Topic: What Does It Mean Now That The Hdd Is Not Standard (Read 491 times)

Deftech · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2005, 02:29:00 PM »

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Sep 1 2005, 04:39 PM)

Well you have to also think, only about 20% of the games on the xbox are any good(same with most consoles) so go figure only 20% use the HDD. Only the good ones and yes that is my fucking opinion

Carlo210 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 01, 2005, 02:29:00 PM »

How do you know that the 20% of HDD using games are the 20% which are good? Maybe only 10% of the good games use the hdd while 10% of crappy games use the hdd.

Bogus8 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2005, 02:30:00 PM »

Carlo210 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2005, 02:32:00 PM »

lol. Oops, I dunno what kinda of sources he has. Maybe he has a list of the games which use the HDD and which ones that don't and knows that the good games use the HDD.

jaskerzada006 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 02, 2005, 12:54:00 PM »

Carlo210 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 02, 2005, 02:19:00 PM »

So narrow minded.

Games on the Xbox 360 can run without a harddrive. Have you realized this yet? It doesn't matter how many/few games used the harddrive with Xbox because they just usedit since it was there. With the Xbox360, games will run without the harddrive because developers have to take it into account.

If Xbox had an optional harddrive instead of a standard one, then developers would have done the exact same thing they are currently doing for Xbox 360 - 'making the games run without a harddrive'.
Don't keep on spewing out how most Xbox games can't run without a harddrive.
Do you know why most Xbox games can't run without a harddrive?

It's because they weren't designed to.

Now with Xbox360 games, they will be designed to, so stop bringing up the same complaints.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #21 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:19:00 AM »

Well I don't think anyone can say for sure which games use and don't use the hard drive on the current gen Xbox, in order to know that you'd have to have a good knowledge of how the game was programed and the only people who know that is the developers.

People keep saying that Doom3 or Halo 2 wouldn't be possible without the build in hard drive. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't but I've yet to see a developer from either of those camps comment one way or the other on if their current gen titles would have functioned or not without one (if you have a link I'd love to read it).

Obviously there are a good portion of Xbox games that if you pulled the hard drive out from under them they would stop working, but that's only because they were built knowing that the hard drive would always be there, Who's to say that if it was an optional, removable drive they wouldn't have worked just fine with some additional code to account for it not being there? The only people who can answer that is developers and so far every developer I've spoken too has said it is totally and without a doubt not a problem...

KAGE360 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:55:00 AM »

i dont know how doom uses the HD but in every developer interview before the game came out on the xbox the same answer was given to why the game wasnt also being ported to the ps2 and gamecube. it wasnt because of the lack of a HD but lack of power. no where did they even mention anything about the HD in interviews when concerning other consoles.

and as far as halo1 and halo 2 BS that it wouldnt be possible on the xbox without the HD. from what i can see its only used to cache the part of a level when it would say loading in the corner of the screen. so without a HD there would just be a loading screen instead of just a hiccup, but with the right streaming technique wouldnt that also be resolved?? with a faster DVD drive and still the option to use the HD if its present i dont see how the lack of a standard HD will effect the 360.

KAGE360 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:58:00 AM »

LowProfileWurm · « **Reply #24 on:** September 06, 2005, 12:33:00 PM »

Apparently, many games don't use the harddrive (mostly cross-platform games that are limited by PS2/NGC not having HDD's). Dev's simply don't want to bother. The games are quick to load as it is so why add in one more thing to debug? The "no HDD support" is nothing new. AND to top it all off... MS boosted the RAM performance in the 360 to pick up the slack of not having a HDD.

WE DON'T NEED CACHING, per se.

The only devs that take advantage of it are the ones making games that have streaming worlds (ie. GTA, RPGs, large data models, etc.) and studios who are making exclusive games. I personally think it doesn't help that much at all. Remember PGR on Xbox1 how the car select screen took 2 or 3 seconds to load the car models? That was because the game was caching something that didn't need it. PGR2 did away with that. They just streamlined the code.

Remember, MS gave devs an extra 256Mb of RAM with boosted performance and a 12X DVD drive. This could potentially solve even the worst load times.

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 06, 2005, 12:49:00 PM »

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Sep 6 2005, 02:44 PM)

Remember, MS gave devs an extra 256Mb of RAM with boosted performance and a 12X DVD drive. This could potentially solve even the worst load times.

I'm sorry, but

Yay the 12x DVD drive. Why do people act like this is some super fast thing. Don't forget this is next-gen, not current gen, the games will be different. If that 12x DVD drive was going to make some big difference, then past examples should have. Let me give you one of those very examples.

The PSX had a 2x CD-ROM and about 3MB of RAM (with GPU RAM).
The PS2 had a DVD-ROM that would do 24x CD-speeds and 32MB of RAM.

Now the question is, did the 24x CD PS2 games load any faster than the 2x CD PSX games.................NO.

Ironically, the CD based PS2 games had horrible load times.

Now looking at that RAM. The PSX had 3 MB, the PS2 had 32MB. That is a little over 10 times the amount of RAM. The xbox has 64MB while the xbox 360 has only 512MB..............this is only 8 times more than the last one had.

The Second Question. The PS2 had 10 times the RAM of the PSX, so with the xbox 360 only having 8 times the RAM of the xbox, what difference will it make. Oh and yes yes I know the RAM's have different speeds. I don't know the PSX RAM speed, thats why I didnt make a RAm speed comparison.

This post has nothing to do with the HDD as the xbo 360 will be fine without it, the GC and PS2 were fine without it. I just didnt like the logic in the statement I quoted.

LowProfileWurm · « **Reply #26 on:** September 06, 2005, 01:29:00 PM »

, sorry. Not to mention it's GDDR3 memory instead of basic DDR SDRAM. The RAM upgrade is the biggest help, as any dev will tell you. I just put the 12X drive in there to bolster my opinion as it only helps.

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 06, 2005, 01:56:00 PM »

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Sep 6 2005, 03:40 PM)

I'm not saying that the 12X DVD drive will solve the problem alone, but it helps. The logic is that the 700Mhz RAM in the Xbox360 is considerably faster than the 200Mhz RAM found in the Xbox1

, sorry. Not to mention it's GDDR3 memory instead of basic DDR SDRAM. The RAM upgrade is the biggest help, as any dev will tell you. I just put the 12X drive in there to bolster my opinion as it only helps.

Once Again, did the 800Mhz Rambus Ram help the PS2 load faster than a PSX. No, but the developers said it would before console release just as they are doing now.

LowProfileWurm · « **Reply #28 on:** September 06, 2005, 02:23:00 PM »

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Sep 6 2005, 05:07 PM)

Once Again, did the 800Mhz Rambus Ram help the PS2 load faster than a PSX. No, but the developers said it would before console release just as they are doing now.

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #29 on:** September 06, 2005, 02:29:00 PM »

Author Topic: What Does It Mean Now That The Hdd Is Not Standard (Read 491 times)