They're not abandoning it, it's just now a question of how inconvenient it might become to do that on memory card too. File size will get bigger, storage likely a lot smaller... We'll just have to see what M-Systems can offer.
No Hard Drive in Xbox 2 Confirmed
- Thread starter max-pain
- Start date
cthellis42 said:
Common X-Box live content downloads are 1000-2000 blocks. A "block" is 15kb, so we're talking about 15mb per 1000 blocks. Most people just fill their hard-disk up with ripped music, which probably won't be an option with a flash card, but content downloads should be no problem.
Hmmm what to me looked to be the most promising looking thin film storage technology seems to have disappeared ... Rolltronics were promising devices for this year, but instead they have removed all the press information on their storage technology from their site 
nobie, and how about MMORPGs?
nobie, and how about MMORPGs?
Nobie is correct, the majority of the downloads are extremly small and MS currently isn't using all of the hard drive as it is. It was honestly too much space for what they needed, and I can see them going with less space next time around.
2 gigs would be plenty of space for content downloads, saved games, cache space, and ripped music.
MMORPG's don't typically require a lot of additional hard drive space, as the majority of created information sits database side. In what way would you think MMORPG's need lot's of addtional space?
2 gigs would be plenty of space for content downloads, saved games, cache space, and ripped music.
MMORPG's don't typically require a lot of additional hard drive space, as the majority of created information sits database side. In what way would you think MMORPG's need lot's of addtional space?
Florin said:
I think this is an over-reaction. You seem to think that Sony is the market leader because of having a superior product. The leader of the next gen will likely have little to do with the hardware as opposed to the advertising and the initial game library which will attract buyers early on, enticing developers to work for the new growing market, rather than the powerhouse market with no buyers.
Put it this way - Sony is leading this gen without any advantages you say MS will flounder without next gen. A bit hypocritial, don't you think?
PARANOiA said:
Not at all. I think what he's observing is that Sony's console has a large amount of intangible utility in it, from the massive game lineup, to the Sony name and history, to the publisher's knowledge that consumers are infatuated with it.
XBox just has none of this, it's "niche" this generation came as a result of being, to the largest degree, a more advanced device that had the PC-to-console angle covered.
So, what's going to change next generation? Well, Sony's strengths aren't going anywhere that much is for certain. And it's so highly probably that Sony's offering will be more powerful than Microsoft's (as many have foretold
) that Microsoft has effectivly lost it's former 'edge' - technical superiority. Computationally outgunned, sans the HDD which they talked-up, can only wait to see what's left. So, the question is... why buy an XBox this time when there's a PlayStation3?M$ did have one advantage more - much more mature development environment, and would one guess they are banking on this again.Vince said:
The way I see it, they are pretty much playing on the same card Sega did with DC - early to the market, provide competitive enough hw, heavy online push, and with the said advantage in terms of development - it may very well awhile before PS3 software catches up.
It should be noted that Sony hasn't really shown any of their cards yet though (except maybe in DMs visions), so we're all the more guessing blindly right now.
I said that in the other thread (I agree with Vince's post). Xbox had technological superiority to combat PS2s earlier arrival and brand name, and did...Ok. For the next generation, they will have established Xbox brand to work with, but Playstation name recognition is still overwhelming. If Xbox2 is going to be technologically inferior to PS3 (and perhaps in some aspects even to Xbox1) and will lack backwards capability, they might as well give up now. Plus, while MS is certainly in far better financial shape then Sega ever was, I don't think anyone wants to follow Dreamcast strategy - the fate of the original was just overwhelmingly depressing.
Vince said:PARANOiA said:
Not at all. I think what he's observing is that Sony's console has a large amount of intangible utility in it, from the massive game lineup, to the Sony name and history, to the publisher's knowledge that consumers are infatuated with it.
XBox just has none of this, it's "niche" this generation came as a result of being, to the largest degree, a more advanced device that had the PC-to-console angle covered.
So, what's going to change next generation? Well, Sony's strengths aren't going anywhere that much is for certain. And it's so highly probably that Sony's offering will be more powerful than Microsoft's (as many have foretold
I personally think buying any system based on how fun its predecessor did once upon a time is silly.. as I do corporate loyalty in any regard. Take a device on its merits.
That said, Sony will in my opinion lead the next gen not because the PS3 will be better or worse, but because the PS2 won this gen. The PS2 won this gen because the PS1 won last gen.
The question, "why buy an XBox this time when there's a PlayStation3?" I personally find a little ridiculous. Was this statement rhetorical? An intelligent consumer will buy the system with games they like. Most consumers will buy the won that they or their friends had last time, since it's cool to do so. They're the same people who only wear Nikes, and drive the same make of car for their whole life.
My answer to the question? Games. The same reason I want to next Nintendo and Sony machine too.
I don't think MS has much risk of going belly-up next gen. The XBox has a good following in the key demographic of people in the workforce - those who are likely to pick it up, rather than have their parents buy the machine for them
Currently, yes. It may also go up for next gen's games to... who knows what?Qroach said:
Have you even LOOKED at MMORPGs? They "typically" require an awful lot of space; I haven't seen one sit at under 1GB since Anarchy Online. FFXI is the biggest so far at 4-5GB installed. (Or is it 5GB+ with the expansion? I forget. Either way...)Qroach said:
The majority of created information is NOT sitting database side, else the bandwidth requirements would be beastly. All the zones, the objects, the character models... Everything graphical sits locally, and that's of course where the biggest file sizes will end up. Everything audible, too. The servers just tell you what to load and when--they're certainly not uploading maps to you bit by bit.
If you're just talking about "extra content" after a launch, then I suppose it depends... Expansions can end up being large, but some can certainly be no great shakes. Over time, though, it would add up to a lot, and require something large and dedicated; dealing with limited space would restrict how you update. Offhand, though, I think it would need something large and dedicated to BEGIN with, as who really wants to try stream a MMORPG off a DVD? So far as I know, EQ:OA is the only one that attempts this, and the result is less than thrilling... (PSO I don't consider of the same scale, and I'm not sure about Nobunaga's Ambition Online.) I can't think any modern and high-class MMO would even bother trying. Large and dedicated would be needed first for the install, and then for the updates... And newer games would chew through 2GB pretty quickly as well.
Some games will stick it out, but since anything major is being pushed for the PC as well (where MMORPGs are most popular right now), I can't imagine anything slower than a hard drive being used, and whatever is must have lots and storage at hand.
The extra levels in Splinter Cell are around 40-50MB, this is probably due to the extra models and audio, the question is that with the extra hardware power of XB2 how much bigger will these files get?
In future we could have 200Mb+ Splinter Cell 3 files, extra mechs in Mechassault that are 10Mb each, extra maps in Halo 3 that are 100MB each add on some save games and some other smaller downloads and you can see why a large storage is needed for download content.
In future we could have 200Mb+ Splinter Cell 3 files, extra mechs in Mechassault that are 10Mb each, extra maps in Halo 3 that are 100MB each add on some save games and some other smaller downloads and you can see why a large storage is needed for download content.
I wasn't talking about how much space they take up for the intial install obviously. On a console all these files will reside on the game DVD. Major expansions ship on seprate CD's on PC or in the case of consoles DVD's ( and carry a decent/cheaper price tag possibly). while I could see them including the full version of the game along withthe addon and sell it like X RPG gold edition or somehting along those lines (unlike PC addons).
That's not correct at all. User created information sits database side. what other created information do you think there is once a MMORPG game is installed?
Obviously game assets don't sit database side.
Of course I'm talking about "extra content" after launch. PC MMORPG's ship expansions on seperate disks because they are either too big for most to download, and/or they want to make more money of it.
This is different from having a game designed in such a way that extra quests or story events can completely be controlled without any additional graphics or assets. which is somehting I htink a console MMORPG would need/use. This is exactly why I said MMORPG's don't typically require extra hard drive space once released. They only reason they'd need a whole lot of additional space is for game assets, and those are typicaly sold sperately.