Ahh, so how here is about to be a hypocrite?

[Burgles]

montrealsoon said:

I am at a loss on how people can complain about mandatory installs (unless they are envious of such a feature which allows their system to respond faster). I could see a problem if a mandatory install was larger than the free space available on the smallest system (i.e., whatever the 20 GB PS3 had free). And how often are the installs more than a few gigabytes? Like it or not, creating two types of installs makes two testing branches to pay for, and PS3/360 games cost enough to develop now.

The new DVD install feature for the 360 is a great improvement, but it isn't as good as a well thought out install by the developer. Think of the install as being basically a cache for the most frequently accessed data; now, what the new 360 process does is copy all data on the DVD even if 80% is rarely (ever?) accessed. Add to that the vast majority of 360 owners have 20 GB drives, and using this feature will make the Wii storage look spacious (relatively, given the size of WiiWare titles).

Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent solution for the 360, but mandatory installs is a more efficient use of one's hard drive.

The trouble is with mandatory installs on the PS3 is that it doesn't actually install the whole game...They are just used as a shortcut for lazy developers (Can't blaim them)...

Coming from a PC background, installs are fantastic as far as I'm concerned...

Back in the old days when you had the option of how much of a game to install...I installed EVERYTHING for the games I liked a lot...

The point is, it was up to me. That is why Microsofts install option is better. You can play it from the disc (which works fine) or you can install your favourite games for a nice boost for your old titles in loading.

This is completely different to a mandatory install.