MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn

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

Well it does seem that the extra cost for more than one DVD is substantial so much that it matters to the developers. Including the politics on the install part and the apparent blocking of more content on other platforms than the 360. The "desperate" need to backtrack whenever someone mentions anything that resembles a limitation because of space.

I think it all adds up to a policy of talking space down since the competition have a real advantage.A bit like Blu-Ray playback was talked down, nobody used it, it wouldn´t matter in the war and plenty on this board was very vocal about it, yet turned out to have PS3´s mainly for blurays :)

I just don´t see anything wrong with it in a pure financial way since it is classic Microsoft strong arm policing, it´s how they maximize profit. And it´s why i avoid them and companies like them whenever i can.
 
I think it's mostly that some people are trying to make a lot more out of something they don't understand than anything else.
 
Driver:SF is 6.4 GB on install according to the Digital Foundry article. Wasn't that supposed to be the first game on the 7.8 GB format disks? Storage required will vary by game of course, but even at this late point there are some pretty impressive, pretty open games that have room to spare on DVD.

FFXIII and Lost Odyssey were 3 and 4 disks respectively, and FMV heavy. So was Blue Dragon. Will Rage be the first low / no FMV game to use 3 disks?

Skyrim is the point where I start to bother about content making it onto one disk!
 
The list that was posted showed a bunch of titles hovering around the max capacity for the 360 DVD, it may be pure coincidence but it´s more likely that it´s the small space that simply sets limit to how much space a game can take

I tend to agree, and note that this list is only of titles that can be purchased on games on demand, which in itself is a limited selection.

And while I agree that filling 25GB of data could be more work than optimising for 7GB, that's not a realistic comparison. Let's say that the average game would have been 9GB, then you're spending effort on optimising 2GB out of there, where with the 'up-to' 25GB limit (which is 50GB, and the BD drive does not have a switch layer penalty btw) you'd not have to do this optimisation.

Now these optimisations have other benefits - load times for one, but far all we know they could have been spent instead on getting better results from loading from both harddrive and optical drive in paralel, something which as far as I know on the 360 only Halo 3 does, but it does give it a speed advantage over the hdd installed version.

As for the advantage of installing games on the 360 - Fable 2 definitely runs a lot better as a HDD install. That game suffered quite a bit from running from DVD. But I've heard that this is an exception, not the rule.
 
Game aren't tied to the size of a single DVD though. As well as multi disk games there are games with download content, and Forza even has content across 2 disks that can be accessed from one.

The only other thing that could be done is ditching play-from-DVD, and stiffing Core / Pro (20GB = 10 GB) / Arcade / 4GB users. If MS have any sense, that's about as likely as upgrading the GPU or releasing a Bluray model with Bluray games.
Games are tied to the size of a single DVD. Your game can be partitioned across several of these but at any given time your game is content is limited to 7GB. In a linear game like Gears of War or Uncharted this isn't a big deal, but there's a hard limit to how big an open world game can be.

While DLC helps, it's not mandatory. If you're going to have mandatory installs for DLC then why not have mandatory installs for disc games? Sure some people are going to be size constrained depending on what hard drive they have or if they have one at all. That was a mistake on Microsoft's part. Even there they could do better by their customers. There are cheap 250GB upgrade kits for PS3.

But you're talking about MS "fixing" something in a way that's against their (and a lot of 360 owners') interests. That's my only point - if you want more capacity that's understandable.
Though it may work for Microsoft doesn't mean that it isn't broken. And yeah, I do expect companies to remedy things that aren't in their own interests. Microsoft makes decisions that aren't in the interests of gamers like the lack of a mandatory hard drive, or the paltry 4GB in the slim arcade units. If Microsoft acts in ways that are indifferent to the interests of its customers, why is it so unreasonable for its customers to act in a way that's indifferent to the interests of Microsoft?

An example pertinent to the topic is the size restriction for DLC and XBL arcade games. These are pretty much industry wide decisions. They affect PSN through Microsoft's licensing tactics. Capcom had to haggle with Microsoft about the size of SSFT HD remix, and this would have impacted the PSN version. Should Microsoft fix these things? Yes. They won't, but they should.

I think the reason we go back and forth on this is because what you consider bizarre nitpicking on my part, to me, is perfectly natural and healthy criticism. In particular, I do more of my gaming on the PS3 these days. I have a 360 and a live gold account, and I truly wish I could get rid of both. Increasingly I find the PS3 is the right fit for me, so while you may see this as much ado about nothing, I think it's another raw deal served courtesy of Microsoft.

EDIT: Just read in the Crysis on consoles thread that MS increased the XBL arcade game size limit to 2GB. Kudos to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just don´t see anything wrong with it in a pure financial way since it is classic Microsoft strong arm policing, it´s how they maximize profit. And it´s why i avoid them and companies like them whenever i can.
You don't buy very much at all then, do you? Considering the primary responsibility for any company is maximizing profit.
 
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.

I have to disagree, sales figures do not show if there were shortages - please explain how they do.
As for personal experience - it was a personal experience for the whole of the UK (which I've already said may have been down to a tanker sinking).
And as for the time period, again, 6mths helps your side of the arguement (for some reason) - I'm talking launch period - first month.

no one cares.

Well you brought uo the length of time it took you, I was just mentioning hold long it took me and showing that 40hrs was a bit of a long stretch to get to the 2nd disk.

So I buy the game, come home stick it in the machine... and do something else.

No, have you not read anything I typed? There must be a window when you don't use your X360? Maybe when you're posting here or eating?

For no benefit.

Again, benefits listed and indeed confirmed by others

You're a fucking genius.

There's no need to be rude nor swear, I'm sorry I frustrate you for having a different opinion.

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?

Well apparently loading times don't matter to you because you don't install to the HDD - conversely I upgraded my PS3 with a faster HDD so I get faster loading times so I think you're a tad wide of the mark.
 
Wasn't it originally planned to have 128MB and then they decided to double it? :|

Sorry, I thought it was MS who doubled from 256MB to 512MB? I seem to recall thinking the PS3 would have a memory advantage at some stage...sorry, we're talking about 7 years ago now and my memory gets all mixed up on this sort of thing.
 
not in history as goonergaz makes it up.

again with the rudeness, I'm sorry my memory isn't as good as yours - specs/rumors/etc all go into a melting pot...maybe I forget things or get mixed up, sorry for not being perfect (altho neither has been confirmed)
 
I have to disagree, sales figures do not show if there were shortages - please explain how they do.

It's not really something you get to disagree with. It's a fact. If MS had charged $600 for the 360 I'm sure they would have solved your supply issue.
 
It's not really something you get to disagree with. It's a fact. If MS had charged $600 for the 360 I'm sure they would have solved your supply issue.

If it's facts then I'd appreciate a leasson be it a link or whatever, I just don't understand how sales figures alone prove shortages...sorry< I'm not being arguementative just trying to understand :|

Sorry, and belated appology for going OT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear. If you have 1 unit but no one wants it, you have lots of supply on the other hand if like the iPad you have 1 million units available, but 1.5 million people want them, you have a shortage.

And with consoles there's an expectation of shortages. It takes time to ramp up production. Did Nintendo fail in execution because they were sold out for the first year? Should they have delayed their launch so they could meet that demand? This discussion has moved beyond the ridiculous. I'm done with it.
 
If it's facts then I'd appreciate a leasson be it a link or whatever, I just don't understand how sales figures alone prove shortages...sorry< I'm not being arguementative just trying to understand :|

Sorry, and belated appology for going OT.
http://pcworld.about.net/news/Sep062006id127048.htm
http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-n...t-launch-drives-prices-to-10-000-on-ebay.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256180,00.html

Let's put it this way, due to shortages, you (specifically) couldn't get an XBox until a month after launch. Also due to shortages, you (specifically) couldn't get a PS3 until 4 months after launch. If there had been no shortages, Europe would have launched in November at the same time as the US and Japan. Note that they only announced the Europe slip 2 months before launch, europeans had already been pre-ordering for months.
 
http://pcworld.about.net/news/Sep062006id127048.htm
http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-n...t-launch-drives-prices-to-10-000-on-ebay.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256180,00.html

Let's put it this way, due to shortages, you (specifically) couldn't get an XBox until a month after launch. Also due to shortages, you (specifically) couldn't get a PS3 until 4 months after launch. If there had been no shortages, Europe would have launched in November at the same time as the US and Japan. Note that they only announced the Europe slip 2 months before launch, europeans had already been pre-ordering for months.

Sorry mods but I would like to reply due to the several posts just so people know I am not ignoring - this will be my last post OT.

Sorry to everyone, I have been comparing apples to oranges, what you call shortages I call delay - obviously living in the UK we had things differently (the main one being 360 WW launch & PS3 staggered).

Thanks to those who replied and in particular bkilian for the links which helped the penny (finally) drop.
 
You don't buy very much at all then, do you? Considering the primary responsibility for any company is maximizing profit.

Some companies actually have to fight for it and isn´t able to print money like Microsoft is. I buy what i need from Microsoft but i search for all the alternatives there is if it means i can avoid buying something from Microsoft. Just to many years with office, server and os licenses, thank god i got rid of exchange early :)

Microsoft knew it´s weak points on the 360 and played them well = profit.
 
I think it's mostly that some people are trying to make a lot more out of something they don't understand than anything else.

There isn´t "a lot more" to be made out of this. The 360 has a tiny DVD, Microsoft did not want it to be an issue and took steps to avoid it. People bought the idea, the end.
 
Some companies actually have to fight for it and isn´t able to print money like Microsoft is. I buy what i need from Microsoft but i search for all the alternatives there is if it means i can avoid buying something from Microsoft. Just to many years with office, server and os licenses, thank god i got rid of exchange early :)

Microsoft knew it´s weak points on the 360 and played them well = profit.

This entire post sounds like you have a vendetta against MS and regardless of how well MS did with the X360, you are going to fault with it. I guess in this case, it is the limiting DVD size.

If you have something against a company...fine, but it hardly allows a person to take your posts seriously when such bias is so blatant.

I'm not trying to paint MS as a saint here, but in all honesty, which company is? Companies are in the business of making a profit...is anyone surprised? Isn't Sony, Nintendo, Apple, etc. also in it for the same reason?

I believe that the consumer is ultimately who decides in the end. If they really have a problem with games being limited in size by DVD, then you'd expect better PS3 hardware and first-party exclusive sales. In the end, the limited DVD size has not kept consumers from buying games for the X360 this gen.
 
This entire post sounds like you have a vendetta against MS and regardless of how well MS did with the X360, you are going to fault with it. I guess in this case, it is the limiting DVD size.

If you have something against a company...fine, but it hardly allows a person to take your posts seriously when such bias is so blatant.

I'm not trying to paint MS as a saint here, but in all honesty, which company is? Companies are in the business of making a profit...is anyone surprised? Isn't Sony, Nintendo, Apple, etc. also in it for the same reason?

I believe that the consumer is ultimately who decides in the end. If they really have a problem with games being limited in size by DVD, then you'd expect better PS3 hardware and first-party exclusive sales. In the end, the limited DVD size has not kept consumers from buying games for the X360 this gen.

Bullshit. If i wanted to go fanboy on the 360 you could find a million more posts from me about how the 360 sucked in "this and that" and other stupid shit which i just don´t give a fuck about. I could not care less it´s useless to discuss shit like that on the interweb. It was fun with the XBOX vs PS2 because it was so easy :)

And you even mannaged to ignore the point of my post and just repeat the post i responded to, why even bother to post if that is the best you can do? Of course i should just have ignored the original post since he wasn´t even on topic.

Just answer this simple question, do you think the 360 games would have been better and different if there was a 75GB drive in the 360?
 
Back
Top