New Xbox360 Game To Require Hard Drive To Play

[scooby_dooby]

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.

So what? You have 45 million people who do have the HDD, and the publisher can decide which segment they want to support.

This is not really a big deal, for people purchasing a new system they will be told despite the HDD many other advantages, some game will also be HDD only, it's added incentive to buy. For the guys who already own the system w/ no HDD, well tough luck, what're they gonna do about it anyways?

In the end the developers and publishers will decide whetehr they want to target the entire install base, or just the HDD install base whatever the ratio is at the time, and that's perfect IMO. In the end, 99% of publishers will probably just decide to market to everyone .

 

[London Geezer]

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

No, why do you ask? Do you think i'm ok with Sony doing it and not MS? Hell no, i think it's a stupid idea whoever does it.

 

[London Geezer]

So what? You have 45 million people who do have the HDD, and the publisher can decide which segment they want to support.

This is not really a big deal, for people purchasing a new system they will be told despite the HDD many other advantages, some game will also be HDD only, it's added incentive to buy. For the guys who already own the system w/ no HDD, well tough luck, what're they gonna do about it anyways?

In the end the developers and publishers will decide whetehr they want to target the entire install base, or just the HDD install base whatever the ratio is at the time, and that's perfect IMO. In the end, 99% of publishers will probably just decide to market to everyone .

The problem is, and we've discussed about this many times already, is that in the Xbox the HDD was used in a much more useful way than just to save big stats and stuff like that.
If now the 360 userbase is really 90-10, then why bother releasing a unit without the HDD?
Now because of that, only a few games will be able to use the HDD for caching and things that generally make games better - definately made some Xbox games better, especially in terms of loading times...
It was a stupid decision from many sides.

 

[mckmas8808]

I
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 ).

Yeah but the question is will they buy the HDD. Devs can't count on people to buy it unless they pack it with their game they are selling. Which we know probably won't happen.

 

[mckmas8808]

The problem is, and we've discussed about this many times already, is that in the Xbox the HDD was used in a much more useful way than just to save big stats and stuff like that.
If now the 360 userbase is really 90-10, then why bother releasing a unit without the HDD?
Now because of that, only a few games will be able to use the HDD for caching and things that generally make games better - definately made some Xbox games better, especially in terms of loading times...
It was a stupid decision from many sides.

You're right, but Scooby is debating from the standpoint that 45 million or so gamers will not have a HDD!

Isn't that a bad thing if more games require you to have one?

 

[London Geezer]

You're right, but Scooby is debating from the standpoint that 45 million or so gamers will not have a HDD!

Isn't that a bad thing if more games require you to have one?

Huh? No he isn't...

 

[GB123]

Ok, but how do MS and Sony please everyone.

They just can't do it, some people may not beable to afford the premium or may not want to spend an extra $100 on the system.

The core system in the UK is cheaper than any system has been at launch, (i can't remember the launch price of the Gamecube)

If i am a casual gamer with £300 on me do i buy a 360 premium with no games or a core with 1 game. (if i want a hard drive i could go home happy and save for a seperate hard drive)

Its not really MS that have split the user base its the developer.

EDIT- Everyone here is saying 90-10% but you have to then take into consideration out of that 10% how many gamers are going to be effected by this.

So say out of that 10% less than 1% ?

It's about choice if a gamer wants the game he has a choice to buy a hard drive.

 

[mckmas8808]

Huh? No he isn't...

Damn my bad, my eyes are playing tricks on me.

 

[Synergy34]

So what? You have 45 million people who do have the HDD, and the publisher can decide which segment they want to support.

This is not really a big deal, for people purchasing a new system they will be told despite the HDD many other advantages, some game will also be HDD only, it's added incentive to buy. For the guys who already own the system w/ no HDD, well tough luck, what're they gonna do about it anyways?

In the end the developers and publishers will decide whetehr they want to target the entire install base, or just the HDD install base whatever the ratio is at the time, and that's perfect IMO. In the end, 99% of publishers will probably just decide to market to everyone .

So what? You are a company trying to make money, I don't think cutting out 5 million potential buyers is a smart business move. How do you know there aren't 100k gamers in that bracket willing to buy? Brushing this off as not a big deal is being short sighted. It is a big deal.

If deveoplers want to ignore that then more power to them, they must be making more money than we are being lead to believe, and games must not cost as much to make either.

 

[London Geezer]

Ok, but how do MS and Sony please everyone.

They just can't do it, some people may not beable to afford the premium or may not want to spend an extra $100 on the system.

The core system in the UK is cheaper than any system has been at launch, (i can't remember the launch price of the Gamecube)

If i am a casual gamer with £300 on me do i buy a 360 premium with no games or a core with 1 game. (if i want a hard drive i could go home happy and save for a seperate hard drive)

Its not really MS that have split the user base its the developer.

The point is that if the HDD were standard, the games would use it for much more than saving big save files. It would just be there and if you can't afford it, tough, it's standard and it is needed in the context of the platform. It would be like saying people can't afford having Cell, so Sony should make a cheaper PS3 version with a less powerful CPU to go along with the proper PS3 with Cell...

Now both PS3 and X360 will only have hard drives to make big saves. Yay... Could use my PC as storage and stream the data to the console for that kind of stuff...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is not really a big deal, for people purchasing a new system they will be told despite the HDD many other advantages, some game will also be HDD only, it's added incentive to buy. For the guys who already own the system w/ no HDD, well tough luck, what're they gonna do about it anyways?

Whinge at MS for saying that they didn't need an HDD because all games would run without one? Shell out $100 for a HDD to play these games that aren't supposed to exist when they would have preferred the full $400 pack, except that at the time of purchase they didn't realise they'd need an HDD to play some games, plus MS were selling these 'Core' packs cheaper meaning full packs were hard to come by, and when you did buy a Core it didn't matter because you were convinced you'd be able to play all games anyway?

If MS hadn't of said you wouldn't need an HDD, this wouldn't be an issue. If from the outset they had said 'the Core pack will not be able to play some games' then the public would have been informed. That's not what happened though.

 

[Gerry]

The problem is, and we've discussed about this many times already, is that in the Xbox the HDD was used in a much more useful way than just to save big stats and stuff like that.
If now the 360 userbase is really 90-10, then why bother releasing a unit without the HDD?
Now because of that, only a few games will be able to use the HDD for caching and things that generally make games better - definately made some Xbox games better, especially in terms of loading times...
It was a stupid decision from many sides.

Well......

It's debatable whether that's going to be the case. Oblivion sounds like it'll use the HD to speed up loading times if it's there. I can imagine other games doing the same. I'd doubt whether there will be any games that will require the HD and when they do it'll be down to save sizes more than anything.

On the face of it splitting the user base is daft, but as long as you don't split it too much then developers can factor that in. A few years down the line, I don't think the multiple SKU is going to matter too much game-wise. It'll just be a means for MS to produce a 360 with a very low price and brag about it.

 

[mckmas8808]

The point is that if the HDD were standard, the games would use it for much more than saving big save files. It would just be there and if you can't afford it, tough, it's standard and it is needed in the context of the platform. It would be like saying people can't afford having Cell, so Sony should make a cheaper PS3 version with a less powerful CPU to go along with the proper PS3 with Cell...

Now both PS3 and X360 will only have hard drives to make big saves. Yay... Could use my PC as storage and stream the data to the console for that kind of stuff...

Eh that was a great analogy. Or I guess we should start saying Sony should release a Blu-ray/DVD version of the PS3 @ say $400 and a DVD only PS3 @ $300. Would this make sense to anybody?

 

[Sis]

The point is that if the HDD were standard, the games would use it for much more than saving big save files. It would just be there and if you can't afford it, tough, it's standard and it is needed in the context of the platform. It would be like saying people can't afford having Cell, so Sony should make a cheaper PS3 version with a less powerful CPU to go along with the proper PS3 with Cell...

Now both PS3 and X360 will only have hard drives to make big saves. Yay... Could use my PC as storage and stream the data to the console for that kind of stuff...

Other than streaming, this is roughly all it was ever used for on the Xbox. We had this debate and that was roughly the extent of it. It makes no sense to charge everyone for the HDD add on when only those who want to play MMO or complex sims will require it.

 

[London Geezer]

Eh that was a great analogy. Or I guess we should start saying Sony should release a Blu-ray/DVD version of the PS3 @ say $400 and a DVD only PS3 @ $300. Would this make sense to anybody?

Same thing. If that ever happened, no games would ever be on Bluray disc, which kinda defies the whole point really and would only make the Bluray-powered PS3 just a PS3 which plays Bluray movies, and not the PS3 we expect to be getting.

 

[Sis]

If MS hadn't of said you wouldn't need an HDD, this wouldn't be an issue. If from the outset they had said 'the Core pack will not be able to play some games' then the public would have been informed. That's not what happened though.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/accessories/harddriveornot.htm

most games do not require the use of the hard drive to work

They could be more explicit, I imagine, but if the Core pack is targetted at users who likely won't play games that require a HDD, then it shouldn't matter.

 

[Gerry]

If MS hadn't of said you wouldn't need an HDD, this wouldn't be an issue. If from the outset they had said 'the Core pack will not be able to play some games' then the public would have been informed. That's not what happened though.

I take it this isn't an issue any more then?

 

[GB123]

Comparing a hard drive to a processor is going a bit far.

A games console can function without a HDD but it can't without Processor.

There is no evidence to suggest that 95% of games would be better with the use of a hard drive.

Caching was an issue due to the speed of the xbox's dvd drive.

 

[Sis]

Caching was an issue due to the speed of the xbox's dvd drive.

To play devil's advocate, the DVD drive in the 360 is in fact slower than the Xbox, in relation to system RAM (at 8 times the amount of RAM but only 3 times faster DVD drive). But to me, the HDD is a luxury, one that I will not pass up and MS is positioning it as a luxury item. I think this is OK.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If MS hadn't of said you wouldn't need an HDD, this wouldn't be an issue. If from the outset they had said 'the Core pack will not be able to play some games' then the public would have been informed. That's not what happened though.

People have been informed for months, they just weren't paying attention.

We've known for a long time that FFXI would require a HDD, we know that most other MMO's are going to require one as well. In addition, this footbal manager news came out in 2005, I remember it clearly, and they stated all the way back then it would require a HDD.

We already knew some games would be HDD only, I don't know how anyone would think otherwise. Even MS's own literature says 'most games do not require the use of the hard drive to work'.

As to whether the casual consumer knows this, who can say, I don't know what the salesmen are telling them nowadays, seems like the HDD's are selling regardless though. Bottom line is, almost all games will not need the HDD, for the few that do, there will be a small fraction of gamers dissapointed, big deal.