| EdStation3 said: You doubt this?? Tell you that you are aware that games "get bigger". It's mantra...everyone knows this. 360 sealed it's fate with a shorter lifecycle when they went DVD. How many big PC titles are made on CD? They all jumped to DVD...you wouldn't buy a PC to game that has a CDROM drive. No, you'd have to upgrade a lot sooner because big PC developers will leave you behind a lot faster. They didn't say "Well almost every PC has a CDROM drive but not every PC has a DVDROM drive...let's make our games CD size"...no...they keep going with bigger games. |
I think you need to stop getting your logic from sonydefenseforce.com.
First of all, by that logic PC games would have switched to Blu-Rays by now? Have they? Any of them? Nope. What's more, how much space is being used on blurays? The only games using tons of space on these blu-rays are games with tons of cutscenes. I couldn't believe the original Mass Effect fit on a DVD, but due to the grand majority of the game not being prerendered, it could. All told, it's mostly only cutscene heavy RPGs that need tons of space - and even then, blurays are largely filled with redundant data (unnessecary on a DVD) to improve load times due to the relatively slow transfer rate of a BluRay drive.
In fact, the only type of games that would be limited on the 360 vs the PS3, are entirely open world games, lacking any linear storyline, that have a massive number of cutscenes. One of the closest things we have is Mass Effect 2, and they set up their game to only require 2 disk swaps during the playthrough. Yes, a couple disk swaps are nessecary, but considering the fact that 360 games, on average, load faster than PS3 games, I'd say it's a small price to pay.
Essay Pro