Castlevania punctures XBLA's 50MB size limit
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, considered by many to be the best game in the series, is set to bend the rules by exceeding Microsoft's imposed size limit on Xbox Live Arcade titles, which is currently set at 50MB. The exact size of the download was not revealed.Microsoft explains to GameSpot that the 50MB cap is so that XBLA titles can fit on memory cards and played on a friend's console, and that SotN would be an exception to the rule. Though we do enjoy the fast downloads, now that background downloading is possible (and hard drives potentially expanding), perhaps Microsoft ought to raise that size limit to a point where all of Lumines Live can be downloaded as one purchase.
Sony has implemented a cap of 500MB for downloadable titles, though the downloads currently (and annoyingly) take center stage. Symphony of the Night, when it is released (date as of yet unknown), will have a demo that does stay under the 50MB limit.
See Also:
Enough talk, have at this Castlevania XBLA video
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bill @ Jan 11th 2007 8:29PM
The demo WILL NOT fit on a Memory Card.
Update from GameSpot:
"[UPDATE] After the publication of this story, a Microsoft representative contacted GameSpot to clarify one of Canessa's comments. While Symphony of the Night will have a free demo version, it will not fit on the system's 64MB memory unit."
Imadogg @ Jan 11th 2007 8:35PM
Yup read this on Xbox360fanboy... hope this leads to more games being allowed more space, as I'd much rather see bigger, better games than old 1980s arcade ports.
And this also means that the game is at least 15MB over the 50MB limit...
Rob Accomando @ Jan 11th 2007 9:04PM
the PS1 disk is about 556MB. Compressed, who knows.
Rob Accomando @ Jan 11th 2007 9:10PM
I meant, "If they compress it...who knows what it will be."
jonathan @ Jan 11th 2007 9:18PM
That's cool and everything but I'd sooner play Castlevania on my DS.
M Boisv @ Jan 11th 2007 9:41PM
WAIT A MINUTE!!!
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, IMO one of the greatest games ever made and my favorite PS1 title ever is coming to XBLA? I can't believe this. The 360 just destroyed the PS3 in my book, regardless of sales. That is the coolest thing I have ever heard, especially since PS1s typically don't work anymore (since faulty hardware is typical of Sony).
As a Nintendo lover who always really liked Sony and always felt a bit turned off by Microsoft, I have quickly begun prefering the 360 over it's Sony competition.
McTendo @ Jan 11th 2007 9:47PM
SOTN rocked back in the PS1 days and even though I do not own a 360, I hope this is the extended Saturn version for the full experience.
Having said all this, I agree with jonathan. Dawn of Sorrow and Portrait of Ruin are much better then this, IMHO.
LongshotX @ Jan 11th 2007 10:11PM
I always view the Xbox brand as the spiritual successor to the Dreamcast. It has come such a long way. If Microsoft can manage to get some classic Treasure and Sega titles on Xbox Live it will fulfill my greatest dreams.
Nights Into Dreams - Classic
Radiant Silvergun - Classic
Ikaruga - Classic
Panzer Dragoon Saga - Classic
Burning Rangers - Classic
Astal - Classic
Dynamite Heady - Classic
Anybody want to name any other Classics?
samik @ Jan 12th 2007 12:35AM
So lets see...one of the best games on the PS1 comes out on 360 and core owners cant play it - funny how that USD299 doesnt appear so value for money anymore. And the fact that PS3 owners can enjoy 500MB downloads is "annoying" according to the article. And needless to say - you get some witty comments like "PS1s typically don't work anymore (since faulty hardware is typical of Sony)." If you want to play the massive library of PS1 games - buy a PS2 or PS3, and they wont start overheating and have a noisy disc like the 360!
mietha CAG @ Jan 12th 2007 1:06AM
To #9: Boy, somebody's a sony fanboy. For starters the $300 version was never "value for money". It was only for idiots who didn't know any better and to appease Wal-Mart by having a sku that was under $300. And the near-gig downloads on the PS3 ARE excessively annoying. If you actually owned one, you would know that. When they introduce back-ground downloading, it won't be so bad, but until then, it is horrible, especially since the DL speeds tend to be MUCH slower than the 360's. And PS1s, and early PS2s for that matter, don't tend to work anymore. The early run of both of sony's first two systems were utter crap and failed way earlier than they should have. Here's hoping the PS3 is better, but I seriously doubt it. If you are going to run your mouth, and suck sony's ****, maybe you should have a slight clue what the hell you are talking about first. And how the hell could anyone have thought the demo would fit on a memory card when the game won't? ALL of the XBLA demo downloads are the full game, just with a limited amount open to you. And seriously, is there ANYONE who is buying arcade games and doesn't have a hard drive? If there is, STFU and go buy one. Seriously... And a sony fanboy talking about overheating? The heat coming out of the back of the PS3 could cook a steak. The 360 doesn't produce anywhere near the level of heat of the PS3, or use as much power, for that matter.
matjet @ Jan 12th 2007 1:44AM
Ps1's are pretty reliable and most should still work fine. You can expect this game, being a ps game, will come to the ps3 in the not-too-distant future.
The Boy @ Jan 12th 2007 4:05AM
I think the game compressed was actually only around 150MB's, maybe even a little bit less. Dear goodness I love this game.
Burnt Meatloaf @ Jan 12th 2007 4:29AM
I think it's time MS made a memory card bigger than 64MB. People are buying 2GB cards for the Wii, and the only things you can download so far are ROMs, for crying out loud.
Also, I got my PS1 on launch day, and it still works just fine.
spl1nter @ Jan 12th 2007 8:52AM
#9 - Um...you can buy hard drives for the 360...
baby sea tuna @ Jan 12th 2007 10:37AM
#9
"...add in the fact that 4 years of LIVE will cost another $200..."
You're treading water kid.
samik @ Jan 12th 2007 11:23AM
"The 360 doesn't produce anywhere near the level of heat of the PS3, or use as much power, for that matter." And it still overheats unlike the PS3..maybe because, if you read the cost breakup, Sony added a heat sink even if it cost them more.
"starters the $300 version was never "value for money". It was only for idiots "
Which is why I love the 360 fanbois..no consistency. In that case why is the PS3 200USD more, as you keep repeating? the 20GB PS3 is 499, just 100USD more than the comparable 360. AND you get a PS1/PS2 player and Blu-ray player too.