Can we now say the 20GB is history?

[Wolfpup]

30

[dallow]

Interesting.
Almost 23.

I actually was thinking that perhaps it was the younger generation that felt the PC was one and the same as a standard gaming console.
Nevermind, just different philosophies.

Heck, I grew up playing text adventures on C64s and moved right into Coleco.
I've felt that's the closest they ever were.

[daroga]

Wow, I missed all sorts of good thread derailment around here!

PC Gaming and Console gaming, while in their essence may not be all that different, have always had very different demographics. Way-back-when it was kind of the tech nerds vs. the gamers. The tech nerds (myself included) would spend tons of time tweaking that auotexexc.bat and config.sys to get just enough stuff loaded to have your free conventional memory be at a sufficient level for game X. Whereas my neighbor could just plop a cart into his SNES and play.

PC gaming has gotten more streamlined thanks in large part to Direct X and seeing some unification in Windows XP. Vista & Games for Windows are likely to help as well, eventually. In the reverse manner, console games are getting more obnoxious. Which model 360 or PS3 do you have? Does that game require a hard drive? Can I use a memory card? Do I have to install it? And the worst of all: WAIT FOR THE PATCH. Ughh... PC and console gaming are becoming more and more similar.

The PC still gives the best control option for an FPS in the keyboard and mouse combo. I can't imagine playing an RTS game with an analog stick. But if I'm not interested in either of those, or am willing to make control-scheme compromises, the consoles offer far more bang-for-the-buck depending on how you approach PC hardware.

I think you're confusing being a "fanboi" and have a strong preference. I am able to dismiss the modern PC gaming market without having some inherent hatred of the PC platform and a desire for it to fail. PC gaming had it's pinnacle a while back, but claiming that its software scope is as broad and diverse (with quality) as most consoles is kinda silly from my perspective.

If you enjoy PC gaming, go for it! Invest the money in it and enjoy. But, it's going to take some pretty amazing titles to hit the PC and not the consoles (or, heck, I'd even settle for being designed FOR the PC and then ported to consoles rather than the other-way around) to convince me that PC gaming is worth my time and money.

So... how about that 20 GB PS3? .... ;)

[GizmoGC]

what use would that be? shitty games are shitty games, right? poor gizmo, so confused...

If I could rip a few games to my HDD I may actually wind up playing them. Paying $60 for a crap game would suck, hence why I dont for all my systems.

Ripping PS2 games to the PS3 would be nice! Still have yet to play Okami and it looks great.

[Apossum]

If I could rip a few games to my HDD I may actually wind up playing them. Paying $60 for a crap game would suck, hence why I dont for all my systems.

Ripping PS2 games to the PS3 would be nice! Still have yet to play Okami and it looks great.


I used to have the same philosophy with my modded xbox, but I realized all the games I was ripping were games I wouldn't want to buy in the first place or play all the way through and that they were indeed crap. It was kinda cool when games would get leaked though...

PS2 games, imports rather, would be really nice. that's what I'm waiting for!

[GizmoGC]

I used to have the same philosophy with my modded xbox, but I realized all the games I was ripping were games I wouldn't want to buy in the first place or play all the way through and that they were indeed crap. It was kinda cool when games would get leaked though...

PS2 games, imports rather, would be really nice. that's what I'm waiting for!


I was the same way as well, but now I only get games I really want. I do buy them later on when they are $20.

[Kaijufan]

That'd be nice, but with games going from 30-50GBs, shit would get filled too fast.
Unless a game has a ton of HD CGI videos I seriously doubt any PS3 game will come close to 30 GB.

[dpatel]

Unless a game has a ton of HD CGI videos I seriously doubt any PS3 game will come close to 30 GB.

I'm sure a lot will hit the 30GB mark. You won't notice any difference, since the difference between the 30GB PS3 Vs the 9GB 360 game will mainly be in the development process. Development time is better budgeted with more space, but, most of the time, it won't automatically equate to a better product.

[mkda]

Unless a game has a ton of HD CGI videos I seriously doubt any PS3 game will come close to 30 GB.

I read somewhere, awhile back, that game developers felt too restricted when it came to compressing the game for DVDs. Now that blu-ray stores 25gb on a single layer, they managed to nearly max it out. Once the ps3 is "understood" better on the development side, I'm sure they'll use more space when needed.

Oh, here it is: http://nexgenwars.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2084

[H.Cornerstone]

Ahh.... Resistance already took up 16, and Ratchet and clank is going to take up around ~20gb. I can definitly see FFXIII taking up more than 25gb.

[opportunity777]

Ahh.... Resistance already took up 16, and Ratchet and clank is going to take up around ~20gb. I can definitly see FFXIII taking up more than 25gb.

Before, companies were compressing their materials onto the discs and taking greater care to make sure everything was in proper order. Just because it takes up 25 gigs, it does not mean it really would take up 25 gigs under controlled circumstances. IMO, at this point in the PS3's life cycle, the extra space allows for more laziness than anything else.

[dpatel]

Before, companies were compressing their materials onto the discs and taking greater care to make sure everything was in proper order. Just because it takes up 25 gigs, it does not mean it really would take up 25 gigs under controlled circumstances. IMO, at this point in the PS3's life cycle, the extra space allows for more laziness than anything else.

Is it really 'laziness' or is it efficiency? Why spend the extra effort, time, and resources to compress and optimize for an equal or lesser product?

[RedvsBlue]

Is it really 'laziness' or is it efficiency? Why spend the extra effort, time, and resources to compress and optimize for an equal or lesser product?

Come on, I know you're a diehard PS3 fan but you don't really believe that do you? The lazier they are with compression, the more we have to deal with shit load times, just look at the PSP...

[dallow]

Yeah, I hate waiting so long for my games to load on PS3 right now.

Oh wait...

[dpatel]

Come on, I know you're a diehard PS3 fan but you don't really believe that do you? The lazier they are with compression, the more we have to deal with shit load times, just look at the PSP...

I do believe that. I wasn't saying they shouldn't compress at all, but why limit themselves to 9GB of space? They can utilize more than that, and still use compression and optimization. They just won't need to be doing unnecessary compression/optimization, just for the sake of fitting on a DVD.

And, so far, I don't think any PS3 games have slow load times, despite the actual drive being slower than a DVD drive. Developers will still compress/optimize as needed, but they have more room to do it with. That's all I meant.

[opportunity777]

Is it really 'laziness' or is it efficiency? Why spend the extra effort, time, and resources to compress and optimize for an equal or lesser product?

You just said it for me. They don't want to take the effort to optimize, which usually leads to a decrease in quality. At this stage, I don't think they are really using the BR properly. Maybe, they will think more about it later. I just don't see 25 gigs of "real data" being used at this point in the game. It will probably be late in the system's life cycle before we see even 30 gigs used to optimum levels.

[dallow]

You just said it for me. They don't want to take the effort to optimize, which usually leads to a decrease in quality.

::slaps forehead:: :roll:

[dpatel]

You just said it for me. They don't want to take the effort to optimize, which usually leads to a decrease in quality. At this stage, I don't think they are really using the BR properly. Maybe, they will think more about it later. I just don't see 25 gigs of "real data" being used at this point in the game. It will probably be late in the system's life cycle before we see even 30 gigs used to optimum levels.

They are optimizing and compressing. I believe all PS3 games are compressed to some degree. Point is, they don't have to restrict themselves to 9GB of space. They can find the best balance of compression/optmization and quality. Of course, this will depend on developers. Good developers will use the extra space to their advatnage, bad developers won't. But, good developers aren't all of a sudden going to turn bad when given more room to breathe.

[dpatel]

Maybe if games were filling up Blu-ray discs, and load times were terrible, I could see your point. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If it does happen in the future, I will retract my statement, but, so far, no complaints about load times, and no problems with these 'large' games. Only "problem" i see is that they are 'lazy' and saving time,effort, and resources by using the extra space that is given to them. Instead of compressing/optimizing for best performance AND to meet disc space, they now have one less thing to worry about.

[Apossum]

The system just came out...why do people expect games that'll push Blu-Ray and the cell processor all the way already?

I bet a game like Lair (with 32km stages) uses a significant amount of space.

[dpatel]

Does it really have 32Km stages? That is freakin insane. Oblivion wasn't that big, correct?

Anyway, all this hype around the game, and I have no idea how it plays. I really hope it is actually fun, because it looks beautiful, and sounds promising.

[Wolfpup]

I do wonder how the Blu Ray thing is going to play out. I do think it's pretty obvious the space is going to be used-I mean Blue Dragon is already on two DVDs I think, and we're just at the start of the system's life. But then a lot of Playstation games were on multiple discs.

It'll be interesting to see how cross platform titles end up. Will they be able to use the extra space? One interesting suggestion was that Playstation 3 versions of games could use more and better textures. Could happen.

Interesting.
Almost 23.

I actually was thinking that perhaps it was the younger generation that felt the PC was one and the same as a standard gaming console.
Nevermind, just different philosophies.

Heck, I grew up playing text adventures on C64s and moved right into Coleco.
I've felt that's the closest they ever were.

I think they're at least as close now, in terms of the same games being available for everything. Since the Playstation 1 especially theres been TONS of crossover. Even more probably since the release of the X-Box (since it was just a low-end PC that could run some types of games earlier consoles can't.


[quote]I think you're confusing being a "fanboi" and have a strong preference. I am able to dismiss the modern PC gaming market without having some inherent hatred of the PC platform and a desire for it to fail. PC gaming had it's pinnacle a while back, but claiming that its software scope is as broad and diverse (with quality) as most consoles is kinda silly from my perspective.

Then you're wrong. Having a preference is fine. There are plenty of reasons to prefer one platform over another. Like you mentioned, bang for the buck (although depending on where you are in a console's life cycle, that's debatable-especially now with $400 and $500 consoles!), or having a preference for western or Japanese RPGs, or 2D platformers, or whatever. Lots of valid reasons to prefer a platform...

but when you start dismissing an entire platform because of your preferences, that's being a fanboi. The thing that amazes me is those people frequently don't even seem to know it!

Two other platforms that have been seriously maligned were the GBA, and currently the PSP. Tons of people didn't get that the GBA was a legit platform, and now the same thing on the PSP (probably the same people bashing the PSP now were bashing the GBA four years ago...same mindset). People bashing any game that doesn't have over the top violence as "kiddie" is annoying too.

[dallow]

People made fun of the GBA really? I had a Japanese import day one for that system.
Man, I wasn't into forums and such as much as now, but that surprises me.

I too, don't understand all the PSP bashing either.

I mean Blue Dragon is already on two DVDs I think.

3 actually, but I don't mind swapping anyway. RPGs don't move that quickly.

People feel that all Blu-Ray is good for is to eliminate swapping discs. When in fact that's just a bonus. Dpatel details how it's better used above. I hope for use of the LPCM sound like Resistance and Lair have/will use.

God of War II devs had to remove the "extra 'HD' mode" from the European DVD version of the game so they could fit the various localized languages, text, etc onto it.
Resistance uses the same disc around the world and includes all the localized settings.

[snowsquirrel]

It'll be interesting to see how cross platform titles end up. Will they be able to use the extra space? One interesting suggestion was that Playstation 3 versions of games could use more and better textures. Could happen.

Video memory is really what limits this, not disc space. Theoretically, the 360 should be able to have better textures, as it can use more memory for vram.

~S

[dallow]

Video memory is really what limits this, not disc space. Theoretically, the 360 should be able to have better textures, as it can use more memory for vram.

~S

That's why games are starting to use the 'streaming textures' method.
So that's no longer a factor.

[Wolfpup]

People made fun of the GBA really? I had a Japanese import day one for that system.
Man, I wasn't into forums and such as much as now, but that surprises me.

Oh yeah, it got trashed constantly, and people didn't get that it had real games. There are still people who won't touch a portable because they don't think it's real.

Video memory is really what limits this, not disc space. Theoretically, the 360 should be able to have better textures, as it can use more memory for vram.

~S

Why would the 360 be able to have better textures? They both have the same amount of RAM (of course the PS3's is segmented), and as dallow mentions, a lot of data is streamed now.

I do think it's possible we'll see a difference, but kind of agree with the industry people who have said it may not be until 2008 when we really start seeing what it can do over the 360.

I guess my opinion of Blu Ray has changed. I really thought it was a waste of money a couple of years ago when it was announced, but I'm slowly starting to think it is going to get used to good effect in games. Though I'd still prefer that money be put into a better GPU or more RAM.

[snowsquirrel]

Why would the 360 be able to have better textures? They both have the same amount of RAM (of course the PS3's is segmented), and as dallow mentions, a lot of data is streamed now.

Sorry, 'better' wasn't a good word. The 360 has more texture memory, if it wants. Because memory is not segmented, it could use 400 megs for textures, and 100 for main, while the PS3 is limited to 256 no matter what. Of course when the 360, uses 400MB, it is taking it from main memory, so there is a trade off. But the flexibility is there for the developer.

Even with streaming, the high end texture streamed in is still limited to a degree by physical texture memory. i.e., the high res texture can be even even higher with more...

You aren't going to see much difference either way. I just hope sony comes out with a price that reflects this. I don't want to be left hanging with a PS3, the way I was with my DC...

I want some of my friends to start buying PS3's so I can play online with them, but now they all say, I'll just get a 360, it is cheaper, and has more games.... they are casual games, so the usual (hardcore) arguments don't work for them... They don't care about non-gaming features, so don't want to pay extra for them...

~S

[Wolfpup]

Sorry, 'better' wasn't a good word. The 360 has more texture memory, if it wants. Because memory is not segmented, it could use 400 megs for textures, and 100 for main, while the PS3 is limited to 256 no matter what. Of course when the 360, uses 400MB, it is taking it from main memory, so there is a trade off. But the flexibility is there for the developer.

Not exactly. The PS3 can use all of it's memory for textures too. The "catch" is that developers probably have to explicitly place a specific texture in either one or the other 256MB segments (though I don't know that for a fact, and it's possible tools do or will eventually handle that automatically). But technically speaking, they can both use all their RAM for textures.

[snowsquirrel]

I am pretty sure that the GPU can't directly access main memory... I'd have to check with our systems guy though.

[Wolfpup]

I am pretty sure that the GPU can't directly access main memory... I'd have to check with our systems guy though.

Yes, it can. It has full access to all RAM. Check the info on Arstechnica for more info if you want to (probably there).

[snowsquirrel]

I never knew that. Learn something new everyday. It really begs the question of why would they section it to begin with. Does one section have a higher bandwidth?
Technical limitation? I guess I should read some more.

[Wolfpup]

I never knew that. Learn something new everyday. It really begs the question of why would they section it to begin with. Does one section have a higher bandwidth?
Technical limitation? I guess I should read some more.

For one thing, it gives double the bandwidth that the 360 has available (which, combined with RSX's probable 16 ROPS versus 8 on Xenos, explains why Sony was pushing 1080p as an advantage over the 360).

It seems like the 360's unified design would be easier to program. But the PS3 has basically double the bandwidth. The 360 has that 10MB cache which takes load off main RAM, but (if I'm remembering correctly) that's not big enough to fit a whole frame in at 720p with AA turned on. (So if the 360 was trying to do 1080p-I mean real 1080p, not 720p scaled up-it would be at an even bigger disadvantage versus the PS3, as it's 10MB video cache would hold even less of a frame). Not sure if that makes sense, but that could have been a reason Sony was pushing 1080p, just because the higher the resolution, the worse off the 360 is going to be...except Microsoft kind of countered that with fake 1080p, and I doubt most people would understand the difference.
(I don't really think either system has the horsepower to do 1080p though. That's better spent on more detailed graphics IMO. Though I do wonder if we'll continue to see cross platform games where the PS3 version gets 1080p for "free", since it's designed to fit within the 360's constraints.)

Besides that, unified designs are usually just done to be cheaper. On PCs low end GPUs tend to rely completely or at least partially on system RAM.

I'm trying to think, and the only recent systems that use a mostly unified design are the N64, X-Box, 360, and I guess probably the DS (though there's not much technical info on Nintendo's hardware).

Annnnnd boy did I just go on and on about that :D

[cheapfrag]

I started playing games on an Apple 2 with no hard drive, a low density 5.25 inch floppy drive (360K) and 48K RAM with Hayes Smartmodem that I never used. I now play games on a PC with 300 GB hard drive, 1.5 GB RAM, a dedicated video card with 256 MB RAM, a DVD ROM drive (4.7 GB) with Internet connectivity. Has the increased specification made developers lazy - YES I think so. Could the games that I play today be played as is on my Apple 2 - absolutely not! Do I want to go back to my Apple 2 for my day to day gaming? NO way.

Of course bigger is better. To say the extra space that a Blu-ray drive provides is not needed is a stupid statement. That's like saying the latest greatest video card is not needed. Developers can't push the envelope unless the technology exists to push.

[dpatel]

3 actually, but I don't mind swapping anyway. RPGs don't move that quickly.

People feel that all Blu-Ray is good for is to eliminate swapping discs. When in fact that's just a bonus. Dpatel details how it's better used above. I hope for use of the LPCM sound like Resistance and Lair have/will use.

If the benefits of blu-ray were simply eliminating 'swapping discs', then it would be useless. People seem to forget the benefits on the develoeprs side. As consumers, the only direct benefit we see is the ability to have a game on one disc (not worth the extra price). On the development side, there are a lot more benefits. Developers will be more willing to go over that 9GB limit, seeing as how there really is no barrier to be broken when surpassing 9GB. On the developers end, it is as simple as just 'adding another disc'. If it were as simple as 'adding another disc', I believe we would have more multi-disc 360 games (although, I have no way to prove that). I'm sure all games this gen (including PS3 games) can fit on a DVD, but, a lot of times, that is done at the expense of more time and effort on the developers end (which, in my opinion, is unnecessary).

I realize that most 360 games fit on a single disc, but I really wonder if that is because they feel 9GB is enough, or they feel the cons outweigh the pros of adding another disc.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Remember kids!

Textures arent fun!

I think I'll twist dpatel's idea of not having to worry about an extra thing like space and say that I dont want developers to worry about high-res textures and higher development costs! At the end of the day, what they need is good design.

[dpatel]

Remember kids!

Textures arent fun!

I think I'll twist dpatel's idea of not having to worry about an extra thing like space and say that I dont want developers to worry about high-res textures and higher development costs! At the end of the day, what they need is good design.

:roll: Blu-ray isn't forcing better quality content. Just allowing more room to breathe so current content doesn't have to be compressed more than it should just to fit a limited format.

[dallow]

:roll: Blu-ray isn't forcing better quality content. Just allowing more room to breathe so current content doesn't have to be compressed more than it should just to fit a limited format.

All DMK needs to be happy are high-res sprites and 24-bit color backgrounds.
(and easy on the transparency effects, that's a little too fancy).

Long may it last! :)

[Wolfpup]

Geez, just heard/saw on Gamespot that Sony officially dropped the 20GB PS3. They just raised the price to $600.

Unbelievable. I mean sure, short term they lose less money on the tard pack PS3, but they're going to need market share, especially in the United States where the 360 has been pretty successful, and the Wii is selling out everywhere.

So there response is to raise the price to $600!?! And right when Microsoft effectively dropped the price difference between systems to just what, $20 or $30? What the hell was Sony thinking? They WANT to have a more expensive console?!?

I'm baffled too by the Gamespot guys-guys I normally like...but they're acting like this was a smart move. Dropping the $600 version would have made sense....

I've long wondered why they don't just add a memory stick reader to the $500 model and drop the $600 one. That's the only system they should have released to begin with. And geez..it's what, $430 in Japan? But over here, where the 360 represents actual competition, it's $600?!?

[Dr Mario Kart]

All DMK needs to be happy are high-res sprites and 24-bit color backgrounds.
(and easy on the transparency effects, that's a little too fancy).

Long may it last! :)
Composite 4 Lyfe!