digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Is Microsoft's 50 MB Size Limit for XBLA Games Really a Bad Thing?

whatthegeek.com — Is Microsoft ’s 50mb filesize limit for Xbox Live Arcade titles a bad thing? My response when I was first posed this question was a quick “yes”. How could it possibly be good? They’re limiting developers to a very small filesize in the age of HD gaming, and no good could possibly come of that….. or could it?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I'm curious as to how Konami is going to squeeze Symphony of the Night under the 50MB limit. The PlayStation original used redbook audio, which even compressed would probably still go over the limit. Are they recoding all of the audio? Or is Microsoft going to lift the limit for higher-profile games?
    • whatthegeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I've been wondering the same thing myself.... I suspect they'll be reencoding the audio, as well as tweaking and compressing the rest of the game. That's probably the reason that a port could take so long to come to the XBLA
    • Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't think it will be all that hard. If anything suffers it will be the sound which is probably the bulk of the size. The sound can be compressed and the 2d graphics can also be compressed using newer techniques to use even less space.
    • JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It'll be quite a task, but it's possible. You see, game companies are really lazy, especially when it comes to compression. Use the right compression and you're gold though.

      Companies like SNK can't launch their games on XBLA (despite it being a perfect place) because their games are over 50MB. But they're so goddamn simple they could be compressed immensely. Just because a company choses not to do it doesn't mean it's not possible. Symphony of the Night will hopefully hush all those developers that say PS1 full games on XBLA isn't possible.
    • Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Let us not forget all the games produced for legacy consoles and current handhelds. The N64 only allowed games up to 64MiB in size, for example, which isn't that much higher than XBLA's 50MB limit. And most games used significantly less space since smaller cartridges were cheaper to manufacture. Look at all the great titles for the N64 that used less than 50MiB of space, and how much entertaining gameplay they managed to supply, graphics aside.

      Of course, the N64 didn't have the processing power for compression nearly as sophisticated as the XBOX 360 does. The 360 also has a huge amount of system/graphics ram by comparison, 512MiB, which allows for large amounts of decompressed data to be cached.

      I'm of the opinion that 50MB isn't a limit on gameplay at all, only graphical/audio complexity, which frankly is secondary to gameplay. Besides, this may lead to a revival of real-time rendered music (wavetable synthesis, for example), which I'm a big fan of and favour over pre-recorded audio.

      There's also another issue that everybody has ignored; download times. Say you're in a broadband-challenged location (For example, many parts of the US) and only have 512 kilobit downstream internet. 50MB would already take you no less than 13 minutes to download, which isn't really annoying, but is still a decent chunk of time if you're sitting there waiting for it (Thank goodness the 360 supports background downloading, unlike the PS3!). Imagine if the limit had been set at 500MB instead. You'd have to wait over two hours for a game to download! That severely curtails impulse buys (have some friends over, decide to purchase a game to play, for example).

      Of course, I'm a bit of a hypocrite; I'm a huge supporter of Valve's STEAM platform, and have purchased many multi-gigabyte games using it.
    • daza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Guspaz, that was an extremely intelligent response. I completely agree, particularly in regards to the download times and impulse buying. A 50MB limit is a good place to stop at.
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Am I missing something here? Every game I have seen on XBLA , were available in the arcades. I do not see them as "ports" from other consoles. Makes the live "arcade" name understandable doesn't it.
    • PoVRAZOR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Yeah, most games, if they use the original ROM file, could have a simple compression applied to the ROM. After all, most old consoles/arcade machines have only a few megs (if even that) of RAM, so of the 512 you get to play with in th 360 (minus OS/Video requirements), there's pleanty to store an uncompressed ROM image in. That Castlevania game, I'm sure if they really needed more space to cram in all the music, MS would let them, just it could hurt Konami's bottom line (for all those Live Arcade Core Unit players (?)).
    • Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ JeffH: Hate to say this, but you're quite wrong. Remember when the Neo Geo would flash "MAX 330 MEGA - PRO GEAR SPEC" on the screen? That meant that it supported ROMS up to 330 Megabits, which equals roughly 41MB (and change). This limitation was later surpassed, with the largest Neo Games clocking in at around 90MB. Even at that file size though, you have to realize that this is completely uncompressed data. It would be quite simple for these games to be ported to XBOX Live with relatively little work, and eventually, I'm sure you'll see some. In fact, both Metal Slug and Fatal Fury Special are listed as in-development for XBLA...
  • Zero2aHero, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Yes, I think it is. In Major Nelson's podcast last week had the guys who made Roboblitz on the show, and they said they had to simplify the game concept a little bit to fit it under 50mb. If you haven't played the game, it's pretty boring... graphics aside... if game developers are having to remove actual content (not just lessening the graphics) to make it fit under 50mb then there is a problem.

    Which I feel there is.
    • whatthegeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Well, I'm not surprised that they had to cut corners, however, I think that's what will drive developers to innovate.

      In today's XBLA games they're cutting corners. In tomorrow's XBLA games they will be using development techniques that ensure that they don't have to sacrifice any gameplay elements
    • Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14The limit is absolutely NOT a problem. After-all, it's not as if they're saying NO games over 50MB. If you need more than 50MB then you're probably making a full-fledged game, and you can release it as such... on a disc. People forget what the XBLA is supposed to be.
    • vermin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3There's no evidence that imposing a size limit will spur innovation in procedural game design. Many portions of the industry were moving in that direction anyways regardless of any size limits. Just because coincidentally MS made this limit doesn't mean that it's the reason for the rise in good looking procedural graphics.
    • slimpip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ Diggtatorship

      And what is the XBLA supposed to be? A haven for $10 mini-games? If there's a 50MB limit there should be a low point/price limit.
    • grumbel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'd say that 50MB limit is definitvly a problem, maybe not so much for newly developed games, but if you would want to do a remake of an old CD based game that uses CD-audio for music you will have a hard time to fit it into the 50MB without wreaking the music beyond repair due to compression.
  • RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31I was reading how PS3 games are already filling up Blu-Ray discs!

    I don't own an Xbox, but it seems like limiting file sizes will promote tighter game design and more innovation. Hell, devs might have to rely on gameplay more than graphics to sell a title.

    Some of the best games I've ever played were under 50MB though...
    • whatthegeek, on 10/12/2007, -27/+19It's funny that you mention PS3 games taking up a whole blu ray disc, I wrote an article on that topic just last week.

      http://whatthegeek.com/2006/11/29/is-blu-ray-necessary-for-next-gen-gaming/#more-66

      I totally agree about some of the best games being under 50 megs.... I mean, how many different versions of tetris can you find that are under 50 megs.... probably quite a few, and that's probably the most addictive game of all time
    • swoosh_bnd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, I think it is a good thing to a certain extent, except when they take something out (Roboblitz multiplayer and Lumines) where they realize that they need to take it all out to make the 50 Meg limit, then they realize that they can charge for everything else in the game to make it complete which totally screws the customers. At least Roboblitz is making their multiplayer free unlike the additions for Lumines Live.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22 It's funny that you mention blogspam, I wrote an article on that topic just last week.

      http:://iseriouslydontcareaboutyourblogandnooneelsedoeseither.com

      I totally agree that people who blogspam on digg should find a better way to promote their sites... I mean, how many people really think that this is the way that popular websites get started... probably not too many, and that's probably the best advice for blogging of all time
    • serenejen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Ha ha! The blog spam thing is funny because IT'S THE SAME AUTHOR OF THIS POST! I think he can blogspam his own article. Lol. ^_^
    • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Even if you can't fit the games of the future onto a single DVD, why does it matter?

      I'd much rather have $200 knocked off the price of the console in exchange for games being spread over multiple DVDs.

      I can understand it for films, getting up and having to switch disks during a film would be a chore, but either larger installs or switching disks during a game just doesn't matter as much. I consider both blue-ray and HD-DVD film formats, not game formats. I think it's wrong to attach them to games consoles in order to drive film sales.

      As for the link above, it's related to the topic, doesn't spam mean it's completely unrelated and unsolicited? So what if it's not a big well known site, it's still related
    • JayD16, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Blue Dragon uses 3 DVDs... Blu-ray helps whether developers use it or not. Case closed.

      This whole limits are a good thing is ridiculous. I mean...You don't hear any props going to Sony for forcing programmers to develop means of using multi core processors. One could make the case that Sony is providing the world a public service by allowing programmers to hone their skills for use in a multi core environment. This would lead to better PC games as well seeing as Intel will eventually churn out its own octo cores.

      I'm not saying Sony should be rewarded for its limitations but I certainly think that rewarding Microsoft for a 50MB limit is utter nonsense. Its not like games haven't had a size limit since the beginning of time or anything. I would much rather have programmers learn how to use multi cored systems instead of what they should already know about compression.

      Also compression by definition is losing quality.

      Sorry to go off on a rant but I mean... Come on!
    • 1598741, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Agreed
    • joquarky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@RichPowers

      "Also compression by definition is losing quality."

      I think you mean *lossy* compression. If all forms of compression inherently lost quality, then zip files would be corrupted.

      You can procedurally generate even HD quality content from a few kilobytes of code, it just means you have to write more code.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You can get good gameplay from small files.
      Hell, when I was younger I spent hours playing IBM's "Alley Cat". The entire game was smaller than a single bitmap screenshot of the game. (Something like 65KB)
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Thats funny because some of the greatest games I have ever played can only fit on DVD's.
    • Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Games aren't filling up those disks, high-resolution video is. Developers need to start doing more with the game engine for cut scenes and quite relying on slightly better looking video that takes up so much data...
  • wonderboy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1I want to see games like Perfect Dark and such on the arcade. Hopefully they can remove the restriction in certain cases.
    • Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12You think they would have any trouble getting Perfect Dark to fit onto XBLA?

      You truly are a noob :) Its not like they're limiting awesomeness or anything, just disk space. Perfect Dark was released on a friggen 32MB cartridge to begin with!
    • wonderboy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4lol, you sounded like such a nerd there it's unbelievable. Sorry I didn't know that Perfect Dark was only 32 meg, but I think you get my point. There was a rumor that dreamcast games might make it to XBLA and most of those are around 200mb at least.
  • IceCreamMatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Some of the best video games ever made were under 50MB, So it can't really be that bad.
    • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9True, all the Nintendo 64 games are under 32 MB and most of them were 3d...
    • Sp0rAdiC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wow... for some reason that made me sad to think that even though they fit, they'll never be there. Too bad
    • vermin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The N64 limit was directly proportional to cost of the cartridge, MS's limit is completely arbitrary. That's the difference.
    • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Aren't they held on Microsoft servers? If they are then bandwidth costs are the limiting factor
  • lucas448, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4no dreamcast games :(.... but yet they have no limit for there massive 1.5GB demos
    • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah, it would be nice to have a Dreamcast emulator on the Xbox360, just like Nintendo virtual console.
    • gweedo767, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Demo's can't be downloaded without a hard drive, that is why there is no cap. The 50MB cap is so people with core systems can fit them their memory cards.
  • zzz@tkz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6They managed to cram Small Arms and Lumines Live! (Well, part of it) in it, if that's any proof that the 50MB limit isn't that bad.
    • StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yeah, but Small Arms is a piece of *****. I'm sure compost compacts very easily :)
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To get to the content of the original lumines you have to DL the extra packs. The size actually works...... in getting you to spend more money.
  • lucas448, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8the only reason they do that is so they can fit one game and a gamer tag on there memory cards... for the poor people who got tricked into buying a core system
    • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Wow, that sucks for everyone else if this is the case...
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And, so that people with too much time and money can buy a ton of games off XBLA and keep them all under a few GB on their hard drive.
  • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13*****. The 50MB limit reminds me of all those ridiculous symbolic cost-cutting measures you hear about at major corporations -- you know, like the company that gives employees a bag full of paper clips during orientation, and tells them the paper clips must last for the duration of their employment . Raising the limit to something reasonable like 500MB would only raise the quality of the games, and allow something worthwhile to come out of XBLA other than emulations of decade old arcade titles.
    • whatthegeek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Small Arms
      Lumines Live!
      Roboblitz
      Assault Heroes
      Geometry Wars

      Nothing worthwhile other than emulations of decade old arcade titles? Look again.

      Bigger isn't always better.
    • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2" Raising the limit to something reasonable like 500MB would only raise the quality of the games,"

      Maybe MS wants to control the quality of the games too in that case so that other developers won't be afraid to enter a tough market...
    • Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Maybe MS wants to control the quality of the games too in that case so that other developers won't be afraid to enter a tough market..."

      I agree, I mean its not as if they're saying NO games over 50MB. If you need more than 50MB then you're probably making a full-fledged game, and you can release it as such... on a disc. People forget what the XBLA is supposed to be.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3So anywhere between 50MB and 4.7GB is a full game?!

      The XBLA doesn't have to just be crappy throwaway titles that are fun for ten minutes. It could include real games that, for one reason or another, don't quite merit a full release. I'm particularly thinking of old Dreamcast titles here, but there are a lot of other possibilities with the service. The 50MB cap ensures that a certain crapiness will always pervade the XBLA games, making them somewhat overpriced and yet underplayable. It can't be a bandwidth issue, because MS is selling hi-def movies over the same service. I can only imagine they're worried that if they sell good games on XBLA, they will make less money from retail games.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Small Arms is not very good. It just doesn't hold up for more than a few minutes.
      Lumines Live! doesn't count, it doesn't fit in 50MB. You have to download multiple parts to get a whole game. It's actually a counterexample.
      Roboblitz is a pretty trivial game, IMHO. I wouldn't use it as an example of excellence.

      Honestly, I'd take Feeding Frenzy over any of those. And it's not that hot either.
      I like the Backgammon game too.

      Geometry Wars is fantastic, and really made a lot of people think that XBLA was really going places. But sadly, prices have risen and game quality has dropped since then. That's perhaps why people don't feel as happy with XBLA now as they were before.
    • thefirstenemy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Small Arms is not very good. It just doesn't hold up for more than a few minutes."

      I'll argue the exact opposite. At first the game didn't seem that great to me, but after playing with it for a while I found out that it's pretty damn awesome. The only thing I've had some issues with, is that a few of the maps are poorly designed that give some characters advantages.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I chalk the crappy level problems up to being because they knocked off the level designs from Super Smash Bros Melee, which also had problems like this.

      But that doesn't enter into the main problem, which is the characters have no balance. Also all the distance weapons remove much of the strategy which was present in Smash Bros, which was how to defend against a character which is coming at you. In Small Arms, they don't need to approach you, they just shoot you from afar. In Smash Bros, the weapons were either really weak (Fox), or didn't last long (all the pickups).
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Nothing worthwhile other than emulations of decade old arcade titles? Look again. "

      It's a fact. XBLA is filled with remade arcade titles. And even some of the new games may not appeal to everyone......probably with the exception of geometry wars :)
  • Pelapp, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Too bad you didn't put xbox 360 in your headline. You would have trippled your Diggs!

    "Instead of larger optical discs (such as blu ray (SURPRISE!)) for retail games, devs could utilize these methods to pack 25 gigs worth of game into 9 gigs"

    So by your logic we should slowly roll media back to the good ol' 3,5", because then we could have 100.000's of games on a dvd?
    Or is it just a(nother) far fetched xbox propaganda.

    • apoc06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3technology advances for a reason. not embracing new technology will halt more advanced discoveries.

      im not saying that everyone needs to be cutting edge [which is a big factor against blu-ray/hd-dvd adoption for games], but limiting an hd game to 50MB and justifying it by saying that it will drive innovation?

      come on! everyone knows the real reason is so that games can fit on the 64MB memory cards. if MS had not made the decision to not include a harddrive in the core system, a limit like this would not exist. if MS had released a larger memory card in the first place, or included harddrives in both x360 models, there would be no 50MB limit. this is SPIN!

      seriously, what drives innovation more: an imposed limitation on what youre capable of doing/ accessing, or the freedom to experiment and try new things without limitation?

      i have never heard a developer say "yeah, we created this new cool facet of the game because of all these guidelines and restrictions and because we didnt have enough room on the disc", however, i constantly hear, "yeah, we had to leave out such and such level because we didnt have enough space". dont believe me? ask any developer that wanted to and couldnt port their games to the n64 or gamecube how they felt about space concerns. space or lack thereof is most likely the biggest factor against nintendo sales for the last two generations.

      when they say drive innovation, they mean drive research into better compression methods and workarounds. thats not true innovation.
  • posure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There absolutely needs to be a limit, especially when the 360's come with 20gb hard drives. 50mb is a bit small though. I'd like to see it increased to somewhere between 150-250mb, with an absolute cap at 250mb. I don't think they'll increase it until the new hard drives have been selling for a while though.
  • MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+450 meg is fine for most things. But i can't imagine them stopping a company releasing a blockbuster (Castle Crashers? Street Fighter?) because it's 51.
  • DarkGrim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Well just look at it this way, Ocarina of Time as I recall it was under 50MB and that's the greatest game of all time, only good things can happen with a 50MB limit and hopefully brings more developers to make creative games for the XBLA. Just wait and see.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Ocarina of Time can't hold A Link to the Past's jock.

      And A Link to the Past was even smaller.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Well, the limit isn't a good thing, I'll say that.

    There's no reason to artifically constrict just to drive innovation.

    Also, you can't really compress textures like they say. You can generate textures from a mathematical formula if you want. But you can only generate certain textures, like the very repetitive ones seen in Roboblitz (look at that expanse of floor grid). You can also do this with any texture you create mathematically. You cannot generically take a complex texture and reduce it hundreds of times.

    You could compress it arbitrarily with a wavelet-based scheme like JPEG2000, but past a certain point, you're just throwing away resolution, not compressing it more.
    • serenejen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, you can create dynamic textures this way... you can program in variances which will make the pattern more random. You can also use vector images, which can look however you want them to and be resized as much as you want because they act as place markers for where lines, shapes and colors are, rather than a downgradable image. And since they're just information, rather than an actual image, they're pretty small.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Vectors and placing items what I refer to by creating mathematically. This is likely what Roboblitz does. Developers want to scan textures, not generate them by hand.

      Adding randomness is fine, but it doesn't create enough variance in textures to get over the repetiveness. Furthermore, it's only useful for textures which are already repetitive on a small distance (like tile). To represent something which is less repetitive, you'd just have to use a large, low-res texture. You can add all the noise you want to that, and it isn't going to bring the lack of resolution caused by the limited texture space back.

      All these things you mention are special cases. As I said, you cannot generically compress a texture in this way, just certain ones.
    • TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Don't bash serenejen, games use vectors to create fantastic textures. Granted it takes tons of processing power to do so, its very do-able. Another way of producing low sized but nice textures was used in .krieger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger). Anythings possible ;)
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I mention AGAIN. You cannot compress textures 100:1 and such in the general case.

      These are all special cases. I can make a mandelbrot texture from about 2 bytes of data (the equation). That doesn't mean all textures can be generated from trivial amounts of data.

      On top of this, developers want to draw and scan textures, not write equations to make them.

      People have a very mistaken impression of what can be done in terms of texture compression. Just look at the people on this article, thinking that now that we have new compression techniques, you could compress the art in any game down to a tiny amount.

      It's simply not true.
  • coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Wow. When something bad happens on any console other than the PS3 someone goes out and turns it into a good thing. Developers are being forced to develop games in new and different ways because they're being put in a tight situation...how is that good?

    Xbox 360 has a *****-ton of great things going for it, why can't we just admit that this one thing is a negative? Please. Anyways I'm sure if someone needs the limit to be raised, Microsoft will break the rules a little bit for them.
    • serenejen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I don't agree that it's a bad thing. For one, I don't see why it's necessary for games that were meant to be smaller and more simple to be small. If you want to make a full game, do so... if you want to make a game that's fairly small, but larger than 50mb, you're either going to innovate with you compression or you're going to seek out a more fitting market for your game because XBL isn't it.
    • aweraw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I have to agree here coheedcollapse... this is like Nintendo in the N64 days saying "The size limitations of the cartridge will drive innovations in game play!"

      My guess as to why they impose this limit: they save money by not having to add additional capacity to their distribution network to support larger games.
  • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm installing Roboblitz demo for the pc right now. It was 183 mb to start with and it has to "Build Procedural Textures" for each level. Wow is it ever slow...
  • robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its not like this is Koranic law. If the 50 MB limit becomes a serious impediment to profits, then I suspect that will change as needed.
  • ensomnia, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Sure I'm going to get dugg down here, but it seems to me, that there is beginning to be more 360 Fanboys, then PS3 Fanboys which everyone so quickly bashes and says there are too many of.

    Tell me something, if this was an article about PS3, having some sort of 50MB size limit, would it get the same response? My guess is that it would just be buried or some sort, saying that "Oh Sony always cuts corners because they don't give a crap." Yet when its the 360, "Ohh isn't it amazing, now we're going to get better games, because developers have to work harder"

    Furthermore, Pelapp made an extremely logical point, yet he gets buried?!

    Might be just me, but I'm getting sick of this double standard/everyone hating on the PS3
    • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I didn't know that this story was about the PS3 anyways. Will the ps3 even Have an online arcade section?
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Yes, PS3 does. And the limit for it is 500MB. This is perhaps part of the reason that this question is being asked.

      There aren't a lot of titles yet, and none of them are as good as Geometry Wars (unsurprisingly).

      There are a few games available (Blast Factor) and some available soon, like Calling All Cars seen below.

      http://ps3.ign.com/objects/858/858887.html
    • ensomnia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry, just to clarify, I am being semi off-topic
      Not talking about the actual arcade system itself, but just the general double standard with PS3/360 these days and didn't want to go type up a blog...
  • KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think its mostly a way to keep the brick-and-mortar game distribution system happy. I know from direct experience that the brick-and-mortar video game selling establishment has been doing everything in their power over the last ten years to keep the primary mode of game distribution on physical media. By limiting the size to 50 MB, its sort of MS's way of saying "We think online distribution is a great idea, but don't worry, we still remember you guys too!"
    • vermin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This actually makes the most sense. The EB's and WalMart's know how popular Xbox Arcade is and they're probably pressuring MS into imposing this limit. The move to download only is already here, but these retailers are trying to hang on, and MS is for whatever reason, accomodating them.
  • crypticgeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I don't see his point. Why should we limit ourselves when space isn't an issue. He talks about higher capacity storage devices as if they are things we shouldn't use if we don't have to. But the technology is there. I don't see any reason not to use it. There is no end benefit to gamers to artificially drive higher compression and procedural texturing by using a file size limit. I don't care what whizbang compression you use...uncompressed content is always either lossless or in the case of nonlossy compression faster. A small file size doesn't "drive innovation" in any sort of useful area to gamers at all. There's no need to drive innovation anyway...the market place already does that.

    "devs could utilize these methods to pack 25 gigs worth of game into 9 gigs worth of space" Yes, because a smaller game makes it a better game. What kind of logic is that. Time spent managing a file size limit is better spent on REAL development.
    • serenejen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"There is no end benefit to gamers to artificially drive higher compression and procedural texturing by using a file size limit."

      If we improve our compression methods, then maybe we wouldn't need large and expensive disc formats. How is that not any sort of useful?
    • whatthegeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4By making a game small enough to fit on a regular DVD you avoid the need for a next gen optical disc format such as HD DVD or Blu Ray. Neither of those has a read speed that's as fast as that of a standard DVD. In the case of the PS3 developers have to compensate for this by preloading around 5gigs of data onto your hard drive. This is done to speed up load times, or rather make it so you don't see the load times. It works, but the same effect could have been achieved through better compression on a regular DVD, which would have saved everyone (sony, the developers, and the consumers) a lot of money
  • darthmdh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+250Mb is fantastic. Back to the good old days of the .NET Runtime and "Pong"
  • HDhandyman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I really don't see what the problem is. Driving innovation is a good thing. Microsoft has provided all of the required Dev. kits, Unreal engine, now XNA, etc., and done it with style and efficiency. Two years ago we didn't even know we'd be sitting here arguing over the size it would take to build a successful arcade title. If everyone wants ports and ***** then buy the original or get an emulator on your puter. Let other people find new ways to create games given the stipulations. There's an old phrase..."Give em an inch, and they'll take a mile!". I, for one, think that the size limit is a breath of fresh air. If it weren't for the 50 mb size limit we might not have Geometry Wars or the dual analog control scheme that we've grown so fond of.
  • gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think the size limit might be the reason why I haven't seen any good games on XBLA. Yea, it has DOOM but its 800 MS Points! (A little pricey compared to all the other XBLA titles) They might want to make the limit a little bit more since most of the new titles on XBLA are getting higher prices than the original ones that XBLA started out with.
    • serenejen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I almost agree with you, but I more or less feel like the file sizes and games are fine, but the prices should go down.
    • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't own an xbox yet but have calculated that a 800 MS point game is around 14 $ CAD. That's in line with most budget pc games that are in retail stores right now and these multiplayer arcade games are more popular than any of pc counterpart I know of...
    • gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@OpCzar
      So you are saying $14 is good for a game that is really old and has it's source code released for free?
    • peeweejd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@gamerzworld re: Doom for 800 points

      Try $10 for a classic game that added 4 player split-screen (versus and co-op) as well as 8 player total online multiplayer (co-op and deathmatch) and it works on your couch with whatever TV you have and whatever resolution you prefer.
  • fadeaway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You'd be amazed at what you can do with 50 megs.

    You'd be awestruck at what you can do in under 64k. Behold the demoscene.

    http://www.maa.org/editorial/mathgames/mathgames_08_16_04.html
  • 1598741, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree with Ashish under the article's own comments.
  • AARGH2K, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Folks, these are meant to be "arcade" titles. Something fun to play, quick to download (for EVERYONE). If a developer is making a game that does not fit, and if it is "that good" then they should be able to get someone to distribute it for them as a disc based game. Arcade wasn't meant for your standard full size release games. If they put up huge games, of uncompressed content, all you would see is complaints of how long it took to download this game, and they should have done this or that to make it smaller.

    Look at what the developers did when CD became popular, lots of useless FMV, and static images. Developers need a bit of a challenge to get them out of their "storage and bandwidth aren't our concern" mentality.
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Look at what the developers did when CD became popular, lots of useless FMV, and static images. Developers need a bit of a challenge to get them out of their "storage and bandwidth aren't our concern" mentality."

      That was at first. Because it was new they need room to test the waters. Before long games like Metal gear solid comes along (all in game cutscens BTW) and gives you an experience that could not have been done with less space. An imposed restriction such as space doesn't really help innovation or creativity. The same devs that can be creative with 50 MB can be creative with 500MB or 5 GB. That arguement is in no way valid.
  • Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This is a good thing. It forces developers to be more efficient, and helps the fact that the hard drive included with the "premium" 360 is pathetically small.
  • Aleman360, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Definitely a good thing. It forces developers to think hard about what parts of their games are really necessary.
  • Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Proof that wonderful things can be done in under 50MB (as if you needed more):

    http://digg.com/videos_gaming/XBOX_LIVE_Exclusive_Space_Giraffe_Now_Has_a_Tutorial_Can_you_say_Tempest
  • mxcl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Increases innovation, decreases download time. All things good IMO. I'll laugh when all PS3 arcade titles are 450MB downloads.

    If you can't fit it into 50MB, maybe you be making a full disk game?
    • gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Couldn't the PS3 play that from a standard CD. Seems like a waste of hard drive space.
  • merdiesel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I didn't even know that there was a 50mb limit.
  • womfalcs7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sony is has their limit set at 200 MB.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.