Capcom laments DVD capacity - Lost Planet 2 compromised

[Reasonable]

WilliamWatts said:

Reasonable said:

WilliamWatts said:

Reasonable said:

Oh c'mon, stop reaching.  Seriously.  If they're complaining about disk capacity it's not having enough space on BR, that's for sure.  It's entirely unplausible that they're having more trouble with BR capacity to store stuff more than once vs a single DVD.

OT - smells like an excuse for DLC for me, personally.  Why not release if free if its covered by the game's production costs?

If they did cut stuff due to DVD, it is annoying it won't be on the PS3 cut as I'm sure they feel both versions have to be identical, but then for most multiplatform titles the DVD is still used as the default size to aim for with final content levels - a few RPG titles aside.

I don't get why they don't just use more disks, though, with an option to install on the 360 if you want to remove any disk swapping.

Again, sounds to me like they're taking the suspicously easy money route to DLC vs other methods of solving this very solvable issue - if it's even accurate.

Microsoft charges extra royalties for extra discs, see Rage for example and John Carmacks statements relating. They could if they got their panties into a twist refuse to certify the Lost Planet 2 game for the Xbox 360 which would probably mean Capcom loses at least 60% of their sales.

I know extra disks costs more, my point was more that the DVD size for 360 is known well up-front, and waiting until well into development (as their quote implies) to make this decision isn't the best approach.  They should have either budgeted assets to remain on 1 DVD, accepted 2 DVDs and worked out their targets accordingly or worked with MS on other incentives.

If the 1 DVD is really becoming limiting, and given the 360 needs those titles to be on the platform more than ever, I actually don't know why the studios don't simply put pressure on MS around their charging scheme for multiple disks.  In truth the power is with the developers here not MS, MS doesn't have enough first party support nor enough install base globally to lay down the law right now.  I'm pretty sure they'd relax such charges if needed to keep the games on the 360.  The developers can also play the card that MS doesn't want the 360 to start appearing as limiting for games - which with Rage, FFXIII and now this is a very real danger.

TBH though my main point remains the same - if you know your goals beforehand it's not great design to break them so badly as implied.  This smacks of someone making a 3.5 hour film when the studio commissoned a 2 hour film.  You either fight the battle right up front and insist the film is going to be 3.5 hours and get it sorted out, or you rework the design to hit the target.

The other option that has just occured to me, but I believe it would break another MS mandate, is to have a mandatory install.  That way the entire game could be compressed on the disk then uncompressed when installed to the 360 HDD.

 

The IHV's do have a lot of sway over developers. I would say the two major rules Sony implemented "Though shalt not make the PS3 version worse than the Xbox 360 version" has really set the tone for the generation as far as multiplatform games are concerned. As well as "Though shalt put more content into thine PS3 version if it be late" so its not a hard stretch that "Thine shall not make games which span two discs unless thine desires additional royalties" Is a significant stop for them to use more than one disc and represents a significant expense. Lost Planet 2 doesn't have the same sway as say Rage because they expect up front that the sales will be heavily biased towards the Xbox 360 anyyway and the designer doesn't have the same sway with the media as Carmack - Tech god and extraordinary gentleman who drives a Tesla roadster. 

I don't see them as needing a justification for DLC and no reasonable game developer speaking to the media would court controversy, especially controversy which puts the main SKU into a negative light. In the case of Rage it was a case of 3 discs vs 2 and the embarrassment of multiple discs (for their image) escalates with the number of discs required. In addition to this, the engine was earmarked as something which multiple developers would use. So they compromised.

So if the developer courts controversy for no real gain then why does he do it? I suspect the content may have actually been important enough for him to feel the need to tell people about.

 

Your last point is what interests me about the comments the most.  It may just be me but if I was Capcom and I had all this extra cut content I'd keep quiet, release the game, state how bloody good it is, imply that I'd love to support the title further, then proudly annouce all this great DLC that's going to be delivered to expand an already great game.

With Rage I can understand how things crept out - and Carmack I love preciesly because he always speaks his mind and never spins stuff (he does have nice cars, doesn't he?) - but in this case Capcom, since they've clearly made the choice to stick to 1 DVD, could simply have kept their mouth shut, which would seem more sensible from a business perspective, but they didn't.

Now they've given the impression that:

1 - the game was comprimised because of 360 HW, which ain't going to please 360 fans nor MS

2 - the PS3 version didn't need to be comprimised but was anyway to remain consistent on each HD console, which ain't going to please PS3 fans nor Sony

3 - that they're going to make us buy the cut content which we'd actually have got with the title if they hadn't had to fit it on 1 DVD, which shouldn't please anyone who thinks about it whether you prefer 360 or PS3

 

Really odd thing to do IMHO.

 

Also, I know the HW guys have a lot of sway, but with PS3 struggling relative to PS2 and 360 down a bit YOY and reliant on third parties the most I reckon if they actually got together they could push back pretty heavily.

The PS3 examples you gave are actually not for all titles, nor rules the PS3 launched with so far as I know, but really a reaction to timed exclusives, and somewhat risky although they've paid of for Sony in the end.  I think those rules were aimed more at jRPG developers who Sony knew would look at 360 HW/SW sales in Japan and realize they had to bow down at bit and add stuff for the PS3 versions after going timed for MS initially - as I'd argue the 360 in the end never delivered enough sales for those titles to allow the developers to push back on Sony's ruling.

I know, or at least I accept there seems to be, pressure to stick to 1 DVD, but clearly it's not the same kind of rule Sony's mandatory ones (or other MS mandatory rules) as plenty (in ratio to the genre itself) of RPGs on 360 have had multiple disks, so clearly the precedence is there.  All the developers need to do is put pressure on the relaxation of any penalties for doing so.

I'm pretty sure if Capcom said LP2 was going to release with more content on PS3 due to BR MS would be more than happy to head that off by making it easy for them to use more disks for 360.  I honestly think the 360 needs the third party titles more than ever in its lifecycle so far, as it's already had it's big franchise launches, and with PS3 always essentially pacing it launch adjusted and growing in influence with developers after a shaky start MS simply can't have the DVD seen as limiting at this point.  If the PS3 were to start seeing more and more titles with better assets due to storage limitations it would really hurt the console at exactly the wrong moment pre-Natal and just after it dipped YOY raising the though it might just have passed the peak of its lifecycle curve.

Really, I doubt there will be a point again where third parties could push to change the rules/charges around DVD so readily if they wanted to try to.