Hard drive's impact on video gaming
- Thread starter Sis
- Start date
2-cents galore!
I think the real reason why people are arguing over the whole hard drive thing is...
a simple backlash from Sony fans that were getting all these techno babble from MS fans on how imperitively important/beneficial the hard drive was on the design of a console...
after the whole announcement of the hard drive not being a standard, most MS fans had a sudden change of heart and argued how unimportant the hard drive actually was...
I think the real reason why people are arguing over the whole hard drive thing is...
a simple backlash from Sony fans that were getting all these techno babble from MS fans on how imperitively important/beneficial the hard drive was on the design of a console...
after the whole announcement of the hard drive not being a standard, most MS fans had a sudden change of heart and argued how unimportant the hard drive actually was...
LunchBox said:
That would be a pretty skewed 2 cents.
If you have not noticed some of the posters do not tow the party lines of any company, even if they are a fan/like a certain product. Further some of us look at changes in the market as an oppurtunity to explore the factors that drive those decisions and the market itself and our comments are not "My preference" type posts but more "looking at it from Company X's perspective".
That said there are a good couple handful of Xbox fans on the forum NOT happy with the HDD move. I am not sure where you have been, but this has been a hot topic ever since it was announced... I am not seeing this "Oh it is fine!" attitude from a majority of Xbox posters. I think your "most" comment is out of place for the most part. Yes some have taken it in stride, but many of the "self identified Xbox marks" have for the most part been the ones raising cain.
Further there are those of us who see the benefits of a HDD, especially when paired with a robust online server and content delivery plan, but can understand the multitude of issues involved. e.g. To name just a few from MS perspective
• The HDD did very little for distinct/innovative games/genres and did not produce a "must have" games in the Xbox
• Cost... the $30-$50 cost for a HDD in the system budget could impact more titles positively by being shifted elsewhere
• HDD do not scale well in cost; silicone (like memory) does
• Market fragmentation. Even if MS sells 50M Xbox 360's, the projected 90-100M PS3 sales, without a hard drive, means from a the perspective of a *developer* creating cross platform content the HDD is a feature that cannot be realistically used
• A large HDD standard, out of the box, cuts off the valuable memory card revenue stream that Nintendo/Sony make a killing on (just one of the many Xbox mistakes)
Understanding the market and looking at it from numerous angles does not mean we agree/like a move. But some of us are more interested in the market and understand that a $300 device has certain limitations. Accepting that that, well, is part of life.
And yes, I am dissappointed that the HDD is not going to be present. But for reasons totally different than others. I don't think a HDD makes the 'game' better, but more the 'gaming experience' by opening up new avenues and possibilities with online distribution of content.
If you look at the PC gaming space the HDD has done very very little to create "innovative" gameplay. I have a hard time believing it can, in fact, create a widely successful genre/title that cannot be done w/o a HDD.
But looking at the PC, what the HDD allows is a lot of downloadable content like new weapons, trailers, demos, expansion packs, new levels/maps, and even user created content like mods or stuff from a virtual market center like MS is hoping to create.
In that perspective MS is doing some things right. They have a user base who is "familiar" and even desirous of the HDD. It is available at launch with functionality from the get go. It is being rolled out at launch, in conjunction with a robust online service (something the Xbox did not have), including an already established online userbase. The HDD is a great value compared to memory cards; further the HDD is being included in a "value" SKU which clearly targets online gamers (ethernet cable, HDD, headset). And finally MS is going to push the Premium SKU with the HDD because 1) it guarantees a large HDD install base 2) they are going to make GREAT profits on the Premium SKU and 3) demand will be VERY high at launch, early adopters are willing to pay a premium.
Almost all expensive addons fail. I believe the Xbox 360 HDD will not be one of those. So within those context the issue is almost moot. I expect "HDD only" and "Online only" games for the Xbox 360. And I expect enough Live subscribers and HDD units available that such games will be a success (in my opinion those buying $100 HDD and/or online services are more serious about gaming and therefore are more likely to buy more games).
Anyhow, this is not a "flip flop" for the most part. A HDD *does* offer a benefit and a technical advantage; yet in the same breath it is not a core feature where its absence means most games will suffer.
To put it in a Sony perspective, if Sony dropped the BR drive from the PS3 it would not impact the majority of games. There would be some upset fans; but in the same I would expect many to come out and say, "While I would have *liked* a BR drive--I always want something free!--I can understand the move due to the additional cost related to the benefit to the end product". And I would have to agree with such an approach.
Of course the two scenarios are not equal, but I think you get the point.
Casting this as a "Xbox fan flip flop" downplaying the HDD really derails the intent of most posts and misses the fact there are valid concerns/reasons for this move that are understandable.
And I think you miss who the Xbox fans are... because most of them on forums (i.e the really hardcore) ARE upset! It is most of us fence sitters or Sony fans who are downplaying the move.
I do understand everyones statements about why the Xbox 360 should or should not include a HDD as standard. In the end I look at it from the point of statements MS themselves made about the HDD. I think they made a big mistake marketing wise from the E3 information (I was there and I spoke with many MS people and they actually hyped the inclusion and possabilities of the HDD for the Xbox 360 this generation) till the announcement of not having the HDD. That the inclusion of the HDD would again help them gain market share over the Sony. This lead people like myself to the notion the Xbox 360 would indeed come with a HDD. Maybe a little more expensive then previous generations but with a HDD none the less. Look at the past comments of the MS marketing team (not direct quotes but..) from the HDD doing micro transactions, downloadable content, Game Demos, Music content, Xbox Live (game balance issues such as mentioned in Halo 2 not to mention a target of millions more people online), Online Video chat or Video Messages, and suggestions of possible Tivo like functions are but a few of the features that MS threw around with the HDD leading the possabilities. These were features along with the notion that developers still had the freedom to use the HDD in a way that pushes development of their own game ideas.
I will still get the Xbox 360 premium pack because it IS a good deal. I just think that MS would of saved themselves alot of grief by just including the the HDD with a minimal markup in the core package. (There might of been an outcry with price I'm sure but not to the lvls about the HDD I've seen lately) I know $299 is the magic number but still. Sony opened the door by suggesting that their console could indeed be more expensive (even if it turns out to be a bluff) not to mention the PSP pricing range. By the time PS3 (and if they did have a $299 package) MS could of countered the pricing at that time along with their projected launch titles to take away some of the Steam of the PS3 launch.
About halfway through the Xbox 360 lifecycle I see where at least a few big name titles (especially MMO varaitions of games which I think might play a bigger role this round) will require a HDD and people will end up getting the HDD anyway. Hopefully HDD prices will have come down by then. Thats just speculation on my part though
I will still get the Xbox 360 premium pack because it IS a good deal. I just think that MS would of saved themselves alot of grief by just including the the HDD with a minimal markup in the core package. (There might of been an outcry with price I'm sure but not to the lvls about the HDD I've seen lately) I know $299 is the magic number but still. Sony opened the door by suggesting that their console could indeed be more expensive (even if it turns out to be a bluff) not to mention the PSP pricing range. By the time PS3 (and if they did have a $299 package) MS could of countered the pricing at that time along with their projected launch titles to take away some of the Steam of the PS3 launch.
About halfway through the Xbox 360 lifecycle I see where at least a few big name titles (especially MMO varaitions of games which I think might play a bigger role this round) will require a HDD and people will end up getting the HDD anyway. Hopefully HDD prices will have come down by then. Thats just speculation on my part though
jpr27 said:
I agree and disagree with this bit
I disagree about the HDD outcry but. The outcry is from hardcore gamers... and IMO (I could be wrong!) mainly those who were modding the Xbox1. I personally do not believe many early adopters are going to scoff at the Xbox 360 because it lacks a HDD.
I DO think that a 300+ price point beyond the launch window (first 3 months) would have been a good thing for MS and WOULD have people complaining. Early adopters--no problem. That is why most early SKUs WILL have the HDD. But the other 90% of consumers is price sensative, and a HDD standard would have prevented a price drop quicker.
I cannot know the minds of MS. What I can know is that Allard has stated the Xbox 360 silicon is more expensive at launch than the Xbox1 silicon. Further is that Xbox1 lost a ton of money, part of that related to the HDD and how it does not scale in cost. With those 2 factors in mind, I think there is an issue of Xbox 360 cost on MS's side, and making decisions that prevent them from hitting SIGNIFICANT price points would be more of a hurdle than the group of upset hardcore gamers... because quite honestly, those hardcore gamers are ADDICTS. They are gonna go buy the PREMIUM SKU in November anyhow.
The casual gamer is a harder sell... and $50 difference in console price is significant to them.
On the other hand... MS just made it REALLY easy for Sony to charge $399 or even $449. If MS had come in with one SKU at $340 I think that puts Sony in a tough position, especially if they dropped to $300 at the PS3 launch in the US (which I expect in fall 2006). One could argue that MS will have a $300 (or $250 if they drop price) SKU by that time, but MS is going to soften the upper market as well and get people comfortable with it.
And worse case scenario: MS's $400 SKU bombs because it is too expensive and Sony comes in lower. Basically MS is doing market research for Sony. How much are customers willing to pay? While some would argue MS's value SKU puts Sony in a hard position, I think the 2 SKU deal "skews" that perception (pun intended) and also lets Sony get a feel for the market. They may very well find that $400 is a good price point.
And you mention Sony bluffing... for some reason I do not doubt that Sony could come in "hot" and go toe-to-toe. I don't expect that because the PS3 has more expensive components, Sony has a rabid fan base who will pay a premium at launch, and the fact Sony cannot arbitrary take losses at a whim. But for some reason I think Sony may surprise when it comes to pricing. I get that feeling because MS has really laid out all the details on the table and Sony can pick its battle wisely with solid information.
Based on my recent poll it seems a LOT of potential customers are comfortable paying $400 for a PS3. Lots of memory, BR, RSX, CELL, WiFi, media ports, BlueTooth, etc. They see it as a great value and I cannot disagree!
ps2xboxcube
Newcomer
Reports suggest Xbox 360 FFXI will require hard drive
I dont know if anybody mentioned this yet and I hope that this story is true.
Reports suggest Xbox 360 FFXI will require hard drive
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11070
Xbox 360 may see games that require a hard drive
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/8/25/1049
From ArsTechnica reporting on the GI.biz story
Since the ps3 will have a harddrive for sale at lauch I hope Sony Does the same as Microsoft and sells premium version PS3 system with harddrive. If PS3 and XBOX360 both sell versions with harddrive their is no reason for crosplatform games not to extensively make use of the harddrive on both systems.
I dont know if anybody mentioned this yet and I hope that this story is true.
Reports suggest Xbox 360 FFXI will require hard drive
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11070
Xbox 360 may see games that require a hard drive
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/8/25/1049
From ArsTechnica reporting on the GI.biz story
I love the harddrive, and I hope many developers make their games require the harddrive to play.
Since the ps3 will have a harddrive for sale at lauch I hope Sony Does the same as Microsoft and sells premium version PS3 system with harddrive. If PS3 and XBOX360 both sell versions with harddrive their is no reason for crosplatform games not to extensively make use of the harddrive on both systems.
Lame duck
It is comments like that that really causes confusion, stirs the fan-people arguements, and ignite fires where there are none.
Games taking advantage of the HDD are no different than games that required a memory card to save information to progress. Ever try to play Madden Franchise mode without a memory card? Further, "online only" games would not make non-online gamer units "lame duck". It is pretty basic, if you want to play those games you get the accessory. If not there are PLENTY of other quality games to play.
I do expect other developers to follow this path, yet certainly not all. The only thing I see lame here is Mr. Fisher predicting doom and gloom based on "what if" speculation with absolutely no indication of that scenario coming to fruition. Now that is lame.
Ps- As if the HDD requirement for FF's MMO on the PS2 made the core system irrelevant.
It is comments like that that really causes confusion, stirs the fan-people arguements, and ignite fires where there are none.
Games taking advantage of the HDD are no different than games that required a memory card to save information to progress. Ever try to play Madden Franchise mode without a memory card? Further, "online only" games would not make non-online gamer units "lame duck". It is pretty basic, if you want to play those games you get the accessory. If not there are PLENTY of other quality games to play.
I do expect other developers to follow this path, yet certainly not all. The only thing I see lame here is Mr. Fisher predicting doom and gloom based on "what if" speculation with absolutely no indication of that scenario coming to fruition. Now that is lame.
Ps- As if the HDD requirement for FF's MMO on the PS2 made the core system irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
updates - the hd allows updates
look at guild wars little peaces of the game are changing 2 and 3 times a week sometimes and beeing sreamed to the hd. Over a long period of time you can see 100s of mbs of data has changed.
downloadable games like hl2 steam
saves for many pc games can be 50mbs+, this space is not wasted but put to good use i.e. persisting more information about a player/game
look at guild wars little peaces of the game are changing 2 and 3 times a week sometimes and beeing sreamed to the hd. Over a long period of time you can see 100s of mbs of data has changed.
downloadable games like hl2 steam
saves for many pc games can be 50mbs+, this space is not wasted but put to good use i.e. persisting more information about a player/game
To play devil's advocate
Like patches. For the most part this is a bad thing on the PC. For example BF2 has been out for 2 months and it has yet to get a real patch... and it needs one BAD.
Please note that this feature also requires online access, and most likely Broadband. So we are talking about a HDD + Online. Without the online aspect this feature is unattainable. While Broadband is growing and is a feature "out of the box" this time, to play hardball: Only 2M Xbox players are online. You are talking about a feature than ONLY 10% of users can use.
Why not make the Online players pay for this feature? It does nothing for non-online gamers less drive up costs.
Cannot argue with this at all. Although I will note that this requires Broadband as well. So far only 2M Xbox users are online. While that will surely go up, even MS is not expecting more than 50% Live activity for this generation.
What, and cut out all the publishers. Remember, MS is a publisher as well... they are in the business to make money. Not to say it cannot be used for this, it just seems unlikely. At least for major releases.
Again, note the need for online access to make this feature usable. So now you are talking about a HDD + Online. That complicates the issue.
Frequently PC saves are very very bloated. PC devs know they have a lot of space so there is no reason trying to make the save data smaller. But it has been shown that a lot information can be saved in a very small space.
Anyhow, you make good points, but most of them are either complicated by requiring online are can be worked around.
BUT you did hit on the big one: MMOs. MS's approach to this seems to be marketing the Premium SKU as the "online" SKU. Ethernet, Headset, HDD, etc.
flick556 said:
Like patches. For the most part this is a bad thing on the PC. For example BF2 has been out for 2 months and it has yet to get a real patch... and it needs one BAD.
Please note that this feature also requires online access, and most likely Broadband. So we are talking about a HDD + Online. Without the online aspect this feature is unattainable. While Broadband is growing and is a feature "out of the box" this time, to play hardball: Only 2M Xbox players are online. You are talking about a feature than ONLY 10% of users can use.
Why not make the Online players pay for this feature? It does nothing for non-online gamers less drive up costs.
Cannot argue with this at all. Although I will note that this requires Broadband as well. So far only 2M Xbox users are online. While that will surely go up, even MS is not expecting more than 50% Live activity for this generation.
What, and cut out all the publishers. Remember, MS is a publisher as well... they are in the business to make money. Not to say it cannot be used for this, it just seems unlikely. At least for major releases.
Again, note the need for online access to make this feature usable. So now you are talking about a HDD + Online. That complicates the issue.
Frequently PC saves are very very bloated. PC devs know they have a lot of space so there is no reason trying to make the save data smaller. But it has been shown that a lot information can be saved in a very small space.
Anyhow, you make good points, but most of them are either complicated by requiring online are can be worked around.
BUT you did hit on the big one: MMOs. MS's approach to this seems to be marketing the Premium SKU as the "online" SKU. Ethernet, Headset, HDD, etc.
Accert93:
While I agree with you on many things that you have suggested this one is the one I do have a problem with.
"Like patches. For the most part this is a bad thing on the PC. For example BF2 has been out for 2 months and it has yet to get a real patch... and it needs one BAD.
Please note that this feature also requires online access, and most likely Broadband. So we are talking about a HDD + Online. Without the online aspect this feature is unattainable. While Broadband is growing and is a feature "out of the box" this time, to play hardball: Only 2M Xbox players are online. You are talking about a feature than ONLY 10% of users can use.
Why not make the Online players pay for this feature? It does nothing for non-online gamers less drive up costs."
MS themselves complicated the issue with their announcements about the importance of the Xbox live features which included the use of the HDD. IMO (whether right or wrong) the scenerio we have now only confuses and angered many people. As I tried to give examples of in my first post it was MS that was pushing the HDD and online issue as a way to not only add to games etc. but other features online (see my other post) that would help bring people who may not have broadband now but could give them a reason to invest in it this generation. The HDD along with Xbox Live and various things in Live you could do outside of gaming played a big part of that (not to mention Live gave 360 a leg up on Sony PS3 online offerings although little is known abouts Sony's online plans). They even gave a huge number something like the 1 billion people they hoped to bring online whether Xbox Live gaming or their other online features the Xbox 360 could provide.
Again its not hard to defend MS decision to go this pricing route but I think the way that MS portrayed what the Xbox 360 would be and contain from their own statements at E3 to the official announcement of the packages is the problem. These are the issues I think some people are wrestling with. MS Xbox 360 marketing campaign is something that I WONT defend not matter how great the system is. I think the HDD issue whether its basic inclusion to its necessity are the areas that really confused people moreover then the pricing issues. This was based on the information that MS themselves was giving to the potential customers.
I still have have faith in the Xbox 360 and its potential. Yes I have plucked down the $$ for the premium package. I dont have a problem with the system or price itself. The issue I have is with MS (whether Marketing or Public Relations) portrayed the Xbox 360 would be and now the changes made with the packages unveiling.
While I agree with you on many things that you have suggested this one is the one I do have a problem with.
"Like patches. For the most part this is a bad thing on the PC. For example BF2 has been out for 2 months and it has yet to get a real patch... and it needs one BAD.
Please note that this feature also requires online access, and most likely Broadband. So we are talking about a HDD + Online. Without the online aspect this feature is unattainable. While Broadband is growing and is a feature "out of the box" this time, to play hardball: Only 2M Xbox players are online. You are talking about a feature than ONLY 10% of users can use.
Why not make the Online players pay for this feature? It does nothing for non-online gamers less drive up costs."
MS themselves complicated the issue with their announcements about the importance of the Xbox live features which included the use of the HDD. IMO (whether right or wrong) the scenerio we have now only confuses and angered many people. As I tried to give examples of in my first post it was MS that was pushing the HDD and online issue as a way to not only add to games etc. but other features online (see my other post) that would help bring people who may not have broadband now but could give them a reason to invest in it this generation. The HDD along with Xbox Live and various things in Live you could do outside of gaming played a big part of that (not to mention Live gave 360 a leg up on Sony PS3 online offerings although little is known abouts Sony's online plans). They even gave a huge number something like the 1 billion people they hoped to bring online whether Xbox Live gaming or their other online features the Xbox 360 could provide.
Again its not hard to defend MS decision to go this pricing route but I think the way that MS portrayed what the Xbox 360 would be and contain from their own statements at E3 to the official announcement of the packages is the problem. These are the issues I think some people are wrestling with. MS Xbox 360 marketing campaign is something that I WONT defend not matter how great the system is. I think the HDD issue whether its basic inclusion to its necessity are the areas that really confused people moreover then the pricing issues. This was based on the information that MS themselves was giving to the potential customers.
I still have have faith in the Xbox 360 and its potential. Yes I have plucked down the $$ for the premium package. I dont have a problem with the system or price itself. The issue I have is with MS (whether Marketing or Public Relations) portrayed the Xbox 360 would be and now the changes made with the packages unveiling.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya I agree about the marketing campaign.
I've never seen such a postive buzz turn so negative so quickly before. Everything from the non-standard HDD, to the 2 SKU's, to the overpriced peripherals, excessive number of peripherals, to the lack of video streaming with winXP, to the lack of DivX support with MCE, no standard HD-AV cables, no standard wireless controller, no method for transferring gamesaves from XBOX, no BC on core versions,
it's been nothing but broken promises, and dissapointments. IMO this could not have been run WORSE. It's terrible.
Pretty much everything we're hearing is negative, they've ruined alot of their momentum, and it's just plain POOR marketing.
I've never seen such a postive buzz turn so negative so quickly before. Everything from the non-standard HDD, to the 2 SKU's, to the overpriced peripherals, excessive number of peripherals, to the lack of video streaming with winXP, to the lack of DivX support with MCE, no standard HD-AV cables, no standard wireless controller, no method for transferring gamesaves from XBOX, no BC on core versions,
it's been nothing but broken promises, and dissapointments. IMO this could not have been run WORSE. It's terrible.
Pretty much everything we're hearing is negative, they've ruined alot of their momentum, and it's just plain POOR marketing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Preorders are actually up at retailers. Casual consumers don't care about any of this stuff.
i never meant to imply that people weren't bummed out about the 360's hard drive not being a standard...
what i meant to say was that people had a "change of heart" on the technical side of game creation discussion/opinion/arguements about the importance of a hard drive, in general...
before the announcement of the 2 SKu's...
around the E3 aftermath...
people were imperatively touting the importance of the hard drive in console game development...
saying that it's a necessity, if you will, specially in this generation...
others have even argued that some games, namely "oblivion", would not be possible without the use of a hgard drive...
After the announcement of the hard drive not being a standard...
people started to downplay the importance of the hard drive in game creation...
what i said in my prior statement was just my observation, not just in this forum, but several other as well...
it was somewhat comical to see the same usernames downplaying its importance when they were quite adamant about its importance before...
what i meant to say was that people had a "change of heart" on the technical side of game creation discussion/opinion/arguements about the importance of a hard drive, in general...
before the announcement of the 2 SKu's...
around the E3 aftermath...
people were imperatively touting the importance of the hard drive in console game development...
saying that it's a necessity, if you will, specially in this generation...
others have even argued that some games, namely "oblivion", would not be possible without the use of a hgard drive...
After the announcement of the hard drive not being a standard...
people started to downplay the importance of the hard drive in game creation...
what i said in my prior statement was just my observation, not just in this forum, but several other as well...
it was somewhat comical to see the same usernames downplaying its importance when they were quite adamant about its importance before...
the above post was refering to post 43 of this thread
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=554163&postcount=43
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=554163&postcount=43
ps2xboxcube
Newcomer
I didn't catch this before. The reason why Final Fantasy XI will Require a harddrive.
Also the Magic Box News says.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/623/623562p1.html
Also the Magic Box News says.
http://www.the-magicbox.com/game20050831.shtml
Why does character growth need an HDD? What does it need that flash storage can't provide?
scooby_dooby
Legend
because it involves "gigabytes" of data.
" storing and transfering gigabytes worth of data"
can it be done on a 1 or 2 gig flash card? sure. Will sony or MS sell 1 or 2 gig flash cards you can use as memory cards? No.
They'll sell you 64MB and 128MB which don't cut it, and would you really want your entire memory card to be consumed by one game?? What happens if you want to play something else?
Like usual, the HDD is not absolutely necessary for anything, it just makes it much more LIKELY that these things get implemented.
" storing and transfering gigabytes worth of data"
can it be done on a 1 or 2 gig flash card? sure. Will sony or MS sell 1 or 2 gig flash cards you can use as memory cards? No.
They'll sell you 64MB and 128MB which don't cut it, and would you really want your entire memory card to be consumed by one game?? What happens if you want to play something else?
Like usual, the HDD is not absolutely necessary for anything, it just makes it much more LIKELY that these things get implemented.
ps2xboxcube
Newcomer
Shifty Geezer said:
Did you even read what he said?
So will you get a fiberoptic net connection and pay ten times Final Fantasy XI monthly fee just so you can use flash memory?!!!!! Because of this without a harddrive the current MMORPG genre would basically be dead.
This ends the debate and shows people why the harddrive is neccesasry among all of the other reasons already given.
Yes, but he didn't explain why he needs a harddrive; only that it's needed. What does 'character growth' entail and why does it need an HDD? Is he talking models that change appearance over time? That can be down with a few variation parameters acting on a base model. Or character growth in terms of personality? Is that skills and feats and stuff?ps2xboxcube said:
I think there's a lot that can be done procedurally. eg. Elite had zillions of star systems but didn't need an HDD because these star systems were created on the fly algorithmically. I'd like to know what about 'character growth' needs an HDD and why can't it be done in any other way?
Similar threads
