Support NeoGAF

[OldJadedGamer]

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.

 

[thekonamicode]

Yes. Just about any developer will confirm this.

 

[Kai Dracon]

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.

 

[awaiken]

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

 

[BigTnaples]

Yes, very much so.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

It hurt people on launch day that couldn't by the Pro pack and had to buy the console and HDD separate.

 

[awaiken]

It hurt people on launch day that couldn't by the Pro pack and had to buy the console and HDD separate.

I think he means from the developer's point of view. 360 devs could not assume everyone had purchased a HD. This affects development

 

[Combichristoffersen]

For devs? Probably. For consumers? Eh. Only if you bought the tard pack and then had to buy a HD later on, I guess.

 

[Nizz]

For devs I'd say yeah. They always had to keep that in mind when developing first party and multi-platform games.

 

[saunderez]

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.

 

[YoungHav]

This gen could have been so much better.

 

[Schobeleth]

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.

 

[Eusis]

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.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

For devs I'd say yeah. They always had to keep that in mind when developing first party and multi-platform games.

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.

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.

This is actually a very valid point that I didn't think of.

 

[gryz]

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.

 

[Eusis]

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.

It IS useful for that and other stuff, IE making your own Xbox hard drive.

 

[Nizz]

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.

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?

 

[OldJadedGamer]

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?

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.

 

[saunderez]

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?

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.

 

[Seventy5]

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.

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.

 

[Gaogaogao]

yes, they could have made installation from multiple dvds a requirement, making games bigger.

 

[bkw]

It "hurt" as much as any other system limitation. Cpu speed, system memory, dvd drive, etc.

 

[Dresden]

Just a really odd step back for the company that introduced hard drives to consoles.

 

[CadetMahoney]

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.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Just a really odd step back for the company that introduced hard drives to consoles.

But how many developers used it last gen outside of a just a huge memory card?

 

[shinobi602]

The 720 better come packed with a 250gb HDD standard this time or there'll be hell to pay.

 

[Elsolar]

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.

 

[Jigsaw]

the only reason Sony had them was because the PS3's Blu-Ray reader was so slow.

2x blu ray is just as fast as 8x dvd dual layer,which almost every 360 game uses

 

[MrCunningham]

The 720 better come packed with a 250gb HDD standard this time or there'll be hell to pay.

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?).

 

[Mileena]

The 720 better come packed with a 250gb HDD standard this time or there'll be hell to pay.

500GB or bust. DD is big.

 

[acm2000]

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.

done, and done

 

[Droog]

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.

 

[Esura]

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.

done, and done

Not really done, and done if you factor in the difference in each system's various hardware. That would only make sense if both consoles were identical in what they contained.

 

[Dachande]

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.

 

[MrCunningham]

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.

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.

 

[see5harp]

Most games seem to run perfectly streaming from the (admittedly) loud disc drive.

 

[KageMaru]

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.

 

[diffusionx]

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.

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.

 

[Izick]

Probably one of the few step-backs from the OG Xbox.

 

[t26]

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.

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.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Don't a lot of 360 games use the HDD, any way?

 

[specialguy]

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.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

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.

 

[Black_Stride]

Yes. Just about any developer will confirm this.

Yes, very much so.

For devs I'd say yeah.

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.

 

[Metalmurphy]

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.

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.

 

[KageMaru]

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.

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.

Don't a lot of 360 games use the HDD, any way?

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:

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.

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.

 

[Double D]

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.

 

[Black_Stride]

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.

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?

 

[OldJadedGamer]

P.S I knew someone was going mention the whole GTA4 thing, wasnt that debunked a long time ago?

Even still. GTA4 became one of the highest rated and best selling of the current generation so lack of a HDD didn't seem to hurt it that much it seems.

 

[Barrel Cannon]

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.