Suite101 looks at how Microsoft's decision to stick with the use of DVDs is affecting the Xbox 360.
Umm no. If you really care about multiple discs then just buy a harddrive to install your games to simple as that. You already have to mandatory install games on Ps3 so it pretty much makes the whole ps3 vs 360 argument in this case useless
You don't have to mandatory install ALL games. 360's technology is obviously older, but I don't think it's a big issue either, at least not with the games right now. None of the games right now on the 360 require anything major past DVD9's, and if it does, then they use extra discs. I don't see the big issue with disc swapping. The solution is there: just use more discs. But there are, apparently, fees. Not sure how expensive it is, but I don't think that's what's keeping devs back. The thing is that devs aren't making games that require TOO much space, at least not third party devs. MS's exclusives like Forza use multi-disc. DVD9's are just fine for the majority of games, and at worst people will need multiple discs to swap in and out. The problem comes when devs have to compress and compensate because they don't want to go multi-disc. It affects the PS3 too because if multiplatform games are keeping the 360 in mind then perhaps they will simply make a game with the 360 in mind and then port it to the PS3 since it's easier to develop for the 360 rather than make a game with the PS3 in mind and then port to the 360, provided that said game doesn't utilize the PS3 as much. That's why more multiplat games look slightly better on the 360. Space hasn't been a big issue, but developing for the PS3 has been difficult for some devs, though by and large, most (*ahem* Valve) have gotten used to the PS3's architecture This article poses a question and doesn't bother to go into too much detail or even answer the question. Sounds a bit like flame bait honestly. They are already stating what has already been known, so I don't get the point of this. Yeah, LP2 is having trouble, but it's not that big of an issue to use another disc. The problem comes with these fees that devs have to pay, and I'm not sure how much it is but it sucks that they have to do that. The thing is that the 360 is still the lead platform because it still has a bigger audience than the PS3 and more sales with multiplat titles, and additionally it's easier to develop for. Sony PR states third party publishers are coming to the PS3 and if Sony's sales continue to climb past the 360 then we could very well see devs focusing their attention on the PS3 as the lead platform. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon as 360 sales do continue to grow and the US market is Sony's toughest this gen. Even if Sony takes the lead it still is much easier for third party devs to work on the 360 as the primary console since it's similar to the PC, so the PS3 mostly just relies on it's first party studios. @Green below Again, the fees and the fact that devs just aren't making THAT big of games seems to imply MS is not in any major trouble right now. The article only seems to list one or two instances of large games that the 360 held back. So yeah, I don't think MS is crippled with their technology just because the majority of devs don't seem to be making anything vastly huge. FF is an example though, but again, it's one instance. If, in the future, it's common for games to be huge then MS may have trouble, but I'm not sure how quickly the technology will advance. The thing is, the biggest games this gen seem to be from Sony's first party. I'm not *saying* that "OMG K2 and Uncharted is impossiblez on teh 360!1!", but if a lot of games were up to the standard of high-end PS3 exclusives then the 360 would constantly be spammed with multi-disc releases. Unfortunately, major third party games still aren't using much farther than what the DVD 9's offer. But, we'll see with future titles. I wonder how Crysis 2 will end up on consoles... Also: Does anyone know WHY MS charges royalty fees? I'm assuming that others are assuming that MS is an evil greedy corporation, but is that the legit reason or an assumption? Just wondering..
You have to install pretty much all PS3 games to your harddrive before playing If devs making 360 games don't want their games to be limited (in other words they are just too lazy to learn how to compress anything) then release it on multiple discs which you can then install to your harddrive before playing In other words, if the 360 is crippled by using DVDs then PS3's bluray is being wasted since you still have to install games on both before playing (whats the point of having the extra disc space then?). I don't see whats so difficult to understand here
mandatory installs are nothing like multi disc games. I don't even get how you could come up with a line like that with bullsh!t not flying out of your mouth at the same time. Also, to same something is ignorant as "just buy a hard drive" something that costs a ton of money more than it should just shows how out of touch you are with the rest of the world. There are gamers and parents who bought an arcade 360 not realizing that they needed a hard drive, but hey if you want to buy one for all of those gamers I say go ahead. MS should have built the HDD in with the console, then its problem solved.
well games like UC2 and FF13 show that Mandatory installs are sometimes not needed, But i think what this author is trying to say that its not just affecting how many disc is used but how the game looks (FF13 shows) and like he mention for RAGE on what the devs said about it having to be compress and look worse, even cut stuff that becomes DLC (even when they are free) should be on the disc day one, what of those who don't have connection to internet? I think that was MS big mistake with staying with dvd rather then have HD DVD (i know this came out later but i mean MS should have known about this if they were planning on releasing a HD DVD for 360 right?. People say Blu-ray is not needed, but that is utter BS. Once again FF13 all on one disc not compressed, 1080p cutscenes, lostless audio, Look at tales of vesparia, PS3 version has better coloring for its animation, and more content on the disc. Even the devs for GTA said something about disc space. Okay allot of PS3 games require installs, i get that but klets take a look at FF13 like i said requires no install, same with uncharted 2, and now even God of War 3,KZ2, some of these games out there i wonder why do they need installs if these games right here listed pretty much are the top PS3 games this gen and are probaly bigger then most ps3 games out there, why do they require installtion? i think it might be a development issue, cause these guys they have it right. But any way look at FF13 superior version is the ps3 version. Why? because its not compressed like the 360 version and thats stretched out to 3 disc. now this also explains why so many devs are saying there games is only possible on the ps3, Its not that they can't make it for the 360 its just that it won't be at the same level of graphics and quality like the ps3 has it at. You should know this actually, Its not about whether you have to install the game its about how the game will end up lookign and how much content you have. ----------------------------- ------------------------------ - ------------------------------ - ------------------------------ - ------------------------------ - ------------------------------ - ------------------------------ - - Question: Does installing part of a game take away from the look of the game? The content of the game? does it force devs to cut back on stuff and make them into DLC?
"You have to install pretty much all PS3 games to your harddrive before playing "<-------- That is wrong my friend since most current games don't require a HDD install be it KZ2, UC2, GOW3, FF13... And the major difference is the fact that ALL PS3s come with a mandatory HDD unlike the 360 which is still selling a SKU without a HDD.You are a part of a small group here or N4G that knows about this, but if devs made mandatory installs, then it would f*ck the millions of Arcade owners (who are idiots to have bought the thing without HDD in the first place). M$ themselves won't allow it an will try to force devs to cramp the game as much as they can into 1-2 DVDs. Plus add to this the fact that M$ charges royalties over the extra disc.Even if they cut that thing,DVDs don't come for Free and someone has to bear the cost of that. It might not sound much, but for a game like GTA/Halo/Gears which sell more than 5-7 million it becomes a big loss for someone (publisher or M$ would bear at least 5 million loss which is a hell of a lot.... Note Gears 2 was developed for something like 9 million). Hence M$ themselves urge devs to cramp things up in 2 disc if possible.
Tell me, how can an open world game like GTA5 be split up onto multiple discs? To go to island #3 insert disc 3. To go back to Island #1 insert disc 1. To go to island #2 insert disc 2. That wouldn't be feasible.
Holy crap did the mod sleep on the Disagree button or does a 360 fanboy seriously need a life? 5 minute ago, 0 disagree and suddenly I see 20 disagrees lol?!
Everyone has 22 disagrees?? Al Bundy: It doesn't work like that where each island would hold 9 GB of space. There are ways to incorporate and wisely use the disc space to flow with gameplay. Devs have done that. Also, like I said, a lot of games this gen SO FAR have not used space that warranties multiple discs, especially GTA. In the future, Xbox's DVD's will show even more strain, but right now it seems like the beginning of the turn more so than the turn itself. I don' think MS has to worry right now, though long term they may be screwed. The question is how fast devs are going to advance, especially since most of them are leading with the 360. Crysis is a good example of a 3rd party game that seems to advance past the 360's limits, but most 3rd party games don't venture too far out of the 360's limits.
Yes Last year alone, Halo 3 ODST and Forza 3 had to be spread across two disks. This year, ME2 already suffered, Lost Planet 2 has had content cut, and FFXIII is showing definite signs of being gimped. I'll bet Fable III, Alan Wake, and Halo Reach will all be on 2 disks, not to mention Rage which will probably be on 3 disks. We're not in the 90's anymore. MS needs to get with the times or get out.
GreenRingofBungie come hit my disagree button, I expect 20 in less then a minute, GO
Damn Bungie, How many accounts do you have???My guess is 22.
How many accounts does Bungie have? A LOT. He get's nearly 100 disagrees with most of his commments and yet NEVER looses bubbles. In fact, he gains bubbles. Same thing with Green Ring of Life (one of hist multiple accounts). I'll admit that I am a troll, but at least I don't spend my life on N4G bubbling myself up. I mean seriously, everyone hates GreenRingofLife yet he has 6 bubbles. WTF is up with that?
"Last year alone, Halo 3 ODST and Forza 3 had to be spread across two disks." But it still managed to have content, multiple discs isn't a problem, it's just inconvenient. Consider all the multiple discs games of last gen had. It was never a problem, it was just inconvenient. Devs are never limited to one disc, though in MS's case these "fees" may scare them away from creative freedom. "This year, ME2 already suffered, Lost Planet 2 has had content cut, and FFXIII is showing definite signs of being gimped." How did ME2 suffer from multiple discs? LP2 sounds likely, and FF13 was gimped because it is a badly ported game-- I don't think this has anything to do with space. In LP2's situation the game was compressed instead of expanded. It's the devs choice, not MS's problem. "I'll bet Fable III, Alan Wake, and Halo Reach will all be on 2 disks, not to mention Rage which will probably be on 3 disks." Maybe, but that still doesn't mean that the games will be any less than if they were on a bluray disc. "We're not in the 90's anymore. MS needs to get with the times or get out." PS2 did just fine with multiple discs. MS is doing fine... for now. The technology is certainly catching up, but space is not an issue of information, just an issue of fees and inconvenience. Yes, more games are getting bigger but this will just lead to more discs being used. If more discs aren't used then games will suffer. It all depends on if devs are going to expand or not. The issue is if devs aren't willing to pay fees and if they are going to compress games to fit MS's DVD format. If that happens as in the case of LP2 then MS is holding devs back.
My N4G account has been acting up and wont let me log in on my laptop or ipod any more. I am using my girlfriends laptop now.. Very odd, and also not cool. Has any one else ever encounter this problem?
Nah saaking I really dont think your a troll. Everytime you say something yea sure its Pro PS3 but you always make a point and state fact. I always see you giving props to MS and its games so no I dont think your a troll. I really think your one of the sane ones around her well alil bit more pro PS but not a troll. Alpha male bjorn bear are also the normal people on this sight. Alpha male always gives props to both sides of the war.. Bubblesss to alll muhahahahahhaa muhahah. Yeah I called her up. She gave me a bunch of crap about me not listening to her, or something. I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention.
@Alpha Male That's my point man. Notice how you keep bringing up the PS2? Well, we're in the 7th generation of gaming NOT the 6th. We shouldn't have to put up with this anymore. Anyways, as much as you deny it, multiple disks is an issue. It ruins the flow of the game. You get excited and then BAM change the disk. It just throws you off. Yes, it only takes 30 seconds to switch disks, but it still takes you out of the experience. Oh, and I think what I said about ME2 was too harsh. It didn't cripple the game (the game looks amazing and plays great). I just meant to say that it does intrude on the experience. You get all into it and then you have to switch disks. I will admit, that the swap is placed in a nice way, but still. Anyways, that's my issue with multiple disks.
face it, It's pathetic to use multiple discs in this day and age. So stop letting microsoft brainwash you into defending them. p.s 360 fanboys ran to this article huh? lol
"Anyways, as much as you deny it, multiple disks is an issue. It ruins the flow of the game. You get excited and then BAM change the disk. It just throws you off. Yes, it only takes 30 seconds to switch disks, but it still takes you out of the experience." Ok, that's a very valid and fair point that I overlooked. Your right, multiple discs is problematic-- however I'm not 100% sure if games still run the way you say it does. I mean, like Al said above: you travel from one GTA island to another and you have to change discs. A lot of games aren't like that with multi-discs. I think 2 discs is fine, though the more there are the more annoying it gets. I guess it's up to devs to spread them perfectly. Anyways my main concern with multi-discs is with devs being forced to either compress or pay to expand which seems like it could become an increasingly common situation as the months go by. The 360 was very short-sighted. The PS3 suffered from being far-sighted, as Blu Ray pretty much crippled sales at launch, but now it seems that time is catching up to MS. @Feelintheflow You make a very good point: MS HAD to gain momentum and steal Sony's fans. They did do it with coming out before Sony though, but it resulted in botched hardware issues. MS has done a good job gaining a foothold in this industry, no doubt about it. Sony fanboys last gen laughed at the Xbox and said it would go out faster than the Dreamcast but MS held on and fought. I still fear that MS went too early though, and though they have garnered fans faster than Sony this gen they may also lose their fans to Sony in the long run. Maybe PS3 fanboy prophecy is just getting to me, but the PS3 really is more future-proof and articles revolving around DVD limits proves that. Again, games dont always go multi-disc-- a large majority are single disc or two discs, and MS has great games regardless of hardware. I'm sure they can maintain, but we will see how it goes.
Think about it. MS was hoping to just make a bigger dent in what was a market dominated by Sony. They new the PS3 was going to be expensive. The only chance they had to make a bigger dent in market share was to come out first and make sure you are cheaper than your competitor. Had they put a HD-DVD or a Blu ray drive in the 360 the cost would have obviously been much much higher. They took a gamble that it would be a few years before their storage device was going to be a big detriment. It has been three plus years and we are only now starting to hear about dvd-9 being a big deal holding developers back. They have done much better sales wise than anyone would have even imagined. There is no way anyone thought 3 years into this cycle that MS would still have more 360's sold than PS3's. Will sony win this gen, (not including wii for the sake of argument), of course. Anyone who thought differently, before the first xbox360 was sold, was only kidding themselves. Microsoft is probably sitting back saying, mission accomplished. The only knock is reliability. They will probably not get the gains next gen they had hoped for, because some people will be a bit wary of hardware reliability.
these people were in the darkness but now they've turned to the light...the flash of alan wake's flashlight has guided them to see it and do a massive disagreeing. http://www.gamersyde.com/po... http://www.gamersyde.com/po... ...............it's either that or something, cause i know when i see that game i know these dumb complaints of disc space has to be false. well, my two cents, later.
Wow he has that much multiple accounts to agree with himself and disagree with others? How sad. Anyway you couldn't expect DVD9 to last forever.
I cant believe some of you'se think space doesnt matter. What it GTA5 were to be twice as big as GTA:SA, with 6 huge cities, all the vehicles, planes, helicopters, jetskis, weapons, buildings with interiors, all in HD and it cam to 45GB. Sounds good huh? Shame no one will ever make it, unless its a PS3 exclusive, because no ones going to chop a game like that up in 3 discs, so I guess it just wont happen. God, devs were running out of room on PS2, why is this so hard to understand? And riddle me this, if DVD is ok now, will it be next gen and if so why? Whats suddenly going to change that makes it so. HD graphics are what made DVD obsolete this gen, so are next gens console going to be 4000P or something.
Actually, PS3 installs are not always mandatory. Technically speaking, it is possible to get around any mandatory install on any PS3 game. However, for the sake of getting games released faster developers often go with mandatory installs. Developers also get better at mastering Blue Ray technology as they make more games, do you notice the installs getting smaller in size, or even absent from first party developers? P.S. Your constipated avatar really bothers me, I want to disagree with everything you say just for that picture alone.
@ 1.22 I think i don't want to see that many places, most gta games are far too long and i usually never finish the game. plus with all that dlc stuff, that just adds to it. so having more stuff and places to explore would be hard for me to be able to enjoy all of it.
Hello world, it's 2010.
I own more than 50 PS3 games. Only 10 of them require a HDD install. 11 When Heavy Rain comes out. Now, I don't mind installs on my PS3 compared to my 360 solely because for the cost of 500GB HDD for my PS3 I couldn't get a 120GB HDD for my 360. I do mind that certain developers just can't design their games so they don't need installs. I also do mind that developers cut - or claim to cut - 1/3 to 2/3 of the game because they want to keep discs down to 1 or 2 and then sell us the parts they supposedly cut as DLC down the road rather than just putting it on the service for download and play for free on day one.
Yes, blu-ray has a space advantage but consider this. If Sony launched the PS3 at the same time as the 360 and it cost $400 instead of $600 would the 360 even be in this race? Sony was forced to launch a year later and at a higher price point because of blu-ray and it has cost them dearly. If they had launched in tandem with the 360 and at the same price but with a DVD drive instead of Blu-ray, I have no doubt in my mind that Sony would be solidly beating Microsoft by atleast a 2:1 margin. Heck, they may have even been challengining the Wii for install base.
It's really rather rare to see PS3 games with mandatory disk installs. I think of the 25 PS3 games I own right now only 2 have mandatory installs, RE:5 and Batman: AA. Lots of room left on my 250GB harddrive for expansions, PSN games and videos. And even when there are installs, isn't that a good thing? To me it's just one more tool in the developers arsenal. Some use it, some don't. It's no big deal either way. I played games off my PC harddrive for over 20 years. Someone want to explain to me how harddrive installs are something to be looked negatively on?
First it must be realized that DVD9 only nets you 8.4Gb of space. Out of that, MS has been occupying over a GB for security purposes. A practice which any visit to a bit torrent site will demonstrate is quite futile. You can't just put island 1 on disk 1, island 2 on disk 2, etc. Doing it in that manner will necessitate replicating textures, models, sound, the whole shebang, on each and every disk. Such a practice nets you little space on each disk. In addition and as it has been pointed out, someone must bear the cost of a disk. In some peoples inexperienced mind, they believe such a cost is negligible. Tell that to Microsoft who are refusing to pay the cost of a 3rd disk for Rage. A decision which will harm the quality of the 360 version. Some people think that because only a handful of developers have commented on the issue there must not be a problem. They need to understand that such comments are like an iceberg. By the time you catch wind of it, see anything, the problem has grown to huge proportions that are not visible. By the time you hear about DVD9 problem in public, it has already swelled to a massive issue for developers that are trying to push boundaries. And to anyone that believes every PS3 game must have an install, thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about Sony's console. After all, how big was the Killzone 2 install? That's right, there wasn't one. How big was the install for Uncharted 2? That's right, there isn't one. When the 2 best looking games this generation do not need an install it becomes patently clear that the PS3 does not have an Achilles heel in that department.
uh no, even when you install the game to your hard drive you are still required to swap the disks.... for a fanboy its odd how you are unaware of this.
Games like gta are crippled. if you have multi disk for a open world game like this then the game will be a disk swapping mess
I am not trying to be rude to anybody. But how blind do you have to be to keep saying that DVD9 is still good to go for this advancing generation of games.
Anyone who simply doesn't understand or disagrees that more space available to devs is good, while limitations PLUS penalties for multidisc usage is bad (i.e. dvd9) for the 360 ~ is either just down right immature, biased or simply stupid. This has nothing to do with Blu-Ray, Sony or whatever. LIMITATIONS are not conducive for imagination and will restrict the kind of game you want to experience and are ultimately spending your money on. PERIOD.
No matter how you cut it, disk space is an issue. Even if you don't feel that it is a prominent issue now, you will in the future. Games are evolving, they're taking more space, and the result is they are getting better. It may not seem like much of an issue, but does anyone remember when CDR's only fit 74 minutes of music? How many times did you have to sacrifice a song on your CD? What if the artist had to sacrifice a song? Would you rather them release a double CD and split your songs up? Or maybe release the CD and tell you to download the last few songs on mp3? And also, mandatory installs on PS3 are different than installs on Xbox360. On PS3, you would only have to install maybe a GB or two. Xbox360 requires you to install the entire game. Alot of early adopters (such as myself) only have a 20GB hard drive if any hard drive at all. Microsoft charges entirely too much money for their hard drives.
ha funny one, but yea the 360s dvd format is probably a reason why we're getting so much DLC lately. basically hurting every 360 and ps3 gamer out there
Look, I am by no means a fanboy. I have both systems and I even have the majority of my games on Xbox, but facts are facts. Why be so biased against the PS3? Do you work for Microsoft? Are they paying you? Microsoft is the same greedy company they have been for years. The fact is that they were warned about their disc format when they released their system. Had they released their games on HD-DVD, there really wouldn't be an issue would there. Microsoft always does that. They release a product not containing something that people want. Then they tell everyone that they don't want it and why they don't. Someone comes and gives the people what they want and then Microsoft then provides it at an inflated cost.
Did you not read what I wrote. I think it had way more to do with timing/price , which yes i know is greed, but more for survivability. There was no way if microsoft waited and charge the same amount, that they would have sold as many as they did. Do people not remember last gen? 100+millions ps2's sold. MS had a choice to make: Make a system that has the same capabilities as the competitor and come out at the same time/price, or rush something out that will hit the market sooner and be less expensive. Had they waited and put HD-dvd in or even Blu-Ray, they would have maybe half of the sales if that. So they did what they had to do to make inroads into the dominating market share that sony had. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that dvd-9 is better or even sufficient for the size of games, but as a strategy for this gen, Microsoft made a choice and I think it worked for them. Not gamers so much, but for them as a company. Look at market share this gen compared to last. Even when this gen dies out, they will have sold many more 360's than regular xbox's and at the end of the day, that is exactly what they wanted to do.
"You have to install pretty much all PS3 games to your harddrive before playing." And I thought they couldn't get any more stupid.
Short answer? Yes. Long answer...YEEEEEEEES!
@feelintheflow Microsoft had a choice. The HD-DVD was released close enough to the launch to be a viable disc format. Microsoft rushed their system out and as a result, it was extremely flawed. Also, a bigger and newer disc format is not as simple or practical to pirate.
The only way the PS3 is a mandatory install is to cut down the load times on certain games. The Xbox does suffer with the DVD format because the DVD is limited on what it can hold for info when compared to the Blu-Ray. The DVD format is old its like putting Gears of War on the old Xbox you would need two discs for that. You can only compress so much on a DVD before the quality is shot down the tube. And who the hell wants to disc swap with this generation of consoles thats the last thing on my mind when I am heavy into a game. Disc Swapping is for the old generation of consoles not this generation if they can phase out something useful like backwards compatability why not phase out something uesless like disc swapping also.
The Mandatory Install issue is not as common as it used to be. More Devs are figuring out how to get around this as they understand the hardware more. The issue is DVD space vs. Blu-Ray space. It will eventually become an issue, right now it's only just starting to emerge so naturally it is being blown out of proportion. But sooner or later it will become a problem for some Devs. Take Lost Planet 2 as an example, Capcom et al have already said they had to trim lots of content away from the game to get it onto a DVD. Microsoft could have avoided all of this by making HD-DVD a media for the games not just movies.
It's not the fact that they use the DVDs it's more so on their [Microsoft's] practice. It has been stated over and over on here and other places that Microsoft charges devs for the additional DVD. If that was taken out of the equation I think games would probably be longer; and much larger than where they currently are [ on the 360 and quite possibly PS3] Since they wouldn't be held back.
As I said in other post, let the Devs use the Amount of Discs they NEED, after all if swapping 3Discs is not a problem, 4 or 5 Disc will not be a problem either and when I say Let them use more discs I talking about Don't charge[MS] them[DEVS] for more Discs
Exactly switching discs isn't a problem, hell Lost Odyssey had four discs and because of that it was a pretty lengthy game. If more discs means better game play mechanics as well as longer play time then go for it. Why Microsoft thinks in a backwards motion is beyond me. If they simply dropped the charge they would have some interesting games since the devs wouldn't have to worry about the cost for extra discs.
If MS took out the cost for extra discs, then devs would probably build larger games without having to resort to turning the content that couldn't fit into DLC. At the same time, this would mean more discs to one game and may give the PS3 an advantage ... or rather prove a point that blu-ray was indeed a better medium. I could see that the extra costs for additional discs [and limited storage] is really holding developers back. Makes me wonder just how much more costly it is to go beyond 3 discs.
Definitely the games would be larger were it not for DVD9 on one of the platforms. The titles would encompass more material on the PS3 because the PS3 has been held back by DVD9 limitations on the 360. This did not necessarily occur at the beginning as games were still evolving and were initially below the requirement. But we are at the point now where the rumblings heard by the public are the result of huge issues at development houses. It all stems from the screwing we are getting by the publishers that are so afraid to alienate 360 fans by providing a version to them that has less play material than the PS3 version.
look guys, only reason 360 is ahead of ps3 is becuz we all know it started out to high of price 600.00 had it been 400.00 we would not still be talking about 360 in 2010 it would been in loving memory as dreamcast. FACT!!...also since 360 capacity is 9gb and ps3 capacity is 25-50 GB would not that be a reason for dev. drag they're azz's longer to keep 360 in the game. instead of allowing ps3 reach its full potential?? the question is WHY IS DEV. HELPING 360 stay in the console game?? why the dev. not ultilizing ps3 potential?? WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE IBM,Toshiba,sony colaborated again for making the CELL??and blue-ray?? if dev. not going apply action on this kind of technology like someone above said sony should have only used dvd9 software in ps3 if dev. not going to take avantage of ps3 hardware. thats like saying got a maserati and its fast,sleek do 190 mph but rather use my ford pinto slow,inconvenient
The 360's ALWAYS been crippled, dvd is just another reason y its crippled
The 360 IS NOT crippled. If anything, it's the 360 games that are crippled because of its use of DVDs
its more crippled due to it using a 4yr old gpu.
The Xbox360 is so DEAD!!! Oh wait... hmmmmm........
Some bot revealed a BIG spoiler for HEAVY RAIN, below as a username...might be real, so avoid comment 11.
Good man Bubble +1
ty jacko + bubbles
Who says Sony will let Microsoft use the Blu-Ray disc anyway? Nobody is going to accept a newer disc format now because all the Movie Studio's have spent the money converting their factories already. They will not support a new type of HD-DVD and we know Toshiba will not be putting HD-DVD back into production as the Xbox is not enough to justify al lthe costs of producing them. On the otherhand, it would be funny to see Sony charge Microsoft for every game on a new system! Sony should charge the way over the odds to use the disc, and they can do it because they are a majority partner in the BD Association.
@red dragen Just so you know, Blu Ray discs were never invented by Sony.
Seriously dude who spoils a game like that. You seriously just ruined my experience with that game. I'm really pissed right now. People please listen to MJ, don't read below!!!
@adament You will find that Sony actually did invent the BD Disc and are a majority partner in the BD association. It was Sony, Phillips and believe it or not, Toshiba, who together started the BD project.
@Red Dragen Yeah, but it wasn't only by Sony.
It's already crippled by it's inferior hardware lmao Jump out and play b3yond.
At the beginning of this gen, DVD9 was okay, but we've reached a tipping point. The ambitions of the developers have grown. Sony made a smart choice in incorporating Blu-Ray. I have no idea as to what MS will use in the next generation. Surely, they don't want to pay Sony royalty fees for using Blu-Ray in the Xbox 3, but any alternative high-storage capacity disc readers will be too expensive. HVD is still not ready and costs a lot. Microsoft has some very awkward decisions to make.
well the could go with HD DVD (nless thats wat HDV is?) but then again i could totally see sony going with a much bigger storage next gen (Mybe an upgraded BD or something, i don't see games going Digital because they are way to big)
Just so ya know, the Bu-ray Disc Association already has to pay MS royalties for using VC-1 codec in blurays. For every PS3 game sold MS gets some of that royalty money for using VC-1. If MS decides to use Blu-ray next gen, Sony has very little to say about it.Sony DOES NOT own Blu-ray.
Except VC-1 has nothing to do with games due to it being a video format.
shoulda done some research before talking about vc-1 and games.
And that's the probelm with peole talking $#@! about things have have ABSOLUTELY no idea what the F they are talking about! All they are doing is spreading misinformation which is utterly rampant here @ N4G...
So what if MS uses Blu-Ray next gen? Sony Vaios come with MicroSoft Windows installed on them. The two companies can be business partners while competing with each other.