By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Does disk size matter?

currently in sunny 2007 we have not really needed anything over 9GB, maybe Lair did with doing full 1080p, but the rest of the ps3 games only went over because they used uncompressed sound.  My whole theory is if you got the space why compress the sound, so they did the right thing.  however, the killzone 2 developers said that they needed blu-ray, rockstar said they needed blu-ray for LA Noire, it appeared Bizzare ran out of space for PGR4, or at least would have welcomed and utilized blu-ray if they had it.  I think by 2009 standard ps3 games will take up much more than 9GB and 360 is going to have a bunch of multi disc titles, but some games might be kept back from the 360 simply because the style of the game doesn't work with a mutli-disc concept (gta, oblivion, etc.)



Around the Network

Well my final say in it all is whether or not they "need" the space is one thing, they could probably work around it, but hell, if you dont have to, why? Take stranglehold for example, didn't the ps3 version come with the movie already on it? Needed? nope, far from :D but still badass. I say the developers shouldent TRY to occupy the space, but if they feel like they need to I'm all for it. If they feel like giving me uncompressed audio, multi languages, more CGI, More needless detail in areas, by all means go ahead :)



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

kn said:
Can we ask Girl Gamer Elite if disk size matters? Most believe it doesn't, but I think they are just trying to be nice. Generally we always hear that it isn't how big your disk is, but how effectively you use it. Can we get a female perspective on disk size, please?

 Post of the thread Kn



ChronotriggerJM said:
I believe it matters greatly. Its kind of like when FF7 came out, they could have picked nintendo's cartridges as the medium, but they found the disk to have more room, so they tossed in a bunch of Cutscenes and extra's etc etc. It was the vision Square wanted for the game and the disk's let them have the freedom to do so. I've heard people give excuses for disk space like "Well just cut out some of the CGI" or "Who needs 5.1 or 7.1" I mean alot of people can agree with it, but honestly why should you have to "cut" anything? In fact if I could pick up the same game on the 360 or PS3 the only diff. being 7.1 audio? Believe me I'm picking the later. If the creaters can put everything they want on the disk with no "Sacrifices" by all means I'm down for that.

 Capacity was not the problem with the carts. The game could have fit on two or three N64 carts, if they were willing to compress the hell out of the data, as was done with the N64 version of RE2, and all the voicework with Conker. The problem was cost. All that compression required a lot of enhancement chips, and that would have made the game prohbitively expensive (RE2 and Conker came a few years later, when costs were greately reduced). There would be no way Square could sell the game at $60. It would be sold at a loss, which is unthinkable for software. They would have to sell the game at a higher price, and cut into sales (the high cost of Chrono Trigger presaged this).

CDs, on the other hand, cost pennies. So Square could put the game on a dozen discs, and still have a much better profit margin.

With the 360, the lower capacity is negated by the large profit margin of the discs. Even if they have to leave out content, not making content costs nothing, so there is still the profit margin



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

I thought they could use disk swapping basically giving unlimited storage space in essence.

I remember FFVII was across several cds.

Couldn't the same still apply?



Wii number: 2758-1649-6225-4782


Click here to level up my license!