In the US the 360 leads by nearly 11 million. More than a bit more than the 2.9 million they sold in the first year. So that's certainly questionable.
Worldwide I have no doubt the ps3 would be ahead if the 360 had delayed.
MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn
- Thread starter Gubbi
- Start date
In the US the 360 leads by nearly 11 million. More than a bit more than the 2.9 million they sold in the first year. So that's certainly questionable.
Worldwide I have no doubt the ps3 would be ahead if the 360 had delayed.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Yes, didn't I say it was from DICE's Battlefield 3 presentation?
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
U.S. only, huh? You don't believe in the whole "first to market" and "momentum" thing, I take it?
And they still would have been first to market if they delayed by 6 months...
And the Wii statistics certainly blow that idea out of the water anyway.
Well they aren't in first place in NA right now. So arguably had they waited then things wouldn't have changed. It is easier to say that the future would not have followed a particular direction, such as know whether or not HD-DVD was even viable for 2006 realistically than it is to predict forwards if HD-DVD were viable. Do you get where im coming from?
Depends on what you mean by "Good Enough"
There would have been severe supply constraints similar to Sony's, only worse, since MS didn't control their own supply of diodes, but technically, if the XBox had launched in June, it might have limped along.
In terms of technical specs, then no, the streaming rate would still not have been high enough. HD DVD never got past 2x (And it's 2x is a lower data rate than BD's 2x, from lower bit density), but even if it had, it would have been much later than 2006.
There are lots of coulda shoulda woulda's, and if a company always waited for the next "big" tech before launching, they would never launch. Dual Layer DVD was the best MS had to work with, and that's what it launched with. Sony had a little more leeway because they ostensibly controlled the BD ecosystem, but even with that, it caused them quite a bit of damage from lost sales (due to high price) and launch slippage. The BD is in the PS3 for ideological reasons first, and practical reasons second.
So effectively the answer is that in the time frame of 2005-2010/2011 HD-DVD would have never been objectively 'better' than the choice to use DVD. So on balance the decision to use DVD in hindsight was the correct one.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Maybe the devs are lowering the bar for the 360 to avoid making the PS3 version look badWhat was popular in the past is what will always be, right?DICE isn't the only example. This seems to be becoming the norm for devs wanting to push the graphics bar up (by using the SPUs as "another GPU compute source" in parallel).
No, in the timeframe of 2005 HD DVD was not an option, and since you can't retroactively upgrade a console (note the PS3 is still using a 2x drive, despite much faster drives being available), DVD was the correct, and only, choice.
Landing the 360 with a delay, a hugely expensive optical drive and optical drive supply issues, and also the need for a HDD in even the "cheapest" SKU doesn't seem like the kind of stuff that would have catapulted the 360 even further ahead of PS3 and allowed it to take on the Wii.
I think that being able to offer the 4GB 360S (and the 4GB Kinect bundle) trumps having a higher capacity drive and being lumbered with a HDD.
I think that being able to offer the 4GB 360S (and the 4GB Kinect bundle) trumps having a higher capacity drive and being lumbered with a HDD.
Billy Idol
Legend
Is it a reasonable possibility that MS launches a revised Xbox360 with BR capabilities in the near future?
Halo 3 used the HDD cache space, so when the "installs" feature was added the game had to copy lots of data (in the form of lots of small files iirc) from one part of the drive to the other, which really slowed it down. Optimised for the HDD in the way they had backfired when installs were enabled.
Still seemed to make multiplayer load faster though, I guess the maps fit in memory in one go so no caching.
Theres probably a greater chance that they're going to launch a revised console without an optical drive.
I was going to raise that. Are people forgetting that there weren't enough blue laser diodes to go around, and adding a whole extra console would have made matters far worse! any choice other than DVD would have cost MS a load of cash for no gains.
Except Joker was talking about BRD performance on current games that are DVD-size. For a 6GB game, according to that quote PS3's drive should provide better seek times than 360's DVD drive.
Maybe the devs are lowering the bar for the 360 to avoid making the PS3 version look bad
Hey, targetting the lowest common denominator works both ways !
Cheers
Microsoft could have chosen to go with the DVD drive and not be political about it. But embrace it with aggressive pricing on more than 1 dvd games (aka no tax). Provide the install option from the get go, even if limiting it for the arcade versions. Or simply allowing games that wouldn´t work on arcade versions.
And maybe have tried to squeeze out more than 6GB from the start
And maybe have tried to squeeze out more than 6GB from the start
Billy Idol
Legend
Theres probably a greater chance that they're going to launch a revised console without an optical drive.
Hm, I mean...why not? Why not release a Blue Ray add on and make Xbox360 a full Blue Ray player??
It still cached a bunch of data. Playing for the first time is significantly different from later on.
Old question, old thread: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=50657
But, just ask yourself what Microsoft would really hope to gain from making an add-on that isn't going to be $5 on top of the price of entry when there are plenty of blu ray players on the market in 2011 compared to when the old thread's arguments took place even.
I must have forgotten that. I took a break from Live then started Halo 3 multiplayer again with the ODST disk. Did that do things differently?
According to iD there is no multi disk task. The install option still limits you to DVD sized chunks, with the physical disk used for verification. I don't think having lots of games that wouldn't work on the Arcade would help, it would simply undermine the Arcade.
Disk capacity doesn't seem to be a problem for MS, it seems to be a problem (possibly) for Sony. MS hurting themselves to allow > DVD sized game chunks would only help Sony use more of Bluray's capacity. The payoff for ditching the arcade and requiring large HDD's from launching would have probably been losing more money and gaining less market share.
And maybe have tried to squeeze out more than 6GB from the start
I think it was 6.8 GB, but yeah, that might have been nice!
Last edited by a moderator:
