I'm pretty sure I'm starting WWIII so I'm going to get some popcorn or something... anyway;

Both annoyances are a result of the format the PS3 and 360 are using. Is one more annoying than the other? Is it worth having Blu-ray if you have to waste 5 minutes before playing every game for the first time? Does the hd space run a risk of running out?

Or...

Is having to get up every few hours to change the dvd as annoying as dropping the remote? Do you hate swapping the disc at important moments in a game that feel like the cliff-hanger to a soap opera episode? (That's always when you seem to have to)

I personally don't care about either and haven't any problems in either way, but I've seen others with very strong opinions on this site. Please, tell me how you feel.

It's funny, I know what everyone will answer before hand.

Me, installs. I don't like to wait when I get a new game. And god forbid it if I have to wait to re-install an old game.

I know, I might as-well ask: are you a PS3 or 360 fanboy. The angrier you get the more hardcore you are!

swapping discs is worse than mandatory installs.

They both suck.

Installs involve a wait to get your game started for the first time. After that, you never feel them again, and you forget until the next one.

Swapping discs is a minor, but never-ending annoyance, so you can never escape it.

Personally, neither is worse. They both suck.

I think its pretty much on par, although if 360 games start regularly being something like 5 DVDs in the future that may annoy me...

I'm not a fanboy of either.

However, I'd rather swap discs, I think. What if my hard drive is full? What if I don't even have a hard drive or something (Arcade 360, maybe)? I'd have some serious issues with that game.

Swapping discs, although an annoyance, won't make the game unplayable.

Both suck in their own respects but swapping discs is worse. The point of a game is to completely immerse you within it without you breaking contact. Load times and swapping discs do this. Mandatory installs happen before you ever start the game and decrease load times till they are non existant as well as keeping graphical errors down, this only helps keep up the immersiveness throughout the entire game.

Yet I still dont like super long installs when it could have been smaller. Uncharted had a few mb for an install I think and the game ran smoothly. Then you get games like DMC that are not more technologically advance then Uncharted that take up 5gb, that is down right rediculous. The PS3 install has become a loop hole for developers to get lazy. That is NOT good...

Swapping discs is worse.

I'd actually rather have no discs at all, and have all my games downloaded straight to my console like Gran Turismo and Warhawk. It's just less of a hassle.

Installing games is a minor annoyance, you simply put the game in and switch on the TV while you wait. I usually end up becoming so engrossed in the TV that I forget about the game completely, and only end up coming back to it about 20 minutes later. Far longer a time period then it actually took to install.

I think miss Sony fan's point when debating on swapping discs for 360/last gen games and having a single BD disc. The issue is not really within "OH NOEZ IV HAVE TA GETS UP AND SWAP A DISC!" but the fact that you can fit all 4 discs of Lost Odyssey on one blue ray.LO suffered from framerate drops, lag, and just "OK" graphics because it was on DVD9 discs. I hear the game also does not allow you to travel to certain areas of the game when you get to the last disc because the simply could not fit the data. So imagine if the game was 4 BD discs. The game would be even more MASSIVE then ever, graphics could be better, game could be filled to the brim with more content. Now 4 BD discs is a little outrageous but that is the idea. If you want to make a game that spans multiple discs why not make a game that spans multiple discs and makes even even more worth your while?