NowGamer: Assassin's Creed 3's developers explain that the game is too big for one disc on Xbox 360.
The main reason I sold my xbox and kept only ps3. It has great graphics (xbox) but I dislike the option to buy a game with more than one disc.
Wait, so you already had both console and you sold the 360 because some games come in 2 discs? He's an idea for you, how bout buy all those games for PS3 instead and keep the 360 for the games that aren't available on ps3? Selling it for that reason alone was very short sighted of you. I have so far gotten all my assassin's creed on 360 except for Revelation which I didn't buy at all. Looks like assassin's creed 3 is going to be a PS3 buy for me. It's a small nuisance but why get up and change the disc if I have the option not to?
Playstation is the future and ps3 is the best console to have until ps4 is out. The thing about having a PlayStation is that you know its always more future proof than the competitions and it has cutting edge technology. Look at the Wii u, its basically trying to emulate what Sony started with PlayStation pocket on ps1, then remote play on ps2 and using a handheld device as an input device with a touch screen to be the controller for a console. The blu ray tech in ps3 supports 50gb blu rays and the Wii u a new system which is 7years newer supports on 25gb disc capacity. Some people are ok with that which is telling mostly because they are sheep and sup-standard devices from their Company of choice is fine. The history of PlayStation illustrates that they don't abandon the core or pretend they are core. With Nintendo they are posers and with Microsoft they are confused and has abandoned the core but I guess they are useto abandoning gamers. PlayStation is the best, they offer everything from all genres and has created their own and you know they are all quality and not shovelware like on other consoles. With a nintendo console the majority of people have low expectations in its power and features but when its a Sony device or PlayStation device peoples expectations are high and sometimes our of this world. NES fanatics will shout all day about how graphics and game tech improvements aren't needed but they are constantly upgrading their Nintendo devices showing how idiotic they are. You'll hear them say how the Wii u is barely more powerful than a 7year old device because power and graphics now matters to them because it suits them completely ignoring the fact that the Wii u is a weak device that should have been way more powerful . I don't want unproven devices that poses as something so ill wait for the ps4. The ps3 has some amazing exclusives that not even the newest console the Wii u can outshine with its gaming tech. I can't wait for the rest of the amazing exclusive titles for The ps3 and pick up the ps4 when its here PlayStation is the future
Yeah, well while you're waiting for the future, I'll be playing new games on the Wii U as well as all the upcoming games on my other consoles. And then when the future does turn up I'll buy the other upcoming consoles and play new games on those as well. So many games to play, so many games...
WOW @ Hatsune how fanboyish can you get? The Wii U copies Sony?! That is a first. Oh yeah, Wii copied Sony as well, because something that was on a drawing board years before that (PS MOVE). And MS copied Sony with Kinect, because of Eyetoy. Somehow, Sony seems to be doing worse out of the three. Strange, isn't it?
Hatsune - the only poser here is you. "The thing about having a PlayStation is that you know its always more future proof than the competitions and it has cutting edge technology." In the case of the PS2, it was the weakest of the three systems (Xbox, Gamecube), so cutting edge technology it wasn't. It sold very well yes, much like the Wii did this past generation. Lol at remote play on the ps2. Please tell me what remote play was supported with the PS2? And as for the Wii U discs, we know that they are 25 gb currently, but we don't know yet if the Wii U discs support double layer. Why don't you wait before you jump the gun and look like an idiot. All PS3 games originally started on 25 GB discs as double layered blu-rays were not used in mainstream. So that is your reasoning that the PS3 is better than the Wii U? Because it's discs hold more? Go ahead, play your PS3 then in your native 580p upscaled to pretend like it's a true HD console. And you can wait until 2015 when your PS4 finally limps out to the market. Sony doesn't understand its customers, hence the reason why the Vita is such a failure. They just don't get it. They think that just because something is more powerful makes it automatically better - actually that is kind of like how you think too Hatsune, so I guess I understand why you are such a Sony drone.
I am a student and couldn't keep em both. So I decided for ps3 instead.
after reading the article, i get the idea that you will install one disc and play with the other.. not bad imo
Why didn't MS use their HD-DVD for games at least? Maybe would've lead to more game content and less DLC overall.
@DragonPrince - had Microsoft used the HD-DVD drive in the machine instead of a stupid addon, Bluray wouldn't have become the format of choice so easily.
Yes, great 360 exclusive games like Halo, Gears, Forza, and uh....
Hatsune-Miku+DivineASSault=PS Poser! Nice propaganda, too bad that its mostly opinion-based gibberish regardless of which account you pose as! The Wii U is confirmed 25gig Optical discs which is based off of the same technology as Blu-ray and indeed being developed with Panasonic look it up! Not only that, Panasonic confirmed that it will be able to expand with 50gig duel-layered, 75gig tri-layered, and even 100gig quad-layered. On top of that it the optical dics read 4-5X faster than Blu-ray discs which will eliminate the need to have any type of mandatory install and load much faster. Leading edge technology huh? Too bad we never seen this leading edge technology you speak of. I remember when Sony boasted that they would be the only company to support true native 1080p gaming! What happened there? Huh, seems to me like Nintendo made a far better move than having to pay Sony for Blu-ray technology! What makes you think that Microsoft won't go a similar rout. I like Sony but despise people like you, that haven't the slightest clue about specs, and trying to spread bogus propaganda on here! Maybe if you had your facts straight you would be okay! However, I do enjoy your enthusiasm for games, just get your facts together. (edit) I have both 360/PS3 but will have a Wii U in a month or so and won't be having neither problem, as the Wii U version will need neither to install, or swap discs. Sounds about right don't you think...
Some people just prefer to sell consoles they don't use and get as much money out of it as possible. I personally jsut keep them because I feel that I am getting ripped off for selling it. @hatsune its not really about who started or who came up with the idea first, its more on the line of who pulls it out better. Microsoft wasn't first to go online but they were able to profit and keep a stable online service where people didn't mind to pay. Nintendo was able to release a pathetic machine with gimmicky controls that tricked people into thinking it was better than what it was and sell a bucket load. Sony were not the first to come out with CD gaming console butt ended up being the best CD based console. @beerkeg good for you, I however have fallen into the gamertag trick and for some reason care about stupid trophies. I own most consoles but for some reason I feel the need to play everything on my PS3. @dragonprince & neonridr If MS used HD-DVD then the 360 would cost more, the disks would cost more, therefore games would cost more or make less on the game sold. DLC profits cut ouut retailers so more money can be made on that. Reason why Sony can support the BR drive is because they invested money on that format and using BR disks are more expensive but that money goes towards Sony anyway because they print the disks. Anyway, 360 having HD-DVD would have been a very bad and risky move which wouldn't have benefited them at all, they have not invested in the format war and has no point in taking any risks at all.
hah! thanks for the internet circus, clowns :D
@YoungPlex First, let’s correct your own errors. The WiiU disc drive does not "read 4-5X faster than Blu-ray discs" and it won't "eliminate the need to have any type of mandatory install" and load times will be only slightly faster*. 1st, Speed; WiiU is a 5 speed modified Blu-ray Drive. PS3 only has a 2 speed standard Blu-ray Drive. The Numbers; WiiU 5 speed drive is 22.5 MB/s. PS3 2 speed drive is 9MB/s. Conclusion; The WiiU's 5 speed drive is only 2.5x faster than the PS3's 2 speed drive, not "4 or 5 times". 2nd, Installs. Gaming has changed massively in the last 7 years. Microsoft and Sony thought 20GB-60GB HDDs would cover games and entertainment in 2005/06. Yet in 2012 we have both selling systems with 5x that now, if not more. This is down to 2 mean reasons, HD games and downloads. HD games required HDD space, they need space for HD texture packages for example. The WiiU's 1GB RAM isn't going to cut it when PC devs needed 2GB minimum back in 2008. That's just one aspect; we could look much further into game installations and their data content. Downloads, 32GB isn't going to cut it either. In today's industry, that's about 2-4 games on the system tops. Nintendo have completely overlooked this, this gives me concerns about their online package and what they'll offer games wise. 3rd, Loading Times. The WiiU's 5 speed drive will have to offload data, 100% guarantee that. 22.5MB/s isn't that fast, trust me. When a system that promises full 1080p games, it'll need to read data with mega data sizes. Example, Killzone 2 maps were between 2-5GB in size at 720p. That's going to take a fair few seconds longer in 1080p even with a 5 speed drive. No HDD to offload so External it is as Nintendo have confirmed. They don't have a HDD because Nintendo thought it was a good idea... Oh dear. :/ Theory; Do you know how it works? The WiiU doesn't support USB3 so it's USB2 which is slow. Now, if you have a SATA (Motherboard) to SATA HDD which is internal like PS3 and 360, you have no issues with Read and Write speeds as the system is running the task straight from system to memory. Running through USB2 external, you are giving the system and software more holes to jump through. PS3/360, Game Disc > Internal HDD. WiiU, Game Disc > USB2 > External HDD. PS3 uses the HDD (or Hybrid or SSD) to offload data so loading times are quicker. USB2 and 5 speed drive won't ever be faster than a Hybrid or SSD. Fast as or slightly faster than the HDD granted but only just. The Numbers; WiiU 5 speed drive is only 22.5 MB/s. USB2 is 60MB/s. PS3 2 speed drive is only 9MB/s. PS3 (160GB slim HDD) runs at 77.3 MB/s average and a burst read speed of 242.6 MB/s. WiiU 22.5 (Disc) + 60 (External USB2) is 88.5MB/s. PS3 - Standard (160GB slim HDD)(Not Hybrid or SSD) 9 (Disc) + 77.3 (SATA average) is 86.3MB/s. 9 (Disc) + 242.6 (SATA Burst) is *only* 251.6MB/s. Seems like I've just killed all 3 parts of that particular argument. "That haven't the slightest clue about specs", I think that could be attributed to you also. Finally, it won't need discs swaps but you'll be clinging on to every last KB on the flash and when you're out you'll need to plug in a useless USB2 external. HD Games will require installs, no two ways about it and the ignorance with downloads just shows how far Nintendo is from reality in where this industry is going.
It’s not the capacity of the discs we’re interested in, though. It’s the read speed – quoted at 22.5MB/s. This is fast enough to ensure we’re not hobbled with slow, mandatory installs that ruin Nintendo’s ethos of ‘immediate gaming. To compare, PS3′s Blu Ray drive reads at 9MB/s. Fast loading times and no installs on Wii U, then. Yea, we'll see if I need a "mandatory install", with AC or "multiple discs" as well! Whatever's cleaver friend!
Because I feel partial game installs on a nusiance.
Multiple discs is bad for disc drives. They could wear them out in the long run.
"Why Assassin's Creed 3 Xbox 360 Is Shipping On Two Discs NowGamer: Assassin's Creed 3's developers explain that the game is too big for one disc on Xbox 360." Well that's... ...that's pretty much the article.
Yup honestly gotta give sony credit, they planned for this so they implimented bluray which can hold a ton of data
Yup, so instead of a 10 second disc swap you gotta sit through a mandatory install of at least 20 minutes! Point being, none of the solution are ideal on either platform at the time of the console release. So lets move on. We are at the end of the console cycle now and they are all aging technology. Wii U is where things are heading right now until the other two reveal their consoles.
Yeah come on, I'd much rather take 10 seconds to change a disc than sit through a 20 minute mandatory install. How people argue against this boggles my mind. Lets not get into the point regarding how long updates take to install comparatively. Honestly, is anyone really that bothered about disc swapping a couple of times?
I dont understand why people cry about installs and disc swap. Disc swap takes up 10 seconds of your time and whilst installing, why not use your computer or get some food, no one forces you to sit and wait for the game to install. Pc players install all the time, and i've never heard them conplain.
@Nukeitail,Septic One time event of a 10-20 minute install> Constantly swapping disc when switching from story mode to multiplayer. But they are both insignificant inconveniences.
Pick your poison
Not all games can be split onto 2 discs. How about GTA?
@insomnium2 - Grand Theft Auto IV was better on the 360 than on the PS3 (higher res, better framerates) so I don't see the problem. Same with Red Dead Redemption. If games as big as Skyrim or Just Cause 2 can fit on one disc I would worry more about the PS3's bottlenecked memory to be a problem for devs when making large scale games.
Its a one time mandatory install. Also, just to give you an idea of what i'm saying.. if i won the lottery i'd rather take the 20 million in whole option rather than in small increments over a period of time.. its kinda the same idea or point that i'm trying to portray here..
@cashrell1171 True, I'm also appreciative of the fact that Blu ray has a protective film layer over the disc unlike standard DVDs. Some people actually see having two discs for 360 a good thing though. lol With the problem of disc scratching on the 360 by just nudging it ever so slightly, you could mess up your ENTIRE game if it was just on one disc. But if you have two and just mess up the singleplayer portion. At least you got the multi LMAO!!! @Jellyjelly While that may have been the case BACK THEN. That was only because the 360 was used as lead console platform and ported over to PS3 because it was a lot easier to develop for. (Which Skyrim is unfortunately a part of). But considering more and more devs being more familiar with the PS3 these days (Unlike Bethesda) such as EA, Konami, Ubisoft, and Rock*. I highly doubt that will be the case again for GTAV, Assassin's Creed 3, Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes, and Battlefield 4. I would probably bet that the PS3 versions would be superior if you take into account their most recent games released (Or was developed at the time) and if you followed which platform was used as lead. LA Noire (Openworld unlike Max Payne 3) - PS3 used as lead console platform and is superior on it. Assassin's Creed: Revelations - PS3 used as lead console platform and is superior on it. Best looking of all AC. Metal Gear Solid Rising - PS3 used as lead console platform before it was handed to PG. Battlefield 3 - Developed simultaneously I believe but on PS3, graphics look sharper and it runs a lot smoother. It's also only on one disc. I'm pretty damn sure if Bethesda actually KNEW HOW to develop for PS3 and used it as lead console platform. It would be the closest version to the PC as you could get on consoles. The 360 version would run like crap, and to top it all off, it would be on like 10 discs. lmao.
@ srcBFMVBMTH I agree with you about the protective coating for bluray disc and I also prefer just having one disc to worry about, however, swapping discs and mandatory installs have not and will not ever be a big deal to me. Like JasonKCK posted, pick your poison. As for the rest of your comment, I guess you can pick your poison there too; the devs seem to. Which console is easier to program for? Which console gives you more disc space to work with? Unless you have been smoking too much of my product, it should not be too hard to figure out that the lead platform for any game will (with a few exceptions) and should run better. Either way it is up to the devs to make sure neither version suffers.
Yeah, I rather have it on one disc than a scratched disc, which the 360 isn't a mandatory install, it's a VITAL install unless you want to ruin your game. @ Jelly Jelly, Multiple reviews said the PS3 version of GTA IV looked better.
I know man, getting up about 12 hours into a game, pressing a button, changing discs, pressing a button again and then sitting down is so much effort. Honestly one of these days I'm going to just stop gaming if this sort of stuff continues, IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I'm sorry, but I think that's a pretty foolish reason to sell your xbox 360.