Snake bites sony

[Combine Hybrid]

because some people don't like to waste 500-600 bucks just to play MGS4...

 

[Fliko]

Why the hell do people care if a game is exclusive to a system? Shouldn't the only thing you care about be if you can play it on what you have or not?

Because they hate the 360 out of bias hate and want it to fail bad by making sure all games are exclusive to the PS3.

Oh, and you people are like "Coding will get better with the PS3, people will get use to the dev kit".
There's flaw in that, because the same thing is with the 360 Dev kit, as the PS3 advances, the 360 advances, probably even more so because it is much easier to work with.

 

[dream431ca]

Because they hate the 360 out of bias hate and want it to fail bad by making sure all games are exclusive to the PS3.

Oh, and you people are like "Coding will get better with the PS3, people will get use to the dev kit".
There's flaw in that, because the same thing is with the 360 Dev kit, as the PS3 advances, the 360 advances, probably even more so because it is much easier to work with.

The 360 has almost reached it's limit regarding the coding process. It's easy for developers to get it to run so they can enhance the graphics a lot faster too. The only problem with that is people who want to see better graphics on the 360 won't, because it's reached it's limit so fast.

MGS4 would be a breeze to make on the 360 compared to the PS3. You would just need about 4 disks (maybe 5) do fit all the data. (Kojima said that MGS4 takes up a huge portion of the blu-ray disk). Plus if MGS4 ever did come to the 360, it would be the extremely watered down version and I don't think people want that.

Another example is Lair. The developers said that the game takes up 28GB of the 50GB available on the blu-ray disk. If the developer wants to put a game of that size on the 360, it would take 3 full double layered DVD-9 disks to hold it.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

yeah man, switching discs is sooo last gen.

 

[Stigmata]

The 360 has almost reached it's limit regarding the coding process. It's easy for developers to get it to run so they can enhance the graphics a lot faster too. The only problem with that is people who want to see better graphics on the 360 won't, because it's reached it's limit so fast.

Neither console has reached its "limit". Compare Halo (Xbox launch title) and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (released three and a half years later), and the difference is enormous. Same with Gran Turismo 3 and God of War 2 on the PS2. Whether one console is easier to code for than the other is irrelevant. Neither console will hit 100% efficiency/power with any title, so games on the 360 and PS3 will continue to improve.

MGS4 would be a breeze to make on the 360 compared to the PS3. You would just need about 4 disks (maybe 5) do fit all the data. (Kojima said that MGS4 takes up a huge portion of the blu-ray disk).

Another example is Lair. The developers said that the game takes up 28GB of the 50GB available on the blu-ray disk. If the developer wants to put a game of that size on the 360, it would take 3 full double layered DVD-9 disks to hold it.

That's great for those games. However, I'd like to question why either one needs 30GB of data in order to be good. Seems to me that high-end PC games are barely scraping the limits of a single-layer DVD, and they're no worse for it.

Ten bucks says that all of the data over 7GB is pointlessly unique textures and FMV cutscenes.

 

[dream431ca]

Neither console has reached its "limit". Compare Halo (Xbox launch title) and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (released three and a half years later), and the difference is enormous. Same with Gran Turismo 3 and God of War 2 on the PS2. Whether one console is easier to code for than the other is irrelevant. Neither console will hit 100% efficiency/power with any title, so games on the 360 and PS3 will continue to improve.

That's great for those games. However, I'd like to question why either one needs 30GB of data in order to be good. Seems to me that high-end PC games are barely scraping the limits of a single-layer DVD, and they're no worse for it.

Ten bucks says that all of the data over 7GB is pointlessly unique textures and FMV cutscenes.

First of all I agree with you about the limit. It's the kind of coding that makes a difference.

Concerning the disk space, why do you need 30GB of space? Uncompressed HD textures and uncompressed HD sound. High end PC games, don't run off the disk, you install them to the HDD. The data on those disks are very heavily compressed.

 

[Gargantou]

No offense but I think Kojima is full of shit and just as bad at helping Sony hype as they are themselves, but we shall see.
The fact that both XB1 and PS2 supported DVD-9 DVDs and yet there were like only a small handful of games that actually made use of these discs leads me to question how much these early games will use'em.

 

[Qonfused]

Neither console has reached its "limit". Compare Halo (Xbox launch title) and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (released three and a half years later), and the difference is enormous. Same with Gran Turismo 3 and God of War 2 on the PS2. Whether one console is easier to code for than the other is irrelevant. Neither console will hit 100% efficiency/power with any title, so games on the 360 and PS3 will continue to improve.

That's great for those games. However, I'd like to question why either one needs 30GB of data in order to be good. Seems to me that high-end PC games are barely scraping the limits of a single-layer DVD, and they're no worse for it.

Ten bucks says that all of the data over 7GB is pointlessly unique textures and FMV cutscenes.

I agree 100% with this post.

 

[Stigmata]

Concerning the disk space, why do you need 30GB of space? Uncompressed HD textures and uncompressed HD sound. High end PC games, don't run off the disk, you install them to the HDD. The data on those disks are very heavily compressed.

Don't call them "HD textures" and "HD sound" to try and make them sound bigger. Textures are textures. "HD textures" are the exact same quality as PC game textures. HD is nothing but low-end PC resolutions on a console system. [edit: and sound is sound, they're all .wav files.] And I don't think that PS3 games are needing a whole lot of space for textures, considering how crappy a lot of them were in Resistance and are in Killzone. And once I install a game to my hard drive on PC, it rarely, if ever, goes over a 5GB install directory.

Also, most, if not all, games are at least somewhat bloated by content that was created for features cut from the final game. Unused textures, sounds, models, animations, and so on are almost always present on the disc. So if a game really does *require* over 9GB of data, maybe some of that fault lies with the developers not keeping track of what they're using.

 

[Qonfused]

The only times I've ever seen a game over 5GB on my hard drive are with MMOs. EQ2 took up 13GB after four expansion packs and Vanguard took up 16GB. But that's expected, really. MMOs are, well, massive.

 

[Bakurei]

I find these comments of dream431ca amusing. First it's the hardware that's reached the limit and now it's the coding? Could I see some hard proof? Maybe tech demos to prove this (with source code please, XNA hint hint). Actually making a statement that a console has reached it's limit after a year of it's release based on one game makes the whole agrument fall apart. YES, Cliff B did say that GoW uses 100% of the xbox's power. So if a game uses all the resources of the console, the console has reached it's limit, right? Then why could I code a version of Pong (with two colours) that will use 100% of my computers recources? Shit my computer just reached it's limit /wrists. :O

Xbox and the PS3 will start to reach their "limit" maybe in like 3-5 years.

We're talking about hardware that won't change, shit, even after 100 years if some one decides to make something with the console, he'll find a new faster way to do it. That's how coding works, it's about making innovations after another. Optimizing for solid hardware (consoles) is so much easier than with it is with pc's since you don't have to think about supporting last gen hardware nor do you have to think of possible hardware configurations (does he have an ATI/AMD GPU or Intel processor and Nvidia GPU).

Plus both of the consoles will get more features to play with due time. Like sometime ago there was some talk that the Xbox supports some parts of the DX10 (sounds true since it has the unified shader architecture). And that sources could be added to the dev kits so they could use them.

So let's stop these idiotic fanboy comments and shove our heads to our asses and wait for what's going to happen.

But still Carmack praised the Xbox, so it's better! HARHARHAR