ImaginaryIndustryInsider
Newcomer
Sis said:Pick that one up on Slashdot, didja now?
My money is on System Wars, circa 2002.
Sis said:Pick that one up on Slashdot, didja now?
the lowest common denominator is still the dvd for next 3-4 years. if there are any game busting load points, it will be on sony first party games.Anywho, lets give it a year and see.
Of course its the lowest. The Xbox360 released with DVD, hence, lowest.fireshot said:the lowest common denominator is still the dvd for next 3-4 years. if there are any game busting load points, it will be on sony first party games.
multi-platform on multi-dvds says hi!
Wired says no, as well:ShootMyMonkey said: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."
pakotlar said:There goes that argument.
Nicked said: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.
JarrodKing said:The more important point I see is this- if a developer is already reaching the limits of the storage medium available to him when making a launch title, how much more crowded will things become as we progress through the intended long life cycle of the Xbox 360? I don't know when the 360's successor is scheduled to appear, but it seems naive to think several years from now, no one will want/need extra space.
ShootMyMonkey said: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."
ImaginaryIndustryInsider said:This thing always ends up breaking down to some version of:
DVD-9 is more than enough/Blu-Ray is over-kill/An excuse for metrosexual Japanese CGI-fests.
or
I heard that 360 launch games will be on 4(+) discs!/Give me Blu-Ray, or give me death.
I think there is plenty of wiggle room between those two extremes.
function said:You'd think so, but a few people are doing their best to stick to the extremes!
- In 1991 there were games that filled CDs. In 2001, most DC games could be put onto a CD with little or no loss in quality.
- In year XXXX Mr XXXX thought XXXX kb/mb would be more data than humanity could ever use.
What do either of the above points conclusively prove? Nothing.
Shifty Geezer said:Some fuzzy logic in this post. Just saying this gen, most large games have been rubbish, doesn't change the fact that with more space there's the definite possibility of using it to the games advantage.
JarrodKing said:Um, no it doesn't. If the Enchant Arms game data was pared down to one disc, that doesn't mean it was easy or there weren't tradeoffs associated with it. If the disc available to them was big enough in the first place, they wouldn't have had to waste time fitting it all in or throw things away to fit on one disc.
The more important point I see is this- if a developer is already reaching the limits of the storage medium available to him when making a launch title, how much more crowded will things become as we progress through the intended long life cycle of the Xbox 360? I don't know when the 360's successor is scheduled to appear, but it seems naive to think several years from now, no one will want/need extra space.
I remember playing games on my Commodore 64's huge floppy 5 1/4" disks. The capacity was 170kb per side! That wasn't that incredibly long ago. And I'm sure people wearing penny loafers were saying we'll never need more, we can compress it more to fit, etc. And then games started to span more and more discs. Space requirements always increase. I'd hate to think that the reason next-gen games don't become all they can be is because of something as mundane as disc size limitations and a developer's subsequesnt desire to "get it all on one disc".
JarrodKing said:From Software producer Masanori Takeuchi, who's been working on Enchant Arm, a role-playing game slated to be an Xbox 360 launch title, said developers will also be running into issues of storage space in the next generation. While the Xbox 360 is a next-generation console, Microsoft decided to equip it with a normal DVD reader rather than give it HD-DVD or Blu-ray reading capabilities.
"The volume of data in Enchant Arms won't fit into a single DVD. It's an RPG, so we're thinking it would be inevitable that we release it on two discs," says Takeuchi. "But to be honest, that's even looking grim."
I would guess its a cross between not truly knowing how much they were going to fill at the time and dropping stuff to release around launch.scooby_dooby said:And what happened with EM?
Err, yes they do. Cut-scenes are the bread and butter of an RPG. EM having crap ones is a great disappointment. But its nothing to do with disc space.scooby_dooby said:As bad the cut-scenes are they don't really affect the quality of the game
?scooby_dooby said:This is a good example of the true 'difference we're going to see between PS3 and 360 games, not much, dev's make it work.