# The price of blu-ray



## Komamura (Sep 21, 2006)

I would assume to say that it has become fairly apparent that the retail price of the standard PS3 game will be $60. Now it is no secret that production cost of a blu-ray disc are more expensive that the production cost of a DVD. So the question that has come to my minds is, who is footing the bill for the extra cost? Is that a task that sony has forced on to the publishers or is a cost that sony has taken charge of themselfs?


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Sep 21, 2006)

If it retails for $60, then I assume that Sony would absorb that cost.  If the medium takes off, then manufacturing prices will drop and Sony wouldn't have to bite the bullet anymore to keep the games competitively priced like that.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Oct 10, 2006)

Blu Ray is Sony's own format, so it would make sense that they would promote their own format on their own gaming console... So I assume the cost of producing the Blu Ray discs would fall on Sony.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 10, 2006)

Yeah, Sony's taking a loss on both the PS3 systems *and* the games; they're hemmoraging money out the wazoo--which will likely result in them being in prime buyout position a year or two down the road.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 10, 2006)

But they will be making a profit on all the accessories! 

And also, it's been confirmed by some source in Japan that first party PS3 games will retail for $50 with most third party games going for $60.

And as for Sony taking a hit on the games as well, it's in an effort to make them more competitively priced, to get more out the door, and to get the manufacturing costs down.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 10, 2006)

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's enough to stem the outflow of money.

Microsoft is taking a loss on consoles, but selling games at a profit, so their outflow isn't nearly as bad as Sony's will be, plus they've got ginormous cash reserves (in the tens of billions).

Nintendo won't be taking a loss on anything.  Even the Wii console itself will make them a profit right from the get-go.

Meanwhile, Sony's cash reserves will be dropping like a rock for the next year or two.  I can honestly see, sometime in '08 or '09, Sony getting bought out--probably by Microsoft, but not necessarily.


----------



## Starblind (Oct 10, 2006)

The $60 has very little to do with the cost of the discs themselves or their manufacture.  The $60 reflects the additional cost to develop next-gen games.  It does make sense to some degree, as it takes longer to design models with higher polygon count, greater numbers of textures, etc.  So it has no real effect on the cost of movies.

In fact, I've always found it interesting how a movie that obviously costs a lot to make (say, Lord of the Rings) costs no more to see than something that didn't cost much at all (Clerks, Pi, Blair Witch Project).  It's one of the few industries that works that way.


----------



## Myr (Oct 10, 2006)

I'm not paying $60 for games. If that means I sit out of future games, then so be it. Start making better games and then I'll think about paying more for them. Until then, the whole "next-gen games are soooo much more expensive" is a bunch of BS. They're expensive because your company is a big fat cow with more executives and marketing personell then 10 times the number of people actually developing the game. Stop pissing away money marketing an image for your game on MTV or by advertising EVERY SINGLE @#*(&^$ COMMERCIAL BREAK, creating short movie-quality CGI clips to show off games that are far less graphically impressive, and running all these absurd promotions and give-aways with each new game. Don't believe me? You go Google Mark Reign and Epic Games. They can develop a next-gen engine AND develop a game for it all while spending half the cost it takes EA just to shove one title out the door when you account for the marketing blitz, product-image/coolness factors, and all the other secondary garbage. Games are getting more expensive and not standing up to the same quality we've had in past generations because there's so much mis-management in most of these large gaming firms that it's just disgusting. We've gotten to the point where nearly every new title is the same old stuff rehashed (no new ground-breaking ideas and innovative features like we saw back in the SNES days) over and over agian.

Btw, in my experience it's actually easier to develop for next-gen games. I always found myself scaling down models and reducing my polygon counts in the name of optimization for older engines. These newer engines don't require that so I'd say it's much easier to develop for.

Blu-ray might make things more expensive, but it's not $10 to $20 more expensive. Those new blu-ray movies are a total rip off. When you count up the cost of these new consoles, their game media, their accessories, and the fact that some of the games require you to have an HDTV to read the text, you might as well just go buy a new computer because it'll be cheaper and so will the games. You just don't miss much anymore. Also, I just can't see spending $10 to $20 more for media that's much cheaper as a DVD especially when the Blu-ray doesn't offer something different or better. Much of the content going to it says it's HD and says it's 1080, but when you read the fine print the resolution is normally only 768 lines.

So, bottom line, it's not worth it. Wait for the prices to fall. Don't fall prey to corporate greed.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 10, 2006)

Though games aren't getting more expensive.  If you go back to the old SNES and N64 days, they were much more expensive than this.

They're just going back up in price due to more expensive media.  Honestly, it's not Blu-Ray that is raising the prices either Myr.  Xbox 360 games retail for about $60 and they're still on DVD.

And Blu-Ray offers ALOT more than DVD does.  By more I mean space.  And by ALOT I mean alot of space.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 10, 2006)

A Blu-Ray disc has about 30GB capacity.  HD-DVD has (IIRC) about 18GB capacity, but much better data _compression_, so the two are effectively the same on how much stuff you can pack onto the disc.

Classic DVDs have about 5GB of space, IIRC.


----------



## tundra_arctic_wolf (Oct 10, 2006)

I saw a Samsung Blu-ray DVD player at Best Buy.  The price: US$1000.


----------



## Silverdragon00 (Oct 10, 2006)

Myr said:
			
		

> So, bottom line, it's not worth it. Wait for the prices to fall. Don't fall prey to corporate greed.



QFT! I pretty much always wait for a game's price to fall before I buy it. Hell, I do the same thing when buying a console. Sure, it may be a wait, but I think it's worth it in the long run.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 10, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> A Blu-Ray disc has about 30GB capacity.  HD-DVD has (IIRC) about 18GB capacity, but much better data _compression_, so the two are effectively the same on how much stuff you can pack onto the disc.
> 
> Classic DVDs have about 5GB of space, IIRC.



Except then you factor in how many layers a Blu-Ray disc can have and it will beat out HD-DVD.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 10, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Except then you factor in how many layers a Blu-Ray disc can have and it will beat out HD-DVD.



I've heard of BD with two layers, and no more--and I know people online who are all over the next-gen format war.

I've also heard of dual-layer HD-DVD, I think.

Plus, since the data layer on BD is so much closer to the surface of the disc than HD-DVD, it's much more suceptible to scratches.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They have created an 8 layer Blu-Ray disc in a lab, though only up to dual layer BD-R discs are available now.  And BD-R discs come with a special TDK coating that makes them much less susceptible to scratches than a standard DVD.

Edit: Nevermind about the 8 layer, that was something Sony said but was never truly confirmed.  However, TDK has announced that they have made a quad layer BD-R.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 11, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> They have created an 8 layer Blu-Ray disc in a lab, though only up to dual layer BD-R discs are available now.  And BD-R discs come with a special TDK coating that makes them much less susceptible to scratches than a standard DVD.



An eight-layer BD disc?  What's it cost, $200?

As for the scratch deal, do you know if the data-layer depth is the same on HD-DVD as it is on standard DVD?

And please, stop comparing BD to standard DVD.  That's not really what it's competing against.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was just comparing it to standard DVD because it's something for you to get a feel for its scratch resistance.  Most people don't own HD DVD discs so it doesn't make sense to compare it to something people are not familiar with.


As for the data-layer depth, I'm assuming it is similar between HD DVD and DVD.  They wanted to keep the production processes very similar to keep production costs lower.

Edit: Did a little bit more research.  TDK says that a BD-R should last easily 50 years and with the special DURABIS2 coating on the BD-R discs, it passes the industry's steel wool rubbing test and resists dust, scratches and fingerprints.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 11, 2006)

I'm a neophile (a broke neophile, but a neophile nontheless).  I need comparisons between the new and the other new.

For example, for years after broadband internet service started getting popular, *all*, and I mean *ALL* the commercials were comparisons between whatever broadband service was being advertized and dial-up.  This drove me absolutely crazy.

I still have dial-up.  The only experience I have actually *using* broadband is from friend's houses (and school).  But I like to know which of the new things is better than the others, not how it relates to current stuff.  I already *know* it's probably better than existing stuff, or it wouldn't be getting so much hype.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Well I went back and edited my last post with some more descriptions TDK released about the durability of a BD-R.

Assuming that when you take steel wool to a DVD (with DVD and HD-DVD being very similar) and it won't run, while a BD-R will still operate seems pretty durable despite its data being so close to the surface.  I do know that HD-DVD will not have the DURABIS2 coating.


----------



## Myr (Oct 11, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Though games aren't getting more expensive.Â Â If you go back to the old SNES and N64 days, they were much more expensive than this.


And if you go back to my archive of SNES and N64 games you'll notice I have about 1/10th as many of them as I do PS1 and PS2 games. The increased cost doesn't work out in the long run for these companies when it comes to how I buy. 
Â Â 


> They're just going back up in price due to more expensive media.Â Â Honestly, it's not Blu-Ray that is raising the prices either Myr.Â Â Xbox 360 games retail for about $60 and they're still on DVD.


Uh wait....they're going back up because of expensive media but it's not Blue-ray and XBox360 just uses DVD not HD-DVD? Then by all means the 360 titles should all be selling at $50 if not $40. Right now I see nearly all of them price fixed at $60 even if they suck or have been out for a long time. The price controls on that system are rediculous. Also, as I stated earlier, the price to develop games are not increasing. If anything they are DECREASING because companies like EA have started to outsource to programmers overseas to make them code games. Those programmers are paid less and given less time to produce the product. That's why more games than ever get released rushed, missing features, buggy as can be, or absolutely no documentation at all. Companies are cutting every single corner while diverting all money and and extra funds into marketing and sales. The games themselves are not getting more expensive to make and is the biggest myth of the whole "next-gen" thing.



> And Blu-Ray offers ALOT more than DVD does.Â Â By more I mean space.Â Â And by ALOT I mean alot of space.


When I start seeing things that make Blu-ray stand out as different from the competition then maybe I'll consider it. For now I see games that will be released on all platforms, movies that have the same quality on DVD as they do on BR, and BR players that cost 10 to 20 times more than their DVD counterparts, and 2 to 3 times more than their HD-DVD friends.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 11, 2006)

Interesting, but it still doesn't tell me much about how BD stacks up against HD-DVD in durability.

However, regardless of which is more durable or has more capacity, I'm going HD-DVD.  Partly because there's less friggin' DRM, and partly because I just don't see Blu-Ray winning this thing.

Blu-Ray is gonna go the way of BetaMax.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Even though Blu-Ray has greater studio support?

Personally, I'm probably going to be going Blu-Ray, only because it comes standard with the PS3.  I honestly don't care about next-gen formats but since it comes bundled in with a future console of mine, I'll have one by default.  I'll have a 360 as well, but I since I don't care about next-gen media, I'm not gonna dish out $200 just to have the HD-DVD add-on.

Especially since hybrid players are going to hit development in the near future.  I think this will turn into another DVD-R and DVD+R.  Two different formats that settled for being in a tie.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 11, 2006)

Myr said:
			
		

> I'm not paying $60 for games.


You think $60 is too much?
Check out the prices for games in Australia.

A 360 game is around $110-120 (PS3 games are more than likey going to be around the same price) while PC game are heading $90+
When you consider Battlefield 2142 is $110 (and it isn't even a game, it's a mod and a damn shitty one at that) things aren't going to be better.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 11, 2006)

I don't have an HDTV yet, so HD movies are not that big of a deal for me.

As for gaming, I'd rather have a choice of wether or not I want to spring for next-gen media.  X360/HD-DVD gives me that.

And now we come full-circle, back to how the PS3 is sinking hard.

This debate seems to be going nowhere.  Agree to disagree?


----------



## Myr (Oct 11, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Myr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I lived in Australia I'd do a lot more bitching and would look to free methods to get a hold of games. That sort of price is totally unacceptable. I consider it gouging thus making warez an acceptable option under those prices.

As for BF2142....they NEVER fixed BF2. I still get the red tag bug all the time and there are still problems with how the game registers hits (or a lack thereof). They've released GB's worth of patches and for everything they've improved something got worse. The stuff they're doing in BF2142 I could mod in my own free time if I really really wanted to. I hate EA.  I rarely ever try playing BF2 and if I do it's only with bots since there's just too many online problems. I can imagine BF2142 being worse. They're spending more time marketing it than making it. Everywhere you look there's propaganda about the game. EA is just pissing away money on the "cool-factor" of the game rather than the actual quality of it.


As for PS3 sinking hard....how about all of "next-gen" doing so. None of that stuff is living up to the expectations. They overmarketed, underdelivered, and are missing the point about what made systems like SNES, N64, and PS1 so successful.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 11, 2006)

Myr said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That ain't gonna help. If anything, it will push the price up even higher because no-one is buying them and they're retards when it comes to pricing.
The most we can do is import from over-seas. And don't forget, we don't have a R rating either.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> I don't have an HDTV yet, so HD movies are not that big of a deal for me.
> 
> As for gaming, I'd rather have a choice of wether or not I want to spring for next-gen media.  X360/HD-DVD gives me that.
> 
> ...



Which I will disagree with as well, seeing as how Gamestop and EB Games sold out of all their PS3 pre-orders this morning usually in less than 10 minutes after opening.  Four minutes here.

The PS3 just has incredibly bad PR.  Sony's marketing division is terrible and they need to learn to keep the mouths shut on their execs.  It would help lead to less mis-information and a more unified message.  Honestly, the PS3 is probably going to sell regardless of that price point, just based on brand name alone.  To help prove that point, when I was at the PS3 pre-order this morning there was a young boy with his mom there and they pre-ordered the $600 high-end PS3 model.  If kids can convince their parents to buy into it, that's a big market.  Also, there were a few people that came into the EB games while I was there talking with the manager for the sake of conversation, who were uber stoked about the PS3 but had no idea what the Wii or the Revolution was.  When we told them, they asked if it played PS2 games.  We said no, and they said they weren't gonna buy it then.

To the casual market, Playstation is a HUGE name, much more than the Wii is.  Especially since the casual market hasn't been exposed to the PR flops at the expos.  They only know what other people tell them face to face.  They are not going to be lurking around Joystiq or Gamespot and gathering information there.  They'll be watching what's on TV and what's being advertised in the real world.  Which is much different than what we have seen being more knowledgable and involved.

The casual market is a huge market.

Purely from a gaming point of view personally I'm not interested in what the 360 has to offer in terms of games.  I like my RPGs and Xbox 360 just doesn't have any that seem too enthralling at this point, especially with FFXIII slated to release on the PS3, along with Oblivion and White Knight Story just to name a few.  As far as my personal gaming needs go, I could care less about shooters and most western styled games.


----------



## Myr (Oct 11, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> That ain't gonna help. If anything, it will push the price up even higher because no-one is buying them and they're retards when it comes to pricing.
> The most we can do is import from over-seas. And don't forget, we don't have a R rating either.


Essentially it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned if you don't even try" type of situation. Warez is the only solution then because imports aren't going to happen. Yes, in the short term companies will raise prices and try more restrictions, but in the long term eventually someone will get it through their thick skulls that they're doing something wrong and need to entice you people to buy rather than running EA "Buy the game NOW!" commercials on TV thinking that's going to make you run out to purchase.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 11, 2006)

But we _can_ and do already import from over-seas. The problem is not enough people do it to make an impact.
The console kiddies have no problem 'convincing' their 'parents' to buy their new $110 game and that's where their market is. As long as we have these 'parents' Australia is stuck in the "Gamez are teh Devil" age.
I'll see if I can link you up to the ACA 'news report' about the kid that plays WoW.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 11, 2006)

*air raid siren* Duck and cover!
Yay for YouTube


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 11, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Which I will disagree with as well, seeing as how Gamestop and EB Games sold out of all their PS3 pre-orders this morning usually in less than 10 minutes after opening.  Four minutes here.



Yeah, they sold out fast.  They were only allowed *8 pre-orders per store*, because Sony fell way short of their originally projected manufacturing numbers.



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> The PS3 just has incredibly bad PR.



Most of which is true, IMHO.



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Sony's marketing division is terrible and they need to learn to keep the mouths shut on their execs.  It would help lead to less mis-information and a more unified message.



I would help if the Marketing department got decent information themselves; I'm pretty sure they were misinformed themselves, which is why everything went to hell for the marketing dept (figuratively speaking)



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Honestly, the PS3 is probably going to sell regardless of that price point, just based on brand name alone.  To help prove that point, when I was at the PS3 pre-order this morning there was a young boy with his mom there and they pre-ordered the $600 high-end PS3 model.  If kids can convince their parents to buy into it, that's a big market.  Also, there were a few people that came into the EB games while I was there talking with the manager for the sake of conversation, who were uber stoked about the PS3 but had no idea what the Wii or the Revolution was.  When we told them, they asked if it played PS2 games.  We said no, and they said they weren't gonna buy it then.



Sad but true.  That's the result of brand-name-loyalty and generally being un-informed.  I'm not saying all of 'em would pick something else if they *were* informed, but it's a sure bet some of 'em would.

I feel no sympathy for anyone who does no research into a game system and its competition/alternatives before buying, and then gets dissapointed, regardless of which system it is.



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> To the casual market, Playstation is a HUGE name, much more than the Wii is.  Especially since the casual market hasn't been exposed to the PR flops at the expos.  They only know what other people tell them face to face.  They are not going to be lurking around Joystiq or Gamespot and gathering information there.  They'll be watching what's on TV and what's being advertised in the real world.  Which is much different than what we have seen being more knowledgable and involved.



Yup.  Which is why they're un-informed.  It's one of the few things Sony has going for 'em; that so many people don't know of the PS3's shortcomings.  They just think "PS3 = PS2, better".  These people make up the vast majority of those who will be buying *only* a PS3.



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> The casual market is a huge market.



Very much so.  And every day, more and more casual gamers are turing to Microsoft and Xbox Live Arcade for the simple stuff.  The Wii will be able to play not only GameCube discs, but also downloadable versions of games for *every Nintendo console ever released* along with games from the Sega Genesis and TurboGrafx16.  The PS3 will require software emulation just to play PS1 games.  I don't see it gaining any significant share of the casual-gaming market.



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Purely from a gaming point of view personally I'm not interested in what the 360 has to offer in terms of games.  I like my RPGs and Xbox 360 just doesn't have any that seem too enthralling at this point, especially with FFXIII slated to release on the PS3, along with Oblivion and White Knight Story just to name a few.  As far as my personal gaming needs go, I could care less about shooters and most western styled games.



And I'm the opposite.  There aren't many RPGs I like.  Oblivion is good, and Phantasy Star Universe will be great.  Both are on 360.  I like futuristic action games, particularly First-Person Shooters.  In general, the 360 has much more selection in the types of games *I* like than even the PS2.

I understand the appeal Final Fantasy has for most people, but I personally can't stant turn-based combat.

Sony has gotten complacent with their lead in the gaming market, and has forgotten some important things.  Among them, that it's not so much about the hardware, or the software, or even the gimmicks; it's about the _gamers_, and giving the gamers what they want.  Granted, there are many gamers who want a PS3 simply because it's the PS3, and there are many who, like you, want it because it has a better selection of their preferred game types.  But Microsoft has realized that the sweet spot is giving the gamers *choices*; the choice of wether or not to opt for next-gen media, of different levels of online involvement, of complex 3D games or simple classic arcade titles; giving the informed public the chance to choose exactly what they want instead of force-feeding them the company's idea of the future.

As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo's Wii isn't even really *in* this console war.  They'll do well regardless.  As for the other two, my money is squarely on Microsoft and HD-DVD--or, it would be if I had any money.



Naturally, this is all just my opinion.  Your Mileage May Vary.

And with that, I'm done with this thread.



[EDIT]
_Gawd, that took entirely too long to write._


----------



## blackdragoon (Oct 11, 2006)

well after reading everything in this thread. (which took forever btw) i can only wonder how you guys would compare scratch resistance of the blue-ray to the dvd/hd dvd as well as whatever the old black ps1 disks were called? i haven't a clue what they were called but i know i got ps1 games in the absolute worst condition imaginable that still work like brand new. just wondering how you would compare the really old basically antique stuff to the brand spankin new is all. (btw i have a copy of vigilante 8 second offense that is so scratched there isn't any smoothness to it at all and it still works fine. plus a copy of twisted metal one thas cracked down the middle and it too still works for some reason...)


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not all stores had 8 pre-orders max.  The local Gamestop had 13.



			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, but no one else knows about it other than more hardcore gamers.




			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who's to say they'll be disappointed?  If they enjoyed their PS2s, then they'd most likely assume the PS3 would be like it but better, which it is.  I don't see how there could be a let-down there.

Would they have more fun on another console?  Maybe, but that doesn't mean they'll be dissapointed.



			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What exactly are the PS3's shortcomings?  I know that the price is a big hit, but what else do they have against them?



			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No Virtual Boy downloads for the Wii. 

Anyway, on a more serious note, Sega also released info that said that some titles for the Genesis and Saturn would also see light over on the PS3's own downloadable gaming platform.  They've always been emulating the PS1 software when it came to running PS1 games, except in the early years of the PS2 where they just included the basic PS1 hardware inside while they perfected the emulator.  Nothing wrong with that.  And the PS3 will also support downloadable versions of PS1 titles, which on its own is a huge library as well.  Indie games are making way onto it as well.  On Launch Day, the flash based game fl0w will be available for download off of the PS3's online network.  I'd expect more to follow in an XBLA fashion.  Coupled with games like Singstar, it could capture a good portion of the casual market if they can get gamers to bite the bullet and spend $500 - $600.



			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo's Wii isn't even really *in* this console war.  They'll do well regardless.  As for the other two, my money is squarely on Microsoft and HD-DVD--or, it would be if I had any money.



I plan to eventually have all three.  The best of all platforms is truly the way to go.


----------



## Silverdragon00 (Oct 11, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> (btw i have a copy of vigilante 8 second offense that is so scratched there isn't any smoothness to it at all and it still works fine.)



That is so weird, since I have one exactly like you explained it! O_O

The PS2 games seemed a little less durable, at leats to me. I had one with just a very small scratch (I think it was a NFS game) and the damn thing stopped working. Luckily, I was able to fix it with some plexiglass cleaner. I've had several other PS2 games have that happen, too, but never to a PS1. Those things were as durable as hell!


----------



## blackdragoon (Oct 11, 2006)

that they were silver, that they were. but i can only wonder as to what they were called? and why as things got more advanced, they also became more vulnerable.


----------



## Silverdragon00 (Oct 12, 2006)

I don't know, but I believe, if possible to still keep it up-to-date, switch back to that. Because one tiny scratch nowadays can mean an end to a game. And that is just ridiculous.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 13, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> that they were silver, that they were. but i can only wonder as to what they were called? and why as things got more advanced, they also became more vulnerable.





			
				Silverdragon00 said:
			
		

> I don't know, but I believe, if possible to still keep it up-to-date, switch back to that. Because one tiny scratch nowadays can mean an end to a game. And that is just ridiculous.



I believe that is because in a DVD, the data layer is closer to the surface that it was on a CD.  Hopefully with Blu-Ray, that DURABIS2 layer really does protect it.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Oct 15, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Yeah, Sony's taking a loss on both the PS3 systems *and* the games; they're hemmoraging money out the wazoo--which will likely result in them being in prime buyout position a year or two down the road.




You're making a prediction on something that's barely started hitting the market.  You can't possibly come to the conclusion that a technology is going to fail before it's even been sold. :|


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 15, 2006)

Hyenaworks said:
			
		

> Rhainor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But EVERYONE's been doing it!


----------

