La Noire on 360 is 3 discs.

[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

Lol @ 90's tech. I don't listen to MC hammer, or use dial up internet anymore and I'm glad that the PS3 isn't straddled with technology from the same era.

c49thaine

That's hilarious considering the PS3 won't even connect to the internet anymore.

This game is $60 retail launch (maybe a discount).

I have both machines (check sig).

This game is being developed by Team Bondi of PS2 exclusive Getaway fame, and published by Rockstar of GTA fame.

I can either get :

L.A. Noire PS3 version with extra content that happens to be on one one Blu-Ray disc

OR

L.A. Noire 360 version sans the extra content but get three DVD discs.

I install all my 360 games to prevent wear and tear on my 360's. I also optionally install any PS3 games that allow for it (SF4 PS3 for example). Obviously, the rare mandatory installs as well (not that I wouldn't do it anyways).

Things I will also consider in my possible future purchase of L.A. Noire :

This game was a PS3 exclusive at one point, now it's not. Does that mean the PS3 version will have an edge or not? I have no idea. A lot of times the 360 has the advantage on multiplats (but recent exceptions like FFXIII and Portal 2 can also happen.)

I don't know the sound differences yet, but that also will factor into my purchase as I have 7.1 High end surround sound to consider.

--------

That's basically how I plan to break it down as a consumer when I do buy the game.

This game is $60.

I have both machines (check sig).

This game is being developed by Team Bondi of PS2 exclusive Getaway fame, and published by Rockstar of GTA fame.

I can either get :

L.A. NoirePS3 versionwith extra content that happens to be on one one Blu-Ray disc

OR

L.A. Noire 360 version sans the extra content but get three DVD discs.

Things I will also consider in my possible future purchase of L.A. Noire :

This game was a PS3 exclusive at one point, now it's not. Does that mean the PS3 version will have an edge or not? I have no idea. A lot of times the 360 has the advantage on multiplats (but recent exceptions like FFXIII and Portal 2 can also happen.)

I don't know the sound differences yet, but that also will factor into my purchase as I have 7.1 high end High end surround sound to consider.

--------

SolidTy

High end high end surround sound. That must of cost ya a lot. :P

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

This game is $60 retail launch (maybe a discount).

I have both machines (check sig).

This game is being developed by Team Bondi of PS2 exclusive Getaway fame, and published by Rockstar of GTA fame.

I can either get :

L.A. Noire PS3 version with extra content that happens to be on one one Blu-Ray disc

OR

L.A. Noire 360 version sans the extra content but get three DVD discs.

I install all my 360 games to prevent wear and tear on my 360's. I also optionally install any PS3 games that allow for it (SF4 PS3 for example). Obviously, the rare mandatory installs as well (not that I wouldn't do it anyways).

Things I will also consider in my possible future purchase of L.A. Noire :

This game was a PS3 exclusive at one point, now it's not. Does that mean the PS3 version will have an edge or not? I have no idea. A lot of times the 360 has the advantage on multiplats (but recent exceptions like FFXIII and Portal 2 can also happen.)

I don't know the sound differences yet, but that also will factor into my purchase as I have 7.1 High end surround sound to consider.

--------

That's basically how I plan to break it down as a consumer when I do buy the game.

Snugenz

High end high end surround sound. That must of cost ya a lot. :P

Yes, it was pricey.

However, like last gen's sound options (I had 5.1, moved that older AVR and speakers to Family Room), I don't mind it if I upgrade once every few years, and just pick up the occasional good deal on speakers. Also, the room I'm setting up is taken into consideration (Vaulted ceilings, walls, size of room, shape of room, et cetera.)

What is this? The 90's? 3 discs is sad as hell, I don't care what anyone says. :|Messiahbolical-

What is this? The 90's? 3 discs is sad as hell, I don't care what anyone says. :|Messiahbolical-

Do you have a 360?

This game is $60 retail launch (maybe a discount).

I have both machines (check sig).

This game is being developed by Team Bondi of PS2 exclusive Getaway fame, and published by Rockstar of GTA fame.

I can either get :

L.A. Noire PS3 version with extra content that happens to be on one one Blu-Ray disc

OR

L.A. Noire 360 version sans the extra content but get three DVD discs.

I install all my 360 games to prevent wear and tear on my 360's. I also optionally install any PS3 games that allow for it (SF4 PS3 for example). Obviously, the rare mandatory installs as well (not that I wouldn't do it anyways).

Things I will also consider in my possible future purchase of L.A. Noire :

This game was a PS3 exclusive at one point, now it's not. Does that mean the PS3 version will have an edge or not? I have no idea. A lot of times the 360 has the advantage on multiplats (but recent exceptions like FFXIII and Portal 2 can also happen.)

I don't know the sound differences yet, but that also will factor into my purchase as I have 7.1 High end surround sound to consider.

--------

That's basically how I plan to break it down as a consumer when I do buy the game.

SolidTy

after reading all that i'd go with the PS3 version. 3 disks with no extra content versus 1 disk and extra content. just makes more sense.

What is this? The 90's? 3 discs is sad as hell, I don't care what anyone says. :|Messiahbolical-

wow...i hope ur joking with this post. 3 disks isnt really a big deal.

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]What is this? The 90's? 3 discs is sad as hell, I don't care what anyone says. :|delta3074

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

This game is $60 retail launch (maybe a discount).

I have both machines (check sig).

This game is being developed by Team Bondi of PS2 exclusive Getaway fame, and published by Rockstar of GTA fame.

I can either get :

L.A. Noire PS3 version with extra content that happens to be on one one Blu-Ray disc

OR

L.A. Noire 360 version sans the extra content but get three DVD discs.

I install all my 360 games to prevent wear and tear on my 360's. I also optionally install any PS3 games that allow for it (SF4 PS3 for example). Obviously, the rare mandatory installs as well (not that I wouldn't do it anyways).

Things I will also consider in my possible future purchase of L.A. Noire :

This game was a PS3 exclusive at one point, now it's not. Does that mean the PS3 version will have an edge or not? I have no idea. A lot of times the 360 has the advantage on multiplats (but recent exceptions like FFXIII and Portal 2 can also happen.)

I don't know the sound differences yet, but that also will factor into my purchase as I have 7.1 High end surround sound to consider.

--------

That's basically how I plan to break it down as a consumer when I do buy the game.

LucidJubilation

after reading all that i'd go with the PS3 version. 3 disks with no extra content versus 1 disk and extra content. just makes more sense.

That's what I was thinking, thanks for your reply.

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]What is this? The 90's? 3 discs is sad as hell, I don't care what anyone says. :|LucidJubilation

wow...i hope ur joking with this post. 3 disks isnt really a big deal.

Oh wow.

I've said everything I feel needs to have been said already so....
I pre-ordered the PS3 version for £33.50 from The Hut in case Zavvi won't let me switch my £32.45 pre-order.

The ****? How did I miss this thread?

I find it hard to believethat there's 71 pages of people talking about disc swapping.

[QUOTE="LucidJubilation"]

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]What is this? The 90's? 3 discs is sad as hell, I don't care what anyone says. :|Messiahbolical-

wow...i hope ur joking with this post. 3 disks isnt really a big deal.

I'm lazy, i don't wanna swap disc if i don't have to thats why i own Ps3 :lol:

360owners maybe can install the game so they only need one? but other hand lemmings don't like installs :P

I wonder if they let you install it on drive like F3 so you can play with only one disk.Anyway,this seems to be the problem mostly because their motion capture tech is very very mamoth,not that other games will also start shipping in 3 disks.

And oh yea...71 page for disk swapping? :lol:

I'm lazy, i don't wanna swap disc if i don't have to thats why i own Ps3 :lol:

360owners maybe can install the game so they only need one? but other hand lemmings don't like installs :P

aroxx_ab

I'll be playing it on PS3 for 60 hrs straight and won't have to get up once, unless I need to go toilet, but that won't count I'm not changing the disc HA 360 users hope you enjoy your disc swapping

The ****? How did I miss this thread?

I find it hard to believethat there's 71 pages of people talking about disc swapping.

BigBoss154

Well its like MS can wave its magic wand and make every 360 out there play Blu-Ray disc'sSupabul

They had a lot of money invested into HD-DVD too, so I don't understand why they didn't just use that at the time.

And to be honest I'm not trying to make this into a big deal or anything, I don't really care about disc swapping that much... It's just that when you've owned a PS3 all gen, 3 discs for 1 game just seems laughable. It seems so "last gen". It seems like it's been years and years since I've had a game that required more than one disc. You'll never run into a game like that on the PS3 because Sony chose to go with the latest and greatest format out ther. And because of that choice, us PS3 owners don't have multi disc games... AND we don't have an epidemic of disc scratching as shown in this video. We get to watch Blu-ray as a bonus, and on top of that the PS3's first party developers have more options because of the extra space.

But IMO the most underrated feature of Blu-ray: The scratch protective coatings. They really work as advertised. I don't think one of my PS3 games or Blu-Ray movies has a single scratch on them... a lot of my games would be toast if they were on DVD as much as I've played some of them.

[QUOTE="Supabul"]Well its like MS can wave its magic wand and make every 360 out there play Blu-Ray disc'sMessiahbolical-

They had a lot of money invested into HD-DVD too, so I don't understand why they didn't just use that at the time.

And to be honest I'm not trying to make this into a big deal or anything, I don't really care about disc swapping that much... It's just that when you've owned a PS3 all gen, 3 discs for 1 game just seems laughable. It seems so "last gen". It seems like it's been years and years since I've had a game that required more than one disc. You'll never run into a game like that on the PS3 because Sony chose to go with the latest and greatest format out ther. And because of that choice, us PS3 owners don't have multi disc games... AND we don't have an epidemic of disc scratching as shown in this video. We get to watch Blu-ray as a bonus, and on top of that the PS3's first party developers have more options because of the extra space.

But IMO the most underrated feature of Blu-ray: The scratch protective coatings. They really work as advertised. I don't think one of my PS3 games or Blu-Ray movies has a single scratch on them... a lot of my games would be toast if they were on DVD as much as I've played some of them.

With that logic CDs would work fine too. Why not put the game on 37 CDs? The point is there's a better option out there so disk swapping shouldn't be necessary.jdt532

Exaggerating won't make your argument any stronger. Swapping discs 36 times is reasonably more bothersome than doing it twice. And that's the point, that devs can still make games on DVDs without needing more than a couple of swappings.

If we needed 37 DVDs you'd have a point, but we don't, we only need three, so the example of 37 CDs is completely out of touch with the (very specific) topic we're discussing.

Also there's the fact that most third party multi-platform games are on a single disk which makes you wounder if devs. are purposely holding out content so a game can fit on a single DVD.jdt532

If the devs thought the content was necessary for the game, they would simply use another DVD (just like this game). There are way more indicatives that show that content ishold back in order to be sold as DLC than it being because of storage issues.

[QUOTE="Supabul"]Well its like MS can wave its magic wand and make every 360 out there play Blu-Ray disc'sMessiahbolical-

They had a lot of money invested into HD-DVD too, so I don't understand why they didn't just use that at the time.

And to be honest I'm not trying to make this into a big deal or anything, I don't really care about disc swapping that much... It's just that when you've owned a PS3 all gen, 3 discs for 1 game just seems laughable. It seems so "last gen". It seems like it's been years and years since I've had a game that required more than one disc. You'll never run into a game like that on the PS3 because Sony chose to go with the latest and greatest format out ther. And because of that choice, us PS3 owners don't have multi disc games... AND we don't have an epidemic of disc scratching as shown in this video. We get to watch Blu-ray as a bonus, and on top of that the PS3's first party developers have more options because of the extra space.

But IMO the most underrated feature of Blu-ray: The scratch protective coatings. They really work as advertised. I don't think one of my PS3 games or Blu-Ray movies has a single scratch on them... a lot of my games would be toast if they were on DVD as much as I've played some of them.

Yeah lets add a whole extra $100 to or console on brand new Blu-Ray tech for those 3 or 4 games that use multi- discsSupabul

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]

[QUOTE="Supabul"]Well its like MS can wave its magic wand and make every 360 out there play Blu-Ray disc'snavyguy21

They had a lot of money invested into HD-DVD too, so I don't understand why they didn't just use that at the time.

And to be honest I'm not trying to make this into a big deal or anything, I don't really care about disc swapping that much... It's just that when you've owned a PS3 all gen, 3 discs for 1 game just seems laughable. It seems so "last gen". It seems like it's been years and years since I've had a game that required more than one disc. You'll never run into a game like that on the PS3 because Sony chose to go with the latest and greatest format out ther. And because of that choice, us PS3 owners don't have multi disc games... AND we don't have an epidemic of disc scratching as shown in this video. We get to watch Blu-ray as a bonus, and on top of that the PS3's first party developers have more options because of the extra space.

But IMO the most underrated feature of Blu-ray: The scratch protective coatings. They really work as advertised. I don't think one of my PS3 games or Blu-Ray movies has a single scratch on them... a lot of my games would be toast if they were on DVD as much as I've played some of them.

iF ms WAS THAT INDIFFERENT THEY WOULD HAVE MADE A BLURAY PLAYER ADD-ON FOR THE 360. wHATEVER THE REASON, ms FAVORED HD DVD (Sry caps lock)

Anyway the bottom line is that MS fans have been marginalizing Bluray since the gen has started but clearly Bluray is an advantage for gaming. I love games that have great audio crispy cutscenes and are scratch resistant. And it's nice playing a bluray based game knowing that the dev made it without worring if they'd have to cram everything into a single DVD.

iF ms WAS THAT INDIFFERENT THEY WOULD HAVE MADE A BLURAY PLAYER ADD-ON FOR THE 360. wHATEVER THE REASON, ms FAVORED HD DVD (Sry caps lock)

Anyway the bottom line is that MS fans have been marginalizing Bluray since the gen has started but clearly Bluray is an advantage for gaming. I love games that have great audio crispy cutscenes and are scratch resistant. And it's nice playing a bluray based game knowing that the dev made it without worring if they'd have to cram everything into a single DVD.

Pray_to_me

Bluray players drove the price of the PS3 up. A bluray add on wouldve been $300+ at the time. Hardly a mass market price. Im not sure i understand the second part of your post.

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="navyguy21"] MS didnt have a lot of money invested in HD-DVD. They didnt invest in either because they didnt know which would win............which is why it wasnt in the console. MS VC-1 codec is/was being used in bluray AND HD-DVD, so they make money regardless. MS mere backed HD-DVD and made the add on. They didnt have money invested in it. If they had, they wouldve done like Sony and put it in the console. You should research this more before spreading misinformation.navyguy21

Well, actually, the Micro developed VC-1 codec was a touted advantage for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray at the beginning of the format war.

If that were true, they wouldve chose 8x players, which i think were out at the time. A 2x player works AGAINST the PS3 after adding so much data because it takes an eternity to read causing those installs.

navyguy21

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"] What difference does it make? You just stated yourself that their codec was being used in both formats... so using and helping popularize either format would've benefited them in the long run..SolidTy

Well, actually, the Micro developed VC-1 codec was a touted advantage for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray at the beginning of the format war.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

If that were true, they wouldve chose 8x players, which i think were out at the time. A 2x player works AGAINST the PS3 after adding so much data because it takes an eternity to read causing those installs.

Messiahbolical-

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]The difference is dont state things u know nothing about. As to the second part, these are businesses. They have risk assessment teams. It was in sony's best interest to put bluray in the PS3 from a business standpoint because sony was one of the creative founders behind it, so they had A LOT more invested in its success. MS didnt have a hand in HDDVD, so to them it was like supporting a college with donations. You dont go all in on something you dont have vested interest in. Thats a bad move from a business standpoint. You have to stop trying to look at this from a GAMING perspective because neither company did. If that were the case, Sony wouldve used a faster drive and REALLY showed the advantage of Bluray. a 2x drive is an equalizer because adding more data caused installs or having to duplicate data over the disc. Its not as you are trying to put it. navyguy21

Well, actually, the Micro developed VC-1 codec was a touted advantage for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray at the beginning of the format war.

The vast majority of HD-DVD's were encoded with the VC-1 codec whereas the early Blu-Ray titles used MPEG-2 (DVD's use), then Blu's later using VC-1 and AVC.

[QUOTE="Supabul"] Yeah lets add a whole extra $100 to or console on brand new Blu-Ray tech for those 3 or 4 games that use multi- discsMessiahbolical-

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Well, actually, the Micro developed VC-1 codec was a touted advantage for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray at the beginning of the format war.

SolidTy

The vast majority of HD-DVD's were encoded with the VC-1 codec whereas the early Blu-Ray titles used MPEG-2 (DVD's use), then Blu's later using VC-1 and AVC.

Solidty is correct, which is why most of the early Blu-ray re-encoded movies looked terrible compared to HD-DVD's, but once Blu-ray adopted the VC-1, it was pretty much the same.

[QUOTE="jdt532"]With that logic CDs would work fine too. Why not put the game on 37 CDs? The point is there's a better option out there so disk swapping shouldn't be necessary.IronBass

Exaggerating won't make your argument any stronger. Swapping discs 36 times is reasonably more bothersome than doing it twice. And that's the point, that devs can still make games on DVDs without needing more than a couple of swappings.

If we needed 37 DVDs you'd have a point, but we don't, we only need three, so the example of 37 CDs is completely out of touch with the (very specific) topic we're discussing.

Also there's the fact that most third party multi-platform games are on a single disk which makes you wounder if devs. are purposely holding out content so a game can fit on a single DVD.jdt532

If the devs thought the content was necessary for the game, they would simply use another DVD (just like this game). There are way more indicatives that show that content ishold back in order to be sold as DLC than it being because of storage issues.

You're right disk swapping isn't the issue here if a game is on 2,3,4+ DVDs so be it I don't mind disk swapping either. My main problem is that I believe allot of third party devs are purposely holding out content or designing a game from the start to fit on a single DVD. ID software has been on record saying that M$ charges extra royalties on multi-disk games and I see that as a big incentive to do everything you can to keep a game on one disk. So I can't help wondering how much content we've missed this generation because of M$'s BS policies and the fact that margins on video games are already slim before tacking on multi-disk penalties from M$.

You're right disk swapping isn't the issue here if a game is on 2,3,4+ DVDs so be it I don't mind disk swapping either. My main problem is that I believe allot of third party devs are purposely holding out content or designing a game from the start to fit on a single DVD. ID software has been on record saying that M$ charges extra royalties on multi-disk games and I see that as a big incentive to do everything you can to keep a game on one disk. So I can't help wondering how much content we've missed this generation because of M$'s BS policies and the fact that margins on video games are already slim before tacking on multi-disk penalties from M$.

jdt532

As I already said, there's little reason to believe that. Baseless speculation won't lead us anywhere. As I said, the behavior of most (if not all) publishers indicate that they hold content, regardless of the storage medium, in order to sell itas DLC.

Besides, I found something interesting about ID Soft.'s statement:

It was a simple kind of miscommunication. Microsoft does not charge a royalty per disc, but there is a cost of goods that goes along with manufacturing.that_guy_from_ID

As I already said, there's little reason to believe that. Baseless speculation won't lead us anywhere. As I said, the behavior of most (if not all) publishers indicate that they hold content, regardless of the storage medium, in order to sell itas DLC.

Besides, I found something interesting about ID Soft.'s statement:

[QUOTE="that_guy_from_ID"]It was a simple kind of miscommunication. Microsoft does not charge a royalty per disc, but there is a cost of goods that goes along with manufacturing.IronBass

Ok, first Carmack says the royalties that M$ would charge for a third disk is so high that it would be very prohibiting so they are instead struggling to figure out how to "cram" the game onto 2 DVDs then they quickly backpedaled saying it was a "miscommunication". Sure.... At the very least it seems like a real headache trying to figure out how to spread games out over multiple disks, a headache devs don't have to deal with on the PC and PS3.

Ok, first Carmack says the royalties that M$ would charge for a third disk is so high that it would be very prohibiting so they are instead struggling to figure out how to "cram" the game onto 2 DVDs then they quickly backpedaled saying it was a "miscommunication". Sure.... At the very least it seems like a real headache trying to figure out how to spread games out over multiple disks, a headache devs don't have to deal with on the PC and PS3.jdt532

Too bad for them?

Game developing is filled with this kind of obstacles, (developing for the PS3 per se was supposed to be"a real headache" not too long ago, for example), and it's evident that is a "headache" developers are going through quite well, so it pretty much confirms that DVDs still work perfectly fine for gamig.

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that compression is a huge cause for slow load times. Messiahbolical-

Did someone actually asked why MS didn't have HD-DVD from the start? Imagine the costs, the HD-DVD add on was 200 bucks alone.:|

Did someone actually asked why MS didn't have HD-DVD from the start? Imagine the costs, the HD-DVD add on was 200 bucks alone.:|

mitu123

it would have been exactly the same thing as what happened with the ps3, a $600 price tag with significantly higher production cost than that.

3 discs for a semi open world game !? Yeah this game was made for the PS3, lol. Blu-ray is definitely the future of gaming consoles(at least for another gen), screw DVD and DD.

Swift_Boss_A

Guess what? PC's still uses DVD's for storage when it comes to games, etc.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

You know, if true, why is ID even putting Rage on the 360 if you need 4 disks to play it? I can see it with an RPG but FPS??

Teufelhuhn

Well no, but it seems silly though. 4 disks for a FPS is unheard of unless some one can name a game on any console that was a FPS and requires at least a disk swap.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Did someone actually asked why MS didn't have HD-DVD from the start? Imagine the costs, the HD-DVD add on was 200 bucks alone.:|

theuncharted34

it would have been exactly the same thing as what happened with the ps3, a $600 price tag with significantly higher production cost than that.

[QUOTE="Swift_Boss_A"]

3 discs for a semi open world game !? Yeah this game was made for the PS3, lol. Blu-ray is definitely the future of gaming consoles(at least for another gen), screw DVD and DD.

Guess what? PC's still uses DVD's for storage when it comes to games, etc.

Nah man 3 discs:shock:?! I still can't believe this $%&@ :lol::lol:, now that's funny... I'm weak:P

360 version will be better because you will lose 20 calories.