guek said:
While there's nothing at all wrong with having the option to have installs, not having that option would make a difference to very few people. YOU, maybe, but the vast overwhelming majority of gamers out there wouldn't bat an eye and would feel no worse off without it.
Trying to equate HDD installs of games - something which substantively improves gaming in massive ways - to anything related to that comic is so sad one must shake their head. That is a forced install, and nobody asked for that nor is it a requirement of having an HDD on every system. That's just an example of individual developer making a mistake. After all if you want to be lazy you should be allowed to be lazy.
And in any event, where is your evidence that it would make a difference to "very few people"? Where is your evidence that the "overwhelming majority of gamers out there wouldn't bat an eye?" I certainly know a metric fuckton of gamers who utilize the feature - if you had the choice, who would choose to play with worse loading and worse texture pop-in if you didn't have to? The answer is "no one." That you're advocating laziness (at least, that's what I have to assume you're doing with that comic... there is no other logical defense of the behavior) in the form of certain people not wanting to wait 5 minutes up front in order to receive these benefits is something only worthy of scorn.
Your argument that a company should remain in the stone age - or at least that
so few people care (which is of course factually false) and so you should design an inferior console off the lowest common denominator and not include an HDD in order to be able to have developers include a feature which indisputably improves the way a game plays - just strikes me as the sort of awkward defense moding that one sees when people are out of excuses and just head straight to the denial-at-any-cost stage.
blu said:
That much I agree with you - 8GB of total storage would be too low for a game console coming out in 2012. Other than that, I completely disagree. HDDs have just one advantage over SDHC/XC, and that is cost per unit of storage. Everything else is a matter of implementation technicalities and what SD class products people would buy. As long as nintendo are not stupid to put the SD interface on something like a slow-ass USB2 bus, SD cards can be absolutely competitive with HDD speeds - tons of electronic devices that need high transfer speeds use SD cards these days (DSLRs and HD camcoders being among the prime examples). As long as transfer-speed-savvy customers are not stupid and they buy high class SDHC/SDXC cards, the raw speed of the medium will be there. Moreover, nintendo can make sure that the on-board flash is of top-notch performance, so that games can have a guaranteed high-speed caching medium, even if the user did not bother to provide them with one.
So then you don't disagree at all. Let's sit down and read, since reading is important and all that:
Amir0x said:
Now you're straight up lying to support your irrationally thought out perspective. SD cards are factually much slower read/write than the alternatives. The only thing that comes close is the SDXC and those are more expensive to a factor of 3-to-1.
So let's see: pick the right thing and get
1. Cheaper
2. More space
3. Better read/write speeds.
Pick the wrong and you get
1. Substantially slower read/write speeds
or
2. Slightly slower read/write speeds but substantially more expensive.
Yeah, sounds like a good trade off for the "NINTENDO FEEL" and "omg 2% less noise" factor. You're making real strong arguments based on, um, facts and, um, an intellectually honest assessment of the possibilities.
Hahahah, I'm just shitting you. It sounds insane because it is.
So, if they do go with SDXC they get speeds that are ALMOST as good - we're talking only
almost as equivalent - at nearly three to four times the price.
What is the benefit I'm looking for exactly? Where is the argument in favor of anything except HDD again?
Oh, wait, gimme a second...
MOVING PARTS AND A 98% FAILURE RATE, NINTENDO FEEL, NOISE REDUCTION OR SOME SUCH SHIT...
blu said:
Anecdotally, the worst console experience I've had this gen transfer-times-wise was on the ps3 and its over-bloated DRM storage scheme. I must have spent cumulatively hours of staring at mandatory-installation progress bars, 'de-bubbling' of DD content and what not, just to have the games then perform hardly-any-better than from an optical medium. The whole ps3 storage experience was a step back for me in my console-player career. At least on the wii all the wiiware juggling was of bite-sized content. On the ps3 it was a patience-trying exercise. All in all, the mere inclusion of a HDD in a console design can improve jack squat for the end-user experience. And this is without even touching subjects like what should be the proper durability of a game console, etc.
Nobody is asking for mandatory installs nor is anyone advocating PSN's method - that is system based problem that doesn't even exist on 360 at all. When 360 allows HDD installs, it's never mandatory. And when you download games on the 360 network, there's no de-bubbling.
These are not issues caused by a HDD. These are issues caused by the rare stupid developer or in the bubbling case Sony's incompetence with infrastructure.
One could have an HDD installed and completely run the thing like Nintendo's hilariously horrible Wii, only all devs would be able to have optional installs for non-lazy people who want to play their games in a factually superior fashion.