Quote:
|
Originally Posted by danlisa
I've watched the video & it holds no weight with me. How can a console which has to compress it's graphics onto a HD DVD out perform/render better than a system that has uncompressed resources ready to go?  When you compress graphics, you loose quality. FACT. Not only that but the video you linked to shows a game that's still in development, you can't really expect the same quality from a WIP from a devs system to match that of the final release. Dev versions tend to have less being rendered than the final version.
Unfortunately, you will get always get people taking sides of the fence in the console wars.
Regardless of Carmack's accomplishments (I won't begrudge him that & applaud him for it), he is a known supporter of the 360. I would also state that the resources in the 360 are easier to 'unlock' or utilize than the PS3's are currently, which is why there are currently no major 3rd party PS3 exclusive games. |
Heibges beat me too most of the punch line, but still didn't address this. Whom exactly is going to use this space you speak of here? No one is the answer. Also, don't even think for a second that textures won't be compressed on a PS3 - not only because of the limited video memory (Which negates any ability to use RAW textures), but also compressed textures look nearly identicle and run many times faster. Its a no brainer.
The Blu-Ray portion of the system exists for only one reason - movies. The storage for textures is not going to happen ever on this console. Probably PS4 if Sony sticks around long enough to produce one.
Besides, the 35 GB capacity of HD DVD (Yes, it is 35 GB, not 15 GB - 15 GB is strictly single layer HD DVD) is plenty of capacity for any game that will ever come down the pike for this generation of hardware. It is incredibly overkill actually. Most games probably won't see the other side of 5 GB.
-S
PS. As you know from my other posts that I'm no MS fan either. I personally think Sony flubbed up PS3 though - and pretty bad.