XBLA File Sizes
May 20th, 2008The XBox Live Arcade file size has been raised again, this time to 350MB. I have mixed feelings on this: part of me is suspicious that it’s just another step on the long line to digital distribution controlled by the console manufacturers (including the concomitant DRM issues). On the other hand, it never made a lot of sense to me. If a company wants to have a good, decent-sized game available for download, and they were willing to use XBLA to distribute it, what was the point of a size restriction? Just make the size obvious, and what’s the problem?
Posted in Gear, Xbox Live |
May 20th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I think the goal was to discourage lazy developers from writing bloated code, an idea of which I generally approve.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Yes, it is another step in the direction of digital distribution. And the DRM issues will be annoying. But it’s where we’re going, so I hope they don’t make it too retarded.
That’s a high hope though.
On the bright side I *really* want to play Portal, and my laptop can’t handle it, so XBLA is my last best hope (I heard there were talks about releasing it on XBLA at some point, but the file size limit was a problem).
May 20th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Allanon-
Um, buy the Orange Box for 360… play portal, sell if you don’t like anything else.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:04 am
Jeff -
You and your rational ideas.
Actually I thought about it but it’s a bit expensive if that’s all I want to play. I’ll go that route eventually.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:30 am
Rob - why should Microsoft care how lazy other developers are?
May 21st, 2008 at 2:58 am
Allanon-
Alright, here’s another one:
Go to Blockbuster (or your DVD/Game rental shop of choice), and rent Orange Box. Portal will take you no more than 5-6 hours to beat (and probably less).
May 21st, 2008 at 6:54 am
@Geoff,
It improves my experience as a consumer when I don’t have to wait for 1GB of useless code to download. It also requires that you not use hack programmers and thus increases the likely quality of the output.
@Jeff,
That’s a good idea for Allanon. Most people clock in around the three-hour mark.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Rob - the quality of the output can be judged completely independent of the developer. That’s a publisher’s concern, not a consumer one. Download times are fine, but no one’s forcing you to download anything. If it’s too big, don’t get it. If you think it’s worth playing despite its size, then aren’t you better off having the choice?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“I think the goal was to discourage lazy developers from writing bloated code, an idea of which I generally approve.”
“It also requires that you not use hack programmers and thus increases the likely quality of the output.”
ROFL.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
@Geoff,
The consumer issue I’m raising isn’t about download times — it’s about hard drive space. If it can’t be done within the size constraints, or can’t be done without extreme difficulty, then yes, I think an exception is warranted — or maybe it belongs on a retail disc. Otherwise, I appreciate not having my limited capacity wasted.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Rob, you’re responding to the words but not the substance of my comment. My point is, if it’s too big - *don’t download it.* Problem solved.
If someone wants to make a game available, they should be able to. People who aren’t you might actually want it.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The irony here is that it’s somehow the software providers’ fault that their game is so “big” [LOL WUT - it's hundreds of megs, fer chrissakes], not to mention some of them have a certain vision for their games, yes even the “low budget” Live arcade games. Also, coding this stuff isn’t as simple as “less code = makes sense” gamers stupidly think it is.
…instead of concentrating on MS’s greedy overcharging of HDD, and lack of HDD across all models.