Keep in mind guys, that without a standard HDD, it's more likely that you won't be able to play certain games on your system. Oblivion is already rumored to be cancelled for the PS3 because the HDD isn't standard. Square has expressed disapointment about there being no HDD standard for PS3. Also, an HDD would be great for downloadable game demos and trailers, seamless worlds, less loading and user created content. In the latest Game Informer, they state MS is working on a Music Service where you can download them to your harddrive and transfer to your MP3 devices if you like. Also GI states Halo 3 will include both a map editor and movie-making function. Being able to create and share those things online would require a HDD.
Which is more important, a Standard Harddrive or Blu-Ray??
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
- Status
Hardknock said:
Well, it's not actually announced that the PS3 doesn't come with a HDD, although common sense would tell us that it won't. In any case, Square has said that a HDD would be useful for the PS3 (for MMORPGs).
I think one option that Sony might consider, is that the initial shipments of the PS3 won't come with a HDD, but after say 8-12 months, they start including it as standard. That way, the vast majority of PS3 owners (say 80%) will have a HDD, while the rest can buy it as an addon. Also, I think if people are going to buy the system in its first year, they'll also be keen to get a HDD (if you're going to spend $299+ for a new system, why not go all the way). That way, only a small percentage of PS3 owners won't have the HDD, so developers could still support it.
Only Xbox Live centric games seem to require a HDD or a Memory Card.Hardknock said:
http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1190/Xbox-360-Interview-Todd-Holmdahl/p2/
Gholbine said:
Well, this is certainly an option of sorts, but I think bundling at launch would actually secure more dev support than later inclusion would, even if it technically wouldn't mean a hard drive within the sale system. I'm just a big fan of the bundle theory - can't explain it! 8)
My Personal Vote: HDD.
My personal reasons:
Reasons for HDD.
• Game Demos & trailers
• Game updates (new levels, maps, vehicles, etc... see: Halo 2)
• "Microtransactions" so gamers can obtain new content and mods
• Free Game Saves (saves me $30 on a stupid memory card)
• Never run out of game save space
• HDD Caching/Streaming
• Great for perpetual worlds and games that need a lot of storage
• Custom soundtracks
• HDD broadens the online gaming experience
• The more major systems have HDDs, the more developers will be happy to utilize them (one of the key issues with the Xbox was that a very small percentage of total consoles had HDD... chicken-and-egg scenario; utilization and ingenuity improves when it becomes a market standard)
Why not BR?
• Format war ahead, BR is not the guaranteed victor (see: Sony-Toshiba compromise discussions)
• 1x and 2x BR is slower than the DVD drives that are/could be in next gen systems (e.g. Xbox 360 has 12x DVD, many PCs have 16x DVD drives)
• Early technology often has reliability issues
• No HD Optical movie media available on the market
• HD TV penetration still very low (10M US, even worse in Europe) and will be beneficial to fewer gamers than DVD was last gen (due to combo of waiting on media & new HD TV)
• Additional storage will only aid a small percentage of games that cannot span multiple discs easily (e.g. GTA)
• A large HDD (used for caching) can resolve most size issues plus be able to write information; basically a large HDD can perform the same function plus more
• The less FMV the better IMO (I wont shed a tear for any developer who is "stuck" spending more time on game content and using in-game cut scenes)
• Filling DVD's is expensive. DVD9 is ~8.5GB, about twice as much as a standard DVD. While certain aspects of game creation will take more space this gen (like textures) this gen has not been met as stifly as previous generations with significant high-space needs. Also note related to costs that many many gamers are shorter now days, partly due to development times getting longer and the requirement to cut them off at some point. More stuff on a disk = more time, money, etc. Some games will need more than 9GB of space, and of those only a fraction wont be friendly to disk swapping half way through a game. I believe there is more games that will be helped by a HDD than hurt by this side effect of smaller optical media
• PC games have been using HD displays and high resolution textures for years and very few games get close to the 4.7GB mark. For those that do, multiple DVDs.
• BR media will be more expensive than DVD media
Since it was a personally question of, "What would you like more" for me HDD > BR.
Mileage will vary from gamer to gamer.
Idealy: Both! 8)
But I think this generation is more about online than hi definition TVs, and a HDD improves online gaming more than a HD TV. Consoles are a world wide enterprise, and on the worldwide scene broadband seems to be able to connect/affect more gamers than HD this generation.
Feel free to have your own opinion on what would be best for your own gaming tastes.
My personal reasons:
Reasons for HDD.
• Game Demos & trailers
• Game updates (new levels, maps, vehicles, etc... see: Halo 2)
• "Microtransactions" so gamers can obtain new content and mods
• Free Game Saves (saves me $30 on a stupid memory card)
• Never run out of game save space
• HDD Caching/Streaming
• Great for perpetual worlds and games that need a lot of storage
• Custom soundtracks
• HDD broadens the online gaming experience
• The more major systems have HDDs, the more developers will be happy to utilize them (one of the key issues with the Xbox was that a very small percentage of total consoles had HDD... chicken-and-egg scenario; utilization and ingenuity improves when it becomes a market standard)
Why not BR?
• Format war ahead, BR is not the guaranteed victor (see: Sony-Toshiba compromise discussions)
• 1x and 2x BR is slower than the DVD drives that are/could be in next gen systems (e.g. Xbox 360 has 12x DVD, many PCs have 16x DVD drives)
• Early technology often has reliability issues
• No HD Optical movie media available on the market
• HD TV penetration still very low (10M US, even worse in Europe) and will be beneficial to fewer gamers than DVD was last gen (due to combo of waiting on media & new HD TV)
• Additional storage will only aid a small percentage of games that cannot span multiple discs easily (e.g. GTA)
• A large HDD (used for caching) can resolve most size issues plus be able to write information; basically a large HDD can perform the same function plus more
• The less FMV the better IMO (I wont shed a tear for any developer who is "stuck" spending more time on game content and using in-game cut scenes)
• Filling DVD's is expensive. DVD9 is ~8.5GB, about twice as much as a standard DVD. While certain aspects of game creation will take more space this gen (like textures) this gen has not been met as stifly as previous generations with significant high-space needs. Also note related to costs that many many gamers are shorter now days, partly due to development times getting longer and the requirement to cut them off at some point. More stuff on a disk = more time, money, etc. Some games will need more than 9GB of space, and of those only a fraction wont be friendly to disk swapping half way through a game. I believe there is more games that will be helped by a HDD than hurt by this side effect of smaller optical media
• PC games have been using HD displays and high resolution textures for years and very few games get close to the 4.7GB mark. For those that do, multiple DVDs.
• BR media will be more expensive than DVD media
Since it was a personally question of, "What would you like more" for me HDD > BR.
Mileage will vary from gamer to gamer.
Idealy: Both! 8)
But I think this generation is more about online than hi definition TVs, and a HDD improves online gaming more than a HD TV. Consoles are a world wide enterprise, and on the worldwide scene broadband seems to be able to connect/affect more gamers than HD this generation.
Feel free to have your own opinion on what would be best for your own gaming tastes.
Standard Blu-Ray is more important, why?
An optical drive can't be upgraded (well it can for movies, but games won't take advantage of it), but a HDD add-on can be thrown if if need be. DVD9 will end up being a limiting factor down the road for the X360, guaranteed (especially for free form games like GTA). The problem with the optional HDD lies in whether Sony will add proper functionality and force support for the it, if they do that then it doesn't matter if its optional.
Also, HDD has been underutilized this gen. I can see many people getting by with a 512mb/1gig mem stick for next-gen on PS3. It's plenty of space for DLC, gamesaves, etc. Personally I'd rather have a HDD and Blu-Ray in the PS3, but if I had to choose one it'd be Blu-Ray as I know it'll be more important for games (especially with in-game video, HD FMV's are going to be HUGE in file size), and HD movies are going to rock
Acert, you've got some very good points there. This is a thoughy :/
An optical drive can't be upgraded (well it can for movies, but games won't take advantage of it), but a HDD add-on can be thrown if if need be. DVD9 will end up being a limiting factor down the road for the X360, guaranteed (especially for free form games like GTA). The problem with the optional HDD lies in whether Sony will add proper functionality and force support for the it, if they do that then it doesn't matter if its optional.
Also, HDD has been underutilized this gen. I can see many people getting by with a 512mb/1gig mem stick for next-gen on PS3. It's plenty of space for DLC, gamesaves, etc. Personally I'd rather have a HDD and Blu-Ray in the PS3, but if I had to choose one it'd be Blu-Ray as I know it'll be more important for games (especially with in-game video, HD FMV's are going to be HUGE in file size), and HD movies are going to rock
Acert, you've got some very good points there. This is a thoughy :/
Hey I just thought of something! Say a GTA game(that isn't ideally suited to swapping discs) comes out to be about 12GB in size(about 4GB more than a dual-layered DVD), which is doubtful, but lets just say it does. What would stop them from shipping the game on One dual layered DVD and a second regular DVD, and the SECOND disc be installed on your 20GB harddrive??? Then all you would need is the first disc in your machine at all times. 8)
MechanizedDeath
Regular
It doesn't have to be a system advocacy thread at all, as the 360 could always have an add-on optical drive, and PS3 could either come with a HDD or add one on as well. I think it's an interesting thread to see how some look at it now. All IMO, of course. Pros and cons have generally been system-neutral thus far. Hopefully we can keep it that way. Just discuss the standards. PEACE.
mckmas8808
Legend
Remember guys not all 9 Gigs can be used in X360 games. I think its about 7 to 8 useable gigs of space. The rest will be used for security.
Your right , i believe its 7.4 gigs . But remember adding a second disc is going to give you 14.8 gigs of room .mckmas8808 said:
I don't see a problem with storage . Its very hard to make a case where multi discs will be worse than not having a hardrive . Remember in the ps one era we had games with 4 or more discs at some point . I highly doubt we will see games needing more than 10-12 gigs of room. That is alot of art and texture work or alot of cgi.
Now cgi isn't very important and it can be done with in game scripts and take up much much less room .
Nicked said:
The GTA's this gen were actually less than 2gb, I believe. The games next gen are likely to be "bigger" in the form of world-size, but I'd be very surprised to see 400% more unique content and textures.
In fact, as has been discussed MANY MANY times before on this board, next to no games this gen were dual layer games, and some that were repeated textures/files across the disc for increased load times (something that a HDD can minimise of course). That means they are actually less than 4.7gb, meaning if all games next gen were twice as big (in terms of file size) then there will be no concerns for the X360.
A HDD offers so much more for gamers.
Edit: repeated myself myself.
jvd said:
For most Western games its not going to be a big deal (save GTA-like titles possbily), also factor in that most western games are multi-platform, and X360 might be the lead dev platform for western devs since its the weaker of the two. It should be fine in this senario.
Blu-Ray is more of a boon for PS3 than it would be for X360, cause PS systems, especially in Japan are home to the big RPG's wich will use the space of BRD's. Overall it will be an issue down the road, but as you've said multi-disk games will be a fine solution for 90% of games. The few FMV-rich or HUGE free roaming games (they'd probably have to be much larger than even GTA:SA) will be problematic.
:lol after looking over acerts post, I'm kinda leaning towards the HDD side now (ONLY if its well utilized). Game demo downloads being one of the very cool aspects, if taken advantage of. I hate buying magazines to get a taste of upcoming games.
I disagree. Japan's rpgs will most likely be filled to the breaking point with cgi . The game itself will not need more than a dvd's amount of space .
Case in point look at how big oblivion will be and how many npcs and scriped dialoge there is in it and it fits on a dvd .
Free roaming games wont be a problem as once again oblivion is able to do this .
Unless u believe they will have 2 gigs of just grass textures and 2 gigs of tree textures and 2 gigs of stone textures . I just don't see how they will afford to do this .
Close to 4GB on my Xbox HDD. I think JE is the biggest which clocks in at 6.2GB or something.PARANOiA said:
But we are looking at least 4 * more space needed for textures (realistically much, much more), games will have higher sampled audio, bigger worlds, high definition video....
jvd said:
I see where you're coming from. Japanese RPG's won't be too big for DVD9's (the actual game data), but if they want to fit hours of HD video on there BRD's are the only way unless you want 5-6 disc games. Sqenix games are going to take advantage of this for sure. But all RPG's don't need to do this, I'm sure that Blue Dragon and Lost Odessy will eschew FMV for real-time cutscenes. For free roaming games, I guess you're right, but what if a dev wants to make a GTA-like title that's 2-3 times the size of GTA:SA (that would be mucho expensive to make to be sure)?
With WMV-HD you can hold up to 2 hours of HD video on a single DVD. Do you really think companies will create even close to that amount of HD CG cutscenes?? I don't even think Square will make that much. They're currently making FF:Advent Children(not sure if it'll be two hours or not) and it's taking over 2 years to make! Creating Pre-rendered movies a'int cheap. Not to mention the costs of actually developing the game. I think a Square game would come with 30 minutes of pre-rendered cutscenes at the most. The rest will be in-engine cutscenes.
inefficient
Veteran
PARANOiA said:
I don't think ~400% is unreasonable. Even when you only double your texture resolution, your space requirements go up 4x.
If GTA was 2gigs, theoretically, if you doubled the textures it should come to ~8gigs. This game would "barely" fit on a DVD9 disc.
(Edit: I have the PC version of GTASA and its actually ~5gigs. For the PC version I know they used some larger textures in some places, but its still a far farcry from what we should be expecting in the next iteration. If they doubled the texture quality of this game, it could come to ~20gigs easy.)
And if Rockstar they wanted to make a game that was twice as big as their previous, we would be talking 16gb - out of range on DVD9. This is not even accounting for other resources like audio and geometry data which would also be higher in the next gen and would also need higher storage requirments.
For current gen PC games, UT2004 comes close to 6gigs when installed on your HD. I don't think its unreasonable for EPIC's next game to fill a DVD9 disc.
But then, I don't think we can compare space requirements with our current gen PC games. PC game devs are typically much smaller and work on much smaller scale games than console devs.
Imagine a FF type game, I can see square easily filling a 25 singlelayer BR disc with video and game resoures.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll