MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn

[function]

So games are hamstrung by DVD and Blu-ray is better. Sounds right to me.

Some games might be. Lots won't, even now. The 360 platform - and possibly the entire games industry - is better off for having had cheaper HD consoles available though.

Singling one aspect of the current consoles out as being a particular problem just seems like a bizarre thing to do. If I could upgrade one thing about the 360 it'd be the graphics chip well before the optical drive though.

Installs are just better. Seriously, great feature. Ever since my 360 cracked my copy of SSFIV, the less time my games spend spinning in that drive the better.

I like knowing whether my 360 can read the whole game disk. I've had a couple of games where disk reading has been an issue, both new games btw. It took several attempt to limp through one game (would have been unplayable from the disk) and another failed even given several attempts.

I don't want to get several hours into a game and hit a disk read error, too long after purchase to return the game.

 

[-tkf-]

Even if I were to accept that without argument, it's one game and I still question the overall extent that current-gen games are being held back by DVD size restrictions. You're going to have to present more comprehensive evidence showing this than one quote referencing one game that itself was followed by a clarification to convince me otherwise. There are too many other factors effecting the amount of content in games for this to have as much of an effect as you would like to believe. Technical reasons and economic ones.

You also failed to explain why we don't see much more "game" content on PS3 exclusives than there is in multiplatform games or 360 exclusives despite the increased storage available on BR and no artificial restriction on using it.

There is evidence that games on the 360 had to cut corners because of the DVD format. The interesting part is why we hear of so few games having to do it. And why there is so few 3rd party games that then take advantage of the extra space on the competing platforms.

Turns out there is a Microsoft policy of not allowing the size to be a problem. So they simply create a new reality that fits there world. And the world believes it.

I am not arguing that every game benefits from more space, i am not arguing that most games benefit. What i am saying is, more games than we know of have space issues and is compromised, and as a direct result so is the other platforms.

And it´s a fact that PS3 exclusives usually uses more than 6Gb space and it´s a fair bet that they would look worse or play worse if they had to work with the tiny 6GB storage that the 360 holds.

More space = less compromise

 

[SedentaryJourney]

Some games might be. Lots won't, even now. The 360 platform - and possibly the entire games industry - is better off for having had cheaper HD consoles available though.

Singling one aspect of the current consoles out as being a particular problem just seems like a bizarre thing to do. If I could upgrade one thing about the 360 it'd be the graphics chip well before the optical drive though.

It's quite common to single out faults for already shipped hardware, usually when it's way too late to do anything about it. Both the PS2 and PS3 have been a goldmine for such kvetching. However in Microsoft's case a policy change would do much to alleviate the game size restriction so harping about DVD size limits is totally legit. If it's true that Microsoft's position in the market means developers are constrained industry wide, then there's even more to criticize.

I don't think Microsoft made the wrong choice in going with DVD. If anything the major mistake was the lack of a mandatory hard drive. In this particular the original Xbox had it right.

 

[Gubbi]

I am not arguing that every game benefits from more space, i am not arguing that most games benefit. What i am saying is, more games than we know of have space issues and is compromised, and as a direct result so is the other platforms.

It's hardly unknown. You can get a pretty good idea here.

Cheers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The bottom line is - in the shops you COULD buy a PS3 without pre-ordering in the UK whereas my X360 pre-order wasn't delivered until a couple of weeks after launch. That's a fact...

From a sample base of one individual...

And why do you still ignore the whole price thing?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

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.

The Wii was a run away train. It doesn't change anything between the two HD consoles, obviously.

Not surprisingly you left out the following part of his quote:

Of course I left that part out. It didn't make sense to include it. A full disc sweep on Blu-ray is WAY beyond the scope of a DVD9. The scope was over the space of a DVD, since we are talking about seek time over most games.

Even if I was to extend my fairness over a full BD, what are the seek times (eject/look/grab/load) for 3 DVDs? As you can see, there was nothing sinister about leaving that out. I don't like to unfairly balance or unfairly tip the scales. It is what it is.

 

[function]

It's quite common to single out faults for already shipped hardware, usually when it's way too late to do anything about it. Both the PS2 and PS3 have been a goldmine for such kvetching. However in Microsoft's case a policy change would do much to alleviate the game size restriction so harping about DVD size limits is totally legit. If it's true that Microsoft's position in the market means developers are constrained industry wide, then there's even more to criticize.

Fair enough. What I meant was that at this point in the generation, looking for one thing and saying that is the problem, while seemingly ignoring the other hugely limiting issues seemed bizarre. Trying to create a reality in which only disk size - six years into the generation - matters and that a disastrous strategy should have been taken on by MS to alleviate a problem for Sony is bizarre. Looking at a single characteristic in isolation for anything other than a bit of fun is all a bit ... I dunno.

I don't think Microsoft made the wrong choice in going with DVD. If anything the major mistake was the lack of a mandatory hard drive. In this particular the original Xbox had it right.

Was shipping without a mandatory HDD a mistake? Looking at 360 sales and games sales and Live I can't see it.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Maybe the devs are lowering the bar for the 360 to avoid making the PS3 version look bad

Sometimes one has to lower the bar to match one's skill level on a device.

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.

True. Plus, HDMI 1.3 chips weren't, supposedly, available 'til less than 5 months before the PS3 launched. However, HDMI 1.0 was available in 2002. HDMI 1.1 was around the first couple months of 2005, I believe. Does the 360 use any features not covered in the HDMI 1.0 spec?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Are you sure we don't? If a game like Uncharted has, say, 9GB of graphics memory, that seems small use of the extra room on a BD, until you realise that on a 360 format DVD you have 6.8GB, and 1-2GB would be used for video, sound and other stuff, leaving at most 5GB for graphics ... then it's still almost double? I'm pretty sure God of War 3 is no different versus, say, a Bayonetta - but compare it also to Castlevania LoS (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/26/how-disc-swapping-works-in-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-for-xbox/). GT5 has about 13GB of game data excluding videos and such, and Forza 3 requires you to install the second drive should you (meaning I, as it is my favorite 360 game, only neglected now because of GT5) want to play niche tracks like Le Mans, Nurburgring and another one (and some extra cars) ...

I'd say it is particularly the exclusives, on both sides, that seem to use more than a DVD's worth (and using more than a DVDs worth really doesn't have to be 50GB immediately - Killzone 3 used like 47GB, but that was a lot of video in both 3D and 2D, language data, etc.; though even there I challenge people to argue that's not a 'valid' use of the format).

What you wrote seems like it would be obvious. Great post.

Could you please say which presentation? And do you have a link where you can see/read it?

The first presentation on Battlefield 3. The one that has performance numbers (no occlusion) on 15000 spheres...360 (1 job) 1.55ms...Core i7, 2.66GHz (1 job) 1ms...PS3 SPA (1 job) 0.63ms. It's on this site somewhere. Look at the "conclusions" page. It's there.

 

[hoho]

It's hardly unknown. You can get a pretty good idea here.

Cheers

I wonder how many more decent pre-rendered videos we would have had if XB had come with a bigger optical disk. While the in-game cutscenes are decent they are no where near the quality of a decent rendered movie you can see in many games (e.g anything from blizzard, anything in WH40k series).

 

[goonergaz]

bkillan pointed out that moving from the faster dvd format to slower HD-DVD could have broken games that relied on DVD's performance

I believe they released a disk that supported both formats on HD DVD disk meaning you could have the game as standard and still have a HD DVD edition that might contain some additional content...but again the very least a user would gain is HD DVD playback of films - many people use their consoles as media players and I believe a move like this may have hurt Sony and maybe even gained some of those who love their films but only play the odd game (so more marketshare).

I know a few. People with kids - the kids just put the games in and play from disk. The tv is loud enough and the xbox is far enough away that they simply don't care.

Anyone with the ability to install and doesn't needs their head checking, all you have to do is install when you won't be using your console and you benefit quieter console, faster loading and less pop up in most games

 

[goonergaz]

In the first 6 months in the US MS moved 1.5 million 360s. Sony moved 1.27 million PS3s in their first 6 months. Facts don't agree with your revisionist history. Of course it's a lot easier to keep product on the shelf if no one wants to pay the $600 you're asking.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand how this relates to shortages (or not) in stores?

Like bkilian, the only games installed on my console are Arcade downloads. The net benefit isn't worth the hassle and I'd just have a HDD filled with games I no longer play.

Wait, so the 'hassle' of clicking a button is too much yet you're OK to swap disks half-way through a game?

 

[goonergaz]

I rarely ever install games to my X360.

The only reason that I will install a game is if the performance is improved. Otherwise, most games have a reasonable load time for me.

Which it does on most games (I think Halo 3 is the only confirmed exception and even then the benefit is lower noise)

 

[goonergaz]

I don't want to get several hours into a game and hit a disk read error, too long after purchase to return the game.

Surely you'll hit the same issue at the same time - in fact if you install to the HDD it might show a potential error - also you may damage the disk during your time playing the game, this will ensure that (provided the damage isn't major) the game will still work.

 

[BadTB25]

Which it does on most games (I think Halo 3 is the only confirmed exception and even then the benefit is lower noise)

I have heard on only a few exceptions where the install improves performance beyond a slight decrease in load times. By all means, enlighten me on just what games benefit performance wise.

Most load times on the games I play are fairly negligible to begin with, so the install is not worth it to me. Also, installs do take up space on the HDD and I don't want to think about what games I have installed and what aren't--I just pop it in and play. I just saw the R3 install of what 20+ minutes before the gamer could start playing (this was a mandatory install so a somewhat different scenario).

I guess if it's a game that I know I will play over and over (like a fighting game or FPS I play with friends), then I may choose to install, but for the most part, I don't find it necessary. As I said, it's nice to have the choice.

 

[goonergaz]

From a sample base of one individual...

Actually this was UK wide.

And why do you still ignore the whole price thing?

I don't, my point is MS brought out the X360 too early - well for me to be completely happy with the end product! If they had delayed until HD DVD/AN Other larger capacity medium then we would almost certainly have had a more reliable machine and HDMI/AN Other HD digital output.

Just my opinion, but from MSs PoV they obviously did quite well and certainly grabbed more marketshare (which is obviously their main goal) but in the meantime I had to wait until after launch for my 'pre-ordered' unit, had to wait a month before I could finally get a half-decent lead for my TV and then have had 2 xboxes die (which cost them money and who knows how well the next XB will sell from day one - will this affect them?). And finally upgrade to a HDMI version to benefit from the industry standard HD Digital output.

 

[goonergaz]

By all means, enlighten me on just what games benefit performance wise.

A benefit is a benefit regardless of it's size - people say BR 'sucks and is slow' because a level takes a couple of secs extra to load, so if you can save that much time by installing then surely it's worth it for the sake of a button press...you can remove the game when completed.

But the advantages are:

Faster loading (most games)
Less background noise (all games)
Less wear and tear (all games)
Less pop-in (most games)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Actually this was UK wide.

Maybe, but you only presented the evidence of one person, which isn't a very good reference point. The news reports of the time were of shortages and delays, and the reason given was blue laser diode availability.

I don't, my point is MS brought out the X360 too early - well for me to be completely happy with the end product! If they had delayed until HD DVD/AN Other larger capacity medium then we would almost certainly have had a more reliable machine and HDMI/AN Other HD digital output.

But it would have cost $150 more, and gained most people nothing. The optional HDDVD drive satisfied the movie contingent. The lack of HDMI is kinda irrelevant because component can carry and HD signal just fine and without handshaking issues! Plus choosing HDDVD could have resulted in a console with a dead drive format and more costly media. Plus with Ps3 sucking up all the laser diodes, availability for XB360 would have been extremely low. Even if the demand for a $600 HDDVD enabled XB360 was there, there'd be hardly any to buy.

Launching later with HDDVD would have cost the XBox brand dearly.

 

[function]

Surely you'll hit the same issue at the same time - in fact if you install to the HDD it might show a potential error - also you may damage the disk during your time playing the game, this will ensure that (provided the damage isn't major) the game will still work.

That's what I mean - when I get a game I like to install it early on (normally before first play) because this tells me if the game disk has a problem. Installing allowed me to use one game that would have been unusable straight from the disk (frequent read errors) and showed me that another was faulty at a certain point. It's a good way of checking your purchase as well as protecting the disk, speeding up loading, and quietening the machine.

As an added bonus, if the disk gets scratched after you've installed it you can still play the game so long as the disk is recognised.

I think whole-disk install is great, but I understand why some people aren't bothered and are happy to play straight from disk.

 

[goonergaz]

Maybe, but you only presented the evidence of one person, which isn't a very good reference point. The news reports of the time were of shortages and delays, and the reason given was blue laser diode availability.

As I said before, there were no shortages in the stores - they delayed the product to avoid the shortages and minimise eBay profiteering.

But it would have cost $150 more, and gained most people nothing. The optional HDDVD drive satisfied the movie contingent. The lack of HDMI is kinda irrelevant because component can carry and HD signal just fine and without handshaking issues! Plus choosing HDDVD could have resulted in a console with a dead drive format and more costly media. Plus with Ps3 sucking up all the laser diodes, availability for XB360 would have been extremely low. Even if the demand for a $600 HDDVD enabled XB360 was there, there'd be hardly any to buy.

I don't know, PS3 still sold fairly well with it's lofty launch price - esp. when you consider a few factors...firsly X360 had no competition whatsoever, secondly PS3 launched with competition from not only the established X360 but the 'run-away' success off the Wii! I would have thought the BR helped pick up sales in those early days - it was effectively a cheap BR that could play games! I don't think HD DVD media was costly - wasn't that the point of HD DVD - that it based on DVD so cheaper to produce? Also WRT HDMI, I would much have prefered a pure digital output than the analogue component supplied...everything about the X360 felt like 'cheap as possible'.

Launching later with HDDVD would have cost the XBox brand dearly.

I don't doubt it, but we'll never know for sure.