX’s controllers were too big. The controller S was just bulky and awkward. The 360 controllers feel very good, as does [logitech.com] for the PS3. They are the perfect size and both have very good button layouts. I am not a fan of the PlayStation’s controller shape, however, it is insignificant seeing as it is so easy and cheap to get a third party one.

One more thing:

Yes, I have seen a Wii. In fact, I have even used one (gasp!). Wii games can use either the classic controller or the Wiimote. Games that have already been made to use the Wiimote cannot use the classic controller, hence my statement that I would like some Wii games better if they did use it instead. Other Wii games are much better with the Wiimote, and I am very happy with those. Hopefully, the games I said I thought would not work well with the Wiimote will use the classic controller.

Have a nice day

Try the 360 controllers or [logitech.com] for the PS3. The Wii’s controllers are quite interesting, and at times quite fun, but there are still some games I like better with a classic controller layout or even can’t imagine playing on a Wii.

That’s why Wii has classic mode. Have you ever seen a Wii?

First, Blu-Ray is not the next Betamax, because it has the most corporations behind it, and is doing better in the market than HD-DVD. This is not to say it’s doing well, but compared to its direct competitors, it’s doing fine.

Second, it doesn’t matter if the 360’s price point appeals to parents, because the average gamer is in their late-twenties, early-thirties. What you should be asking is whether that demographic minds paying $100 extra. (Explanation of $100, not $200, extra: in my opinion, the 360 Core is not suitable to act as a normal console, because it lacks any internal memory and has no backwards compatibility. This restricts what you can do with the console. The lesser PS3 <em>does</em> have built in memory, and does not limit major functionality at all. You just don’t get some fairly pointless features.)

Thirdly, the PS3 technically does have more real and potential software, because all PS1/2 titles still work, and they have many, many exclusives and first party titles.

Fourth, while Sony seems to be inferring that the main attraction of the Blu-Ray player is the ability to play movies, the format’s main attraction is the fact that it can hold up to 50 GB of storage. This allows not only for better graphics, but also for larger, longer, and more expansive games (the 360 has 8.5 GB disks).

Finally, the reason that half of 360 owners did not own an XBOX is because many people considered the XBOX to be a terrible system with very few games, and little variety in that handful. It also suffered from bulky controllers with weird button layouts, and other such annoyances. The 360 is not terrible, actually has more than a couple games, and is pretty streamlined.[/quote]

To give you some perspective, I don’t own, nor have ever owned a console. Consoles cannot compare to the abilities of computers, except maybe in the instance of the Wii…although I’m awaiting Wii controllers for the PC . In any case, I am certainly not an Xbox fanboy – I hate every console but the Wii.

You’re right in saying Blu-ray is not directly analagous to the beta-max – from what I heard, beta-max was actually a pretty good product. But blu-ray is plagued with expensive parts, and low yields in a time when we don’t really need 50gb of storage on an optical disk.

I think you’re getting the PS3 and Xbox 360 confused, because the 360 is backwards compatible with every Xbox game, but the PS3 only plays PS3 games .

The idea that game designers have been awaiting 50GB of storage for their games is a very mistaken concept. Games already cost huge amounts of money, with high risk – a lot of which is spent on content. Because of the ever increasing cost of this content, designers are looking to things like procedural generation to expand games and make them cheaper (Spore for instance). A game that could actually fill up that blu-ray would have to sell at least 10 copies per owner of PS3 to break even (very rough estimate). Even if we were running into storage limits for content, developers would simply be able to apply more compression procedures to pack it down.

While the original Xbox had only one title going for it (halo), the 360 is much better positioned in the field. It has Halo 3 AND Gears of War as excellent exclusives, and pretty much any other game that an American would enjoy (I’m excluding Japanese here) is cross-platform, probably even to PCs. What I’m trying to say here, is PS3 has no great exclusive titles now (although this might change). Oh yeah, and PS has crappy controllers that hurt my hands. I don’t know why anyone would complain about Xbox’s controllers being too big unless they were a tiny Japanese person. Having the controller actually almost fit in my hand makes me get less blisters – that’s all I can say.

Finally, don’t think of me as an Xbox fanboy, but a Sony hater, because everything Sony has done recently is (in my opinion) completely retarded and arrogant. And yes, this is objective analysis, because 2 years ago, I loved Sony and thought they had high quality products.

As for the original XBOX controllers, I love them and couldn’t imagine going back to the PlayStation like controllers that don’t fill my hands quite as nice (I was an original PlayStation owner as well). I do, however, think the Wii has the best controllers out of all of them even though I haven’t had the opportunity to try it first hand.

Try the 360 controllers or [logitech.com] for the PS3. The Wii’s controllers are quite interesting, and at times quite fun, but there are still some games I like better with a classic controller layout or even can’t imagine playing on a Wii.

Here is an example about the possibilities of Blu-Ray. If you have ever played GTA, you will understand. Imagine a GTA game, with a world about the size of Vice City, maybe a little larger, with at least decent graphics, and the ability to go into any building. That would be amazing. There are other examples, but that one is, in my opinion, the best.

Wow, again, I don’t care if it was before your time, you should know about Betamax (I know kids that are in elementary and high school that know about Betamax), but it really doesn’t matter, and I mean no offense.

Well, I now know about Betamax. Ya learn something new everyday… Don’t you worry, I read up on it.

@MetaMan: I think you’re right that the PS3 will be able to excel even more because they have the Blu-Ray built-in. With the extra room allowed for games it offers a lot of breathing room for Sony. As for the original Xbox controllers, I love them and couldn’t imagine going back to the Playstation like controllers that don’t fill my hands quite as nice (I was an original Playstation owner as well). I do, however, think the Wii has the best controllers out of all of them even though I haven’t had the opportunity to try it first hand.

Some things need to be cleared up. Once again, I am not presenting my personal opinions on this matter, but this article has shades of many a 360-fanboy-fest, so I think someone should present the other side.

First, Blu-Ray is not the next Betamax, because it has the most corporations behind it, and is doing better in the market than HD-DVD. This is not to say it’s doing well, but compared to its direct competitors, it’s doing fine.

Second, it doesn’t matter if the 360’s price point appeals to parents, because the average gamer is in their late-twenties, early-thirties. What you should be asking is whether that demographic minds paying $100 extra. (Explanation of $100, not $200, extra: in my opinion, the 360 Core is not suitable to act as a normal console, because it lacks any internal memory and has no backwards compatibility. This restricts what you can do with the console. The lesser PS3 does have built in memory, and does not limit major functionality at all. You just don’t get some fairly pointless features.)

Thirdly, the PS3 technically does have more real and potential software, because all PS1/2 titles still work, and they have many, many exclusives and first party titles.

Fourth, while Sony seems to be inferring that the main attraction of the Blu-Ray player is the ability to play movies, the format’s main attraction is the fact that it can hold up to 50 GB of storage. This allows not only for better graphics, but also for larger, longer, and more expansive games (the 360 has 8.5 GB disks).

Finally, the reason that half of 360 owners did not own an XBOX is because many people considered the XBOX to be a terrible system with very few games, and little variety in that handful. It also suffered from bulky controllers with weird button layouts, and other such annoyances. The 360 is not terrible, actually has more than a couple games, and is pretty streamlined.

If I forgot anything, I’ll post a follow-up. In the mean time, while you all think I am some sort of Sony fanboy, I am sitting here anxiously awaiting Halo 3.

Sadly, I got the “Ring of Death” yesterday while playing Gears of War and now the 360 won’t even boot up. Thankfully I’m getting a free repair even though I’ve owned the console for more than a year.

I think that’s one thing that sets Microsoft apart from some other companies and allows it to be successful. It may not be right the first time, but they learn from their mistakes.

Sony on the other hand…..just loves repeating history *cough beta-max*blue-ray* *COUGH*

I agree, Microsoft’s low price point on the system appeals to parents who don’t want to pay an arm and a leg for a video game system for their kids. At the same time Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is not popular enough right now to make it worth while for many people…and once it does start to become more popular the players for the DVD’s will drop to $150 to $200 because of the mass production and cheaper technology. Then more people will start to adopt to it.