According to magazine reports (http://www.n4g.com/News-129170.aspx), not only will the PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV have its own downloadable content over time, but it will also receive plenty of exclusive features and content integrated with HOME. This is of course besides the multiplayer features and 100+ hours of stuff in the solo portion of the main game itself. Good news for fans of the franchise who've been born and raised playing GTA on the Dual Shock controller.

Exclusive downloadable content? LOL, why do WE pay for Xbox Live again?

Cool! Still up in the air between what version to get but this is good to hear, at least. Have there been any updates on Home lately?

Unfortunately it's just speculation right now. If you read the article it's basically PSW saying: "wouldn't it be cool if GTA4 did this with Home". Still, it's highly likely we'll see something like this.

Here's the page from the mag... it does indicate that the U.S. PSM says that its coming:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g10/wwcr/P1010249-1.jpg

Another site (http://ps3.qj.net/Rumor-GTA-4-PS3-DLC-leaked/pg/49/aid/116992)reviewing the article above says that a GTA developer let it slip about PS3 content:

This comes from a scanned page of the latest issue of the PlayStation World Magazine. In the scanned page, an article talks about how the GTA IV development team's own Jeronimo Barrera let slip the deal that the Sony PS3 will be getting its own downloadable content.

I remember an interview with Phil Harrison indicating they were talking with R* about special PS3 support. I guess we should know more details soon. It certainly appears Sony is doing something with the title.

Looks like from that scan the developer said the "PS3 will likely get it's own downloadable content." A small distinction, but it is just as Slacker George said. That article is all about things that are rumored or the magazine article's authors want to see. I can't imagine there won't be some integration, but at this point it sounds like nothing is really known.

who cares about dlc? this game will be awesome with or without it. btw, 1k+ lines of dialogue for each pedestrian. man this game is gonna be great.

btw, 1k+ lines of dialogue for each pedestrian. man this game is gonna be great.

I hadn't heard this - are you sure it isn't 1000 to be shared among pedestrians?

I've played every console GTA game and I've never got even close to finishing the a game. DLC is of concern of mine. I just hope it play and runs well.

GAME OVER for XBOX 360 is really picking up now.

First Microshaft loses the format war with HD-DVD waving the white flag.

Now this.

Wow!

GAME OVER for XBOX 360 is really picking up now.

First Microshaft loses the format war with HD-DVD waving the white flag.

Now this.

Wow!

Post of the year :rolleyes:

This thread has nothing to do with the 360, did you really feel the need to bring it up?

who cares about dlc? this game will be awesome with or without it. btw, 1k+ lines of dialogue for each pedestrian. man this game is gonna be great.
+1

I doubt I'll be interested in paying extra for a handful of more missions, but we'll see...

The PS3 will of course share the standard download content with the X360. It just won't share the special exclusive stuff. We've known this for months. I'm not sure why this is seen as news to anyone? Unless someone thought that R* would release zero downloads on PSN instead of trying to get all the money they can.

GAME OVER for XBOX 360 is really picking up now.

First Microshaft loses the format war with HD-DVD waving the white flag.

Now this.

Wow!

and 1080P contente with 7.1 lossless sound......

"and 1080P contente with 7.1 lossless sound......"

We both know that the 360 will spit out 1080p over any connection you care to name. Additionally, we both know that the render resolutions tend to be just about the same for each console across the board, averaging in the 600p to 720p range.

We also know that lossless audio doesn't mean much when the source is compressed on the disc. :)

How do you know the source is compressed?

The PS3 will of course share the standard download content with the X360. It just won't share the special exclusive stuff. We've known this for months. I'm not sure why this is seen as news to anyone? Unless someone thought that R* would release zero downloads on PSN instead of trying to get all the money they can.

Bingo. I'm sure there will be some stuff but honestly when millions of dollars and a signed contract are announced, that likely means exclusivity on something. As to the ultimate value and value to each person - who knows. If extra areas and maps to explore - that would be big for me. Some extra missions - I never really thought GTA was lacking in stock version anyway.

BTW - now that we've been back to Liberty City can we please go back to Vice City in the next game? There's really no place I'd rather explore or replay than Miami in the 80s.

"How do you know the source is compressed?"

Because not compressing audio is completely illogical. Why sacrifice 5-8x the available disc access bandwidth for uncompressed, when the compressed version is audibly indifferent? Streaming from disc on either console is already slow enough, why slow it down more with uncompressed audio?

Then of course there is the memory requirement. Why use up 5-8x more of the system's very limited RAM storing uncompressed audio for payback? Why not instead decompress on-the-fly, saving buckets of space?

If there is a developer using uncompressed audio in their games for anything that isn't straight FMV playback, then they are obviously too dumb to be making a game and I wouldn't want to play the trainwreck that they produced. :) And yes, I know that people on this board constantly throw around "MGS4 has uncompressed audio!!!1". Trust me, Kojima isn't that stupid. :)

You are assuming too much. Unless you have experience with ps3 programming who can say what is logical or not. From what little ps3 knowledge that I have, I know that quite a few ps3 games do output uncompressed 7.1 PCM audio straight from the blu-ray disc. There is more than enough space on the blu-ray disc and the ps3 is capable of handling the bandwidth. Forcing the ps3 to decompress audio out of the disc takes more valuable computing power. Also lossless audio means plenty if it's compressed i.e. FLAC and Dolby TrueHD.

"You are assuming too much. Unless you have experience with ps3 programming who can say what is logical or not. From what little ps3 knowledge that I have, I know that quite a few ps3 games do output uncompressed 7.1 PCM audio. There is more than enough space on the blu-ray disc and the ps3 is capable of handling the bandwidth. Also lossless audio means plenty if it's compressed i.e. FLAC and APE."

Outputting lossless has nothing to do with wether the source is lossless. Hell, my 7.1 channel soundcard spits out lossless audio all day long, even though the source is piss-poorly compressed Youtube audio. :) FLAC and APE give about a 35-40% space savings on average, versus the average 80% space savings of a good alt-standard LAME mp3. Given that they are going to sound exactly the same on almost every system that they are played back on, a smart dev will pick the bandwidth saver. I need to know jack-all about PS3 development to be able to to the very simple math involving bandwidth and compression that we are talking about here. :)

Yes there is plenty of space on a Blu disc for uncompressed audio, and yeah, the PS3 can play that back just fine. The argument though is why would an intelligent person spend the vastly larger amount of bandwidth on real-time lossless sources, when there are so many other things fighting for that bandwidth and the advantage of lossless sources only matters to the so very few. A smart dev isn't going to make the game experience worse in every other regard for the 8 million people that will buy MGS4, for example, just so the 5 people on AVS that think they can hear a difference will be happy.

"and the ps3 is capable of handling the bandwidth"

This is important. No it is not. Just like any computer system, the PS3 is bandwidth limited in some regards. It just so happens that lossless audio sources hit and emphasize all of those limitations.

As an end user, you do not want lossless sources. Lossless audio sources means that the dev could have done so much more to make other parts of the game better.

"You are assuming too much. Unless you have experience with ps3 programming who can say what is logical or not. From what little ps3 knowledge that I have, I know that quite a few ps3 games do output uncompressed 7.1 PCM audio. There is more than enough space on the blu-ray disc and the ps3 is capable of handling the bandwidth. Also lossless audio means plenty if it's compressed i.e. FLAC and APE."

Outputting lossless has nothing to do with wether the source is lossless. Hell, my 7.1 channel soundcard spits out lossless audio all day long, even though the source is piss-poorly compressed Youtube audio. :) FLAC and APE give about a 35-40% space savings on average, versus the average 80% space savings of a good alt-standard LAME mp3. Given that they are going to sound exactly the same on almost every system that they are played back on, a smart dev will pick the bandwidth saver. I need to know jack-all about PS3 development to be able to to the very simple math involving bandwidth and compression that we are talking about here. :)

Yes there is plenty of space on a Blu disc for uncompressed audio, and yeah, the PS3 can play that back just fine. The argument though is why would an intelligent person spend the vastly larger amount of bandwidth on real-time lossless sources, when there are so many other things fighting for that bandwidth and the advantage of lossless sources only matters to the so very few. A smart dev isn't going to make the game experience worse in every other regard for the 8 million people that will buy MGS4, for example, just so the 5 people on AVS that think they can hear a difference will be happy.

"and the ps3 is capable of handling the bandwidth"

This is important. No it is not. Just like any computer system, the PS3 is bandwidth limited in some regards. It just so happens that lossless audio sources hit and emphasize all of those limitations.

As an end user, you do not want lossless sources. Lossless audio sources means that the dev could have done so much more to make other parts of the game better.

Thats alot of words and no numbers. If you are talking about something that is simply mathematically impossible it would help if you posted some simple equations that show how these things can not be done. What are the bandwidth requirements of uncompressed audio? At what point does the bottleneck happen that prevents it from being utilized?

I thought this thread was about GTA IV not this other crap.

"Thats alot of words and no numbers. If you are talking about something that is simply mathematically impossible it would help if you posted some simple equations that show how these things can not be done. What are the bandwidth requirements of uncompressed audio? At what point does the bottleneck happen that prevents it from being utilized?"

Of course there are no numbers. :) The numbers are infinitely variable. What is not variable though is the roughly 9MB/s stream speed off of the disc that must be divided up between audio, textures, models, etc. Or the roughly 20MB/s stream speed off of the HDD that must be divided up. Or the 256MB of system RAM that must be shared with other items. The point is that devoting a far larger portion of these very finite resources to an inudible difference takes away from other aspects of the game.

You want some random numbers? Let's say I have set aside 10% of my system ram for compressed audio, 25MB. This leaves me with another 225MB for behaviors, scripts, models, the runtime environment, the XMB footprint, etc. Uncompress that audio for a very marginal quality gain, and suddenly I am spending 125MB on audio, leaving 125MB for everything else. Suddenly everything else in my game must be rendered at about half the fidelity. 50% degradation in quality of everything else in favor of a 1% improvement of audio quality? Sounds like a pretty freakin stupid tradeoff to me.

Let's take this same example and stay in the world of audio. Let's say audio is really, really, really important to my game, and I actually want to spend that 125MB on audio. I can spend it on uncompressed 44khz/16bit audio and get 12 minutes of sound. Or I can compress the audio and get an entire hour of sound. That's the difference between every gunshot sounding exactly the same, and having 5 available ricochet sounds. That is the difference between every NPC in the field saying one simple thing repeatedly, or having each character able to tell a complete story. Again, the 1% audio quality increase was gained at a retarded cost, vast repetition.

As for "mathematically impossible" or "prevents it from being utilized", I never said it was. In fact, I said right dab in the middle of my argument that the PS3 is perfectly capable of lossless audio from lossless sources. Being capable, and being worthwhile are two vastly different things though.

"I thought this thread was about GTA IV not this other crap."

The thread was about speculatory crap combined with really old news. It wasn't doing anything important. :)

Here's the page from the mag... it does indicate that the U.S. PSM says that its coming:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g10/wwcr/P1010249-1.jpg

Another site (http://ps3.qj.net/Rumor-GTA-4-PS3-DLC-leaked/pg/49/aid/116992)reviewing the article above says that a GTA developer let it slip about PS3 content:



I remember an interview with Phil Harrison (R.I.P.) indicating they were talking with R* about special PS3 support. I guess we should know more details soon. It certainly appears Sony is doing something with the title.


God forbid the guy is dead man... He just went to pursue other opertunities. I seriously think that his new project is going to bring Atari back... Either way, thats akward to say...

Isn't this the same mag that confirmed a MGS4 Demo?

pointless...

and 1080P contente with 7.1 lossless sound......

show me where GTA4 has been confirmed to have 1080p on the ps3 and 7.1



even so, I bet the 360 will run smoother and be better graphically, the ps3 version is just a port, and I don't think this port will be any different by offering the same quality on both consoles

show me where GTA4 has been confirmed to have 1080p on the ps3 and 7.1



even so, I bet the 360 will run smoother and be better graphically, the ps3 version is just a port, and I don't think this port will be any different by offering the same quality on both consoles

:confused: They have dedicated teams doing the code for each console. It is in no way "just a port."

even so, I bet the 360 will run smoother and be better graphically, the ps3 version is just a port, and I don't think this port will be any different by offering the same quality on both consoleshuh? so you're saying the 360 version will be better, but that the PS3 "port" will be the same quality? Confusing.

Anyhow, we won't know until we know, folks. Release date is fast approaching.

Also, I don't think MS has exclusive rights to all DLC that Rockstar produces for the game. They just have exclusive rights to a particular bit of DLC. I have started seeing the GTAIV pics appearing in MS's XBL posters and ads, though. Funny.

GTA4 will come out, and just like all previous GTA's, it will look OK and run somewhat poorly, regardless of platform. :) It won't matter though, as the world is expansive and detailed, with great writing to back it up.

GTA4 will come out, and just like all previous GTA's, it will look OK and run somewhat poorly, regardless of platform.Except for the PC version. I played GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas all on PC, and they were worlds better in terms of frame-rate, draw distance, features, and all around presentation (duh).

But, yeah, point taken. Compared to the PC and Xbox versions, the PS2 versions always looked somewhat "lacking" even though that was the games' primary platform.

Rockstar's a bit distracted at the moment with all this in-fighting going on in the company and the EA hostile take-over attempt still threatening. Hopefully, the uber-buggy Bully port isn't a sign of what's to come from them.

Regardless of graphical details and bugs, these games are still fantastic, and I'm sure GTAIV will be no exception.

...Good news for fans of the franchise who've been born and raised playing GTA on the Dual Shock controller.

This is the primary reason why I'm leaning towards the PS3 version versus the 360 version (I don't care about DLC). I just can't think of playing a GTA game (other than the originals on the PC) without a Dual Shock controller in my hand. Holding the 360 controller for this game just seems weird.

I found the same thing with Devil May Cry 3 (demo). I tried them both on the PS3 and on the 360 and just found the PS3 version 'better' because of playing the other two on the Dual Shock.

GTA4 will come out, and just like all previous GTA's, it will look OK and run somewhat poorly, regardless of platform. :) It won't matter though, as the world is expansive and detailed, with great writing to back it up.

How do you know it will just look "OK"? We haven't seen a GTA game on the new platforms yet....

BTW - now that we've been back to Liberty City can we please go back to Vice City in the next game? There's really no place I'd rather explore or replay than Miami in the 80s.

Rumor has it that R* is working on a Vice City GTA4... I'll post the link when I can find it again.

God forbid the guy is dead man... He just went to pursue other opertunities. I seriously think that his new project is going to bring Atari back... Either way, thats akward to say...

Now that you mention it, I don't know what I was thinking since that came off wrong... edited out.

Except for the PC version. I played GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas all on PC, and they were worlds better in terms of frame-rate, draw distance, features, and all around presentation (duh).

But, yeah, point taken. Compared to the PC and Xbox versions, the PS2 versions always looked somewhat "lacking" even though that was the games' primary platform.

Rockstar's a bit distracted at the moment with all this in-fighting going on in the company and the EA hostile take-over attempt still threatening. Hopefully, the uber-buggy Bully port isn't a sign of what's to come from them.

Regardless of graphical details and bugs, these games are still fantastic, and I'm sure GTAIV will be no exception.

I played it on the PC as well (Vice City) and really enjoyed the smooth experience.

"and 1080P contente with 7.1 lossless sound......"

We both know that the 360 will spit out 1080p over any connection you care to name. Additionally, we both know that the render resolutions tend to be just about the same for each console across the board, averaging in the 600p to 720p range.

We also know that lossless audio doesn't mean much when the source is compressed on the disc. :)

though it wont be native it will upscalled to dvd9s limit of 9gb.....the PS3 has the room due to blu ray to make it native.

"though it wont be native it will upscalled to dvd9s limit of 9gb.....the PS3 has the room due to blu ray to make it native."

Is this intelligible to anyone else? I have no idea what he is trying to say here.

I think he's trying to say that the 360 version won't be 1080p native because DVD9 doesn't have room for the textures, while BD does.

Of course, having "enough" textures has absolutely nothing to do with rendering resolution, but yeah, I think that was the point he was trying to make.

*waits for PC version*

*waits for PC version*Be prepared to wait a while. It drove me *crazy* waiting for the PC version of San Andreas (~8 mos after PS2 version). Sure, it looked and ran substantially better than the PS2 version, but I think I'd rather have had it sooner.

"though it wont be native it will upscalled to dvd9s limit of 9gb.....the PS3 has the room due to blu ray to make it native."

Is this intelligible to anyone else? I have no idea what he is trying to say here.
[standard jocktheglide disclaimer]
Don't take him seriously. He only posts in the PS3 fourms for a joke.

Jock is the Stephen Colbert of the PS3 forums.

"and 1080P contente with 7.1 lossless sound......"

We both know that the 360 will spit out 1080p over any connection you care to name. Additionally, we both know that the render resolutions tend to be just about the same for each console across the board, averaging in the 600p to 720p range.

We also know that lossless audio doesn't mean much when the source is compressed on the disc. :)

"How do you know the source is compressed?"

Because not compressing audio is completely illogical. Why sacrifice 5-8x the available disc access bandwidth for uncompressed, when the compressed version is audibly indifferent? Streaming from disc on either console is already slow enough, why slow it down more with uncompressed audio?

Then of course there is the memory requirement. Why use up 5-8x more of the system's very limited RAM storing uncompressed audio for payback? Why not instead decompress on-the-fly, saving buckets of space?

If there is a developer using uncompressed audio in their games for anything that isn't straight FMV playback, then they are obviously too dumb to be making a game and I wouldn't want to play the trainwreck that they produced. :) And yes, I know that people on this board constantly throw around "MGS4 has uncompressed audio!!!1". Trust me, Kojima isn't that stupid. :)

You are assuming too much. Unless you have experience with ps3 programming who can say what is logical or not. From what little ps3 knowledge that I have, I know that quite a few ps3 games do output uncompressed 7.1 PCM audio straight from the blu-ray disc. There is more than enough space on the blu-ray disc and the ps3 is capable of handling the bandwidth. Forcing the ps3 to decompress audio out of the disc takes more valuable computing power. Also lossless audio means plenty if it's compressed i.e. FLAC and Dolby TrueHD.

my system laughs at this. it certainly knows lossless audio and compressed. As do I. the majority of people saying there is no difference probably have never even heard a uncompressed sound system.

Think it was obvious it would get it in time.

"Jock is the Stephen Colbert of the PS3 forums."

That is very insulting to Colbert.

show me where GTA4 has been confirmed to have 1080p on the ps3 and 7.1



even so, I bet the 360 will run smoother and be better graphically, the ps3 version is just a port, and I don't think this port will be any different by offering the same quality on both consoles
lead platform is so mis-leading these days. a high profile title such as GTA will pretty much have simultaneous development. R* and previews have already said they both look identical.

my system laughs at this. it certainly knows lossless audio and compressed. As do I. the majority of people saying there is no difference probably have never even heard a uncompressed sound system.

You can have lossless audio compression that will sound identical to uncompressed audio, yet take much less space. It is silly not to take advantage of this.

You can have lossless audio compression that will sound identical to uncompressed audio, yet take much less space. It is silly not to take advantage of this.
Clock cycles? Decoding isn't free. You know that.

Clock cycles? Decoding isn't free. You know that.

Neither is bandwidth. You know that.

Neither is bandwidth. You know that.
True, but if you've got the bandwidth to stream uncompressed audio (if you're generating your visuals procedurally and they're already resident, for example), then why waste clock cycles on things that makes no difference to the user (lossless Vs. uncompressed), when you could use those cycles to do something that the user will notice, like improving the visuals, etc?

Jock is the Stephen Colbert of the PS3 forums.

I think you meant the Steven Baldwin of the PS3 forums. He makes Carrot Top seem amusing.

True, but if you've got the bandwidth to stream uncompressed audio (if you're generating your visuals procedurally and they're already resident, for example), then why waste clock cycles on things that makes no difference to the user (lossless Vs. uncompressed), when you could use those cycles to do something that the user will notice, like improving the visuals, etc?

The PS3 should have no trouble decoding compressed lossless audio. I've heard silly things about 30% cell utilization, 50%, etc... So the decompressing should basically be free, right? Bandwidth is not. Neither is RAM.

The PS3 should have no trouble decoding compressed lossless audio. I've heard silly things about 30% cell utilization, 50%, etc... So the decompressing should basically be free, right? Bandwidth is not. Neither is RAM.
I'm not saying it has trouble decoding audio. Obviously, it does not. I'm saying that time might be put to better use elsewhere. Why spend cycles on something you claim the end user can't differentiate? Why not spend them on something ready discernible to the user instead?

But the reason that devs are currently only using 30-50% of the CPU's power isn't because they had nothing with which to task the other 50-70%. It's because they don't understand the chip well enough to wring any more power out of it yet. The games are running at "100%." It's just that "100%" will represent even power more down the road. They're not purposely leaving anything on the table. They're using as much of the CPU as they possibly can, so no, decoding audio isn't "free." Those cycles have to come from somewhere.

Now, down the road, when they're able to utilize the CPU with ~90% efficiency, they'll have access to enough raw power that decoding the audio will be effectively free by comparison, but we're not there yet. Yes, other consoles compress audio, but that's not because they have more cycles to spare, or because it's "free" to do so. It's because their storage is so limited that they have no other choice.

If compressed audio was better in every way, then why would experienced developers, who have been compressing audio for years, ever use uncompressed audio?

If compressed audio was better in every way, then why would experienced developers, who have been compressing audio for years, ever use uncompressed audio?

How do you know that they are? The uncompressed LPCM that comes out of the PS3 is actually mixed in the game. Its source could easily be lossless compressed audio and you would never know.

Rockstar's a bit distracted at the moment with all this in-fighting going on in the company and the EA hostile take-over attempt still threatening. Hopefully, the uber-buggy Bully port isn't a sign of what's to come from them.

The Bully ports were done by Mad Doc Software, not Rockstar. And the Rockstar in question would have been Rockstar Vancouver, not Rockstar North. I don't think much could be extrapolated from the quality of Bully on the 360.

GTA4 will come out, and just like all previous GTA's, it will look OK and run somewhat poorly, regardless of platform. :) It won't matter though, as the world is expansive and detailed, with great writing to back it up.

i call ******** on this. it looks like they've put a lot of work into this game, so don't be surprised if you're wrong. however, uncharted type graphics aren't going to happen with a game of this scope. if that's what you're looking for, then you're right. i guess.

I hadn't heard this - are you sure it isn't 1000 to be shared among pedestrians?

maybe each type of pedestrian. besides, that's what the pic said.

Isn't this the same mag that confirmed a MGS4 Demo?

that should be a given. after all, there were demos for both mgs and mgs 2. i'm not sure if they had one for mgs 3.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1697/zoo2yv4.jpg
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/669/zoo3tg8.jpg

I think you meant the Steven Baldwin of the PS3 forums. He makes Carrot Top seem amusing.

Make that Daniel Baldwin.