How would you play Uncharted 2 (with all its glory) on 3 DVDs? At every three hours changing discs? And if you want to replay a certain level (to get all treasures) you will have to change discs? Think about that and imagine other situations for a Action/Adventure/Cinematic/Short/720p (native) game spanning two to three discs.

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.

Nah, they may never launch a Blu Ray drive, and if they did, about 12 GB of space on the disc will be taken up by security. So long as they can fit 8-9GB on a single disc they'd be happy to stick it out with DVD or similar for another generation. Direct Download is more important to them than optical disc delivery. They simply don't want developers to be able to have too much disc space and the growing game on demand services will probably ensure that most games never really go above 10GB for the forseeable future.

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.

umm that not true anymore, an more so as time will go on right now like alway's that depends on the Game mainly, and with HD being more an more of a target dynamic with current console game's ,it just may be more and more space for game's may be needed due to some limit's in boradband distribution infrastructure and DVD's limit per single and DL capacity, that's just something that you have way's to get past that hurdle but in most cases it is more expensive to do so. now granted not all game's will need anymore space than DL DVD's or more than say 4MB/sec of digital download speed to gather the game in a timely manner so yea not all but there will be plenty of game's being developed now and the future to make it a viability to have the notion you may indeed need the extra space or broadband speed.

just look at google's broadband investment for ISP  goal google want's to see if they can get : 100gb/sec speed , yes not everyone will have that or even Google may not exceed ANYWHERE NEAR that level. but it's an investment and a goal.

as for game's not going past 10GB i think that may be less true today than previous generation due to the way game's are being made today. more so than previous generation's.

example:

Minimum System Requirements

• Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista
• Processor: 1.0 Ghz
• RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB
• Hard Drive: 14GB
• Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible
• Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
• Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorX/product_info.html

When you specifically post this like: "Capcom has publically lamented having to cut large amounts of content from Lost Planet 2 in order to fit it onto the Xbox 360’s piddling DVD capacity without the game turning into a swapfest, but promises users will be able to buy everything they cut as DLC" what you write about isn't about Capcom alone, it is about how the XBox 360 cost the PS3 owners a full game experience.  It becomes about Microsoft.  If you do want to quote something, and have it focus specifically on that part, DON'T quote parts from an article... unless you also comment about that part being biased.  You do want this thread to also debate the disk capacities of the 360, even while you deny it now.  Oh, you cloak it in what Capcom says, but you really want that to be a bashing of the 360 platform.  And considering how this thread has gone, you have accomplished your mission.

Next generation the majority of the expenditure of developers in terms of the increased performance will be in relation to implementing 3D and running at 1920/1080 with 2GB being the maximum quantity of ram forseeable on a 128bit bus and being limited by the streaming speed of the opical media in terms of overall texture size. I doubt that there will be an increase in the quality of assets because almost all next generation games will have to run on current generation hardware.

MS Flight sim has a lower texture compression ratio than the Xbox 360 and they have to install the low, medium and high level textures. That game would probably fit onto a single 360 disc if they wanted to.

but the problem is its not just TEXTURES there is other parts that increase the over all required space that will be needed:

and example is:

Procedural Synthesis: gaming's fountain of youth?

by Ross Miller { Jul 12th 2006 at 6:15PM }

The above image is from .kkrieger, a game that with Unreal graphics less than 97 kilobytes in size ... for the entire game. So what is its secret? A technique known as procedural synthesis (or procedural generation) that, in a nutshell, uses clever and complex algorithms to make graphics, as opposed to pre-set artwork made by a design team. Thus, the procedural graphics are run by the processor and improve (or degrade) with the CPU speed. An example of a game based off this idea is Will Wright's Spore.

What if all games were made with procedural synthesis in mind? That's the question that About.com's Aaron Stanton is proposing. If a game is made entirely using algorithms, could an older console game look vastly improved
on a next-generation machine? Imagine Ocarina of Time looking like Twlight Princess.

While theoretically beneficial to consumers, it would be a logistical nightmare for developers and publishers. If Madden 2007's graphics and realism continued to improve with each generation and processor upgrade, what incentive could EA give for us to buy future annual installments? Stanton outlines the other issues associated with procedural synthesis, so be sure to check them out -- it is an interesting read.

so with small footprint like that way are not game developer's do that it's simple.

 the big problem is not so much that game could look very good because procedural generation looks very good no doubt

the problem with that is the unique art direction assets suffer because there is less of a unique feel of the envirement due to duplication vs the unique are being done by artist's instead of being automated.

which also mean's

" more space is need depending on what direction you want for your  game"

when you as a developer design's it.

it depend's on the developer mainly their skill and the results they can get over time.