Interesting read.


Oblivion Developer: Blu-Ray is SlowerRelated:
Posted by Michael Cardiff

The latest shot in the HD-DVD / Blu-Ray battle has been fired, this time coming from Oblivion developer Bethesda Software. According to the developers of the game, the Blu-Ray drive data rates are slower than those on, for instance, the Xbox-360’s DVD drive. Says Todd Howard at Bethesda:

“Drive speed matters more to me [than capacity], and Blu-ray is slower.”


What does this mean? Well, in general, longer load times and more cacheing to the harddrive. In fact, in order to get Oblivion to load on the PS3 as fast as it does on the Xbox-360, Bethesda duplicated key data from the game, storing it on multiple places in the disc to lower access times. There’s no word on how much of the code was duplicated, but it still seems to go against Sony’s message that developers need 50GB of storage space. It sounds like, if the drive were faster, the HD-DVD standard of ~30GB / disc could be adequate.

http://www.playfeed.com/index.php/playfeed/article/oblivion-developer-blu-ray-is-slower-01201337/

Well they can say what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that on average the transfer rate are basically the same. Which is impressive for BD in that the PS3 has a 2x BD drive and the 360 has a 12x DVD drive. Hence the reason the PS3 is so quiet.

Apparently Bethesda hasn't gotten the memo that all PS3s have hard drives. Duplicate data on the disc, what crock of crap coding.

Yea, it's been known for quite some time that the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is a bit slower than a DVD drive. This is why you can install some games to the Hard Drive to improve loading times. Pushing data to the end if the disc it pretty pointless since it defeats the whole purpose of using Blu-Ray...Why don't they just use a DVD?

Apparently Bethesda hasn't gotten the memo that all PS3s have hard drives. Duplicate data on the disc, what crock of crap coding.

Crap coding? Bethesda is a very good developer, one of the best in the industry. With your logic, every developer is an idiot for not allowing the player to backup the whole game to reduce load times.

Without speaking about the issue at hand (2x BD versus 12x DVD), developers are relying too heavily on disk streaming as it is. Anyone who has driven a car in Saints Row on the 360 can see that the developers did not leave themselves enough of a buffer zone to deal with minor drops in the DVD drives streaming abilities.

Remember that Oblivion is a PC and Xbox360 game port to PS3. With that in mind you would think these dudes would know to port it in between with HDD and Disk drive cache. I hate how much the 360 disk drive is used since the HDD is not standard on 360. We all know that a devices with moving parts is more likely to break down eventually. I have oblivion on PC and it uses about 2+ gigs and i dont see why they can just cache all the loading points of the game to the HDD and it would not take nearly as much space as in the PC which installs the whole game.

Game load times are always going to be there on consoles. Saying the 360's load time is better is akin to saying my Saturn SW2 is faster than my sisters Chevy Cavalier. Sure it is, but it sure ain't my C4 Vette. If people really cared that much about load and access times, they wouldn't play consoles or anything disc based. They do, which means it doesn't matter.

Crap coding? Bethesda is a very good developer, one of the best in the industry. With your logic, every developer is an idiot for not allowing the player to backup the whole game to reduce load times.
Saying they have to duplicate data on different spots of the blu-ray disc when the entire PC install can fit on the PS3 hard drive, yeah that is crap coding.

I thought Oblivian on the PC was pretty good.

Blahh blahhh. Bethesda blows.

I got elder scrolls for the original xbox, all it did was lock up.

I didnt learn the first time, so i got oblivion for the 360, all it did was lock up.

Im not falling for this crap a third time.

Oblivion uses the 360's HDD to cache data. It probably does on the PS3 as well, to the same extent.

Are people saying that Oblivion should install to the PS3 HDD?

That would be setting a very bad precedence, IMO. To me, being able to use a work around rather than simply dumping the game to the PS3 HDD is an example of rather quality coding as opposed to "crap".

The comments by the developer indicate he is not really familiar with the differences between DVD and BluRay drives (or more likely the reporter who wrote the article doesn't understand the issue.)

DVD is CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) - which means the read speed varies. For example a 12x DVD reads at 66Mbps on the inside track, and 132Mbps on the outside ring.

BluRay is CLV (Constant Linear Velocity) - so its a constant 72Mbps.

So sure, if Oblivion loaded data along the outside tracks of the DVD for the Xbox, they could get faster data transfers. But the comment about duplicating data to different locations on the Bluray disc makes little sense, unless Oblivion was talking about seek speeds, rather than data transfer speeds.

Its pretty amazing how every person in this thread knows more about disk technology, hell HDD technology too.. than the actual developer from Bethesda knows.

You guys really should spend less time typing and put all this brain power together to create your own game on BR and show those retarded guys at Bethesda how to make a real videogame!

Or atleast be kind enough to send a group email to Bethesda and let them know they are doing things the wrong way! Im sure they would just love to hear your amazing insight.

well to be fair, look at bethsoft's previous games...doesn't take a genius to figure out that their progamming needs a bit of work.

Or atleast be kind enough to send a group email to Bethesda and let them know they are doing things the wrong way! Im sure they would just love to hear your amazing insight.
Or we could just forward them Factor 5's phone number. They haven't complained with loading huge environments for Lair.

Sounds to me like Bethesda just wants to do a quick port instead of programming around each systems strengths and weaknesses. No other game company has said that they had to duplicate data to decrease load times. If that data is so important, cache it off to the hard drive. That's what it is there for and every PS3 has one.

The real head scratcher is how this pertains to the HD-DVD/Bluray battle since HD-DVD isn't used for gaming at all.

The comments by the developer indicate he is not really familiar with the differences between DVD and BluRay drives (or more likely the reporter who wrote the article doesn't understand the issue.)

DVD is CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) - which means the read speed varies. For example a 12x DVD reads at 66Mbps on the inside track, and 132Mbps on the outside ring.

BluRay is CLV (Constant Linear Velocity) - so its a constant 72Mbps.

So sure, if Oblivion loaded data along the outside tracks of the DVD for the Xbox, they could get faster data transfers. But the comment about duplicating data to different locations on the Bluray disc makes little sense, unless Oblivion was talking about seek speeds, rather than data transfer speeds.
not only that, but also when you have much bigger BD discs, you can leave data uncompressed or you can use compression formats that are faster to uncompress, hence making data load faster.

People might not understand that uncompressing data being loaded slows down system to 1-2MBs when using fast uncompressor, let alone something having strong compression. Thats why resistance loads quite fast compared to PC shooters that now take ages to uncompress and load their levels, and thats straight from the hard drive too.

Its pretty amazing how every person in this thread knows more about disk technology, hell HDD technology too.. than the actual developer from Bethesda knows.

You guys really should spend less time typing and put all this brain power together to create your own game on BR and show those retarded guys at Bethesda how to make a real videogame!

Or atleast be kind enough to send a group email to Bethesda and let them know they are doing things the wrong way! Im sure they would just love to hear your amazing insight.

Daekwan - 1
Reactionary fans - 0

Can anyone actually read? There is no news here at all. The dvd drive on the 360 is different than the bluray on the PS3. So what? The developer claims that they can compensate for it. How is this evidence either that the PS3 is bad or that Bethseda are bad developers? Too many people here who either mindlessly attack or defend the PS3.

Can we all try to be objective?

Saying they have to duplicate data on different spots of the blu-ray disc when the entire PC install can fit on the PS3 hard drive, yeah that is crap coding.

I thought Oblivian on the PC was pretty good.
not really, question is how much of data is compressed on the hard drive... if it is a lot, then PS3 (and 360) versions can load faster than PC versions.

So many PC games are compressed these days, it takes 20-30 seconds to load levels. Heck, BF2 takes 2-3 minutes on my pretty fast PC to load multiplayer map. All of it because maps are heavily compressed.

If you can put the same data on BD drive uncompressed, or using faster decompressor, then it will be a lot faster to load, of course.

not really, question is how much of data is compressed on the hard drive... if it is a lot, then PS3 (and 360) versions can load faster than PC versions.

So many PC games are compressed these days, it takes 20-30 seconds to load levels. Heck, BF2 takes 2-3 minutes on my pretty fast PC to load multiplayer map. All of it because maps are heavily compressed.

If you can put the same data on BD drive uncompressed, or using faster decompressor, then it will be a lot faster to load, of course.
imagine though 12X blu ray drive along with PS3 HDD upgradeablility that would be the best of both worlds...... :D

Can anyone actually read? There is no news here at all. The dvd drive on the 360 is different than the bluray on the PS3. So what? The developer claims that they can compensate for it. How is this evidence either that the PS3 is bad or that Bethseda are bad developers? Too many people here who either mindlessly attack or defend the PS3.

Can we all try to be objective?
Agreed. This whole thread is ridiculous. Bethesda saw longer load times and figured out a way to speed it up.
Whoopeeeee.

Agreed. This whole thread is ridiculous. Bethesda saw longer load times and figured out a way to speed it up.
Whoopeeeee.
can you still imagine though.....wow

can you still imagine though.....wow
Whenever a new system comes out there is always a learning curve when making the software.

BR slower than a standard dvd? Welcome to............Ah, forget it.

imagine though 12X blu ray drive along with PS3 HDD upgradeablility that would be the best of both worlds...... :D

12X for bluray is the theoretical maximum, at least with the CLV approach. There are rumors of 4x and 8x drives on the horizon though.

12X for bluray is the theoretical maximum, at least with the CLV approach. There are rumors of 4x and 8x drives on the horizon though.

Can the blu-ray drive in PS3 be replaced?

12X for bluray is the theoretical maximum, at least with the CLV approach. There are rumors of 4x and 8x drives on the horizon though.
But will that matter for the PS3? There are currently at least a million ps3s with 2x drives and developers have to design their games around that fact. They can't change the drive spec and shaft all those ps3 owners.

Originally Posted by Daekwan
Its pretty amazing how every person in this thread knows more about disk technology, hell HDD technology too.. than the actual developer from Bethesda knows.

You guys really should spend less time typing and put all this brain power together to create your own game on BR and show those retarded guys at Bethesda how to make a real videogame!

Or atleast be kind enough to send a group email to Bethesda and let them know they are doing things the wrong way! Im sure they would just love to hear your amazing insight.
Well Bethesda seems to have a different opinion on the BD drive than many other developers out their. If this article is nonsence then there is nothing wrong with calling them out. I couldn't find the complete interview, maybe they were taken out of context.

Well Bethesda seems to have a different opinion on the BD drive than many other developers out their. If this article is nonsence then there is nothing wrong with calling them out. I couldn't find the complete interview, maybe they were taken out of context.


Bethesda has a game that streams data often and happens to have worked with the game on DVD and on BR. I'd say they are certainly in a position to say which is faster. Can you link any quotes from a developer who has their game running on both claiming DVD is slower?

Frank, do you have a link to the original interview?

The interview appears to be in a print magazine (Good lord they still make those!)

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/01/ps3_oblivion_seeing_double_to.php

I am pretty surprised they are not just using the HDD. My sons PC version loads very quickly and I do not think its using more than 10G for the game with all his addons that the PS3 version will not have. (User made stuff). We load 4+ G for games that would normally not need a HDD load so what would 5-10G be for this title? Only a few 20G owners might complain.

Bethesda has a game that streams data often and happens to have worked with the game on DVD and on BR. I'd say they are certainly in a position to say which is faster. Can you link any quotes from a developer who has their game running on both claiming DVD is slower?

I don't think anyone is arguing that DVD is slower than BR. I think the disagreement is over how significant a problem the speed differential is. No other developers have complained about the speed of BR being a deterrent to game development so this interview just seems a bit odd.

The reason for my quick "what ever" comment is that I thought this 2xBD vs. 12xDVD contraversey was in the past. There were endless blogs on the subject months ago, and I thought that most agreed that in the end they were on average about the same. Below is an example, is what the blogger says correct or not????

A 12x CAV drive like the one in the 360 will be 12x speed for around 15% of the outer disc, that figure is peak performance. The closer to the inner ring it gets the slower accesses get (5x speed on the inner ring) - probable average: around 8x speed. Another interesting thing seems to escape everyone is that the 12x DVD drive in the 360 only reads dual layer discs at a maximum of 8x speed. As it was in single layer, the 8x speed is peak performance. The 2x speed BD drive performs quite well in this case: a BD25 on PS3 fares better than a DVD9 on the 360. The great majority of 360 games are and will be pressed on DVD9s. Another interesting point with existing CLV BD drives is that they do not have the dual layer penalization with DVD dics. If a BD drive is rated to read DVDs at 8x, it will read dual layer DVDs at 8x as well. This is why Sony is comfortable with its choice and knows it will hold its own against MS's choice in the DVD format.

ON EDIT: I am most curious to know if the following is indeed true???
Another interesting thing seems to escape everyone is that the 12x DVD drive in the 360 only reads dual layer discs at a maximum of 8x speed.
I would think most 360 games will be on dual layer disks?

Also, people dont realize that 2x BD = 72Mbs.

Also, people dont realize that 2x BD = 72Mbs.

BD 2X = 72 Megabits per second or around 9 Megabytes a second.
DVD 8X = 85 Megabits per second or around 11 Megabytes a second.
DVD 12X = 128 Megabits per second or around 16 Megabytes a second.

Speeds are rounded.

Since there is an initial latency, loading small bits of data should be the same on both consoles. However, when streaming large content off the disk, DVD does pull ahead.

BD 2X = 72 Megabits per second or around 9 Megabytes a second.
DVD 8X = 85 Megabits per second or around 11 Megabytes a second.
DVD 12X = 128 Megabits per second or around 16 Megabytes a second.

Speeds are rounded.

Since there is an initial latency, loading small bits of data should be the same on both consoles. However, when streaming large content off the disk, DVD does pull ahead.

Is it true that 360 reads dual layer discs at only 8x and not 12x?

Is it true that 360 reads dual layer discs at only 8x and not 12x?
And if it is true, can anyone confirm that 2xBD is a constant 72mb/s, while 8xDVD is 85mb/s only at the outer ring of the disk?????

And if it is true, can anyone confirm that 2xBD is a constant 72mb/s, while 8xDVD is 85mb/s only at the outer ring of the disk?????
well, DVD read speed is definetly dependant on where the data on the disc is stored.
However, I am not aware of any independent tests when it comes to BD drives.

Anyone with BD drive can probably send us some results? Anyone here with one?

I don't think anyone is arguing that DVD is slower than BR. I think the disagreement is over how significant a problem the speed differential is. No other developers have complained about the speed of BR being a deterrent to game development so this interview just seems a bit odd.

AFIK this is the first time a developer with a game that heavily streams has worked on both. It would seem this is the only game that it would effect.

AFIK this is the first time a developer with a game that heavily streams has worked on both. It would seem this is the only game that it would effect.
still doesnt make them smart though... Why not uncompress the data? It is hard to know what the problem was from one sentence in some mag.

According to some people here, Oblivion was already slow on 360 as well...

Is it true that 360 reads dual layer discs at only 8x and not 12x?

Yes, it is. 8x is what you would get on the outermost ring for a DL drive. I think it drops to 5x on the innermost ring.

games that are SL (oblivion) should read faster than a game on a BD. 360 games on DVD9 most likely read slower than a game on BD.

still doesnt make them smart though... Why not uncompress the data? It is hard to know what the problem was from one sentence in some mag.

According to some people here, Oblivion was already slow on 360 as well...


No smart? Odds are they are a lot heck smarter than any of us when it come to game programming. They saw a problem and fixed it by moving the data to the side of the disks. Exactly what is wrong with this?

Uncompressing the data would just make things worse since a lot more data will need to be read. They are trying to speed up the time it takes to load things, not slow it down. Sure, it would push some data to the end of the disk but the vast majority would be slowed down.

No smart? Odds are they are a lot heck smarter than any of us when it come to game programming. They saw a problem and fixed it by moving the data to the side of the disks. Exactly what is wrong with this?

Uncompressing the data would just make things worse since a lot more data will need to be read. They are trying to speed up the time it takes to load things, not slow it down. Sure, it would push some data to the end of the disk but the vast majority would be slowed down.
no, uncompression slows down read speed by 3x-5x, depending on compression used. It is a LOT faster to load uncompressed data, then to load and then uncompress data. You always have to uncompress data at one point. I know a bit about that since thats what I do for living (software compression) :-).

there is nothing wrong by speeding it up, I just think we dont know enough about it from 1 sentence in some magazine...

no, uncompression slows down read speed by 3x-5x, depending on compression used. It is a LOT faster to load uncompressed data, then to load and then uncompress data. You always have to uncompress data at one point. I know a bit about that since thats what I do for living (software compression) :-).

there is nothing wrong by speeding it up, I just think we dont know enough about it from 1 sentence in some magazine...

Games that stream content from the disk don't use a lot of compression on the content. It is not very CPU intensive to decompress those types of files. The SPEs should actually be pretty useful at this since they shine while doing repetitive functions.

But like you said, there is still a lot we don't know so it is difficult to properly comment. Just my two cents on the situation.

Games that stream content from the disk don't use a lot of compression on the content. It is not very CPU intensive to decompress those types of files. The SPEs should actually be pretty useful at this since they shine while doing repetitive functions.

But like you said, there is still a lot we don't know so it is difficult to properly comment. Just my two cents on the situation.
of course they do - otherwise game wouldnt fit on DVD! Even very fast but very weak compression engine will slow down your system to some 3-4 MBs when reading from DVD drive.

I know Kojima said that BD makes it easier for them because they dont have to spend time on compression, unlike for PS2, where they spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to compress stuff better so it fits on dvd.

There is no real time streaming of course, you always have to stop down and "load" next set of data, because there is no way to do it real time.

http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/reviews/52857.shtml
There's no sense in splitting hairs -- the performance on the Xbox 360 version is in serious need of a tune-up. The experience isn't uniformly bad, but frame rate problems pop up frequently enough that you'll wish Bethesda had taken more time to smooth out the kinks. We tried everything we could to improve the game's performance: even playing at standard resolution (480i on a regular, non-HD TV) offered no benefit. Overall, the performance just doesn't match what you'd expect out of a $400 console and a $60 game. It's unfortunate, but not ruinous.

Besides the erratic frame rates, you'll frequently clash with incessant loading times. Open a door (and there are a lot of doors in Oblivion) and you'll be greeted by a five- to fifteen-second delay. The loading screens aren't bad on their own, but they add up over the course of the game, becoming a little more irritating each time. In the wilderness, the loading scenes don't interrupt the gameplay, only producing a slight hitch or a stutter. But if your horse is galloping across the countryside at full speed, the loading is quite noticeable -- there's a split-second pause every few seconds as the game chokes on data streaming from the DVD. It's tolerable, but it's a shame.

The article goes on to say that its a great game, as everybody knows since the games has been out for awhile, but it will be interesting to see how the PS3 version turns out from a BD vs DVD perspective.

http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/reviews/52857.shtml

The article goes on to say that its a great game, as everybody knows since the games has been out for awhile, but it will be interesting to see how the PS3 version turns out from a BD vs DVD perspective.
most definetly, it will be VERY interesting.

thanks for that insightful article!

If Blu-ray is fast enough to stream 1080p movies, I don't see how it could be too slow for games.

In any case, if the price of speed is the incredible amount of noise the 360 produces, I would rather stick with a slower drive.

no, uncompression slows down read speed by 3x-5x, depending on compression used. It is a LOT faster to load uncompressed data, then to load and then uncompress data. You always have to uncompress data at one point. I know a bit about that since thats what I do for living (software compression) :-).

there is nothing wrong by speeding it up, I just think we dont know enough about it from 1 sentence in some magazine...

I don't know this area so can you explain this a bit more. What I'm not getting is how data comes off a disc slower or faster whether it is compressed or not. Meaning, information being read is information being read, the nature of compressed information is that it will need to be decompressed and that will hit other resources but assuming those resources are not a limiting factor (or say unlimited for the sake of example and limit it solely to the optical drive), how is it that compressed data is read and transfered from a disc more slowly?

Basically - data is data to the optical drive, why would compression data slow it down the transfer at the drive level since it is not involved in decompression (leaving all other resources out and assuming unlimited for them). To my mind, uncompressed data is a often significantly larger total amount of data to come off the drive so I can't reconcile how a significantly smaller amount of compressed is slower except at the CPU or decompression level but not the optical drive.

It seems illogical so there must be something I'm not understanding.

I don't know this area so can you explain this a bit more. What I'm not getting is how data comes off a disc slower or faster whether it is compressed or not. Meaning, information being read is information being read, the nature of compressed information is that it will need to be decompressed and that will hit other resources but assuming those resources are not a limiting factor (or say unlimited for the sake of example and limit it solely to the optical drive), how is it that compressed data is read and transfered from a disc more slowly?

Basically - data is data to the optical drive, why would compression data slow it down the transfer at the drive level since it is not involved in decompression (leaving all other resources out and assuming unlimited for them). To my mind, uncompressed data is a often significantly larger total amount of data to come off the drive so I can't reconcile how a significantly smaller amount of compressed is slower except at the CPU or decompression level but not the optical drive.

It seems illogical so there must be something I'm not understanding.
it wouldnt, but to use data, it needs to be uncompressed. So if you have compressed data, you are doing double work - you are copying it to the memory and hard drive, and then you are uncompressing it so you can use it. You are doing this at real time (copy to memory, extract, copy to memory, extract, ect), so end effect is at getting usable data of the drive ends up being significantly slower.

With 50 GB drives, you might be able to not use compression at all, to speed up loading of the levels, or at least, faster engine that compresses less but is much faster to uncompress. Compression is so significant and important, that if you have big RPG games in HD resolutions, there is simply no way to NOT use the compression so I suspect that even with 50 GB of space, some things will still have to be compressed.

Every compression uses "significant" amount of resources. Copying data is the fastest possible thing you can do on any computer. Working with that data is what slows things down.

it wouldnt, but to use data, it needs to be uncompressed. So if you have compressed data, you are doing double work - you are copying it to the memory and hard drive, and then you are uncompressing it so you can use it. You are doing this at real time (copy to memory, extract, copy to memory, extract, ect), so end effect is at getting usable data of the drive ends up being significantly slower.

With 50 GB drives, you might be able to not use compression at all, to speed up loading of the levels, or at least, faster engine that compresses less but is much faster to uncompress. Compression is so significant and important, that if you have big RPG games in HD resolutions, there is simply no way to NOT use the compression so I suspect that even with 50 GB of space, some things will still have to be compressed.

Every compression uses "significant" amount of resources. Copying data is the fastest possible thing you can do on any computer. Working with that data is what slows things down.

Got it. So it's the whole process and "time to usable data" not so much the optical drive or media itself. It would be interesting to know more about the impass that bathesda is running into and working around by duplicating data. The issue they are running into seems like it might be their particular methodology and balance they like to strike between compression and streaming - or even memory use.

Well I can say I am definitely not surprised...it's kinda too bad that the PS3 is forcing blu-ray on everyone.

Well I can say I am definitely not surprised...it's kinda too bad that the PS3 is forcing blu-ray on everyone.
I wouldn't have gotten it without it.

Alot more people would have gotten it without the forced addition of Bluray and its added costs.

I think until the storage limit of dvd is truly a hurdle for current gaming.. Sony will continue to be examined on their decision to use Bluray..

Alot more people would have gotten it without the forced addition of Bluray and its added costs.

I think until the storage limit of dvd is truly a hurdle for current gaming.. Sony will continue to be examined on their decision to use Bluray..

The Blu-Ray drive currently adds approximately $100 to production costs. The question is whether the extra $100 is worth it. For some people, including myself, it is.

Yeah Sony forced me to buy a PS3:rolleyes:

Got it. So it's the whole process and "time to usable data" not so much the optical drive or media itself. It would be interesting to know more about the impass that bathesda is running into and working around by duplicating data. The issue they are running into seems like it might be their particular methodology and balance they like to strike between compression and streaming - or even memory use.
i would think that a lot of it has to do with not having time to redesign how their engine works, as they are probably time and resource limited on what they are doing.

But in general, yes, being able to store uncompressed data is an huge plus of 50 GB drives.
Someone that optimizes game for PS3, will be able to use that effectivly.

If you read reviews of Oblivion for 360, they already had quite severe problems on 360 because they basically ported an PC game.

I thought it was easy to port a PC game to the 360? Yet Oblivion runs better on a PC.

I thought it was easy to port a PC game to the 360? Yet Oblivion runs better on a PC.

Not really when it first came out, though. It barely ran better on the PC at lower resolutions on a high end machine. On the average gaming PC though, the 360 version was comparable. The only real difference was the much faster load times on the PC version.

I thought it was easy to port a PC game to the 360? Yet Oblivion runs better on a PC.

It runs much better on PC than the 360 version, looks nicer as well. I don't expect the PS3 version to look as good as the PC version either but unless they do a lazy port and dumb it down to the LCD it should be improved.