MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

Funny that, so how did that happen? Let's go back to the 90s - I thought Nintendo/Sega were and Sony just made TVs & Videos - I mean, MS when they launched had nothing to do with gaming bar a little thing called Direct X...when Sony launched what did they have to do with gaming? How do you think they would have done if they launched their first console months after the well estabilshed gaming company Sega?

What the bally-hoo are you talking about?? We're talking solely about brand value. PS3 had an existing strong brand. MS didn't. that doesn't mean MS couldn't go on to be a success; in fact we see they did by not waiting for an HD drive and instead launching a cheaper console earlier using HD.

 

[goonergaz]

Just having the ability to play a DVD does not mean the drive meets the performance requirements of a 12x DVD drive (And it didn't, it spun DVDs at nowhere near 12x) To play a DVD movie you only need 1x. It was also a conscious decision to focus the XBox on non-disc entertainment. We released the addon for those that wanted to play HD DVDs, and therefore didn't force everyone to subsidize something that only a few users would use.

many thanks for the clarification...it's much appreciated

 

[goonergaz]

What the bally-hoo are you talking about?? We're talking solely about brand value. PS3 had an existing strong brand. MS didn't. that doesn't mean MS couldn't go on to be a success; in fact we see they did by not waiting for an HD drive and instead launching a cheaper console earlier using HD.

Maybe I missunderstood you, but I thought you basically said MS had no chance of success if they had launched after/at the same time as PS3 with a similar product/price because the PS 'brand' was an 'all competition destoying' beast.

I simply said that surely the brand you speak of (PlayStation) was planted as a seed during a similar (if not worse) scenario - Sega were a big company and had just launched the Saturn, Sony (releasing their first console so had no marketshare whatsoever vs MS having a foothold) released the PlayStation after and was a massive success.

So all I'm saying is that altho I agree it's unlikely, it doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened. The fanboys would have stumped up the extra and the film buffs would have also bought in. They still could have released a core machine to undercut the PS3 by leaving out the HDD...it may have sold even more as folk who waited for the PS3 as that magical 'it only does everything' went for the X360 instead.

 

[function]

Just having the ability to play a DVD does not mean the drive meets the performance requirements of a 12x DVD drive (And it didn't, it spun DVDs at nowhere near 12x) To play a DVD movie you only need 1x. It was also a conscious decision to focus the XBox on non-disc entertainment. We released the addon for those that wanted to play HD DVDs, and therefore didn't force everyone to subsidize something that only a few users would use.

I completely misunderstood what you meant. I assumed that getting a 12X combo drive wouldn't be an issue. Shows what assumption can get you.

 

[-tkf-]

I think there is a potential for higher fidelity, sure. But memory and bandwidth constraints are also present on the 360 and even more so on the PS3 that I believe put a cap on how much of that potential could be realized. Sony needed to put BR in the PS3 to promote BR as a movie format. Looking just at the benefits that have been realized in games in no way justifies the costs of its inclusion.

If it had been possible for the PS3 to launch a year or 2 later with more memory, a faster drive, and other tweaks to allow the system to better leverage the additional storage in a way that made sense for developers and publishers I think it would be a completely different story. It wasn't possible, though, unfortunately.

And the CD->DVD transition for PC games took a really long time past when DVD-ROMS first became available. This despite the constant march of PC hardware advances.

It would require a fly on the wall during the history of these 2 machines to know what is true and what is lies.
And it will require that fly before i truly believe that the limited size on the 360 is not a problem.

The XBOX and PS2 used DVD and they had games that took plenty of space, i know that compression had increased and etc etc.. but still

http://fileforums.com/showthread.php?t=43604

That is a long list of XBOX games that pretty big compared with the 360 titles of today. Seems kind a weird that games should only grow with a few GB http://www.stripesonfire.com/xbox-360-game-install-list/
with a console that is a magnitude more powerfull and have alot of memory. While PS3 exclusives that doesn´t have to care about size grew at a more "fitting" rate.

I know the but the PS3 exclusives "but the don´t look better" argument which might be right in some instances on which i can only say, imagine how they would looked if they had been spaced constrained. While there are others which i consider best of the console class of this gen, which i doubt they would be without the bottomless pit of space.

On the PC we just had more CD´s ;-)

 

[mrcorbo]

On the PC we just had more CD´s ;-)

And on the 360 we have more DVDs. /shrug

I will say that it is an advantage that BR storage will never be a bottleneck in this generation (unless you're Kojima, I guess) and that as game engines have become further optimized that it becomes more likely that DVD storage can become a problem. I'm just skeptical of it making a major difference in what eventually ends up on the screen or in the game.

We're struggling to hit 720p and 30fps as it is and budgets for game development have exploded. As I said, technical and financial obstacles are also in the way and even if DVD size was removed as a possible limitation you'd just end up bumping up against one of the others instead. Which is why the PS3 having BR seems to make relatively little difference.

 

[goonergaz]

It would require a fly on the wall during the history of these 2 machines to know what is true and what is lies.
And it will require that fly before i truly believe that the limited size on the 360 is not a problem.

The XBOX and PS2 used DVD and they had games that took plenty of space, i know that compression had increased and etc etc.. but still

See what bugs me is it's OK to just think "yeah DVDs are fine this gen" but not OK to question it, like you've some alterier motive or something.

Every generation has seen a step up in game size, even this gen we've seen all single disks to begin with (and debatable some of those have had content compromised) and now we're seeing more and more mutli-disk releases.

 

[goonergaz]

We're struggling to hit 720p and 30fps as it is and budgets for game development have exploded. As I said, technical and financial obstacles are also in the way and even if DVD size was removed as a possible limitation you'd just end up bumping up against one of the others instead. Which is why the PS3 having BR seems to make relatively little difference.

Well WRT the DVD size limit I wonder how much it cost devs trying to shoe-horn the data onto DVD - and let's not forget it wasn't the whole disk either, 6.8GB.

I suspect the thing holding back the PS3 is the desicion to cut back the gfx dedicated ram from 512MB to 256MB, if Sony had run with 512MB & 256MB there would be more room to play with for devs.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Yes, for example - I sell a product - it sells 10. What does that tell you? Do I need more stock? Did it sell well? (etc)
You only mention half the story, all you tell me is MS sold more product tham Sony in a given time-frame...it has next to nothing to do with how short stock was (without more data), for example both could have shipped 1.5M showing one was indeed supply constrained and the other was on shelves.

I mentioned the half you didn't. You suggest that MS had a problem because they couldn't meet demand, yet they had 20% more demand than Sony during their first 6 months.

lol, one you have to swap after 40 hours of play? OK seriously, I'm interested to know what that is! Either way the hassle is still just one click vs all the other benefits I listed earlier:

Mass Effect 2. I never actually timed it but the rate at which I played (a few hours a day) meant I had to change discs about once a week.

One click and 20 minutes of waiting for it, because you're not doing anything else on your box while it installs (longer if there are multiple discs). And then after you install all your games you have to manage your HDD space, because a 20 or 60GB unit won't come close to holding all the games I own. And the benefits certainly don't justify spending more money on it. I've never had a disk or a drive fail and certainly can't hear it over my sound system. So it would seem to be of zero benefit to me. The loading time benefits (for games where that exists) are measured in seconds.

 

[Crossbar]

I mentioned the half you didn't. You suggest that MS had a problem because they couldn't meet demand, yet they had 20% more demand than Sony during their first 6 months.

Do you calculate Europes first 6 months separately from the NA and Japan?

 

[-tkf-]

And on the 360 we have more DVDs. /shrug

Well that is the original question that started this thread, which does seem to indicate that Microsoft had a policy that went agains that /shrug??????????????

 

[-tkf-]

like you've some alterier motive or something.

Which would be? except for my argument since "day 1" more space = less compromise which hardly can be called ulterior motive

An alternative or extrinsic reason for doing something, especially when concealed or when differing from the stated or apparent reason.

i find the exact opposite to be the case. That space does not matter even though it has always been the case since the first cartridge was made.

 

[AlNom]

Well WRT the DVD size limit I wonder how much it cost devs trying to shoe-horn the data onto DVD - and let's not forget it wasn't the whole disk either, 6.8GB.

You're not suggesting it's in the same league as creating content for a single layer blu-ray disc, are you?

I suspect the thing holding back the PS3 is the desicion to cut back the gfx dedicated ram from 512MB to 256MB, if Sony had run with 512MB & 256MB there would be more room to play with for devs.

Considering that the GDDR3 chips were on-package with the GPU, I'm not sure how you think it would have been possible without 1Gbit chips.

 

[goonergaz]

I mentioned the half you didn't. You suggest that MS had a problem because they couldn't meet demand, yet they had 20% more demand than Sony during their first 6 months.

What are you talking about? You need to know how many units were shipped as well to know if there was a supply constraint. They sold 1.5m but how many had they shipped? This would say how many were on shelves and therefore confirm if there was shortages, but either way you're talking 6mths down the line, I'm talking launch - first month, I pre-ordered weeks before but never got one until a couple of weeks after launch (and only then because someone cancelled there order and I was friendly with the staff) - conversely you could get PS3s on launch day (UK for both).

Mass Effect 2. I never actually timed it but the rate at which I played (a few hours a day) meant I had to change discs about once a week.

Ah, well it took me ~20hrs to complete the game.

One click and 20 minutes of waiting for it, because you're not doing anything else on your box while it installs (longer if there are multiple discs). And then after you install all your games you have to manage your HDD space, because a 20 or 60GB unit won't come close to holding all the games I own. And the benefits certainly don't justify spending more money on it. I've never had a disk or a drive fail and certainly can't hear it over my sound system. So it would seem to be of zero benefit to me. The loading time benefits (for games where that exists) are measured in seconds.

Why wait? Is the X360 the only thing in your life? Do you not sleep or eat or anything else!? It's called multi-tasking...no wonder it took you 40 hrs to get to the change disk bit on ME2

 

[goonergaz]

Which would be? except for my argument since "day 1" more space = less compromise which hardly can be called ulterior motive i find the exact opposite to be the case. That space does not matter even though it has always been the case since the first cartridge was made.

hhmmm...I wasn't having a go - I agree.

 

[goonergaz]

You're not suggesting it's in the same league as creating content for a single layer blu-ray disc, are you?



Considering that the GDDR3 chips were on-package with the GPU, I'm not sure how you think it would have been possible without 1Gbit chips.

sorry, you've lost me on both points...

 

[digitalwanderer]

I suspect the thing holding back the PS3 is the desicion to cut back the gfx dedicated ram from 512MB to 256MB, if Sony had run with 512MB & 256MB there would be more room to play with for devs.

Wasn't it originally planned to have 128MB and then they decided to double it? :|

 

[mrcorbo]

Well that is the original question that started this thread, which does seem to indicate that Microsoft had a policy that went agains that /shrug??????????????

What policy? Their pricing structure for manufacturing the packaging and pressing the discs for multi-disc releases?

 

[AlphaWolf]

What are you talking about? You need to know how many units were shipped as well to know if there was a supply constraint. They sold 1.5m but how many had they shipped? This would say how many were on shelves and therefore confirm if there was shortages, but either way you're talking 6mths down the line, I'm talking launch - first month, I pre-ordered weeks before but never got one until a couple of weeks after launch (and only then because someone cancelled there order and I was friendly with the staff) - conversely you could get PS3s on launch day (UK for both).

No I'm talking the whole 6 month period. And you're just trying to extrapolate your single personal experience with xbox360 supply across the entire ecosystem.

In stock supply is a function of demand, they are inseparable.

Ah, well it took me ~20hrs to complete the game.

no one cares.

Why wait? Is the X360 the only thing in your life? Do you not sleep or eat or anything else!? It's called multi-tasking...no wonder it took you 40 hrs to get to the change disk bit on ME2

So I buy the game, come home stick it in the machine... and do something else. For no benefit. You're a fucking genius. I guess load times don't matter than either, in fact if they took 30 minutes to load a level, I could just watch a TV show in between while it was loading. That would actually be an improvement right?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Wasn't it originally planned to have 128MB and then they decided to double it? :|

not in history as goonergaz makes it up.