Elder Scrolls IV: Xbox 360 HDD recommended?

My guess would be that caching data and/or cutscenes would be the primary use of the HD. Making the Xbox360 available without a hard drive is one of the dumbest things MS could do. Yes, a HD is overkill for savegames. But the HD provides a way for the game developers to stream content onto the HD from the molasses-slow optical drive in the background and then play it back instantly later.

Has anything been said about the speed of the Xbox optical drive? Will it be able to read the 10+ Mbps required for HD video (and I don't think that is even including sound)?

They should drop the $299 package. It's really silly and only limits dev's with the lack of a HDD. I gladly support elder scrolls giving MS the proverbial finger and dishing out extra functionality to those with a HDD.

I am a big Xbox fan but I will buy any console that appeals to me (I have them all).

That said, not including the HD and actually telling developers NOT to program their games to take advantage of one, after spouting off at the mouth about how the HD in the Xbox is so "revolutionary" and touting all the things it could potentially do, is nothing short of a PR catastrophe. RE: CRAPTACULAR.

It doesn't matter now if MS drops the HDD... they told their developers "not to depend on the Hard Disk Drive". Good bye caching and extra maps... good bye advantage.

We are now left with a fast PS2, basically.
(mind you I am simplifying a little)

Does a typical DVD drive spin fast enough to stream 720p cinematics without hiccups?

I'd imagine a logo for
"HDD Recommended" will make it's way onto the back of the 360's game boxes thanks to this move.

Looks like we are getting to a time where each game has a MINIMUM SPECS and RECOMMENDED SPECS listing on it. Thanks, MS.

From a pinned post in the Oblivon: General forum at theelderscrolls.com

"For those of you that have been wondering, just a quick word. Oblivion does not REQUIRE a hard drive to work on Xbox 360. It will work on every Xbox 360. We would recommend you get one if you have the means because we use it heavily if you have one and it makes the game play smoother, but it is in no way a requirement."

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=145879

If more developers wind up taking that root, we won't games taking full advantage of the 360's hardware in the Core System. Very weak. I hope games are dumbed down for the HDless systems.

that's route

I always considered console videogaming to be different than PC videogaming. Thats what made it special. Thanks for ruining it MS.

SickNic, you don't have to get a 360. Just get a real console instead of a Microsoft 360 PC.

now the "removable" hard drive makes more sense... i dont think a system will handle more than one HD, so you'll also need a mem card to play on a friends system using both player profiles. so, the hard drive isn't usefully removable, but it is EASY TO INSTALL, clever bastard ploy microsoft... the thing sont and nintendo seem to be able to avoid, and microsoft did, is possibly alienate their customer base, brilliant!

Def interesting...I think M$ has been sending confliciting meesages to it's developers for some time now...heck they sent us confusing messages (HD or NO HD M$?)...so now developers are like "crap Bob, just found out the HD ain't standard, guess we need to optimize some code now to rely less on the HD!"

With that said, we do know they bumped up the spec on the Optical Drive from like 4X to 12X speed, so it's def faster this time around!

As a hit on those who are saying: "Thx M$ for creating min requirements for console games" - they weren't the first - Sony mandated the HD for playing FFXI, did they not? Even so, it's not that confusing to say "Xbox HD Required" on a game. It's not a list that says:

- Minimum triple core 3.2GHz processor
- ATI R500 series graphics chipset or better
- 512 MB of system RAM or better

Anyways, us geeks won't have a problem with that, but the core system is something we ain't gonna touch with a ten foot poll. It's like the lowest trim level sedan (Camry CE anybody?) - I think Camry CE's make up like 5% of all Camry Sales!

You guys need a history lesson. M$ isn't the first ones to do this and to bypass the whole headache for you all, simply buy the $399 console. Whoever said the 360 is now a PS2, what you meant to say was that the 360 is now a PS3- except that the 360's HDD is actually used for GAMES while Sony has stated the their add-on HDD is not. So the 360 is still the best choice if you feel so strongly about next gen systems needing a hard drive because I highly doubt the Revolution will be sporting one...

"As a hit on those who are saying: "Thx M$ for creating min requirements for console games" - they weren't the first - Sony mandated the HD for playing FFXI, did they not?"

True. So did Nintendo with the N64 (DK64, Perfect Dark required the Jumper Pak expansion). But they did it after the system had been around a while, not before the launch. They jeopardized a few games, not the entire library.

And no, it's not a full Spec list, just one component, but its the slippery slope. Start with the HDD this year, go onto optional RAM next year, etc. I don't think it will be like that, really, but its an example of how MS could be changing console gaming for the worst.

Um, Sony only "mandated" their PS2 HDD for FFXI in that you couldn't even buy the game without it. Apart from that, and maybe SOCOM map downloads, they didn't use it to distinguish one console from another on this scale.

Your car analogy's a bit lacking, too: I'd liken MS's turnabout on their HDD feature (which many fanboys hailed as the next revolution in gaming, way back when) as the 2005 Camry coming with GPS standard, then the 2006 only offering it as an upgrade. Oh, and it'd be a GPS package with only half the maps as one the competition had, as an option--in 2005.

"Def interesting...I think M$ has been sending confliciting meesages to it's developers for some time now"

As a developer, I can tell you that's not true. They've made it very clear that you can use the HD if you want-- mostly to cache stuff to for faster access-- but you can never rely on it actually being attached, so your game has to pass all TCRs without it (including load time TCRs!).

The key will be having strict enough TCRs. Would many PS2 games have had faster load times if there was a version with a hard drive, that developers could optimize to? Absolutely. Would some developers have used that as an excuse to ignore poor DVD load times? Absolutely. So, the trick with the XBox 360 will be to have strict requirements on DVD load times, so that people without the HD won't get the shaft.

Man, you kids.

Any of you ever hear of the Sega CD?

Hell, I even remember the Colecovision and the Atari having games you couldn't run without peripherals.

The salient point is that by and large, console devs don't like this because it makes coding WAY more annoying. Expect to see a lot of medoicre performing games right out the gate for the 360.

I think MS is confused about what exactly their user base wants. They've been spouting all this customization PR nonsense. If I wanted to spend a fortune "customizing" my Xbox 360 with $20 face plates and $50 controllers, I'd just upgrade my frickin PC. I want to buy the 360 and know that for the next couple of years, it will never be outdated and not worry about these idiotic "customization" options.

plenty of you are overreacting.

it's not like it's hard to add some code to cache on the harddrive if it's there, and otherwise not. this isn't a rocket science.

and people act like microsoft is the first company to have different system configurations. the turboduo/pc-engine+cd/turbografxcd had 3 different system cards, plus an arcade card, and games that required different levels of these. then there was the supergrafx on top of that. that was around 1990 and gamers managed quite fine with that. sure you might have problems if your mom randomly picks out games for you.

almost every playstation game needed a memory card, but was one included? did they think to add just 64K of flash to the console? no.

the ps2 had a harddrive and a small handful of games that took advantage of it, and at least one that required it. probably would've been more if sony didn't completely kill the HD addon with the pstwo. what about the pstwo and the network only games like "twisted metal: black online"

The penetration of the HD for the 360 will be 85%. That's not even including the people who buy the core system and a HD.

This means that there will be virtually no loss of downloadable content or games that will use caching for loading.

Considering I've only read ONE post in two days by someone who plans to buy the "core" system instead of the $400 one, I'd say all this doom and gloom is unnecesary hype.

Look, if none of us buy the core system then they'll stop making it, plain and simple. For a developer it's as simple as inserting if-else code.

"If HDD present, then precache to HDD. Else, load from disc."

Here's another plain english masterpiece.

"If HDD present, save to HDD. Else save to mem card"

Holy cow!!!! One line of code solved everthing! Seriously though an Xbox360 with a HDD (hard disc drive, HD means high-definition people) will load some stuff faster than one without. Other games we won't see a difference.

Plus with no Live for "core" owners, that means no 9 year olds telling you to "suck it bitch" every 5 seconds. Hooray!!!

soco, Yeah, and look how long NEC's TurboGrafx 16 lasted.

If you think that everybody with $400 to spend isn't an ass you're in for a surprise. I'd wager that you'll detect no difference in Live play.

Historically console add-ons have done poorly. I haven't heard the numbers for the PS2's broadband adapter but next to that the most likely success story was the Nintendo 64's Expansion Pak which I hear reached a whopping 30-40% of the consoles sold and was only used by a handful of games (what was it like 5 with 1 game that absolutely required it [Donky Kong 64] and another that required it if you wanted to really play the game [Perfect Dark]).

Hopefully Microsoft has taken care of this problem with the system toolkit. Instead of having to specifically write support for a memory card or a hard drive developers can hopefully just make a call to a routine that handles sorting out whether stuff is stored on a memory card or hard drive at the OS level. Hopefully Sony has done the same since it is pretty sad to see how many PS2 games are out there that only support loading and saving to the memory card in slot one.

Of course this still doesn't fix the problem of being able to use the HD as a cache. Anyone who has played Halo 2 after an Auto-Update wipes out the cache knows just how important it really is as the wait through loads times that are anywhere from twice as long to xix times as long in some cases. At least some developers are smart enough to code it to take advantage of the HD if it is there.

Majora's Mask also required it... making it a must have for a new Zelda... and Perfect Dark made good use of it if I remember. I forget how much it cost though... not too much if I remember correctly. No hassle... but it wasn't even revealed until later in the console's life. You bought the N64 and then later you learned they were going to update it. They didn't try to sell you a dumbed down console for a price point marketing campaign.

"Plus with no Live for "core" owners, that means no 9 year olds telling you to "suck it bitch" every 5 seconds. Hooray!!!"

________________

LOL, so true.

I'd have to argue (and this goes against my point from earlier) whether or not we will see 85% penetration of the hard drive. We might see high penetration, but consider this. IF there have been about 20 million Xbox's sold, and only 2 million have gone on XB Live, that leaves us with a high percentage of users not really needing a big hard drive at all (game saves vastly underutilize an HDD!). Sure, caching to disk increases performance, but I think MS could accomplish the caching feature far better if they had a large piece of on-board flash memory for this (512MB to 1GB flash chips are pretty cheap these days), which has to be a far cheaper option than expensive HDDs, and also can be faster performance wise.

I bet we see a lot more core systems sold than we estimate, and it's more than just the parents buying for their kiddies...there are a lot of users who just want a new console to play a great game on! These users will probably be upgrading from their PS2; since there is a VAST number of casual gamers out there who own ageing PS2s (let's call them the "Madden Boys"). These people are used to the concept of memory cards, so this will all make sense to them (I guess this might be what MS thinks).

----------------------------

"The key will be having strict enough TCRs. Would many PS2 games have had faster load times if there was a version with a hard drive, that developers could optimize to? Absolutely. Would some developers have used that as an excuse to ignore poor DVD load times? Absolutely. So, the trick with the XBox 360 will be to have strict requirements on DVD load times, so that people without the HD won't get the shaft."

-------------------------------

Perhaps you could enlighten us to what a TCR is? I am actually curious as to how all these next-gen games can get by without an HDD. So many hi-res textures, HD FMV sequences, etc - and they work just fine with no HDD? I guess we have volatile system memory to the tune of 256+256; so is this all you get to "depend on" being in every 360? Is the PSU gonna keep a little voltage on the system RAM so you can "sleep" the device and maintain everything in last used status?

I'm curious more than anything! If MS hasn't been sending developers mixed signals, why did they send such a mixed bag of fluff to the rest of the industry?

I think that the Core system is not the standard... from what I understand it's just a "value" pack... even though in order to accually do anything you need a mem card for 40 bucks raising the price to almost the standard 400 price -_-

Silver and Gold

All current live memberships will automatically become Gold members of Xbox Live.

Silver membership means that you can go on live and look around, but you can't game against someone else. You can use the Marketplace, but unless you upgrade to Gold, you're not going to be going against people right away.

They probably just meant:

You don't need the HDD for the game.

But you're a total idiot, if you don't buy one if you have the means.

Nice. So now cost-conscious people are "total idiots" if they choose not to buy a HD? Don't be a fool.

I think a lot of you are missing another major issue here; that being if you want to pick up the HDD separately that will cost $100. I want the HDD, but do not need wireless nor a stupid remote I will never use. They should offer the HDD at a more reasonable price (say $50 or so) to better accomadate those who may want the core system now and pick up a HDD at a later point.

Coming out at day one with the system guarantees that the hard drive will be a large base (and probably the majority of the early market). This means that developers know they can support the system as a hard drive based system - even eliminating users without the drive - while with the PS2 drive this couldn't be done economically. Gamers with the 299 system DO have the choice to purchase the 20 gig later - which is not at all limiting the "console" experience. Later, I'd expect the 299 system to drop in price more quickly than the 399 system. This is a huge advantage for the Xbox as a gaming system - much better than Sony expecting that their ~$600 system will NOT drop in price.

Looking at the nature of programming for these next generation systems - where cross-plateform third party engines do much of the work - I prefer the 360 currently to the PS3. First because it will be out sooner, second because it will be cheaper, and thirdly I could care less about what Sony wants to do to be a media plateform.

I wonder if you have a broadband connection if you even need a hard drive, at least for saves. What is the multiplier for the drive now 16x 24x ? This coupled with the fact that system memory can hold 1/9th of a standard disk anyway I don't see a HDD as being needed. I imagine it will become fairly standard to have 1 core shuffling data in and out of system memory on a separate thread, possibly also dealing with the HDD if it is available. I wonder also if mass storage USB devices will be able to store saved data.

Just buy the PREMIUM everybody please!