Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
Resistance: Fall of Man More Than HD-DVD Can Handle |
Listed in: PS3, Xbox 360 Tags: gaming accessories, Insomniac Games
Ó
This would be great and all...for PS3, that it - the competition's HD-DVD can only take in around 15 gigs.
This PS3 launch game may just make XBox 360 people take notice, as the XBox 360 couldn't even hold 15 gigs under normal circumstances. If a PS3 launch game is this big, when people have yet to discover just how far the PS3 can go, how much more can it do when developers have mastered the art of PS3 game making? This could very well lead to a lot of developments (both good and bad) in the third-party industry, especially if gamers will expect more content from every PS3 release, as opposed to XBox or Wii titles.
Worse still, Insomniac is out to beat XBox live, supposedly by making their games available for 40-man multiplayer. Those are fighting words, and let's see if Insomniac can actually deliver.
Via Max PS3
| This story sucks? This story rocks! |
|
|
Comments
Reply
Anyway, this sort of thing was to be expected. Its a case of "have space, will use"
Reply
I can still smell the counter arguments already, like "this game just fills up the disc with unused crap" or "will probably just have hours over hours of movies, which sucks" or even "they could have just made the game on 4 DVDs and sell the PS3 without stupid Blu-ray for 199$!!!!!"
Reply
people said that no games can even fill dvd9's yet, but by making compression lighter and not having to limit themselves developers can make faster, larger games.
and that's some of the reason sony went for blueray in ps3. the majority being that they want to win the format war and ps3 is a very good way to get blueray into homes.
Reply
Reply
Reply
LAWLer.
Reply
Blu-ray
25GB (single-layer)/50GB (dual-layer)
HD-DVD
15GB (single-layer)/30GB (dual-layer)
At the moment this is only for single layer
Reply
HDDVD can be compared to bluray as bluray is sonys contribution to the nextgen movie disc format war, and it seems to have the edge as it can be used as multiple multimedia formats
Oh yeah, and its sooo great the HDDVD is 30 Gb, even though it is just gonna be used for films
Reply
i would assume that there are 2 ways gta4 could go:
if they make the same game for 360 and ps3 then they'll only have it upto 720p and it will be compressed like crazy, and will just squeeze onto dvd9... with massive loading times (though the hdd should improve that)
or they could make a GOOD version of the game on bluray, filling 20gigs or so, then they could remove bits for 360, or put it on 2 dvds for 360... if they make the game with 360 in mind then the ps3 version will suffer. but i don't really care about gta anymore, it got old with vice city for me.
Reply
The Ps3 will get an uncompressed version with sharper textures, better audio, higher res cut scenes ect.
Thats what will happen with games like GTA IV
And with the 'not using up space', think of in a few years time how much BIGGER games are going to be, taking up much more space on a disk.
If Msoft force 360 users to use HD DVD for their 360, then they just got screwed over. Another $200 for a HD player that didnt come witht the 360 to play new games.... lol..
Oh and If users are going to think DVD 9 will survive, look at Oblivion. 360 gamers could argue that such a big game fits on a DVD 9 disk. Well I own a copy on my PC, and I must say the Textures are muddy as, distant landscapes look aufual, and there is a whole bunch of other things that are r00ted thanks to the DVD 9's contraints.
Unfortunatly PC users have to deal with the crappy compressed version, not a game that should rightfully take up more than 4.7 gb's of space....
Reply
#1 i always talk about gamers but it seem people choose sides all too often i own a 360, and so does my friend but we argue all the time because i want a ps3 and he wants the wii60 combo. i am gamers and a "fan" not fanboy i call him a "tool" to piss him of. i use fanboy to refer to "phony" camp members and tools reffer to "micosuckers" camp anywayz i like games in general xbox had some great games last gen a so did the ps2. coming of the strength of that, this gen i expect the same this could only be though. i have to say . i am not exited about the wii again thats just me, loved snes but thats it. i never felt i miss anything from nintendo. flame if you like! thats just personal opinion generated from the there last 2 systems. the wiimote is cool, its just nintendo games dont get me excited imo.
#3 #4 thats true people think that game developers are force to fill the space. it just the are not limited if they need it. doing compression aglorithms i am shore takes up development time but compression will be used its developers chose or banwidths limitaions.
#5 this one of the agument about filling the space ,that multiplatfrom gamers are going to suffer because the games are going to use less space than a dvd9 for porting purposes. lets just say this, as much multiplatformin g this generation is all about with the cost of making games devolpers love the live "microtransactio ns" so the same will go for sony developers i hate it but it seems like the future. "put a game out, then out more content, charge em money some one will buy it!" trust! this is console wide i really dont buy extra content but "live" has proven ***** like exta content sells like hotcakes so if sony does free multiplayer there is going to be content to offset the price of maintain servers and game deveploment.
i cant spell or type so i hope yall get the point i am trying to make
Reply
The 360 is fine with DVD9... games look purty, and well... they look purty... that's it...
As for the PS3... well, all I'm saying is that Adding Blu-ray to the PS3 was the best thing to ever happen to gaming... more content, region-free, global releases and well beautiful looking games.... DROOOOOOL
But i will still sit here and caress my 360 ... *It's okay Mr. 360 i will still luff j00!* *HUGS*
Reply
Yes, the PS3 can only handle up to two layers, but 50 GB is not too shabby... ;)
But still, the data on Blu-ray will not be uncompressed, not even "less compressed", it will/could just be higher quality and more variety. And the prerendered movies will look better for sure.
Blu-ray will be even better for films, once the studios get their encoding software sorted. It features a significantly higher bandwidth for video streams and double the bandwidth for sound streams compared to HD-DVD. If someone really wants to push the limits with a quality film release, it can be a lot better on Blu-ray. But on the other hand, most DVDs released today fail to push the limits of that format, some even feature VHS-like quality.
Reply
Now, where are all those xbots that claimed DVD's would be enough storage (for games) for years to come???
single layer Blu-Ray = 25gb
single layer HD-DVD = 15gb
single layer DVD = 4.5gb
Reply
This is not a good thing, it would be a good thing if it was 22 GB COMPRESSED, because that would mean theres a TON of information on that disc. As it is now, they could probably fit that game in about 8 GB, they just don't want to compress it.
Reply
So 40 players, this means BIG maps!
Reply
Reply
Reply
what happens when they make gears of war 2 and find they need even better compression as they still only have 9 gigs of space and want to put in better graphics or more content? i'll tell you what, they'd kill for a bluray disc, onto which they could fit 50 gig (dual layer), and with compression that would be more than enough...
so my issue is with people who refuse to accept that a larger disc size is a GOOD thing, and in this case ps3 stands as a winner over 360.
even if bluray doesn't make it as a video format it will still carry ps3 games.
Reply
Reply
i don't doubt that the devs making 360 games will squish as much into the dvd9 as possible, and 360 owners will not be disappointed... but i'm a cutscene whore, there's nothing quite like mgs of final fantasy to get me excited. big storage spells much cutscene to me!
personally i am not bothered by hd movies, and the inclusion of bluray isn't a big whoop as such, but that devs will have the space to add extra stuff makes me happy. also, if you think about 1080p vs 720p it's something like twice the number of pixels, which could roughly translate to twice the storage space of textures etc... just that makes it essential that ps3 has a lot of disc space.
i don't like to make enemies out of well spoken and sensible people, so i apologise, i just don't understand when pro-360 people can't accept that bluray has greater potential...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
24. Yes blu ray spins slower than a dvd9 disc but dont forget that rpm's mean ***** without read speeds. Im not sure of the numbers so if someone could fil this in. Whats dvd9 and bluray speeds at 1x and at what ever x? theyll be reading at on the ps3 and xb360?
Reply
Reply
As for 2x Blu-ray (PS£) speeds compared to 12x DVD (XBox 360), the following explains it rather well;
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Uncompressed data is LARGER, therefore load times are slower not faster. That's why every screenshot (jpeg)and every movie (mpeg, avi, wmv, mov etc) you download from the internet is a compressed format, since without compression the data will be MUCH larger and therefore will take much longer to download.
Compression and decompression in games are not like the slow and cumblesome ZIP format, but instead are designed for speed, hence improves data transfer, reduces memory requirements and often improves performance.
>>"(and the mandatory hdd)..."
Developers are feel to use the HDD in the 360 in exactly the same way as in the PS3 (i.e. to improve load times). The only difference is that 360 devs have to make sure their games can also work without a HDD.
Regarding Blu-ray, having more space is great, but some gamers act as if more space equals better games, which is not the case (the best PS2 games were not always the biggest!).
Reply
"Because of the Blu-ray format, for example, Starbreeze plans to include additional videos that exploit the "television watching" feature which currently consists of the classic "Nosferatu" vampire silent film (in its entirety) and five 30-minute Popeye cartoons. The publisher isn't sure what the PS3-exclusive videos will be just yet"
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/725/725801p1.html?RSSwhen2006-08-23_000100&RSSid=725801
Reply
@TheProfessor: i don't think that is an example of making good use of the extra space. Somehow sitting down ingame with the character to watch tv ingame doesn't sound like fun to me... :|
And anyone who said or thought that R:FOM will use uncompressed data to fill the space up please raise your hand! *takes names* Good, now sit down and please don't try to talk on technical topics again, will you? *eg*
Reply
That's why the xbox 360 will ( I suppose ) launch another console like xbox 720 that will be an update for another 400$ ( so the ps3 may be cheaper after all, 100$ more for a system that will handle 10 years is way better than a system for 100$ less but that you'll have to sell ( like they did with the original xbox, they destroyed it with the x360 release, ps2 will be alive 1 year after the ps3 will be launched so the small companies have it better ) and buy the "new" x720 that will do the same as the ps3 ( for another 400$... ), if they do that they are lame...
ps: I'll buy a ps3 in early to mid 2k7, doesn't have the money to buy it now, lol. ( and I want a good game with it, like MGS4 or final fantasy 13 =D )
Reply
Catering for 360s with or without a HDD is not a problem for devs, as shown in Oblivion for the 360, which uses the HDD for caching to improve performance if the HDD is installed (so, you were saying? ;)).
On the PC, we've had multple disc usage options for YEARS (ever since the first CD games in fact), with multiple install options available for gamers to select the trade-off between disc space and performance, eg. small install (no game files copied to HDD), medium install (some files copied to HDD) and full install (all files copied to HDD). The game runs in all configurations, from CD/DVD only (small), to 100% from the HDD (full). It has not been difficult for PC devs, therefore it is not difficult for 360 devs.
Hence for 360's without a HDD, games can run with the equivilent of PC game's small install option. But for those with a HDD, they can (and do) use it to improve loading times.
Reply
Compression
To all those who think compression is the solution think again. Compression "ALWAYS" degrades everything.
Sound, Movies, Models, Textures, everything gets degraded. For the time you need to decompress a file, the Blu-ray could have read it off and sent it off to processing in half the time. Compression is a joke, compression should only be used in PC games to fit everything onto a DVD because PC games are plenty over 9GB.
#36
You are an idiot. The solution of running games off a CD was given up years ago because its obsolete and cuts severely cuts peformance of any modern game. Also since a couple years ago, you have to install all "Major" game files onto a HD. The only files left on CDs are the video files. Everything else is installed to the HD. And recently, you have to install all game files on the HD. You need to get with the times, name the last game that gave the option of running of just the cd, or just the major files. All new games require that all game files be installed and the system must have the cd in to play.
The Xbox360 has only one use for the HD when it comes to games, Caching. It doesnt install any game files at all so it has to cache the frequently used files in order to decrease load times. In terms of performance increase, there really isnt any.
Oblivion on the Xbox360 is highly compressed data. Decompress all that data and what you get is the size several times larger. Decompressed data is better. When the system doesnt have to decompress the data it can be processed faster and improves performance dramatically.
Its like Doom3. every game file is stored in compressed files. If you manually decompress the files and delete the large compressed files, the performance of the game increases dramictally in load times, frame rate, everything.
Xbox360 with compression will not stand a chance against graphics of the PS3 which can be shown in their true uncompressed form.
Reply
Reply
Reply
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps
bluray reads at a constant speed while dvds read a variable speed going inbetween 66Mbps to 132Mbps max. The max speed of dvds are also variable to the amount of space on the dics themselves. (Example: have full dvd at x12 is only 12.8MBps because its speed varies from the center out. Plust the max dvd speeds are almost never used.
that pretty much sums up the aticle post 28 gave me, thanks again.
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek
so if they upped the bluray to 3x it would be faster with than half full dvd's and 4x would be faster tahn dvds at 12x all together by 9%. I wonder if they changed that any in the 'unfinalized specs'. Also ill post again if i can find the interveiw with the developer of oblivion that stated that hd wasnt included due space, i think its in one of my egms somewhere.
Reply
Reply
Why is it that guys like you seem to lack the maturity to disagree with someone without resorting to unnecessary name calling?
Anyway, to discuss your points;
1) Compression.
>>"To all those who think compression is the solution think again. Compression "ALWAYS" degrades everything."
The idea that "uncompressed = good" and "compressed = bad" is not true in many cases.
Without compression, much of what we take for granted in the digital world today would NOT be possible, because compression is EVERYWHERE Vietone.
CD tracks use an uncompressed 16-bit PCM format, however, whilst this was fine for the capacity of CDs, it was not good for distribution over the internet or portable digital devices with limited memory. Hence the popularity of mp3, which enabled us to compress the tracks to a fraction of the original size and yet still retain much of the quality (unless compressed too much that is).
It's because of mp3 compression that digital music was able to be easily distributed over the internet and carried around in our pockets with mp3 players like Apple's iPod. So, do you really think mp3 is bad?
MPEG2 for movies, compresses the original digital data to a tiny fraction of the original size, enabling it to fit onto DVD. Without compression, DVD movies would be IMPOSSIBLE, and digital broadcasts of TV programs/films from Satellites or terestrial sources would also be impossible.
More recently we have HD movies, for which a two hour movie is around 1000 GB (1 TB) uncompressed! How do you suggest fitting all of that data onto a 25/30GB disc? The answer, compression formats like MPEG2 and VC-1, which reduce that data to a tiny fraction of the original size whilst still maintaining much of the quality of the original.
See a pattern forming yet?
All the screenshots you see for games are in a compressed format, in most cases, JPEG (JPG). Download any screenshot and save it into a raw uncompressed format such as BMP, and it usually reveals that the original file was about 8 times larger. Without compression, these images would require 8 times the space from the host and they would take 8 times longer for us to download! So again, another plus for compression.
After the introducing of 3D accelerator cards, early PC games still used to suffer from poor texture quality, due to limited memory on the graphics cards, and there was slow down due to 'texture thrashing', a process where textures where being copied and deleted into the graphics card as the scene was being rendered. The only solution then was to buy a graphics card with more memory.
So a graphics company S3 came up with a solution they called S3TC (S3 Texture Compression). This was a hardware solution which allowed compressed textures to be decompressed on the fly by the GPU, without requiring the CPU and with negligable effect on performance. This meant higher quality textures could fit into the limited memory on the GPU, or more textures if the developer chooses. The first demonstrations of this technology came in the form of a patch for games like Unreal tournament, and the increase in quality was amazing.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/067/067849p1.html
As a result, hardware accelerated texture compression became standard in Direct3D (DXTC = improved S3TC), and is used so much in today's games that gamers take it for granted. Being up to 6 times smaller, they use less space, they use less memory, less bandwidth and they are quicker to load, hence are as important for modern games as mpeg2 is for movies. There are no advantages to be gained from using large uncompressed textures in a game, especially on consoles with just 512MB (and atleast half of that for graphics).
Still convinced that compression is bad?
Reply
I mentioned the various PC install options to illustrate a point, not to demonstrate it's popularity today or lack of it.
The point you seem to have missed is that it is NOT difficult to implement. Whether a game needs to load data, all it needs to know is where the file is located. In the small install option, all the files will be on the optical disc, on the medium install, some files will be on the HDD and some on the disc, and on the full install, all the files will be on the HDD.
Hence on the 360, it is no more complicated than that. Developers can use the HDD in EXACTLY the same way they can on the PS3, with the exception of those 360's without a HDD where all the data will be loaded from DVD instead, hence no performance boost.
>>"The Xbox360 has only one use for the HD when it comes to games, Caching. It doesnt install any game files at all so it has to cache the frequently used files in order to decrease load times. In terms of performance increase, there really isnt any."
If there wasn't a performance increase, caching wouldn't be used at all! Anyway, regarding installing game files onto the HDD, MS prefers that developers minimise the HDD usage as much as possible, but it can and will happen in future 360 games. Today you can download demos onto the 360's HDD and RUN THE ENTIRE GAME DEMO from the HDD, in future, episodic content will be downloaded on the 360's HDD for use in games, therefore increasing portions of the game will be loaded from the HDD! Hence there is nothing stopping developers using the 360's HDD for game content just like the PS3.
Also, on the PS3, do you really think developers are just going to dump GBs of data onto your HDD without giving you the choice?, especially given that some gamers will have only 20GB and we've seen how quickly it can be filled on the 360 with downloads. GT-HD demonstrated at E3 was able to load the tracks quickly because they were copied onto the HDD, however, I doubt this happen without giving the gamer the choice between HDD space and performance. Hence, PS3 gamers who selected to have the tracks copied to the HDD will enjoy the improved loading times, whereas those who didn't will not. This solution works equally well on the 360, where the only difference is that gamers without the HDD haven't got a choice (of course).
So again, the point I was illustrating is that choosing to load data from either HDD or DVD on the 360 is not a difficult task for developers and therefore is doesn't require effort to optimize a game for 2 setups as #34 suggests. It's no more difficult on the 360 than it is on the PS3.
Reply
Reply
To Vietone;
You wrote: "Oblivion on the Xbox360 is highly compressed data. Decompress all that data and what you get is the size several times larger. Decompressed data is better. When the system doesnt have to decompress the data it can be processed faster and improves performance dramatically."
And yet with all the space available on the PC, the same game only requires 4.6GB on the HDD!
http://www.pro-g.co.uk/pc/the_elder_scrolls_iv/system_requirements.html
Textures do not need to be decompressed because they are processed in their compressed form by the GPU on the fly (as Jez mentions). The rest of the data will probably not add that much to the overall size decompressed.
So, did Bethesda forget about any so-called performance benefits they could have had on the PC if all the data was decompressed? Or perhaps the performance boast was negligable, and certainly not enough to justify taking up more HDD space on the PC. I believe the later is true.
Compression is not necessarily worse, and as Jez says, can often improve overall performance, especially when there's hardware support for decompression. It's a balance between compression size and decompression speed. If you compress a file to half the size, it will take you half the time to load the file, and if you can decompress the file fast enough, you can actually improve overall performance. This is why hardware support for compressed textures has resulted in a higher quality textures in games for the same level of performance.
You wrote: "Its like Doom3. every game file is stored in compressed files. If you manually decompress the files and delete the large compressed files, the performance of the game increases dramictally in load times, frame rate, everything."
The performance boost for Doom3 comes from the fact that all the files are stored in iD's compressed format as large pak files, which have to be decompressed by the PC's CPU (not the PC's greatest strength). It's slow (just like decompressing ZIP files) and there's no special hardware support for decompression. Hence the performance boost when the files for the game are decompressed and the pak files deleted (adding about 2GB of space to the game size).
You wrote: "Xbox360 with compression will not stand a chance against graphics of the PS3 which can be shown in their true uncompressed form."
The graphics on the PS3 will NOT be uncompressed. The console has just 512MB of memory, just like the 360, and that's where ALL the textures need to be when rendering each frame.
The difference Blu-ray offers is that developers have enough space to offer a greater variety of textures overall, meaning less repeated textures and perhaps more diversity in the game world as a WHOLE. The extra space on Blu-ray also offers advantages for streamed data, such as higher resolution movies (HD) and uncompressed soundtracks (PCM).
However ingame graphics and sound effects still need to be squeezed into available RAM, and therefore will be compressed just as much on the PS3 as they are on the 360. Only if the PS3 had more memory (say 1GB) would it be able to handle higher resolution textures in game. So you're not going to see much difference between the 360 and PS3 in this respect.
Reply
would it be more expansive than A bluray??
Reply
The cost of games depends more on the content (and development costs assosiated with that content) rather than the number of disks the game is on. Hence the price of multidisk 360 games will not differ significantly from games of similar size and content on Blu-ray disks.
Reply
On the other hand PS3 has every intention on using the Blu-Ray format for both.
So it doesn't matter how much an HD-DVD holds if MS doesn't plan to use it for games. Also consider the limitations imposed on the fact that the drive is plugged into USB, where the PS3 will have the Blu-Ray drive hardwired in.
Reply
Anyone expecting to see better texture quality in PS3 games compared to 360 games are going to be very disappointed.
And before anyone jumps in thinking I'm attacking the PS3, well I'm not. Blu-ray is great for gaming, it really is, but having more space on optical disc is NOT the same as having more RAM in a computer or console. The advantages each has to offer is DIFFERENT and yet so many gamers think they are the same (hence the assumption that Blu-ray means uncompressed graphics).
Reply