OF course the third party titles don't utilize the 50GB...

I think the more important question is how many games actually need the 50gb. Don`t get me wrong, many games use is for better quality videos and soundfiles and I like that, however I don`t see many games actually needing that much space to be more innovative and good. One of the best games this Gen is Uncharted 2 and that took a full 25gb disc and was a an amazing 10-12 hour experience, what would 100gb let us do? A longer 46-48 hour experience? I guess that does sound cool, lol

@zootang, yeah, that does sound cool, hehe. I aint hating on blu ray, but great games are not fully dependant on storage space, but I can`t deny that it does help.

@rockleex...

lol@Ultra HD movies, too funny.

Bluray won't be going away anytime soon.

It will even be enough for full Ultra HD movies... maybe. :P

Bluray will last up to at least 15 years.

@Monty

Just think of the RPG's

@zootang

God of War 3 used up 44gb just so you know.

Exactly! Developers aren't usung up the 50 Gb yet, so I don't think they are ready for 100 Gb! As good as Uncharted 2 looked, it was on a 25 Gb BRD! So the 50 Gb disc still have a lot of space to be used.

Also keep in mind what you are asking... because the more work a developer puts into a game, the more money they will try to get back from it! Don't rush things.

sharp has a player/recorder that meets the bdxl format. I know the ps3 could handle higher capacity blu discs but it is more of the amount of storage per layer. Bluray as it is can have multiple layers for data. For the ps3 to use higher capacities, the amount per layer would need to remain consistent.

Meaning if a single layer is 25gb then each layer needs to be the same amount. Dual layer 50gb discs are supported and there is the possibility of quad layer 100gb. This sharp created one however uses 3 layers which breaks down to 33.33gb. A single layer capacitance the ps3 laser is not designed to read.

Not sure if a fw update would fix that but it almost looks like another format in the blu family. One that increases the amount of data per layer thus emilinating the use of multiple layers to achieve the same capacity.

Ironicly, hddvd was 15gb and blu was 25gb. Both were coined from the same idea of using a blue laser to read higher capacity layers. Blu used a slightly different wavelength to read higher capacity layers. This new BDXL is no different in that same scenario. It offers higher capacity per layer than the current blu format.

While this is great news for higher capacity discs it really has nothing to do with sony and the ps3. Sony will continue to produce their 4 layer 100gb discs at a later point in time. Those we know will work (according to sony).

@Richard

Explain, i'm curious.

Download is never gonna take over in my opinion. There are far to many things working against it. Not the least of which is how horribly slow the US is in terms of overall internet speed and what not(Japan and Korea can download full 1080P Blu-ray movies in about 3-4 minutes and it takes us 10x longer to download a NON HD movie half the length)

On top of that we have US ISP's thinking about charging people for using more bandwidth which is exactly what we would be doing if we were expected to download all our games and movies. Imagine having no other option but to download and doing so would jack up your internet bill by like 200 bucks a month. Sound fun? No didn't think so.

Oh and then there is of course the countless surveys and studies showing that consumers don't like download only and prefer disc based media(or media in general should we ever happen to move past disc's)

What companies like MS need to understand is that just because Music has become a primarily download based model doesn't mean that same model would work for games. People only want download only when it's quick easy and simple. Which is why smaller indie games seem to do okay as download only titles but full blown huge games don't.

i think it will change drastically within 5 years, more and more countries are realizing super fast broadband is the future, its just a matter of time

although because of rural areas it wont really be world wide which means discs will always have a place

I personally agree but unfortunately, I wouldn't argue that point.

The game industry will end up like the music industry and where the movie industry is heading. Digital media is the future (unfortunately).

There is something exciting about knowing that when you wake up in the morning, your game will be available and you can just hop up, turn on, and download. Companies will probably do what Steam does where you pre-install the game before it comes out so you don't have to wait for the download. Then on day one, you get a patch that adds any last minute changes and unlocks the game.

Yes restrictions which will be overcome as broadband becomes faster and cheaper. We're talking about the future, not right now. So I don't see why you're talking about present day restrictions on a technology that will be utilized in the future for, amongst other things, video games.

@silvacrest

Honestly I don't know if that's gonna happen. In most of the places in the world that have really fast web access it's because the government made the companies do that.

Something similar is beginning to happen in the US however what they want is LOW end broadband and it's not expected to be finished until like 5 years from now.(assuming the bill even passes for that matter)

The US government seems perfectly content on letting the US ISP's fight over stupid things instead of trying to advance our internet capabilities. As long as that is the case we are never gonna see the incredibly fast speeds other places in the world get.

In Japan they get speeds nearly 50x faster then us and the most they pay is around 14$ US each month. Where as the fastest you can get in the US is probably a fifth of that and will cost you up to 200$ a month. What this means is that most companies in the US have the capability to provide the speeds seen elsewhere in the world but they don't have the incentive to make a affordable mainstream option which is where the government needs to step in.

well, im in the UK and the government as well as the biggest ISP are rolling out fibre optic broadband and expect to get 66% of the country by 2012, the UK is tiny in terms of land size compared to the US so its little wonder why it could take them 5+ years

also a few ISP in the UK offer true unlimited broadband, im only now starting to realize how rare this is around the world, plus its dirt cheap, im only paying £13, even with fibre optic broadband coming it will only be £20+

anyway, after saying all of this i agree with you, unless the government and ISP work together in rolling out super fast internet as well as it being uncapped then it will probably take more then 5 years for most countries and the services still wont compare

@silvacrest

Your lucky ; ;

As I said while the US has a similar plan to the UK it's going to take a much longer period of time and last I knew they were trying to roll out low end broadband and not fiber optic like they should which is not only stupid but a massive waste of tax payers money.

The main reason behind this is because the ISP's in the US love to fight over who has the best deals and what not and Fiber Optic is where that battle is gonna be fought for them and the Government doesn't seem to care at this point which is sad because all they will be doing is wasting a massive amount of money with their broad band plan.