No, it does not have limits. Worse case senario, a game may have to use multiple discs. So far, the only game released on multiple discs is Blue Dragon, and it has scored very high by all reviewers so far except EGM.

The real answer for this question comes from the games. So far, name 1 bluray only game that is longer in play time than all DVD9 games. You can't, because there are none. Oblivion is extremely long, and it's on DVD9. Mass Effect is reportedly pushing 40 hours long (including side quests) and it has arguably some of the best graphics ever seen. It's on DVD9. So far, nearly every multiplatform game performs better on the 360 than the PS3. Take the recently released Madden 08 as another example in this long list. The 360 version of Madden 08 runs at 60 fps with slightly sharper graphics, while the PS3 version only runs at 30 fps with graphics that aren't quite as good. The 360 version is on DVD9, while the PS3 version is on Bluray. If Bluray really affected gaming in the slightest, then the PS3 wouldn't be getting so consistantly outperformed. Even the 360 exclusives, so far, have out shone the PS3 exclusives.

The reality of it is that an optical disc drive is merely a storage device. The storage device does not affect the quality of the game like the GPU, CPU, RAM, programming architecture, and developing tools do. These five points are what separate the performance of the consoles and so far the 360 has the edge. Don't let the Sony hype train lead you to believe that Bluray means anything. Sony needs consumers to think this way because Bluray is going to make or break them. Sony desparately, for financial reasons, needs to win the movie format war and, I think quite obviously, are trying to use the PS3 to help them do this.

This year, Mass Effect for sure and then the best 2 out of this list: Blue Dragon, Two Worlds, Eternal Sonata, Lost Odyssey. Of course, next year is different and I'm not going to list those now.

I call BS on this thread. Sounds like trolling to me. Even the biggest Sony fanboy doesn't say the 360 has no good games, he just says the PS3 is better. Go to any gaming site or better yet, metacritic/gamerankings, and you can see the vast amount of highly reviewed 360 games.

Just to list a few: Gears, R6:Vegas, Forza 2, PGR 3, COD 2, COD 3, Dead Rising, GRAW, GRAW 2, Lost Planet, Bioshock, Blue Dragon, Condemned, C & C 3, Madden 08, DOA 4, Guitar Hero II, Burnout Revenge, Oblivion, Fight Night 3, FEAR, Viva Pinata, DIRT, Crackdown, NFS: MW, Darkness, Test Drive Unlimited, Marvel: UA, Hitman, Tony Hawk P8, Saint's Row, Lego SW, Table Tennis, NCAA 08, NHL 2K7, Tomb Raider, Pro Evo, Virtua Tennis 3, PDZ, etc.

And these are just some of the games that have averaged 8 or higher, including eight that have averaged over 9.

Yeah my 360 isn't covered because it hasn't red ringed. And plus I would love to have the HDMI port and the extra HD space that I desperately need. And no I would never do that to anyone, I can't in good conscience sell something that I know to be faulty.

Spiritgod

There's a good chance your unit might get the 3RL eventually. Also, while I'm not saying to do anything to void your warranty or endanger your house, the biggest problem with the original 360 hardware is heat and there are ways to increase the heat, also resulting in the 3RL. Also, people have said that MS has replaced their unit even without the 3RL problem, if you ask nicely. Finally, and this is a bit devious, you could always just say it has the 3RL and ship it out anyway. There's a good chance they'll just ship you a refurb, most likely one withat least the 'Zephyr' revision so they don't have to replace it again. Unless, of course, you are fine with spending money to make upfor MS's mistake. If so, more power to you.

Well I agree with you that RTS on a console can be enjoyable (hell I even own C&C N64 and PC version), the even playing field of console RTS is good, and yes console RTS has finnaly improved - since C&C 64 lol - I disagree with one statement.

Im sorry that highlighted statement is bogus. I play Company of Heroes, C&C3 on Max settings, and WiC beta + Supreme commander on medium settings - all with great FPS - on a 3 year old video card..... The 360 C&C3 has freaking slowdowns, and the 360s GPU is far superiour to my X850pro.....

And no you dont need to dump a wad of cash to play the latest titles - my rig is a perfect example of that.

Hell you can play all these new titles on age old GPU and scale the visuals - retaining the same gamplay. Before you argue that is comparable to console gamers playing RTS on a gamepad, and still getting the core gameplay experience.....

Yes RTSs on either plarform have come closer, but playing RTS on a PC is a different experience to a console one. Hell I know as I said before I have C&C 1 on N64 and PC, and C&C3 on PC - and have played a rented C&C3 on my neighbours 360......

skrat_01

As in my post, I never said console RTS gaming is better. In fact, my very last statement says that it has NOT reached the level of PC RTS gaming. However, my point was that RTS gaming on the 360 should NOT be ignored. It has made vast improvements and is now not only playable, but enjoyable.

Concerning price of the rig, as you so aptly put it, you must play the games on medium settings, not experiencing all that the PC version has to offer. I am not against PC gaming at all, in fact I'm an avid PC gamer. However, you cannot deny that in order to stay current you must not only spend more money on the rig than you would on a 360 in the first place, but you have to upgrade it quite frequently.

Just to compare, lets say a console lasts 6 years. During that same time PC gaming, you will have to update your current (more expensive than the 360 by at least a factor of 2 or 3) rig at least twice, possibly having to buy an all new rig, depending on the age and typeof your motherboard on the first one. Upgrades are not cheap and a video card is only one part of the PC equation.

Again, I'm not trying to start a PC fanboy vs. Xbox fanboy argument. My point is that for the much cheaper price of the 360 and considering the recent vast improvement to console RTS games on the 360, it is not something to be dismissed just because you like RTS gaming on the PC. Also, both LOTR and C&C3, the only two current RTS games on the 360, are both made by EA. While I give credit to what they've done for the console RTS genre, the slow downs you speak off could easily be attested to the fact that EA is more concerned with quantity than quality. Frankly, the hicups on the 360 version of C&C, IMO, did not severly detract from the game's fun. 3 new console RTS games are on way, World in Conflict, End Wars, and Halo Wars, and while World in Conflict likely a PC port to the 360, these games show huge promise and could improve on EA efforts. People can now thoroughly enjoy RTS gaming on a console, even if it hasn't reached the PC level of RTS gaming.

so lemme get this straight still.....the hdmi for the xbxo 360 is basically mainly useful for the movies and not for games....becuz the games arent in HDDVD or bluray so they wont look nearly as good as they would if they were on either of those formats....GodofWar23

You are completely wrong. HD-DVD and Bluray are just storage devices. They have nothing to do with the graphics. The quality of graphics come from the console's hardware, most importantly the GPU, although RAM and processing power also influence. A game on HD-DVD or Bluray will not look any better or worse than a game on DVD9 or installed to a HDD. They are all just storage devices.

HDMI is just a digital video output with digital audio on the same connector. HDMI does not make the graphics better, it just uses a digital signal. The audio on HDMI, however, is better than audio on component, etc. Where HDMI comes into play is that it is the only input that the HDCP protection built in that may or may not go into effect by a rumored 2010 or 2011. If it does go into effect, then HD-DVD movies and Bluray movies will be downscaled to 480p (the same as current DVD movies) when not using HDMI. Also, with the 360's HD-DVD add-on. Movies cannot be upscaled to 1080p on component. It must be through VGA or HDMI. Some claim that the VGA can wash out colors, so HDMI may be preferable for those. Also, HDMI is common on all new HDTVs. Some HDTVs may not have the VGA jack. So, if you have a 360, a stand alone HD-DVD or Bluray player, and an HD cable box, you may have a problem with not enough jacks. Many HDTVs only come with 1 component but multiple HDMI jacks. So, having the 360 on HDMI, frees up the component for the HD cable box, for example.

Again, HD-DVD or Bluray do NOT make GAMES have better graphics. That is a myth. HD movies take up a lot of space and won't fit on a DVD. If they did, then DVD would look comparable to the HD-DVD/Bluray (more or less as there are other factors I'm not going to go into). HD-DVD and Bluray are important for there disc size, not because they magically make games look better.

Both the Elites and the new Premiums that have just hits store not only both have HDMI, but they both use the 'Zephyr' hardware revision. This revision is the one after the one used at launch which has all of the problems but it is the one before 'Falcon', which uses the 65nm chips. There have not really been any reports on Elites failing, so the 'Zephyr' revision improvements must have really helped. Since the new premiums that have hit stores use this same hardware configuration, then they are a better bet as well. However, the 'Falcon' revision with the cooler running 65nm chips will be hitting stores any time now. So you could wait. Personally, I don't care since the 3 year warranty has me covered. If mine does break down, I will get the newest revision for free. If you look on the box where it says what country the unit was made in (for example, 'Hardware made in China', 'Disc Drive made in Taiwan'), it will say Zephyr in the same area (on the box). You then know for sure you have that revision. I assume it will say 'Falcon' when that hit stores to. Here's a link to a picture of what I'm talking about.

http://www.planetxbox360.com/index.php/articledetails/show/2383

Despite what the PC fanboys say when they flock to any console discussion of RTSs, the 360 has proven that an RTS can be thoroughly enjoyed on a console. Is the controller better than a mouse/keyboard for an RTS? Absolutely not. That being said, with a bit of a learning curve, an RTS can become completely playable on a console. The recent C&C on the 360 was really well done. It may not be the best RTS ever, but it's quite fun, playable, and the graphics are pretty solid. The LOTR game a year ago was also a decent attempt, but IMO C&C is much better.

Would a console player with a controller be able to beat a player on a PC with a mouse/keyboard going head-to-head? No frickin way. However, on a console, everyone is on the same playing field. Fanboy way of thinking always blows my mind. To tell someone to not even try the recent RTS games on the 360 is just assinine. They have made huge strides on the 360 and have now actually become not only playable, but enjoyable on a console. There are also some very promising RTS games on the horizon for the 360. Like World in Conflict, End Wars, and Halo Wars. Not everyone wants to constantly dump money into a PC to keep it current and actually able to play recent releases on anything but the lowest settings, if at all. For a fraction of the price, you can buy a console and while the console RTS genre may not have reached the level of the PC RTS genre, it has gotten a lot closer since the launch of the 360.