Bethesda Suggests 360 Hard Drive has Little Effect on Gameplay

[AaronGF]

GamesFirst has published a brief interview with Bethesda’s Pete Hines (http://www.gamesfirst.com/?id=465) regarding the Xbox 360 and Oblivion’s use of the hard drive.

After last week’s sigh of relief when Bethesda confirmed that Oblivion would run on all versions of the Xbox 360, other questions started to come up. What are the differences between Oblivion with a hard drive and without a hard drive? The GamesFirst article suggests that maybe Pete Hines’ comments are a sign that the Xbox 360 hard drive isn’t really very important at all, anymore. At least not in terms of game development, and saying that Oblivion makes extensive use of the hard drive is a bit misleading.

[Heretic Machine]

Can you say, mixed messages?

[mister_slim]

Sure. Messed mixages.

Oops.

[Zeal]

That's a really good article.

In terms of game development, the Xbox 360 has no hard drive, not really; the hard drive is a tool for Live alone. Live, and backwards compatibility.
In this case, the Xbox 360 might be taking a step backwards from the original Xbox, and we can weep at the loss. At $1200 dollars for a bundle, we shouldn't have to wonder if a $150 dollar system might do some things better.
Exactly. http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

[Bushido]

I'm really not putting much faith in the Xbox360-MicroSoft made a big mistake in subverting the market.

[Deathbane27]

It seems to me that the GameFirst guys don't really know what they're talking about.

However, it seems that Bethesda is the first company to admit that the importance of the hard drive is now minor – while they say that Oblivion will make extensive use of the hard drive, the most prominent feature they're willing to point to as an advantage to "extensive use" is a general performance improvement, like faster load times.The fear that developers will not use the hard drive to do really unique things to avoid narrowing their customer base seems to be supported by Bethesda's comments, in my opinion

Okay... so what exactly did they expect game developers to do with the hard drive besides using it as a cache to decrease load times? They are whining about how developers "aren't using it enough" but I don't really see anything else it -could- be used for. Expansions (like Ninja Gaiden's Hurricane packs), maybe, but that comes later, and the hard drive is removable.

What other uses of the hard drive was everyone expecting, even if it was included with every box? What else was it used for in the origional Xbox?

[Adam Blue]

Exactly, so we are getting faster load times and a place to store content....what else did we REALLY need that they HAVEN'T mentioned.

Also they say 'in terms of game development'.

So really, nothings changed.

[TrackZero]

Exactly, so we are getting faster load times and a place to store content....what else did we REALLY need that they HAVEN'T mentioned.

Also they say 'in terms of game development'.

So really, nothings changed.

Yeah, and as Pete himself said:

"I don't think there's any question in our minds that the hard drive is well worth it. That's the version we plan to buy."

Without coming out and saying "the non-harddrive version won't run so well" (because no developer is about to shoot themselves in the foot like that), he makes it quite clear the that harddrive copy will run better.

Makes little difference to me, or most people I'll talk to. I don't think any of them will be buying the non-harddrive version anyways (even the non-gamers, who I'll end up convincing to get the harddrive regardless...heh).

[Ajr]

Wait, my Xbox uses the harddrive in it for more than just caching and minor things like saves? I don't think it does. A step backwards from what, the other console that contained a harddrive? The imaginary console. There are things you can do with a console with a harddrive that you can't do with a console without one, but those things are only seen on a PC. The advantage of having a console is they're not a PC, they don't come with the advantages and disadvantages of a PC.

[Zeal]

Wait, my Xbox uses the harddrive in it for more than just caching and minor things like saves? Wait, I don't think it does. A step backwards from what, the other console that contained a harddrive? The imaginary console.

Caching improves game performance drastically. Read any developer interview of how the game OTOGI utilizes the harddrive. This isn't possible on 360, assuming developers don't write the game with harddrive support in mind. By saying that, I mean to work without the harddrive.

If you can't find an article, I'll link you.

They are not wrong in saying the exclusion of a mandatory harddrive is a step back. That's because it is.

[Ajr]

I'm sure OTOGI's use of the harddrive could be used on a Xbox360 game that also supports the console without a harddrive attached. You are assuming developers won't write support for both with and without a harddrive because they don't think it will be worth the time for less than the total market. That might be true, but I'm betting OTOGI's use of the harddrive on the Xbox was rare, doesn't that mean that developers already don't think it's worth the effort?

[Zeal]

I'm sure OTOGI's use of the harddrive could be used on a Xbox360 game that also supports the console without a harddrive attached. You are assuming developers won't write support for both with and without a harddrive because they don't think it will be worth the time for less than the total market. That might be true, but I'm betting OTOGI's use of the harddrive on the Xbox was rare, doesn't that mean that developers already don't think it's worth the effort?


OTOGI would not be possible without a harddrive, but it would be possible on a 360 with the harddrive attached.

And yes, most developers will probably not go out of their way to utilize the harddrive this time around. It'll probably take more money and time to develop games that work independently on their on, then fully utilize the drive once it's attached. That's why I think the 360 hd is nothing more than a bigass, optional memory card, now. It is no longer a mandatory part of game development, know what I mean?

As for developers fully utiziling the harddrive on Xbox, yes, it was also rare. Games that did specifically take advantage of the hd, (Halo, Otogi 1-2, KoTOR, etc.) were noticeably ahead of those that didn't, though. I think we can agree on that.

I just don't think it is a good idea for Microsoft to split the the market like this. Developers will always aim for the lowest common denominator.

[rein]

oh, so now hard drives are not important for consoles? my my how things have changed.

**** edited for clarity****

My comment was not directed at this thread.. ..just developers and MS. I seem to remember a lot of developers talk up the hard drive this generation like it was a new era in gaming.

[Zeal]

oh, so now hard drives are not important for consoles? my my how things have changed.

The only thing that troubles me is that people try to convince themselves that it's no big deal, even when something is clearly a change in the wrong direction.

For example, Microsoft could remove the whole damn disc drive and people would still try to defend their decision.

"OH WELLZ DIDN'T NEED THE CD DRIVE ANYWAY. GAMES BEING STREAMED FROM SATELLITE IS COOLA AND MORE FUTURUISTICAL."

[Murmillo]

Even if games no longer use the harddrive for cache'ing any more, it won't be that big of a loss as many games didn't use it much before hand in the xbox1, but it WILL be used a lot for live and extra content.

While you may think that developers my "always" aim for the "lowest common demoninator", while that may be true for the playing the 'base off the dvd' game, they will use the harddrive to build loyalty and game longtivity with extra content and perks.
Case and point: If not everybody has Live, then why do a good number of games/developers contine to put out exclusive content out on Live?
That really blows your whole "Developers will always aim for the lowest common demoninator" remark right out of the water.

There is no split in the market. If your the type who can only buy/play 2-3 games a year and don't have Live (a very large majority of console users) you saved yourself $60 because that $100 harddrive is worthless.
The smaller majority of "hardcore" users are bitching that they have to spend an extra $60($100) to get something they got for free last time. Mircrosoft took a risk and saw the harddrive wasn't as used as much as they expected it could have been used, so why should Mircosoft blow more money into an object that has its uses, but only 10-20% of the market used.

As far as I see, its just the very voical hardcore elite bitching because they realize (just like computer users) owning something slight better then somebody else costs extra money.

[Murmillo]

"OH WELLZ DIDN'T NEED THE CD DRIVE ANYWAY. GAMES BEING STREAMED FROM SATELLITE IS COOLA AND MORE FUTURUISTICAL."
now thats just being stupid... thats sounds like a marketing buzz for the Phantom 2.

[bapenguin]

oh god...here we go again.....

[kathode]

I was going to jump in here and defend the game, but I'm not entirely sure what to defend. Very odd news story :)

[Zeal]

oh god...here we go again.....

Nah, I don't have the energy for another thread like that. I'm just giving my opinion on why I feel not including the harddrive is a step back. Many share my views.

What is your opinion on Microsoft deciding to market the console this way?

[AaronGF]

Basically, it seems that Oblivion is being designed to run without the hard drive first, and then optimized to run with the HD second. The problem with doing it that way is that it prohibits things that might have been possible if designed from the scratch up with a hard drive present.

But I think it's a really good question: What has the current generation Xbox done with the Hard drive? Are there any games that couldn't exist or would have a hard time existing without the HD in the Xbox? Doom III, maybe?

Anyone got any really good examples? Not counting Xbox Live.

Maybe the hard drive really isn't needed. Maybe all it was ever intended to do was store cache and such. Why 20 GB, then? Why not a gig?

[AaronGF]

Haha, Kathode. Not sure we're defending the game. More like Microsoft's decision to have two version of the Xbox 360 than anything else.

Oblivion is going to kick-butt. :)

[Meatgortex]

On the original xbox it was trivial code-wise to cache data to the HD while you were reading it into memory from the disk. Subsequent loads would then come in off the disk provided the data was there. The original xbox had 3 cache zones for the last 3 games you played. If your title was the forth you'd kick out the oldest cache data. So this area wasn't used for anything that had to be persistent as that would have to go in the save game.

X360 will be no different. Buy the harddrive version and in all but the lowest budget titles you will get a speed improvement on load time.

Outside of that the HD was used for Live and MP3's. What else do you expect out of an HD. It's good for storage, and it has faster seek times and read/write speeds then a disk. Other then that HDs don't have any magical properties that make games better.

[bapenguin]

Nah, I don't have the energy for another thread like that. I'm just giving my opinion on why I feel not including the harddrive is a step back. Many share my views.

What is your opinion on Microsoft deciding to market the console this way?

I think it's a marketing ploy so they can claim $299...but I also think we have no idea how it's going to pan out...it's all speculation...some people talk about it as if it's already fact....it's not.

[AaronGF]

MeatGortex: Load times aside, how does it affect in game stuff, like graphics. Will the game drop graphic quality on a no-HD system in order to maintain frame rate, much like a PC game can be adjusted for different systems? Or will it mainly stick to load times, do you think?

I keep drawing an analogy to the Nintendo DS and the touch screen. Regardless of what Sony says, the screen isn't a gimmick, and allows for titles like Kirby Canvas and a decent FPS control scheme. There are certain titles that just can't exist without the touch screen - who knows how it will be used in the future, but if it disappeared, certain types of games just wouldn't exist for the system. Is the HD in the Xbox the same way? By not having it as a standard feature, is Microsoft killing the possibility of using it for something new, in the same way that Xbox Live was new (which was made possible in large part by the HD on the original box)?

And it's weird... in my mind we're still talking about this as a far distant console... but really... November? We’re talking 60 – 70 days here.

It's getting close. :)

[Deathbane27]

The problem with doing it that way is that it prohibits things that might have been possible if designed from the scratch up with a hard drive present.

Like what? What else might have been possible if the hard drive were a given?



Yeah, I know you're trying to say that there might be something we haven't thought of yet that would require one in the future, but... that's why you can add one later. Sony did have an optional hard drive so you could play FFXI on the PS2, after all.

The only new and great thing the Xbox got from its hard drive was caching, and we can plainly see that the game developers ARE setting the games up to use hard drive caching if it is there.

So what's the problem?

[MosBen]

As to the "lowest common denominator" argument, it already exists for the majority of games; multi-platform games. I'm not going to pretend to know what percentage of games are multiplatform, but I think it's safe to say that a majority of games sales are games that are designed to run on as many systems as possible, which means that esoteric features, like hard drives or "revolutionary" controllers, just don't get fully exploited in most cases. Sure, there are always going to be games that buck the trend, first party games mostly, but most of the time it's just not going to be the case. It wasn't the case with Xbox 1, where most games didn't utilize the hard drive much and the graphics weren't always as good as they could have been because the game was originally developed with the PS2 in mind. There's no big change here, but if enough people buy the full featured version and MS gets enough of a head start on Sony I bet more developers will use it.

[Demo_Boy]

Hard drive was used for custom soundtracks on nearly all my games.

I like listening to ripped music instead of the 10 minutes of audio the dev can afford to put in.

Now if the HD is optional, then devs might not bother to support custom soundtracks because its a fraction of the user base.

[if76]

I guess you think load times don't affect gameplay. I wholeheartedly disagree.

[trip1eX]

While you may think that developers my "always" aim for the "lowest common demoninator", while that may be true for the playing the 'base off the dvd' game, they will use the harddrive to build loyalty and game longtivity with extra content and perks.
Case and point: If not everybody has Live, then why do a good number of games/developers contine to put out exclusive content out on Live?
That really blows your whole "Developers will always aim for the lowest common demoninator" remark right out of the water.

There is no split in the market. If your the type who can only buy/play 2-3 games a year and don't have Live (a very large majority of console users) you saved yourself $60 because that $100 harddrive is worthless.
The smaller majority of "hardcore" users are bitching that they have to spend an extra $60($100) to get something they got for free last time. Mircrosoft took a risk and saw the harddrive wasn't as used as much as they expected it could have been used, so why should Mircosoft blow more money into an object that has its uses, but only 10-20% of the market used.


Hey nice post. Excellent point.

********
The thing people forget is that a hard drive isn't magical. IT's just a bigger faster memory card - a storage medium. It's nothing more than that.

[Adam Blue]

Hard drive was used for custom soundtracks on nearly all my games.

I like listening to ripped music instead of the 10 minutes of audio the dev can afford to put in.

Now if the HD is optional, then devs might not bother to support custom soundtracks because its a fraction of the user base.


Custom soundtracks are through the console itself, not the games(I wanna see how this works). Plus if you have an MP3 player, you wouldn't need the harddrive for custom tracks. Just plug it into the USB port.

[Murmillo]

Now if the HD is optional, then devs might not bother to support custom soundtracks because its a fraction of the user base.

I'd like to point out, among one of the things Microsoft is demanding (like 720p, Live Aware) is also that all games support custom soundtracks.

So lets keep from the doom and gloom, "lowest common demoninator" and "might not bothers" posts because Microsoft is going to make sure developers don't get lazy. They 'need' to make sure they make money from casual gamers this time around, but still support the "Hardcore" crowd every inch of the way.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

While you may think that developers my "always" aim for the "lowest common demoninator", while that may be true for the playing the 'base off the dvd' game, they will use the harddrive to build loyalty and game longtivity with extra content and perks.
Well, in many cases developers would start developing a game for the PS2 and then port them over to the Xbox and Gamecube. The graphics would be slightly upgraded, but generally nowhere near the capabilities of the new system. A case in point is GTA:SA 3. Do you really think that was the best Rockstar could do on the Xbox? Add to that list any of the movie licenses, Mercenaries, 007 games, etc...


Case and point: If not everybody has Live, then why do a good number of games/developers contine to put out exclusive content out on Live?
That really blows your whole "Developers will always aim for the lowest common demoninator" remark right out of the water.
Xbox Live Downloadable content is due to agreements with MS that pay them money to make the content. That is one of the reasons that a lot of content is free. The DC is either MS reselling the content or revenue sharing.[/QUOTE]


There is no split in the market. If your the type who can only buy/play 2-3 games a year and don't have Live (a very large majority of console users) you saved yourself $60 because that $100 harddrive is worthless.
The smaller majority of "hardcore" users are bitching that they have to spend an extra $60($100) to get something they got for free last time. Mircrosoft took a risk and saw the harddrive wasn't as used as much as they expected it could have been used, so why should Mircosoft blow more money into an object that has its uses, but only 10-20% of the market used.
For the most part, you were right about Live. Not everyone had broadband and could access the internet. But just about everyone was able to take advantage of saving a game without having to shell out extra dough for memory cards (which the average gamer doesn't like). Add to that, that developers could bank on it being in every Xbox so the possibility to make better games was there. A lot of graphically intensive games used the HD. One of the benefits that multiplatform developers did take advantage of was the draw distance. That was one of the reasons nearly every port (where applicable) had a greater draw distance on the xbox. Lastly, the HD was used to apply custom soundtracks. I can't speak for everyone, but I had 3 or 4 soundtracks I kept handy for different games. Not everyone used this, but those that did appreciated the option.

As far as I see, its just the very voical hardcore elite bitching because they realize (just like computer users) owning something slight better then somebody else costs extra money.
Well, you may be right...in a way. I am somewhat disappointed that MS has given developers a reason not to use the HD. If it isn't standard, it will cost developers more money to develop for a system that has it and doesn't have it(that makes two versions as far as developers are concerned). There will be a little bit more than programming the game to make a 'hardware call' to see if the drive is present. The game then has to be optimized for both versions and that costs money. Which, if a developer has a limited budget, may force them not to bother at all with the HD. This impacts the quality of more games. Which in turn would give the 'voical hardcore elite' a reason to 'bitch'...as well as anyone who buys the HD later.

Good old Murminator...

[Murmillo]

Your right, I shouldn't have said worthless about the $100 harddrive for the xbox1, it was to them, only a nice big automatic "memory card." - but worthless to Microsoft.

In my view, the harddrive is nice for those people who own 10+ games and like to play thier older games, keeping them instead of returning them. These people are also more likely to buy more extras for thier xbox or use Live.

The more casual user buys a game, plays it for a few months, trades in for the next one never really going back to thier older games. Done, beaten, forgotten. Maybe keeping thier favorates or classics like Halo2 or whatever they are into. More tight with thier money and less likely to buy extras for thier xbox or Live.

There are the few in the middle ground who do buy 2-3 games a year and they make damn sure they are Live games. But still, Live is putting $50 a year towards Microsoft.

I did have one grip out the xbox1 harddrive. A lot of games saves did "memory dumps" instead of packaged saves, so no matter what, not even one of these saves would fit onto the 8mb memory card if you wanted to show your friend your charater or progress. It was either "brag or lug" (your xbox).

Its hard to say just what everybody did or didn't do with thier xbox1, but if you ever paid attention and filled out one of those online polls that pop up here and there asking you about your thoughts and comments about game x,y and z then you know what I'm getting at. But if you closed them, you missed a perfect opportunity to tell Microsoft and future developers what you expect/want from a game (and even system)

As for the draw distances, it was my understanding that was because the xbox1 had more memory then the PS2. Not saying the HD didn't have anypart of it, as parts of the map could be loaded quicker but just over all more system memory was the biggest factor.

If Live content is because of said agreements with Microsoft paying developers money to make the content. Then what is there to say that Microsoft won't pay developers (or provide other incentives) to make use of the harddrive? Live has a very small market share of overall xbox1 users, but it is one of the best reasons to own a xbox. Maybe Mircosoft has the same idea for the harddrive after a heavy money loss and verbal ass kickings from investors. Make it so that it's not needed to enjoy the x360, but having one is a major perk.

The game then has to be optimized for both versions and that costs money. Which, if a developer has a limited budget, may force them not to bother at all with the HD. They are going to have to code for the harddrive anyways since Mircosoft is making it mandatory that all games be allowed custom soundtracks - so which in point, has to detect a harddrive if its there, and then use it if somebody wants to use a custom soundtrack. So maybe this is a underhanded way of Microsoft to get developers to use the harddrive. Since they are already more then half way there up to this point coding for the harddrive, it's then up the developer to go the extra mile for thier customers to use the rest of it or not. IF they want to build loyalty and game longtivity, it would be stupid of them not too.

So I don't think they are going to have to worry about having "two" versions, either you have a harddrive or you don't and the game will adjust as needed.

And I am trying to be more mellow....

[nonchalance]

Case and point: If not everybody has Live, then why do a good number of games/developers contine to put out exclusive content out on Live?
That really blows your whole "Developers will always aim for the lowest common demoninator" remark right out of the water.

"Developers aim for the lowest common denominator" is a truism of the industry.

Check out Gamasutra's Question of the Week: Xbox Bundles (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050824/hong_01.shtml) for developer responses, and count the number of times that phrase turns up.

The 360 is doing a fair bit to win me over - certainly more than the PS3 atm, but this core system with no hard drive is a serious error in my opinion.

[Murmillo]

Sure, it has been the truism for the industry for such a long time and I think Microsoft really wants to change that.

Warning: totally biased opinion follows:

It seems like a lot of those people making those comments are pure console developers; they are use to dealing with one set structure and not having to worry about anything else. And it shows in thier comments, they are afraid of change, afraid of doing anything that extra that doesn’t require a cheat code.

But the few that have PC gaming experaince who are now comming over to consoles are going on without even batting an eye. They are used to dealing with more video card options then 4 people can count on their hand and feet, including the next gen's video cards with paper lauches not even complete yet, limitless motherboard chipsets, 2 CPUs makers with at least a dozen different flavors, buggy OS’s, driver’s different RAM amounts, etc.etc.; and your telling them they only thing they have to worry about is if a harddrive might or might not be there?

Yes PC developers code so thier game can work on 5 year old hardware/OS's and a simple 2 speaker set up, but they also make sure that the 1% of people who just spent $1000 on that new video card and 7.1 sound card & speaker system are not disappointed either.

I can see the old school console developers dragging thier feet like a spoiled little child not getting their way (honestly, were they going to use the harddrive that much in the first place?), while the PC experainced side is going to code for the harddrive (like Bethesda) and create a lot of must have harddrive content regardless if a slight majority don't have one.

[trip1eX]

Sure developers always aim for the lowest common denominator, but they don't only aim there. Xbox live, again, case in point.

Also the hard drive isn't a magical device that increases performance in games. IT's no different than a memory card.

[nonchalance]

It seems like a lot of those people making those comments are pure console developers; they are use to dealing with one set structure and not having to worry about anything else. And it shows in thier comments, they are afraid of change, afraid of doing anything that extra that doesn’t require a cheat code.
<snip>....
while the PC experainced side is going to code for the harddrive (like Bethesda) and create a lot of must have harddrive content regardless if a slight majority don't have one.

While that's a logical argument, check it.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796&Itemid=2

The console developers are as split as the PC developers over there.

I don't see people developing specific HDD content unless MS subsidises it, as they do with Xbox Live content.

To me, as a primarily-PC gamer frustrated with the upgrade cycles and system incompatibilities inherent in the platform, the next-gen consoles have been a shining light of hope for the future - maybe I can play great games that look awesome and not have to care about patches, drivers and constant upgrades?

Not any more.
This sucks.

[mister_slim]

OTOGI would not be possible without a harddrive, but it would be possible on a 360 with the harddrive attached.

Technically it would be possible. Everytime you re-entered a level, you were given the choice between the current state and the original. It would be fairly trivial to strip out the choice if someone doesn't have the HD. It wouldn't be the same though.

They are going to have to code for the harddrive anyways since Mircosoft is making it mandatory that all games be allowed custom soundtracks - so which in point, has to detect a harddrive if its there, and then use it if somebody wants to use a custom soundtrack.
That should be a pretty trivial element of the dev kit, really.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

While that's a logical argument, check it.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796&Itemid=2
Not any more.
This sucks.
Great article. Not only does it sum up the argument, it shows the fragmentation caused by the dual SKU. It isn't too late for MS to offer the one SKU ($299-$329) and pack in the HD. I wouldn't mind having to pay for the extra wireless controller, HD cables and headset. It would nearly equal $400 dollars with the extras...and everyone has the HD. This greatly simplifies the choice for the consumer, MS may take more of a hit financially, but it will make the 'hardcore' gamer happy as well as the casual gamer. It would make the developers who know how to utilize the HD happier as well.

(I know it won't happen, but I hate to see MS give up an edge they had)

[EGO]

WTF does Bethesda know about consoles or good games, anyway?

Why do PC devs keep weighing in on consoles that they barely understand?
Why does anyone believe anyone will support an "add-on"? No developers have in the past (32x, Sega CD, Turbo CD, N64 memory expansion, Saturn memory expansion, etc.)

Now, if some real console developers want to step up and start talking, I'll start listening, but as long as PC-centric developers or port-masters keep talking, I'm not listening, whether they're saying what I want to hear or not... :p