[QUOTE="jdt532"]With that logic CDs would work fine too. Why not put the game on 37 CDs? The point is there's a better option out there so disk swapping shouldn't be necessary.IronBass

Exaggerating won't make your argument any stronger. Swapping discs 36 times is reasonably more bothersome than doing it twice. And that's the point, that devs can still make games on DVDs without needing more than a couple of swappings.

If we needed 37 DVDs you'd have a point, but we don't, we only need three, so the example of 37 CDs is completely out of touch with the (very specific) topic we're discussing.

Also there's the fact that most third party multi-platform games are on a single disk which makes you wounder if devs. are purposely holding out content so a game can fit on a single DVD.jdt532

If the devs thought the content was necessary for the game, they would simply use another DVD (just like this game). There are way more indicatives that show that content ishold back in order to be sold as DLC than it being because of storage issues.

You're right disk swapping isn't the issue here if a game is on 2,3,4+ DVDs so be it I don't mind disk swapping either. My main problem is that I believe allot of third party devs are purposely holding out content or designing a game from the start to fit on a single DVD. ID software has been on record saying that M$ charges extra royalties on multi-disk games and I see that as a big incentive to do everything you can to keep a game on one disk. So I can't help wondering how much content we've missed this generation because of M$'s BS policies and the fact that margins on video games are already slim before tacking on multi-disk penalties from M$.

So how many multiplats require multiple discs out of how many multiplats that were released from 2005.

DroidPhysX

What's your point? I already addressed that.

That's the key phrase..."at this point". If this was a normal generation cycle we'd be6 months pre new system release. MS showed that they were completely correct about bluray not being needed this gen. The majority of games to this day are still single disc, and there hasn't been a single game that wasn't feasible to do on DVD. Cows back in 05 were claiming we'd be at this point 5 years ago when they were trying to justify bluray and its state at that point going in the PS3. Now MS can transition their next console to bluray when the technology is not only "cheap" but also is an upgrade over DVD in not only capacity but speed too. The whole bluray argument ended up going lems way not cows.

Steppy_76

You and M$ are right Blu-Ray or any media that holds more data isn't "needed" just like DVDs aren't "needed" either. Why not just put games on 40 CDs or hundreds of floppy disks? Yes most third party multi-platform games fit on a single DVD but games like L.A. Noire, Mass Effect 2, FFXIII, Rage and just about every PS3 exclusive prove that games can have allot more content that can fit in a 7.9GB DVD so you have to wounder if most third party devs just cut content or design their game from the start to be restricted to 7.9GB.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]This is not a big deal but it does show sony was right about Blu-Ray,DVD storage spaces doesn't cut it any more.IronBass

Actually, this game proves the contrary, that DVDs still work fine.

With that logic CDs would work fine too. Why not put the game on 37 CDs? The point is there's a better option out there so disk swapping shouldn't be necessary. Also there's the fact that most third party multi-platform games are on a single disk which makes you wounder if devs. are purposely holding out content so a game can fit on a single DVD.

Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or a proprietary disk format I don't care as long as it holds allot more data than the 7.9GBs DVDs hold. I guess they could stick with DVDs and have mandatory installs as a solutions as well but games can't be restricted to 7.9GBs again...