Well, I know that I, for one, play a console for its' simplicity. This is one of the reasons I don't have a single multiplatform PS3 game (along with Rumble and preferring Live). If I want to play a console game, I should just be able to toss the disc in and play. Sure, go ahead and give me an optional install that improves performance, but if I want to wait to play a game, I'll get a gaming PC.

*~Onna76~* said: I agree with Crazzyman and others as well and welcome back Lolita @bd... true, but then I'm too lazy to spit out over 100USD for a HDD

I don't think too many disagrees with you in general, but then again we run into the problem in the first place, which is the installs in general. 360 has two advantages in the matter, which are Core/Arcade without HDD, when the installs can be optional at best and medium with less storage capasity, which means that data has to be compressed in most cases, decreasing the disc to RAM times (which the HDD install aims too).

I'm not too bothered about installs, if none of us knew about them and they still happened (like it did with Oblivion with me, boom, 5GB on my HDD, since when?) I doubt many would complain.

And if they didnt happen, we'd be complaining about load times.

Unless Sony takes a stance iself devs are going to use the HDD. It's too tempting. Look up devs quietly moaning about lack of HDD on 360. If 360 had an HDD and MS did not mandate no installs you'd be installing just as much on that console too.

HDD install makes life easier for devs to get certain load times, etc. I suspect that most games on PS3 with installs could have had them cut but this would have taken additional development cost and effort (remember on 360 they have no choice but to make it work) and I figure a lot of devs just take the easy route.

It's no good pointing to BR speeds or the like as there are plenty of decent games such as Uncharted or R&C that seem to have very minor to no install and its completely transparent - all its takes is one proof point to show it can be done : but without pressure a lot of devs will use HDD anyway.

At least Sony used standard HDD so putting in more space is easy (I'm currently working with 250GB for example).

Oh, and would I prefer no installs - sure, in principle, although I don't mind if it boosts performance rather than serves as an easy out on further costs for devs.

I think that this problem will continue to exist as long as there is a limited amount of space and motivation to use that space.  As a long time PC gamer, there were many years where I had to manage my hard drive space carefully knowing that I could have that, that, and that on it but not this, this, or this.   I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me or is, at very most, a minor annoyance.

My problem with PS3 game installation (if I owned one) would be installation time.  When I sit down to play a console game, I want to play it and not wait for an installer to finish.   If I want to rapidly switch from game to game (as I often do), I would likely need a bigger hard drive or be forced to manage my space and then do more installations later.   Still, even on a PC at the height of things I don't normally do that many uninstalls/installs at a time.

Anywho, if I ever get a PS3 the first thing I'll be sure to do is put in a 100+Gb hard drive, but thanks anyway for the tip Onna.  It may or may not come in handy, but it's a new option all the same. 

The only problem I have with installations on consoles is that they're damn huge. 80 GB as the largest PS3 model can be filled up really fast, and it would suck to have to constantly get rid of crap just so you can install more.

That was a problem for me on PC years ago, but gradually I got bigger and bigger hard drives.

Now I'll have at least 500 GB on my PC at any time, up to 1.3 TB with my externals...an 8 GB demo even won't really make a difference to me.

Reasonable said: Unless Sony takes a stance iself devs are going to use the HDD. It's too tempting. Look up devs quietly moaning about lack of HDD on 360. If 360 had an HDD and MS did not mandate no installs you'd be installing just as much on that console too. HDD install makes life easier for devs to get certain load times, etc. I suspect that most games on PS3 with installs could have had them cut but this would have taken additional development cost and effort (remember on 360 they have no choice but to make it work) and I figure a lot of devs just take the easy route. It's no good pointing to BR speeds or the like as there are plenty of decent games such as Uncharted or R&C that seem to have very minor to no install and its completely transparent - all its takes is one proof point to show it can be done : but without pressure a lot of devs will use HDD anyway. At least Sony used standard HDD so putting in more space is easy (I'm currently working with 250GB for example). Oh, and would I prefer no installs - sure, in principle, although I don't mind if it boosts performance rather than serves as an easy out on further costs for devs.

 True. I think it would be best if Sony actually made a dev kit, which made it easier for developers to create an "Uncharted"-ish experience. There is no reason why the someone should invent the same stuff over and over again, even if this kit had to be licensed out, I think it would result in some good games using it. That combined with a shitstorm brought in by angry consumers running out of harddrive space would probably be very effective.

 Sony, go talk to Naughty Dog please ;)

Are install times on the PS3 such a big deal?

1) No. I do it all the time on my PS2. It takes up to 25 minutes to install a 4 gb game. Loading times in RE outbreak fall to 1-2 seconds instead of 7-10. I can walk away, watch TV, play the DS while it installs. I only lose 25 minutes if I chose to look at the TV while the game is installing. In some games, you save so much on loading times, that even losing 20 minutes would be a good deal.

2) Yes and it is insulting. Sony said we need Blu-Ray, it is the future. So why the there are install times? It would be cheaper to keep DVDs and use some of the of the Blu-Ray drive money on a big ass HDD. That way they could just put a shitload of compressed data on the DVD and make all installation mandatory. I know, what is the point of a PS3 if it just works as a PC? What is the point of discs with more space than a HDD if you still need a HDD to install some of its data?

ItsaMii said: Are install times on the PS3 such a big deal? 1) No. I do it all the time on my PS2. It takes up to 25 minutes to install a 4 gb game. Loading times in RE outbreak fall to 1-2 seconds instead of 7-10. I can walk away, watch TV, play the DS while it installs. I only lose 25 minutes if I chose to look at the TV while the game is installing. In some games, you save so much on loading times, that even losing 20 minutes would be a good deal. 2) Yes and it is insulting. Sony said we need Blu-Ray, it is the future. So why the there are install times? It would be cheaper to keep DVDs and use some of the of the Blu-Ray drive money on a big ass HDD. That way they could just put a shitload of compressed data on the DVD and make all installation mandatory. I know, what is the point of a PS3 if it just works as a PC? What is the point of discs with more space than a HDD if you still need a HDD to install some of its data?

 2) Plus, we have Uncharted which showed that installations are in fact not needed to make a game with no loading screens ;)

Sorry but installs are still annoying and yes, I will keep whining about it. The other day, I found I had less than 15 gigs left on my PS3 HDD and there was nothing there but installs and two demos.

I ended up spending an hour updating firmware, deleting installs, removing files, etc. from my 360, Wii, PS3, and PSP. That's ridiculous. I shouldn't have to spend that kind of time keeping my consoles up to date.