Assassin's Creed 3 coming on two discs on X360!

Just came back from being out all day and found this thread ended up in 10 pages. :lol:

Yep, lems are on to something... Always trying to defend their inferior console.

GamerwillzPS

Still trying to justify that PS3 purchase I see.

Don't worry, you'll find a reason someday. :wink:

Does it matter? This is old...the next gen starts soon. Get over it.

It takes all of 10 seconds to swap a disc. It takes hours for mandatory installs to play PS3 games. Cows are just showing how desperate they are for anything to claim ownage over in a year where PS3 has zero quality exclusives.JohnnyCageMK

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Link.

I've argued with Lems saying the reason that DVD was a big mistake from Microsoft and they refused. Now look at this! :lol:

It's getting out of hand now.

AdobeArtist

How was MS supposed to put something in their console that didn't exist at the time? :roll:

Even with DVD, swapping discs>>>mandatory installs. I like my limited hard drive space for my console to be used for what I want, not for huge GB worth of installs for games that get played once.

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

[QUOTE="JohnnyCageMK"]It takes all of 10 seconds to swap a disc. It takes hours for mandatory installs to play PS3 games. Cows are just showing how desperate they are for anything to claim ownage over in a year where PS3 has zero quality exclusives.DeadMan1290

To a degree...most installs on PS3 take less than 10 minutes unless it's an MMO (DC Universe). Only one thats above that length of time I can think of is DMC4...and that was nearly a launch game.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

why is it a problem?

tormentos

So is not on your eyes having to switch disc on Mass Effect 3 as much as 10 times.?

that many times? :?

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

How was MS supposed to put something in their console that didn't exist at the time? :roll:

Even with DVD, swapping discs>>>mandatory installs. I like my limited hard drive space for my console to be used for what I want, not for huge GB worth of installs for games that get played once.

Phazevariance

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations of DVD are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

faster drive speed >> extra storage space

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

AdobeArtist

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

did you get my PM, adobe?

Yeah, but no one made a big fuss out of it for M$ in USA to actually acknowlegde the problems, it took a watchdog from a small population of 16 million people to actually get things done. I'm sure the xbox slim has fixed that problem mostly, but that video is still accurate. If you own a old 360, that miracilously hasn't RROD yet (I believe Jasper and Falcon models), it scratches discs while being STATIONARY. This myth of a xbox not scratching discs has to go. For starters,

I can't even believe a consumer would buy a product that DESTROYS a $60 investment when it slightly moves or shocks. The slims even have a warning-sticker ffs. That aside, I can't even believe the apologists saying it's okay if you don't move it. A product should not destroy your discs AT ALL.

And my PS2 games still work fine, they have small scratches...but this only is a testament to how easily it could go wrong with DVD(9).

DrTrafalgarLaw

Because it was a minor issue that occurred on an ad-hoc basis. The RROD issue was far more severe at the time, and that warranted precedent among any other concerns. Remember, we're talking about launch systems here in that video and at the time of the video--each launch system having varying DVD drives from I believe it was three manufacturers. The DVD drive was the least of the worries. I never had any issues with this with my launch Xbox 360's drive all the way till 2010 before I switched to the new Xbox 360 S. All my disks are in superb condition besides my original Call of Duty 2 disk which the inner ring broke after wear because of the shoddy disk-case system. Luckily, Microsoft replaced that disk of mine with the GOTY version.

Every product has limitations, I wouldn't game on my consoles consistently on the carpet, or in an enclosed environment because that would--in affect--eventually destroy the systems. In all honesty, you are grasping here.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"] yes but those were 1x drives. Not fast enough to run games with decent load times. Even the faster ps3 bluray drive is too slow. So your logic am fail.CaseyWegner

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

did you get my PM, adobe?

which one? just resend it to me.

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

AdobeArtist

did you get my PM, adobe?

which one? just resend it to me.

done. thanks.

PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

how about from somebody who's not a lemming? you ask "what's the big deal about mandatory installs" but honestly what's the big deal about disc swapping? it takes next to no time at all and it's not like you have to do it in the middle of a boss fight. it's usually at an appropriate time.

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

Stevo_the_gamer

Prepare to get owned.

:cool:

Oh the horror! Let's your denial begin... or you can go and make some charts... to help yourself to sleep better tonight, son. :P

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Link.

I've argued with Lems saying the reason that DVD was a big mistake from Microsoft and they refused. Now look at this! :lol:

It's getting out of hand now.

GamerwillzPS

How was MS supposed to put something in their console that didn't exist at the time?:roll:

Even with DVD, swapping discs>>>mandatory installs. I like my limited hard drive space for my console to be used for what I want, not for huge GB worth of installs for games that get played once.

Talking about ignorance... Read what AdobeArtist said.

Actually the Xbox 360 released November 2005, the first commercially available Blu-ray drive released in June 2006. Although there were prototypes around since 2003. Microsoft probably could have included one if they really wanted to spend the money on an unproven technology. I doubt it was worth the risk to them. Sony only included the player in the PS3 because they were pushing their own format.

I do think that MS should have put a Blu-ray drive in the 360S when it came out though. They should have pulled a Wii-U. Beefed the 360 up a little, added blu-ray, and wireless networking, and changed the SKU. That being said DVD was hardly a mistake. It allowed the 360 to launch cheaper, and stay cheaper for most of the generation. Other than a few games recently one DVD has been more than enough for most of this generation. A generation that I'm sure no one expected to last this damn long. Also swapping a disc once during a game is really no big deal, well except to PS3 fanboys that is.

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

What are you talking about? Stand alone Blu Ray players were already on the market in 2005. It's only the PS3 that launched a year later.

AdobeArtist

Of course slow drive speed is the reason HDD installs are required to aid running the game. But the point was, plagueless is saying X360 couldn't have used BR because that technology "didn't exist at time of 360's launch" Which is completely false.

That said, DVD is the better choice this generation because faster drives means that while HDD installs are an option, aren't actually required (and we're not dealing with level instalations midway either), where the space limitations of DVD are easily remedied with an extra disc. And as stated, disc swapping takes significantly less time than mandatory installs.

faster drive speed >> extra storage space

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

Prepare to get owned.

:cool:

Oh the horror! Let's your denial begin... or you can go and make some charts... to help yourself to sleep better tonight, son. :P

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Had a read through this thread and I have to say that lems' responses are hilarious! "Bu bu bu bu but you cows have mandatory installs!111!!!11"

Think about the PC. The PS3 does something similar to PC - install the games in the hard drive and then that's it, never have to worry about disc swapping again. On the 360, you'll swap the discs ALL THE TIME. PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

CaseyWegner

how about from somebody who's not a lemming? you ask "what's the big deal about mandatory installs" but honestly what's the big deal about disc swapping? it takes next to no time at all and it's not like you have to do it in the middle of a boss fight. it's usually at an appropriate time.

It is painfully annoying, from my recent experiences with redeeming golden keys on Borderlands 2.

I like disc swapping. It makes me feel like I'm in for something special. But that's partially due to them Squaresoft RPGs years back.

As someone who will be buying his copy on PS3 anyway, this is so stupid to act like this is ownage. It's just a minor inconvenience, not a big deal.

I own 150+ PC games that came on zero discs.

PS3 and 360 owners am cry!

Ly_the_Fairy

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

mean, old sony?

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]PS3 even have upgradeable hard drive which allows you to take up to 2TB, so what's the big deal with all your "mandatory installs" garbage?

Lems, stop the denial and look at the facts. :lol:

GamerwillzPS

Prepare to get owned.

:cool:

Oh the horror! Let's your denial begin... or you can go and make some charts... to help yourself to sleep better tonight, son. :P

Waoh, so 7 years into its lifecycle, and the 360 finally gets a game with a mandatory install. I'd say if anything, this is good timing. Just proves that Blu Ray wasn't needed this gen, and that only now, on the verge of next gen consoles being released, is more storage becoming necessary. The next Xbox will have blu-ray. Problem solved.

2 disks

as opposed to hours of installation of disk, downloads and updates.

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

"the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated."

Huh? You're wording is way off. What do you mean still? And whats 2012 got to do with it? Because no doubt there'll be a game down the line that requires more than 1 Blu Ray.

Multiple discs is not an issue, its just cows being stupid. The DVD has coped perfectly fine this gen, and the next xbox will have blu ray (when its actually needed) so no problem there.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

mems_1224

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the PS3 version gives you more for your money, if you have $60 and two products are identical but one gives you extra stuff, then why would any logical person turn it down? You should get the most for your money.

Lems made the same excuse you are using when Joker was on Batman Arkham Asylum. We all know how that turned out.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

CaseyWegner

mean, old sony?

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

mean, old sony?

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

considering it's already on two discs, storage isn't the issue. sony probably just made a deal.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

mean, old sony?

CaseyWegner

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

considering it's already on two discs, storage isn't the issue. sony probably just made a deal.

The way I see it, if it's the same game then just give everyone the same content. They pay full price for it, if the 360 version isn't going to get the content then they should lower the price of the 360 version. It makes sense.

And im going to have none for PC woohooo!

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Yes DVD is outdated now. But that's not the only reason why the 360 version is inferior, it's also not getting the over an hours worth of extra content like the PS3 version. This means the people that buy the 360 version are not getting the full game, that's not very fair IMO.

In terms of performance and graphics, they will be identical so this is not that big of a deal really. But having your games on one disc is more conveinant and the fact that the 360 still needs mulitple discs in 2012 is a sign of it getting outdated.

I recommend the PS3 version because of the extra content and one disc is more convienant.

ShadowMoses900

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the PS3 version gives you more for your money, if you have $60 and two products are identical but one gives you extra stuff, then why would any logical person turn it down? You should get the most for your money.

Lems made the same excuse you are using when Joker was on Batman Arkham Asylum. We all know how that turned out.

bonus content that is going to get ignored and yet the xbox 360 version is going to sell more :lol:Tessellation

Ignored? I'm going to buy the game and play the extra content. So will every PS3 owner. I don't see your point.

And what does having more sales matter? How does that affect you? Here is your logic: "Oh PS3 guys get bonus stuff at no additional cost, but my copy will sell more so my version is better because it sells a little better".

Sales do not affect your enjoyment of game or not. This is terrible damage control, even for you.

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]bonus content that is going to get ignored and yet the xbox 360 version is going to sell more :lol:ShadowMoses900

Ignored? I'm going to buy the game and play the extra content. So will every PS3 owner. I don't see your point.

And what does having more sales matter? How does that affect you? Here is your logic: "Oh PS3 guys get bonus stuff at no additional cost, but my copy will sell more so my version is better because it sells a little better".

Sales do not affect your enjoyment of game or not. This is terrible damage control, even for you.

Just came back from being out all day and found this thread ended up in 10 pages. :lol:

Yep, lems are on to something...Always trying to defend their inferior console.

GamerwillzPS

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It is not right that they stop extra content from being on the 360. Perhaps this is due to DVD being outdated and they can't fit the extra content on the disc, but the least they could do is give them a code they could download to get the extra content.

I don't think it's right Sony does that.

ShadowMoses900

considering it's already on two discs, storage isn't the issue. sony probably just made a deal.

The way I see it, if it's the same game then just give everyone the same content. They pay full price for it, if the 360 version isn't going to get the content then they should lower the price of the 360 version. It makes sense.

definitely but that might seem like less of an incentive to get the ps3 version if you're a mutliplat owner. extra content has historically been nothing spectacular.