guek said:
edit: oh hell, i'll just put these questions up blankly then
1. How will including HDD support but excluding it from the package compel developers to not put up DLC and indie titles when there's a direct precedent for the exact opposite?
2. What hard figures do you have that support installs and large internal storage spaces being a significant feature for the majority of gamers when only 6% of current gen gamers have downloaded DLC and other software to their machines according to NPD as of September, 2010?
Thank you. I am trying to get people to understand that I am not attacking you, just your points. I have nothing against you or anyone else. If I don't respect you I would not waste time responding to you
1. I've never argued that it'd compel devs not to put up DLC and indie titles. The only thing I've argued directly was that it'd make them far less likely to include the OPTION - only an option, since gamers shouldn't be forced to do anything - of having install to HDD. It took years for 360 to be able to add a more general across the board feature on the direct result of not having a HDD in every system to start with. Installing to HDD does things like improve loading and reduce texture pop-in, so I and many others consider it hugely important.
If the only SKU available to developers is an 8gig flash memory Stream, it's highly unlikely they're going to bother having install to the drive as an option. One game would likely blow up the space limit, and no matter how popular SD cards get the read/write speeds are not fast enough to compare to HDD so the benefits would be pointless and in the case of SDXC it's so much more expensive for less space that it'd doesn't make sense why one would advocate it over the alternative.
2. I never said it was a significant feature for a majority of gamers. I said it is an important feature for MANY gamers - which is true. There is no poll taken that suggest the # of users that utilize install to HDD or what their use is of downloadable games. Your poll is of DLC, which has been a subject of much consternation even among hardcore gamers because of the way it allows developers to nickle and dime us. What we're discussing is purely the ability to install to HDD and the downloadable games and their important to gamers at large.
We know that there are many downloadable games that have made a lot of money, and waaaaaay back in 2007
Microsoft released statistics saying 70% of users have downloaded some content of some kind. In 2011, it's without a doubt far more prevalent then it was even then and there are even more downloadable game platforms. And we know that, for example, one of the most recent gaming phenomenons have been Angry Birds, a purely downloadable game released across a litany of platforms. Downloadable titles is here to stay and it is massively important for many consumers. Given the statistics I WOULD hazard to say "most", but that is not really relevant to the discussion considering whether it was 'many' or 'most' the critical point is that any company should design a console in a way that is the objective best and not designed for the lowest common denominator.
Similarly, as a business, it only makes sense to design a console in a way that appeals to the people who spend the most money. Those would be the vast majority of gamers who reject 8GB of flash memory with paltry SD card file shuttling because of the massive inconvenience it causes in this process. I am arguing there's no reason to go down that road when we have the best, most convenient and fastest and cheapest alternative right here ready to go. And their competitors are utilizing it too, so it makes sense to at least ensure your system is on par and not inferior.