http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127148

If true, this will be a big F U to 20% of the 360 customers and an acknowledgment that they screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD.

I wonder what games they are talking about. I haven't read of a HDD required game in a long time.

Well, remember all the mess that hit the fan when a Rockstar rep alluded to issues 'limiting' GTA IV due to the fact that the 360 version needed to be able to run without a HDD.

It will suck for Core users but in the long run it is probably the way to go. Maybe MS can drop the price of the 20GB HDD in the future to encourage Core users to get a HDD.

I don't know anyone with a core that does not own an HDD. Do you guys know anyone?

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127148

If true, this will be a big F U to 20% of the 360 customers and an acknowledgment that they screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD.


No it won't be

I don't know anyone with a core that does not own an HDD. Do you guys know anyone?


None especially at the time and now when people did buy the core it was because the premium was out of stock so right along with the core they bought a hardrive which brings it to the same price as the premium.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127148

If true, this will be a big F U to 20% of the 360 customers and an acknowledgment that they screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD.


how the hell would it be a big F U? nothing is stopping those people from simply buying one...

i'd love to know what these "20%" are saving their marketplace content to if they don't have the hdd...

None especially at the time and now when people did buy the core it was because the premium was out of stock so right along with the core they bought a hardrive which brings it to the same price as the premium.

Exactly, same price just with less goods. No headset, no HD cable ($40), wired instead of wireless. Microsoft appreciates the path they took.

I don't know anyone with a core that does not own an HDD. Do you guys know anyone?
I don't know anyone with a Core.

good.

Exactly, same price just with less goods. No headset, no HD cable ($40), wired instead of wireless. Microsoft appreciates the path they took.


That would be an issue for someone that would care to wait vs buying those accessories seperate. People are impatient. They will get those now or wait what difference does it make if they already started down the path? If they went that far to get the core, then get the hardrive, then obviously it doesn't concern those consumers or parents in most cases to purchase the additional stuff including purchasing games. This is especially true come holiday season. It may cost them more but surprisly a kid is not going to wonder why "Ma why didn't you just pick up the premium rather then purchasing all this seperate"

Mom "whatever merry xmas I am not going back out till after New Years"

I see it too many times at Best Buy and Circuit City

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127148

If true, this will be a big F U to 20% of the 360 customers and an acknowledgment that they screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD.


I don't really see it as being an F U to the core owners. At the time, it wasn't important to them to pay the extra $100... and I doubt a game or two is going to change that for them.

Besides, the hard drive can be found under $100 (the price difference for the core and premium). Meanwhile, the money has been sitting in their bank account building interest. That's one way of looking at it. :o

Personally, i think it is a step in the right direction. Without the added capacity of a Hi Def drive built in, you can pack as much game as you want on to extra discs, load them and just run the main disc seamlessly with all of the loaded content. Makes for larger games without the major investment into an unadopted format. It is a win win situation.

Cool.

That would be an issue for someone that would care to wait vs buying those accessories seperate. People are impatient. They will get those now or wait what difference does it make if they already started down the path? If they went that far to get the core, then get the hardrive, then obviously it doesn't concern those consumers or parents in most cases to purchase the additional stuff including purchasing games. This is especially true come holiday season. It may cost them more but surprisly a kid is not going to wonder why "Ma why didn't you just pick up the premium rather then purchasing all this seperate"

Mom "whatever merry xmas I am not going back out till after New Years"

I see it too many times at Best Buy and Circuit City

Exactly my point and most likely what MS was counting on. I almost had a CORE at launch but then decided to wait for the Premium when ES:IV and GRAW hit.

How is this not a slap in the face to anyone that has a Core and doesn't have a HDD??? When they purchased a 360, they had a reasonable expectation that they'd be able to play EVERY 360 game produced. Now, they won't be able to do so unless they pony up another $90, at a minimum, to buy a HDD. That sure makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In going this direction, they should have included a HDD on all SKU's from the very beginning.

How is this not a slap in the face to anyone that has a Core and doesn't have a HDD??? When they purchased a 360, they had a reasonable expectation that they'd be able to play EVERY 360 game produced. Now, they won't be able to do so unless they pony up another $90, at a minimum, to buy a HDD. That sure makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In going this direction, they should have included a HDD on all SKU's from the very beginning.


First of all if they have had a Core since 2005 then they sure as hell are not worried about a HDD in 2007 if they haven't picked up one already. Not sure why you are describing it as if the core can't be upgraded to have the HDD just because it cost more. It is not somthing you have to have. If they need it they are going to find a way to get it which isn't hard.

How is this not a slap in the face to anyone that has a Core and doesn't have a HDD??? When they purchased a 360, they had a reasonable expectation that they'd be able to play EVERY 360 game produced. Now, they won't be able to do so unless they pony up another $90, at a minimum, to buy a HDD. That sure makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In going this direction, they should have included a HDD on all SKU's from the very beginning.

Why? Marketingwise it was better for them to have a different SKU. Now, there is no need for it since the price of hardware is coming down and developers are wanting to utilize the HDD. Big whoop, so they have to shell out some money for an HDD, they still will have the choice at least.

Lets face it, electronics change, and sometimes the early adapter especially with the "lesser model" has to suffer. At the time of the 360 release, no other system had been released with that kind of price tag. Those who wanted one early but for whatever reason couldnt swing the Premium at least had an option to let them dive right into next gen gaming.

Why? Marketingwise it was better for them to have a different SKU. Now, there is no need for it since the price of hardware is coming down and developers are wanting to utilize the HDD. Big whoop, so they have to shell out some money for an HDD, they still will have the choice at least.

Lets face it, electronics change, and sometimes the early adapter especially with the "lesser model" has to suffer. At the time of the 360 release, no other system had been released with that kind of price tag. Those who wanted one early but for whatever reason couldnt swing the Premium at least had an option to let them dive right into next gen gaming.

Oh, so this is good business then for MS?? My bad. I'm sure when mom and dad go to buy a game for little Johnny, they're going to know that they are REQUIRED to shell out another $100 just to play that game. I'm sure that will sit real well with them and their view of MS. But hey, who cares? Its only another $100. I'm sure they have that lying around in change somewhere.

Also, what about the Core's that are still sitting on the shelves? How upset would you be to find out that you just purchased a Core 45 days ago, only to find out that you should have just bought the premium because of this requirement.

Let's not forget that MS is having a customer service issue right now related to their hardware failures. Assuming this is true, this will only add to that issue.

In going this direction, they should have included a HDD on all SKU's from the very beginning.


Why don't you have an HDD by now? Do you not download movies, game demo's, Arcade games, TV shows, etc.?

MS is doing you a favor by making you get an HDD. You don't know what you've been missing,

:)

Why don't you have an HDD by now? Do you not download movies, game demo's, Arcade games, TV shows, etc.?

MS is doing you a favor by making you get an HDD. You don't know what you've been missing,

:)

I think that was his point, they didn't make him or his parents get a complete system. All simply to have the marketing point of a $299 sku and cash in on peripherals. Perhaps being "forced" to buy all the parts needed to play every game would have been better for the consumer even if it wasn't better for MS. Correct me if that wasn't your point dboss.

How is this not a slap in the face to anyone that has a Core and doesn't have a HDD??? When they purchased a 360, they had a reasonable expectation that they'd be able to play EVERY 360 game produced.

technically no.... i mean can you play Dance Dance Revolution without the mat (maybe you can, i don't know)? i know that's not exactly the same thing, but it's similar. a few games in the future may need an extra peripheral purchase. if you don't want to make that purchase, don't buy the game.

I think that was his point, they didn't make him or his parents get a complete system. All simply to have the marketing point of a $299 sku and cash in on peripherals. Perhaps being "forced" to buy all the parts needed to play every game would have been better for the consumer even if it wasn't better for MS. Correct me if that wasn't your point dboss.


Hmmm, in that case maybe he should get out a pen and compose a short letter of complaint about this. I'm surprised to find out that he didn't know about all these cool things you could do with the HDD until today.

Hmmm, in that case maybe he should get out a pen and compose a short letter of complaint about this. I'm surprised to find out that he didn't know about all these cool things you could do with the HDD until today.

MS would get to it by the year 2015 probably, lol

MS would get to it by the year 2015 probably, lol


The easiest solution would be for him to ask for an upgrade the next time his system burns out.

The easiest solution would be for him to ask for an upgrade the next time his system burns out.

Or offer him the 20gb HDD at employee price ($60 last year anyways), that would seem fair to me.

Poor people shouldn't be buying games anyways.. Atleast this way they won't waste their cig or booze money on games..

Seriously, if you have a core system then pony up and buy a HDD..

Or offer him the 20gb HDD at employee price ($60 last year anyways), that would seem fair to me.
Or better yet, let us buy after market non-MS drives that are much, much cheaper.

I think that was his point, they didn't make him or his parents get a complete system. All simply to have the marketing point of a $299 sku and cash in on peripherals. Perhaps being "forced" to buy all the parts needed to play every game would have been better for the consumer even if it wasn't better for MS. Correct me if that wasn't your point dboss.

Thank you. That is exactly my point. And for the record, I have a premium system so this issue won't affect me, however I have a few nephews and neither of them have a HDD for their Core SKU.

Or better yet, let us buy after market non-MS drives that are much, much cheaper.

Indeed!

I find it interesting how when MS makes you buy something, everyone says you were wrong for not getting it in the first place so pony up the cash, yet when Sony makes you do it, it's bad on Sony, why should I have to....

I think it's sorta wrong for them to take this stance of HDD required which screws some people, but on the up side it's fortunate that the percentage of core users out there is pretty minimal. As a gamer and a developer, I'm sort of glad if this transition happens though, but it should have been the standard to begin with. So I feel for the people that get screwed but at the same time, I'd be glad if it was the norm.

Am I missing something or isn't the rumor in the story simply that some games will begin to require a Hdd? It doesn't even indicate if those are games by MS or not from what I can tell.

Thread might seem to imply this is for all games, or even the majority of games. The only change here if the rumor is true would be that MS would not be requiring of devs that every game support running w/o a hdd.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127148

If true, this will be a big F U to 20% of the 360 customers and an acknowledgment that they screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD.

There have been games on all systems that required additional devices to use.
Some were ram expansion carts, others were games that only shipped for the CD ROM drive of a particular system, and on the 360 it wont be any different.

People will have to step up to buy a hard drive, or play another game that doesn't require it.

Having said that, rest assured that if games REQUIRE a hard drive to play, Microsoft wont be charging $80 bucks for a 20gig drive....they'll make it much more reasonable so they don't have a huge core backlash.

There have been games on all systems that required additional devices to use.
Some were ram expansion carts, others were games that only shipped for the CD ROM drive of a particular system, and on the 360 it wont be any different.

People will have to step up to buy a hard drive, or play another game that doesn't require it.

Having said that, rest assured that if games REQUIRE a hard drive to play, Microsoft wont be charging $80 bucks for a 20gig drive....they'll make it much more reasonable so they don't have a huge core backlash.

They charge $100 instead of $80, much more reasonable! lol :eek:

I find it interesting how when MS makes you buy something, everyone says you were wrong for not getting it in the first place so pony up the cash, yet when Sony makes you do it, it's bad on Sony, why should I have to....

I think it's sorta wrong for them to take this stance of HDD required which screws some people, but on the up side it's fortunate that the percentage of core users out there is pretty minimal. As a gamer and a developer, I'm sort of glad if this transition happens though, but it should have been the standard to begin with. So I feel for the people that get screwed but at the same time, I'd be glad if it was the norm.

I knew I wasn't the only one who noticed this.

There have been games on all systems that required additional devices to use.
Some were ram expansion carts, others were games that only shipped for the CD ROM drive of a particular system, and on the 360 it wont be any different.

People will have to step up to buy a hard drive, or play another game that doesn't require it.

Having said that, rest assured that if games REQUIRE a hard drive to play, Microsoft wont be charging $80 bucks for a 20gig drive....they'll make it much more reasonable so they don't have a huge core backlash.

Yep, there was a PS2 game that required a hard drive. And as far as I know that hard drive wasnt really useable with any other game. Then the Guitar Heros and Rock bands require extras to be bought. Any Arcade game requires HD and eventually there will be PS games that make use of rumble and people will have to go out and buy the extra controllers if they want the full experience. As long as the game clearly states that a hard drive is required, I dont see a problem with it.

Am I missing something or isn't the rumor in the story simply that some games will begin to require a Hdd? It doesn't even indicate if those are games by MS or not from what I can tell.

Thread might seem to imply this is for all games, or even the majority of games. The only change here if the rumor is true would be that MS would not be requiring of devs that every game support running w/o a hdd.

it's all rumors and speculation at this point. some people love to sensationalize.

i think this is a non issue, the only time the core move in numbers is at launch. most of those ppl probally have a hard drive by now. i think its time to get rid of the core i cant imagine y anyone would buy it.

Yep, there was a PS2 game that required a hard drive. And as far as I know that hard drive wasnt really useable with any other game. Then the Guitar Heros and Rock bands require extras to be bought. Any Arcade game requires HD and eventually there will be PS games that make use of rumble and people will have to go out and buy the extra controllers if they want the full experience. As long as the game clearly states that a hard drive is required, I dont see a problem with it.

Rock Band as far as I know will not require extras to be bought. The game will come with at least one instrument. Guitar Heroes, the first one came with the guitar. They only released non guitar pack ins once people had the guitar in hand from the first game. Arcade games up until recently did not require HDD. The reason there was a 50 meg limit on the size of XBL Arcade Games was because they wanted it so that you did not need a HDD to play them. If a future PS game incorporates rumble, it will not hinder them from playing the game. Your examples aren't really a good comparison.

I'm going to take a wild guess here, and go waaaaay out on a limb.... pretty much all of you guys that are up in arms over this news are PS3 owners, right? I mean, nobody that has only a 360 core is saying they think this is bad, its only people who own a PS3 and may or may not also have a 360 are complaining.

Just for kicks, for the rest of this thread lets only hear from people who only have an xbox core. I have a PS3 as well, so I won't post anymore either. If you have a PS3, let this thread play out and see if anyone else complains. Because I'm calling "crocodile tears" on this. I think people are feigning indignation more as a dig at MS and the 360 rather than on the merits.

You have to have the guitar to play the game guitar hero. You will have to have a harddrive to play whatever game says "requires hard drive to play". Its as simple as that. I am sure there will be lots of other games that dont require a hard drive to play, just as there are plenty of games that dont require a guitar or a wheel or a flight stick or a chat pad. But hey if you are looking for reasons to feel slighted and oppressed, who am I to stop you. Have fun.

I'm going to take a wild guess here, and go waaaaay out on a limb.... pretty much all of you guys that are up in arms over this news are PS3 owners, right? I mean, nobody that has only a 360 core is saying they think this is bad, its only people who own a PS3 and may or may not also have a 360 are complaining.

Just for kicks, for the rest of this thread lets only hear from people who only have an xbox core. I have a PS3 as well, so I won't post anymore either. If you have a PS3, let this thread play out and see if anyone else complains. Because I'm calling "crocodile tears" on this. I think people are feigning indignation more as a dig at MS and the 360 rather than on the merits.

I knew I wasn't the only one that noticed this.

Rock Band as far as I know will not require extras to be bought. The game will come with at least one instrument.


Go read....unless you pony up for the $200+ version of the game, you're buying peripherals...a mic, or a guitar, or a drumset..and I dont think the $200 game comes with two guitars either (one for Bass, one for Guitar)...so your rock band will always be without a bassist unless you pony up the dough or your friend brings his stuff over.


If a future PS game incorporates rumble, it will not hinder them from playing the game. Your examples aren't really a good comparison.

Sony Forum is one or two clicks over....I'm sure you'd feel better over there talking about how awesome LAIR is gonna be...

Go read....unless you pony up for the $200+ version of the game, you're buying peripherals...a mic, or a guitar, or a drumset..and I dont think the $200 game comes with two guitars either (one for Bass, one for Guitar)...so your rock band will always be without a bassist unless you pony up the dough or your friend brings his stuff over.

Sony Forum is one or two clicks over....I'm sure you'd feel better over there talking about how awesome LAIR is gonna be...


I'm not saying you don't have to buy more peripherals, but what I'm saying is it's my understanding that you cannot buy Rock Band as a core game without any peripherals. The base package will come with at least one peripheral. You will have enough that comes with the game if you decide to buy it without any way to not be able to play it. Of course you'ld have to pay more for all the peripherals, but that is the same if you want to play a two player game and needing a second controller. In all of these cases, you were forced to get the basic requirement when you purchased the game at the time of purchase. That would not be the case for a game requiring a HDD and that is why the examples are not comparable.

That said, let me stress that in many ways I do think it's a good thing to open up games utilizing and requiring the HDD for gamers and developers yet at the same time I sympathize with people who have a core system, however few people there are out there, as Microsoft explicitely said that they would not allow developers to make games that required the HDD except in a few rare exceptions. The standard would be core systems would not be left out in the cold. Lifting this requirement, while beneficial in many ways to a lot of people out there, is most certainly a slight slap in the face to core users.

BTW, what does Lair have to do with anything on this? Nice way to try and derail the thread rather than staying on topic let alone reading what I've said. The examples aren't comparable even though I'm on the side of not knocking this as a problem.

This is a whole lot of worrying about a rumor from a web site that nobody has ever heard of.

In all of these cases, you were forced to get the basic requirement when you purchased the game at the time of purchase. That would not be the case for a game requiring a HDD and that is why the examples are not comparable.

Rather than argue around this point, I accept that you do get at least 1 peripheral with Rock Band. Which lets you play, like, 1/4 of the game before you need to go buy additional 'instruments'. I think the cheap version comes just with the microphone right?


Lifting this requirement, while beneficial in many ways to a lot of people out there, is most certainly a slight slap in the face to core users.

Core users have already been welcomed into the harsh reality that is next-gen gaming. They have had to either buy an external hard drive, or they have had to buy an add-on memory card because they wouldn't be saving any games without them, and lets face it: nobody does that anymore because there are no games that don't require linear progression. (Apologies for the double negative)

Also, these same people have not been able to download anything....in fact people with "Just" memory cards are now finding arcade games that will not fit on those memory cards due to the size increase, so they've probably accepted that its time to add the Hard Drive.

But...again we come back to this: They don't have to. Microsoft didn't make them buy the Hard Drive, they can still play their other games......just not the ones that require a hard drive. I dont imagine all games will require the hard drive, but clearly its a move that developers are going to push.

But that time isn't here yet....so, 3 years into the system, dont you think most folks who owned Cores have upgraded to a HD memory format by now, and if they haven't....do you think they give a **** about not being able to play GTA4?

Oh, so this is good business then for MS?? My bad. I'm sure when mom and dad go to buy a game for little Johnny, they're going to know that they are REQUIRED to shell out another $100 just to play that game. I'm sure that will sit real well with them and their view of MS. But hey, who cares? Its only another $100. I'm sure they have that lying around in change somewhere.

Also, what about the Core's that are still sitting on the shelves? How upset would you be to find out that you just purchased a Core 45 days ago, only to find out that you should have just bought the premium because of this requirement.

Let's not forget that MS is having a customer service issue right now related to their hardware failures. Assuming this is true, this will only add to that issue.

I don't have the exact numbers to support it, but I do believe the majority of 360's sold are premiums, not core's. If little Johnny's mom bought a core, then tough cookies. I wouldnt buy a core in the first place, so I cant relate to your question. This has nothing to do with MS's customer service problems right now. The bottom line is, a lot of business savy people who know a heck of a lot more than you or I have done their research......they felt the need for a core at the time, and evidently no longer see a benefit to support an HDD'less 360. If it were going to tick off the entire user base, they wouldnt make this change.

I don't have the exact numbers to support it, but I do believe the majority of 360's sold are premiums, not core's. If little Johnny's mom bought a core, then tough cookies. I wouldnt buy a core in the first place, so I cant relate to your question. This has nothing to do with MS's customer service problems right now. The bottom line is, a lot of business savy people who know a heck of a lot more than you or I have done their research......they felt the need for a core at the time, and evidently no longer see a benefit to support an HDD'less 360. If it were going to tick off the entire user base, they wouldnt make this change.

And isn't that the point? MS marketed to consumers that they could pay $299 for the core unit and play any 360 game. Now, assuming this rumor is true, that isn't the case anymore. I'm only calling BS on MS for selling the Core in the first place. If MS is as bright as you claim, and I believe they are, than their business plan all along should have addressed this very issue years ago which should have brought them to the conclusion that in the best interests of the consumer they shouldn't sell the Core unit and they should require everyone that purchases a console to purchase a HDD at the same time.

Oh, and yes I own a PS3. Congratulations, you caught all of us that ever disagree with MS just trying to stir up trouble for no particular reason. *EXTREME sarcasm* :rolleyes:

What a PS3 has to do with this, I'm not sure, but it seems to be some people's only defense to any disagreement with a decision by MS. Is it not appropriate to question billion dollar corporations from time to time? All I'm saying is that MS should have required that everyone purchase a HDD from the very beginning.

Having said that...if this rumor proves true and only 1 or 2 games require the HDD, then I totally agree that this is totally overblown. However, if a significant number of games begin to require a HDD in order to be played so early in a console's life span, then IMHO that was MS's intention all along which leads me to question MS's committment to the 360 consumer.

Probably overblown rumor, as is I can only think of 2 disc based games that require the HDD right now. It wouldn't shock me to see more in the future but I doubt many dev's are going to want to decrease the amount of potential buyers.

Probably overblown rumor, as is I can only think of 2 disc based games that require the HDD right now. It wouldn't shock me to see more in the future but I doubt many dev's are going to want to decrease the amount of potential buyers.


Exactly!

Oh, and yes I own a PS3. Congratulations, you caught all of us that ever disagree with MS just trying to stir up trouble for no particular reason. *EXTREME sarcasm* :rolleyes:

What a PS3 has to do with this, I'm not sure, but it seems to be some people's only defense to any disagreement with a decision by MS. Is it not appropriate to question billion dollar corporations from time to time? All I'm saying is that MS should have required that everyone purchase a HDD from the very beginning.

Having said that...if this rumor proves true and only 1 or 2 games require the HDD, then I totally agree that this is totally overblown. However, if a significant number of games begin to require a HDD in order to be played so early in a console's life span, then IMHO that was MS's intention all along which leads me to question MS's committment to the 360 consumer.


The problem is, you come on here wailing and gnashing your teeth over how MS screwed everyone over, only to come clean later that you don't actually own a core system yourself. Your sense of outrage over this comes off as totally manufactured. Sure, some people will have to buy an HDD if they want to play some games, but you are mader about this then they are. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over this issue, and I suspect that you are doing that for your own personal reasons, not because you really believe the matter warrants this much attention.

If you had wanted to have a calm, dispassionate discussion over the issue, that would have been appropriate. But you came in here cussing and red faced, seething over this imaginary injustice MS had done you. It comes off like a classic troll.

The last line of your first post exposed your true motivation. You wanted to prove that this is:
"an acknowledgment that they [MS] screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD. " That is a classic troll thread, juxtaposing it with the PS3 and trying to gain an admission that the PS3 was right and MS was wrong.

The problem is, you come on here wailing and gnashing your teeth over how MS screwed everyone over, only to come clean later that you don't actually own a core system yourself. Your sense of outrage over this comes off as totally manufactured. Sure, some people will have to buy an HDD if they want to play some games, but you are mader about this then they are. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over this issue, and I suspect that you are doing that for your own personal reasons, not because you really believe the matter warrants this much attention.

If you had wanted to have a calm, dispassionate discussion over the issue, that would have been appropriate. But you came in here cussing and red faced, seething over this imaginary injustice MS had done you. It comes off like a classic troll.

The last line of your first post exposed your true motivation. You wanted to prove that this is:
"an acknowledgment that they [MS] screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD. " That is a classic troll thread, juxtaposing it with the PS3 and trying to gain an admission that the PS3 was right and MS was wrong.

1.) I didn't 'come on here wailing and gnashing' over anything.
2.) Grow up. I DID NOT have any other motivation than to question MS's decision on the Core unit. I didn't bring up the PS3, YOU did. Excuse me for enjoying an intelligent debate over a decision made by gaming companies. Why YOU are getting so heated about this, I'm not sure but you obviously have a lot more passion in the 360 vs. PS3 competition than I do?
3.) Check my post history. I'm a GAMER that enjoys the 360 and PS3. AND when I see something I disagree with from either MS OR Sony I'll post about it. If you don't like dissenting opinions, I'm not sure why you would read anything on the Internet, especially Internet forums.

The premise of the original argument is faulty, as it assumes that everyone who bought a Core system is going to be angry that games will require a hard drive. I'm willing to bet the opposite is true and that most folks who bought a Core knew exactly what they were getting and will get a hard drive if they have not done so already (used 20 GB ones are $50 or less now) or simply go without the games that require it.

MS should offer a recycle program for people buying the 120GB HDD's. Give us a couple of bucks for our 20's and then turn around and bundle them with games that would require a HDD.

MS should offer a recycle program for people buying the 120GB HDD's. Give us a couple of bucks for our 20's and then turn around and bundle them with games that would require a HDD.

Not a bad thought. Some sort of program for Core users would go a long way IMO.

finally!

Great decision that MS made if you ask me........I never liked the idea of the core system anyway, but since they can always buy a hard drive, then no big deal. Buy the hard drive if you want to play the game, if not then there will be plenty of other great games that will not require the hard drive..............

Lots of people traded in their 20's when the 120's came out...if it's that big of an issue go to gamestop and get one, they run about the same cost as a new game.

MS made two big mistakes--HDD optional and using DVD9

I find it interesting how when MS makes you buy something, everyone says you were wrong for not getting it in the first place so pony up the cash, yet when Sony makes you do it, it's bad on Sony, why should I have to....

I think it's sorta wrong for them to take this stance of HDD required which screws some people, but on the up side it's fortunate that the percentage of core users out there is pretty minimal. As a gamer and a developer, I'm sort of glad if this transition happens though, but it should have been the standard to begin with. So I feel for the people that get screwed but at the same time, I'd be glad if it was the norm.

you know what i find interesting? that you troll the xbox forum so much..

please go back to the playstation forum.. please?

MS made two big mistakes--HDD optional and using DVD9

Yeah thanks for that, clearly Sony is showing us all how it "should be done"
:rolleyes:

1.) I didn't 'come on here wailing and gnashing' over anything.
2.) Grow up. I DID NOT have any other motivation than to question MS's decision on the Core unit. I didn't bring up the PS3, YOU did. Excuse me for enjoying an intelligent debate over a decision made by gaming companies. Why YOU are getting so heated about this, I'm not sure but you obviously have a lot more passion in the 360 vs. PS3 competition than I do?
3.) Check my post history. I'm a GAMER that enjoys the 360 and PS3. AND when I see something I disagree with from either MS OR Sony I'll post about it. If you don't like dissenting opinions, I'm not sure why you would read anything on the Internet, especially Internet forums.

dboss is just a gamer. played many of Gears with him ;) i see his point even though i dont whole hardely agree with him.

I dont know if it will be true about the hard drive requirement but honestly there has been more then enough games require addons in the past to justify it.


Guitar hero to name one. If you can buy a hard drive and the game combo for 80-90 bux will people still cry fowl?

Try playing DDR without a mat.

Games on the old N64 required the ram upgrade chip ZELDA??

the mic for seaman on dream cast.

just to name a few. I just dont see what the big deal is.

MS made two big mistakes--HDD optional and using DVD9
while i think the HDD optional thing is BS dvd 9 i will stand by.

Guitar Heroes, the first one came with the guitar. They only released non guitar pack ins once people had the guitar in hand from the first game.


He has a point dark...

What if you never purchased the first guitar hero but wanted to play guitar hero II. Should he be left in the cold to pay a higher price for the combo deal on the second one because he didnt want to buy the original peripheral?The game requires it Its the same EXACT science. At some point you gotta pony up and buy the guitar to play the game.

dboss is just a gamer. played many of Gears with him ;) i see his point even though i dont whole hardely agree with him.


We're all just gamers. Heck, I own both platforms too, but if I went over to the PS3 side and started a thread thrashing Sony and the PS3, saying they said "F.U." to it's consumers, had made poor design decisions, etc., I would expect someone to call me on it. Particularly if I was feigning indignation about a problem that didn't even effect me. He claims to want an "intelligent discussion" about the issue, but maybe he's just not sure how one goes about doing that. His tone has settled down some now, (except his response to me), so maybe he's got his tantrum out of his system.

MS made two big mistakes--HDD optionalYes.

and using DVD9No.

NO hard drive in the core was a HUGE mistake. I said it on day one, I'll stand by it still today. It has screwed up the developers, and our consoles are not using a major piece of it's own equipment efficiently enough for it even to matter having it to begin with. Imagine if games used the hard drive more, how much faster, better looking, and QUIETER things would be. Not to mention less heat possible less 360 failures and certainly laser failures on the drives themselves. Bad move, and MS's most dumb idea since day 1.

AS for DVD9......nah, I don't see a problem with that yet. We would not have been playing a 360 back in 2005 if they chose to use hd-dvd or blu ray. And imagine is HD DVD does indeed fail, which it looks like it will, if the 360 did have it since day one where would that put the 360's future then?

NO hard drive in the core was a HUGE mistake. I said it on day one, I'll stand by it still today. It has screwed up the developers, and our consoles are not using a major piece of it's own equipment efficiently enough for it even to matter having it to begin with. Imagine if games used the hard drive more, how much faster, better looking, and QUIETER things would be. Not to mention less heat possible less 360 failures and certainly laser failures on the drives themselves. Bad move, and MS's most dumb idea since day 1.

AS for DVD9......nah, I don't see a problem with that yet. We would not have been playing a 360 back in 2005 if they chose to use hd-dvd or blu ray. And imagine is HD DVD does indeed fail, which it looks like it will, if the 360 did have it since day one where would that put the 360's future then?


For starters probably in the same boat as the PS3 since both technologies were delayed in addition to the higher price it would have caused. I don't think they would have an issue with development like it has been with the PS3 but who knows which game system would have kicked off 10 mil by xmas 06. As far as if HD-DVD died it would be no different if BR dies they would still benifit with the technology for the games on either side. I don't see that as an issue.

NO hard drive in the core was a HUGE mistake. I said it on day one, I'll stand by it still today. It has screwed up the developers, and our consoles are not using a major piece of it's own equipment efficiently enough for it even to matter having it to begin with. Imagine if games used the hard drive more, how much faster, better looking, and QUIETER things would be.

To make that case you have to show that most games are significanty better with the harddrive. You and I in avsforum might see the advantages as significant but when you look at the past and present wild success of the PS2 with no harddrive next to the Xbox 1 which had a built-in harddrive how do you make the case that the difference for gaming is significant?

PS2 buyers evidently don't see that significance.

More significant in this generation of consoles is the importance of the hdd for online and media functions, streaming, movies, dvr etc. In that respect MS and Sony probably like to see everyone with a harddrive so they can sell more media functionality.

This is not the stuff that majority of mainstream buyers are calling 'significant though, which is why they continue to snap of the harddriveless Wii more than any other system.

And isn't that the point? MS marketed to consumers that they could pay $299 for the core unit and play any 360 game. Now, assuming this rumor is true, that isn't the case anymore. I'm only calling BS on MS for selling the Core in the first place. If MS is as bright as you claim, and I believe they are, than their business plan all along should have addressed this very issue years ago which should have brought them to the conclusion that in the best interests of the consumer they shouldn't sell the Core unit and they should require everyone that purchases a console to purchase a HDD at the same time.

Oh, and yes I own a PS3. Congratulations, you caught all of us that ever disagree with MS just trying to stir up trouble for no particular reason. *EXTREME sarcasm* :rolleyes:

What a PS3 has to do with this, I'm not sure, but it seems to be some people's only defense to any disagreement with a decision by MS. Is it not appropriate to question billion dollar corporations from time to time? All I'm saying is that MS should have required that everyone purchase a HDD from the very beginning.

Having said that...if this rumor proves true and only 1 or 2 games require the HDD, then I totally agree that this is totally overblown. However, if a significant number of games begin to require a HDD in order to be played so early in a console's life span, then IMHO that was MS's intention all along which leads me to question MS's committment to the 360 consumer.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by getting so fired up with this? Do you want MS to hand deliver you an apology or something? This is friggin corporate America and this kind of thing happens all the time with consumer electronics. Again, the majority own premiums, and everyone who doesnt will still have the option to buy a harddrive. Quit sniffing corporate farts.

you know what i find interesting? that you troll the xbox forum so much..

please go back to the playstation forum.. please?


Sorry but I don't see this as trolling. The point is true how there is a discrepency in the stance. Plus I'm on the side of opening up the access of the HDD and not feeling that it's a big FU to consumers like some are saying. I can sympathize for the Core users, but I also think they shouldn't have gone the core unit route either.


He has a point dark...

What if you never purchased the first guitar hero but wanted to play guitar hero II. Should he be left in the cold to pay a higher price for the combo deal on the second one because he didnt want to buy the original peripheral?The game requires it Its the same EXACT science. At some point you gotta pony up and buy the guitar to play the game.


No he doesn't. Go to a store, all the new Guitar Heroes come with guitars. They only offer the game stand alone because people already own guitars but they still release the newer games packed in with guitars. The comparable solution would be here if games came packed with a hard drive which we will never see happen. Since the game won't come packed with a hard drive even though it requires it, all his scenarios above are not comparable. To be even remotely comparable, one of two things need to happen. A) All copies of the game come packaged with the hard drive. B) Some copies are stand alone, while other copies come packed with the hard drive.

In all his examples, the game can always be played because they a) force bundle you with the bare minimum equipment needed or the additional features aren't necessary. You can trace this pattern from Eye Toy games, to DDR games, to Guitar Heroes games, to Steel Battalion, to heck the power pad games back in the NES days. They still do it today with Singstar and Buzz. So again, no, his comparison isn't directly comparable. I'm agreeing with most people here, but his argument is not a good way to show it.

We're all just gamers. Heck, I own both platforms too, but if I went over to the PS3 side and started a thread thrashing Sony and the PS3, saying they said "F.U." to it's consumers, had made poor design decisions, etc., I would expect someone to call me on it. Particularly if I was feigning indignation about a problem that didn't even effect me. He claims to want an "intelligent discussion" about the issue, but maybe he's just not sure how one goes about doing that. His tone has settled down some now, (except his response to me), so maybe he's got his tantrum out of his system.

You make way too many assumptions about way too many things. I think we all know what happens when people make assumptions. :rolleyes:

You continue to believe that I'm faking my disagreement with this decision. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts because although it doesn't affect me directly, it will affect people in my family. I could care less what you think I'm doing, or what you think about me. Its obvious to me that you have no ability to debate anything, so you continuously make up 'facts' *sarcasm* and then argue your 'points' based on that. As Holy stated, people on this board know me so I don't feel that I have anything to defend just because you don't agree with my opinion.

Perhaps you should stick to the debate on how this affects 360 owners. Now...back to the topic.

Here is some pure speculation about a few things in the news as of late.

Not sure if someone else has pointed it out already, but I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent delay of GTA4?

It might make sense. After all, R* has already complained about the lack of a standard hdd for the 360. They might be forcing MS to require the hdd to play the game. Or maybe they are waiting for better compression techniques to come out and MS will not allow R* to release the game on time for the PS3 now that they paid them for downloadable content?

Probably not the real reason for the delay but it does make you think.

Sorry but I don't see this as trolling. The point is true how there is a discrepency in the stance. Plus I'm on the side of opening up the access of the HDD and not feeling that it's a big FU to consumers like some are saying. I can sympathize for the Core users, but I also think they shouldn't have gone the core unit route either.



No he doesn't. Go to a store, all the new Guitar Heroes come with guitars. They only offer the game stand alone because people already own guitars but they still release the newer games packed in with guitars. The comparable solution would be here if games came packed with a hard drive which we will never see happen. Since the game won't come packed with a hard drive even though it requires it, all his scenarios above are not comparable. To be even remotely comparable, one of two things need to happen. A) All copies of the game come packaged with the hard drive. B) Some copies are stand alone, while other copies come packed with the hard drive.

In all his examples, the game can always be played because they a) force bundle you with the bare minimum equipment needed or the additional features aren't necessary. You can trace this pattern from Eye Toy games, to DDR games, to Guitar Heroes games, to Steel Battalion, to heck the power pad games back in the NES days. They still do it today with Singstar and Buzz. So again, no, his comparison isn't directly comparable. I'm agreeing with most people here, but his argument is not a good way to show it.


Darknight what is your xbox live gamer tag?

I did a quick search on your posts and just as i suspected you do troll the xbox forum stirring the pot a lot. the majority of our post are in the xbox forum yet most are negative. Your post in the ps3 forum are all praise! Its there anyone can search on your name..

You never answered my question is what if they sold the HDD required games as a bundle?

what would it be if Rock Band came out on the 360 with a no perphial option because a guitar as been out already and some may already have it. would that be like putting out a game that requires a hard drives with option to buy the game without a hard drive ?

Here is some pure speculation about a few things in the news as of late.

Not sure if someone else has pointed it out already, but I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent delay of GTA4?

It might make sense. After all, R* has already complained about the lack of a standard hdd for the 360. They might be forcing MS to require the hdd to play the game. Or maybe they are waiting for better compression techniques to come out and MS will not allow R* to release the game on time for the PS3 now that they paid them for downloadable content?

Probably not the real reason for the delay but it does make you think.

I think its doubtful that one game developer could have this much influence over a console decision, however if more than a few different developers were going to MS and saying this is really a must have for continued progress in 360 games (more than likely) then I can see that swaying MS to make this decision. My beef is that MS's strategic plan for the 360 should have shown this was necessary from the beginning.

NO hard drive in the core was a HUGE mistake. I said it on day one, I'll stand by it still today. It has screwed up the developers, and our consoles are not using a major piece of it's own equipment efficiently enough for it even to matter having it to begin with. Imagine if games used the hard drive more, how much faster, better looking, and QUIETER things would be. Not to mention less heat possible less 360 failures and certainly laser failures on the drives themselves. Bad move, and MS's most dumb idea since day 1.


It hasn't screwed up the developers, as the STACK of high-quality 360 games I have sitting next to me can attest to. While it may cause some unique situations that coders have to work around, its hardly the sky-is-falling scenario that people love to paint it up as.

As for your other comments, you're basically saying "wouldn't it be awesome if the system used the hard drive MORE"....so you want a PC, where the disc is only used to install data to the HD....and thats probably unrealistic because of space issues and so forth. Games install into 2, 3, 5, 10 gigabytes...you'd have to re-install a game which takes time....people would go "If I wanted to sit through THIS I'd have bought a PC", etc.

The optical drives are pretty damned fast...the 2 minute load times of the past are long since gone......I dont mind the current setup. You want a quieter machine then petitiion microsoft to use quieter disc drives and fans for their hot-running unit.


And imagine is HD DVD does indeed fail, which it looks like it will, if the 360 did have it since day one where would that put the 360's future then?

if HD-DVD fails what would that have to do with games coming out on the format?
Just because the movie side may collapse, its still a perfectly viable optical medium to store games on...or for that matter, to use on a PC for storage....

I think its doubtful that one game developer could have this much influence over a console decision,Well, believe it or not, one game developer can and did (http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/archives/2006/10/23/epic-cost-xbox-360-a-billion-dollars/)! :)

Well, believe it or not, one game developer can and did (http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/archives/2006/10/23/epic-cost-xbox-360-a-billion-dollars/)! :)

Yes, you're correct. I totally forgot about that. :)

The only difference is that decision was made prior to the 360 launching which allowed them to make the change with no affect on the consumer. However, I do have to say that I'm glad they made the change. GoW is still the best looking Next-Gen game to date IMO. :D

Yes, you're correct. I totally forgot about that. :)

The only difference is that decision was made prior to the 360 launching which allowed them to make the change with no affect on the consumer. However, I do have to say that I'm glad they made the change. GoW is still the best looking Next-Gen game to date IMO. :D

when we playing some ? :)

Does anyone know how many Hard drives they have sold? I would bet that most everyone that bought a core did so because they couldnt find a premium for the first couple months, and probably bought a HDD along with it. 20% of the people not having HDD seems a little much. Sorry if this has been answered/discussed already I dont have time to look through the whole thread. :)

I for one will commend MS for this move. Unlike a Government, they are putting the needs of the many in front of the needs of the few. Or developing for :)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by getting so fired up with this? Do you want MS to hand deliver you an apology or something? This is friggin corporate America and this kind of thing happens all the time with consumer electronics. Again, the majority own premiums, and everyone who doesnt will still have the option to buy a harddrive. Quit sniffing corporate farts.


Iphone comes to mind. Some of the most basic stuff you find in a 10 dollar phone you don't have in the Iphone.

Here is some pure speculation about a few things in the news as of late.

Not sure if someone else has pointed it out already, but I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent delay of GTA4?

It might make sense. After all, R* has already complained about the lack of a standard hdd for the 360. They might be forcing MS to require the hdd to play the game. Or maybe they are waiting for better compression techniques to come out and MS will not allow R* to release the game on time for the PS3 now that they paid them for downloadable content?

Probably not the real reason for the delay but it does make you think.

No different then thinking why alot of the multiplatform games were delayed to the PS3 becuase of development issues. Who knows

Probably overblown rumor, as is I can only think of 2 disc based games that require the HDD right now. It wouldn't shock me to see more in the future but I doubt many dev's are going to want to decrease the amount of potential buyers.

so why all the thinly veiled shots at MS? Can't help yourself?

MS made two big mistakes--HDD optional and using DVD9

Just two? You don't want to say, oh I don't know, the RROD (I'm on my 3rd 360)and maybe the extraordinarily loud fan and/or DVD drive?

agreed. poor reliability definitely trumps the hdd or dvd "issues."

He has a point dark...

What if you never purchased the first guitar hero but wanted to play guitar hero II. Should he be left in the cold to pay a higher price for the combo deal on the second one because he didnt want to buy the original peripheral?The game requires it Its the same EXACT science. At some point you gotta pony up and buy the guitar to play the game.I could be wrong (I am not at home to check the manual for GH2), but I believe you can play Guitar Hero 2 on the Xbox 360 with the standard 360 controller. Now why you would want to, I don't know, but I think it is possible.

when we playing some ? :)

I couldn't even tell you the last time I played Gears. I keep trying to get through the games I already have before I start playing Gears again because I know I'll get totally addicted again. Unfortunately, its tough to find playing time in the summer. We don't get much sun here in Pittsburgh, so you have to take advantage of it when it comes. :p :D

HDD Required for Future Games?????

Don't today's existing games already use the HDD?

New Characters, Expansion Packs and New Maps?

This isn't news. :rolleyes:

HDD Required for Future Games?????

Don't today's existing games already use the HDD?

New Characters, Expansion Packs and New Maps?

This isn't news. :rolleyes:

agreed, however it sounds like the OP was thinking in terms of using portions of HDD to load some parts of whatever game you are playing. Kinda like if you're playing Forza and having the next races' competitors, track, settings, pre-loaded while your in the menu. Since the smaller memory cards obviously can't hold that much info, and neither can my full 20...I mean 12GB HDD, MS doesn't want to "short change" the extremely small fraction of casual players that get a Core and only a Mem. Card or 2.
It's kinda like the Combo HD DVD's...oops! wrong forum.

Since the smaller memory cards obviously can't hold that much info, and neither can my full 20...I mean 12GB HDD,

You know, of course, that part of the reason that the HD has only 12GB free is that they use part of the hard drive for caching games. :)

HDD Required for Future Games?????

Don't today's existing games already use the HDD?

New Characters, Expansion Packs and New Maps?

This isn't news. :rolleyes:

Please look up the definition of use and require. Existing games can use the hard drive but do not require one. This is talking about a game requiring a hard drive in order to even run.

Darknight what is your xbox live gamer tag?

I did a quick search on your posts and just as i suspected you do troll the xbox forum stirring the pot a lot. the majority of our post are in the xbox forum yet most are negative. Your post in the ps3 forum are all praise! Its there anyone can search on your name..

You never answered my question is what if they sold the HDD required games as a bundle?

what would it be if Rock Band came out on the 360 with a no perphial option because a guitar as been out already and some may already have it. would that be like putting out a game that requires a hard drives with option to buy the game without a hard drive ?

I would prefer to keep my GamerTag out of the public view for the sake of being anonymous. It's already been widely accepted that I'm not lying about being a game developer and keeping myself anonymous is how I would prefer to keep my identity for the simple sake of it allowing me to be a bit more open as well as not being harassed.

I'll discuss my post history in private in order to remain on topic.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I have always felt the first iteration of a series that requires peripherals should pack in at least the bare minimum of what you need to play. In the case of Rock Band, there should be at least one instrument. Why? Because you're going to need to buy it any way so you may as well not throw a gotcha in for the consumer. Now if a sequel comes out, I expect a bare game for the people who already own the game but also pack ins for the people who don't. That is how games have done it in the past where they require peripherals. However, those games are special cases in many way because it's a basic way of how you interface with the game which is packed in. You can simply look at the history of these types of games and you will see that is the pattern that has followed. In order for it to be a comparable situation, any game requiring a HDD would have to have an option of buying the game with a hard drive packed in for it to be comparable. Since I don't think that would happen, and I wouldn't be against them doing such a bundle, that is how the situation is not comparable.

Remember, I'm on the side of I think the TRC requirement to not require a HDD should be removed and hopefully developers will take more advantage of it, but I also feel for those who would get hurt by it too. My whole point in the paragraph above was his example was not a good way to compare the situation.

I believe in the packaging a peripheral with agame IF the peripheral is not already on the market.

There is already a game on the 360 that requires the hard drive:
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-XI-Promathia-Treasures/dp/B000ENW5W4
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/511HS87416L._SS500_.jpg

Read the sticker in the upper left, if you can. "This game requires: Hard Drive (sold separately)"

It doesn't include the hard drive in the package. Haven't heard any outrage over it in the year+ it has been available.

You know, of course, that part of the reason that the HD has only 12GB free is that they use part of the hard drive for caching games. :)

oh lawdy! are we starting up the "wheres my 8GB debate again"!? :D
Are developers already caching game info? I though MS strictly banned it so far? Guess we need more clarification.

btw... i thought the missing 8gb was cause of the backwards compatibility program and some system reserve space.

also i think no outrage has been vented for FFXI cause it sucked. like paying extra for a monthly pass to play Phantasy Star Online on top of purchasing the game.

There is already a game on the 360 that requires the hard drive:
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-XI-Promathia-Treasures/dp/B000ENW5W4
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/511HS87416L._SS500_.jpg

Read the sticker in the upper left, if you can. "This game requires: Hard Drive (sold separately)"

It doesn't include the hard drive in the package. Haven't heard any outrage over it in the year+ it has been available.

There are actually two games, but there is a strict TRC that states games cannot require the HDD. You have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to bypass that TRC. When it came to FFXI, you can bet MS waivered it immediately because they wanted the support from Square and this was Square's trial effort on the platform. This is an extreme exception rather than the norm because Microsoft normally denies any game that requires it. FFXI bombed pretty hard which is why you saw minimal outrage but there was a time back when it first came out that people did complain about the core system because of this, so yes it was noted and there was some outrage then. Our team was considering bringing over a MMO to the 360 but it would have required a HDD install and MS wasn't being very friendly about waivering on the issue so we decided not to take on the project.

oh lawdy! are we starting up the "wheres my 8GB debate again"!? :D
Are developers already caching game info? I though MS strictly banned it so far? Guess we need more clarification.

btw... i thought the missing 8gb was cause of the backwards compatibility program and some system reserve space.

also i think no outrage has been vented for FFXI cause it sucked. like paying extra for a monthly pass to play Phantasy Star Online on top of purchasing the game.

That is mostly true but I believe there still is a small reserve for game cache if I recall correctly. Developers can do an optional usage of game caching but can't rely on that cache to be there. They just have to detect and go. The missing 8 gigs is mixed up among backward compatibility, system reserve space and some game cache.

Are developers already caching game info?

Yes. Bethesda said in many interviews that Oblivion uses the hard drive, if present, to cache data. Should be obvious from the whole "Hold 'A' while the game is starting to clear out the cache" debacle early on.

Are developers already caching game info? I though MS strictly banned it so far? Guess we need more clarification.I don't know where you heard that Microsoft ever banned the use of the hard drive for cache purposes, but that's false (and has been known to be since around the time the system was released). It was the cause of some long load times for Oblivion:

http://www.gamingbits.com/content/view/296/2/

"Oblivion uses the Xbox 360 hard drive extensively to cache (copy and reuse) game data. This is done to optimize all loading the game does. It has been found in rare cases on some Xbox 360s that the cached data can get overly fragmented. This exhibits itself by the game taking a long time to load anything from menus, dialogue, sounds, objects, levels, and more."

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127148

If true, this will be a big F U to 20% of the 360 customers and an acknowledgment that they screwed up and should have never produced a version without a HDD.

No, it will force those cheap bastadz to get the drive, which they (knew) they should have to begin with.

It hasn't screwed up the developers, as the STACK of high-quality 360 games I have sitting next to me can attest to. While it may cause some unique situations that coders have to work around, its hardly the sky-is-falling scenario that people love to paint it up as.

As for your other comments, you're basically saying "wouldn't it be awesome if the system used the hard drive MORE"....so you want a PC, where the disc is only used to install data to the HD....and thats probably unrealistic because of space issues and so forth. Games install into 2, 3, 5, 10 gigabytes...you'd have to re-install a game which takes time....people would go "If I wanted to sit through THIS I'd have bought a PC", etc.

The optical drives are pretty damned fast...the 2 minute load times of the past are long since gone......I dont mind the current setup. You want a quieter machine then petitiion microsoft to use quieter disc drives and fans for their hot-running unit.



if HD-DVD fails what would that have to do with games coming out on the format?
Just because the movie side may collapse, its still a perfectly viable optical medium to store games on...or for that matter, to use on a PC for storage....

dood, every post from you these days is angry. woman troubles? LOL

The quality of games IS being held back due to having to work around a DVD-Rom only rule. Many developers have already stated this, and it was a huge issue back when MS announced the core to begin with.

As for installing games to the hard drive, couple of things. Have you seen Halo2 install on a Vista PC? it is an example of how newer pc games are going to "install"on your machine. You can actually play the game while it installs on the hard drive...no waiting. The 360 could do this as well. It is actually pretty neat.

The 20gig or should we say the 14 gig hard drive isn't useful for anything anyways. You can fill it with just a few demos yet alone full games. You would be lucky to install 2 games on it this way. However, a 120gig hd has loads of potential. Besides, a developer doesn't need to install the entire game onto the hd, just textures maybe that are already uncompressed onto the hd to speed up gaming. There are tons of more options for developers that I shouldn't need to list here.

Sony isn't implementing the hd well enough either. It is their first time with a HD though

Well didn't MS promise that all 360 games would work on the core? Unless there is a discounted HD bundled with a game that requires an HD, I can see how core users could be ticked off because for $100 they could have just bought the premium and got all the extra stuff with it. Instead now they have to purchase just a bare $100 drive. Plus they wasted $40 on a memory card (or whatever it costs nowadays)

It's already been widely accepted that I'm not lying about being a game developer and keeping myself anonymous is how I would prefer to keep my identity for the simple sake of it allowing me to be a bit more open as well as not being harassed..


Your profile claims you're a journalist. Now you claim you are a game developer. Which is true?

At any rate, how do you know that it's widely accepted that you aren't lying about being a game developer? I would assume most people never even knew you were making that claim, let alone accepting it as the truth. So what leads you to believe it is widely accepted that you are a developer?

Your post history shows your affection with the PS3 and your dissatisfaction with the 360. There's nothing wrong with that. And if you have interesting things to say, then you should say them. But I personally don't like the appeals to authority, particularly when that authority isn't disclosed.

Finally, I can't tell whether you think having a DVD-9 is a major issue or a minor issue for the 360. You started a thread and have made more than a few post about the issue, so one might be led to believe you think it is significant. On the other hand, you've claimed you don't want to take an extremist position. So on the one hand you are making inflammatory treads and post, but on the other hand saying that it's not that big of a deal. So do tell, are you claiming this is a significant or an insignificant issue?

Your profile claims you're a journalist. Now you claim you are a game developer. Which is true?

At any rate, how do you know that it's widely accepted that you aren't lying about being a game developer? I would assume most people never even knew you were making that claim, let alone accepting it as the truth. So what leads you to believe it is widely accepted that you are a developer?

Your post history shows your affection with the PS3 and your dissatisfaction with the 360. There's nothing wrong with that. And if you have interesting things to say, then you should say them. But I personally don't like the appeals to authority, particularly when that authority isn't disclosed.

Finally, I can't tell whether you think having a DVD-9 is a major issue or a minor issue for the 360. You started a thread and have made more than a few post about the issue, so one might be led to believe you think it is significant. On the other hand, you've claimed you don't want to take an extremist position. So on the one hand you are making inflammatory treads and post, but on the other hand saying that it's not that big of a deal. So do tell, are you claiming this is a significant or an insignificant issue?

Wow I forgot I had a profile here. That's clearly outdated as you can see I don't list having a Wii, or 360, or PS3. Heck I don't even think I list having a DS or PSP on there. I've posted quited often that I'm a former gaming journalist who is now a game developer. In the many thread discussions, it has been widely accepted by many people that I am a developer and I've stated things that support that claim such as pointing out the PS3 scaling issue before the system was released.

My post history, as I privately discussed with PatrickB101 in a private message as to not go off topic but I guess I'll elaborate here now anyway, does indicate that I do post more in favor towards the PS3, but if you'd ever have a one on one discussion with me, you'd see that I favor none and criticise all. I do pick and choose which topics to participate in and I tend to concentrate on certain issues which is why it may seem like I'm putting down the 360 and praising the PS3 all the time. My stance is I think on these forums the PS3 and Sony get a lot of unfair flack where as Microsoft gets to skate a bit by.

Lately, I have been pointing out the unrealistic criticisms of the PS3, while pointing out the contradictary stances on Microsoft. Examples are the lack of games on the PS3 which is unfair in the sense that every console goes through the same growing pains and the PS3 isn't even through its first year yet. Most people seem to forget the library growing pains the 360 went through early on only because there are great games now. Other examples is how the scaling issue affects a small minority of people yet people jump on Sony, yet here in this very thread about the possibility of the HDD being required in some games, people are saying it's the consumers fault and not Microsofts for not buying the HDD to begin with. Then there are the issues of BR being a complete waste yet we keep seeing further examples that it's not. It's issues like this that show to me that Sony gets an unfair shake. Granted some of it is deserved based on some of the things they've done. They aren't saints in this, but there is a lot of blame Sony first then think later on these forums and I just post to try to balance some of those issues out.

If you want to talk games, I'd be glad to talk generally in private and you'll see I'm a pretty open guy without real biases towards or against any of the platforms. I've always had the motto that I play games and not systems, which is why I buy every system so that I never have to choose a side. I can simply buy any game I want to play. It doesn't benefit me in any way to pick a side. I own about 50 360 games, only about 8 PS3 games, and over 100 Xbox and 300 PS2 games. I simply like to play games and as a developer and former journalist, I have many connections as well as insight on what really goes on which is also why I like to post about certain topics as well as keep myself anonymous hoping that my content speaks for itself in credibility.

Between the three systems, I honestly recommend based on the individual persons tastes but if someone was just a general gamer, I wouldn't think twice about recommending the 360 first as it has the most variety in games, has a great line up coming this holiday season and for many developers is the lead sku. It is also the system I play the most naturally because it has the most games. That doesn't change the fact that I think certain issues get glossed over and certain issues are unfairly used to attack a system. Hopefully this gives you a better insight of who I am rather than simply looking at post history alone. I post on many gaming forums about a variety of topics so you only get to see certain stances posted here. Now we're completely way off topic and we should probably get back to the issue being discussed here. Any further question or issue, please feel free to private message me.

4 pages of debate.

Jeez just go buy one if you don't have one. The core was a way to jump in. Time to go full.

If they do start requiring a HD to play games you can bet there will be game/HD bundles available and or small cheap starter HD that anyone will be able to add on (say a 10 or 20gb HD for $40) we have already seen that microsoft is very sensitive to complaints and perceived rip offs such as the extension of the warrantee and upcoming price drops.

I just don't see this as a bad thing.

If they do start requiring a HD to play games you can bet there will be game/HD bundles available and or small cheap starter HD that anyone will be able to add on (say a 10 or 20gb HD for $40) we have already seen that microsoft is very sensitive to complaints and perceived rip offs such as the extension of the warrantee and upcoming price drops.

I dunno if we've seen that MS is sensitive to that stuff given their pricing on accessories being over priced. Especially the outcry on the 120 gig hdd for a whopping $180. The crazy thing with the HDD is that getting a bigger HDD out there likely means more microtransactions through the marketplace so it would be in their best interest to get more out there not limit it by a high price. So I'm not so sure there's any evidence that MS will address it as a bundle or a cheap starter set.

Pricing on unessacary accessories is different than pricing on a required one. If HD's are going to be required I would bet money that MS would offer a low cost entry solution.

Pricing on unessacary accessories is different than pricing on a required one. If HD's are going to be required I would bet money that MS would offer a low cost entry solution.

But there's nothing to indicate it either way? If anything what we have so far indicates that they would not. Even when something benefits them in the long run, they seem to take the early buck such as in the 120 gig HDD. Also look at how expensive their HD cable is. Plus what defines requirement? Some games does not mean it's a required accessory in general. Even their memory card and basic HDD are expensive and at least one of them is a required purchase for a core user. Plus, I have my doubts that if some developers decided to do it, that they would then start hurting their bottom dollar to cater to some third party developers decision to require the drive. I'd be thrilled for consumers and developers if they did offer some easy inexpensive way, but I haven't seen any indicator that they'd do that from what they've done so far.

You could also argue that ad ons like extra controllers and cables are actually priced more reasonably than something like the 120gb HD(Which I agree is way overpriced). If only 1 or 2 games come out requiring a HD then no MS probably won't worry much about offering a low cost HD solution but if all or most games come out requiring one then yes they will almost for sure offer a reasonably priced HD solution or bundle them in with the games (like sony did with FF on the PS2)

You could also argue that ad ons like extra controllers and cables are actually priced more reasonably than something like the 120gb HD(Which I agree is way overpriced). If only 1 or 2 games come out requiring a HD then no MS probably won't worry much about offering a low cost HD solution but if all or most games come out requiring one then yes they will almost for sure offer a reasonably priced HD solution or bundle them in with the games (like sony did with FF on the PS2)

Sorry, but I think it's silly to try and argue that the accessories are reasonably priced. Besides the whole RRoD issue, accessories is one of the 360's weakest aspects from being significantly higher than what they should be, to charging more for a component video cable than the Xbox version cost, to making a new video port that added no new functionality only to charge more for cables, to making an open standard like USB and making it proprietary. This is a whole seperate topic, but accessories is one of the 360's weakest aspect. I think if the rumor is true, and so far I haven't found the restriction that limits usage of HDD in the TRC, then it will be more than just one or two but far less than a majority of the games. This will put it in a position where it's enough to have an impact but not enough for MS to probably create a bundle.

well i guess i disagree but we shall all find out soon enough I suppose. At this point its all speculation :)

good. not having a HDD standard was taking a step backwards imo. sorry core buyers, pony up and buy a HDD.

Some more info. with a quote from a MS spokesman, although his statement seems to only muddy the waters.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=127508

Seems like a confirmation.

Seems like a confirmation.

Yep, and a good one.

How can you play every game on every 360 system, and then still need a hard drive to 'experience' them on some systems??? Just a little curious as to why the statement was made in that way.

How can you play every game on every 360 system, and then still need a hard drive to 'experience' them on some systems??? Just a little curious as to why the statement was made in that way.

Because every system is compatible w/ the HDD

Because every system is compatible w/ the HDD

Exactly, just drop $100 more for the 20GB HDD and your ready to go.

Though if what HeadRusch says is true, watch out! :eek:

Having said that, rest assured that if games REQUIRE a hard drive to play, Microsoft wont be charging $80 bucks for a 20gig drive....they'll make it much more reasonable so they don't have a huge core backlash.

How many here on this board itself has a 360 core who are in this discussion as of today? Just curious.

How many here on this board itself has a 360 core who are in this discussion as of today? Just curious.

Haven't you been one of the people that likes to point out that AVS doesn't represent the average customer?

As for avsr's, I have no idea the ratio of premium to core. I do remember reading of people here buying Cores when the 360 launched and after that here.

Haven't you been one of the people that likes to point out that AVS doesn't represent the average customer?

As for avsr's, I have no idea the ratio of premium to core. I do remember reading of people here buying Cores when the 360 launched and after that here.


But I wasn't asking what was bought 2 years ago. I was asking just in this thread this discussion wondering who here is actually affected since all I have heard is concern about core owners vs "I am affected by this news"

Plus the question wasn't asked expecting you to know what the ratio was. No one here can answer that unless someone cares to do a poll that really cares who is here with a core since alot is so concerned about someone else having to buy a HDD.

But I wasn't asking what was bought 2 years ago. I was asking just in this thread this discussion wondering who here is actually affected since all I have heard is concern about core owners vs "I am affected by this news"

Plus the question wasn't asked expecting you to know what the ratio was. No one here can answer that unless someone cares to do a poll that really cares who is here with a core since alot is so concerned about someone else having to buy a HDD.

Sounds like you knew the way to get your answer all along ;)

I didn't state you were asking about 2 years ago or today or any other time frame, just a simple harmless question. No need to get defensive. People also go beyond simple questions and answers in forums. I'm sure you've gone beyond a simple answer in response to others as well. The place would be rather bland if it we merely had just a list of questions and answers :)

Sounds like you knew the way to get your answer all along ;)

I didn't state you were asking about 2 years ago or today or any other time frame, just a simple harmless question. No need to get defensive. People also go beyond simple questions and answers in forums. I'm sure you've gone beyond a simple answer in response to others as well. The place would be rather bland if it we merely had just a list of questions and answers :)


Nothing to get defensive about but besides a poll everyone that has been in discussion here would be able to answer thw question since I did ask who all in this thread has a core. Usually when a thread is opened up like this one is it is because the original poster is concerned how this affects them just like how we get all these threads about my 360 died today. Thats what brought on the curiousity about who here has a core because unless I just didn't read it no one here has stated they have a core to be affected by this.

Nothing to get defensive about but besides a poll everyone that has been in discussion here would be able to answer thw question since I did ask who all in this thread has a core. Usually when a thread is opened up like this one is it is because the original poster is concerned how this affects them just like how we get all these threads about my 360 died today. Thats what brought on the curiousity about who here has a core because unless I just didn't read it no one here has stated they have a core to be affected by this.

How is that relevant?