GTA IV: Restrained by 360?

[H.Cornerstone]

http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/Further_GTA_IV_Details_Unearthed_11542_5883_0.htm

Something I found in NEOgaf, the two reasons make sense, but this isn't the most credible source, but still could be true.

[SL4IN]

I don't see how the core xbox360 is going to be a problem when rumors are also going around that it won't be sold anymore.

[dallow]

I don't see how the core xbox360 is going to be a problem when rumors are also going around that it won't be sold anymore.

Doesn't make up for the fact that there's plenty of Cores out there, and still on the shelves today.

Just make it HD required already.

I KNEW crap like this happens with multi-platform games.

[jollydwarf]

It was only a matter of time before the Core started really fucking it up...for everyone (as in cross-platform releases). I think we're at the point where Microsoft should cut the price of the 20GB HDD to a reasonable $50-$60, give people a six-month 'transition window', and tell those who still don't adapt "Tough" when it comes to the more ambitious new games.

It was one thing to be 'penalized' by it in the first year, when things were largely just prettier versions of last-gen games, but now's the time for the 'guts' of the game to beef up, too.

[jer7583]

Well, Sony fans can see how it feels after GC and Xbox owners were constrained by getting ports of PS2 versions with slight enhancements. Everything balances out in the end.

As for the price drop/kill the core discussions, it won't happen until Sony does it, which will never happen until retailers practically threaten them, just look at the PSP.
Besides, the Core is important to microsoft in territories like india and china where premium units cost too much and people may just want to play one or two games over the lifespan. Especially in japan to give incentive to buy a 360 just for Mistwalker's games or somthing, the Core is important there as well.

[whoknows]

Good thing I don't care about GTA IV.

Hope this doesn't happen for games I do care about though.

[jollydwarf]

http://blogs.starwars.com/static/img/image-selector/full/original-trilogy/episode-iv/29.jpg

"Well, that's the real trick, isn't it?"

[daroga]

Would it really hurt their sales to make it harddrive required?

As suggested above, if Microsoft dropped the price on the 20 GB to a more reasonable amount and made GTAIV HDD required, they'd sell about as many HDDs as they have Cores.

[chimpian]

MS can also just offer an expansion pack for the core to make it easily accessable to play newer games, or they can just rename the core to xbox1.5.

[Rei no Otaku]

Would it really hurt their sales to make it harddrive required?

As suggested above, if Microsoft dropped the price on the 20 GB to a more reasonable amount and made GTAIV HDD required, they'd sell about as many HDDs as they have Cores.
Very true. The night San Andreas was released we sold over 30 PS2s that night alone. MS could easily do this, and not only sell a lot of HDs, but get rid of problems of having a core system out there.

[Halo05]

I'm still baffled as to why MS hasn't really stepped up to the plate and put the screws to Sony.

They should've launched the Elite at 400 bucks, dropped the Premium to 320ish, discontinued the Core system and taken a shot to the wallet for a couple years (this is MS, they can afford it). I really think they're missing a golden opportunity to dominate the US market for the remainder of this generation especially considering Sony's vocal stance about not dropping the PS3 price.

[Zoglog]

Source:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233

I've been debating which version to get, but this news certainly leans towards to favor the PS3. However I have issues with the PS3 controller and also the lack of rumble. Plus the 360 controller is just so damn good.

This will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[kromekoran]

if the 360 version of GTAIV is the one with "exclusive" downloads through XBLM, then MS should give the go ahead to Rockstar to make it an HDD-required game since that's one of the biggest selling points over the PS3 version.

I still see the Core as a huge mistake on MS's part. except for those early adopters who just couldn't find a Premium at the time (and have since bought the HDD), I say eff that userbase and give the rest of us the game we deserve without making the developers try to find a workaround that somehow gimps it.

[H.Cornerstone]

if the 360 version of GTAIV is the one with "exclusive" downloads through XBLM, then MS should give the go ahead to Rockstar to make it an HDD-required game since that's one of the biggest selling points over the PS3 version.

I still see the Core as a huge mistake on MS's part. except for those early adopters who just couldn't find a Premium at the time (and have since bought the HDD), I say eff that userbase and give the rest of us the game we deserve without making the developers try to find a workaround that somehow gimps it.

Honestly, MS shouldn't have done the core and just sold the premium, most people buy the Core did so just because there were no Premiums. Either way, if it's HDD enabled on the PS3 and not the 360, thats a HUGE advantage for the PS3.

[trq]

That article doesn't give anywhere near enough information to make sense. The DVD player is a restraint? How so? And they allude to Oblivion having suffered through the same problems ... except that worked out just fine. No HD, no downloadable content. What's the news here exactly? Hell, Oblivion even spools info to the drive, which in turn needs occasional defragging. Yet somehow Core systems can still play it.

[dallow]

That article doesn't give anywhere near enough information to make sense. The DVD player is a restraint? How so? And they allude to Oblivion having suffered through the same problems ... except that worked out just fine. No HD, no downloadable content. What's the news here exactly? Hell, Oblivion even spools info to the drive, which in turn needs occasional defragging. Yet somehow Core systems can still play it.

NM.

[Greetard]

Well, Sony fans can see how it feels after GC and Xbox owners were constrained by getting ports of PS2 versions with slight enhancements. Everything balances out in the end.

As for the price drop/kill the core discussions, it won't happen until Sony does it, which will never happen until retailers practically threaten them, just look at the PSP.
Besides, the Core is important to microsoft in territories like india and china where premium units cost too much and people may just want to play one or two games over the lifespan. Especially in japan to give incentive to buy a 360 just for Mistwalker's games or somthing, the Core is important there as well.

Restraints are never good. Ever.

...fuckin' fanboys.

[jer7583]

Fanboys? All I was saying is it's nothing new, it's happened before, and it's the nature of the industry. If you don't want AAA third party games to be "restrained" by the lowest common denominator, the only way to avoid it is to have one unified platform, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

This isn't a problem unique to Microsoft, tons of games experienced this based on PS2 development and not having a Hard Drive last gen. Deal with it.

[rodeojones903]

Well, that really steers me towards picking up the PS3 version now.

[Apossum]

I was under the impression that they could make games work for the core and the HDD.

Maybe disc space on the 360 DVDs means more compression, but it's not like anyone would expect them to fill up a blu-ray disc.

I think the article is BS, unless these guys were thinking it would be PS3 exclusive or something.

[mykevermin]

Well, Sony fans can see how it feels after GC and Xbox owners were constrained by getting ports of PS2 versions with slight enhancements. Everything balances out in the end.

As for the price drop/kill the core discussions, it won't happen until Sony does it, which will never happen until retailers practically threaten them, just look at the PSP.
Besides, the Core is important to microsoft in territories like india and china where premium units cost too much and people may just want to play one or two games over the lifespan. Especially in japan to give incentive to buy a 360 just for Mistwalker's games or somthing, the Core is important there as well.

Please. If the Core was a crucial part of MS' plan in Japan, then...y'know...they might actually *sell* some systems over there, by your logic. Right?

As for your first point, please provide some examples of this. I recall the PS2 version of RE4 had more content than the GC version, and that the Xbox version of every Splinter Cell game is superior to the GC/PS2 titles. Now, if you want to argue that late implementation of the PS2 HDD over here hindered some of the utility of it (that many titles used the PS2 HDD in Japan and were released over here with no support - some Squeenix titles come to mind), that's one argument.

The irony of this debacle (and, if not ironic, then the OP article is simply untrue) is that the one thing GTAIV may have going for it on the 360 over PS3 is exclusive DLC. Which, as we all know, requires the HDD.

I'm with Rodeo; I've moved from patient to leaning towards the PS3 version.

Lastly, your presumption that MS' dropping the price of the core is reliant upon Sony's move is absurd; in fact, I'd argue that MS has dug their own grave at this point, b/c the "premium," at $400, is actually a nonpremium system. With the Elite, they're moving in the opposite direction that they ought to be, pricewise, if they want to continue to remain ahead of Sony this go'round.

[dallow]

High five for Myke.

[Reality's Fringe]

They just need to fucking axe the core. Storage has become so cheap that there's no reason for a system to come without even a LITTLE of it. I mean shit, even the "lol iz 2 kiddiecubez taped together" Wii has some internal storage, and you can effectively triple it with an SD card for like $15 or less. Microsoft charges almost $100 for their HDD for the same reason they charge $100 for a shitty WiFi adapter; you have no other choice. I'm sure the returns to scale on their accessories is fantastic.

[62t]

So right now they got premium x360, core x360, and ps3. Most core owner probably own a HDD already, so there is no need to limit the game for them. They just need to make the game require HDD for X360. I dont see MS getting upset over this, and they could just sell more HDD unit for X360. Heck they could even offer a small discount if you buy a HDD and GTA4.

[trq]

I was under the impression that they could make games work for the core and the HDD.

Maybe disc space on the 360 DVDs means more compression, but it's not like anyone would expect them to fill up a blu-ray disc.

I think the article is BS, unless these guys were thinking it would be PS3 exclusive or something.

That's pretty much what I was saying, and should probably say again, lest we have to sit through another three pages of complaints. Not only is this not confirmed, there's nothing TO confirm. The article didn't actually SAY anything, other than "GTA IV dumbed down to account for HD-less Core systems? Maybe." Dumbed down how? Why? According to who? What makes this different from every other game that has downloadable content or uses the HD for technical sleight of hand? Anything? Anyone? No? Alright then.

[PyroGamer]

1. "Fuck the core". Just give the core unit riddiculously long load times.

2. Require HDD for play. You could even bundle GTA IV with a HDD for $100 or something.


Beyound that, I highly doubt this is any problem at all, so no action will need to be taken to resolve an issue that isn't there.

[daroga]

As for your first point, please provide some examples of this. I recall the PS2 version of RE4 had more content than the GC version, and that the Xbox version of every Splinter Cell game is superior to the GC/PS2 titles. Now, if you want to argue that late implementation of the PS2 HDD over here hindered some of the utility of it (that many titles used the PS2 HDD in Japan and were released over here with no support - some Squeenix titles come to mind), that's one argument.It's an argument of silence ot be sure, but it's more of an issue of what could have been had those 3rd parties been able to use the Xbox's HDD.

Both examples you cite are exceptions to the rule last gen. RE4 was designed to be a Cube exclusive and then shoved onto the PS2. Likewise, the original Splinter Cell was an Xbox exclusive for a long while and made for that system and downgraded to the others, and I believe that happened for the later games as well (though I've got not certain info on that).

GRaphically speaking, the Xbox and the Cube could've handled way more than they were given. Sure, 9 times out of 10 the GC and Xbox version looked better than the PS2, but there's a pretty marked difference between designing for the upper eschelon and tuning it down, as opposed to the other way around. A good example is RE4. I think the difference between the Cube RE4 and the PS2 version is far more stark (no self-lighting, crummy geometry, less things on screen, including enemies) than the differences between most PS2-designed multiplatform games and their Xbox/Cube counterparts. When porting up you're far more likely to just do a quick polish. When going the other way, you have to get the game running at all. A totally different mindset.

That being said, when Microsoft first announced the 2 SKU setup, I said right then that was a mistake. Anything not in the box from the get go (and in EVERY box) is never utilized to the fullest. GC Broadband adapter, PS2 Network Adapter and HDD, etc. I surprised that this is really the first we've heard of such an issue; I'm sure it won't be the last.

[VanillaGorilla]

Meanwhile, here's the "Eddie the Plumber" character from the Wii version of GTAIV:

http://www.mark-knopfler.de/sammelsorium/images/stuff2.jpg
|
|NEXT GEN, BABY!

[Halo05]

Wow, I actually laughed out loud, rare for the internet.

[daroga]

Meanwhile, here's the "Eddie the Plumber" character from the Wii version of GTAIV:

|NEXT GEN, BABY!Gah! He looks like the Starfox 64 character models who still haunt my nightmares to this day!

[jer7583]

Hey, I never defended Microsoft's pricing. The core and the elite are the two worst things they could have done. The premium should be existing alone at $350ish by now and they'd be kicking ass. As it stands MS probably have done more with their pricing to improve Sony's situation than Sony ever could have.

I was just giving it to you guys from MS's point of view, they think the core and elite make sense, for some reason. And from a business point of view, as long as Sony's sitting at $600 you have a plenty good excuse to not drop your price, as backwards as it seems.

That pricing on the Hard Drives and Wireless Adapters is absurd as well. MS still squeezes you, but at least it's optional. Sony only gives you the option of a top of the line $600 console. You can't buy a PS3 without wireless adapters, card readers, a blu ray drive, and bluetooth controllers.

I'll still be playing the 360 version because it's the console I have, and I don't see myself having a spare $600 that I'd want to use on PS3 anytime soon.

[mykevermin]

It's an argument of silence ot be sure, but it's more of an issue of what could have been had those 3rd parties been able to use the Xbox's HDD.

Both examples you cite are exceptions to the rule last gen. RE4 was designed to be a Cube exclusive and then shoved onto the PS2. Likewise, the original Splinter Cell was an Xbox exclusive for a long while and made for that system and downgraded to the others, and I believe that happened for the later games as well (though I've got not certain info on that).

GRaphically speaking, the Xbox and the Cube could've handled way more than they were given. Sure, 9 times out of 10 the GC and Xbox version looked better than the PS2, but there's a pretty marked difference between designing for the upper eschelon and tuning it down, as opposed to the other way around. A good example is RE4. I think the difference between the Cube RE4 and the PS2 version is far more stark (no self-lighting, crummy geometry, less things on screen, including enemies) than the differences between most PS2-designed multiplatform games and their Xbox/Cube counterparts. When porting up you're far more likely to just do a quick polish. When going the other way, you have to get the game running at all. A totally different mindset.

That being said, when Microsoft first announced the 2 SKU setup, I said right then that was a mistake. Anything not in the box from the get go (and in EVERY box) is never utilized to the fullest. GC Broadband adapter, PS2 Network Adapter and HDD, etc. I surprised that this is really the first we've heard of such an issue; I'm sure it won't be the last.

At the risk of being the gaming equivalent of the kind of person who would say "The Bible? Never heard of it," I've never played through RE4. I have it on the GC, and I swear I'm gonna get to it someday; for the moment, though, I understand that the PS2 version is graphically inferior. Now, of course, we're at a point where I don't think we'll see "SNES Mortal Kombat versus Genesis Mortal Kombat" levels of difference, but still...

I'm not picking a fight, but, rather, looking for concrete examples of games that failed to use the GC or Xbox to their fullest as a result of being multiplatform, including PS2. Now, that doesn't fully explain the system's differences, because (I may be wrong about this), the GC versions of Splinter Cell had parts of levels cut out due to technological limitations (that were in the XB/PS2 versions). Could be a RAM thing. I dunno.

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that the Xbox HDD could have been used better. At 8GB, though, I don't know that it could have been used that well. I'm sure, though, in the end, there are a myriad of Ubisoft, Activision, and EA titles that prove your point - just because the Xbox or GC look marginally better than the PS2, that doesn't prove they look as good as they could have been.

That pricing on the Hard Drives and Wireless Adapters is absurd as well. MS still squeezes you, but at least it's optional. Sony only gives you the option of a top of the line $600 console. You can't buy a PS3 without wireless adapters, card readers, a blu ray drive, and bluetooth controllers.

The very point of this thread, however, is that there appears to be potential problems as a result of those additions being made "optional." No game will ever come out on the HD DVD for the 360 (assuming it would even be feasible, which it damn well may), and now games can't rely too heavily on the 360 HDD.

Strictly as a consequence of it being "optional." Games for my $600 PS3, however, can use everything that came with it ('cept maybe the card reader; I dunno). Price is price, sure, but the equation becomes more complicated when you consider that your games can't rely too heavily on the hardware you bought in the box, as a consequence of a small portion of people who do not have it.

[jer7583]

The hard drive issue would seem to be a difference of that the PS3 version can do the Ridge Racer/Oblvion thing to reduce load times, the 360 cannot. I'm not sure how hard drive use would affect actual performance or graphics, or even gameplay, but perhaps someone can inform me.

[seanr1221]

Interesting...if true count me in with Rodeo and Myke.

[daroga]

At the risk of being the gaming equivalent of the kind of person who would say "The Bible? Never heard of it," I've never played through RE4. I have it on the GC, and I swear I'm gonna get to it someday; for the moment, though, I understand that the PS2 version is graphically inferior. Now, of course, we're at a point where I don't think we'll see "SNES Mortal Kombat versus Genesis Mortal Kombat" levels of difference, but still...

I'm not picking a fight, but, rather, looking for concrete examples of games that failed to use the GC or Xbox to their fullest as a result of being multiplatform, including PS2. Now, that doesn't fully explain the system's differences, because (I may be wrong about this), the GC versions of Splinter Cell had parts of levels cut out due to technological limitations (that were in the XB/PS2 versions). Could be a RAM thing. I dunno.

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that the Xbox HDD could have been used better. At 8GB, though, I don't know that it could have been used that well. I'm sure, though, in the end, there are a myriad of Ubisoft, Activision, and EA titles that prove your point - just because the Xbox or GC look marginally better than the PS2, that doesn't prove they look as good as they could have been.And really, that's something that ultimately only developers know. Would certain games on the Xbox have had a better save system if they didn't have to deal with the PS2's and GC's relatively tiny save system? We've got plenty of examples of where shortcoming on one system or another meant for limitations in that console's version of a certain game (I'm thinking in large part about the GC controller and how that cause havoc for some games [Splinter Cell if I'm not mistaken, though I never played the GC version of any of them] when they were designed for the Xbox and/or PS2 controllers). But really, none of us here can say, "The Xbox version of Game Y would have been this much better in these ways were not for the PS2's Issue Z." I'm sure, though, somewhere, someone can find a quote from some random developer guy about a frustration for doing multiplatform things last gen.

The Splinter Cell level thing could have very easily been just disc space. I never heard that issue before, but with the PS2 and Xbox using 9 GB DVDs and the GC using 1.5 GB discs, there's only so much cutting out 5.1 sound and doing other compression tricks can save you.

Oh, and having not played RE4, I'd suggest waiting and getting the Wii version. It sounds like it'll be the definitive version. The GC graphics (which, quite frankly, are stunning), true 16:9 widescreen (the GC version faked this) and the few extras from the PS2 version. PLUS Wiimote aiming. I played RE4 after I played Zelda on the Wii and longed to be able to aim the gun like I had the bow and arrow. RE4 on the Wii should be great.

Back to the issue at hand, though. Really, if this issue just means that GTAIV won't have the copout of dumping all the game assets onto the harddrive like many PS3 titles are doing, or needing giant load times to go from one section of the city to the other, I'm just ducky with them having to wrestle with the core a bit. We've seen game like Halo, Crackdown, Metroid Prime, etc. that can have load times streamlined into the gameplay. And that's really the way it should be. On a console I shouldn't have to wait more than a minute for a level to load, nor should I have to spend many minutes filling up my harddrive because the devs were too lazy to streamline the loading of game content.

Load times were forgiveable in the PS1/Saturn era, but not anymore. Optimize those discs and those games so they don't take 300 years (or 90 GB of my HDD) to play. Of course, you could start getting into issues like Half-Life 2 on the PC that had frequent and lengthy load times even though it was totally on my freaking harddrive. Great game, but that aspect was something Valve should be ashamed of.

[jer7583]

After seeing the draw distances and amount of things going on in both Saints Row and Crackdown, I don't think we have to worry about GTAIV on 360. If two less talented, lower budget developers with less development time can get those kind of results, Rockstar should be fine.

[mykevermin]

Load times were forgiveable in the PS1/Saturn era, but not anymore. Optimize those discs and those games so they don't take 300 years (or 90 GB of my HDD) to play.

Don't buy WWE Smackdown 07 for your 360. ;)

I'm a dunderhead - I completely forgot about the space capacity of the GC compared to the other two. That may explain the changes in Splinter Cell - shortchanging nonetheless.

The storage difference should be interesting to see this gen; many people argue that BR is unnecessary this time around, and argue that we'll never need 50GB storage space for a game. They may be right (I doubt it highly - *eventually*, we'll need that size space, whether this gen or two from now), but they ignore the point that a game really only needs to be 10GB to render BR necessary, not 50. Splinter Cell showed the difference b/w platforms as a result of storage capacity - what will do that this gen? (I don't think any titles show that difference yet, whether or not they occupy more than 9GB of space on the PS3 disc).

[daroga]

Don't buy WWE Smackdown 07 for your 360. ;)

I'm a dunderhead - I completely forgot about the space capacity of the GC compared to the other two. That may explain the changes in Splinter Cell - shortchanging nonetheless.

The storage difference should be interesting to see this gen; many people argue that BR is unnecessary this time around, and argue that we'll never need 50GB storage space for a game. They may be right (I doubt it highly - *eventually*, we'll need that size space, whether this gen or two from now), but they ignore the point that a game really only needs to be 10GB to render BR necessary, not 50. Splinter Cell showed the difference b/w platforms as a result of storage capacity - what will do that this gen? (I don't think any titles show that difference yet, whether or not they occupy more than 9GB of space on the PS3 disc).That will be interesting to see as it goes on. Personally, I think it's kind of a liability for games right now. Rather than getting more content into games, it would appear that we're just getting uncompressed audio and / or graphics on the disc. That can help the look of things, but it also drives the size of those files through the roof. That paired with the slow BR drive on the PS3 makes for a nasty combo (especially when a lazy developer just slaps something on to the system). And if a game is only bigger because they just don't (skillfully) compress the audio and textures, have we gained anything by the bigger space?

Personally, I think the BR drive was too "bleeding-edge" to be in the PS3. They really needed to wait until the speeds were up before they started to use it for games. But, it's really no different than the Playstation having an ultra slow CD drive in it, so I guess the precedant has been set.

Certainly Blu-Ray offers all sorts of opportunites for games that we didn't have before. My question at this point is will anyone actually use it for something that couldn't be done on the 360? Time will tell.

[dallow]

That paired with the slow BR drive on the PS3 makes for a nasty combo (especially when a lazy developer just slaps something on to the system). And if a game is only bigger because they just don't (skillfully) compress the audio and textures, have we gained anything by the bigger space?

You'd have a point if the current PS3 games had horrendous load times, however, they do not.

[daroga]

You'd have a point if the current PS3 games had horrendous load times, however, they do not.Which is great. But I think the majority of the PS3 titles out now have been well-done in that aspect. The cleanest of codes and disc streamlining can make a game load quickly even on a slow system. Yet sloppy coding can net you load times even on the DS. If everyone took care to optimize things for each system, it wouldn't be a problem. But as the PS3 sees more hack-job ports, there might be a significant difference between the 360's load time and the PS3's. Not that one is better than the other, but if they're both equally sloppy, the faster drive will "win."

It's totally in the hands of developers to not make load times an issue, but the hardware makers can help that a bit by giving them peppy drives. Although, a peppy drive will often make a lazy developer say, "'Eh, good enough." when load times could've been all-but-eliminated. And if, to compensate for the slow drive, developers on the PS3 are having to duplicate their files, what are we gaining with the larger storage?

[dallow]

Stop being negative about it then and assuming devs WANT to be lazy about it and not make a good product.

Games have been good so far in that respect, and more often than not, they care about loading times.

[daroga]

Stop being negative about it then and assuming devs WANT to be lazy about it and not make a good product.

Games have been good so far in that respect, and more often than not, they care about loading times.I'm not assuming that, I'm just speaking from expierenece last gen. Play Wind Waker, Mario Sunshine, or Metroid Prime on the Cube. There's hardly a noticable load time in the whole game. Yet, you've got Cube ports that take a good while to load. It can be done, but it wasn't.

I hope that every game on the PS3 has few-to-no load times, that'd be great and would be blazing a trail this industry desperately needs. But as a realist, I know that's not going to happen. Every developer may want to make a good game (I'm not sure on that after seeing some things that come out), but there's not always money to do it the right way. Sadly, sometimes you just have to ship the product you've got when the deadline hits, and disc optimization is not easily done until the game is finished.

[dallow]

The fact that the Ports (usually worst offenders) that the PS3 has now have been relatively speedy is a good sign.

Don't poison the Blu-Ray well when it hasn't done anything bad yet. (and in fact only offered some good)

[daroga]

The fact that the Ports (usually worst offenders) that the PS3 has now have been relatively speedy is a good sign.

Don't poison the Blu-Ray well when it hasn't done anything bad yet. (and in fact only offered some good)I'm not poisoning anytihng. Just voicing a warning that could potentially be a bad thing. Just like the DVD-9 format may not be enough room for future games on the 360, or the Wii's remote will have the longevity of about a year. They're all valid points that will need time to pass to see.

Just a question from someone not in touch with the PS3 software lineup too well, how many games currently require or give you the option of installing part of the game to the harddrive?

[dallow]

I'm not poisoning anytihng. Just voicing a warning that could potentially be a bad thing. Just like the DVD-9 format may not be enough room for future games on the 360, or the Wii's remote will have the longevity of about a year. They're all valid points that will need time to pass to see.

Alright, I see then.
When you say it in the way you did originally, you're going to get people riled up into thinking the PS3 load times are pretty bad.

Just a question from someone not in touch with the PS3 software lineup too well, how many games currently require or give you the option of installing part of the game to the harddrive?

You'll need more than my help on that one as I only have 3 PS3 games, but have played more elsewhere.
The games I have require some HDD cache info, ranging from as little as 100mb to 400mb. I believe Oblvion takes the most, but I don't have that game yet.
Some games I know give the option to install as well, and don't require it. (as well as different levels of install)

[daroga]

Alright, I see then.
When you say it in the way you did originally, you're going to get people riled up into thinking the PS3 load times are pretty bad.
Ahh, didn't mean to give that impression. Sorry!

You'll need more than my help on that one as I only have 3 PS3 games, but have played more elsewhere.
The games I have require some HDD cache info, ranging from as little as 100mb to 400mb. I believe Oblvion takes the most, but I don't have that game yet.
Some games I know give the option to install as well, and don't require it. (as well as different levels of install)It's a tad more widespread than I thought, but nothing real bad. I wonder how many 360 games, if the HDD is present do it "secretly."

[dallow]

Ahh, didn't mean to give that impression. Sorry!

It's a tad more widespread than I thought, but nothing real bad. I wonder how many 360 games, if the HDD is present do it "secretly."

It has to be kind of expected now as games grow in size. The PSX days are long gone. Even PS2 games had the option for cache installs (well, in Japan)

If you take a look on the back of every PS3 game, it lets you know how much it's expected to take up.

[mykevermin]

You'll need more than my help on that one as I only have 3 PS3 games, but have played more elsewhere.
The games I have require some HDD cache info, ranging from as little as 100mb to 400mb. I believe Oblvion takes the most, but I don't have that game yet.
Some games I know give the option to install as well, and don't require it. (as well as different levels of install)

Oblivion takes up 4.4GB. I have another game that's around 2GB, I think (Virtua Fighter?). I'll double check when I'm home.

It's nice to have HDD caching to increase speeds (the only significant difference in 360/PS3 Oblivion, so far as I can tell, is the lack of stuttering "loading area" moments when traveling on horseback). However, the other side of the "multiplatform games fail to take advantage of each system's nuances" argument is this precise thing: when games rely *too heavily* on things such as the HDD cache. Sure, I can upgrade my HDD, and that's swell (it may happen eventually); however, I don't want to be forced to do so because I'm all out of HDD space because I own 10 games that use the same sort of HDD-caching as Oblivion.

[dallow]

Yikes 4.4GB?
Bit excessive to me.

And why VF5 would take that much is beyond me when I have a 20 hour game that only takes 100mb.

[alongx]

I'm still baffled as to why MS hasn't really stepped up to the plate and put the screws to Sony.

They should've launched the Elite at 400 bucks, dropped the Premium to 320ish, discontinued the Core system and taken a shot to the wallet for a couple years (this is MS, they can afford it). I really think they're missing a golden opportunity to dominate the US market for the remainder of this generation especially considering Sony's vocal stance about not dropping the PS3 price.

Because as much as the 360's sales aren't setting the world on fire (they're on pace - not really ahead of - the original Xbox right about now), the PS3 is actually doing worse. Microsoft is getting comfortable, and until the PS3's sales pick up dramatically, or the 360's fall off dramatically, expect the price to stay the same.

[daroga]

Oblivion takes up 4.4GB. I have another game that's around 2GB, I think (Virtua Fighter?). I'll double check when I'm home.

It's nice to have HDD caching to increase speeds (the only significant difference in 360/PS3 Oblivion, so far as I can tell, is the lack of stuttering "loading area" moments when traveling on horseback). However, the other side of the "multiplatform games fail to take advantage of each system's nuances" argument is this precise thing: when games rely *too heavily* on things such as the HDD cache. Sure, I can upgrade my HDD, and that's swell (it may happen eventually); however, I don't want to be forced to do so because I'm all out of HDD space because I own 10 games that use the same sort of HDD-caching as Oblivion.Yowsa, 4 1/2 gigs? Something being done poorly if they need to do that to keep up with the 360 version, or as I alludewd to before, the Blu-Ray drive just can't keep up with the noise-box that is the 360's DVD drive. Is there a way to run the game without that? And isn't Olibivion the game where they doubled up all the content to decrease load times? Both tricks have to be employed to get the game running?

But I agree with you, game just can't be multiplatform and designed to really take advantage of a system. You tack on Wii controls to a 360 title and things just feel 1/2 baked; you try to port a Wii title to the 360 and somehow an anlog stick doesn't work the same way the pointer did on the Wii. And yet, that harddrive use on the PS3 is going to get out of hand fast. It reminds me of when to play Madden on the Gamecube the first year you had to own like 3 memory cards just to save your season.

I think that 98% of the games I own are console exclusives because when the games are desighned to take advantage of a particular system they turn out great. They're the nice meal you eat. The multiplatform titles are like chips. Tasty enough, but not really much in the way to help your body.

[trq]

Yowsa, 4 1/2 gigs? Something being done poorly if they need to do that to keep up with the 360 version, or as I alludewd to before, the Blu-Ray drive just can't keep up with the noise-box that is the 360's DVD drive. Is there a way to run the game without that? And isn't Olibivion the game where they doubled up all the content to decrease load times? Both tricks have to be employed to get the game running?

But I agree with you, game just can't be multiplatform and designed to really take advantage of a system. You tack on Wii controls to a 360 title and things just feel 1/2 baked; you try to port a Wii title to the 360 and somehow an anlog stick doesn't work the same way the pointer did on the Wii. And yet, that harddrive use on the PS3 is going to get out of hand fast. It reminds me of when to play Madden on the Gamecube the first year you had to own like 3 memory cards just to save your season.

My favorite example is the first KOTOR for the Xbox. Each save was freaking larger than the downloadable content for the game, which was a space station, a vendor with unique items, and a mini-quest with some trandoshans causing trouble. And that's Bioware, people. Everyone gets lazy.

[daroga]

My favorite example is the first KOTOR for the Xbox. Each save was freaking larger than the downloadable content for the game, which was a space station, a vendor with unique items, and a mini-quest with some trandoshans causing trouble. And that's Bioware, people. Everyone gets lazy.I was angry at Epic not too long ago because my Gears of War save file was 99 MB. Then I realized that I just didn't know how to operate the 360 OS and that the save file was like 328KB, and the DLC I got was 99MB. ;)

[Sarang01]

Daroga you really address some of my complaints about PC devs, which is that most are lazy little sob's. I mean Nihon Falcom dumps a couple gig of the Y's games to the HDD, MGS2 takes up a good amount of gigs on it and so do the Magna Carta games from Softmax. Unless they're going to include $10 or more in every game I buy from them for another HDD they should really cut the shit.
Yes people or devs can argue that space is so cheap now but let us not forget people dumping their music libraries and movies on it and that space adds up and IS a factor in me not wanting game data I can't do much with, except wanting to play game music off it maybe.
Oh as for better sound I'm all for it except they can use either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD or MA with 7.1 sound, I'd LOVE that. I'm referring to PC here as HD DVD and BR are the only one's with enough space and the BR drive on the PS3 is too slow.
One thing I can't understand on disc storage capacity. If the cost of HD DVD was such a concern for bundling it into the 360 and disc read speed off the drive why didn't MS go halfway on storage and enable the 360 drive with the ability to read 4 layer DVD's for later in the 360's cycle? Mass Effect would seem ideal for this.

[dallow]

Oh as for better sound I'm all for it except they can use either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD or MA with 7.1 sound, I'd LOVE that. I'm referring to PC here as HD DVD and BR are the only one's with enough space and the BR drive on the PS3 is too slow.

What the hell dude? The drive's speed has nothing to do with sound.
Resistance and Lair are/will be using 7.1 LPCM sound, the same found almost all BD movies. Not to mention whatever other 1st and 2nd party devs are cooking up.
Hopefully Kojima will use it for MGS4.

[Sarang01]

What the hell dude? The drive's speed has nothing to do with sound.
Resistance and Lair are/will be using 7.1 LPCM sound, the same found almost all BD movies. Not to mention whatever other 1st and 2nd party devs are cooking up.
Hopefully Kojima will use it for MGS4.

They could've used codecs instead,

[seanr1221]

To confirm, yes, Virtua Fighter 5 takes a little over 2GB of space to cache

[dallow]

They could've used codecs instead,

You just said the BD drive was too slow for that.... now you're contradicting your false claim.

Anyway, yeah, they can use high definition codecs, but why use a slightly compressed codec when you can use full uncompressed sound? Just like the grown up BD movies in stores.

[Apossum]

Yowsa, 4 1/2 gigs? Something being done poorly if they need to do that to keep up with the 360 version, or as I alludewd to before, the Blu-Ray drive just can't keep up with the noise-box that is the 360's DVD drive. Is there a way to run the game without that? And isn't Olibivion the game where they doubled up all the content to decrease load times? Both tricks have to be employed to get the game running?



there is no way to run it without that, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. the drive isn't as fast, but the game loads very quickly thanks to that caching. So it's not just to get the game on par, it's better looking, faster loading, and with a better frame rate. (not saying it's the better version...but it will be once they figure out dlc)

I don't understand why that alludes to something being done poorly...please explain.

[dallow]

It kinda sucks for the people with 20GB PS3s as it takes up more than a fifth of their drive.

But there aren't that many people with 20s anyway.

The only consolation in having such a huge loss to space is that Oblivion is the type of game you're going to play for a LONG time. Might as well make a little nest in your PS3.

[daroga]

there is no way to run it without that, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. the drive isn't as fast, but the game loads very quickly thanks to that caching. So it's not just to get the game on par, it's better looking, faster loading, and with a better frame rate. (not saying it's the better version...but it will be once they figure out dlc)

I don't understand why that alludes to something being done poorly...please explain.It's just somewhat ironic that the selling feature of the PS3 is how enormous the discs are or can be, yet in order to get things running in a way that they don't take eons to load you have to double the files on the disc and dump 4.4 gigs of data to the harddrive. That takes all the steam out of the "We can have 50GB discs!" selling point. Suddenly, the 20 GB model of the PS3 wasn't as great of a value as I thought it was before today.

In my opinion, if the pseed of Blu-Ray couldn't at least match DVD drives, then it had no business being in the game-system. Either that, or developers need to actually use the disc properly and not assume that everyone's willing to give up giant chunks of their harddrives for one game. It's one of the many issues I have with PC gaming that, along with patches, are becoming a very real presnece with consoles. And it bugs me a lot.

[Apossum]

It's just somewhat ironic that the selling feature of the PS3 is how enormous the discs are or can be, yet in order to get things running in a way that they don't take eons to load you have to double the files on the disc and dump 4.4 gigs of data to the harddrive. Suddenly, the 20 GB model of the PS3 wasn't as great of a value as I thought it was before today.

In my opinion, if the pseed of Blu-Ray couldn't at least match DVD drives, then it had no business being in the game-system. Either that, or developers need to actually use the disc properly and not assume that everyone's willing to give up giant chunks of their harddrives for one game. It's one of the many issues I have with PC gaming that, along with patches, are becoming a very real presnece with consoles. And it bugs me a lot.


I wonder if they did that to optimize load times or just to get things running. it's pretty swift, only the occasional load screen takes a noticeable amount of time. Who knows...I know Ninja Gaiden Sigma has several options for the install, including the full disc. That'll be pretty sweet! if you want zero load times in a next gen game-- there's an option.

That will take up some space, but what else does a system need an HDD for? Pictures? other saves? if you have the space, you might as well use it. The higher end xbox games used the same tricks to cut load times. It does seem a bit ghetto, but if it works, it works (and it works very well, usually.) I'm sure Sony thought ahead about disc speed and 50gb games. That wouldn't be too smart to develop a blu-ray disc but release drives that can't read them in a reasonable amount of time. it may be up to developers to optimize them, though it shouldn't be (unfortunately, it seems like Sony is not quite as supportive as MS when it comes to development.)

also, the 20gb model is still fine-- you can get a 100gb HDD for the extra $100 you would spend. If you want all that space...not that there's a single justifiable reason for over 100gb (and that's being generous.) Unless you wanted your system to be super elite or something.

[daroga]

I kinda wonder when optical media is just not going to cut it any more. There's only so fast you can spin a disc, and they can keep jamming more data onto the discs but if that requires more revolutions to read the whole thing, you're gonna be at a breaking point somewhere.

As content gets richer and we get these giant textures will we turn to solidstate to get things loaded fast enough? Is EVERY game going to be a PC expierence where you need to "install" the game to the console to get it to run (I hope not)?

[Sarang01]

Daroga IF HVD's you can get running at 20 or easily 32X there won't be a problem for a while as we're talking about discs containing at least over a TB. of space. at 6 layers.

[dallow]

dallow - 1
sarang - 0

Hehe, couldn't resist. No hard feelings man.

[dallow]

I kinda wonder when optical media is just not going to cut it any more. There's only so fast you can spin a disc, and they can keep jamming more data onto the discs but if that requires more revolutions to read the whole thing, you're gonna be at a breaking point somewhere.

As content gets richer and we get these giant textures will we turn to solidstate to get things loaded fast enough? Is EVERY game going to be a PC expierence where you need to "install" the game to the console to get it to run (I hope not)?
But don't these fancy lasers in turn, read bigger chunks of data at 1x than DVDs, or CDs at 1x.

Though they don't spin as fast, more data is outputted.
I forgot what the equivalent 1xDVD speed was, like 8xCD?

BD players out there are only 1x and 2x.
Yet they pick up load a movie faster than any DVD. Especially on the PS3.
That's probably not a good analogy though.

I thought this was true.

I'm afraid with the next gen, installing games will be pretty normal.

[daroga]

But don't these fancy lasers in turn, read bigger chunks of data at 1x than DVDs, or CDs at 1x.

Though they don't spin as fast, more data is outputted.
I forgot what the equivalent 1xDVD speed was, like 8xCD?

BD players out there are only 1x and 2x.
Yet they pick up load a movie faster than any DVD. Especially on the PS3.
That's probably not a good analogy though.

I thought this was true.

I'm afraid with the next gen, installing games will be pretty normal.I'm sure it is, but even so, there will come a point where things become just inoperable with an optical disc.

I fear for the installs too. But, I guess we'll all probably survive. ;)

[millrat1030]

This story is now on ign.com also. This is no different than last gen, ps2 graphics on xbox. The only thing I'm curious about is didn't a few developers already say it's actually easier to make a game with the PS3 in mind and then port to 360? I also think the lack of a HD drive in the 360 is going to hurt it with games like this. GTA is all about go anywhere do anything. As the world's in the game get more immersive, you're going to need more space than a DVD can provide. 50gig games, I don't think so. Maybe 15-20gigs, and I don't think their to far away. Maybe MS will give us a super elite 360 with a HD drive built in. HA HA.

[daroga]

This story is now on ign.com also. This is no different than last gen, ps2 graphics on xbox. The only thing I'm curious about is didn't a few developers already say it's actually easier to make a game with the PS3 in mind and then port to 360? I also think the lack of a HD drive in the 360 is going to hurt it with games like this. GTA is all about go anywhere do anything. As the world's in the game get more immersive, you're going to need more space than a DVD can provide. 50gig games, I don't think so. Maybe 15-20gigs, and I don't think their to far away. Maybe MS will give us a super elite 360 with a HD drive built in. HA HA.You gotta wonder where the adjectives will stop. Premium was pretty high class, now the Elite? What's next? Xbox 360 Commander-in-Chief?

[mykevermin]

What's next? Xbox 360 Commander-in-Chief?

must...withhold...political...cracks....dammit!

[millrat1030]

Love it. Commander-in-Chief with Halo 3 installed on the hd.

[mykevermin]

Love it. Commander-in-Chief with Halo 3 installed on the hd.

Too bad it only plays "Leapfrog" titles.

[daroga]

Too bad it only plays "Leapfrog" titles.I was so proud of you for your selfcontrol. :(

[mykevermin]

I was so proud of you for your selfcontrol. :(

My alcoholism will get the better of me this evening, too, so don't be too concerned about this isolated incident. ;)

[Sarang01]

I'm sure it is, but even so, there will come a point where things become just inoperable with an optical disc.

I fear for the installs too. But, I guess we'll all probably survive. ;)

I doubt we'll get to the point of having cheap 15-20 TB. HDD's anytime soon. Meanwhile in 3-4 years HVD burners will probably go down to $5,000. Once you get these readers down to $500 and mass production of those discs offering 6 layered FVD(Film Video Discs) with fully uncompressed video at film's maximum resolution before it breaks down along with 7.1 audio on all new titles I'll be in heaven and the ONLY place Hollywood people will be able to whore old films will be on extras.
I also can't wait till devs include 7.1 lossy on almost every game title(not 2D RPG's, possibly not 3D either) especially one's like "Fatal Frame".