Well don't put Perforce on such a high horse. Yes it can hold a lot of data, but one common reason brought up from corporate IT guys about why they were lookin

Well don't put Perforce on such a high horse. Yes it can hold a lot of data, but one common reason brought up from corporate IT guys about why they were looking into Git was that they were having some problems scaling Perforce. From downtime to storage issues, cpu's overloading, etc. The lag from a remote office was annoying, the read-only replication servers had some annoying bugs that forced some users to abandon it, etc. On more than one occasion I have heard horror stories about the lag if you want to sync from 8:30-9:30 in the morning or are trying to sync/commit at 5pm in a large development office. Various perforce commands are very expensive and they all run on the server side so the equivalent of git blame can really tax the server. And if the server ever went down unlike Git you can't keep working. All of the above means you need beefier and more expensive Perforce servers. And don't forget about the licensing costs! Sure Perforce is nice, but it is hardly perfect. No product is perfect and for every situation you want to evaluate what the real issues that need to be solved and make the tradeoff's necessary.