| Level42 said: "The italicized part shows the major flaw in the argument against multi-disc games: did people EVER stop tolerating them IN THE FIRST PLACE? We didn't see games flopping that had multiple discs in the 6th gen, we simply saw fewer being made."
I think that with the coming of the DVD generation, people just expected not to have to use so many discs anymore. Except for the fact that movies frequently come in "2-disc special edition" sets, so most consumers know that DVDs still only hold so much, but those SEs are still being made, so they obviously aren't repulsing consumers. I was actually shocked when I'd come across a PS2 game with more than one disc. Certainly, multiple discs didn't hurt sales. The Final Fantasy games on the PS1 did phenomenally. However, those games were so linear that the developers could add on as much content as they liked and simply tack on another disc if they needed to. More open-ended games like GTA will be hindered as its developers try to cram it all onto a single disc, producing lower-quality textures, etc. Texture quality is limited by RAM and loading, not disc capacity. It's total number of textures that would be limited, which would be solved by reusing textures in different areas. My solution would have been utilizing the hard drive, but Microsoft really shot itself in the foot when it insisted on having both a DVD drive and a harddriveless SKU. What are they going to do? Maybe they'll just have to go back on their word and introduce "Harddrive Required!" games. It wouldn't be the first time a major console maker changed their minds as "the result of extensive research into the entertainment needs and preferences" of consumers. They can change their minds, but it's losing money that tends to drive developers away, not working around the disc size. |
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
