Mass Effect to fit snugly onto one disc

by James Ransom-Wiley { Feb 27th 2007 at 9:25PM }

The limits of DVD storage capacity are being tested, but will not be maxed out by Mass Effect. During a Q&A update, project director Casey Hudson confirmed that Mass Effect "is a monstrous game. In fact, there was a time -- not too long ago -- when we pretty much scoffed at the idea of fitting onto one disc. But, there's an art to optimizing the data that goes on a disc"; Mass Effect will fit onto a single disc -- "but just barely."

So what happens if and when an Xbox 360 title spills onto that bothersome second disc? Will it be an issue? Will we actually suffer when we peel our bodies away from the couch to swap discs partway through a game (or perhaps when switching between single-player and multiplayer)? When does a nuisance become a deal breaker -- when is it so not "next-gen"?

[Via 1UP]

Tags: 360, BioWare, MassEffect, Xbox360

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

azesino @ Feb 27th 2007 9:33PM

who has ever complained about swaping disks?

to the contrary, people see more disk as more value, Rememeber when FF7 came with 3 CD-Rooms people tough it was a deal braker just because of the 3 disks

Matthew Mac @ Feb 27th 2007 9:34PM

To be honest, I don't really see the difference between switching to another disc to move along in a story and putting in a disc to start playing in the first place. Now, with a game like Mass Effect where you can move to different parts of the universe, for me it would be a deal breaker to have to switch discs every time I wanted to switch to another galaxy, but we're not there yet. If this and Oblivion can fit on one disc, I think we're okay for this generation, but it remains to be seen if Sony actually had some foresight.

Mr Khan @ Feb 27th 2007 9:36PM

And yet another Sony marketing point goes down the drain

CanadianMetal89 @ Feb 27th 2007 9:37PM

I think multiple disks is OK if you do it right. I hated playing Tiger Woods 06 for gamecube having to switch the disk almost every hole.

ill trooper @ Feb 27th 2007 9:37PM

I would prefer to NEVER have to change a disk, but of course, if a game is good enough to make you overlook the fact that you're changing a disk, that's fine too.

My thought on this whole blu-ray/hd-dvd thing is: More storage never hurts.

Xanatos11 @ Feb 27th 2007 9:41PM

I dont care rly, put more stuff in the GAME not the disk if you catch my drift. Though its probably good to point out that Blue Dragon for 360 is on 3 disks

Ed81240 @ Feb 27th 2007 9:42PM

The true question is how much of this games original content was cut so the makers could "Barely Fit" on one disk. What original levels, story lines and ect saw the ax, because the producers didn't want to fit it on one disk.

Hannibal @ Feb 27th 2007 9:39PM

Swapping discs is never a good thing, but I was never bothered by it in the case of games like Final Fantasy VIII.

tmmoore_nc @ Feb 27th 2007 9:41PM

Two discs for games like this is probably a good thing to prevent lag. One disc should be single player, while one is multiplayer. I think Halo 3 should be this way so they can expand single player, but they won't, and it'll be about 5 hours like Gears.
That's really hurting 360 games, which is limiting how long some games are, but still a hefty price.

why not the LS2/LS7? @ Feb 27th 2007 9:41PM

What happens when it becomes multiple discs? Well, it depends on the game. If it's like Resident Evil 4, where the game only moves forward and so all you do is change discs once in 20 hours of gameplay (the reported length of Mass Effect), then it's a minor issue.

But if it's a game like GTA, where you can travel to any point on the map at any time, it might be a big deal. Remember when GTA:VC would say "loading" every time you crossed across the bridges between the two big islands? What if it asked to to switch discs back and forth each time? That would be a huge annoyance.

When games start to exceed 8.4GB it will become an annoyance on 360 and Wii (if applicable) that will range from almost insignificant to huge, depending on the game and how often you need to access data that doesn't happen to fit on the current disc.

You can easily start arguments about which of the above experiences will happen more often and thus how much of an issue an 8.4GB limit is. But I don't think any of us know for sure, we can only make predictions.

Kazam @ Feb 27th 2007 9:42PM

I know not much about compression and optimization of data in game development, but I sure am impressed that Mass effect will fit into one DVD. I think that the decision of not having a "next-gen" format drive in the 360 was a give and take. They can bring down the prices of the console to a reasonable level, and the loading times are greater. But in time the PS3 will show stuff that is not possible by using "only" 8,5 gigs. It will be very interesting to se how Rockstar will use the different capacity levels. Because if there is any game that you really cant have a disc-swapping moment in, its free roaming games.

For other games, specially RPGS i really dont mind at all switching discs. Almost the opposite. I still think it is a nice moment when you switch discs. *Get flashbacks from when I was swapping discs in FF7*.

The most important thing in disc swapping is that you should only have to switch disc as you progress. Not for, let's say, coming back to a place where you have been before.

steve17 @ Feb 27th 2007 9:43PM

resident evil 4 is one of my favorite games of all time. the original gamecube version is better but of course it had 2 discs. never bothered me one bit. exept my friend lost his second disc and that sucks. other than that swapping has never been a make or break feature for me.

Phour ZwanZig @ Feb 27th 2007 9:43PM

Dunno.. To me, as much as Id like to stay seated, I dont mind if its multi discs.. As others mentiond.. FFVII was a great seller(and game) dispite bein on 3 discs. And GT2.. Again. Multi disc dif approach thou.. Bein Arcade (disc1) and Simulation (disc2).. I dont care for Arcade Racing, so needless to say it never got used.. Now if they would shorted cars, lets say, to make both fit on one, would it be the Hit it was..???

So in the end, I love have just one disc, but if done right (good game, etc), I wouldnt care if it was on 10 discs..

The1 @ Feb 27th 2007 9:47PM

I do not care as long as the game is GOOD and keeps me engaged.

north o 49 @ Feb 27th 2007 9:49PM

I don't mind multis-no.1's got a good point; it looks like better value. I don't know whether one disc would cut down on load times and some oogy cut scenes or not...I do remember a Dreamcast game [excellent quasi horror] called D2-it was a FOUR discer, and I felt the transition points between the discs was rather clunky, but that was then, so I dunno....six o one, half a doz, I guess.

EihBeir @ Feb 27th 2007 9:54PM

Multiple discs? I don't care. If the programmers do their job properly, you will be swapping discs only one time per disc, per playthrough.

It's not like we're talking about a constant swapping like a big install on a computer, "insert install disc, insert play disc, insert extras disc, insert install disc, insert play disc, insert phallus, insert play disc, enjoy!"

Sensai @ Feb 27th 2007 10:02PM

It's 'so not next-gen' when it's this gen.

....duh?

Jake @ Feb 27th 2007 10:06PM

More storage is always a good thing. How much work did they have to do to bring it down to one disc? Could the effort be spent elsewhere? Would it have been nice to just not worry about it? I don't think extra storage is worth waiting a year and paying an extra $100, but it is certainly a good thing.

But yes, having to switch discs isn't a big deal if you don't have to do it very often. In Mass Effect, for example, I'm sure they could split it in a way that you didn't have to switch more than once an hour.

In the future, though, I'm sure a game will take advantage of the storage in a unique and very useful way, like mapping photos onto game models and stuff. But until a game is made that just couldn't be done through disc swapping we have to continue to question Sony's decision to delay their system and boost cost for Bluray.

And holy crap am I ever looking forward to this game. It looks friken amazing.

Andy @ Feb 28th 2007 4:03PM

Well if in the future there will be game on two disks the best way to do it is multiplayer on one disk and the campaign on another. And if its an RPG then just put it on two disks. I think getting up halway through with a game to change the disk will be fine. To make seem less bad they could put like a climax at the end of the frist disk and continue on it on the other.

Steve @ Feb 27th 2007 10:08PM

Swapping discs sounds like it could be a massive pain. Imagine playing Metroid Prime as two discs and every time you travel between two certain sections you'd have to swap discs. I traveled all over that game and going up and down and up and down would have been a pain. I guess mission-based games that don't require backtracking wouldn't be much of an issue.

Myke @ Feb 27th 2007 10:13PM

The only game that ever bummed me out when having to change the discs was Fear Effect for PS1, but that was mainly because you could play through the whole game in 3 hours and it was 4-discs long. Most of the space (I imagine) went into storing those rediculously well animated, pre-rendered backgrounds. A good game, but the disc swapping DID actually hurt the thought of playing through it a second time.

Jake @ Feb 27th 2007 10:13PM

Steve,

Nintendo games like Metroid won't need much space because they don't have HD or 5.1, so don't worry. I see your point, and it is a good one, but I feel like being an arse.

I guess it is up to PS3 devs to prove to us that we need, or at least want badly, blu-ray. It has been 15 months since began HD gaming on my 360 and am still waiting. Sony...Sony?

Erwos @ Feb 27th 2007 10:14PM

Multiple discs isn't the issue. It's the number of times you have to do the swapping. If it's once a disc, no problem. If it's more... that could be an issue.

Keif @ Feb 27th 2007 10:14PM

switching discs is no problem. in fact I feel accomplsihed when I ahve to move to another disc.

the funny thing is, the fart lards who say they wont get up to change discs are more likely tobe playing games that require more then one disc like rpgs.

not that it matters though, its quickly coming to the point where things will be downloaded instead of played off disc

steve17 @ Feb 27th 2007 10:15PM

i have an idea. could they do what alot of computer games do, in putting the data from multiple discs on the hard drive and then use one disc to play it. then u could delete the data from the harddrive at ur convenience when ur tired of the games 3 months later to free up space?

now i know console and computers are very different. but the concept is the same right?

Myke @ Feb 27th 2007 10:18PM

Concept is the same, the storage capability of a console, however, is not....yet....

Ironhide @ Feb 27th 2007 10:20PM

As I've said before, it's all about efficiency and smart development. Bioware has obviously done it's homework on compression technology and how it doesn't have to affect perfomance by any degree. The 360, using it as an example can decompress data on the fly while you're half way to travelling from one point to another. Thus the advantage of multi-tiered processing. Could this be done on the Xbox and PS2? barely, but streaming is more applicable to older consoles. GTA3 and onwards were good exapmes of effective streaming.

Crackdown is another good example of current streaming technology, but with game data being compressed with more and more effective compression algorythms, you can have larger and larger environments without loading time because of the multithread processors. Mass Effect will most likely utilize the decompression on the fly to enable minimal loading times.

That being said, only Bioware knows for sure how it's going to go, but even if it were multi discs then I'd have no issues.

steve17 @ Feb 27th 2007 10:20PM

may 1st. 120 g xbox 360. that will solve the problem.

Anonymous @ Feb 27th 2007 10:21PM

I think sony made a massive mistake this time around with Blu-Ray and it's hideously slow read times when compared with DVD's. It ABSOLUTELY makes a differance in load times and game performance (see Gundam:Crossfire) I don't mind having to switch disks if it means I'll get the best performance possible, and like others have said, games like FF7 and FF8 seemed like awesome deals because of the extra discs involved (more packaging, same price? Win-Win for consumers)

Having said that,all things equal (read times, cost, etc) I'd rather have the extra capacity, but as it stands now? It doesn't matter

steve17 @ Feb 27th 2007 10:25PM

@26

indeed. also halo 2 on xbox 1 got it perfect. there isnt a single load screen from start to finish in that entire game. if it can be done on the xbox it can most certainly be done on the 360.

Digi Smalls @ Feb 27th 2007 10:30PM

swapping a disc on a long RPG with lots of dialog or video? whats the big deal? it certainly isn't worth $200 to not get up off the couch once.

if the PS3 had the video memory (or 360's flexible memory architecture see: Gears) to actually fit higher quality textures like blu-ray advocates keep harping on, then yeah the PS3 would have been worth the extra $200..

.

QS @ Feb 27th 2007 10:30PM

this just points to what my friends and i have been discussing lately. consoles need to have a multidisk changer. Nothing to crazy. just 3, so you can have a healthy smattering of different genres.

jaysins @ Feb 27th 2007 10:31PM

I actually think it makes the idea for bluray maybe a little stronger from Sony's perspective. If they plan on keeping the PS3 around for 10 years or so than yes I think it was a good choice. They can manufacture the disks themselves if need be and it's their technology so no royalties to pay and they have much control over it. Plus it helps their position in the format war, though it is currently hurting their sales and most likely will until the price comes down for the PS3.

For MS however, I think they made the right decision as well for them in going with DVD9. The format war is still a bit iffy and was even more so when they set in motion the 360. They do not have their own format and I think it was a bit risky to go with your competitors controlled format (more money for them) and it would have made their console much less popular because of the induced cost increase which would have lost them a great advantage over Sony, price. Same thing if they went with HDDVD, which would have been more likely. This would have caused them to delay their console which would have cost them one of their if not greatest strength in this console war, being first out. I doubt MS has planned a 10 year life cycle for the 360 so a DVD9 will suffice much better for them than Sony. MS has invested very heavily in compression schemes and I'm sure are willing to lend some support if needed to developers in need of getting their game onto one disc. Further, the 360 machine is a beast with Procedurally generated content which is why Oblivion takes up about one layer of a dvd9 and is still almost 120 hrs of game play. All of the vegetation and many textures are generated on the fly which reduces file size for such content tremendously. Than on top of everything load times are reduced as a result of DVD9's currently faster read times.

I can understand why each company did what they did but I think ultimately Microsoft made the right decision for themselves going with DVD9 even if a few games spill over. Sony I'm less sure about but we'll see. The PS3 is helping with Bluray sales and that alone may be reason enough for it to be beneficial for Sony for having it in their console.

Rob Accomando @ Feb 27th 2007 10:53PM

supposedly Blue Dragon is on 3 disks, fyi.

TSD @ Feb 27th 2007 10:56PM

Gears and pretty much every good looking 360 game has proven that high res-textures are not going to break DVD9's, the only problem could really come from FMV and huge open worlds.

FMV heavy games wont be very bad for disk changing, since you only have to use each disk as long as you're on that part of the story, you can go back to older parts of the world on a new disk.

Open world games, however, could be a pain have to swicth between two areas you need to move back and forth between. Luckily, this hasn't happened yet, and since no developer has really come out and said DVD'9 will absolutely not work for their game, I'm not that worried.

Besides, I'd rather switch disks on a few games than pay an extra $200 upfront on the console. =)

sheppy @ Feb 27th 2007 10:59PM

"I think sony made a massive mistake this time around with Blu-Ray and it's hideously slow read times when compared with DVD's. It ABSOLUTELY makes a differance in load times and game performance (see Gundam:Crossfire) "

Can't help but wonder if you skipped that option to "install" the game. Reasoning? You use Gundam Crossfire loading times as a bad thing. However, in my copy (installed), while the briefing is streaming from the BluRay, the game is getting all the data handy. And by the time the second window of text shows up, I can press start to get right into the game. Ridge Racer 7 installed is incredibly fast as well. That's why VF5 not having the option to install, is an annoyance to me.

Aex @ Feb 27th 2007 11:01PM

I don't think it is possible to come to a conclusion on the matter of blu-ray being justified or not. There will be many games in the future that use the extra space in blu-ray, a few games that may go multi disc and possibly some games that will leave content out to fit on a dvd9.

Unfortunately, you cannot successfully measure what was left out of a game due to the dvd9 format. Also you cannot question the use of every disc that exceeds 9gbs, because you may feel they could have left out/skimped on/compressed better something in the game doesn't mean the game will be the same experience afterwards. There just isn't a real answer to the question because it is not something measurable.

Even if the PS3 ends up selling 100+ million consoles, which it may or may not, the answer to whether or not the blu-ray inclusion was justified may still not be answered.

sheppy @ Feb 27th 2007 11:01PM

It should also be noted that I have a 160GB HD in my PS3.... gotta love a console that's just sooo open. Microsoft? Why am I always managing HD space in your next gen console?

Anonymous @ Feb 27th 2007 11:05PM

To the guy above that said sony was planning a 10 year life-cycle for the PS3...no way. 5 years is about the average time between console launches nowadays, and in 10 years the functionality of the PS3 will seem ridiculously outdated (see: Playstation 1 *launched around 10 years ago* for comparison of how far graphics will go in ten years comparitively). I don't fault Sony too much, atleast not as much as I fault Nintendo (imagine how big of a joke the wii will be in 4 or so years, when it's STILL not Hi-Def) although I'm sure a Ninty fanboy will be in here soon to say that "It's all about the gameplay! Not the graphics!" as if Graphics and Gameplay are mutually exclusive of each other (see Gears of War, Dead or Alive:Xtreme 2 for how much graphics can add to a game).

It's dumb that with the PS3, I need to load some of the game onto the Harddrive just to achieve the same (actually probably a bit slower) load times than DVD9. Give me a break Sony.

sheppy @ Feb 27th 2007 11:09PM

As a guy who owns Ridge Racer 6 and Ridge Racer 7, I can say that the above poster knows dick.

Disc wise, 360 loads faster. HD and disc combo, PS3 has the advantage. And keep in mind, the 360 was supposed to have an HD as the standard so the option was supposed to be there too.

Aex @ Feb 27th 2007 11:10PM

@Anonymous

According to a few reports on Oblivion for the PS3, loading it to the HDD makes the loading time faster o.O Who woulda thunk it?

sheppy @ Feb 27th 2007 11:22PM

"According to a few reports on Oblivion for the PS3, loading it to the HDD makes the loading time faster o.O Who woulda thunk it?"

Anyone who PC games, for one.

Elmersglue @ Feb 27th 2007 11:30PM

to #7,
I don't think games like gears of war are necessarily short simply because there's not enough space on the disc. I just think in this HD, high end graphics generation of games, it takes a lot longer to make a long game. And in addition to that, games like Halo and Gears of War are purposely split up in order to make them a series. I'm sure if they really wanted to make the games longer, and if one disc couldn't fit it, they would've went to 2 discs...especially considering gears and halo are relatively linear, and are good candidates for multiple discs. But obviously they don't want to do that because it wont make them as much money as it would by releasing gears of war 2, for example. So i doubt disc size is to blame for short games.

Aex @ Feb 27th 2007 11:26PM

Eep! I mean quick, Sheppy, Bash the PS3 before we are called fanboys! Logic doesn't belong here!

Umm, umm....The Ps3 eats babies!

Todd Rabanus @ Feb 27th 2007 11:37PM

#27 i was gonna say the same thing. with the rumored 120 gb hdd in the near future (knock on wood) content could be saved on the hdd and accessed in the same way as computers. Another thing we need to keep in mind is that compression techniques in the future may become more advanced and this may not be an issue down the line. the wizards at microsoft are always working on compression and i'm sure they are doing the same thing in regards to xbox 360 software. but for me disc swapping is not an issue at all. Everyone has brought up ffVII and i guess i will too. that game is considered one of the best, if not THE BEST, rpg's of all time and it wasn't an issue back then. I would rather disc swap than pay an extra $200 not to disc swap.

jaysins @ Feb 27th 2007 11:39PM

Ummm yea Sony will. Sony said they plan on keeping the PS3 alive for around ten years. They will have a PS4 out before then but will still be producing games for it same as the PS1 did when the PS2 was released and how the PS2 is currently doing even though the PS3 is out. They milk their systems and definitely make them go the distance.

@Sheppy
The 360 dropped the hard drive in every console so that they could, as the story goes, equip the 360 with 512MiB of RAM instead of 256 and still maintain it's price or at least not increase the loss at it was initially selling for. It would have been very nice though for us 360 users to be able to stick another hard drive onto our 360's. I too find myself having to delete content. I really hope MS does this in their next console.

Aex @ Feb 27th 2007 11:46PM

Speaking of the Xbox 360 120gb HDD. Anyone have an Idea as to the pricing? If the 20gb is $100, I would expect that the 120gb be at least $200. Anyone notice any internet rumors on the subject?

SynikaL @ Feb 28th 2007 12:04AM

"42. Eep! I mean quick, Sheppy, Bash the PS3 before we are called fanboys! Logic doesn't belong here!

Umm, umm....The Ps3 eats babies!"

Ignoring how absolutely corny that was, I'd like to add that the damn thing certainly is large enough.

-Kimosabae