yea if 360 went HDDVD they would be way way behind in market share and would have lost way more money. Not exactly win/win. The only people that it helps is Sony.

for one the cost of an internal HD DVD drive is cheaper than an external, the other factor would be plenty of space 15 GB/layer and also the HD DVD drive is a CLV. the cost increase would be more for the xbox360 but over time like Blu-ray for game Asset's for developer's it would have been better. aside from the movie HD war, An HD DVD not getting top billing it's a d@mn fine format Esp. for data storeage.

and since a single layer HD DVD is 15 GB/single layer  the developer's publusher's would not have to pay a premium for multiple disc distribution.

I reckon Capcom is just trying to generate more money and make up for the poor sales and profit made from games such as Bionic Commando and Darkvoid. Hence resulting in Super Street Fighter IV and DLCs for LP2.

see that's the big problem, you say lost market share, an would have lost way more money would be a non win win, let's just examin that

one the xbox360 released before the PS3, so if HD DVD was installed right from the get go inside the xbox360 there would have been a jump start for Toshiba to have a much stronger relation, and more leverage to the movie production companies to go with HD DVD instead of Blu-Ray because a year's head start would have granted HD DVD more sales installbase. the same way it also helped the Blu-Ray format because of the PS3 being released right off the bat even though in 2003 Blu-Ray was first released to the consumer in Asia it was not released to everyone and was mainly for recording instead of used as a movie playback format until the Blu-Ray founder's decided one the spec's in 2004 for movie standard's for HD optical disc distribution. back than Blu-Ray was the favored format but If Microsoft would have gone with HD DVD for one Microsoft's IHD control scheme would be the main software for HD TOPSET BOXES instead of BD-java that Blu-ray player's and recorder's use.

than

Not only that but many of the developer's game's designed would have less of a problem with storage issue's for their project's IF HD DVD was used from the get go

this just boil's down too Microsoft knew there would be some risk both way's , though HD DVD would have been a much more of a risk, just like it was for Blu-Ray with more of an upfront cost for the unit but over time it prob. would have been a better over all choice even if Microsoft and Toshiba did not come out on top with HD DVD it still would have been an over all better solution in the long run over time than HD DVD for optical disc distribution cost's to developer's.

less cost's to your developer's and publisher's from 3rd party will make sure they are happy.

think about this for a sec.

not all game's for the PS3 need a DL-BD50 they can use a single sided single layer BD-25

even when Blu-Ray was first released that single layer BD-25 was cheaper than a DL-DVD 9 the cost per GB was cheaper it was not the same with BD-50's Though, but that right there would have reduced production cost's for developer's for the xbox360 because a single layer HD DVD disc is 15 GB it would be far cheaper than a DL-dvd 9, but it was a greater risk for sale of your unit because it would have slowd the sale's number's but it would have been reduced over time due to scale of production cost's being further reduced, but it would have cost upfront more but overtime the offset of the benefit's could have weighd heavy in their favor if Microsoft would have went with HD DVD. even IF like I stated Even IF HD DVD would have lost the developer's for 3rd party for the xbox360 would have been better off for a production cost reduct for their game's , yes that may not help out Microsoft money wise as much in the short run, but in the long run it help's make cost reduction for the developer's cost go down. an that's a good thing software sell's unit's and Microsoft's has sold ton's of software and will continue to do s.

Though the limitation of DVD will have more of an effect on some developer's project's, not all but some and those developer's would have liked I would gather if the xbox360's disc had 15 GB for a single disc. that would have made it cheaper.

instead of multi-disc project's.

That doesn't solve the market share issue, 360 would have been stomped if they released with HD DVD.  They would have been forced into a $600 launch price like the PS3 and a 2005 launch would have been impossible.  That is a recipe for epic fail.  Sony is the one who should have not put blu-ray in PS3, then we wouldn't even be talking about this, PS3 could have launched at $400 quite possibly making a profit from the start, and market share would have been much higher.

Instead we are arguing about tiny things like putting things on DLC instead of on the disc, and lower resolution FMVs and compressed sound.  That's really not worth the trouble. 

Disadvantages being of course cost, and only a single supplier which is what got them into trouble the first time around, they would say no thank you to that.

I have not seen anything which really shows that games are struggling for space as a major bottleneck behind such things as memory, bandwidth, shader power, texture power. They would of course have been better off improving a performance bottleneck before tackling something which may/may not be a problem in the latter half of the generation.

I kind of don't buy this. I mean, sure, I'm sure tons of games have had to cut content due to DVD size, but how much was cut is questionable in this case, along with the "but you can buy it as DLC" bullcrap.

Fact: Some companies are purposefully removing content so they can charge for it as DLC, and that has nothing to do with DVD size.

epic fail is not what i would call over 29+ million system's sold in under 4 year's a failure when this generation is pretty much just getting started.

see that's also kind of short sighted, To view it as such, would you call the xbox which sold 25 million in 4 years a failure? think about this since the xbox360 has been released the xbox360 in 5 year's has roughfly 37+ million system's world wide that mean's it grew it's install base by

that means 3 million install base was added per year to the xbox brand over its origional 25million xboxuser's since the brand was first started so in almostt 5 year's not they only grew by 12 million would you acall that a fail? I would not but some would.

I see many people seem to somehow think Sony expected to sell the PS3 at $500.00 and $600.00 to expect to be the market leader? There is no way they would have expected that , that's like saying car dealer's of the LINCON would expect it to sell more and faster than the town car! there is no way in hell that would happen

an there is no way in Hell in my Opinion that Sony did not know this.

In my opinion

this generation is more of a dynamic stable market that market share only inflates a false sense of we are number one "right now" but what happen's in 4 year's, 5 year's after you release the system.?

take this as an example:

when the new system's get released what happen's to your sale's of your current system?

in previous generation's there was more of a drive for an upgrad to the hardware sooner rather than later unless your in the number 1 spot., but on the same token there is more devices on the market than there was 5 year's ago all competing for your time as a gamer and your money. thus the market share will shrink per product, but not your over all market share. pointing out one product's market share is kind of pointless when your main product is expected to be on the shelf longer than 5 or 6 year's at a time. an this is not just one product when you have 3 or more it's going to already reduce each product's market share just with number of product's you have not even taking into account other product's.

that's why they have their business plan in place and it's more than a couple year's apart for console's since you know it's going to take more time to put out new system's

to think otherwise is pretty much going back and making changes to your plan more time's over.

this Generation has many thing's outside of the game's console's market that is directly effecting it and how that market is going forward.

example:

HD alot of people see, well there is few set's being sold of 1080p back in 2007 one of the many statement's blu-ray and HD DVD are not needed, but with the switch from Analog broadcast over to digital, there need's to be IF you want HD recording and HD playback to take advantage of HD broadcasting you need these new HD TV set's and HD upconversion DVD and or HD Optical disc playback. That is IF YOU WANT HD.

but if you notice even the main new's on regular TV is broadcast in HD now, the new studio's added extra function's for HD TV's to take advantage of more an more HD tv's are being produced and at a much cheaper cost.

Right now both The xbox360 and Playstation 3 are HD enabled system's but 3 to 4 year's from now how will each system hold up to their new counterpart's?

would the majority of current user's from each system's install base support the new system over the current?

what would make gamer's go out an buy the next upgraded box right away instead of waiting? would the next system so muchso overshadow the current system's that the current system sale's would dry up so fast there would be no room on the shelf for it?

UNlike previous generation's these systems today have the hardware and infrastructure to last much longer and be more of a viable solution on the shelf far longer than any previous generation of game console's. thus

saying FAIL this early in the console cycle is kind of premature to say the least

please read my post and try again.  That isn't even a response to my post.

it's not so much as a problem it's more of a logistic's thing, one only has to look at statement's from Carmack and other's like Rockstar game's

Example:

"The PC is limitless in the amount of data you can put on it," said Willits. "The PS3 has about 25GB. But the Xbox 360 roughly has 6 to 8 GB of data. We're hoping we can squeeze the game down to two discs for the 360 version."

According to Willits, the game was supposed to feature several wastelands for the player to explore. Because of the limitations of the Xbox 360's media, they had to cut down the wastelands to only two, which are themselves split into multiple instances. These changes have been made across all versions of Rage, not just the 360 port.

"I wouldn't say the overall story was changed in any way in order to fit on the Xbox 360 version," Willits said, "but how the player experiences Rage's story has been altered." Unfortunately, that means the experience has been altered across all platforms. This is one of the first signs we've received of the 360's older DVD media showing its age, but we expect some fans won't be terribly pleased that it's affecting other versions of the game as well.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169963

think about this they did not even talk about the BD-50 they talked about both the xbox360's and the PS3's base storage for their optical disc's storage capacity

notice what i pointed out before its cheaper for a single layer BD-25 for developer's than it is for ( 2 ) DL-DVD 9's

not only is that single layer  HD DVD would have been cheaper to produce an distribute this game on they would not have to worry about the space issue v's cost's to distribute the multi-production on multiple disc's. it's just one more thing that add's to the cost than the limitation that game's most of the time are locked in at $60.00 for a new release, multiple disc's eat into those cost's moreso than a single layer HD DVD 15  or Single layer BD 25