I’ve seen some of the recent debate over which is the better multi-platform (Xbox 360 and PS3) version, using the number of DVD's to a single Blu-ray as a factor of argument on this site.  Sadly, it has been blown out of proportion for the most part, and there is a reality everyone needs to face.

It’s just a fact that one disc as opposed to several is a convenience no matter how small of a convenience it is.  And do some blow it out of proportion?  Yes.  But what’s even more annoying is the “we’ve changed discs before back in the past” argument.  It’s now 2010, NOT 1995.  Developers and gamer have the option of Blu-ray NOW as opposed to multiple CD’s IN THE PAST as the only viable options aside from cartridges.  ANY of you who use the “we’ve changed discs before” argument is ONLY making excuses when a PS3 version of a game has the convenience of one Blu-ray.  And not everyone thinks that changing discs is a big idea when one disc is still preferable.  But whether you have that choice or not (usually due to console ownership or lack thereof), it’s still an advantage of convenience.  Did changing discs bothered me on Final Fantasy VII when I first bough my PSOne?  Never did.  Would I have preferred not to change them out now that I look back?  Of course if it could have been helped.  But since it was fine to switch CD’s back two generations ago maybe we should have stuck with CD's for last generation and NOT have used DVD’s while continuing to use CD’s now?  See, I didn’t think so.  In principle, how much simpler can than be?  When the content is practically the came, the less discs the better.

aren't there enough threads right now that you can debate this subject in? Do you really need another one to have the same argument all over again?

sure everything on 1 disc is better, but disc swapping is not such a big deal..

people saying all PS3 games on 1 disc need installs are stupid to..

It did annoy me in ME 2, but that is compounded because my the need to install the discs to keep the noise and loading times down (though not after deaths for some reason), but I will live

I would chose 1 install over 2 installs and 2 discs, but of course the 2 installs are optional. But yes, if you have the option, the blu-ray is preferable, but it isn't a huge deal

If it's pretty much "linear" when you're changing discs (game is set up to not have to go back to disc one after inserting disc two), then I don't think it's a big deal either. Now if it's something like Star Ocean Xbox 360 from what I've read (haven't played either version), then I can see it being bothersome. Hopefully, that's the exception.

I dont mind swapping discs at all (only lazy ppl complain)

"But what’s even more annoying is the “we’ve changed discs before back in the past” argument. It’s now 2010, NOT 1995."
sure we are in 2010 so just thinking of why do i have to install games on PS3 makes me to scratch my head asking myself -why?-

multiple discs becaue I have the same 'can't read disc problem' as Squilliam has. If you then have to change disc in a game like Mass Effect 2 it annoys me like hell.

The moment people start bitching about being "forced" to switch discs of any game is the sign that those people need a good whack on the head.

We've reached a certain level of absurdity in behavioral patterns among gamers, especially the younger ones. How can you even try to convince anyone with a straight face that a game where you have one disc is better against the same game that's on multiple discs? 2 Just because you've become a sad lazy bum and you feel that you can't be bothered? How is this even serious?

@ OP
Yeah it's 2010, your point? we've had games on multiple cd's , we've had games on multiple dvds and you can be sure as hell that we're going to see games on multiple blu ray discs when all has been said and done, so don't go preaching about some misunderstood meaning of convenience. Especially when the amount of time the people might decide to spend installing ff 13 on the ps3 will end up being greater than switching dvds on the xbox.

The argument of "it doesn't bother me" is really just a way to forgo the point.
The same thing is said of the dualshock not needing batteries, or free online. You shouldn't care about these kinds of things, Jordy.
Even though psn is free, some 360 owners don't care. Some would rather have cross-game chat or some other triviality to justify not having a desirable feature. But you know already that it's only some who are like that, and not all 360 owners.
rechargeable controller? Who cares, I'll just go buy some rechargeable batteries.
Free online? Who cares, not enough people play ps3 games anyway.
BluRay? Who cares, I cannot see a difference between that and DVD anyway.
Hard Drive? Who cares, I have a computer for that.

It's just an endless argument against "I don't care", and it's a stupid argument at that; a folly to even engage in such banter. Nothing you can say will change anyone's mind.
And the same goes for PS3 owners as well. We make the same excuses. Better to just let sleeping dogs lie.

I don't think anyone's saying that single-disc isn't better. Given the choice between having a game on one disc or multiple, I think most would pick one. The argument is that having a game on multiple DVDs isn't 'that big' of a deal.