The multiple disks issue has more to do with the developing of the game than the actual comodity of the consumer. Multiple disks mean that the content that is on one disk will not be available on the other disk so the possibilities of the game development is restrained.

This is the best post in this thread.

I don't think it's a big deal so as long as it's not a SO4 type of situation (needing to swap to back track). That doesn't mean that we should stick with the same media forever though because when you do that, eventually the situation will get out of hand (ie. can you imagine what it would be like if we still used CDs?). I wouldn't recommend the Next Box to stick with DL DVD for example. I'd recommend they use Blu-Ray since it'll be dirt cheap by then. Now for 2005/2006 when Blu-Ray cost a fortune, MS made the right move to stick with DL DVDs to keep their console at $400. Selling a game console at $500-600 is unacceptable. MS is starting to face some challenges now (assuming that Lost Planet 2 needs a second disc for actual game content and not CGI crap, then I can understand the need for more space) with DVD media but that could be rectified by starting to require hard drive installs for certain games (You'll need the HDD to download the Lost Planet 2 DLC anyway. You might as well put that content on a second disc and then require an installation) MS can then add a 20 GB hard drive to the Arcade SKU at no extra charge and then start selling a 20 GB HDD add-on for a reasonable price so existing Arcade and Core owners don't get shafted.

The idea of a Blu-Ray add-on doesn't appeal to me (can you imagine having an exteral blu-ray reader attached to the 360? What is this Sega CD/32X all over again? lol.) because a lot of Blu-Ray games require hard drive installs anyway due to slow read speeds. Hard drive installs are a better solution to Blu-Ray.

I see what you're saying, and what you're saying is an argument in itself.  That would be a bigger issue IMO, but we'll probably never know for sure every developers' intent while developing a game and how it's stored.  But after it's all said an done when a game goes gold is what I'm specifically referring to.

Agree...its a great advantage IMO. Not a deal breaker in any ways if there are multiple discs, and the game is good tough

I believe that a single disc is without a doubt preferable to just about anyone here, but at the same time I honestly feel that needing to swap discs isn't a big deal at all, especially in a 50+ hour JRPG.

Only exception however is Star Ocean because that just sucked.

Edit -

This may seem odd but for some reason if I am playing, let's say a JRPG and I am 40 hours in and then come to the point where I have to insert disc 3 of 4, I feel pretty damn good because I think I am only half way through the game.

So sometimes I actually enjoy having multiple discs.

Since when did disc changing become a big minus? I do not recall anyone caring before including myself.

The important thing here is that there is NO REASON to choose a multidisk version of you have the CHOICE of both. There, problem solved.

Less disk swapping is better.  However, to what extend do you gain by using multiple disks, if the swapping isn't that much?  Do you plan on leaving your disk in your console when you are done playing?  I wouldn't recommend doing this.

There is an issue of disk swapping vs having to do an install.  Is the install superior to a few disk swapping?  Is disk swapping a strong enough reason to buy a PS3 over a 360, if you really want 360 exclusives?  Answer that.

To me its always been annoying since I am always laying down or in a comfy spot playing and the tv is forever away and I just do not want to get up to swap a fucking disc. And now that it is 2010 and we have formats that give us the option of not disc-swapping, well use it.