New Xbox360 Game To Require Hard Drive To Play

[Qroach]

If this game is not released yet, it will still need to go through certification and I bet it fails final cert if this is true.

 

[Farid]

Seriously, what on earth are they recording?! Someone with the game needs to try compressing them and see what happens, too.

They record the database changes.

The game also require a lot of cache, for virtual RAM swapping purpose.

 

[mckmas8808]

If this game is not released yet, it will still need to go through certification and I bet it fails final cert if this is true.

It needs to fail quickly. Casual X360 gamers should be made to have a HDD just for a soccer game, should they?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What casual gamer wants to play a team management program?

 

[swanlee]

over 90% of core buyers have bought the HDD, I see no reason why a game should cut out features for the few that don't have the HDD

 

[London Geezer]

over 90% of core buyers have bought the HDD, I see no reason why a game should cut out features for the few that don't have the HDD

That's not the point. If 90% of the people bought a HDD, what was the poing in dividing their userbase at all? In the end, whatever way people try to spin it, releasing 2 versions of a console at launch was a bad move.
The userbase is divided, and if one game comes out requiring the hard drive after 3 months the console has launched, god knows how many games will come out in the next 5 years requiring it.
MS should just stop selling those stupid core systems. But then they wouldn't make money off the ridiculously overpriced separate HDDs...

 

[GB123]

FFXI is hard drive only and from what square-enix are saying their next mmo will need a hard drive.

Its not a huge deal, does anyone know if there are plans for a third party (cheap) hard drive?

Does huxley plan to use the hard drive?, i can't see how any mmo could receive patches and updates without a hard drive.

But then they wouldn't make money off the ridiculously overpriced separate HDDs...

I can't see how you figure that out, currently a core system cost $299 + hard drive $100 = $399 which happens to be the same cost of the premium, you can argue that the premium comes with extra's included but thats of little relevance.

People who buy the core system and then buy the hard drive at a later date won't suffer much from it, most games that require hard drives will be games that target hard core gamers anyway, MMO's and such.

 

[Synergy34]

over 90% of core buyers have bought the HDD, I see no reason why a game should cut out features for the few that don't have the HDD

I'd like to see hard data on that rather than from some comments from a gamer on a message board, although I don't really doubt that gamers wanted the HDD and they probably settled for buying it seperate cause MS dropped the ball(for gamers at least) and released 2 SKU's when there should have just been one. It Would be interesting to see the attach rate of the HDD with the core system. Probably would contradict the MS philosophy about gamers wanting a choice, when they really just want a HDD. But have to see those number before making a judgement.

Ok, lets say it's 2009 and things go smooth for the 360. They sell about 50 million 360's, they never get rid of the SKU packages. Now your talking about 5 million gamers without a HDD. That's hardly just a few gamers to piss off IMO. Things don't look so bad now cause you're talking about numbers less than 100k without the HDD.

 

[mckmas8808]

over 90% of core buyers have bought the HDD, I see no reason why a game should cut out features for the few that don't have the HDD

Where are you guys getting these stats from?

 

[pegisys]

are they really splitting anything though, it's a few games on the ps2 that require a hard drive but you have to buy it separate and the slim version can't even use the hard drive.

Another thing is that if the PS3 and Rev doesn't have a hard drive standard not many cross platform games are going to require it, except for a few PC ports and maybe mmorpgs

I think the only reason for the hard drives on the 360 are for downloads, so if you fill one up with games or media you can just buy a new one and not have to get rid of anything you may have paid for

and I agree they do charge to much for a 20 gig HDD

 

[GB123]

are they really splitting anything though, it's a few games on the ps2 that require a hard drive but you have to buy it separate and the slim version can't even use the hard drive.

Another thing is that if the PS3 and Rev doesn't have a hard drive standard not many cross platform games are going to require it, except for a few PC ports and maybe mmorpgs

I think the only reason for the hard drives on the 360 are for downloads, so if you fill one up with games or media you can just buy a new one and not have to get rid of anything you may have paid for

and I agree they do charge to much for a 20 gig HDD

I agree Sony split their market every which way and nobody complained, i think over time the idea of being able to download content over xbox live will become more attractive to causal gamers and increase hard drive sales.

 

[swanlee]

Alot of you are simply making a big deal out of nothing in the name of bashing MS. Sony split the user base, none one cared then

 

[Synergy34]

Out of the thousands of PS2 games name as many as you can that wouldn't be able to be played on any given PS2?

I can only think of one, FFXI.

 

[London Geezer]

Alot of you are simply making a big deal out of nothing in the name of bashing MS. Sony split the user base, none one cared then

Of course people cared and weren't happy about it at all!! The whole point being that Xbox had HDD as standards and PS2 didn't.. It was the point of millions of discussions... Where have u lived in the last 5 years??
Besides, the HDD and FF11 weren't even released in Europe... So our userbase wasn't divided.

 

[Sis]

Splitting the userbase = bad no matter how you spin it.

Why do you think this is true? Splitting the user base is typically bad for the manufacturer, since almost always the add-on has failed. But splitting the user base from the beginning has never been done. It may confuse a handful of consumers but that would be the extent of the "bad"ness, as far as I can tell.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Scooby do we really know the split?

According to MS execs it's 90% HDD installed base right now.

 

[Sis]

If this game is not released yet, it will still need to go through certification and I bet it fails final cert if this is true.

Why? A game is allowed to require the HDD.

 

[GB123]

Of course people cared and weren't happy about it at all!! The whole point being that Xbox had HDD as standards and PS2 didn't.. It was the point of millions of discussions... Where have u lived in the last 5 years??
Besides, the HDD and FF11 weren't even released in Europe... So our userbase wasn't divided.

So whats the difference between buying a console seperately (core) or buying a console package (premium) which includes the hard drive. (if all systems were core with the option to buy a hard drive the situation would be no different)

FF11 and the HDD wasn't released in europe because Sony had realised it was pointless doing so.

I don't ever remember seeing huge discussions regarding splitting the user base of the PS2. (probably because FF11 was the only game to take full advantage of it)

I think what annoys most people is that MS introduced the HDD as standard with the xbox and then took it away.

Do you think Sony are going to handle the PS3 any differently?

 

[Sis]

I think what annoys most people is that MS introduced the HDD as standard with the xbox and then took it away.

Partly, though I think MS had a big part in setting this expectation that the HDD is a critical feature of next generation gaming. It's become that nebulous concept that in practice is rarely used to any real effect. Couple that with this "splitting the user base" knee jerk reaction that most people have, and you end up with some angry console fans.

 

[expletive]

That's not the point. If 90% of the people bought a HDD, what was the poing in dividing their userbase at all? In the end, whatever way people try to spin it, releasing 2 versions of a console at launch was a bad move.
The userbase is divided, and if one game comes out requiring the hard drive after 3 months the console has launched, god knows how many games will come out in the next 5 years requiring it.
MS should just stop selling those stupid core systems. But then they wouldn't make money off the ridiculously overpriced separate HDDs...

I really dont htink that "Football Manager 2006" requiring an HD is evidence enough to determine that MS was stupid with their 2 SKU strategy.

The idea of the 2 SKUs was to have a version where someone could walk in and pick up a system that played 99.5% of the games on the system for $100 less then they otherwise could.

The 2 SKUs allows MS to reach 199 or even 149, much sooner than they would have been been able to otherwise, and history shows that this is the price where consoles really sell the most during their lifecycle.

When the revolution is $199 and the PS3 is $399, a $249 (or even $199) Xbox 360 that plays 99.5% of the games will be a compelling choice for a lot of people.

Thats the idea and 'splitting the userbase' isnt nearly as bad when the 'have nots' can upgrade easily in the future if they want to to a unit identical to the premium (sans the chrome DVD drawer ).