HARD DRIVE INSTALLS

Like the 360, run games from the hard drive. Sure it takes a few mins to install it, but it saves our lasers BIG TIME. Given the cost to replace the darn lasers or pay sony to do it, I'll gladly wait for however long it takeas to install a game to the hd. And with the Sony allowing us to install our own hd's, space is never an issue.

I know some complain about waiting for fifteen mins to install a game....god forbid, but think of it this way. In Canada, the laser is over 100 bucks shipped.. Sony repair was 170. Even if it took you 30 mins or more to install the game, most games are around the 10 hour mark and games like fallout or online games like Killzone could have you running in the hundreds of hours where your little blu ray laser never stops for a break.

It's a no brainer. HD installs are a must, and with Sony not backing their system up with a decent warranty, this is a no cost way to avoid laser issues in the future.

Oh boy, another thread that is about wanting a 360 feature on the PS3. *holds the door open for all the trolls*

Sony, please give us HD installs like the 360

I doubt that Sony is actively watching this forum for feature requests. I guess it would be a nice feature to have though.

BRB, going to make some popcorn for this thread...

got a question. When you say you can DL games on the HD...Lets say I have madden 10... How would I do that??? Would I buy it off live? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

nice little rant, Sony allows non-oem drives yet has no install game feature while the 360 has the feature and proprietary hard drives that cost WAAAAAY more than they should...

got a question. When you say you can DL games on the HD...Lets say I have madden 10... How would I do that??? Would I buy it off live? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

He means that the console would copy most of the data over to the hard drive. You'd still need to insert the disc when you play, but most of the data would be read from the hard drive instead of the disc, which would save on the usage of the laser.

Some games kind of already do this, and I wonder if they would then have duplicate data, since the game installation might have to go in a different place.

Not against it, as I'm all for it with my 500GB $75 drive; but what makes you think all lens are faulty and will break before the life time of the system is up?

I still have a PS1 & 2 and their drives work fine. A bad batch sucks, but doesn't mean much over the number of consoles sold. Hard drives are also mechanical, and most likely have higher fail rates then optical drives mind you.

[MGS4 damn you btw! You should have an all, or some option!]

got a question. When you say you can DL games on the HD...Lets say I have madden 10... How would I do that??? Would I buy it off live? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Not all game can be DLded, only some can ( Burnout Paradise, Wipeout HD,..)

Check in the PS store to see all the PS3 games you can d/ld. If I remember correctly, only Burnout Paradise is both on blu ray AND PSN.

Not all game can be DLded, only some can ( Burnout Paradise, Wipeout HD,..)

Check in the PS store to see all the PS3 games you can d/ld. If I remember correctly, only Burnout Paradise is both on blu ray AND PSN.

Think you missed the point.

He's requesting PC like installations of BD games, like you can do on a 360 w/ a HDD. Not a bad request, but not because of the reason above.

and with Sony not backing their system up with a decent warranty:rolleyes:

Not all game can be DLded, only some can ( Burnout Paradise, Wipeout HD,..)

Check in the PS store to see all the PS3 games you can d/ld. If I remember correctly, only Burnout Paradise is both on blu ray AND PSN.

Add Warhawk and SOCOM: Confrontation.

Wait I thought Xboxes didn't have harddrives...

But seriously... NO! I'm already at 70/80 gigs full and I only have like 8 or so PSN games!

How would you pull this off? Especially if some games take up 20+gb of space on a disc (particularly because of multi-language, uncompressed audio)?

Do NOT want.

Considering I would still have to get off my lazy azz to put the disc in, it's not really buying me anything (other then a second or two quicker load time...but I still need time to get my lazy azz back to the couch).

In my opinion, this option was necessary on the 360 as that dang thing sounds like it's going to take off (or explode) whenever a disc is spinning in it. The PS3 does not have this issue (at least neither of mine do).

;)

HARD DRIVE INSTALLS

Oh boy, another thread that is about wanting a 360 feature on the PS3. *holds the door open for all the trolls*

I think this is a reasonable wish. I actually agree with this. I wouldn't mind full HD installs but having to have the game disc in the drive (like what a lot of computer games do). Not only would it save the laser but it might make load times even faster.

Just to clarify, I think this should be an OPTION. So those who didn't have enough HD space left wouldn't have to worry but those who wanted installs and bought a bigger drive could have it.

In reality, though, this sort of thing is really up to the developers to implement rather than Sony. Although I suppose Sony could encourage devs to do it.

I suppose it would be a neat option, but I'm not going to write to sony about it.

Wait I thought Xboxes didn't have harddrives...

But seriously... NO! I'm already at 70/80 gigs full and I only have like 8 or so PSN games!

You can get 500BG for ~$75

How would you pull this off? Especially if some games take up 20+gb of space on a disc (particularly because of multi-language, uncompressed audio)?

It only be optional. MGS seems to play strait off the drive as is, only difference would be a gigantic 20 single install, instead of the mini ones between acts replacing data over and over. Those with smaller drives have the option of both, or neither [streaming]

The difference between the 360 and the PS3 is the media. A Blu Ray can be up to 30 Gigs, just for one game.

No thanks. I'll let the devs decide how much to install and when to decrease loading times.

I think this is a reasonable wish. I actually agree with this. I wouldn't mind full HD installs but having to have the game disc in the drive (like what a lot of computer games do). Not only would it save the laser but it might make load times even faster.

Just to clarify, I think this should be an OPTION. So those who didn't have enough HD space left wouldn't have to worry but those who wanted installs and bought a bigger drive could have it.

In reality, though, this sort of thing is really up to the developers to implement rather than Sony. Although I suppose Sony could encourage devs to do it.

It depends on how they do it. If they wanted it to work with the existing games, they could have the console transfer the contents of a disc to the hard drive as an image. When you launch a game, it would set up a virtual drive, mount that image, and make the game read from there instead of the disc. It would just have to check that the disc is in the BD drive before launching the game. They'd also have to make it so that the game shuts down if you eject the disc, if it's not that way already.

The problem, however, is that games that already store data on the hard drive would have to store that along with the image. That would use a lot more space in some cases, but I would just choose not to install those.

I am the only one that finds the humor in this thread? We go from people bitching about having to do partial installs on games to people bitching because we can't do full installs on games. I couldn't care less about full installs as I am a patient person and unless the performance of the games are significantly improved (I don't mean save a few seconds here or there on a loading screen) it seems like it'd be a big waste of time and space. Whatever floats others boats though, if they do end up doing it just make it optional.

first Sony doesn't live here
second:

Sony please do not give us anything that is like the 360

Xbox360s use DVDs - Dual Layer at most... that's 4.7 to 9.4 gbs
PS3s use Blu-rays - Dual Layer at most... that's 25 to 50 gbs

It's easier for the 360 to have this feature considering their games fit on a smaller media to begin with.

For the PS3, this should, at the very least, be an option as someone already stated. Not something that I really want but I think I'd make use of it if it were there.

Screw the X360's under-developed solution as it would do nothing to address the main reason I'd like hard drive installs. Instead, I prefer the PC's solution... for many titles you can install the full game and play them without having to put the disc in the machine each and every time.

Both my PC and PS3 are hooked up to my 60" HDTV, and it is great being able to select PC games without going to my computer to change discs. The PS3 of course has this working fine for PSN games, but a universal option for full installs of discs WITHOUT being forced to have the disc in place like the X360 would be ideal. If that's not possible (Blu-ray GBs ftw), I'm fine with the system as-is.

The MGS4 process however is the dumbest by far. Re-installing the game several times each and every play through? :confused:

second:

Sony please do not give us anything that is like the 360

congradulations on winning fanboy quote of the year!!!

Screw the X360's under-developed solution as it would do nothing to address the main reason I'd like hard drive installs. Instead, I prefer the PC's solution... for many titles you can install the full game and play them without having to put the disc in the machine each and every time.

Both my PC and PS3 are hooked up to my 60" HDTV, and it is great being able to select PC games without going to my computer to change discs. The PS3 of course has this working fine for PSN games, but a universal option for full installs of discs WITHOUT being forced to have the disc in place like the X360 would be ideal. If that's not possible (Blu-ray GBs ftw), I'm fine with the system as-is.

The MGS4 process however is the dumbest by far. Re-installing the game several times each and every play through? :confused:

Actually, that would be retarded, as everyone knows why you have to have the disc in the drive (it's so obvious, I'm not even going to type it). It's not an "under-developed" solution.

It's under-developed for the reason I'd want hard drive installs. The PC has the perfect solution IMHO, and absent of that, installs requiring the physical game to be in the machine is not enough to me.

only a few ps3 games are actually using the blu ray's insane storage amount, and if it did take 30 mins to install it, whoopie, it saves the laser. The first time you guys have to pay for a repair, you'll remember this thread.

MGS is one of the few exceptions here, as it is obviously ginormous with it's cool movies and all. That being said, once it was all installed, there would be no major load times ever again. Right now, correct me if I'm wrong but if you load up an old save, it has to copy everything on tht level to the HD again. Load up another save, and it installs that level and so on. Thats more of a pita to me.

installs from the HD would obviously be optional, as it is on the 360. You don't want to use it, no problem

But, faster load times (the blu ray is slow), quieter system operation, less heat from drive not spinning, and no laser constantly in use are all GOOD things. Can't see why anyone would not want to use it. First thing I do with my xbox now is install game to hd. Yes the xbox games are smaller , but so are the hard drives. We can stick whatever we want in the playstation so hd space is a non issue really.

I don't think we will ever see an option to install a game to hd and not require the disc to be in the drive. You could rent games and just install them and never need the game disc again.

as for the laser being reliable....look around, they aren't on either system. Gone through two on my xbox's, and now two on my ps3, and the sony forums are full of laser issues. Games nowadays stress the laser far more then previous consoles at faster speeds and more data being transfered and streamed.

Like I said, wait until you lose a laser....then lets talk.

My launch PSOne's laser still works fine 15 years after I bought it without having any install features whatsoever. Almost ten years of use from my launch PS2, and the Dreamcast is alive and kicking as well. Save the fire and brimstone sermons about eventual doom... not all machines have a history of breaking down to be overly concerned about.

My launch PSOne's laser still works fine 15 years after I bought it without having any install features whatsoever. Almost ten years of use from my launch PS2, and the Dreamcast is alive and kicking as well. Save the fire and brimstone sermons about eventual doom... not all machines have a history of breaking down to be overly concerned about.

that may be true but none of those systems have the failure rate that the ps3 has..

I see, you have a link verifying that? It may or may not be true, but if you have hard info I'd like to see it.

that may be true but none of those systems have the failure rate that the ps3 has..

I hope you mean the PS3 has a lower failure rate than the PS1 and PS2.

I see, you have a link verifying that? It may or may not be true, but if you have hard info I'd like to see it.

there are countless people on this forum alone that have lost lasers in both systems. It's an issue, whether you believe it or not matters not to me, but don't dismiss it because you'be been lucky so far.

Besides, this idea of hd install doesn't hurt anyone. You don't want to use it...don't. Do not ruin it for others that would benefit from it.

I was talking to ben about his PSOne/PS2/Dreamcast failure rate comment. I (and every PS3 buddy I know) have had zero problems.

ps3 has 10.6 failure
http://www.examiner.com/x-16321-Columbus-Video-Game-Examiner~y2009m8d20-Xbox-360-failure-rate-at-542-percent-per-Game-Informer-survey

as far as ps2 all i am reading is around 5% or less, but i am not finding any offical survey's or studies

as far as ps1 and dreamcast i can't find anything and i doubt those figures would ever be leaked.....

so in a nutshell i am guessing that both the ps1 and dreamcast is below 10%... but i will admit that is me speculating...

ps3 has 10.6 failure
http://www.examiner.com/x-16321-Columbus-Video-Game-Examiner~y2009m8d20-Xbox-360-failure-rate-at-542-percent-per-Game-Informer-survey

as far as ps2 all i am reading is around 5% or less, but i am not finding any offical survey's or studies

as far as ps1 and dreamcast i can't find anything and i doubt those figures would ever be leaked.....

so in a nutshell i am guessing that both the ps1 and dreamcast is below 10%... but i will admit that is me speculating...

That Game Informer survey data is completely meaningless. Unscientific surveys are unscientific.

That Game Informer survey data is completely meaningless. Unscientific surveys are unscientific.

so you are asking for scientific surveys with video games..hahhahaha look i know they aren't accurate, but if people are going to dismiss me by saying you don't have proof, that is the closest i can get, then i can dismiss them by saying they don't have proof either, and then this thread will go on for weeks... honestly i am not fired up either way, i just don't think the OP should have been attacked the way he was... it was a sound idea to a problem (big or small it is a problem) with the ps3..

so you are asking for scientific surveys with video games..hahhahaha look i know they aren't accurate, but if people are going to dismiss me by saying you don't have proof, that is the closest i can get, then i can dismiss them by saying they don't have proof either, and then this thread will go on for weeks... honestly i am not fired up either way, i just don't think the OP should have been attacked the way he was... it was a sound idea to a problem (big or small it is a problem) with the ps3..

Why is that funny? Scientific surveys are done on everything from which soft-drinks people prefer to how many sheets of toilet paper they use each day.

Why wont anyone think of the lazers!!!!!!!!!!! Save teh lazerz!!!

congradulations on winning fanboy quote of the year!!!

thanks I try

Why the hostility? I personally think it's a great idea. The PS3 isn't bullet proof and many (including many on this board) have had broken lasers and overheating issues. Harddrive installs would take a considerable amount of stress off the laser and eliminate the BD drive as a source of heat during gameplay. I can tell you my 360 runs a hell of a lot cooler ever since I started installing all my games. For all the people bitching that PS3 games could take up to 50gb of space there's a solution: a $75 500gb harddrive. Besides I'd wager the majority of PS3 games (read: multiplat games) don't take up much more space than they would on a DVD-9.

And if you're still not sold: IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL. Options are a good thing. The people who want the feature can use it and the people who don't can pretend like it's not even there.

The PS3 isn't bullet proof...:( they should fix that, FW 3.06?

Harddrive installs would take a considerable amount of stress off the laser and eliminate the BD drive as a source of heat during gameplay.

You do realize that an normal optical drive runs almost completely cool and that a HDD cranks out heat comparatively, right?

Having the HDD spinning is worse for Heat issues are your concern. That said, I'd still love the option.

You do realize that an normal optical drive runs almost completely cool and that a HDD cranks out heat comparatively, right?

Having the HDD spinning is worse for Heat issues are your concern. That said, I'd still love the option.

All I know is I can play games, movies, and music off my harddrive all day and the fan will never leave mode 2. As soon as the optical drive starts spinning the fans bump up to stage 3 and occasionally 4.

I cannot se the OP (troll block list).

But what good is this feature on the PS3? I use it to git rid of the DVD noise on the 360, the Ps3 does not have this issue. It is much better to have partial install of the required data than the whole disc image which waste space.

I cannot se the OP (troll block list).

But what good is this feature on the PS3? I use it to git rid of the DVD noise on the 360, the Ps3 does not have this issue. It is much better to have partial install of the required data than the whole disc image which waste space.

Just read the post. It won't bite.

EDIT: Looking at the tags to this thread, it's unbelievable how riled up some people get over a simple suggestion.

what did tgable say? I can't see it(troll block list)

Why the hostility? I personally think it's a great idea. The PS3 isn't bullet proof and many (including many on this board) have had broken lasers and overheating issues. Harddrive installs would take a considerable amount of stress off the laser and eliminate the BD drive as a source of heat during gameplay. I can tell you my 360 runs a hell of a lot cooler ever since I started installing all my games. For all the people bitching that PS3 games could take up to 50gb of space there's a solution: a $75 500gb harddrive. Besides I'd wager the majority of PS3 games (read: multiplat games) don't take up much more space than they would on a DVD-9.

And if you're still not sold: IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL. Options are a good thing. The people who want the feature can use it and the people who don't can pretend like it's not even there.

The only thing I can think of is the possibility that it could make developers more lazy in getting loading times down. They already make you install data to the HDD now, and this could make it worse. You could have a situation where, yes, you could play the game without completely installing, but you'd have to deal with worse load times than before. The devs may just figure that those who care about load times would just install the full game, and leave it at that. I don't think I'd agree, but it is a possibility.

That said, I don't think there would be as much opposition if the words "like the 360" weren't in the thread title. :)

It depends on how they do it. If they wanted it to work with the existing games, they could have the console transfer the contents of a disc to the hard drive as an image.

Oh yeah I forgot about this possibility. I actually "image mount" all the PC games that I can though half the time it requires a dubious "no CD" crack to get to work properly. But, yes, this would allow it to work with only a change to the firmware. The only problem then is just copy protection. They could probably do a CHECKSUM against the disc in the BD drive or something though.

I never want to stop inserting and ejecting the disk into the slot

I used the optional install for Street Fighter 4 and it significantly reduced load times. I like that. Expecially since you had to play through the game about a million times to unlock all the characters. Considering the fact that Sony felt compelled to push the blu-ray format with the PS3 before it had access speeds as fast as DVD, and every model has a hard drive, optional installs seem like a no brainer.

Next Gen systems better have no less than a terabyte HD. Preferably 2 or 3. And give us some more RAM for Christ sake the sht is practically free. That goes for both systems.

I used the optional install for Street Fighter 4 and it significantly reduced load times. I like that. Expecially since you had to play through the game about a million times to unlock all the characters. Considering the fact that Sony felt compelled to push the blu-ray format with the PS3 before it had access speeds as fast as DVD, and every model has a hard drive, optional installs seem like a no brainer.

Next Gen systems better have no less than a terabyte HD. Preferably 2 or 3. And give us some more RAM for Christ sake the sht is practically free. That goes for both systems.
Sony felt compelled to win the Blu-Ray - Hd DVD war which they did. Had nothing to do with load times only had to do with money and Sony won, M$ lost get over it.

Sony felt compelled to win the Blu-Ray - Hd DVD war which they did. Had nothing to do with load times only had to do with money and Sony won, M$ lost get over it.

Get over what? I stated a fact, PS3 blu-ray drives are not as fast as the 360 DVD drives. Seems like you're the one having trouble "getting over it". I just explained I used the optional install on my PS3 copy of Street Fighter 4 and it improved load times. Load times suck. Anything that improves them is a good thing. Get over it.

Wigging out over a verifiable truth stated by another console supporter = the definition of fanboy.

Plus I can't see how recommended Sony use the PS3's strength (HD in every unit) to compensate for its weakness (Slower access times) is controversial.

Get over what? I stated a fact, PS3 blu-ray drives are not as fast as the 360 DVD drives. Seems like you're the one having trouble "getting over it". I just explained I used the optional install on my PS3 copy of Street Fighter 4 and it improved load times. Load times suck. Anything that improves them is a good thing. Get over it.

Wigging out over a verifiable truth stated by another console supporter = the definition of fanboy.

Plus I can't see how recommended Sony use the PS3's strength (HD in every unit) to compensate for its weakness (Slower access times) is controversial.
Yup I am over it. Blu-Ray blows away Hd DVD. Thats why my HD-A30 is in a box somewhere. Wait do they even make HD DVD's anymore? I'm to caught up in timing my load times in games and Blu-Ray discs

I think there's a few games that have the hard drive install option built in. I know Valkyria Chronicles is one of them.

Yup I am over it. Blu-Ray blows away Hd DVD. Thats why my HD-A30 is in a box somewhere. Wait do they even make HD DVD's anymore? I'm to caught up in timing my load times in games and Blu-Ray discs

Eww, that sucks. I can see you being a little bitter if you wasted your money on an HD DVD drive. I wasn't talking about Blu-ray being better or worse than HD DVD though. I was talking about Blu-ray having slower access times than regular DVD. I didn't even get my 360 until after the format war was over so I was lucky enough not to invest in one of those garbage drives.

Why was HD DVD even brought up? He was just saying that Sony's decision to use a BD drive in the PS3 meant that it would be slower than a DVD drive. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision, just that it had a consequence. HDD installs would negate that consequence and make the PS3 even better.

Why was HD DVD even brought up? He was just saying that Sony's decision to use a BD drive in the PS3 meant that it would be slower than a DVD drive. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision, just that it had a consequence. HDD installs would negate that consequence and make the PS3 even better.

This guy knows what he's talking about. I was just thinking, though, how do all these games have such long load times, but Naughty Dog is finishing up probably the most highly graphical game on the system which will have no mandatory install and no load screens? If its possible to do that every team on the PS3 should be able to do it, especially since there are few games out there that look like Uncharted 2. These developers need to get with the program cause Naughty Dog is proving the PS3 is a superior machine.

Sony felt compelled to win the Blu-Ray - Hd DVD war which they did. Had nothing to do with load times only had to do with money and Sony won, M$ lost get over it.

Uh, phipp, Toshiba was behind HD-DVD. Microsoft had nothing to do with it.

Uh, phipp, Toshiba was behind HD-DVD. Microsoft had nothing to do with it.

Shhh. Don't upset him.

I see, you have a link verifying that? It may or may not be true, but if you have hard info I'd like to see it.

no, but they aren't the gleaming jewel of reliability you think they are...especially the 60GB version. 4/4 people I know with 60GB PS3s have had to pay for a repair. Thing is, they are post-warranty, so they don't draw the attention from Wall Street as the repairs are a revenue source for Sony...not a cost. The 360's drew lots of attention as the sheer number (and the pathetic warranty period) eventually drew attention. I'd like to see Sony step up a little more...4/4 is a statistical anomaly, but for that to happen in a population that supposedly has an extremely low failure rate is quite an anomally.

i'm not suggesting the PS3 is less reliable than the 360 (my brother's broke twice and his friend's 3x), but the 360's repairs were free. PS3 repairs are not. And if you ever have to pay to repair an "indestructable" console, you stop drinking the kool-aid pretty quick.

This guy knows what he's talking about. I was just thinking, though, how do all these games have such long load times, but Naughty Dog is finishing up probably the most highly graphical game on the system which will have no mandatory install and no load screens? If its possible to do that every team on the PS3 should be able to do it, especially since there are few games out there that look like Uncharted 2. These developers need to get with the program cause Naughty Dog is proving the PS3 is a superior machine.

yes, but is any of the data on the BD redundant and/or strategically placed to improve load times? BD has pretty pathetic access times compared to DVD, so the idea of a BD game being seamless without redundant data (to cut down on seek times) seems a bit unbelieveable.

And, while UC2 looks great...it's certainly not some pinnacle of modern graphics. It may be for a console game, though. The graphics are not something that can't be done on a DVD (Crysis Warhead in its entirety is ~6GB and it blows away any console game in the graphics area).

I think the only ones that really know the answer about redundant data on the BD won't be posting the answer, either. It's likely a heavily guarded secret.

new game, lets compare current games to games not yet out

yes, but is any of the data on the BD redundant and/or strategically placed to improve load times? BD has pretty pathetic access times compared to DVD, so the idea of a BD game being seamless without redundant data (to cut down on seek times) seems a bit unbelieveable.

And, while UC2 looks great...it's certainly not some pinnacle of modern graphics. It may be for a console game, though. The graphics are not something that can't be done on a DVD (Crysis Warhead in its entirety is ~6GB and it blows away any console game in the graphics area).

I think the only ones that really know the answer about redundant data on the BD won't be posting the answer, either. It's likely a heavily guarded secret.

Yeah, I wasn't comparing to PC games, obviously you're going to get a better results on a multi thousand dollar computer than a 300 dollar console My point was if Naughty Dog can give the pinnacle of modern console graphics without load times it means that other developers are either lazy or stupid. This jive they keep blowing by us about how hard the PS3 is to program on is just a bunch of excuses for their lame skills.

new game, lets compare current games to games not yet out

I did use the word "if". Naughty Dog doesn't have a reputation for making exaggerated claims, but what I said was "if" they really are able to do that, then other developers should be too.

And, while UC2 looks great...it's certainly not some pinnacle of modern graphics. It may be for a console game, though. The graphics are not something that can't be done on a DVD (Crysis Warhead in its entirety is ~6GB and it blows away any console game in the graphics area).


Yea but aside from Crysis (which is so lightyears ahead of everything out there it's kind of an unfair comparison) what games do you consider to look better? Honestly I like Uncharted's engine better than anything running on UE3. Rage is shaping up to look fairly impressive so there might be that. Really though as far as modern games go Uncharted 2 is a shining example of a graphics engine on any platform.

Also you say Crysis is only 6gb? Is that on the disc or on the harddrive? Most PC games fit on a DVD because all the files have been compressed. Once on the harddrive the data on that DVD takes up 2 to 3 times the space. I find it hard to believe a game like Crysis is only 6gb.

Why wont anyone think of the lazers!!!!!!!!!!! Save teh lazerz!!!

bahahahahahahahaha!

Having a large hard disk with tons of space and a 60GB that's already had one BD replacement, I wouldn't mind having an optional HDD install for all games.

Even with that repair bill, it's still better than my Wii, which kindly jacked up its GPU when I left WiiConnect24 enabled for a long while. Oh well, at least the Wii still functions..

n
i'm not suggesting the PS3 is less reliable than the 360 (my brother's broke twice and his friend's 3x), but the 360's repairs were free.

That is until the shareholders say no more. MS figured that the cost of appeasing people was less then the cost of a class action lawsuit, and what it might bring to the press. Still, one wonder how long they can keep up that program, when it'll stop, and what happens to everyone else that will have one fail.

I heard the Japers are better, but the horse is already out of the barn and I wouldn't be counting my chickens before they hatch.

I did use the word "if". Naughty Dog doesn't have a reputation for making exaggerated claims, but what I said was "if" they really are able to do that, then other developers should be too.

correct, if they do something in the future that no one else has done yet, it is an invalid comparison to current games, but would be valid to compare other future games
like if when x comes out and does y, then when q comes out it should also be able to do y

correct, if they do something in the future that no one else has done yet, it is an invalid comparison to current games, but would be valid to compare other future games
like if when x comes out and does y, then when q comes out it should also be able to do y

Fair enough. Didn't the first Uncharted have little to no load times though? I haven't gotten around to playing it but I thought I heard that somewhere.

Fair enough. Didn't the first Uncharted have little to no load times though? I haven't gotten around to playing it but I thought I heard that somewhere.

I don't remember, but it was fairly linear, this one claims to be less so, so little load time would be impressive

There's almost no waiting in Uncharted 1. Load times were nearly transparent and there is no install. Despite that, it remains one of the finest looking games ever made for any console.

There's almost no waiting in Uncharted 1. Load times were nearly transparent and there is no install. Despite that, it remains one of the finest looking games ever made for any console.

Naughty Dog needs to start renting out their programmers as consultants to other developers. The wait times in games like SF4 are simply embarrassing.

This guy knows what he's talking about. I was just thinking, though, how do all these games have such long load times, but Naughty Dog is finishing up probably the most highly graphical game on the system which will have no mandatory install and no load screens? If its possible to do that every team on the PS3 should be able to do it, especially since there are few games out there that look like Uncharted 2. These developers need to get with the program cause Naughty Dog is proving the PS3 is a superior machine.

The only reason most games have these crappy installs and/or load times or whatever is because Sony allows it.

If Sony didn't allow it, the way Microsoft does not allow it (or did not, but even now what is being installed is an ISO), then developers wouldn't use it and hthey would have to work on it unless they want their games to fail because of Neo Geo CD like loading.

The install system that Sony has in place lets developers quickly move a chunk of data to the hard drive. It speeds up load times and developers don't have to spend time optimizing their game. Schedules are tight, being able to cut this or that from a programmer's time is very valuable.

Naughty Dog does it the way they do it because they are a very tech-oriented developer. They hire top notch programmers and push their techniques and systems to the limit. Uncharted is their first game to use C++.... before that, on PSX and PS2 they wrote games in their own, custom built programming language (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2985/postmortem_naughty_dogs_jak_and_.php?print=1). So, it doesn't surprise me one bit that Naughty Dog has once again took the lead on tech.

Naughty Dog needs to start renting out their programmers as consultants to other developers. The wait times in games like SF4 are simply embarrassing.

Straight from ND themselves (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/uncharted-2-makes-ps3-shine-couldnt-happen-on-360.ars), here's what's going on with Uncharted 2's load times and their plans to help 1st and 3rd party developers on the PS3:

"I guarantee that this game couldn't be working on XBox 360. It would be impossible. I'm 100 percent sure of this." Christophe Balestra, co-president of Naughty Dog, spoke with Ars about the technology behind Uncharted 2, the hugely anticipated follow-up to one of the PS3's best games: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. "First of all, we fill the Blu-ray 100 percent, we have no room left on this one. We have 25GB of data; we're using every single bit of it." Naughty Dog is owned by Sony, and while the developer makes wonderful games, it's very clear why we were there: to talk about the power of the PlayStation 3.

Balestra pointed out how important it is to ship every system with a hard drive. "The fact that every PS3 has a hard drive is huge for us." He went on to describe how the game takes advantage of Sony's offerings. "It's the combination of Blu-ray and hard drive. You can play the entire game without loading. We don't require an install. We're doing all the post-processing effects on the SPUs [Synergistic Processing Units]. The quality of the depth of field we have, you can't do that on the Xbox."

He was blunt about what Uncharted 2 means for the PlayStation 3. "We've invested a lot of time maximizing the power of the machine," he stated. "That's our job, to make the PS3 shine."

What they've learned

For the first game, Balestra estimated that they used around 30 percent of the power of the SPUs, now the team was able to use them to 100 percent capacity. Naughty Dog understands the Cell processor, and knows how to get it to sing. "The ability to use the RSX [the PS3's graphics processor] to draw your pixels on the screen, then you use the Cell to do gameplay and animations-we kind of took the step of using the Cell process to help the RSX . All those things are done on the Cell processor," he explained. "It really helps us getting that quality of lighting per pixel; the amount of computation is pretty crazy."

Naughty Dog also used the SPUs to add physics to the sound so things occlude properly. That means that if you're behind a door, the sound will reflect that. Effects will sound different depending on where your character is in relation to the source. "All that math is done on SPUs to immerse players into the environment," he said. If you have a surround-sound setup for your PS3, this could very well be your new showcase title.

The other improvements from getting closer to the metal with PS3 development will be more easily seen by even those without high-end audio systems: better performance, and better AI. "We had a pretty good AI system on Uncharted, but we wanted to have more [non-player characters], we wanted to have also more enemies on the screen."

All this goes on behind the scenes, but it leads to a game world that feels real. The characters react realistically to what's going on, the sound is shaped by where you are and what you're doing, and the amount of action Naughty Dog was able to put on the screen is impressive; the set pieces we've seen from the game so far look more like a heavily choreographed film than something that's interactive and playable. It takes a lot of horsepower to make that happen, and Naughty Dog now has the experience to squeeze every drop from the PS3.

Being first-party has its responsibilities

Uncharted 2 is going to be a showpiece title for the PlayStation 3, and Balestra notes that the knowledge and technical know-how used to create the game is something the team shares. "One thing we did for Uncharted is that we made the source code available to all the first parties," he explained. There is a team at Naughty Dog that's separate from those working on the game; their mandate is to work on technology that's shared with both first- and third-parties.

"They know how we're using the SPUs; they are free to look at how we're doing things and package it in such a way that it can be shared with third parties," Balestra told Ars. Developers from Naughty Dog give talks at GDC, and the team often has third-party developers coming into the offices to discuss PlayStation 3 tech. Balestra said they have time set aside to speak with other developers after the game is finished-as of this writing they're nine days away from submission.

"We're very open, yes. That's part of our jobs."

All this technology serves one goal: to make a good game

It's hard to think about the technical aspects of gaming and still keep one fact in mind: if it's not fun, all that work is for nothing. Thankfully, Uncharted 2 has personality and character to spare. We asked Balestra to name the one thing he wanted to improve from the first game, and he became somewhat philosophical.

"Sometimes people ask us about what is the one thing [we improved] on Uncharted 2, and it's hard to answer. We're trying to increase the quality of the game, so we're design-driven. No matter what it takes, we'll find a way to figure it out, to squeeze what we need to squeeze out of [the system] to make it happen."

Also you say Crysis is only 6gb? Is that on the disc or on the harddrive? Most PC games fit on a DVD because all the files have been compressed. Once on the harddrive the data on that DVD takes up 2 to 3 times the space. I find it hard to believe a game like Crysis is only 6gb.

the size of my Steam install of Crysis Warhead (no DVD) is 6,243MB. I'm sure the textures are still compressed, but texture decompression is trivial on a modern machine...especially from a hard drive.

My point was if Naughty Dog can give the pinnacle of modern console graphics without load times it means that other developers are either lazy or stupid. This jive they keep blowing by us about how hard the PS3 is to program on is just a bunch of excuses for their lame skills.


How much programming experience do you have?

Are you even aware how diffucult it is to schedule threads on heterogeneous cores? Why should a programmer honestly have to worry about it? What, because the almighty Sony chose to make a heterogeneous-cored processor *SOLELY* to chase after the FLOP/Sec crown? This is EXACTLY what they did...a homogeneous-cored CPU with the same number of cores would take up more die space and wouldn't be economically produceable in 2006 on a 90nm process. IMO, the PS3 would perform in games just as good or better had they gone with 4-6 homogeneous cores rather than 9 (err I mean 8) heterogeneous cores.

Also, Naughty Dog = Sony. Naughty Dog will say whatever Sony tells them to say. I think they accomplished the load times they did by putting the same data on the Blu-Ray disc muliple times in multiple locations to make up for the slow access times the PS3's drive has. We'll never know the truth.

Plus, when Sony tells you that a game "can't be done on a 360" why would anyone in their right mind take that as gospel???

IMO, the PS3 would perform in games just as good or better had they gone with 4-6 homogeneous cores rather than 9 (err I mean 8) heterogeneous cores.

It might perform as well at some games. It might not. The SPUs are floating point beasts. If you work them right you can do things with them far beyond what can be done with a similar sized gang of modern x86 or PPC chips. As much floating point as a modern game has to push, Cell was a great idea.

No, Sony's only major architectural mistake as far as I can see is the RSX. It's weak. Luckily a clever programmer can offload some functions to an SPU and make up for it.

yes, I somewhat agree, but there's also plenty of things a x86 or PPC chip can do that a SPE can't (things where branch prediction, out of order execution, and large caches are needed). It goes both ways. And while they are floating point beasts, the I/O is kind of lacking, so it's no supercomputer nor is it really a perfect substitute for a modern GPU with fast dedicated memory. If I had to say, the SPEs are more of a CPU-GPU hybrid in terms of performance and capabilities.

The issue I'm presenting is that having the CPU/SPE combo requires the programmer to do the scheduling and when doing it has to consider the capabilities of the processor he is sending the work to. This isn't really something a programmer should have to do as it puts an extra burden on them and that they probably have no experience doing it in the first place. While the CPU/SPE combo can potentially do great things...8-9 full-fledged PPC CPUs would do it better and cut a lot of the burden (this probably would have been feasible if 65nm was an economic reality in 2006).

It's also not that the RSX is particularly bad (though the 360's solution is faster)...it's more that it is kind of gimped on the memory capacity and bandwidth (both are half what a 7950GT has). In its PS3 iteration, it's only a little better than a 7600GT.

by putting the same data on the Blu-Ray disc muliple times in multiple locations to make up for the slow access times the PS3's drive has. We'll never know the truth.

This theory makes no sense to me. Is the lion share of load time come from the machine searching then decoding the info on the disc, not moving the laser to it?

optical drives usually have access times measured in the hundreds of milliseconds. From published BD access times I've seen from drives it is between 250-350ms. DVD/CD drives are usually around 150ms, most hard drives are in the 12ms area.

When you have data on the disc in all kinds of separate locations (small file here, small file there, large file here 1 inch away, and so on) the time waiting for the laser to get to the right location becomes very significant. When reading one large file, access times don't matter as much as the laser doesn't have to do any real seeking. This is part of the reason that many PS3 games have HD installs...the BD isn't what's slow...GETTING TO THE DATA ON THE BD IS WHAT IS SLOW.

This is what leads me to believe that the same data is on the disc multiple times. If you are in a given level of the game, the programming could call for a file that is located very close to where the laser is at any given time, thus keeping the seeking of the laser to a minimum. This is where the 25-50GB of space comes in handy, too. Of course, we'll never know as this information would be kept in the strictest of confidence, and I'm sure for 3rd party devs that Sony has a pretty strict NDA regarding these kinds of things.

The issue I'm presenting is that having the CPU/SPE combo requires the programmer to do the scheduling and when doing it has to consider the capabilities of the processor he is sending the work to. This isn't really something a programmer should have to do as it puts an extra burden on them and that they probably have no experience doing it in the first place.
It requires that one guy who is quite experienced with multithreaded programming write a scheduler that dispatches tasks programmatically as the game runs. It does not require each individual coder hand schedule every task to a specific SPU. It also requires programmers be capable of working within the limitations of the SPU, which isn't really all that hard once you get used to it.

The only thinking is "can this run on the SPU, or must it go on the PPU?". The answer to that question is almost always painfully obvious.

You have to do the same thing for general purpose CPUs.

As far as the SPUs not being featureful, it is true that they are rather simple. That said, for most tasks that make sense to put on the SPU, branch prediction is completely unneeded. I think they could have used a little bit more per-core memory, but access to main memory is possible and using a decent algorithm you can easily keep the things supplied with data.

I'm sure at this point there are decent libraries for handling all this anyway, although that probably wasn't the case in 2006. (hence reports of people allocating one core for sound, two for physics, and so on rather than dynamically dispatching to whichever was available when a task needed to run)

true, it's just that the number of people who are really all that experienced in this area isn't a large number. And most of the ones that are have expertise in symmetrical multicore systems.

Also, when you have the vast majority of game devs used to doing things a certain way, relearning it is a challenge. I think the 360 has a good architecture in this respect, as it is quite similar to a PC in that regard. Devs that are used to Sony are by and large experienced on the Emotion Engine...and the Cell is a different animal altogether. If I had to guess on the next playstation, my guess is it will certainly keep the SPEs, but it will probably have more than 1 general purpose CPU, too.

here's what's going on with Uncharted 2's load times and their plans to help 1st and 3rd party developers on the PS3:

Pretty cool stuff. Thanks for the info Joe!

How much programming experience do you have?


Degree in Computer Science from the University of Pittsburgh. I know how hard it is to schedule threads, its one of the reasons by the time I was ready to graduate I had no interest in programming anymore. But considering these guys are making 2-3 times what I'm making I think we can expect them to figure it out, even if Sony was an ******* for building such a non-standard machine.

And another thing, who cares if Naughty Dog is using redundant data on the disc to improve load times? Blu-ray is a unique advantage the PS3 has, they absolutely should take advantage of it in any way they can to improve their titles.

This theory makes no sense to me. Is the lion share of load time come from the machine searching then decoding the info on the disc, not moving the laser to it?

The further the laser has to move (seek), the longer it takes for the laser to move to retrieve the data. By placing multiple copies of data on the disc, it reduces the amount of time wasted by the laser moving around (the laser just moves to the closest copy of the data). The practical upshot of this is that the laser can spend more time reading data off the disc and spend less time traveling around being unable to do so.

This is a legit request, I play all my games on pc without the disc, esp gow and cod4. Esp if you play certain game all the time on ps3 for ex KILL ZONE 2, COD 4, 4 hours a day that definitely save ur drive...

^^^ I agree the PC version is superior, but you may not have noticed that the X360 requires that the game disc be inside of the machine even though the game is on the hard drive. This makes it IMHO a near pointless improvement to have it on the PS3. If they had the PC option available, that'd be fantastic.

Full game install option would be cool in my book

^^^ I agree the PC version is superior, but you may not have noticed that the X360 requires that the game disc be inside of the machine even though the game is on the hard drive. This makes it IMHO a near pointless improvement to have it on the PS3. If they had the PC option available, that'd be fantastic.

I feel like we're running in circles now. Again the purpose is not so you don't have to switch out game discs. The purpose would be to reduce stress on the disc drive and reduce the internal temperature of the system.

Even if it's not a widespread issue BD drive lasers failing is not an uncommon issue with the PS3. It's not a cheap fix either. I'd much rather have this precaution then no option at all.

I also don't care what anyone says about the heat coming off a disc drive being negligible. I can say for certain that my 360 is running noticeably cooler since I started installing games to the HDD.

It's not circles, it is simply different reasons people want for a feature. Each person might be in their own circle if you will.

I've said for a long time - even before the 360 had the install option, that if the disc is required to be in the drive it is not a terribly important feature. I only want it for the ability to not have to switch discs when I switch games, that's it. I'm not paranoid about system failures like some are for other machines (not saying you), so it isn't a reason for me to want installs for those concerns.

Other people have other opinions though, which is fine too.

It's not circles, it is simply different reasons people want for a feature. Each person might be in their own circle if you will.

I've said for a long time - even before the 360 had the install option, that if the disc is required to be in the drive it is not a terribly important feature. I only want it for the ability to not have to switch discs when I switch games, that's it. I'm not paranoid about system failures like some are for other machines (not saying you), so it isn't a reason for me to want installs for those concerns.

Other people have other opinions though, which is fine too.

Right but the point isn't that it's "Good for everyone". The point is the option is there, for very specific reasons, for everyone. It's an option, that's all. There's no reason for anyone to oppose an option that they're not going to be forced to use. And there's no point in saying "Well I don't want it unless it has this completely unrelated feature that was never part of the conversation to begin with so who cares?"

I see, so YOU get to decide what is part of the discussion? The OP made a point in his post, and I disagreed with him in my post. You disagree with me in your post. Welcome to the internetz.

If you notice, my last response (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17090673#post17090673) that you first commented on was to another poster who says he also likes a full install option without changing discs... I simply pointed out that what he and I want is not what the OP is asking for.

I see, so YOU get to decide what is part of the discussion? The OP made a point in his post, and I disagreed with him in my post. You disagree with me in your post. Welcome to the internetz.

If you notice, my last response (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17090673#post17090673) that you first commented on was to another poster who says he also likes a full install option without changing discs... I simply pointed out that what he and I want is not what the OP is asking for.

Wow dude I meant no hostility. Calm down. Terribly sorry I didn't reread the entire thread before responding to your one post. My point was not having to swap discs wasn't part of the request or one of the reasons for it and there's no harm in having options. Chill the **** out before assuming someone's just trying to be a pompous ass.