• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rage requires 3 discs for 360, 8gig install for PS3

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ackmed said:
But you dont have to install for the 360. So the title is correct.
Click to expand...


True, but not installing the game would be a pain in the ass IMO. I'd MUCH rather just install it and play. Hell, if they offered is as a download instead of on disc, it would be even better. I freakin' can't stand discs.
 
tdawg said:
I'm turned off a bit purely because of Willets's characterization of the two platforms. He does realize that there are multiple PS3's with various HDD sizes, right? I've only got a 40gb HDD in my PS3 and a 120gb drive on my 360. Both platforms offer one specific optical drive (DVD, Blu-ray) and various HDD sizes.
Click to expand...

The difference is that all PS3's were sold with a hard drive. Every last one. Microsoft has sold millions of 360s without a HDD, albeit they are in the minority. But this means PS3 games can have a mandatory installation - 360 games cannot. It's not much, but that is a standardization advantage for the PS3.
 
crisium said:
The difference is that all PS3's were sold with a hard drive. Every last one. Microsoft has sold millions of 360s without a HDD, albeit they are in the minority. But this means PS3 games can have a mandatory installation - 360 games cannot. It's not much, but that is a standardization advantage for the PS3.
Click to expand...
I agree, but there is a difference in the pocket of every buyer that cannot be passed so "fast"
 
Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 yrs old. I have an old arcade 360 with NO hard drive. What is the significance of this big install? Am I not going to be able to play this game, or have ungodly load times, or what? I don't get it.
 
Todd33 said:
HDs are standard and cheap to upgrade on the PS3 so no biggy. I feel bad for all those 4GB 360 owners, Ms was really short sighted by using DVDs.
Click to expand...

Statements like this about MS's decision to use DVDs are ignorant. At the time of the 360s release there was no other feasible option and the prospect of a game being on more than one disc is nothing to be concerned with anyway.
 
Veliko said:
Statements like this about MS's decision to use DVDs are ignorant. At the time of the 360s release there was no other feasible option and the prospect of a game being on more than one disc is nothing to be concerned with anyway.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to bother installing Rage on the Xbox 360?

The idea Xbox 360 not using DVDs isn't ignorant as you think. Microsoft had long been a huge promoter of the HD-DVD format, well before 360 was released. Putting it into the 360 whether that ment waiting a few months to release it or even adding it as standard feature later (not as external option) would've boosted Microsoft's preferred HD-DVD format immensly.

Probably better over all they that didn't, and the HD format war ending relatively quickly, but I think it would be much better for console games today if developers weren't limitting themselves to what can fit on DVDs.
 
Veliko said:
Statements like this about MS's decision to use DVDs are ignorant. At the time of the 360s release there was no other feasible option and the prospect of a game being on more than one disc is nothing to be concerned with anyway.
Click to expand...

BS.

There was HD-DVD which they were behind, but not enough to put their money where their mouth was. They slapped the 360 together, rushed it out the door and paid $1B+ for their mistake. They could have used HD-DVD, included Wi-Fi & HDMI and had consoles last more than months.

You don't think they (or the devs they worked with) had the foresight to see games needing more than 6.5GB in the next five years? The only reason they crammed them onto single DVDs for the last five years was to accomidate the 360's limited storage, which now they are blowing off for the sake of not screwing everyone else ( PC/PS3 ).

P.S. They almost released the 360 with 256BM of RAM, if they had you would you be arguing that 512MB was impossible in 2005?
 
MS most likely kept HD-DVD out of the 360 because they wanted to make sure the price point was palatable to the market. Remember the original price of the PS3? The majority of the market balked and went with either a Wii or 360. Going with a standard DVD drive meant lower component and production costs and a lower retail cost to the consumer.
 
hd-dvd would have been a plus for MS in regards to piracy also. hd-dvd would have died the same death - apart from in consoles - how the hell would you pirate a game without a hd-dvd burner? sure they made em but they were exxpensive and so were the disks
 
Todd33 said:
BS.

There was HD-DVD which they were behind, but not enough to put their money where their mouth was. They slapped the 360 together, rushed it out the door and paid $1B+ for their mistake. They could have used HD-DVD, included Wi-Fi & HDMI and had consoles last more than months.

You don't think they (or the devs they worked with) had the foresight to see games needing more than 6.5GB in the next five years? The only reason they crammed them onto single DVDs for the last five years was to accomidate the 360's limited storage, which now they are blowing off for the sake of not screwing everyone else ( PC/PS3 ).

P.S. They almost released the 360 with 256BM of RAM, if they had you would you be arguing that 512MB was impossible in 2005?
Click to expand...

Why on earth are you comparing RAM to an optical drive?

If MS had used an HD-DVD drive instead of a DVD drive it would have pushed up the cost of the console too much.
 
marmasatt said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 yrs old. I have an old arcade 360 with NO hard drive. What is the significance of this big install? Am I not going to be able to play this game, or have ungodly load times, or what? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

That was a question fellas. All this banter, no one can take 30 seconds to respond? What is the significance please? I have a preorder copy for release date. Thanks.
 
marmasatt said:
That was a question fellas. All this banter, no one can take 30 seconds to respond? What is the significance please? I have a preorder copy for release date. Thanks.
Click to expand...
It will be just like other games. The 22gb would be if you wanted to install all three discs. You should be fine.
 
marmasatt said:
That was a question fellas. All this banter, no one can take 30 seconds to respond? What is the significance please? I have a preorder copy for release date. Thanks.
Click to expand...

people are just making a big deal out of nothing to argue which version is better because they have console loyalty.

to 99.9% of end users this will have 0 effect on them.

there is no significance. you will either have a large install (PS3) or have to swap discs if you are on 360 (and choose not to install). it's nothing that hasn't happened before.
 
Veliko said:
If MS had used an HD-DVD drive instead of a DVD drive it would have pushed up the cost of the console too much.
Click to expand...
May also slow it down a lot. IIRC, one of the reasons PS3 load times are so bad is because the blu-ray drive it uses is slower than the dvd drive in an xbox.
 
marmasatt said:
That was a question fellas. All this banter, no one can take 30 seconds to respond? What is the significance please? I have a preorder copy for release date. Thanks.
Click to expand...

MS doesn't allow game makers to require HD installs, because they sell an arcade version.
 
When I had a PS3 it did have some slow install times for the games that needed it.

Sure you could store a large amount of data on the Blu-Ray disk but it takes so long to access that data.

Good thing I upgraded to PC gaming.
 
boomhower said:
Depends on your ISP. With many going to tiers it could wipe out a lot of your bandwidth for the month with the size of it.
Click to expand...

This. I love steam but I don't download titles much more than 10gb in size. A game that big would take a huge chunk out of my bandwidth cap.
 
TakeNoPrisoners said:
When I had a PS3 it did have some slow install times for the games that needed it.

Sure you could store a large amount of data on the Blu-Ray disk but it takes so long to access that data.

Good thing I upgraded to PC gaming.
Click to expand...
This. I only play Guitar Hero on my PS3 these days. Even netflix doesn't work properly because the wireless is so god damn slow and the system cannot be updated over internet unless it's on a wired connection (none of my friends have been able to get it to work). /pissed off

They really could have had something with the PS3. Sell external hard drives for it, start a service like Steam, and it would be good to go. That can't possibly work until they fix the wireless. I can't even remember what this thread is about but I know I'm pissed off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top