Words Of Wisdom said: MikeB said: @ Entroper Honestly, if 90% of the 360s out there have hard drives, than what the hell is wrong with a developer putting out a game that requires a hard drive? They only lose 10% of their targeted userbase, and they gain whatever functionality they wanted to gain for their game. I agree that the Core system with no hard drive was a stupid idea by MS, but there's no reason that developers have to be hamstrung by this mistake. I agree, Microsoft should drop the Core, allow devs to require a harddrive if it's important for their games development. Existing Core users can upgrade if the game they want requires a harddrive. It ups the common strengths between PS3/360 cross platform development as well. Dropping the Core SKU at this point would be meaningless and the PR backlash from 360 Core owners were developers to begin requiring hard drive installations would be painful especially so for Microsoft considering how much damage RRoD has done both in terms of expenses paid to fix and potential sales lost. All in all it would be a stupid decision for Microsoft.  Just what I'd expect you to recommend.

I think it's a good idea, and if done right, could be a "win". No 360 is un-upgradable, so everyone who purchased one still has a path available to them for upgrade. Atm the 20 gig HD cost $90. If by the time one of these games came out, it cost $50, and in every game you sold that required an HD, you put a $20 rebate card in, I think most core users would be happy.

Upgrade your core with an HD for 30 bucks (provided you bought a game that required it). Who would complain about that? 

But, But, But MS gives people options like no need for hdd, no need for HD Disc, no need for wireless... Well done MS - thinking about your fan base. Well at least they got xbox live - that will be crap one day compared to psn (imo).

Words Of Wisdom said: MikeB said: @ Entroper Honestly, if 90% of the 360s out there have hard drives, than what the hell is wrong with a developer putting out a game that requires a hard drive? They only lose 10% of their targeted userbase, and they gain whatever functionality they wanted to gain for their game. I agree that the Core system with no hard drive was a stupid idea by MS, but there's no reason that developers have to be hamstrung by this mistake. I agree, Microsoft should drop the Core, allow devs to require a harddrive if it's important for their games development. Existing Core users can upgrade if the game they want requires a harddrive. It ups the common strengths between PS3/360 cross platform development as well. Dropping the Core SKU at this point would be meaningless and the PR backlash from 360 Core owners were developers to begin requiring hard drive installations would be painful especially so for Microsoft considering how much damage RRoD has done both in terms of expenses paid to fix and potential sales lost. All in all it would be a stupid decision for Microsoft. Just what I'd expect you to recommend.

I think you exaggerate, based on a sample over 95% or XBox owners already seem to own a harddrive. (91% Premium users + Elite users + some Core user which already upgraded). If the benefits are well explained and future games like Mass Effect would be able to run more like Uncharted (no harddrive install, no in-game loading, texture pop-ups near eliminated, etc) the bulk of the 360 userbase would be happy about the decision.

Also Microsoft has more than enough resources to offer the tiny Core/Arcade userbase who lack a harddrive a special offer, maybe provide them an oppertunity to buy one at cost price combined with a year free XBox Live subscription. But even if they didn't the situation wouldn't be much different as a game requiring a Eyetoy, Lightgun, etc upgrade. (Not all games would have to require a harddrive, just the ones where it makes obsolute sense for their development)

I will say that with MS trumpeting DLC for GTA IV they are making it look like the right choice is a 360 with a HDD drive, and therefore invalidating the notion of a 'core' unit without one.

If you're claiming the 'definative' version of a game, and that version requires a HDD, then you're pretty much admitting the 'definative' version of your console should include a HDD.

If most owners have an HDD then in truth you could almost take the view the 360 does have an HDD and assume the average cost is the console plus the drive. It also makes you wonder why they continue to insist developers try not to require one.

Mind you, the second a developer does use a HDD on a console it sparks of another 'I don't want installs on a console' debate as has happened with PS3 recently.

Reasonable said: I will say that with MS trumpeting DLC for GTA IV they are making it look like the right choice is a 360 with a HDD drive, and therefore invalidating the notion of a 'core' unit without one. If you're claiming the 'definative' version of a game, and that version requires a HDD, then you're pretty much admitting the 'definative' version of your console should include a HDD. If most owners have an HDD then in truth you could almost take the view the 360 does have an HDD and assume the average cost is the console plus the drive. It also makes you wonder why they continue to insist developers try not to require one. Mind you, the second a developer does use a HDD on a console it sparks of another 'I don't want installs on a console' debate as has happened with PS3 recently.

So many games have DLC that it's just a waste of money not to have a HD. Not to mention demos, downloadable games, trailers, etc. I love instals. I hate load times. Waiting once is far better. Those that don't like installs make no sense. Motorstorm needed an install badly. I get excited when I have to wait to install a game. How can you complain about less load time? *sigh*

Words Of Wisdom said: It's funny. Every time a PS3 developer puts a mandatory installation onto the PS3 hard-drive people whine and complain saying they don't want their console's hard drive used up in a PC-like fashion. Microsoft preempted third parties by not having a hard drive in all its SKUs so third parties can't rely on it and now developers are whining. What lame developers... if they want to make a freaking PC game, they should make one and stop whining about how the console isn't a PC.

You have to install PS3 games? are you fucking joking me?

weezy said: Words Of Wisdom said: It's funny. Every time a PS3 developer puts a mandatory installation onto the PS3 hard-drive people whine and complain saying they don't want their console's hard drive used up in a PC-like fashion. Microsoft preempted third parties by not having a hard drive in all its SKUs so third parties can't rely on it and now developers are whining. What lame developers... if they want to make a freaking PC game, they should make one and stop whining about how the console isn't a PC. You have to install PS3 games? are you fucking joking me?

Yep, thank goodness developers are taking advantaage of the hard drive more.

TheRealMafoo said: Bodhesatva said: It's an extreme example to prove a point. Here's the central question, Mafoo: Microsoft has already spent -- spent, not earned -- over 6 billion dollars in the last decade on gaming. They have spent money to sell us their product! Given that, at what point does it become unreasonable for us, as consumers, to insist that they aren't doing enough, and that they should have spent even more? I think you are missing my point. I have said nothing about cost. My argument has nothing to do with revenue. I think if MS had charged everyone more money for a 360, and then put a HD in every one of them (even if it was a 6 gig on the “core”) it would have been a smarter move. I am not asking MS to spend more, or provide us with more capability. My argument is when you take any component that’s vital to the development of a game (Hard Drive, Video Card, Ram, CPU, etc...) and then limit one of those core items on any console you sell, you reduce the value of that component in the ones that have it. For example, if in some 360’s at launch, MS sold units with 1 gig of ram, but then told developers that there games had to run on all consoles, you just greatly reduced the usefulness of that extra 512 Meg. Same thing is true with adding/removing a hard drive. Adding something like wireless, or an HDMI port later on is no big deal, it does not affect the development of games, but having or not having a hard drive is a different thing if you ask me.

I agree with this. Also, Bodhesatva, in another post you talked about people with the Core buying the ridiculously expensive HDD separately and recouping the expense for MS. First off, I think that literally tricking your customers into having to spend more money is a fucking reprehensible move. Moreover, if not for the Trojan Horse effect of the $300 price tag, having the Core doesn't even make sense! The Core cost $300 and came with a wired controller and no HDD (HDD sold separately for $100, memory card sold separately for (IIRC) $40). The Premium cost $400 and came with a wireless controller and an HDD. MS made no extra profit on people who bought a Core and an HDD over people who bought a Premium and in fact is out whatever it cost MS to make a different type of controller and color scheme, packaging, shipping two models to retail, shipping HDDs separately for retail, etc.

And then there are the people they tricked into thinking they could get a decent console when in fact they could never have [edit: much] XBL downloadable content, etc. (e.g. anything XBLA) without (effectively) buying up to the more expensive model. Boom, that's one of the 360's defining attributes, unattainable to the poor fool who bought a Core and a memory card.

[edit2:  There is obviously more than a little anger in this post, but rest assured that none of it is aimed at you, Bod.]

It confused me at the time of the 360's launch why the core lacked a Hard Drive and it confuses me now. This maybe wasn't as big a deal as it will be in the future when PS3 games become more powerful and 360 ports become harder and harder to acheive without this to use as a development tool.

 Everybody said that the Wii is not next gen due to it's lack of power and it's lack of hard drive but to basically disable the hard drive as a development tool cos devs have to adhere a model out there without a HDD when their own last gen model had a HDD as standard is just madness.

Even if Microsoft had said to developers okay you can make some games assume you need a Hard Drive but you have to get our consent before you make it and build the Core model so you can plug in any 3rd party Hard Drive or shove an SD slot in it so the user could go and get a 2Gig card for those games that require an install.

There were other options on the table and it bafflers me personally.

The horrible thing is that even the Wii has 512MB of internal storage. The Core had NONE.

And the Wii also has an SD slot for people to have their own additional storage, at a cheaper price.  (Although, unfortunately, unlike the Core, games cannot be played from that storage at present.)