Blu ray and divx player

[Goto10]

If the machine was hidden from sight and I had a nuetral controller (IE not MS or PS) I wouldnt know what machines I was playing on.

They go about their business in different ways but the end result is pretty much identical.

Except one costs £300 and the other costs £159

If they're the same, why did you buy a PS3? It has more features warranting the extra money. Mind you, I think the reliability is worth a premium too.

I bought it because I wanted a Bluray player!
The fact I still buy games for the 360 over the PS3 says it all.

Exactly, so you can't say "Except one sells for £159 and one for £300", you're not comparing like-for-like with regards to the features, they're different animals, the PS3 offers more hence the premium.

"The fact I still buy games for the 360 over the PS3 says it all."
Says what exactly?
I can easily say that the fact I still buy PS3 games over the Xbox says it all. Doesn't say anything, it just shows personal preference.

[crostheman]

ooo! I just found out I can stream mkv using transcode to my xbox through the htpc.

Looks like i'll be buying a couple more xbox's.


Simon

[matt_mr2t]

It says that in terms of playing games there's no difference and i have chosen to keep building my 360 collection instead of changing to PS3.

I've never said the 360 is better than the PS3 and if it comes across that way I appologise. I am agreeing that as a full media tool, bluray player, games console the PS3 is best in fact.

But at the same time, in terms of playing games, the Ps3 is no better than the 360 - they're the same and nearly all the games available are available for both and are the same.

PS3 games USED to be £5 dearer so that always helped my descision although they've evened out now.

The main reason I still opt for the 360 is because I prefer the controller and not having to save it to the HDD and wait 72 days for an update to be saved

[pcp]

This will become more of an issue as time marches on, games get bigger and bigger, requiring more & more space - cut scenes, textures, music, video etc, games will start going multi-disk on the 360 before long, lack of HDD will mean disk swapping fun.
As someone said on this thread, PCs are the benchmark of gaming - so how many PCs games run straight from the disk? NONE! They ALL install to the HDD. They're DVD equipped, but yet still choose to install to HDD, why is that do you think?

Tbh i don't think it'll be an issue at all in the current gen machines, the 360 replacement will be out i'd guess within the next 2 or 3 years.

The ONLY reason sony included a bluray on the ps3 is because they were in the middle of a HD video format war, sticking a bluray in the ps3 pretty much guaranteed them victory purely through console sales in japan.

I see what you mean about the dvd read issues, and that's what renders a hdd an extra on a games console, there is no NEED for it, it's nice to have but in no way a necessity like say a video cable

PCs use the HDD because it's there, try building a PC without a HDD and see how far you get I haven't bought a PC game in ages but i'm guessing most still come on a single dvd, dead space, fallout 3 and PES2009 are all around the 7gb point, i'm not sure we'll ever reach the point where you'll need 50gb of render textures, all a render is is an image file that's mapped over a 3d skeleton, it's the gfx card that makes the render look good through calculations. Cutscenes are a thing of the past mainly, nowadays most games just use the game engine to render them as they look every bit as good as rendering them using a standalone product then converting to a movie file and even at that cutscenes are quite low in mb even in comparison with a 9gb dvd, in all honesty the only cutscene i can remember seeing is in GOW2 where they fly over the city, and that's probably just because it shows places that aren't part of the game.

@lauren, yes i have a HDD, why? because it came with my console, big tickle, if i didn't want it i could've bought a cheaper one, but all my AV equipment is black, so i wanted an elite, fickle maybe but hey ho. The difference is that i can remove mine and my console is the same, if you remove your hdd your console will be like many of the older 360s, broken. singing the praises of the bluray is a bit strange as it menat that your console cost you about an extra £100, and you get ZERO benefit out it as you don't use bluray films

[matt_mr2t]

I like the fact i can pop my hard drive off and take it round a mates so all my unlocked data can be used there. The funny thing is, i haven't seen any one say the xbox plays games better than the ps3 yet we get called fanboi's! There really is no difference between the end product of the games. It would have been nice from a pure gaming sense if sony did a version without a bluray player and another option to the expensive built in hard drive. That's all i'm saying about it but the SONY FANBOI'S go on the defensive and get all angry.

[pcp]

I like the fact i can pop my hard drive off and take it round a mates so all my unlocked data can be used there. The funny thing is, i haven't seen any one say the xbox plays games better than the ps3 yet we get called fanboi's! There really is no difference between the end product of the games. It would have been nice from a pure gaming sense if sony did a version without a bluray player and another option to the expensive built in hard drive. That's all i'm saying about it but the SONY FANBOI'S go on the defensive and get all angry.

I seem to remember lauren slating the 360 and declaring the ps3 far better before it was even released, but anyway, shut up you're just bills b1tch. or something

[Goto10]

PCs use the HDD because it's there, try building a PC without a HDD and see how far you get

You've completely missed the point of the question - a PC doesn't have to use the HDD, but games always make use of it - why? If it wasn't beneficial in anyway then the developers wouldn't make you install the game, they'd run it straight from the DVD. Yet every single time they make use of the HDD. You yourself said PCs are the benchmark of games systems - the reason you gave "because it's there" is the primary reason developers use it in the PS3, it's there and it's better. *Exact* same reasons PC use it. PC games invariably require the DVD presence in the drive too (for licence), so it's not even for convenience playing without the disk.

[SamUK]

PCs use the HDD because it's there, try building a PC without a HDD and see how far you get

You've completely missed the point of the question - a PC doesn't have to use the HDD, but games always make use of it - why? If it wasn't beneficial in anyway then the developers wouldn't make you install the game, they'd run it straight from the DVD. Yet every single time they make use of the HDD. You yourself said PCs are the benchmark of games systems - the reason you gave "because it's there" is the primary reason developers use it in the PS3, it's there and it's better. *Exact* same reasons PC use it. PC games invariably require the DVD presence in the drive too (for licence), so it's not even for convenience playing without the disk.

Like lauren, i think your missing the point. They dont use it cos its there.

They have to!! how many times do we have to say it.

what benefit has it given to the ps3 over the 360??? it hasnt. its made it so you can play those games in the first place cos without it youd be bu88ered.


i wont try and deny that using the HDD can improve load times etc but it doesnt on the PS3. at all.



ok lets play a game. lets all take our HDDs off the console and play a game or even a movie.

dont think the game would last very long for people with a ps3.


PCs are a different ball game. Even i wont deny that they are the best machines for gaming.

the only argument ive ever had is i wanna sit on my bed/setee but even that seems possible these days now TVs have VGA etc.


sidenote- just told my girlfriend about this and explained and the first thing she said was if i have to install games, i mite aswell play them on a PC.

Matty youd love her lol.

[Goto10]

Like lauren, i think your missing the point. They dont use it cos its there.

They have to!! how many times do we have to say it.

www.youre.co.uk

Nope, my point stands. Read this carefully, even if the PS3 had only a DVD drive, in most games the developers would STILL use the HDD (for content and/or caching) because they'd know it's definitely there to be utilised, it's a boon in-game for load speeds. If all 360s had HDDs then GTA would've been an 'install' game as Rockstar themselves say. I'm sure this would be true for a whole host of other games too. You appear to believe the entire disk is copied to the HDD, it's only partial content, Tomb Raider copied some content to my PS3 HDD, took around 60 seconds - the majority of the game runs straight from the disk.

PCs are a different ball game. Even i wont deny that they are the best machines for gaming.

Ahhh, I see, so when you're comparing 360 features you can quote the PC as being the oracle of all things game, but when it proves the PS3 has a better feature you're not allowed to use the PC as an example.

[Goto10]

They dont use it cos its there.

They have to!! how many times do we have to say it.

Interesting. Absolutely can't eh?
The IGN review of Dead Space suggests otherwise, they say it doesn't install on the PS3 and, amusingly, it beats the 360 load speed by 1~2 seconds! I know that's a piffling small amount of time, but to retain context re-read your comment above.
From what I've read it utilises the HDD for caching on-the-fly for textures and whatnot, a very good use of the HDD.
They say the BluRay drive has a sustained 9mbps transfer rate, the 360 only has full data transfer rate on a single layer disk, going double layer can reduce this by 50%.
Funny old world eh?

[pcp]

PCs use the HDD because it's there, try building a PC without a HDD and see how far you get

You've completely missed the point of the question - a PC doesn't have to use the HDD, but games always make use of it - why? If it wasn't beneficial in anyway then the developers wouldn't make you install the game, they'd run it straight from the DVD. Yet every single time they make use of the HDD. You yourself said PCs are the benchmark of games systems - the reason you gave "because it's there" is the primary reason developers use it in the PS3, it's there and it's better. *Exact* same reasons PC use it. PC games invariably require the DVD presence in the drive too (for licence), so it's not even for convenience playing without the disk.

as sam pointed out i think you're missing the point, nobody is saying it's a bad thing to have a HDD, but for the ps3 it's a necessity, it just won't work without it, the HDD is there purely because the bluray is there, the bluray is there purely because sony invented it and didn't want to lose the hd-video battle, this meant the cost of the ps3 was significantly increased, basically so sony could make more money in the future totally unrelated to the ps3. i still don't get people being fanboys (not aimed at you btw), i have a 360 purely because it came out about a year earlier, if sony had've launched first i'd no doubt have a ps3 too, at the minute the ps3 offers nothing extra in a gaming sense to justify the money, both machines provide 99% the same gaming experience.

Textures and the like don't utilize a lot of disc space, when a game is over 9gb then great, until that moment then i don't see the need.

[SamUK]

They dont use it cos its there.

They have to!! how many times do we have to say it.

Interesting. Absolutely can't eh?
The IGN review of Dead Space suggests otherwise, they say it doesn't install on the PS3 and, amusingly, it beats the 360 load speed by 1~2 seconds! I know that's a piffling small amount of time, but to retain context re-read your comment above.
From what I've read it utilises the HDD for caching on-the-fly for textures and whatnot, a very good use of the HDD.
They say the BluRay drive has a sustained 9mbps transfer rate, the 360 only has full data transfer rate on a single layer disk, going double layer can reduce this by 50%.
Funny old world eh?

i give up. i could get a list of multiplatform games that are better on the 360.

it wouldnt be hard, gamespot just did a 360 vs ps3 article and guess which came out on top

youd just say something like "well the xbox is the lead development platform so of course it will look better".

my reply would be, "so?".

i only posted in here cos its funny when lauren jumps in with too left feet. as much as it pains me, ill leave it now lol.

[Lauren]

@lauren, yes i have a HDD, why? because it came with my console, big tickle, if i didn't want it i could've bought a cheaper one, but all my AV equipment is black, so i wanted an elite, fickle maybe but hey ho. The difference is that i can remove mine and my console is the same, if you remove your hdd your console will be like many of the older 360s, broken. singing the praises of the bluray is a bit strange as it menat that your console cost you about an extra £100, and you get ZERO benefit out it as you don't use bluray films

I do watch blu-ray films but I don't generally buy films or DVDs, I hire them on the odd occasion.

I don't understand why on earth i'd ever want to remove the HDD on my PS3? What you are saying makes no sense.

[SamUK]

*sigh*


were not saying you want to. were saying you cant.

[Goto10]

*sigh*


were not saying you want to. were saying you cant.

Well clearly not now, developers have utilised it. Dead Space shows it can be done though. 360 base units now come with 256mb internal storage too, MS have realised their mistake of shipping without any internal storage, shame they're building it down to a price or it might have a decent size one in there.

[James]

ooo! I just found out I can stream mkv using transcode to my xbox through the htpc.

Looks like i'll be buying a couple more xbox's.


Simon

Let us know how you get on with it, I didnt bother as I read that you get a few problems - like a choppy picture etc.
i guess the PC would be working quite hard whilst re encoding on the fly and streaming at the same time.

I am waiting for a media player (a stand alone unit) is released that will play all current file types (holds all known codecs) and also has a network connection for streaming.

I was tempted by the I-Star but didnt get it for a reason I forget... and then saw the new Western Digital HD media player but its lacking a network port dam it. Looks dam sexy too and would be reliable being WD.

[SamUK]

*sigh*


were not saying you want to. were saying you cant.

Well clearly not now, developers have utilised it. Dead Space shows it can be done though. 360 base units now come with 256mb internal storage too, MS have realised their mistake of shipping without any internal storage, shame they're building it down to a price or it might have a decent size one in there.

but you say that like you could of done at the start?


which is the point were trying to make. you never could of and the devs (cant believe im saying this again) had to use the HDD to make the games work.

without it sony wouldnt have any games on there console, well, maybe dead space. apparently.


you still cant give me more than one title where having the HDD has been a significant advantage over the 360?

[Goto10]

ooo! I just found out I can stream mkv using transcode to my xbox through the htpc.

Looks like i'll be buying a couple more xbox's.


Simon

Let us know how you get on with it, I didnt bother as I read that you get a few problems - like a choppy picture etc.
i guess the PC would be working quite hard whilst re encoding on the fly and streaming at the same time.

I am waiting for a media player (a stand alone unit) is released that will play all current file types (holds all known codecs) and also has a network connection for streaming.

I was tempted by the I-Star but didnt get it for a reason I forget... and then saw the new Western Digital HD media player but its lacking a network port dam it. Looks dam sexy too and would be reliable being WD.

The new Istar H5 is out this month, maybe worth a look?

[Goto10]

*sigh*


were not saying you want to. were saying you cant.

Well clearly not now, developers have utilised it. Dead Space shows it can be done though. 360 base units now come with 256mb internal storage too, MS have realised their mistake of shipping without any internal storage, shame they're building it down to a price or it might have a decent size one in there.

but you say that like you could of done at the start?


which is the point were trying to make. you never could of and the devs (cant believe im saying this again) had to use the HDD to make the games work.

without it sony wouldnt have any games on there console, well, maybe dead space. apparently.


you still cant give me more than one title where having the HDD has been a significant advantage over the 360?

There's no "of" in could've!
If the specs were sans HDD then yes, they would've made compromises and engineered games to work using optical media only, much like they did with GTA4 on the 360 - granted there may have been more DVD9s.
But happily there was an HDD from the start so you're arguing a non issue.
I'm not au fait with the subtle nuances between multi-plat games to tell you the info you crave, I know GTA4 performs better with an HDD, in/out building load times are quicker and I understand the 360 suffers more long-distance texture pop up in when flying/driving fast due to the fact it needs to wait for the DVD to access the texture files on the fly.

[SamUK]

Arguments must be running dry if you have to pick up on my spelling and grammar huh?.

Yea the 360 version is meant to suffer from some pop up but the PS3 framerate is meant to be worse and some of the textures and night scenes dont look as good.

So you have this "huuuuuuuuuge advantage" of installing to a HDD and its still not a better game.