How many multi-plats were held back this generation because of 360's DVD format?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="PSN-SCRODE"]the pont i wether it was needed THIS GEN, clearly it wasn't. Online gaming wasn't needed either, neither were the specs, they could have been toned down. They didn't need a lot fo things. The 360 wasn't needed either... Now that I think of it consoles weren't needed at all. See where I'm going with this?who cares now the Microsoft is copying of ps3 now by moving the 360/720 format to blu-ray. I guess ps3 was true next gen
delta3074
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="PSN-SCRODE"]the pont i wether it was needed THIS GEN, clearly it wasn't. Online gaming wasn't needed either, neither were the specs, they could have been toned down. They didn't need a lot fo things. The 360 wasn't needed either... Now that I think of it consoles weren't needed at all. See where I'm going with this?no i don't actually, typical fanboy statement becasue you don't have a decent argument to counter what i was saying, but i will rephrase my point, Blu-ray was not needed for Consoles this generation as 99% of games still fit on a single DVD, counter that one dude:)who cares now the Microsoft is copying of ps3 now by moving the 360/720 format to blu-ray. I guess ps3 was true next gen
Eddie-Vedder
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]skyrim 3.8 gig. just saying.delta3074which the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9. That's because games are designed with the 360 in mind. If he 360 weren't a limitation games could be bigger or have better graphics and sound. Developers design the game around the least common denominator before they build the game, that's how software development works.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="delta3074"]which the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9.sts106matThat's because games are designed with the 360 in mind. If he 360 weren't a limitation games could be bigger or have better graphics and sound. Developers design the game around the least common denominator before they build the game, that's how software development works. and thats why there are a load of ps3 exclusives with more content than say halo reach? Depends on the game of course. But most of them does look better than Reach.
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="delta3074"]the pont i wether it was needed THIS GEN, clearly it wasn't.delta3074Online gaming wasn't needed either, neither were the specs, they could have been toned down. They didn't need a lot fo things. The 360 wasn't needed either... Now that I think of it consoles weren't needed at all. See where I'm going with this?no i don't actually, typical fanboy statement becasue you don't have a decent argument to counter what i was saying, but i will rephrase my point, Blu-ray was not needed for Consoles this generation as 99% of games still fit on a single DVD, counter that one dude:)Not very bright. The word needed wasn't needed. Consoels aren't needed. That's a fact. It's not about what's needed, these things are luxuries, not needs. Understand?
no..just no. It costs still about 1 dollar to 1.50 to produce each bluray disc in lots of thousands...Dvds? about 20-30 cents.[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"]Not a lot and certainly doesn't involve any tech performance but licensing. 2-4 DVDs costs more to produce than 1 blu-ray.FashionFreak
I like how you always pull "facts" from out of no where and proclaim that they're 100% true. :|
and yet others don't prove me wrong... as well considering that the proof has been posted multiple times in the thread.
i guess 360 Exclusive Games have potential to be par on Ps3 Exclusive Games but heldback by DVD Size Problems(but if you want it to be more hardcore exclusive you need to pay a extension(2nd Disc) to Microsoft)
Comment: Nice Microsoft you are freaking evil genius for more money
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="sts106mat"]skyrim 3.8 gig. just saying.kuraimenwhich the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9. That's because games are designed with the 360 in mind. If he 360 weren't a limitation games could be bigger or have better graphics and sound. Developers design the game around the least common denominator before they build the game, that's how software development works.Risen , Ego draconis, oblivion, fallout 3, fallout NV, two worlds 2 and darksatr one where made with the PC in mind yet risen is only 1.1 GB on the 360, also, if the 360 was a limitation with skyrim how come they didn't fill up the whole disk and make it bigger instead of just using half, that point alone invalidates what you are saying dude
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="sts106mat"]skyrim 3.8 gig. just saying.kuraimenwhich the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9. That's because games are designed with the 360 in mind. If he 360 weren't a limitation games could be bigger or have better graphics and sound. Developers design the game around the least common denominator before they build the game, that's how software development works.
oh so what your saying is morrowind was made for the original xbox in mind right? Bathesda has alwasy made small games every single one came in at microlevels if that wasn't true then every elder scrolls game would have been a monster in data that it took up hadn't fit on floppy back with arena but instead taking up multiple cds and 1 dvd getting far larger with each itteration.
Morrowind was released 7 months after the original xboxes release date are you telling a primarily pc developer some how created a game for the original xbox in mind before the would have received any dev kits? and didn't just port it over to the original xbox because the architecture was pc based and Morrowind wasn't nearly demanding?
Edit: and as delta pointed out why would bathesda in each game they made fallout 3, oblivion, skyrim create a game that used up about 2-3 gigs less then the usable max of a 360 dvd?
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="sts106mat"]skyrim 3.8 gig. just saying.kuraimenwhich the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9. That's because games are designed with the 360 in mind. If he 360 weren't a limitation games could be bigger or have better graphics and sound. Developers design the game around the least common denominator before they build the game, that's how software development works.
i wasn't aware 3.8GB was the 360's DVD space limit :roll:
[QUOTE="sts106mat"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] That's because games are designed with the 360 in mind. If he 360 weren't a limitation games could be bigger or have better graphics and sound. Developers design the game around the least common denominator before they build the game, that's how software development works.kuraimenand thats why there are a load of ps3 exclusives with more content than say halo reach? Depends on the game of course. But most of them does look better than Reach.
I like how you went from a CONTENT argument to a GRAPHICAL argument :lol:
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]skyrim 3.8 gig. just saying.delta3074which the die hard SOY fanboys are just too thick headed to comprehend, even kurinaim stated that open world games where held back more by DVD9, stupid statment considering the 360 has more open world games and they generally run better on the 360, skrim is the biggest game world with so much going on,so many quests, so many handcrafted locations and so many claculations yet it fits on a single DVD9.
Indeed, if anything big world games are held back by PS3, since they look and run much worst on it (Skrim, RDR etc)
[QUOTE="arkephonic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]My answer is still about zero. It's cheaper to use two or even three DVDs than one Bluray disc. How many games had different versions because of DVD...about zero. How many games didn't make it to the Xbox 360 that normally would have because of DVD...about zero. delta3074
Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.
Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.
So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.
if you are going to quote carmack then quote him in the correct context, he only said using blu-ray was cheaper because of the extra royalty cost that MS charges if you use more than 2 disks for there games, not because it is cheaper than the cost of 3 DVD's themselves, he was complaining about MS pricing policys on propriety discs not the format itself or the costs of the disks themselves, secondly, the Ps3 held back developement of Rage far more than the 360 did http://myona.com/2011/08/15/rage-development-is-limited-due-to-ps3-memory-id/I already knew that, and covered it many times. It was KC Hokie that started talking about the price of discs, while I was talking about the licensing fees Microsoft charges for their proprietary discs the whole time.
I would say FFXIII-2 was absolutely affected by the game being multiplat, FXIII-2 looks worse on both consoles vs FFXIII on PS3.
zarshack
dont think its something to do with disks at all ? and the grafix isnt that much worse for being alot more open .. first 13 omfg its linear and now its open omfg it looks worse wth is wrong with gamers these days ? nothing to do with disks, they could just have added more if thats was the case which its not ..
Why is this thread still going? It was fun to troll people in for awhile but now it's just boring.
[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]GTA 4. I just wish the 360 stayed out of the way, so that GTA 4 would have been a much better game. GTA 5 is now coming in this generation of consoles with an obstacle again... Oh dear.arkephonic
Yeah, tell me about it!
There are few guarantees in life.
Death, taxes, and the fact that GTAV will not live up to its potential because the 360 will hold it back.
lol lollol or maybe it was ps3 that held the box back ? lower res etc ?
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
If all the games were made for the PS3 only and from the ground up, these multiplats would look and play SO much better. And many devs have complained about the 360 and it's weaker power and outdated format, like Rockstar.
However they won't aleinate half the market because that would mean less money, so they have to make it so that the games will run on both systems.
This is why almost all multiplats are virtually the same between the two, but they generally make them for the 360 first because it's less powerful, if it was the other way around than the 360 wouldn't handle it.
But yes, if these games were just made for the PS3 in mind then they would be of higher quality, and if they were to port them to the 360 the games would be significantly inferior, kind of like how last gen the PS2 multiplats were always less than the Xbox version as the PS2 was weaker.
Now it's the other way around but devs make their games equal on both systems (in most cases).
Frostbite24
Do you have any links to support these claims? I would think that if "many" developers complain about how weak the 360 is it should be easy enough for you to find. +20 points if you do.
Dont bother he is pro cow, he failes pretty much with those points , because most multi runs and performs better on xbox - 100 points shadow and a massive facepalm for you brah
thank god the ps3 never holds back multiplats. they just release them on the ps3 no matter if they work or not. :lol:
[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
If all the games were made for the PS3 only and from the ground up, these multiplats would look and play SO much better. And many devs have complained about the 360 and it's weaker power and outdated format, like Rockstar.
However they won't aleinate half the market because that would mean less money, so they have to make it so that the games will run on both systems.
This is why almost all multiplats are virtually the same between the two, but they generally make them for the 360 first because it's less powerful, if it was the other way around than the 360 wouldn't handle it.
But yes, if these games were just made for the PS3 in mind then they would be of higher quality, and if they were to port them to the 360 the games would be significantly inferior, kind of like how last gen the PS2 multiplats were always less than the Xbox version as the PS2 was weaker.
Now it's the other way around but devs make their games equal on both systems (in most cases).
ShadowMoses900
Do you have any links to support these claims? I would think that if "many" developers complain about how weak the 360 is it should be easy enough for you to find. +20 points if you do.
I could but GS never let's me link anything, it's too much of a hassel trying to get it to work. It always says "error" and some other stupid stuff, it puts me at a disadvantage on here. However if it would work I would own these discussions.
But anyway alot of devs have said things and complained about the 360's lack of larger format.
Rockstar devs complained about it with GTA4 and RDR,
Carmac also said the 360 is maxed out but the PS3 is not (I don't really care what he says though),
Ken Levine (Bioshock) said that the PS3 still has room to go and the 360 is done,
and Kojima says that the main reason why MGS4 never appeared on 360 was because the 360 couldn't handle it and the DVD format is too weak. MGS is NOT an exclusive series either like some people want to believe.
It's not always the format though, PC's can get away with it because PC's are more stronger obvously. But the 360 is not, combine weaker system with outdated format and you get 360.
The 360 is a dead system, MS will have to release a new Xbox soon, it can't keep up with games getting bigger and more powerful. MS doesn't support their systems though once they launch a new one, so 360 owners have no choice but to buy the next one.
only one i read of is gta 4, which were performing not as great as xbox , which also goes for rdr both not HD sorry to burst that bubble..
Care to show link of that, because ive seen many sites thats says something else ?!
Link?
You do know the "game" doesnt fill very much right ?, its sounds languages etc etc and uncompressed files
Funny enough i must say, its still beating ps3 this day just sayin'
Alsowhy is it that people think multiplat would be better if developed on ps3(its not alien technology guys) lulz ? also care to explain why pc isnt light years ahead then ?, seriously shadow you are talking out of your ass ..
None. A game doesn't have to be on one DVD. Most modern PC games use DVDs too, 360 isn't the only platform that uses the format.vashkey
PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.arkephonic
Developers make games with the 360 in mind as if it didn't have a harddrive, because they need to account for the lowest common denominator. They need to make sure that every person in every scenario will be able to play their game. The 360 using a DVD format with no harddrive limits developers immensely.
[QUOTE="vashkey"]None. A game doesn't have to be on one DVD. Most modern PC games use DVDs too, 360 isn't the only platform that uses the format.arkephonic
PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.arkephonic
Developers make games with the 360 in mind as if it didn't have a harddrive, because they need to account for the lowest common denominator. They need to make sure that every person in every scenario will be able to play their game. The 360 using a DVD format with no harddrive limits developers immensely.
care to show me a link of that ?, cuz that doesnt explain anything only thing that xbox is missing is high res cut scenes which isnt used anyway in most games , 7.1 sound etc .. most games (i mean the game it self doesnt take much space really) so no dvds doesnt hold anything back..
Man, I dare say everything was held back and dumbed down this gen because of the 360. Devs have repeated over and over again to cutting content because of the 360's dvd format. Such a pity. At least we got the PS3 exclusives.ispeakfact
And people always jump the gun and bring PC into the conversation, but the difference is that PCs all have harddrives, no matter what. Developers need to take into account that not all 360s have harddrives, which means that they develop the games taking the lowest common denominator into account, because they need to make sure that their games run for every person, on every system in every scenario, aka the 360 using a DVD format without a harddrive.
Then you add on the fact that Microsoft's way of countering blu ray is actually by detering developers from putting their games on multiple DVDs. The are able to do this by charging developers a ridiculous amount per additional proprietary 360 disc used, along with paying ridiculous licensing fees per additional DVD, and developers make it a point to compress and cut as much content as possible because they don't want to be hit with these fees. Despite popular belief, developers do care about money.
Those licensing fees for additional proprietary 360 DVDs does not affect PC either, so that along with the harddrive really makes PC a bad comparison.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]
Do you have any links to support these claims? I would think that if "many" developers complain about how weak the 360 is it should be easy enough for you to find. +20 points if you do.
Strutten
I could but GS never let's me link anything, it's too much of a hassel trying to get it to work. It always says "error" and some other stupid stuff, it puts me at a disadvantage on here. However if it would work I would own these discussions.
But anyway alot of devs have said things and complained about the 360's lack of larger format.
Rockstar devs complained about it with GTA4 and RDR,
Carmac also said the 360 is maxed out but the PS3 is not (I don't really care what he says though),
Ken Levine (Bioshock) said that the PS3 still has room to go and the 360 is done,
and Kojima says that the main reason why MGS4 never appeared on 360 was because the 360 couldn't handle it and the DVD format is too weak. MGS is NOT an exclusive series either like some people want to believe.
It's not always the format though, PC's can get away with it because PC's are more stronger obvously. But the 360 is not, combine weaker system with outdated format and you get 360.
The 360 is a dead system, MS will have to release a new Xbox soon, it can't keep up with games getting bigger and more powerful. MS doesn't support their systems though once they launch a new one, so 360 owners have no choice but to buy the next one.
only one i read of is gta 4, which were performing not as great as xbox , which also goes for rdr both not HD sorry to burst that bubble..
Care to show link of that, because ive seen many sites thats says something else ?!
Link?
You do know the "game" doesnt fill very much right ?, its sounds languages etc etc and uncompressed files
Funny enough i must say, its still beating ps3 this day just sayin'
Alsowhy is it that people think multiplat would be better if developed on ps3(its not alien technology guys) lulz ? also care to explain why pc isnt light years ahead then ?, seriously shadow you are talking out of your ass ..
GTA 4 was better on PS3, xbox was not performing as great as PS3, just like 99% of multiplats. RDR is better on PS3, more content and gang hideouts.Sorry you paid the same price for less content, I'm too intelligent to do that.
Carmac is just one dev, there are plenty of others with different opinions. The bad devs prefer 360, the best deves prefer PS3, which is why the best games like Uncharted are on PS3. Not 360, because the devs have no talent and the system is too weak.
Link is from Zelda, a good game series abott a guy who wants to save a girl (something xbox guys are afraid of). Far better than anything on Xbox.
MGS4 is too powerful for the inferior 360 to handle. It would probably blow up or be on 12 discs or something. Xbox sucks, get over it. Buy a PS3 if you want better games.
Have fun playing Kinect next gen, because that's all MS cares about.
I am talking out of my ass, just like you and everyone else here.
Man, I dare say everything was held back and dumbed down this gen because of the 360. Devs have repeated over and over again to cutting content because of the 360's dvd format. Such a pity. At least we got the PS3 exclusives.ispeakfact
over and over again think its around 3-6 games +/- out of what 1000+ games ? sure some have which mostly have been capcom, really dont believe that sh*t.. just excuse to add dlc and earn xtra $$.. and no ps3 its that much better really not much content atleast not more that pc or xbox for that matter.. people really think that size makes better games huh ? its uncompressed files, 7.1 audio, and high res cut-scenes which most skip anyway ?
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="vashkey"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.Strutten
Developers make games with the 360 in mind as if it didn't have a harddrive, because they need to account for the lowest common denominator. They need to make sure that every person in every scenario will be able to play their game. The 360 using a DVD format with no harddrive limits developers immensely.
care to show me a link of that ?, cuz that doesnt explain anything only thing that xbox is missing is high res cut scenes which isnt used anyway in most games , 7.1 sound etc .. most games (i mean the game it self doesnt take much space really) so no dvds doesnt hold anything back..
Is that why so many developers have gone on record, complaining about the DVD space constraints, and complaining about Microsoft's licensing fees for additional DVDs used in games, which directly affect their games?
Sounds like someone didn't read page 1, and just jumped in this thread to chime uneducated opinions.
shadowmoose makes about as much sense as smacking urself in the face.
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="vashkey"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]PC comparison doesn't work because they all have harddrives, and developers aren't forced to pay Microsoft extreme licensing fees per additional DVD used on PC games, something that deters developers from making multi-disc games on 360.Strutten
Developers make games with the 360 in mind as if it didn't have a harddrive, because they need to account for the lowest common denominator. They need to make sure that every person in every scenario will be able to play their game. The 360 using a DVD format with no harddrive limits developers immensely.
care to show me a link of that ?, cuz that doesnt explain anything only thing that xbox is missing is high res cut scenes which isnt used anyway in most games , 7.1 sound etc .. most games (i mean the game it self doesnt take much space really) so no dvds doesnt hold anything back..
Just an example:
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]Man, I dare say everything was held back and dumbed down this gen because of the 360. Devs have repeated over and over again to cutting content because of the 360's dvd format. Such a pity. At least we got the PS3 exclusives.Strutten
over and over again think its around 3-6 games +/- out of what 1000+ games ? sure some have which mostly have been capcom, really dont believe that sh*t.. just excuse to add dlc and earn xtra $$.. and no ps3 its that much better really not much content atleast not more that pc or xbox for that matter.. people really think that size makes better games huh ? its uncompressed files, 7.1 audio, and high res cut-scenes which most skip anyway ?
Observe post above this one.
shadowmoose makes about as much sense as smacking urself in the face.
heeeeeeeeeweeee
Take some notes, this is how you do it.
[QUOTE="Strutten"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I could but GS never let's me link anything, it's too much of a hassel trying to get it to work. It always says "error" and some other stupid stuff, it puts me at a disadvantage on here. However if it would work I would own these discussions.
But anyway alot of devs have said things and complained about the 360's lack of larger format.
Rockstar devs complained about it with GTA4 and RDR,
Carmac also said the 360 is maxed out but the PS3 is not (I don't really care what he says though),
Ken Levine (Bioshock) said that the PS3 still has room to go and the 360 is done,
and Kojima says that the main reason why MGS4 never appeared on 360 was because the 360 couldn't handle it and the DVD format is too weak. MGS is NOT an exclusive series either like some people want to believe.
It's not always the format though, PC's can get away with it because PC's are more stronger obvously. But the 360 is not, combine weaker system with outdated format and you get 360.
The 360 is a dead system, MS will have to release a new Xbox soon, it can't keep up with games getting bigger and more powerful. MS doesn't support their systems though once they launch a new one, so 360 owners have no choice but to buy the next one.
ShadowMoses900
only one i read of is gta 4, which were performing not as great as xbox , which also goes for rdr both not HD sorry to burst that bubble..
Care to show link of that, because ive seen many sites thats says something else ?!
Link?
You do know the "game" doesnt fill very much right ?, its sounds languages etc etc and uncompressed files
Funny enough i must say, its still beating ps3 this day just sayin'
Alsowhy is it that people think multiplat would be better if developed on ps3(its not alien technology guys) lulz ? also care to explain why pc isnt light years ahead then ?, seriously shadow you are talking out of your ass ..
GTA 4 was better on PS3, xbox was not performing as great as PS3, just like 99% of multiplats. RDR is better on PS3, more content and gang hideouts.Sorry you paid the same price for less content, I'm too intelligent to do that.
Carmac is just one dev, there are plenty of others with different opinions. The bad devs prefer 360, the best deves prefer PS3, which is why the best games like Uncharted are on PS3. Not 360, because the devs haveno talent and the system is too weak.
Link is from Zelda, a good game series. Far better than anything on Xbox.
MGS4 is too powerful for the inferior 360 to handle. It would probably blow up or be on 12 discs or something. Xbox sucks, get over it. Buy a PS3 if you want better games.
Have fun playing Kinect next gen, because that's all MS cares about.
I am talking out of my ass, just like you and everyone else here.
Hot damnintelligentyou say ?hahahah!, mate mate mate if they were identical, why would the xbox win like 80% of them if not more, you need to face the facts its not just "an xtra shadow behind an rock" its lower res, fps etc - i can actually provide links for that ? want em'
Its Carmack, care link - really seems like your talkin' out of your a** and best games you say like UC its great but easily challenge by gears for example all matter on opinon dont act like an douche.
Wouut you already failed on that. so by that logic its also better that anything on ps3.. show links or stop talking out of your a**?
MGS4 Could run on xbox no doubt, only thing that it could'nt is that its for ps3 and with uncompressed files, cut-scenes .. the game it self doesnt take much space you know, google it .
And yet its still beating the ps3? anyway i rather have games like halo gears which there is actually pretty packed with stuff.. even tho i would want twisted metal, lbp and uc on xbox(yes got ps3) ..
And no im actually not.. i can back up for my claims.. :cool:
[QUOTE="Strutten"]
[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]Man, I dare say everything was held back and dumbed down this gen because of the 360. Devs have repeated over and over again to cutting content because of the 360's dvd format. Such a pity. At least we got the PS3 exclusives.ispeakfact
over and over again think its around 3-6 games +/- out of what 1000+ games ? sure some have which mostly have been capcom, really dont believe that sh*t.. just excuse to add dlc and earn xtra $$.. and no ps3 its that much better really not much content atleast not more that pc or xbox for that matter.. people really think that size makes better games huh ? its uncompressed files, 7.1 audio, and high res cut-scenes which most skip anyway ?
Observe post above this one.
doesnt make sense.. :|
[QUOTE="Strutten"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
Developers make games with the 360 in mind as if it didn't have a harddrive, because they need to account for the lowest common denominator. They need to make sure that every person in every scenario will be able to play their game. The 360 using a DVD format with no harddrive limits developers immensely.
ispeakfact
care to show me a link of that ?, cuz that doesnt explain anything only thing that xbox is missing is high res cut scenes which isnt used anyway in most games , 7.1 sound etc .. most games (i mean the game it self doesnt take much space really) so no dvds doesnt hold anything back..
Just an example:
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
Not only that, but the actual finished product, the finished games that developers release are often altered across all platforms because of the 360. Like I said earlier, they need to make sure that their multi-platform game is capable of running on all the hardware it is releasing on, under every circumstance. Because of this, they usually develop on the 360 as lead platform, as it is the weakest. They need to make sure that their game can run on a 360, using a DVD drive without a harddrive installed, streaming directly off the DVD.
To make matters worse, Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray is by trying to persuade developers to not use additional DVDs in their games. The way that they do this, is by charging a ridiculous amount in licensing fees per additional DVD used, which are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. This is why PC is not a good comparison, because PCs all have harddrives and PC games are not hit with these proprietary MS licensing fees per additional DVD used.
It's obvious that developers care about the licensing fees they're required to pay for using additional DVDs.
Look at the link that was just posted.
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
"When Demon's Souls was released several years ago by Atlus in North America, it was a PS3 Exclusive. With the follow up title, Dark Souls coming this year, it will no longer be a PS3 exclusive title as a Xbox 360 version is coming as well. Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?
While playing the demo of Dark Souls at the Namco Bandai booth today at the E3 show floor, one of the questions I asked to the Namco Bandai representative is to what are the sacrifices From Software had to do in order to put it on the Xbox 360. A simple answer given to us is, "a lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".
When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds. Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port."
So this just goes to show that From Software, a smaller development team that doesn't have indispensable cash, made their game worse in order to fit it onto 1 DVD, because they didn't want to get hit with the licensing fees for using additional DVDs.
The real question is, how common has this exact scenario been this generation? I think it has been a lot more common that people would be led to believe.
[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]
[QUOTE="Strutten"]
care to show me a link of that ?, cuz that doesnt explain anything only thing that xbox is missing is high res cut scenes which isnt used anyway in most games , 7.1 sound etc .. most games (i mean the game it self doesnt take much space really) so no dvds doesnt hold anything back..arkephonic
Just an example:
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
Not only that, but the actual finished product, the finished games that developers release are often altered across all platforms because of the 360. Like I said earlier, they need to make sure that their multi-platform game is capable of running on all the hardware it is releasing on, under every circumstance. Because of this, they usually develop on the 360 as lead platform, as it is the weakest. They need to make sure that their game can run on a 360, using a DVD drive without a harddrive installed, streaming directly off the DVD.
To make matters worse, Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray is by trying to persuade developers to not use additional DVDs in their games. The way that they do this, is by charging a ridiculous amount in licensing fees per additional DVD used, which are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. This is why PC is not a good comparison, because PCs all have harddrives and PC games are not hit with these proprietary MS licensing fees per additional DVD used.
It's obvious that developers care about the licensing fees they're required to pay for using additional DVDs.
Look at the link that was just posted.
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
"When Demon's Souls was released several years ago by Atlus in North America, it was a PS3 Exclusive. With the follow up title, Dark Souls coming this year, it will no longer be a PS3 exclusive title as a Xbox 360 version is coming as well. Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?
While playing the demo of Dark Souls at the Namco Bandai booth today at the E3 show floor, one of the questions I asked to the Namco Bandai representative is to what are the sacrifices From Software had to do in order to put it on the Xbox 360. A simple answer given to us is, "a lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".
When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds. Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port."
So this just goes to show that From Software, a smaller development team that doesn't have indispensable cash, made their game worse in order to fit it onto 1 DVD, because they didn't want to get hit with the licensing fees for using additional DVDs.
The real question is, how common has this exact scenario been this generation? I think it has been a lot more common that people would be led to believe.
@ both
And yet they ended being identical ? and better if you like the world being connected .. imo dark is better game and, all there is to this article is assumption how it would run and perform and a very old one also ..
Quote from the site you link.
ever heard of lossless compression. This article is total bullsh*t.
Which is getting pretty common these days, i recommend that reading about the links you guys provide and knowing that they ended up being identical..
Want me to provide links from df or lot .. why quote that much when you guys know this .. fails :roll:
[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]
[QUOTE="Strutten"]
care to show me a link of that ?, cuz that doesnt explain anything only thing that xbox is missing is high res cut scenes which isnt used anyway in most games , 7.1 sound etc .. most games (i mean the game it self doesnt take much space really) so no dvds doesnt hold anything back..
arkephonic
Just an example:
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
Not only that, but the actual finished product, the finished games that developers release are often altered across all platforms because of the 360. Like I said earlier, they need to make sure that their multi-platform game is capable of running on all the hardware it is releasing on, under every circumstance. Because of this, they usually develop on the 360 as lead platform, as it is the weakest. They need to make sure that their game can run on a 360, using a DVD drive without a harddrive installed, streaming directly off the DVD.
To make matters worse, Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray is by trying to persuade developers to not use additional DVDs in their games. The way that they do this, is by charging a ridiculous amount in licensing fees per additional DVD used, which are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. This is why PC is not a good comparison, because PCs all have harddrives and PC games are not hit with these proprietary MS licensing fees per additional DVD used.
It's obvious that developers care about the licensing fees they're required to pay for using additional DVDs.
Look at the link that was just posted.
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
"When Demon's Souls was released several years ago by Atlus in North America, it was a PS3 Exclusive. With the follow up title, Dark Souls coming this year, it will no longer be a PS3 exclusive title as a Xbox 360 version is coming as well. Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?
While playing the demo of Dark Souls at the Namco Bandai booth today at the E3 show floor, one of the questions I asked to the Namco Bandai representative is to what are the sacrifices From Software had to do in order to put it on the Xbox 360. A simple answer given to us is, "a lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".
When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds. Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port."
So this just goes to show that From Software, a smaller development team that doesn't have indispensable cash, made their game worse in order to fit it onto 1 DVD, because they didn't want to get hit with the licensing fees for using additional DVDs.
The real question is, how common has this exact scenario been this generation? I think it has been a lot more common that people would be led to believe.
Digital Foundry's comparison:
"For the deciding vote, it's close enough for us to recommend either controller preference or the PS3 version's larger range of supported audio formats as more crucial points for consideration."
Seem the only difference is the fact that the PS3 version supports more languages, yep, miles apart :roll:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dark-souls-face-off?page=2
You guys are missing the point entirely.
Why didn't From Software just port the game over without using extreme compression? Why did they sacrifice audio and visual quality? It's because they didn't want to be hit with the licensing fees for using more than 1 DVD, that's the only reason.
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]
Just an example:
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
rilpas
Not only that, but the actual finished product, the finished games that developers release are often altered across all platforms because of the 360. Like I said earlier, they need to make sure that their multi-platform game is capable of running on all the hardware it is releasing on, under every circumstance. Because of this, they usually develop on the 360 as lead platform, as it is the weakest. They need to make sure that their game can run on a 360, using a DVD drive without a harddrive installed, streaming directly off the DVD.
To make matters worse, Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray is by trying to persuade developers to not use additional DVDs in their games. The way that they do this, is by charging a ridiculous amount in licensing fees per additional DVD used, which are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. This is why PC is not a good comparison, because PCs all have harddrives and PC games are not hit with these proprietary MS licensing fees per additional DVD used.
It's obvious that developers care about the licensing fees they're required to pay for using additional DVDs.
Look at the link that was just posted.
http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/
"When Demon's Souls was released several years ago by Atlus in North America, it was a PS3 Exclusive. With the follow up title, Dark Souls coming this year, it will no longer be a PS3 exclusive title as a Xbox 360 version is coming as well. Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?
While playing the demo of Dark Souls at the Namco Bandai booth today at the E3 show floor, one of the questions I asked to the Namco Bandai representative is to what are the sacrifices From Software had to do in order to put it on the Xbox 360. A simple answer given to us is, "a lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".
When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds. Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port."
So this just goes to show that From Software, a smaller development team that doesn't have indispensable cash, made their game worse in order to fit it onto 1 DVD, because they didn't want to get hit with the licensing fees for using additional DVDs.
The real question is, how common has this exact scenario been this generation? I think it has been a lot more common that people would be led to believe.
Digital Foundry's comparison:
"For the deciding vote, it's close enough for us to recommend either controller preference or the PS3 version's larger range of supported audio formats as more crucial points for consideration."
Seem the only difference is the fact that the PS3 version supports more languages, yep, miles apart :roll:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dark-souls-face-off?page=2
Really gotta bookmark this thread, thumbs up for providing df comparision - wonder what they will come with next .. :P
About zero.
Fizzman
This.
I wonder if people going on about how the 360 supposedly "held back" third party titles because of its DVD format realize that there's not a single PS3 exclusive that outpaces the best 360 exclusives in terms of content.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="Strutten"]
only one i read of is gta 4, which were performing not as great as xbox , which also goes for rdr both not HD sorry to burst that bubble..
Care to show link of that, because ive seen many sites thats says something else ?!
Link?
You do know the "game" doesnt fill very much right ?, its sounds languages etc etc and uncompressed files
Funny enough i must say, its still beating ps3 this day just sayin'
Alsowhy is it that people think multiplat would be better if developed on ps3(its not alien technology guys) lulz ? also care to explain why pc isnt light years ahead then ?, seriously shadow you are talking out of your ass ..Strutten
GTA 4 was better on PS3, xbox was not performing as great as PS3, just like 99% of multiplats. RDR is better on PS3, more content and gang hideouts.Sorry you paid the same price for less content, I'm too intelligent to do that.
Carmac is just one dev, there are plenty of others with different opinions. The bad devs prefer 360, the best deves prefer PS3, which is why the best games like Uncharted are on PS3. Not 360, because the devs haveno talent and the system is too weak.
Link is from Zelda, a good game series. Far better than anything on Xbox.
MGS4 is too powerful for the inferior 360 to handle. It would probably blow up or be on 12 discs or something. Xbox sucks, get over it. Buy a PS3 if you want better games.
Have fun playing Kinect next gen, because that's all MS cares about.
I am talking out of my ass, just like you and everyone else here.
Hot damnintelligentyou say ?hahahah!, mate mate mate if they were identical, why would the xbox win like 80% of them if not more, you need to face the facts its not just "an xtra shadow behind an rock" its lower res, fps etc - i can actually provide links for that ? want em'
Its Carmack, care link - really seems like your talkin' out of your a** and best games you say like UC its great but easily challenge by gears for example all matter on opinon dont act like an douche.
Wouut you already failed on that. so by that logic its also better that anything on ps3.. show links or stop talking out of your a**?
MGS4 Could run on xbox no doubt, only thing that it could'nt is that its for ps3 and with uncompressed files, cut-scenes .. the game it self doesnt take much space you know, google it .
And yet its still beating the ps3? anyway i rather have games like halo gears which there is actually pretty packed with stuff.. even tho i would want twisted metal, lbp and uc on xbox(yes got ps3) ..
And no im actually not.. i can back up for my claims.. :cool:
Xbox only "wins" on dumb fanboy sites like lens of truth or digital foundry. And it's always by something small and unnoticable, stuff that no one in real life cares about. RDR is better on PS3, it got more gang hideouts, you got nothing, I played both versions, not much of a difference like you want to believe. But the PS3 version kicks it's ass because it's on the PS3!
The PS3 version was WAY better, better controlls, better graphics, better sound, better nudity, better women, better sex scenes, betterhorsesand betteronline. You paid more for less, I paid less for more. Don't get mad, I'm Jewish so I know the value of money, unlike you Gentiles.
Carmack did not make Zelda, so why would Link have to do anything with him? Plus Kevin Butler >>> Carmack.
Again Link is from Zelda, a game about a MAN who LOVES a WOMAN and he tries to SAVE her. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? I know Xbox guys think women are a myth, but that's no reason to keep bringing up link so much. And there is only ONE Link, not a bunch, unless you count the cartoon one, but even he get's more action with the ladies than you guys do.
What do Xbox guys get? A purple computer lady? We PS3 guys get the real deal man, that's why I have 2 GF's! Just like Nathan Drake! The best video game charecter ever!
MGS4 would blow up an Xbox the moment you put the disc in, the 360 with it's outdated and inferior technology would RROD and explode. But the Blu Ray disc would be ok becuase it's indestructable, just like PS3! Unlike Xbox which breaks all the time, must be fun buying a bad product over and over again. Like I sad I'm Jewish so I know how the market and money works, and PS3 is the best system on the market and the most powerful.
You should buy a PS3, not only does it make it you cool. But it also makes you never want to play Xbox again. You would just end up selling it, your missing out man! Your missing out on the best video game system ever created, with the best games ever made, with the best Blu Ray, with the best graphics, with the best multiplats, with the best everything.
When you play PS3, you play with the best of the best! You are no longer a pesant like the Xbox guys, you are the elite, a nobel, you join a luxerious brotherhood and fraternity that has existed since about 1997.
You guys are missing the point entirely.
Why didn't From Software just port the game over without using extreme compression? Why did they sacrifice audio and visual quality? It's because they didn't want to be hit with the licensing fees for using more than 1 DVD, that's the only reason.
arkephonic
Show me these links "that they sacrificed visuals ? audio ye sure , i can live 5.1 , Dark souls wouldnt have looked any better if it was exclusive, ps3 was the lead platform.. even tho they did compress this games pretty much i'd say they did a pretty good job.. and no didnt miss the point - the article you linked was about assumptions and if it would be any good, which it did "Quote from same article" -
Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port.
Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment