From what I have seen they have succeeded for the most part. I have half a dozen of these and they are quite entertaining. If you want to make something more complex I am sure you can just put it on a CD.

But I think a lot of people don’t actually keep that content on their consoles. So it’s not as big of a deal in terms of storage.

“Like I said, I’ve got no problem if a developer decides to limit their games to 50MB. That’s great. But on a system with a 20GB Hard Drive, it makes absolutely no sense to me to just pull out a small number like they have and make that the top end.”

Developers don’t HAVE to make games this size… just games they want on XBLA. And XBLA exists for smaller games… and not just that, but casual games… something that no one has really discussed here. I think Microsofts whole angle is to have a machine that give you a littel bit of everything… and potentially everyone could enjoy. (The price is still kind of high to accomplish that mind you… but eventually there will be drops.) And so I think XBLA was established with games like hexic in mind, as well as old ports. I think the unforseen by product of the size limit is that some devs are coming up with ways to fit games that are a bit fuller than the intended type of game.

“I love Xbox Live but I think Xbox Live Arcade hasn’t been so wonderful by comparison. The 50MB limit isn’t solely the reason of course but it doesn’t help.”

Yeah, I can agree with you that it’s not what it could be. I had higher expectations of the arcade when I first heard of it… not to mention all the unfufilled promises.

That’s cool and everything but why is Microsoft imposing their inconsistent imo vision of what an Xbox Live Arcade title is? It’s great that a small size forces someone “to think outside of the box” but as a gamer all I really care about is whether I enjoy the game or not. Best Breed engineering practices are meaningless to my enjoyment of said titles. I’m no more willing to download a 50MB game than a one Gig game. All I care about is my enjoyment of it, and I’ll definitely argue a large size game allows a developer to do different and potentially better things.

The analogy doesn’t quite fit but Micrsoft has no problem allowing large demos, tv shows, or even movies for download on their service. Not sure why games then are forced to meet such a small footprint.

Like I said, I’ve got no problem if a developer decides to limit their games to 50MB. That’s great. But on a system with a 20GB Hard Drive, it makes absolutely no sense to me to just pull out a small number like they have and make that the top end.

I love Xbox Live but I think Xbox Live Arcade hasn’t been so wonderful by comparison. The 50MB limit isn’t solely the reason of course but it doesn’t help.

With the way that bandwidth is increasing and memory is improving I have to agree with this article.

I think the point was more about how good things can come from what at first glance seems like a bad thing. And the smaller size is good for people with harddrives as well because if you want to download a lot of games, you can. I think honestly the size limit isn’t only because of storage, but bandwidth. And I truly hope that if/when larger harddrives become available they up the limit a bit.

Anyway, I don’t think its fanboyism to say that it could be a good thing. Of course the arcade is flawed… some of the prices are outrageously high, and Microsoft hasn’t been delivering what they promise. But this article wasn’t about that. It was about the fact that limitations cause devs to think outside the box. I don’t know why so many people think XLBA should have large games anyway… it’s specifically geared to small, light games. If you have a game that’s larger, you can find another market for your game… like maybe for the 500MB limit Sony offers.