Xbox 360 is not a hardcore gamer's machine and has severe limitations.

The original xbox was top technology for it's time.The xbox 360 sadly just isnt.Why on earth is their not a hard drive in every xbox 360.If their was no core xbox 360 then 90% of the games would have shorter load times.Sadly microsoft went backwards and didnt have the confidence in their brand to sell at a higher price.But teh ps2 had no hard drive?Well it didnt need it as badly as the 360 needed it cuz sofisticated machines like 360 require a hard drive alot more than not-so sofisticated machines like the wii.GTA developer has also said it so really that's one big limitation for the 360.

But then comes the biggest limitation which is the 9GB only DVD9.Disk swapping is NOT EVEN an option for genres like racing,fighting and sandbox games.No matter what genre there are ALWAYS SOME gameplay limitations in disc swapping.

Ok disc swapping is not really a huge problem in linear action games or shooters.We have seen some of the best games in these categories on multiple discs.However RPG's will face some limitations due to disc swapping.I remember a place in FFX where the whole game world is open to you but with multiple discs i dont think that they would have included it.Forza motorsport would have been so much better with HD-DVD.Sorry but dont try to argue this.I mean the sounds effects are just TERRIBLE for a next gen game.Then their is no soundtrack because they ran out of space or what.And then the graphics could have been downgraded because of less space.

Xbox 360 is limiting GTA4 and Burnout 5.Well actually the gta developer himself said that 360's limited media format brings limitations to the table and well you have already known that gta4 will actually be smaller than san andreas because of 360.That just sucks.And as i said a game like burnout simply cannot use multiple discs.It's just sad that 360's powerful processor and graphics card and memory just cry for HD-DVD.

Xbox 360 is ruining this gen more than the wii.I dont see the wii getting many multiplatform games.It gets it's own games and somebody playing on a PC or ps3 will not in any way be affected by the inferior power of the wii.However somebody playing gta4 on a ps3 or PC will be directly afftected by the limitations of the xbox 360.

Some of the big games last year on the ps2 have actually been on multiple discs like gow2 and mgs3:subsistence.But as i said it is primarily these kind of games that do not get affected by disc swapping.But really a format which was getting maxed out on a damn ps2 is being used in the 1080p capable xbox 360.Really that's just not a hardcore machine for me and this is the reason why i got a ps3 over xbox 360.

not only is this thread completely pointless AND baseless, you choice of font and random caps locking hurt my eyes.

3/8 of an inch to turn off the caps lock.

Pretty much the meat and potatoes of this thread is, "a non-standard harddrive was a bad idea".

The rest was just, "Wah:cry:, I sure do hate the 360..."

"not a hardcore gamer's machine".

Wow, that's all I needed to see to know that this one wasn't going to fly.

Before I say anything I think the 360 is a good game machine, you obviously looking to piss off lems with this but I have to agree with you. The Ps3 is clearly "next gen" the 360 is a half-assed move into "next gen". Thing is the Wii never really claimed to be "next gen" but 360 did.

You essentially make one good point and that is that the Blu-Ray will allow developers to use the extra space and not be confined to 9 gigs. I would also like to add to what you said that the 360 limits what you can do with your system by its stupid rules. Your not allowed to change or add anything unless its xbox product which are generally low quality as well as over priced. You are not allowed to touch the OS or you get banned.

Also PS3 allowing the seamless sharing of PC to PS3 mods allows for a much better gaming experience as you make the game and system your own. I think that is truely the future of gaming, games come out, and you customize the experience to your likings not MS.

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

You could use exactly the same argument for the xbox and ps2 of last gen. Do you think the ps2 hurt last gen gaming? Obviously not. As far as disc swapping - the 360 has been out for almost 2 years and the current number of multiple disc game is?sonicare

I thought hardcore gamers cared more about games than fictional storage capacity issues.InsaneBasura

Owned. :lol:

Hasn't the Blu-Ray argument been defeated enough times now? Give it up TC.

You could use exactly the same argument for the xbox and ps2 of last gen. Do you think the ps2 hurt last gen gaming? Obviously not. As far as disc swapping - the 360 has been out for almost 2 years and the current number of multiple disc game is?sonicare

You took the words right out of my mouth. I get a kick out of how perceptions have changed this gen. Last gen the Xbox and Gamecube had clearly the superior hardware but PS2 had the games. This gen, MS has the games, Nintendo the "buzz factor", and Sony the arguable superior hardware. Seems like just deserts if you ask me...

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

thirstychainsaw

I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games. Also the load times mean little the amount of loading time difference is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, also if 360 is "next gen" why do it use a last gen format.

But really, answer the question: I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games?

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

thirstychainsaw

I dont care about that,i am a gamer and am willing to spend money to get a high end experience which ps3 will deliver.And btw ps3 has more third party support than any other gaming platform ATM.

And having to install games just like the PC would not sit well at allwith many gamers who prefer the plug and play style of console gaming.

All while the 360 beats the snot out of the PS3 in sales and in amount of games.

The wii is a great system as well.

farrell2k

Note about rpgs on the playstation in ff8 the entire world was open to travel to and there were four discs to swap between. I agree that disc swapping does limit games, but I mean it is not out of the question that even ffx could be multidisc it would just have to be coded slightly different, because even when you could travel throughougt the world on ffx the missions were not always accessible at that point.

I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games. Also the load times mean little the amount of loading time difference is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, also if 360 is "next gen" why do it use a last gen format.

But really, answer the question: I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games?

Izzy12345

Content is more important than the storage medium. Plus if they priced Blu-Ray games above $60 they'd sell less games/systems.

[QUOTE="thirstychainsaw"]

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

musacircuit

I dont care about that,i am a gamer and am willing to spend money to get a high end experience which ps3 will deliver.And btw ps3 has more third party support than any other gaming platform ATM.

And having to install games just like the PC would not sit well at allwith many gamers who prefer the plug and play style of console gaming.

"Yes i should prefer an inferior system just because it can sell well.:|"

Ironic, since judging from your love of Final Fantasy you bought a PS2.

And no, either the Wii or 360 has the most third party support.

I thought hardcore gamers cared more about games than fictional storage capacity issues.InsaneBasura

Not that cow! :lol:

[QUOTE="Izzy12345"]

I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games. Also the load times mean little the amount of loading time difference is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, also if 360 is "next gen" why do it use a last gen format.

But really, answer the question: I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games?

thirstychainsaw

Content is more important than the storage medium. Plus if they priced Blu-Ray games above $60 they'd sell less games/systems.

You speak of content meaning you are implying 360 has better games. OK, but I say isn't that subjective to a persons personal tastes. I like the games PS3 has to offer more. But that means little. I can get say fight night on both systems at an equal cost and they have the same content. So what's up with that?

Your probably tempted to say its because Sony is losing money on each game they publish, but possibly MS is charging you more for the games. The second seems more likley to me because X-box cannot get any good content from there own internal studios they shell out cash to steal from others be honest what franchise does X-box have that is worth stealing, Halo and possibly Gears.

360 has a major limitation by not having the HDD standard but it is a "hardcore" platform. Even though "hardcore" doesn't mean a damned thing and %95 of the games are dumbed down trash. For shooters 360 is a joke compared to PC. Hell even PS3 has the FragFX and KB/M support and mods in UT3.

[QUOTE="thirstychainsaw"][QUOTE="Izzy12345"]

I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games. Also the load times mean little the amount of loading time difference is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, also if 360 is "next gen" why do it use a last gen format.

But really, answer the question: I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games?

Izzy12345

Content is more important than the storage medium. Plus if they priced Blu-Ray games above $60 they'd sell less games/systems.

You speak of content meaning you are implying 360 has better games. OK, but I say isn't that subjective to a persons personal tastes. I like the games PS3 has to offer more. But that means little. I can get say fight night on both systems at an equal cost and they have the same content. So what's up with that?

Your probably tempted to say its because Sony is losing money on each game they publish, but possibly MS is charging you more for the games. The second seems more likley to me because X-box cannot get any good content from there own internal studios they shell out cash to steal from others be honest what franchise does X-box have that is worth stealing, Halo and possibly Gears.

I never said 360 had better games :|

It's simple business, people are willing to pay $60 for games so they are priced at $60. If Sony prices their games at $70 they won't sell as many games or systems because people will be buying them on the 360 instead.

[QUOTE="musacircuit"][QUOTE="thirstychainsaw"]

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

thirstychainsaw

I dont care about that,i am a gamer and am willing to spend money to get a high end experience which ps3 will deliver.And btw ps3 has more third party support than any other gaming platform ATM.

And having to install games just like the PC would not sit well at allwith many gamers who prefer the plug and play style of console gaming.

"Yes i should prefer an inferior system just because it can sell well.:|"

Ironic, since judging from your love of Final Fantasy you bought a PS2.

And no, either the Wii or 360 has the most third party support.

I actually started liking my xbox more than the ps2,i bought every multiplatform game for it,really liked the auto save feature using the hard drive which took less time to save.I just fell in love with the graphics and textures.I also really liked the longer cord on the controller.It's just those small things that made a difference.But just sadly only 6 months after buying the xbox microsoft announced the xbox 360 and i was just like i couldnt believe it.And xbox died so quickly it wasnt even funny:cry:.

And then when i thought the ps2 was also dead it gave me the year 2006.It just solidified forme that theps2 was the best console and better than the xbox but not by such a huge margin as the sales would suggest.

cows these days.... so desperate to prove people wrong :roll:

[QUOTE="Izzy12345"][QUOTE="thirstychainsaw"][QUOTE="Izzy12345"]

I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games. Also the load times mean little the amount of loading time difference is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, also if 360 is "next gen" why do it use a last gen format.

But really, answer the question: I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games?

thirstychainsaw

Content is more important than the storage medium. Plus if they priced Blu-Ray games above $60 they'd sell less games/systems.

You speak of content meaning you are implying 360 has better games. OK, but I say isn't that subjective to a persons personal tastes. I like the games PS3 has to offer more. But that means little. I can get say fight night on both systems at an equal cost and they have the same content. So what's up with that?

Your probably tempted to say its because Sony is losing money on each game they publish, but possibly MS is charging you more for the games. The second seems more likley to me because X-box cannot get any good content from there own internal studios they shell out cash to steal from others be honest what franchise does X-box have that is worth stealing, Halo and possibly Gears.

I never said 360 had better games :|

It's simple business, people are willing to pay $60 for games so they are priced at $60. If Sony prices their games at $70 they won't sell as many games or systems because people will be buying them on the 360 instead.

Which has better games is not the point, but my confusion is you said content what does that mean? The game, story, amount of data stored? The point I was trying to make is fight night is the same game, same characters, music, graphics, etc... But the Blu-Ray disc its burnt on costs about 3 times more than the DVD. You say Sony makes it that price to sell the games, Im telling the opposite argument why cant MS lower game prices since the medium cost 3 times less.

Perhaps they are making three times more games to meet the demand. Just thinking out loud I guess.

COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ICollegeStudent

you want to know something? dirt on pc needs 12.5gb so the dvd9 is basicly maxed now even with compression and how come geow is going to be about twice as long on pc? maybe becuase dvd9 lacks space. the fact is dvd9 just wont cut it in a years time

[QUOTE="ICollegeStudent"]COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!imprezawrx500

you want to know something? dirt on pc needs 12.5gb so the dvd9 is basicly maxed now even with compression and how come geow is going to be about twice as long on pc? maybe becuase dvd9 lacks space. the fact is dvd9 just wont cut it in a years time

That's true and also uncompressed stuff is usually better quality you always lose a little when you compress.

Like J said, if the dev used the HDD and all of the disk space last generation than they may have considered it.

Games like Oblivion ,Crackdown, Saints Row and Mass Effect were all fine on DVD9, I think what the devs said was blown out of proportion and was probably said a while back.

So no.

And with the 512mb memory cards I don't see a problem, you will probably see somthing like 512mb or HDD required.

Cow says Moooooooooooooo.

[QUOTE="thirstychainsaw"]

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

Izzy12345

I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games. Also the load times mean little the amount of loading time difference is measured in seconds, minutes or hours, also if 360 is "next gen" why do it use a last gen format.

But really, answer the question: I have a question blank DVDs discs cost ~8$ yet blank Blu ray costs arournd ~21$, yet 360 games cost as much as PS3 games?

The reason they cost the same is due to the cost to develop the content on the disc, not the raw cost of the disc itself.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the largest game on the Playstation 3 fits on half of a DVD9? And that no next-gen games have yet to go onto more than one disc, except for Blue Dragon which only had an extra disc because of FMV movies. The entire game world was on both discs, so you dont have to swap to go from one place to another, only one time once you hit that point in the story a la Final Fantasy.

So, the biggest game so far fits on half a DVD9, and as of yet no game requires more than one disc; yet we still have threads like these by cows all the time, harping on about the woes of storage and disc swapping?

i dont agree about the hardcore part, the xbox is hardcore, the wii also is hardcore ( i mean wimote WTF) its not related tho the hardware capabilities at all. i do agree that both 360 and ps3 rare ruining a lot of pc franchises ( ut3 is taking forever becouse of consoles and i bet its going to get nerfed, hl epc 2 the same, quake 4 was ruined ( horrible console textures even on super hig) colin mc rae dirt is compleatlry unplayable and clearly developed and optimized only for the consoles, oblivion dsnt look that good and requiers a really good pc ( the game looks like it should run on a 9600 pro, not impressive) i could go on forever.

bioshock... another ruined game

this thread is a miserable failure

can one persone tell me WHAT GAME OR GAMES REQUIRE DISC SWAPPING?!?!?!?!?!

I already know the answer but I wanna know what huckleberry here thinks otherwise

this thread is a miserable failure

can one persone tell me WHAT GAME OR GAMES REQUIRE DISC SWAPPING?!?!?!?!?!

I already know the answer but I wanna know what huckleberry here thinks otherwise

SegArgyle

oh yeah there is not one game on 360 that dosen't compete graphically with anything on ps3, you can't find one, and if you do that's your opinion and yours only

Oh noes! If it wasn't for Blu-Ray 90% of PS3 games would load faster and the PS3 would actually be an affordable gaming system, meaning more people would be buying it, meaning more developer support and why is the Blu-Ray even in the PS3? Take out Blu-Ray put in a larger hard drive and put games on DVDs and you'd have a $400 system, all you have to do is install part of the game onto the hard drive like PCs! :o

thirstychainsaw

blueray has nothing to do with loading times, and blueray is a great idea just wait till heavenly sword

The 360 has faster load times then the PS3 because Blu-Ray is not a proper media for games.

The same argument could be made for the PS2 of last-gen, could it not? The inferior hardware was holding back a lot of multiplat titles. It's the downside to an early console release.

And 98% of the gaming industry agrees with the core argument, so I don't need to share my obvious opinion on that topic.