Originally Posted by Jaren613
If using one BD disc + using harddrive space was more expensive for production then they would simply use another disc. I don't know how familiar you are with disc production and game design, but adding another disc is a pretty annoying thing for developers to have to deal with, and it ends up costing them more money.
My point is that one BD is more expensive in production than two DVDs. Even if that wouldn't be the case, there are only very few 360 games, that need more than one DVD, whereas every PS3 game has to use the pricey BD.
This same trick has been done with great success on the PC for years. To think of it as a downside is silly, since the PS3 presents all the same options to developers and gamers as the 360, plus many more.
The PS3 user has the following options:
1. play games plug'n'play, but life with longer load times than 360
3. hope that the game makes excessive use of the HDD, which might
reduce load times to those of the 360
2. manually copy data to HDD to reduce the load time to less than 360
So, in most cases the PS3 will be loading the contents slower than the 360 does.
Plus, the third option doesn't have to be PS3-exclusive, 360 developers could do that as well.
The differences of consoles to PCs: PCs are NOT plug'n'play. You are forced
to install data to HDD. If the same would apply to the PS3 someday, it would NOT be an advantage. The second difference: consoles do not need to be upgraded. That also means that they have a fixed amount of disk space. Is the hard disk full, the user has to delete game data -- not very comfortable.
Also, the Playstation 3 has more games coming out for it this year than any of the other next gen systems. Just thought that was an interesting and little known fact.
That's not true.