• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Did The Lack Of A Default HDD End Up Hurting 360 Games?

O

OldJadedGamer

Banned
So now that we are basically at the end of the generation I've wondered about a lot of issues we had at the beginning of the generation. One of the biggest was the lack of an standard HDD in the 360. We all remember the "tard pack" and all the flack that MS got at the beginning for not including one but in the end, did it really hurt gaming on the system in a huge way? After all, the first Xbox had one and no one used it.

At first we didn't know how big XBLA would be nor did we know about game voluntary installs. Personally, I just bought the premium 360 launch kit due to spending so much money on PS2 memory cards, I thought the only thing I would need the HDD for was to save games so I got one not to have to buy tons of memory cards like I did the previous gen.

Now, as time went on I slowly noticed it affecting more games. Not games like MMO's like FFXI but real games. It started with not being able to play multiplayer in Burnout Paradise, then no co-op in Halo Reach... then onto Battlefield 3 needing the texture install but only with HDD's. That is when I noticed it affecting everyday games.

But, those games are still in the minority in comparision to the overall library and number of games for the system. Now I'm not talking about storage of XBLA games or storing movies/music... I'm talking about the games themselves. Do you think 7 years that the lack of the HDD standard has hurt the system games wise or is it acceptable to have a lower price and have a few exceptions? If you think it did, include examples of how.
 
I'm assuming yes, not just exclusives but because multiplatform games couldn't be developed with the assumption of a hard drive being present on both systems.
 
Yes but from a business standpoint it was a brilliant way of giving customers the illusion they purchased the most inexpensive next gen console.

Sony pulled that shit recently with the VITA...

(By the way, you'll need to buy storage for this shit you just bought)

I respected them more when they didn't borrow from MS's playbook
 
For devs I'd say yeah. They always had to keep that in mind when developing first party and multi-platform games.
 
Considering most multiplatform games are superior on the console that doesn't have the mandatory hard drive I'd say no, it didn't really hurt anything.
 
I think with the footprint of games becoming larger and a lot of devs. taking advantage of every PS3 having a HDD, devs. are at least now wanting to include more stuff in the game by shoehorning it into that mandatory install.

The problem is that 360 owners are very used to never doing that and I know many who are crybabies when it comes to installing stuff. Honestly I don't care since I upgraded mine to a bigger third party drive, something you'll never be able to do on the 360.

Coming off this, Sony made that same mistake by forcing you to use THEIR proprietary memory sticks that are ludicrously priced, just like Microsoft's harddrives. I got a freebie stick with my Vita at launch but still, those prices NEED to come down.
 
If they started with 8 GB of onboard flash or something, similar to now and the Wii U? I imagine it wouldn't have been a huge deal, but because the only option was a 64 MB card... yeah, it at least forced patches to be TINY.
 
purple cobra said:
For devs I'd say yeah. They always had to keep that in mind when developing first party and multi-platform games.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this mentioned but no examples of why. Games have reviewed and sold great and run without an HDD. How were devs held back? Remember, last gen no dev even used it outside of games like Blinx.

saunderez said:
Considering most multiplatform games are superior on the console that doesn't have the mandatory hard drive I'd say no, it didn't really hurt anything.
Click to expand...

This is actually a very valid point that I didn't think of.
 
I'm happy that they sold one without a hard drive, it made it cheaper when my xbox red ringed (again) out of warranty and I had to buy a new one.
 
gryz said:
I'm happy that they sold one without a hard drive, it made it cheaper when my xbox red ringed (again) out of warranty and I had to buy a new one.
Click to expand...
It IS useful for that and other stuff, IE making your own Xbox hard drive.
 
OldJadedGamer said:
I keep seeing this mentioned but no examples of why. Games have reviewed and sold great and run without an HDD. How were devs held back? Remember, last gen no dev even used it outside of games like Blinx.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I remember right, but I think Bioware would have loved if all 360s had hard drives when they released Mass Effect 1. The game ran fine without needing the drive but weren't the load times pretty long?
 
purple cobra said:
Not sure if I remember right, but I think Bioware would have loved if all 360s had hard drives when they released Mass Effect 1. The game ran fine without needing the drive but weren't the load times pretty long?
Click to expand...

Both Sony and MS have rules in place that loading screens can't be over a certain length. So even if the game required the HDD the loading times would have been the same.
 
purple cobra said:
Not sure if I remember right, but I think Bioware would have loved if all 360s had hard drives when they released Mass Effect 1. The game ran fine without needing the drive but weren't the load times pretty long?
Click to expand...

The main problem with Mass Effect 1 with no HDD was texture load in. That is the main issue with a lot of the early UE3 games. If you had a HDD there was still texture load in but it wasn't as severe.
 
OldJadedGamer said:
Both Sony and MS have rules in place that loading screens can't be over a certain length. So even if the game required the HDD the loading times would have been the same.
Click to expand...
Their rule wouldn't change the fact that it would have loaded quicker from the HDD, so I'm not sure what you mean there.
 
It doesn't look it hurt at the end of the day since the strategy was about cost.

It hurts the consumer if they bought the budget pack without one though.

I don't know if they'll be able to get away with it next gen though.
 
In most cases I'd imagine not. The main advantage of having something installed to a hard drive over reading from a disc drive is that it's faster, which primarily affects load times and texture streaming. And considering games like Skyrim, Just Cause 2, and Far Cry 2 were able to hit streaming performance targets for enormous worlds without requiring installs, I don't think it's really as huge an issue as developers were making it out to be. Even if all 360s did have an HDD, I doubt Microsoft would have allowed manual installs - the only reason Sony had them was because the PS3's Blu-Ray reader was so slow.
 
shinobi602 said:
The 720 better come packed with a 250gb HDD standard this time or there'll be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder about that. I have a feeling that they may ditch the larger capacity spinning disc harddrives in favor for smaller internal solid state drives (16GB, 32GB, 64GB models perhaps?).
 
I suspect most games were designed to assume there would be a HDD first and work around not having an HDD second. I doubt it affected development as much as one might think.
 
For devs, yeah. The HDD in the first Xbox might not have been used much, but the jump in the amount of data needing to be constantly loaded in 360 games meant that it would've helped quite a lot for streaming and temporary data storage.

Compare how well 360 games run with and without one, for example. Yeah, it might work without a HDD because it has to, but how well will vary a lot.
 
Droog said:
I suspect most games were designed to assume there would be a HDD first and work around not having an HDD second. I doubt it affected development as much as one might think.
Click to expand...

The only 360 game that I can think of that was designed around this notion was Id Software's Rage.

But there might have also been others too.
 
It created some challenges, and having one standard would have been preferable, but I don't think it hurt the system.

BF3 and Halo 3 showed there were ways around the lack of a HDD.
 
OldJadedGamer said:
I keep seeing this mentioned but no examples of why. Games have reviewed and sold great and run without an HDD. How were devs held back? Remember, last gen no dev even used it outside of games like Blinx.
Click to expand...

A hard drive is hundreds of times faster than a DVD drive. Even a small cache can greatly improve performance, especially when games are streaming info (as pretty much they all do now). Streaming was not widely used last generation.

I'm not even talking about nonsense like MGS4 installs, but ones that are a few hundred megs like the Insomniac games or non-installs like Naughty Dog uses.
 
saunderez said:
Considering most multiplatform games are superior on the console that doesn't have the mandatory hard drive I'd say no, it didn't really hurt anything.
Click to expand...

It is only a problem for PS3 due to the slow reading speed of the Blu Ray. During launch it was fine but at this point you want mandatory HDD.
 
Of course not, although I remember endless FUD over the first few years by people hoping it was true. Like no flying in GTA lol.

I also remember when people really really hoped MS would make games with HDD mandatory...so that they would have to get rid of the core system cause it sold well...

Should have been obvious from the PS2 though. PS2 never had a problem or was criticized for no HDD.
 
No. The system sold faster and to more people because of the lower-tier of pricing made available due to its flexibility with the HDD. That greater success allowed more copies to be sold due a larger, faster-growing userbase who has options for their game saves and storage. As mentioned above, the fact that 90% or more of multiplatform releases run better and look better than the PS3 versions says that the lack of forcing it meant little in the long run and only hurt PS3 with its mandatory HDD as it has had no options to compete with MS on the lower price tier console offering. On top of that, most PS3 titles that force an install still don't ensure improved performance where the game loads faster or runs better than the X360 version, in general. The installation process also happens faster on X360 and is possible with nearly every game as an option, with mostly win-win results.
 
thekonamicode said:
Yes. Just about any developer will confirm this.
Click to expand...

BigTnaples said:
Yes, very much so.
Click to expand...

purple cobra said:
For devs I'd say yeah.
Click to expand...

Could you guys give an example of how the lack of an HDD hurt devs or games.

Im sure the OP specifically stated giving examples for instance maybe show a multiplaform game that utilizes the PS3 HDD but the X360 doesnt and as such is hurt it in some way.

P.S I know this is NeoGAF and people occasionally just make baseless statements, but im hoping these guys will actually back up their statements.
 
Black_Stride said:
Could you guys give an example of how the lack of an HDD hurt devs or games.

Im sure the OP specifically stated giving examples for instance maybe show a multiplaform game that utilizes the PS3 HDD but the X360 doesnt and as such is hurt it in some way.

P.S I know this is NeoGAF and people occasionally just make baseless statements, but im hoping these guys will actually back up their statements.
Click to expand...


http://www.msxbox-world.com/news/ar...s-installing-game-on-xbox-360-hard-drive.html

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/battlefield-3-f.php

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/163233/xbox-360-is-limiting-gta-iv-says-rockstar/

http://rampancy.net/blog/narcogen/15082007/microsoft_allows_mmo_develops_to_require_hard_drive


Have you been living under a rock? Citing MP games as examples makes no sense because the game is just that, MP, so it has to fit to the lower common denominator (the HDDless console). An exclusive 360 game with the guarantee that all 360s had HDDs would be a better game for it.


Now, if the question is, did it hurt Microsoft? No it didn't.
 
diffusionx said:
A hard drive is hundreds of times faster than a DVD drive. Even a small cache can greatly improve performance, especially when games are streaming info (as pretty much they all do now). Streaming was not widely used last generation.

I'm not even talking about nonsense like MGS4 installs, but ones that are a few hundred megs like the Insomniac games or non-installs like Naughty Dog uses.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with anything you're saying, but the lack of a standard HDD doesn't stop developers from implementing such soft install or cache features. Developers have up to 2GB to play with on the HDD IIRC, and I know Bungie uses a system very similar to Naughty Dog where information is cached to the HDD before being loaded into the game.

cjelly said:
Don't a lot of 360 games use the HDD, any way?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are ways to work around most hurdles, but it still needs to be kept in mind throughout the development process.

I much rather developers opt to cripple HDD-less players than to let it effect every 360 (plus PS3) owner.

Edit:


Metalmurphy said:
http://www.msxbox-world.com/news/ar...s-installing-game-on-xbox-360-hard-drive.html

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/battlefield-3-f.php

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/163233/xbox-360-is-limiting-gta-iv-says-rockstar/

http://rampancy.net/blog/narcogen/15082007/microsoft_allows_mmo_develops_to_require_hard_drive


Have you been living under a rock? Citing MP games as examples makes no sense because the game is just that, MP, so it has to fit to the lower common denominator (the HDDless console). An exclusive 360 game with the guarantee that all 360s had HDDs would be a better game for it.


Now, if the question is, did it hurt Microsoft? No it didn't.
Click to expand...

None of those are examples how a HDD-less SKU hurt the games since there are options around such limitations.

If he asked how people without HDDs are effected, then your links would make sense.
 
I always thought they should have fixed this with the console revision. The 4GB version should have just gotten a smaller HDD than the 'Pro' version.
 
Metalmurphy said:
http://www.msxbox-world.com/news/art...ard-drive.html
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/battlefield-3-f.php
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...says-rockstar/
http://rampancy.net/blog/narcogen/15...ire_hard_drive
Have you been living under a rock? Citing MP games as examples makes no sense because the game is just that, MP, so it has to fit to the lower common denominator (the HDDless console). An exclusive 360 game with the guarantee that all 360s had HDDs would be a better game for it.
Now, if the question is, did it hurt Microsoft? No it didn't.
Click to expand...

None of the links you posted show any evidence of a game being hurt by the fact that not all X360 have access to an HDD.
So.......

As for the whole Multiplat thing, i figured the only way to get any real evidence of a game being hurt by the lack of HDD support is by looking at the PS3 version in the event the PS3 version uses its hard drive to do something spectacular.....since the 360 version wouldnt use the HDD the gap in performance/awesomeness would be clear.

Lower denominator?.....rubbish, lazy ports are lazy....else the PS3 versions of game would have better parity, as is the 360 trumps Ps3 9 times outta 10 with multiplats.

P.S I knew someone was going mention the whole GTA4 thing, wasnt that debunked a long time ago?
 
It limited developers but I wouldn't say it hurted them as badly as I thought it would. Load times without an HDD are surprisingly not much different for most games. Another plus is that Microsoft forced developers to create tinier updates for their games and this has resulted in me not having to download 6 separate big updates just to play a game online(I'm looking at you MGS4/LittleBigPlanet/GT5). But on the other hand this encouraged many devs to not create much extra content for PS3 versions of games because the 360 was the leader early on for attach rate. Similar to how the PS2 had a tremendous lead so we didn't see much difference between most xbox/ps2 games in terms of content aside from better filtering/loadtimes/effects.

Out of everything Microsoft has done with the 360 good or bad I have always considered the lack of not having a hdd included was their biggest mistake. But I also consider it their biggest triumph. It allowed them to price the 360 competitively against the wii/ps3 early on and let people upgrade the hdd when they needed it later down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Highguard Postmortem: Did "The Game Awards" show ending reveal hurt or help the game?
2 3
101
920
MiguelItUp replied
  • Poll
Did mobile phones hurt gaming the most?
Opinion  2 3
116
1K
Generic replied
  • Locked
Sony is impatient with the lack of Naughty Dog games, says Jason Schreier
Social News  2
77
340
Angry_Megalodon replied
The Lack Of Star Wars RPGs Disturbs Me
2
57
498
simpatico replied
What era of gaming graphics do you like the most (the look of games, because of lack of computing power)?
2
86
1K
Tomorrow replied
Top Bottom