Access times, seek times, read speeds are simply technical aspects to work within when developing for a given platform. Faster, slower, whatever, the differences aren't significant enough to be the issue many people are making it out to be.
The technical work around for the 360 is lack of HDD. Developers do what they can with limitations present and the resources allotted.
Personally, I can't say I've really seen any real benefit to publishing games on the BR-D format beyond having multiple low or non compressed audio tracks (good for international releases), as much as I like the format itself. Some games that exceeded the 8.54 GB storage of the DVD9 probably could have been cut down to fit on a regular DVD, not that I'd ever advocate dumping resources or cutting the length of a game to fit the media it's being published on.
The extra space does provide additional resources to developers, regardless of what any non-developer thinks. Bigger storage is always a plus, even if it means something as simple as less compression or not having to dump extra code or data resources in creating the final build.
What I do like about it is one disc, one game. I didn't like games with multiple CDs, and that didn't change with the DVD format. If or when we start seeing games published on multiple BR-Ds, then I can start wondering what the problem is.
In the meantime, it's still the best optical format to publish on. Less storage constraints. But anyone who thought it was supposed to be a magical format to provide a new level of gaming should probably skip drinking the PR Kool-Aid in the future when it comes to buying into new technology. Leads to unrealistic expectations and sometimes ill informed opinions.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
