| Shadow1980 said: One is a format, the other is an accessory. Therefore, they are not the same. We progressed through various formats out of practical necessity. We went from ROM cartridges to discs for console games because discs offered more space for more content (CDs held up to 700 MB, while N64 carts ranged from 8 to 20 MB), plus they were far cheaper to make. But even the PS1's CD format was not enough for some games to be fit on a single disc, so by necessity we transitioned to DVDs in the sixth generation beginning with the PS2. DVDs could hold a minimum of 4.7 GB, a 6.7 times increase, which increased the system's value to the customer. A double-layer DVD could hold an addition 4 GB. In addition, it allowed the PS2 to double as a DVD player. But file sizes continue to get bigger over time. Even 8.7 GB isn't enough for some game, as we saw with FFXIII, which was a 2-DVD game on the 360. Just as Sony saw the value in CDs with the PS1 and DVDs with the PS2, they again saw the value in the 25-50GB capacity of Blu-ray discs. It's a lot more economical to put your games on a single disc, and for some of the bigger games it could cost a few million extra dollars in manufacturing costs to produce a multi-disc game. It's probably one reason why MGS4 was never ported to the 360; it would have needed at least four discs. Of course, Blu-ray was Sony's format, so it makes sense they would use it, and it was a very new format at the time, so the 360 couldn't have practically adopted it. But as we see, the XBO uses Blu-ray now, and not just so the system can play movies. Long story short, the adoption of newer and better formats is necessary. The Kinect, however, was never something conceived out of practical necessity. It is a mere accessory, one with limited practical value and one that was created in response to the rise of motion gaming. It's of limited value as an input method for video gaming and as a method for navigating the UI. In nearly all cases, a simple press of a button on a gamepad will do better. Kinect subsists mainly on its "Wow!" factor, and not only is it unnecessary, it's technically optional. However, MS is adamant on including it with all XBOs instead of offering a second $400 Kinect-less SKU with the Kinect sold separately. Now, some may argue that bundling it with all systems incentivizes developers to add Kinect functionality with games. My counterargument would be the Wii: the Wii Remote was the default controller for the system and was as a result packaged with all systems. After 25 years of one failed attempt after another, his was the first time motion controls were truly viable. The Wiimote actually worked! But how many non-Nintendo games really did anything really mind-blowing with the Wiimote? Of course, accelerometer-based tech like the Wiimote and cameras like the Kinect are two different things, but I still think the end result will be much the same even though the Kinect is bundled. What possible mind-blowing, paradigm-shifting, totally indispensable "better-than-a-button-push" new thing could they add to a game like Halo? I imagine a select few developers can come up with something useful, but I'm not expecting anything that will come anywhere close to revolutionizing gaming. We've been waiting 25 years for something really awesome to come from motion controlsyet here we are, still waiting. Every now and then we get something that works well and is pretty cool — Super Mario Galaxy made very good use of the Wiimote, though even it would have been just as good had motion controls never been part of the equation —, but doesn't really do anything to advance the frontiers of gaming, and I don't think including Kinect with every XBO will encourage devs to eventually unlock its true potential (if it has any) any more than the Wiimote being the Wii's primary controller encouraged devs to do anything truly revolutionary with waggle-based controls. So, forgive me for thinking that the Kinect will still fail to catch on as the "Next Big Thing." There's little it can do that more traditional input methods can't already do, and the things only it can do will be at best supplementary yet largely unnecessary and likely just plain gimmicky. |
Thank You! You get it!
Also I want to mention something with the Wii. Wii-motes didn't bring the consoles price up magically, and by not using the Wii functionality, Wii motes work like traditional controllers. Plus if you really didn't like them, the Wii did have a Gamecube controller port, and allowed you to use Gamecube controllers on nearly every game.
With XBO and Kinect, if you don't use Kinect, it's just sitting there collecting dust. It doesn't have an alternative purpose, and it does reduce the price significantly (I hear the Kinect is 40% the price of the XBO) if you don't get it. So why are they forcing it upon us?
PS3 with BR was a design choice, Sony couldn't exactly make a discount PS3 which can play most non BR games. That would confuse people. As a side note, many of PS2's later games used duel layer DVD's, so it's fairly obvious that PS3 games would need more space. Sony didn't want to do the two disk thing like the 360 and Gamecube had, and I agree. Plus you get a Blu-Ray player, which is a free perk 
Mr Puggsly said:
I was clearly saying Bluray has made games worse. Good night everybody! |
How? How did Blu-Ray make games worse? Disk space is 5x larger, and reading speed is 5x faster too. Plus nowadays, the cost isn't that different, and I'm not sure if DVD's could transfer information fast enough to allow a 1080p game to process.
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results
