DVDs are big enough for Next-Gen + File sizes for X360 launch games

x360 is an economic decision by MS to make a financially competitive console with as many features as could er... "squeezed" into their development budget and timeframe. their choice CPU shows economy, their GPU is very advanced but only because it had to be futureproof for less and teh choice of DVD was an economical one. DVD drives are cheap.

Since MS DOESNT have a vested interest in any format, and there is no sure winner in the HD media format wars yet (though BR looks to win at this time), AND time was of the essence they chose DVD. Its certainly not a better choice than BR or even HD DVD (who wouldnt want a HD disc player in their system???) but it was better for MS at the time, and still has a ways to go before it becomes inefficient/ineffective as a storage medium.

I personally see the small harddrive as a worse oversight... 60 and 80 gig drives should not really cost that much more than MS current 20.. The small size and not including an HDD as part of the minimum spec has much much worse implications.
 
Sis said:
I agree with others that argue that a larger disc format is not necessary but is nice to have. I think that the debate typically is around whether it's a limiting factor on the Xbox 360, which it more than likely won't be. I don't see a problem if a handful of games come on two discs.
Click to expand...

Me neither.

I wonder if you buy an HD-DVD drive if you can load both discs and nothave to switch...
 
function said:
Everyone knows that the amount of fun you have with a game is directly proportional to the amount of disk space it takes up. Simply by using uncompressed audio a game becomes up to 8 times as fun.

And we all know that more memory gives developers more possibilities. The Saturn had more memory than the PS1, which is why its games looked better, where more innovative and ultimately played better.

Take a game like Resident Evil - about 10 hours finish and took up a CD. Zelda on the N64 only took up 32MB and consequently provided less than 30 minutes of very average looking game. Likewise, Morrowwind looks worse and provides less gameplay and fun than two "Make My Video" FMV segment connecting games on the M-CD.

The art of making a good looking game is a bit like the art of making a good painting. The bigger the canvas is, and the more paint you can put on it, the more beautiful and meaningful it will be.

[/exaggerated but typical kind of nonsense]

"Comedy" postings aside, having more storage is nice but doesn't have a fraction of the importance that some are trying to attribute to it. DVDs aren't being filled yet, compression and procedural synthesis haven't been propperly investigated or implemented yet and even if you want to slap in large amounts of hi-def video putting a game on 2 or more DVDs isn't going to be a problem. The 360 isn't going to become a broken format 2 years down the line.

There are always constraints in making games: DVD storage isn't one I'm worried about.
Click to expand...

Agreed, space although important there are other concerns when it comes to next gen development that I don't think that is particularly high on the worry list. I doubt that xbox360 will be a broken system in a couple of years, unless people think that GC was a broken system this gen, btw weren't there many games that actually looked better on the GC than PS2?...
 
How come they listed nearly every game for the X360 that wasn't >6GB?

Talk about wanting to misrepresent the facts...
 
Let me reiterate, folks. This game uses Procedural Synthesis and could fit on a floppy disc...14 times!
Click to expand...
Have you actually played it and seen it in action? If you had, you'd see how incredibly limited it is in opject/scenery design and character design. The day that you can describe all 3d models as collections of boxes, spheres, toroids, cylinders and teapots, it's a valid point. The day that all textures can be made up of geometric patterns and repetitions, it's a valid point. You're drastically overestimating the value by comparing against a release at a competition that specifically imposed the rule that the file must be under 96k.

Also, if you played it, you'd also realize that for its 96kb file size, its memory footprint is too large to fit in a 360. It has a much larger memory footprint than any commercial title out there because it doesn't store a bit of content, doesn't have any sort of memory management or disk i/o code at all -- everything is resident in memory.

How come they listed nearly every game for the X360 that wasn't >6GB?
Talk about wanting to misrepresent the facts...
Click to expand...
I don't think this guy is really out there with any sort of major bias or anything. I just think he's not very knowledgable about how things work. The fact that he associates the size of a game with coding, and that he seems to think a DVD9 actually holds 9 GB on a game disc says pretty clearly that he himself is uninformed.
 
Nicked said:
How come they listed nearly every game for the X360 that wasn't >6GB?

Talk about wanting to misrepresent the facts...
Click to expand...
From the article:

Unfortunately, we don't have the data for every game in the launch line-up; in fact, we only have the data from 4, which is hardly statistically representative.
Click to expand...
I'm kind of curious why you so quickly leapt to question the integrity of the author(s)?
 
Sis said:
I'm kind of curious why you so quickly leapt to question the integrity of the author(s)?
Click to expand...
You make it sound like I still don't question the integrity. I do.
Because its rather convenient for them to make their argument. I am saying, those games have been specifically selected to skew the result. Without those specific games, the whole article would be a bust. Pointless. And truthful.

Don't agree? Fine.

Alpha_Spartan said:
I just had to point that out again. Some of the "Blu Ray or bust" folks on here need to think outside of their narrow frame of thought. Wouldn't it be something if Halo 3 used PS and came in at less than a gig?
Click to expand...
When your console games take 2mins+ to load each area with low variety let me know how that works out.
 
Nicked said:
You make it sound like I still don't question the integrity. I do.
Because its rather convenient for them to make their argument. I am saying, those games have been specifically selected to skew the result. Without those specific games, the whole article would be a bust. Pointless. And truthful.

Don't agree? Fine.
Click to expand...
But you've said nothing in which I can agree or disagree. You are speaking to the authors' intent, ignoring what they claim in their own article and you make what amounts to a baseless assertion. You have neither logic nor facts to back up your suggestion, so what should I agree with? What should I disagree with? You mistake my criticism as a counterpoint to what you said; in fact, I was suggesting that you shouldn't cast aspersions so readily since it's not conducive to a reasonable debate.

I would ask that you clarify what you mean by "convenient for them to make their argument". You keep implicating the authors as if they're shills for Microsoft. Are they? I don't know one way or another. But if you know they are, say so and be done with it. Don't beat around the bush. You claim they skewed the data: where's your data. I have an open mind here, but you need to back up your claims.
 
Platon said:
Sure it is safer, that is not in question, rather if DVD are enough or not for next gen content, or if the xbox360 will end up "suffering" because of it.
Click to expand...

thats why its safer to be with a next gen format. Because that question you make, you will never know as at this point of time (none of us)


Platon said:
So you don't seem to appreciate new rendering techniques and software advances as you do with new hardware, point taken.
Click to expand...

i dont appreciate a technique that costs way way way way to much to be effective than a simple BIG bluray disc that requires a, guess what, a disc and way way way way less performance than that procedural thing takes to be effective.

easy, cheap (in hardware required) large fast games = big disc
hard, expensive (in hardware required) large SLOW games = Procedural


Platon said:
There is nothing to defend, it is a lesser format, no doubt, the question is if it is enough...
Click to expand...

Games wise:
i feel bad if games are "made" thinking in the space constrictions. Its like fighting inside a banana suit. Not the best experience we could have if that issue, wasn't an issue.

hardware wise:
if its cheaper to have a bluray than a machine capable to run procedural games

big drive is a win win to me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So then why is that quote posted in this thread like it means anything anymore.. blowing things out of proportion much?
 
Hardknock said:
It is on one disc.
Click to expand...

There goes that argument.

To reiterate: I don't think that anyone is saying that having more space is undesirable. What we are asking is if the DVD9 format is going to genuinely dampen our gaming experience. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using 2+ discs per game. If it is managed properly, that means 1 swap until game completion (for 2 discs). RE4 pulled this off to great effect. Considering that the gamecube got away with 1.5gb this generation, I don't see any issues with DVD9 for next gen. Blu-ray is nice, and we will all watch the ps3 (as it seems to be a wonderful piece of kit), but most here arent arguing that Blu-ray is bad, rather how much worse DVD9 is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sis said:
But you've said nothing in which I can agree or disagree. You are speaking to the authors' intent, ignoring what they claim in their own article and you make what amounts to a baseless assertion. You have neither logic nor facts to back up your suggestion, so what should I agree with? What should I disagree with? You mistake my criticism as a counterpoint to what you said; in fact, I was suggesting that you shouldn't cast aspersions so readily since it's not conducive to a reasonable debate.
Click to expand...
You can agree that they're misrepresenting data deliberately, or not agree. Or...

Sis said:
I would ask that you clarify what you mean by "convenient for them to make their argument". You keep implicating the authors as if they're shills for Microsoft. Are they? I don't know one way or another. But if you know they are, say so and be done with it. Don't beat around the bush. You claim they skewed the data: where's your data. I have an open mind here, but you need to back up your claims.
Click to expand...
...want me to back up my claims.
These guys are getting their data from a group called CLEARs releases (or it would appear that way to me), who have generously decided to remove the dummy data from the disc and re-release PI releases (save bandwidth, dummy data is rarely used (except in some occasions for load reasons)). Except CLEAR has also changed data from files, according to PI - Link

And yes, I was saying shills for Microsoft, without coming out and saying it. Thank you. I need to articulate myself better. I do try to improve myself.

Besides, that is just the most obvious of many issues with the article.

They say 8.5GB, there is 7GB usable I thought we had confirmed? Tthe newest correction (should) draw the conclusion that if growth in filesize is constant, based off some of the smaller launch titles, the average game size will still peak over DVD's limitations in the X360 lifetime.

Further, they do not recognise the increase in resolution in any significant capacity.

Lastly, they base the results purely off the Xbox and not off the PS2 which started the DVD generation (my term) of consoles on 75% CDs. How would that change the results, I wonder?

Anywho, lets give it a year and see. Either way, I don't think that being limited to 7GB is a very big negative, I can just see the sense in having a bigger format like Blu-ray.
 
When did he actually say this?
Click to expand...
Most people tend to say it was in 1981 when referring to the conventional limits of memory in DOS being 10x the amount of RAM in his own computer. There's no context or source, and Gates himself denies ever having said it, but then he denies a lot of things. Back in 1981, though, it would have been hard for someone to disagree considering that it was a time when you'd spend $300 to get 64k of RAM.

The other variant of the quote was "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Is Dvd9 Enough Space For The Next Generation
Replies
15
Views
3K
Farid
F
Back
Top