tendoboy1984 wrote:
YellowChocobo wrote:
You missed my point entirely. Imposing restrictions, whether by putting crap-tiny storage in the hardware, or actually writing silly rules to limit the size of the game developers can make, is not a good thing.
This has been going on since the dawn of the gaming industry. Hardware imposes limitations on developers, and it's usually the fault of the technology that is available. So back in the days of Atari, you expect developers to have access to near-unlimited amount of storage so they could make their games as big as they wanted them? Do you realize how expensive it would be for consumers to buy hardware like that? Developers and manufacturers work with the technology they're given.
An iPod Touch with a 300 GB flash drive would be astronomically expensive. The reason the games are small is so they can fit withing the storage limits. Hell, the reason the Xbox 360 shipped with a 20 GB hard drive originally is so the manufacturing and consumer costs would be low enough for the mass market.
Also, look at the Neo Geo. It had cartridges that held a ton of data (for it's time), and the result of that was games that cost over $200. Obviously consumers didn't appreciate that, so the Neo Geo was left on sore shelves to rot while the Super NES and Genesis sold in large amounts.
So I just imagined that my Sony PlayStation 3 has a 250GB Hard Drive filled up with a mix of 30MB Minis to 150MB PSOne games all the way up to 9.8GB PS3 games.
So I just imagined that my 64GB iPad was filled with games from 5MB right up to 1.5GB in size.
So I just imagined that this cloud company called OnLive exists that gives people the opportunity to play 10GB games without downloading a thing.
You're absolutely, 100% right. Nintendo is not alone in imposing unnecessary restrictions on the technology games developers have to work with. Eeeeeeeeeeeveryone does it.


