In a recent interview Producer Eric Fong explains the need for Blu-ray in video games. Eric Fong: "Blu-ray allows us to provide a high-def audio and video experience without cutting corners or inconveniencing users with disc swaps."
This is one benefit of having a good amount of space, no need to cut corners or as I call it letting it all hang out lol, just put games or movie how they are suppose to look uncompressed etc.
changing discs is so old school, this is supposed to be next gen, from the internals to the encasings of these new consoles, blue ray allows dev alot of space for for their games, plus you don't need an add on that looks like my wifes make box to watch hi def movies if you don't have a stand alone player no matter if it's hddvd or blue ray
Disk swapping has not been an issue, it's purely speculation. Blue Dragon is the only game on mulitple disks, even Mass Effect fits on one disk. Saying that "no space" will be an issue in the future is reasonable, but fanboys have been saying that since 360's release in 2005, still not an issue. Blue Ray is deffinitley future proof, but so far the DVD9 hasn't officially limited the 360.
@Scrooge: You say the space has not limited the 360 so far. But you forget that the 360 is itself limited from doing what the PS3 does. Look at LAIR, HS, KZ2, etc etc. Do you think the 360 can handle those and if it does can it do it on one disc?? So yes the 360 is not limited by space because thats the best the 360 can do!!!
I mean man, the 360 has done just fine with the disk format that it is currently using. Besides, in most cases before all of this more space bandwagon was being ridden the same game release on both systems dvd9 for the 360 and blu-ray for the PS3 has shown NO advantage for the PS3 as a matter of fact in most cases the 360 version looked better and played smoother. You guys are overplaying the hell out of this more space crap. Although nothing could ever be wrong with having the extra space, it can also make developers lazy and complacent, they could start not to clean up their code and leave a bunch of crap in the game that would have otherwise made the game leaner and more efficient. All I see the extra space adding to the game is more cut scenes, and more addon bullsh!t that most people wouldn't want anyway. A bigger concern for me is not how much space blu-ray vs dvd9 or HDDVD has, but WHY does everything being released on the PS3 have to always be delayed or limited to 30 FPS. That is a bigger concern for me. Why don't the developer create these games with less features on the 360 if this is a problem for them. (PS3 version has 50 levels and the 360 has 18 or something like that.) Bottom line, when you have more space to spread out, one tends to use it; whether they need it or not, or at least feel compelled to use it. If you had an extra room in your house that you really aren't using, you will furnish it anyway wouldn't you, and who wouldn't. All I'm trying to say is stop making the disc space issue bigger than it actually is.
"I mean man, the 360 has done just fine with the disk format that it is currently using. Besides, in most cases before all of this more space bandwagon was being ridden the same game release on both systems dvd9 for the 360 and blu-ray for the PS3 has shown NO advantage for the PS3 as a matter of fact in most cases the 360 version looked better and played smoother." You are right. So far no games have showed why a BluRay is better than a conventional DVD. But then again this does not mean the games coming out in the future will not show the diff. As for games playing smoother on a 360 or running only @ 30 fps then blame the devs. The PS3 or the Blu Ray has nothing to do with that. If the PS3 first party games can run at 60 fps then there is definitely something wrong with the devs who say it cant be done. "Although nothing could ever be wrong with having the extra space, it can also make developers lazy and complacent, they could start not to clean up their code and leave a bunch of crap in the game that would have otherwise made the game leaner and more efficient. All I see the extra space adding to the game is more cut scenes, and more addon bullsh!t that most people wouldn't want anyway." If the devs leave out a bunch of crap and do not optimise the code then again its the fault of the devs. Going by your logic we shouldve never moved on from cartridges to a CD --> DVD --> BluRay format. With extra space and good developers you can have more levels in a game. Uncompressed video and audio. Bottomline the PS3 looked into the future. Hell Sony always looks into the future. And sony doesnt forget the ppl who support it. Otherwise they would have deserted the 110 million PS2 owners just like MS abandoned the 20 million XBOX owners. I feel for those ppl who bought an XBOX a month or a week or a day ago only to learn that the XBOX will not have any developer support. Who knows they might come up with a new console in another couple of yrs and backstab the 10-20 million 360 users.
Good point. All those games claim 50 gigs or more, but compression can also be used to make them fit on one DVD. All 360 games are compressed, so maybe those 50 gig games could fit on one DVD. Like I said, the space is still not an issue.
already ps3 has overtaken x360 in terms of sales and things would just get bad for x360 and HD DVD camp www.eproductwars.com/dvd www.amazon.com www.vgcharts.org poor x360 and HD DVD
i will comment on one thing. using multiple discs you make the game ever bigger then it needs to be. lets say you use the pallet "xyz" for levels 1,2,3 that are on disc 1 now you need to use the same pallets for lets say a part of the last level 9. you would have to add that pallet into disc 2/3/4 or w.e just to get that pallet visible thus "wasting" space. where as if it were all to fit in one disc it would acctually save more space.
2 discs aint that big a deal really.
yeah it isn't the end of the world, but it's annoying and most developers won't do it they'll just cut corners...
Within a year you will be lucky to get by with two standard DVDs . MS just reiterated that all 360 games will play on all 360s. This means no caching textures and sound on the HDD, no decompressing textures, videos, sound, etc onto the HDD. Two disks won't do it. So at what point in getting up and down off the couch will you get disgusted?
Wired controllers, They seem too last gen to stay around. Is playing with a wired controller bad? no Is having to change discs bad? no But both are inconviences that should no longer be an issue anymore.
I understand what you are saying but wired controllers isn't a good analogy. A wire controller doesn't halt the experience. A wired controller doesn't lower the quality of sound and video or even cause entire game features to disappear in a puff of smoke. What we are looking at is an alteration of the game experience that goes beyond a cord and a disc swap. The problem just isn't the disk limits either. With no HDD to depend on, the problem is now amplified because textures that are normally stored in a pool and shared must now be on each and every disk. And it isn't just textures either. The PGR4 development team opened their mouths and the 360 Damage Control Team couldn't put the genie back in the bottle. They stated day and night versions of the same maps were not possible due to insufficient space on a DVD for textures. Now Bizarre and MS will tell you this was a rumor. Wrong. It would be a rumor if people stated something was said that was not. This isn't the case. http://www.bizarrecreations... A member of the Bizarre Staff made the statement on their forums. Bizarre and MS have done their level best to put a positive spin on matters but the issue is out in the open (again). As game worlds expand, as the desire grows for a seamless realistic experience, so will the capabilities of standard DVD shrink. People need to realize how secretive dev teams can be. Once a dev team actually brings up an issue in public, it has become a major problem, not a minor nag.
Just because some xbox 360 doesn't have HDs, doesn't mean no caching. A line of code could easily be added to states that if the HD is present that these things will be cached. Result, both systems can play the game, the one with the HD has a more efficient experience. This is a choice made by the person what didn't want the HD. PC games with is minimum requirements vs recommended components.
-- "No wait a minute...change the title. Blu-ray is a trojan horse and it sux...." -- Ha - beardtm beat me to the 2nd one!lol cheers
Atari 2600 NES -> More storage space than previous consoles Genesis -> More storage space than previous consoles N64 -> More storage space than previous consoles Playstation -> More storage space than previous consoles PS2 -> More storage space than previous consoles PS3 -> More storage space than previous consoles Dreamcast 360 -> 1 gig LESS storage space than previous gen. That is so pathetic it is funny(shouldn't laugh since developers like Rockstar are having a nightmare and delaying games because of it). The 360 is the first console EVER to actually come out with LESS storage space than a previous gen. So either we have every single console maker in the history of the console market and every single console developer who has made games that used that increasing storage are lazy idiots or Microsoft are the idiots to try to sell such a joke of a system. 25/50 gig BluRay for the win and nothing but sympathy for those developers forced to support the gimped at 7 gig Dreamcast 360. Don't worry guys, Microsoft won't be around much longer in the console market.
N64 came out after playstation...N64 is the first system ever since they chose to stay with the cartridge format and they lost a majority of Squaresoft games because of it. Also, the Gamecube still had less storage. Gamecube disks only hold 1.5 gb which is only 300 mb more than Dreamcast, but less than a DVD still and the gamecube came out after the PS2. Right now, the 360 and Wii are tied in disc storage since they both hold 4.7 gb of space on each game disc. Just wanted to keep the facts straight since you clearly hate the 360 when you should hate Nintendo when it comes to disc space after all these years...
Nintendo lost nearly all of there third party support with the N64 because of storage space. The biggest loss was when square left but they made the best game ever(FF7)on playstation. I think SNES had more storage than Genesis. Snes had the largest 16 bit game, tales of phantasia which was a whopping 48 megs!!! WOW!!! @drewdrakes Get a life man. I was commmenting on his post about the N64 and genesis.I didn't say one thing about PS3 or 360. I could care less about the 2.
johnnywit - Sony lost nearly all its 3rd party support with the PS3, so? In response to this article, procedural programming reduces the amount of space required. Perhaps they wouldnt have to cut corners if they pulled their socks up and made some nice algorithms to dynamically create textures. That would in fact be productive, and efficient. It would reduce space AND could be used to reduce dev time of future games. Because if they did it correctly algorithms could be re-used.
N64 was released a cartridge based system because Nintendo and Sony had a falling out of sorts. In case you didn't know, Sony was developing the cd technology for what was to become Nintendo's next generation console. For reasons that still aren't clear to this day, Nintendo and Sony broke their relations. Sony was stuck with the technology they had invested years in. Instead of scraping the tech and in an attempt to get a return from their R&D investment, they decided to enter the gaming market and release it for themselves under the Sony brand. And the PlayStation was born. Since Nintendo was falling way behind in the release of their next gen console they decided to stay with cartridges. That marked the beginning of the end for Nintendo's console market dominance. Not that it matters now since they are once again on the verge of taking it all back.
You're suggesting that environments are created dynamically? Sure that's possible but coders aren't very good artists. A big process of making such a game is when artists create the environment and make it look real. They store it in vector format with texture maps etc. But it becomes a huge process if it would be done dynamically. You'd have to include the artists' creations into the dynamic creation process. Modeling and implementing it would be a real pain in the ass. And because you cannot cache the dynamically stored geometry to the HDD it would have to reside in the memory or would have to be created in real time. This would take a heavy toll when considering performance.
Whilst I don't agree procedurally generated content is 100% the answer it is possible to produce exceptionally good looking game assets using this method.. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... (even better download it and play it).. There are plenty of games where sections of the content displayed on the screen could be happily populated using this method whilst still allowing for the artists to draw up the more "critical to the game" content..
I think he was talking about the respective console, not an evolution off all consoles together. Nintendo < SNES < N64 < Game Cube < Wii in terms of storage evolution, each console had more storage space then it's predecessor. However, the 360 still has the same DVD9 format it did, when it was first implemented on the original Xbox.
I wouldn't call the Nintendo & Sony deal a falling out it was more of Nintendo backstabbing. The truth is Nintendo and Sony were working on a console that would have had cartridge and CD slots for games which was too be called "Nintendo Playstation." Nintendo got nervous and felt CD were the way of the future and since the technology was produced by Sony, Sony would be getting the largest share from the console. So with out telling Sony they workout a secret deal with phillips they announced it to the world.
define "not cutting corners"... does this mean, developers don't need to bother on optimising their code... after all it's not like blu-ray is 10X faster than standard DVD... data still need to be read from disk... compression and reducing code... it's not only good for storage but for loading and disk->memory transfer.... Game assets need to be transfer to memory before they can be use on the game... just becase blu-ray can hold 20 Maps each one of them 2GB of uncompressed game assets does not mean the console can run it... the PS3 have less available memory for developers than the xbox 360... as a lead developer in the company I work for... "cutting corners" is something that developers better not use in any of my projects... cutting corners = Lazy development.... that probably explains all those cheap ports the PS3 being getting....
No more room being on a disk means developers can't go all out on a game. If anything cutting corners = disappointed developers who have more ideas for a game but they can't be fulfilled because a lack of, in this case, disc space and hi def audio and video capabilities. Some developers are just saying "oh well we'll make it do what we can with what we have", but now some devs are starting to want the challenge to create a bigger game and not settle for less
so how many layers and passovers of code do you force into the dev cycle before you start running out of money? Time better spent on just developing game content than thinking of ways to squeeze onto 9 yr old tech. I smell HUGE bs here.
Cutting corners means, PGR not being able to have a new set of texture for night effects. So, they had to make "dawn" and dark weather effects to cover up the limitations.
If HD movies needed a new medium why wouldn't games ? You guys keep yelling out compression methods but I know compression in music is not always the best route and in video HD is slowly taking over..
@2 where in next gen, games shouldn't be more then one disk.....it's not 1999 no more with those 4 disk games..
More storage is always good. Especially in next generation systems. With technology always moving forward is pleasing to know it will be a while before Blu-ray runs out of storage in games. Uncompression will reign king in the not so distant future. I like how first party games using blu-ray will not have to use a different illusion/ "technique" to overcome a problem in terms of storage.
I admit Blu-ray offers a lot of storage now but in the near future I can see it needing compression too. I'm assuming in the future games will get bigger and more complex. What will happen to all these DVD storage limited games if blu-ray developers start cutting corners to fit games on blu-ray? Before you say blu-ray will never get filled up remember in the past when some tech said 640kb is more than enough? (This is a pro blu-ray comment sorry if it confused people)
Blu-Ray has compression, but it's not about the compression. It's about the amount of data space you get with Blu-Ray. Why give developers a limited storage medium like DVD9? When you can provide them with a larger storage device. More space is ALWAYS better, how anyone can argue against this boggles my mind. @ Sarick Sorry for the late reply, I was getting Vonage setup.. xD Anyways, you are talking about the "future" and stating that the Blu-Ray format will one day get filled up. Which is very true, technology gets old and sooner or later they become obsolete. But the argument being made regarding Blu-Ray isn't if it's going to be obsolete in the distance future, but if it's a viable medium now. I have read your comments over again, and I find them to be too "near" sighted that is why I tried to respond to you. Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you or something.
Mu5afir, I don't see why you wasted a reply to me when you just confirmed my exact statement. I'm saying that there will come a time when blu-ray is to small and it will also hit a wall like some devs are pointing out now with dvd9. With PS3's 8 year lifespan that wall might be closer than we think. My point about compression is if or when blu-ray gets filled up and needs compression like dvd9. What will people be doing with the dvd9 limited consoles to compete? If some devs are having trouble with space now what are they going to do when even blu-ray isn't enough space? I don't understand why you called me out on this my position is on par with yours and is transparent. I'm all for extra space please tell me how that statement says otherwise. My last message backs up the person I replied to.
I dont want to swap disk during a game. I dont think thats too much to ask for.
Your comments continue to amaze me, simply because your lack of knowledge, but then claiming otherwise. Why do you assume that 360 has more ram than PS3. Is it because that is what you were told, or because you're attempting to make false claims in defense of the 360. I have no bias against 360(I've had one since launch). From a purely apples to apples comparison, 360 and PS3 have the same amount of RAM. But PS3's RAM is split in two(making it even more difficult for untalented developers to make quality games), but looking deeper reveals half of the PS3's RAM is of a higher capacity. This of course being obscured by Msoft's claims that they both have 512 RAM, but the PS3's is split in half, making it less capable.
Which brings to light the fact that GPU RAM isn't exactly optimal for a CPU, and with that you have yet another dilemma on your hands. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses folks...can we leave it at that?
PS3 and 360 has same amount of memory, only X360's (unified) memory architecture is more flexible.
Having unified memory is NOT a good thing. The Ps3 does NOT have lag between it's CPU and memory usage. Since the RSX already has dedicated memory, it can access the other portion of the memory if needed. This is how your PC WORKS. The 360s GPU / CPU have to share the same RAM, that means developers have to constantly play around with the amount of RAM to be allocated to a particular task. This creates lag between the CPU / GPU and in turn lowers the speed of the data pipelines and creates a bottleneck. The Ps3 has XDR some of the fastest memory ever created, it is lag free and can be accessed by the GPU and CPU. The CPU only has access to the XDR memory, while the RSX has access to all 512mb of memory that includes the GDDR3 and XDR clocked at 3.2ghz. Unified shaders, and unified memory is not the same. Remember that. I am out of bubbles, give me more.. XD @ JCDenton Allocating memory between the GPU / CPU creates lag. The GPU / CPU must constantly calculate the amount of RAM they have between each other. This is a big hassle for developers also, this isn't how PC RAM is allocated and neither is the Ps3s. There is a constant balance struggle as to to allocation of memory. This is why modern GPUs have their own RAM allocated to their chip sets, so they don't have to (unless necessary) allocate memory from the CPU.
I'm not confusing unified shader architecture with unified memory. Anyway, I really don't see how unified memory is a bad thing. Developers can allocate memory however they want - to fit their needs in particular situation. There is no lag here. PS3 has 256MB of system memory (RAM) and 256MB dedicated to GPU. You can't use GPU memory to store anything other than geometry and textures/shaders. On the other hand, PS3's RAM works at very high frequencies - 3.2 GHz... So, my point is that PS3 and Xbox 360 are pretty much neck-and-neck when it comes to memory related tasks.
Compression isn't free, it takes effort, and said data needs to be decompressed anyway, so think of it like this. One dev can spend their time figuring out what to include and utilizing their time to compress the data, and then allocating resources to decompress that data, and another can add whatever they deem necessary and then have time to optimize their code, without having to worry about disc space. There's tradeoffs involved in both processes.
genki you have no idea what your talking about, compression and decompression has literally no Cons with todays advanced compression techniques, not only is it faster to load compressed data, it takes up less space obviously. And frankly its proven by and far so far that the only reason companies are saying that blu ray is needed beyond being paid by sony to do so is that they use uncompressed every thing and dont optimize their code. One of the few games so far to use multi dvds is blue dragon and only cause of the 20+ hours of high def CGI present in the game, if they just used the game and had no CGI the game would fit on one disc with room to spare. I've yet to see any company prove why they need blu ray so far, No one has come forward and told us exactly what kind of compression sony games use, or how optimized the code is. As for that its programmer nature to have unoptimized code when you have so much space. The only thing uncompressed audio and video offer is high fedilty, something of which about 90% of the consumer cant even benefit from any ways, Thats how lil high def and blu ray have been adopted.
"its proven by and far so far that the only reason companies are saying that blu ray is needed beyond being paid by sony to do so is that they use uncompressed every thing and dont optimize their code." Where has that ever been proven? Please enlighten me. If you're going to use Resistance as an example, don't bother, I know about the filler, and that stuff only utilized less than 1% of total asset space. Besides, In all honesty, I don't think there's one game on PS3 that's been released that couldn't fit on a DVD. All games have been using compression, just some much less than others, yes, that includes Resistance, Lair, Uncharted, and any of the other flagship PS3 titles. No company needs to prove why they need blu-ray, it's right in front of your face. More space = more opportunities, plain and simple. Blindly defend that if you REALLY want to, but that's the way it is. I can't understand why you would want to undermine the usefulness of having more space. Just think of your precious advanced compression techniques when Blu-Ray hits the wall, as it inevitably will, like ALL PREVIOUS media formats have. I'm not an audiophile, so I won't argue the uncompressed audio bit, but it still remains, and there's no two ways about it, that uncompressed is better than compressed. Anyway, I'm not trying to engage in a pissing contest, apparently you missed when I said both processes have their tradeoffs...which should tell you that I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm not one of those fanatics that thinks that DVD will damn the 360 to Hell you know...I'm sure it'll be just fine by the end of it's run. The gamecube turned out to be a good system, I don't see why the same can't hold true here.
But it really is amazing why people like WilliamRLBaker argue about the necessity of Blu-Ray. We would still be using cassette tapes and putting floppy discs into computers if people like him were in charge. It really is amazing how people seem to have such a problem with MORE space. These people must live in tiny homes. Also, would you still be arguing if this were about HD-DVD, because I'm betting you don't have a problem with that format right? WilliamRLBaker, you have to remember that back in the day a 200MHz Pentium computer was overachieving too. Things evolve, thank goodness. Let's appreciate that fact.
Great comment with 11.2. You summed up my thoughts well, and in a very accurate way. As this is coming from Game Republic which works with Sony exclusively from what i remember, i can understand if people are sceptic about their "Blu-Ray gives us more opportunities comment", but come on, use common sense, more storage is a good thing. I agree that it`s not been shown yet with the PS3 games, but upcoming games will show the benefit of it. With that said 360 games, will still look and play great, as Genki said. Bubbles for you Genki.
WilliamRLBaker computer science 101, any type of compression requires the processor to decompress. The more you compress an object, the more processing power it takes to decompress it. Try it out yourself, encode Xvid and h264 encodes and try to play both on a OLD P2 computer. ;) I am out of bubbles, give me more.. xD
I disagree, the amount of detail that most great developers put into the gaming environments is going to require a large amount of space to accommodate large games(like GTA and GT). It's not that I'm saying the 360 isn't capable of great and beautiful looking games, but the Blu-ray advantage is a great one which is being constantly downplayed, which is really ridiculous. I mean Rock* pushed the boundaries on DVD9 San Andreas, and GTAIV is a much more aesthetically pleasing, and still robustly large game. Data can only be compressed so much without requiring a humongous amount of RAM to play. Genki said nothing incorrect with his statements, decompressing requires a significant amount of man-hours for any game, especially one as robustly large as GTA. When really they should be focusing on delivering on the intended gaming experience as quickly as possible.
LMAO chaging disks??? and then the xbois bring out a game that is more then 10 years old FFVII saying its fine LMAO. i can only imagine MGS4 on x360. Snake Snakeeeeeeeeeeeee...... change to disk two... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...... Buahahahaha last gen. media with no hard drive makes the x360 an x180 or xbox 1.5.
.....I guess that's why all those multi format games look sooooo much better and sounds soooooo much better and get such better reviews on the PS3 because the 360's format is soooooooo last gen...... Come guys don't believe the hype, despite the blu ray where corners are not cut, the ps3 is still behind in terms of developer friendly. PLAY AND ENJOY YOUR GAMES AND STOP JUMPING ON EVERY TECH BRAG THAT COMES UP ABOUT YOUR CONSOLE OF CHOICE
well if the ps3 wasn't split memory, then i bet the ps3's games would benefit. if ps3 is the lead platform then there's an advantage for ps3. whatever system is the lead platform that system benefits. most of the time game developers, in japan atleast outsource the porting of their games to another company...I forgot the name, but they were responsible for it, not the developer. if a developer actually took the time to exploit each system's capabilities then there wouldn't even be this discrepancy. this has been proven by bethesda, sega am3, tecmo.
and I just realized that even though there's only 8 levels, there's technically 48 sets of level textures (i.e. 48 levels worth of data due to 6 times of day per track). Suddenly I can see where those 12GB went. Can't imagine how big the sequel will be.
One more thing, I can't seem to recall, but just a day or two ago there was a story on here from id(Wolfenstein, Quake), and they said their new IP Rage, was on one disc on PS3, but two on all the other platform. Talk about how DVD9 is sufficient, and how Blu-ray isn't important, but I feel you're wrong. Blu-ray is the next step for software, and saying otherwise is BS.
PSX-CD PS2-dvd PS3-Blu-ray its only natural..
that shows the power of the 360 on ps3, dont you get it, thats what MGS4 would look or sound like on 360 or even worse, some ports are sucky on PS3 because they traansfer memory to it and say its to hard to program, so you xbots make yourselves look so stupid again and again
how come a nextgen console(x360) with out nextgen format????
it's like it can't be done on ps3....... it can, so you can compress say a 100 gigas into the 50 blueray.... and you still can compress 40 gigas in a dvd.... so as always when it comes to technology the more the .......you know the rest
must have been very hard for guys like TheMART. all this positive ps3 news - and it's not going to stop. i'm a happy ps3 owner (+360)
Yeah, Sony's camp has been all over their PR department lately.
and hasn't even been around for 9 months yet. ^^^^^^^ The 360 is picking a fight with a Mafia Don. So much so that Peter Moore went into witness protection.
LMAO dude that is soo funny (and true) lol
It's just human nature to struggle for something better...ONCE you try HD you never go back. Games today are bigger than for a few years ago (not necessary be better). It's not comfortable if you have to have to swap disc during gaming session (you do not die just because of it). It's just the path of nature. I'm not sure that BLU-RAY will still be around when the next generation of storage comes. By then I guess SSD and flash memory and gigabyte i-pipe will completly take over the market. I personally think that BLU-RAY or HDDVD is this generation storage medium and properly the last of it's optical storage. I feel sad that MS did not make a bold decision when it comes to the 360. But from a business perspective at that given time they did make a right decision (not bold).
How large is gt5's gunna be???? This is just the beginning
M$ should let the developers decide to make games utilize the HDD and HD-DVD if they can't fit everything on single disc.
Death of a Console: The 360 story, tonight at 11
It's really interesting how most of the people here think they know better than Micro$oft experts about technology and developers needs...
you mean those same experts that developed a console with a 33% failure rate?
Really gotten this lazy!? You mean to tell me that you people would rather spend an extra 200 bucks, just so you dont have to switch disks. WOW! Somebody mail me the seed of whatever money tree they have growing in their back yard.
its an extra $150 with XBL, oh and don't forget the other peripherals.....actually, its the same price.