http://www.bizarrecreations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=14802&p=


You won't see different times of day per city because this involves recreating all the textures again (one for day and one for night). Whilst this wasn't a problem for our dev team, it was a problem fitting all this data onto a single DVD. So we've worked around the problem by providing different lighting models per city. For example, Macau is always in the daytime, but if you play it during a storm everything looks darker and more foreboding. If you play during a blizzard then things are slightly tinged blue and everything seems more frozen. Of course, playing this track in sunshine will make everything appear bright and yellowy.

What is this supposed to prove? That Blu-Ray is needed? The game is crippled so they had to find an alternative. Doesn't sound any different then what I hear from all developers on every console.

Yep, its a shame :(

Actully this shows that extra capacity is nothing but a crutch for crappy programmers. They couldn't do it one way so they did it differently and based on the vids released the game doesn't suffer.

I definitely think the limits of DVD will be pushed this generation, but no time soon. Weighing the pro's versus the cons of mandating HD disc storage in every console.. I still have to support MS decision to go with the cheaper more established format. In 3-4 years when that limit has been completely pushed, HD disc storage is cheaper and more readily available.. then I have no problem supporting its mandated use in every console.

The time-of-day lighting in PGR4 may suffer from the limit of the DVD.. but on the grand scheme of things.. how small is time-of-day lighting, considering the 100's of the other titles (both current and future) that seem to fit and play perfectly well on the 360's DVD storage system.

Looking at the competition, the addition of HD storage has not proven itself worth the cost, the loss in market share, the contant delays in hardware and software.. and most importantly the suffering gaming library woes.. all of which the PS3 has experienced.

Until the PS3 can use its extra disc storage capabilities to prove beyond a doubt.. and technically show its superiority in game play, game length and game graphics over whats available on the 360, I'll continue to believe that Bluray or any HD disc storage isnt absolute necessary this generation of console gaming.

As of right now Bluray and HD disc still only serves one real purpose in my eyes.. and thats HD movie playback.

"So we've worked around the problem..."

So... what's the issue again?

I think there's an unintended benefit to having games that run off of a DVD. Limiting what space there is forces developers to be much more careful about their product and, at the same time, economize the data they put on the disk. When you are forced with a certain limitation, more aggressive techniques are needed. Better image compression, more elegant and novel AI, cleaner programming lead to concrete innovation. Of course, you definetly want there to be enough space for the engine and the gameplay logic behind it. But beyond that, developers should be forced to really evaluate the necessity of each component and be mindful of each decision they make when designing a game, right from the textures to the AI logic. This process brings about innovations that can later be leveraged universally across other games and technologies.

This can be taken either way. Only one of the ways smells like cancer. This will spread through the PS3 forums very quickly.

Ah yes, I remember the HUGE uproar when FFVII was on multiple discs.

Oh wait, there was no uproar.

"So we've worked around the problem..."

So... what's the issue again?

They've worked around the problem by not addressing it and changing their design. They still don't have day and night tracks because of the size limitation in their own words. They just vary it for weather to give you variation.

Ah yes, I remember the HUGE uproar when FFVII was on multiple discs.

Oh wait, there was no uproar.


I remember because everyone talked about how huge the game was because it was on multiple disc. But I don't know what the grown up fanboys were saying at the time. As a kid we just couldn't wait to play a game. Not complain about some unknown format needs to be available to fit.

They've worked around the problem by not addressing it and changing their design. They still don't have day and night tracks because of the size limitation in their own words. They just vary it for weather to give you variation.


So what is your thought on this? You think the final product is going to suffer because of this?

Not sure swapping discs online would be highly desirable for gamers. IMO, it makes more sense to go with with less content and keeping it on 1 disc (like Dead or Alive 4). Most likely they'll charge you for extra content down the road anyways and maybe even offer teh night maps.

I remember because everyone talked about how huge the game was because it was on multiple disc. But I don't know what the grown up fanboys were saying at the time. As a kid we just couldn't wait to play a game. Not complain about some unknown format needs to be available to fit.That's not really a valid comparison. They're not putting PGR4 on multiple discs, they're leaving features out (however trivial they may be) to keep in on a single disc. No doubt other games in the future will have to make this choice.

So what is your thought on this? You think the final product is going to suffer because of this?

I think in some ways the game design has changed over time that takes a step back rather than in advancing. MSR had real-time time of day with day, dusk, night and I believe dawn and dynamic weather. PGR moved to just night and day settings in the track but no weather. Now there's weather again, but now we've lost night and day on tracks. So it is a step back in a way. Suffer? Depends on how you view on suffering. If what I said above is somehow a positive thing then I guess there's no suffering involved. The real killer will be if they charge you for download content to add on that type of content.

I remember because everyone talked about how huge the game was because it was on multiple disc. But I don't know what the grown up fanboys were saying at the time. As a kid we just couldn't wait to play a game. Not complain about some unknown format needs to be available to fit.

Exactly!

The whole thing is moot because HD-DVD and Blu-Ray weren't available when the 360 launched. HD-DVD and Blu Ray didn't launch until 6 months after the 360 launch.

That's not really a valid comparison. They're not putting PGR4 on multiple discs, they're leaving features out (however trivial they may be) to keep in on a single disc. No doubt other games in the future will have to make this choice.


I was only talking about during that period not "is PGR4 going on multiple disc" Please read what I was responding about.

In my opinion staying with DVD would have been no problems if they had included the HDD as standard for all SKU's. (perhaps 20gig for the core and 120 for the premium -right from day 1)

When push comes to shove, they could then have released the games on 2 or more DVD's, and included a Game disk and an Install disk, so disk swapping was limited to the setup process only.

In fact, the lack of a HDD as standard kit is a much more serious shortcoming of the 360 than the decision to stay with DVD.

I was only talking about during that period not "is PGR4 going on multiple disc" Please read what I was responding about.You're right. I should've directed that at mproper.

have to admit i am a bit disappointed. Not that I was planning on purchasing PGR4, but just the fact that there are so many sacrifices being made in general just to get games to run... just adds to my dissatisfaction with what everyone totes as "next-gen". Then again, NEXT is a relative term.

heh... you can get a raise, and be pushed into the next tax bracket.. which could lower your income.

I wonder 15-20 years from now what the excuses will be. Oh well. I'll just stick to GAMEPLAY as the major factor in judging and buying games.

get a raise, and be pushed into the next tax bracket.. which could lower your income.


That's an old wives tale. You can't lower your income by moving into a higher taxrate, because only the portion of money you earn in the next tax bracket is taxed at the new, higher rate.

I thought with HDR you used real time lighting?

Wouldnt it just be a matter of turning the sun off and the moon on? I know nothing in life is that simple, but why 2 sets of textures? I remember perfect dark for N64 doing that kind of stuff to fake real time lighting...but 360?

I thought with HDR you used real time lighting?

Wouldnt it just be a matter of turning the sun off and the moon on? I know nothing in life is that simple, but why 2 sets of textures? I remember perfect dark for N64 doing that kind of stuff to fake real time lighting...but 360?

One word: Neon.

Well in order to have only one set of textures, they would have to have dynamic lights inside the buildings so that when it begcame dark the windows would light up. It's easier to just do night textures where the windows appear to be lit from the inside. Also with racing games a lot of the shadows are prebaked. The street lights would cast different shadows than the Sun would, etc.

OK, one thing that bothers me....We are not in the "next gen" right now. We are in the "current Gen" All the new platforms are here so the real "Next Gen" is PS4, Xbox 720, etc.....

I wonder if GT5 is going to have variable weather.

How come huge games like Oblivion and Mass Effect have no problem with DVD-9 but a racing game dev says DVD-9 is to small and they have to cut back on, of all things, weather??

How come huge games like Oblivion and Mass Effect have no problem with DVD-9 but a racing game dev says DVD-9 is to small and they have to cut back on, of all things, weather??

THat is an excellent question. Either way, you have to take the comment seriously because PGR is published by MS. Its not like they are trying to bash MS with this comment.

How come huge games like Oblivion and Mass Effect have no problem with DVD-9 but a racing game dev says DVD-9 is to small and they have to cut back on, of all things, weather??

It's not even weather, it's time of day. The difference to my understanding is that PGR4 is trying to accurately depict real locations which means they have a lot of unique textures being used in order to represent that area. Now think of applying that once for day, and once for night. Then apply that to all the tracks that they have. That's a lot of unique textures where as games like Oblivion and Mass Effect can utilize a lot more of repeating textures. Disc capacity will certainly benefit or hinder texture variation.

Damn, their PR is working great! Saying that DVD size is a limitation!

Give me a f'n break.

Disc capacity will certainly benefit or hinder texture variation.

BINGO! Disc capacity does not necessarilly hinder good graphics or game size, its all about variation in textures.

Either way, there is no reason to get all up in arms. THe 360 is doing fine w/ DVD so far and it will continue to make great games. No system is perfect.

Damn, their PR is working great! Saying that DVD size is a limitation!

Give me a f'n break.

Its called being transparent and communicating w/ your gamers, which MS actually has a pretty good track record with. I'm not sure why MS fanboys feel the need to go ape **** everytime someone mentions that sticking w/ DVD this gen will ultimately lead to some compromises. Great games can be made on DVD (or DVDs if need be) and MS doesnt appear to be sensitive about their choice of the use of DVD, I'm not sure why us gamers should be.

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, there will NOT be multiple times of day (ie. day and night) for any single track, due to DVD size limits, but they're still fitting winter racing into the game? Yeah, priorities are all straight on that.

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, there will NOT be multiple times of day (ie. day and night) for any single track, due to DVD size limits, but they're still fitting winter racing into the game? Yeah, priorities are all straight on that.

I'm not sure about the winter thing, but I would much rather have additional tracks rather than less tracks w/ both night and day.

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, there will NOT be multiple times of day (ie. day and night) for any single track, due to DVD size limits, but they're still fitting winter racing into the game? Yeah, priorities are all straight on that.


your wrong, There's still night and day it's just achieved differently and with less "realistic" results.

Either way, there is no reason to get all up in arms. THe 360 is doing fine w/ DVD so far and it will continue to make great games. No system is perfect.


Exactly. One could just as easily say "PS3 hindered by crappy online support" for most of it's games. There are trade offs with each console.

No I think he got it right. A given track will have a set time of day but the weather will vary. For instance, probably only see a night version of Las Vegas with no rain, light rain, fog, heavy rain, etc.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/809/809066p1.html

The linked article basically reports on an announcement from Rockstar that the PS3 is the chosen platform for a new franchise they're developing. The decision is said to come from the idea that they want to "make a game that you can truly only do on PS3, harnessing the power of CELL and Blu-ray disc." Now this of course is the bit put in by Sony marketing, but I don't understand people who refuse to admit that Blu-Ray is superior and bests DVD9. Just because the 360 chose DVD, doesn't mean that it can't be bested by an obviously superior format. Sure it forces "innovation", but innovation can only push the limits of DVD9 so far; ultimately it at some point will hinder developers and force them to make compromises and ultimately cut content or features. That's just the way it is.

If you have a 360 that doesn't mean you're going to be playing ****** games, I have one and know I won't be. But I'm not ignorant, I know that in the future the PS3 will probably have an edge over the 360 in terms of truly groundbreaking games, and if that's the case...I'll simply buy one, it will probably be cheaper by then.

I am not angry about MS's choice of DVD for the 360.

But, I am angry with their choice to limit game design instead of just putting the game on multiple disks. DVD does not have to limit 360 games unless they choose to limit themselves to one disk.

Is it really that expensive to give us multiple disks? Changing disks may be a pain but I can't imagine anyone would choose limiting game design over changing disks once or twice.

I am not angry about MS's choice of DVD for the 360.

But, I am angry with their choice to limit game design instead of just putting the game on multiple disks. DVD does not have to limit 360 games unless they choose to limit themselves to one disk.

Is it really that expensive to give us multiple disks? Changing disks may be a pain but I can't imagine anyone would choose limiting game design over changing disks once or twice.

Good point.

But, I am angry with their choice to limit game design instead of just putting the game on multiple disks. DVD does not have to limit 360 games unless they choose to limit themselves to one disk.

Is it really that expensive to give us multiple disks? Changing disks may be a pain but I can't imagine anyone would choose limiting game design over changing disks once or twice.

Maybe not that expensive, but in this case those textures would not fill an entire other DVD9, they would have to put all the game code one both discs and then have one be day tracks and one be night tracks. It probably just doesn't work from a logistics standpoint.

I know they could put both textures for half the tracks on one, then the other half on another, but, it probably better for the overall design to take the alternate route. And therefore, you have to be angry at the choice of DVD9, if it was a better format, it wouldn't be an issue of one disc of less of a game or two discs of the more complete version.

I know they could put both textures for half the tracks on one, then the other half on another

Exactly, this would work.

Exactly, this would work.

But they won't, and they can't keep doing that every time they run into a design issue. They will make their compromises and keep it to one disc.

How fast would Sony capitalize on the marketing opportunity Microsoft would be handing over if suddenly every truly innovative and expansive game was forced onto two discs because of the ambition behind its design. A great game on one disc is the only way Microsoft can stand by their choice, supported with the evidence of their library. Blue Dragon being the exception.

I know a few of you say you woudn't mind two discs, but I have a feeling in a mass market, if the majority of games came to that conclusion they would be none to thrilled and it would only accentuate the fact that the PS3 has a superior solution to handling "next-gen" games. (I know we're in the generation now, but the point is, only now as the current consoles mature are we beginning to see titles that truly put the hardware to the test and move away from last-gen's offerings).

I am not angry about MS's choice of DVD for the 360.

But, I am angry with their choice to limit game design instead of just putting the game on multiple disks. DVD does not have to limit 360 games unless they choose to limit themselves to one disk.

Is it really that expensive to give us multiple disks? Changing disks may be a pain but I can't imagine anyone would choose limiting game design over changing disks once or twice.

Multiple discs work great for linear offline games. Now with PGR4, you could in theory structure the game so that you only play the first half of the tracks and then move on to the second half of the tracks. That would somewhat limit variation for the first half of the game and then limit variation for the second half of the game. Either that or swap constantly depending on which track you are playing but that could be annoying. So would changing the game flow to match the content of the discs.

Plus there is the whole online aspect. How do you get people to swap discs when playing online? That could be a mess in itself. The nature of the game won't having you swapping just once or twice but quite often and that just wouldn't work. Not to mention that putting it on multiple discs does not net you double the space as you have to put shared assets and content on both discs so you would only be splitting up track assets.

I don't even want to get into the nightmare that it puts on the dev team trying to support multiple discs and how hard and complicated it can be tracking down bugs across two discs. No developer wants to make a multi-disc game unless they absolutely have to. They will cut corners and content if needed before they go multiple discs.

Multiple discs sound like a nice simple solution, but it rarely turns out to be the case and comes with a lot of baggage as outlined above. Why would you limit game design instead of going to multiple discs? Beside the fact that you are limiting game design in another way, the above speaks clearly of why.

Multiple discs work great for linear offline games. Now with PGR4, you could in theory structure the game so that you only play the first half of the tracks and then move on to the second half of the tracks. That would somewhat limit variation for the first half of the game and then limit variation for the second half of the game. Either that or swap constantly depending on which track you are playing but that could be annoying. So would changing the game flow to match the content of the discs.

Plus there is the whole online aspect. How do you get people to swap discs when playing online? That could be a mess in itself. The nature of the game won't having you swapping just once or twice but quite often and that just wouldn't work. Not to mention that putting it on multiple discs does not net you double the space as you have to put shared assets and content on both discs so you would only be splitting up track assets.

I don't even want to get into the nightmare that it puts on the dev team trying to support multiple discs and how hard and complicated it can be tracking down bugs across two discs. No developer wants to make a multi-disc game unless they absolutely have to. They will cut corners and content if needed before they go multiple discs.

Multiple discs sound like a nice simple solution, but it rarely turns out to be the case and comes with a lot of baggage as outlined above. Why would you limit game design instead of going to multiple discs? Beside the fact that you are limiting game design in another way, the above speaks clearly of why.

Hmm, well then I guess that just sucks. I hadn't thought about those issues. Maybe the 360 will truly be limited this gen.

Hopefully, compression techniques can keep up for awhile. I anticipate that the 360 won't last long anyway before the 720 comes around in a few years so maybe it can hold out with DVD until then.

Although this thread is little more than a thinly-veiled "nyahh nyahh" to Blu-Ray naysayers, I'm not surprised that a racing game would be among the first to succumb to the limits of DVD-9. No other type of game has you moving so quickly through environments that need to be varied and detailed. I wouldn't have the patience to do that kind of texture work, seriously.

I am not angry about MS's choice of DVD for the 360.

But, I am angry with their choice to limit game design instead of just putting the game on multiple disks. DVD does not have to limit 360 games unless they choose to limit themselves to one disk.

Is it really that expensive to give us multiple disks? Changing disks may be a pain but I can't imagine anyone would choose limiting game design over changing disks once or twice.

Changing discs in an online racer just wouldn't work.

I know that MS doesn't want to put games on HD-DVD, but allowing the second normal DVD disc of a game to run off of the HD-DVD drive would be pretty cool. ;)

I have a PS3 and a 360. Both of them have some comprimises. In my opinion, the 360 has less right now, and will probably have less (and better games) for the next few years. The PS3 will have a hit here or there, but it's overall game library won't be as good as the 360's library, imo.

Developers have X amount of dollars to make a game. However much that amount may be, the game will look better on the 360 than it will on the PS3 - due to the conventional hardware and superior tools of the 360.

BD disc have more room, and there may be a case here or there where more room could be used. But that problem is dwarfed by the number of issues that the PS3 has in online play.

I am not angry about MS's choice of DVD for the 360.

But, I am angry with their choice to limit game design instead of just putting the game on multiple disks. DVD does not have to limit 360 games unless they choose to limit themselves to one disk.

Is it really that expensive to give us multiple disks? Changing disks may be a pain but I can't imagine anyone would choose limiting game design over changing disks once or twice.

Bingo
good point, and if they would just use the HDD that is already in most systems a little better.....that would solve a lot to.

I have a PS3 and a 360. Both of them have some comprimises. In my opinion, the 360 has less right now, and will probably have less (and better games) for the next few years. The PS3 will have a hit here or there, but it's overall game library won't be as good as the 360's library, imo.

Developers have X amount of dollars to make a game. However much that amount may be, the game will look better on the 360 than it will on the PS3 - due to the conventional hardware and superior tools of the 360.

BD disc have more room, and there may be a case here or there where more room could be used. But that problem is dwarfed by the number of issues that the PS3 has in online play.

I think this time next year, Sony will be on the right road perhaps an even better road then the 360...assuming they don't go belly up before then of course. It is a nice piece of hardware, and we can crap on them all we want but it is Sony, they will turn it around.

I think this time next year, Sony will be on the right road perhaps an even better road then the 360...assuming they don't go belly up before then of course. It is a nice piece of hardware, and we can crap on them all we want but it is Sony, they will turn it around.

See, a fellow Xbox 360 owner who doesn't mind admitting that the other console does have a noticeable technological edge that has to somewhere down the road lead to a divide in the quality of games. Luckily there's such strong developmental support for the 360, that this doesn't mean its library will suffer, but it just might not be king of the castle all the way until the end of the generation.

Blu Ray loading times still suck.

Blu Ray loading times still suck.

DVD times were slow when it was first introduced until several generations in you could buy excellent players for 50 dollars. The original Xbox had several incarnations which included various DVD drives, Samsung I believe being among the fastest. No reason new generations of the PS3 won't include optimized and faster drives.

Blu Ray loading times still suck.

??? What are you talking about. The only game I've played w/ crappy loading times is Motorstorm, and thats just for the car selection screen. Not to mention the fact that if you include HD with every console, as Sony did, then developers can reduce loading times with the HD.

That's an old wives tale. You can't lower your income by moving into a higher taxrate, because only the portion of money you earn in the next tax bracket is taxed at the new, higher rate.

Yes, that was hyperbole. But if I were to go into detail and add other factors, you would understand what I am saying.. But thats another forum.

Gee I always tend to go OT. I apologize.

No I think he got it right. A given track will have a set time of day but the weather will vary. For instance, probably only see a night version of Las Vegas with no rain, light rain, fog, heavy rain, etc.

That's it exactly. Vegas will be night racing only. Bizarre confirmed this one in their blog post about the different locations in the game, though they didn't cite texture sizes as the reason (they stated that it was because Vegas is most impactful at night). Given the choice, I'd rather have nighttime Vegas than daytime, but really I'd rather have both.

For the night tracks like Vegas, I think it'll always be dark. But what they're saying is that the day races can be darkened a little based on the weather, which makes sense.

At this point, PGR is my favorite racer, so I'm not happy about the announcement. But the number of tracks is what's most important, and I'm glad they didn't go for all night races in every city like Need for Speed: Carbon.

That's not really a valid comparison. They're not putting PGR4 on multiple discs, they're leaving features out (however trivial they may be) to keep in on a single disc. No doubt other games in the future will have to make this choice.

But you're assuming that if they had the space the content would have been created and included on the disc.......this is the entire sum of the PS3/BD fanboys arguement: "We have 50gigs of space, our games are gonna totally own YOU!"

So PS3 folks are expecting to pay $60 bucks for 50 gigs of game content, when we have known for a decade now that games live and die by their development cycle, how much it costs to produce all that content....and only games that are mostly cutscenes (MGS4, FFXXIXIIXIXX and the like) will use up all that space.

I think we should focus on everything that BC will give us with PGR4 instead of focusing on its limitations.

And there is that thing called Downloadable Content...where a "Night Driving City Pack" will no doubt be released for a couple hundred MS points.

But you're assuming that if they had the space the content would have been created and included on the disc.......this is the entire sum of the PS3/BD fanboys arguement: "We have 50gigs of space, our games are gonna totally own YOU!"

So PS3 folks are expecting to pay $60 bucks for 50 gigs of game content, when we have known for a decade now that games live and die by their development cycle, how much it costs to produce all that content....and only games that are mostly cutscenes (MGS4, FFXXIXIIXIXX and the like) will use up all that space.

I think we should focus on everything that BC will give us with PGR4 instead of focusing on its limitations.

And there is that thing called Downloadable Content...where a "Night Driving City Pack" will no doubt be released for a couple hundred MS points.

I don't see any remark about 50gigs, merely that games are being stunted due to DVD's limitations. Really this isn't anything new, aside from it being made public on a MS first party game I guess. To me that is the shocking part, I wasn't shocked to here it from 3rd party developers like Starbreeze and Team Ninja.

So PS3 folks are expecting to pay $60 bucks for 50 gigs of game content, when we have known for a decade now that games live and die by their development cycle, how much it costs to produce all that content....and only games that are mostly cutscenes (MGS4, FFXXIXIIXIXX and the like) will use up all that space.

And there is that thing called Downloadable Content...where a "Night Driving City Pack" will no doubt be released for a couple hundred MS points.

Maybe fanboys get too enthusiastic, but it's nevertheless still an advantage over the DVD drive. They don't need to use all of the space on the disc, but even just having the space for 5 more gigs makes or breaks content and/or other features that otherwise have to be cut due to the limitations of DVD9.

As for downloadable content, that presumes an HDD which simply doesn't exist on all of the 360s that have shipped.

I don't know why I keep arguing the PS3, I don't even own one. Maybe I should. But either way I don't need to ignore its obvious advantages to justify playing 360s offerings. I just look forward to the future, I hope they make better games for it so it can justify its price tag a little better than it can with its current library.

Maybe fanboys get too enthusiastic, but it's nevertheless still an advantage over the DVD drive. They don't need to use all of the space on the disc, but even just having the space for 5 more gigs makes or breaks content and/or other features that otherwise have to be cut due to the limitations of DVD9.

As for downloadable content, that presumes an HDD which simply doesn't exist on all of the 360s that have shipped.

I don't know why I keep arguing the PS3, I don't even own one. Maybe I should. But either way I don't need to ignore its obvious advantages to justify playing 360s offerings. I just look forward to the future, I hope they make better games for it so it can justify its price tag a little better than it can with its current library.

Well said. Whoever said it earlier about both sides having advantages was dead on.

Well said. Whoever said it earlier about both sides having advantages was dead on.

And that's completely true, 360 kept rumble which I personally think should have never been taken out of the PS3 design as it has become an integral experience in gaming since it was introduced back in the Duel Shock, Rumble Pack days. And obviously Sony has yet to break LIVE's dominance in online gaming.

I guess I am too often defending the PS3 because I like the fact Sony was bold enough to give Microsoft the lead, in order to keep its technological edge. I just wonder if it will pay off in the end.

RE: Downloadable content req storage: That arguement applies for every game...if you d/l content you need something to be able to download to. Last time I checked only the arcade games had file size limits.

Hell, GRAW and GRAW2 both released add-on map packs that just re-lit certain maps....there is no reason that BC couldn't do the same thing with PGR3 maps. Re-Lit is the word.......and they'll appear, if they exist, as Downloadable Content.

As for BD, nobody here denies it has an advantage. It holds more....what gets tiresome is hearing fanboys proclaim this as the ps3 being truly "Next Generation" like its some kind of badge of honor. Its like "Wow...it holds more on disc...amazing!".

What I want to see is them doing something with it...show me something on the PS3 that I haven't yet seen on 360, show me the disc is being put to use. I haven't yet. Everything thats included on a BD can be downloaded to the HD on the 360 (cross-platform games like Oblivion and R6).

But I'm going off on a tangent here and I dont want to rob this thread of its original intent.....my opinion, if it dont fit on disc, it becomes a downloadable content add-on.
Which makes sense since thats where companies make the most scratch.....no replication fees, no middle-men, no retail chain.

The next generation machines will be, I think, entirely download based....no disc based medium at all.

What I want to see is them doing something with it...show me something on the PS3 that I haven't yet seen on 360, show me the disc is being put to use. I haven't yet. Everything thats included on a BD can be downloaded to the HD on the 360

Theres no downloadable content for better performance though. It's not always a content issue, developers also see advantages with BR in terms of streaming whatever content is on the disk. With BR there are more places to put certain content in a place that allows it to be read and rendered quicker, on DVD9 that becomes more of a design issue. That was something a Rockstar developer was talking about in regards to GTA4, that they were finding it difficult to get everything working as well as they would like given the limitations of DVD9.

Rockstar also just made an announcement that a new franchise will be released exclusively on the PS3 because of its technological advantages. So you say you have yet to see anything taking advantage of the PS3s superior hardware, that may be true, you haven't yet. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

The 360 has the same advantage PS2 had, an earlier release and therefore a more familiar platform for developers. That means that as developers understand the PS3 better they are going to start optimizing games to the point you will see games that couldn't be done, or at least not as well, on the 360.

I had always read that the superior speed of the DVD9 drive versus the slower speed of the 1st gen BD drive meant that streamin was more of an issue on the BD side of things, less so on the 360.

With Streaming being more of a problem on the PS3 side of things becuase there was less video ram avaialble to hold whatever plethora of textures a BD disc can hold, at any one time.....

But, there are always compromises. Again, M$ used the DVD medium because it was available and established, and high performance drives were available cheaply. HDDVD and BD were brand new, untried, untested, and expensive.

So far M$ hasn't shown any limitations in the games they can provide on DVD.....conversely, BD hasn't shown any advantage even with its added space. The loadtimes are the same or worse, the graphics are the same or worse...only Oblivion seems to have taken a step forward, but then they announced that the same step-forward was going to be offered on the 360 as a downloadable patch...so.....no real advantage? I guess it depends.

I for one would love to get additional content for games....but I dont really care if it comes on the BD disc or as a downloadble file. I think thats what microsoft intended....can't fit it on the disc? Sell it as an add-on in the Marketplace.

More cost to the consumer, sure....but there wont really be too many more R6 situations: Where people who bought the D/l content for Vegas suddenly felt hosed when the BD version came out, and the same day M$ made the download packs free. I mean, I got burned out of my 6 or 8 bucks. Vegas was now a $68 dollar game......

M$ can't keep that up if they expect anyone to grab D/L content in the short term...

Of course MS isn't going to show the limitations (might as well expect 1st party Sony to say the PS3 is a hard to develop for on a regular basis as well, lol), which is why I'm shocked this 1st party info was made public from BC. 3rd party though it has been shown a few times already (Team Ninja & Starbreeze for starters). Some PS3 games have taken advantage of the space added already and I have no doubts more will in the future as wel. Granted most multiplatform games probably will not take advantage.

Bizarre Creations isn't owned by MS. PGR4 isn't 1st party.

Bizarre Creations isn't owned by MS. PGR4 isn't 1st party.

Thanks for the correction. No longer am I shocked.

edit: Still though, I'm wondering why that title is included in the employee purchase program at Microsoft. Are you sure? They don't offer every title, no EA, no UBI.. Maybe it just published titles, I guess that makes sense as Gears is included.

I had always read that the superior speed of the DVD9 drive versus the slower speed of the 1st gen BD drive meant that streamin was more of an issue on the BD side of things, less so on the 360.
It's not the drive, it's space on the disc itself. Things cannot be physically written to the disc in a way that's advantageous when it comes time to be read and rendered, where as on a BR disc, you can have everything right next to each other so positioning of content is not an issue. Besides we all know Sony is not shipping each generation of the PS3 with the original drives, they become faster and cheaper as time goes on, same with DVDs.

So far M$ hasn't shown any limitations in the games they can provide on DVD

Yes Microsoft has, hence the starting of this thread. It has limited what one of their developers wanted to do, and they compromised their original vision of the game in order to satisfy the only medium they had to work with, DVD9. D/L content also means server space, bandwidth for access, cheaper than a second disc, still not as ideal as it all being on one in the first place. And then you are charged in most cases for that content, like in R6. But you're right, in the future it won't happen, not because the content will be free, it just won't make the cut.

Which games have taken advantage of it? I mean, maybe the games are out there and I just don't see them.

Lair might be one of them, but I already see in screenshots fromt he most recent build what look like low-rez textures on the dragons...which I found kinda odd. Like the dragon skin looked low-rez....maybe I'm just asking too much :D

PS: Team Ninja makes fighters 3rd person action games, don't they? Their issues are probably more like how to fill up a DVD with content, forget sprawling next-gen content. I take their criticisim with a grain of salt, considering the type of game they "make", as all of their games are movement-limited (their 3D fighters) or on rails (Ninja Gaiden games) with no exploratory abilities or freedom of movement.

It's not the drive, it's space on the disc itself. Things cannot be physically written to the disc in a way that's advantageous when it comes time to be read and rendered, where as on a BR disc, you can have everything right next to each other so positioning of content is not an issue. Besides we all know Sony is not shipping each generation of the PS3 with the original drives, they become faster and cheaper as time goes on, same with DVDs.


Actually, the quote that I have seen is that you actually HAVE to place the same data in multiple places on a BR disc in order to get adequate performance, whereas with DVD9 at 16x, there is no need to do this. It probably has to do with the slower seek time of BR combined with the slower data rate.

Besides, just because a disc is larger doesn't mean that you can have more things closer to one another. That doesn't even make sense, geometrically. The disc still only has 2 dimensions. If we were talking a leap to 3 dimensional storage, you would have a point.


Yes Microsoft has, hence the starting of this thread. It has limited what one of their developers wanted to do, and they compromised their original vision of the game in order to satisfy the only medium they had to work with, DVD9. D/L content also means server space, bandwidth for access, cheaper than a second disc, still not as ideal as it all being on one in the first place. And then you are charged in most cases for that content, like in R6. But you're right, in the future it won't happen, not because the content will be free, it just won't make the cut.

The only reason that the R6:V content was included on the PS3 version is because it was so damn late. If it came out at the same time as the 360 version, I'm sure that the map packs would have been for-pay DLC on the PS3, as well. The map packs simply weren't done when the game came out for the 360.

Which games have taken advantage of it? I mean, maybe the games are out there and I just don't see them.

Lair might be one of them, but I already see in screenshots fromt he most recent build what look like low-rez textures on the dragons...which I found kinda odd. Like the dragon skin looked low-rez....maybe I'm just asking too much :D


Even if you can fit 50GB on a disc, there is only so much you can fit in 256MB of video RAM.

Yes Microsoft has, hence the starting of this thread. It has limited what one of their developers wanted to do, and they compromised their original vision of the game in order to satisfy the only medium they had to work with, DVD9. D/L content also means server space, bandwidth for access, cheaper than a second disc, still not as ideal as it all being on one in the first place. And then you are charged in most cases for that content, like in R6. But you're right, in the future it won't happen, not because the content will be free, it just won't make the cut.
BEFORE the PS3 version of Rainbow Six Vegas shipped for $60 you could pick up Rainbow Six Vegas for 360 for $50 and then download all the additional content for free. That's not even counting the players who had been playing the game for 9 months.

Even if you can fit 50GB on a disc, there is only so much you can fit in 256MB of video RAM.

It's a good thing games like Resistance aren't using all of their textures on the screen at one time! ;) Oh wait, I can't think of any 3D disc based 360 or PS3 game that does. :o

It's a good thing games like Resistance aren't using all of their textures on the screen at one time! ;) Oh wait, I can't think of any 3D disc based 360 or PS3 game that does. :o

Yeah, it basically means that a larger disc size means that a game can be longer or more varied, but not necessarily better looking in any one spot. That is still limited by the available RAM and the GPU.

I'm not convinced that it will make that much of a difference in the long run. Publishers and management want programmers and artists to get games out the door on time. And they also want to make more money on DLC after the fact. Both of these things limit how big games will get.

I'm not a fan of enormous games. I don't have time to finish them. Hell, it took me months to finish Gears of War, and people call that one "short." Oblivion (how'd they fit all of that on a DVD?) is just out of the question. :)

BEFORE the PS3 version of Rainbow Six Vegas shipped for $60 you could pick up Rainbow Six Vegas for 360 for $50 and then download all the additional content for free. That's not even counting the players who had been playing the game for 9 months.

And you'll see the virtual flip side of that when Unreal Tournament 3 drops on the PS3 first, but I would be surprised if the Xbox 360 version will be any better for the extra development time like R6 was for the PS3.

Which games have taken advantage of it? I mean, maybe the games are out there and I just don't see them.


The most obvious way that BR disc has been utilized by PS3 games so far is in sound quality i.e. 7.1 lossless sound in Resistence. Besides that we can only guess. Several developers have stated that they are using the extra space for levels and textures, but you can take that w/ a grain of salt, as they are trying to sell their games. Either way, sound quality is a definite difference.

My own personal excitement about the increased disc space is sound quality, added content (like the movie in Stranglehold), and extra room for cinematic cutscenes (yes I enjoy these). I never particularly thought it would make that much of a difference for textures, which is why I am surprised by the PGR developers comment.

Bizarre Creations isn't owned by MS. PGR4 isn't 1st party.

Microsoft is the publisher, Bizarre Creations is the developer. So Bizarre Creations isn't MS, but this is MS's game.

And you'll see the virtual flip side of that when Unreal Tournament 3 drops on the PS3 first, but I would be surprised if the Xbox 360 version will be any better for the extra development time like R6 was for the PS3.


What flip side? The fact that Sony is allowing for consumer made maps and MS isn't? That has nothing to do with disc space. MS and Epic stated it is a security issue they have for Live and they are still working it. That is the only reason the 360 version is delayed.

Not sure why anyone is bringing up R6 about the added maps just because of space it is because of almost a year bringing it out on the PS3.

The same answer why they are offering Virtua Fighter 5 with online Co-op and additional features for the 360. Which has nothing to do with disc space. It is to help it sale more units for the wait.

I remember all the sh*t talk that went on with Devil May Cry when first shown "look at the capabilities of BR" or "only on Blu-Ray" were associated comments that were made way before we even had a clue it was coming to the 360.

The only compelling thing that I've seen a PS3 game do that a 360 game couldn't due to the size of the media is with Stranglehold, the PS3 version will include the HD version of the movie Hard Boiled right on the disk. That's something you couldn't do on the 360 version. Otherwise, there aren't THAT many games that can use up a full DVD, let alone need a full BD.

Money is to be made which is why it doesn't matter if there is limitation on the disc. If they release it as downloadable content regardless if it is 360 or PS3 (R-FOM, Motorstorm) come to mind that has downloadable content offered. Even if the 360 had BR or HD-DVD you will still have downloadable content to grab regardless if there was a limitation or not. As long as the game ships as a full version then I am happy. Just like I was happy when I bought my copy of Test Drive.

As long as the game ships as a full version then I am happy.

It's not going to ship as a full game. If they had more space it would ship as a full game. If they had a BD or HD-DVD to work with they would have been able to make a complete game they way they wanted it.

There are certain advantages to having a BD disc drive. Namely added storage.

There are also certain disadvantages. Namely it might be slightly slower, the disc is more expensive, the drive is more expensive, and it likely caused the PS3 to be delayed.

The advantages of the BD drive might be felt every 40 games or so (pure guess), and even then there are usually work arounds. The disadvantages of the BD drive will be felt every time.

Now, all that being said, it was obviously a smart move by Sony to include it in the PS3, for the Blu-ray adoption strategy.

It's not going to ship as a full game.

apparently we have different definitions of "full game." you make it sound like this is the first game to ever have compromises made to it. personally I could care less that it won't have perfectly accurate night textures in some tracks. I'm sure some people do, and that's fine. But to call the game incomplete because of this is just garbage in my opinion.

It's not going to ship as a full game. If they had more space it would ship as a full game. If they had a BD or HD-DVD to work with they would have been able to make a complete game they way they wanted it.

And more time, of course.

The game is a full game. I don't know of another arcade racer that is going to compare to PGR 4. Certainly not Riiiiiiidge Raaaaacer!

If Sony didn't have IP in BD, and wasn't trying to push for it's adoption, I doubt they would have included it on the PS3.

It's not going to ship as a full game. If they had more space it would ship as a full game. If they had a BD or HD-DVD to work with they would have been able to make a complete game they way they wanted it.


And it probably would have been delayed and so forth. They could have done the same thing with GRAW 1 and 2 and Halo 3 when download content comes to those games. Those would fall in the not complete category for some who like to say those things. If the developer never disclosed this information and later offered it as downloaded content, everyone that enjoys this game would be interested in the content vs really wondering why it wasn't there to begin with.

If this certain feature isn't available in the retail version somthing u want once again vote with your wallets.

What flip side? The fact that Sony is allowing for consumer made maps and MS isn't? That has nothing to do with disc space. MS and Epic stated it is a security issue they have for Live and they are still working it. That is the only reason the 360 version is delayed.

Not sure why anyone is bringing up R6 about the added maps just because of space it is because of almost a year bringing it out on the PS3.

The same answer why they are offering Virtua Fighter 5 with online Co-op and additional features for the 360. Which has nothing to do with disc space. It is to help it sale more units for the wait.

I remember all the sh*t talk that went on with Devil May Cry when first shown "look at the capabilities of BR" or "only on Blu-Ray" were associated comments that were made way before we even had a clue it was coming to the 360.

Agreed the DLC and the space requirements are two different things. DLC is going to happen (and is happening) on both platforms. It's a way to bring in extra cash, offer new maps, cars, etc. The inclusion of online, extra maps, etc to the platform receiving the game later isn't surprising.

The most obvious way that BR disc has been utilized by PS3 games so far is in sound quality i.e. 7.1 lossless sound in Resistence.
Nope, that has nothing to do with disk space. Unlike movies, games sountracks are generated in real time, so it doesn't take any more disk space for 7.1 than it does for basic stereo. Furthermore not having to compress surroundsound down to Dolby Digital for output over optical saves processing power which can then be invsted in generating more channels. The only reason the PS3 can have lossless 7.1 while the 360 doesn't is simply becuase the PS3 was designed to pass MPCM over HDMI while the 360 doesn't.

Nope, that has nothing to do with disk space. Unlike movies, games sountracks are generated in real time, so it doesn't take any more disk space for 7.1 than it does for basic stereo. Furthermore not having to compress surroundsound down to Dolby Digital for output over optical saves processing power which can then be invsted in generating more channels. The only reason the PS3 can have lossless 7.1 while the 360 doesn't is simply becuase the PS3 was designed to pass MPCM over HDMI while the 360 doesn't.

Really? For some reason I just assumed uncompressed lossless sound took up more space than compressed sound. OK, well this is just an advantage of the PS3 unrelated to bluray.

I guess I'd have to take away sound and say the advantages of more space are CG, extra content (like stranglehold), and now texture variation. Again, I never thought textures would be an issue, but its starting to look like they can be.

Besides we all know Sony is not shipping each generation of the PS3 with the original drives, they become faster and cheaper as time goes on, same with DVDs.


No, we dont know that sony is including faster drives...we know there may be revisions, but nobody said anyting about changing the specs.


D/L content also means server space, bandwidth for access, cheaper than a second disc, still not as ideal as it all being on one in the first place.


I think you've missed the point of a downloadable marketplace...developers aren't against this idea by a long shot, see Valve's HL2 distribution, and then all the games that have since become available on the STEAM platform.


But you're right, in the future it won't happen, not because the content will be free, it just won't make the cut.

Perhaps......anyhow, since PGR4 won't make it to the PS3 regardless, we'll take what we can get.

Really? For some reason I just assumed uncompressed lossless sound took up more space than compressed sound. OK, well this is just an advantage of the PS3 unrelated to bluray.
The generated sountrack is output losslessly, but the sound samples on the disk used to generate that soundtrack are compressed in Resistance just as they are any other game. Regardless of how much space you have on the disk, processing full quality samples into a soundtrack takes more processesing power than can reasonably be devoted to sound in a game.


I guess I'd have to take away sound and say the advantages of more space are CG, extra content (like stranglehold), and now texture variation. Again, I never thought textures would be an issue, but its starting to look like they can be.
Texture varitety takes disk space just like anything else, and anything that takes disk space can become an issue whenever you are working with any fixed amount.

The generated sountrack is output losslessly, but the sound samples on the disk used to generate that soundtrack are compressed in Resistance just as they are any other game. Regardless of how much space you have on the disk, processing full quality samples into a soundtrack takes more processesing power than can reasonably be devoted to sound in a game.
.

That makes sense. I actually remember hearing something about how sound took up less than a gig in resistance, and the other 15 or so gigs were graphics and code, so that would be consistent with what you are saying.

No, we dont know that sony is including faster drives...we know there may be revisions, but nobody said anyting about changing the specs.

Microsoft never announced its drive changes for the original Xbox either, but that didn't mean there wasn't a distinct difference between the speeds of the original Thompson drives versus the superior Samsungs, as well as an expanded capability in terms of which media could be read.

I think you've missed the point of a downloadable marketplace...developers aren't against this idea by a long shot, see Valve's HL2 distribution, and then all the games that have since become available on the STEAM platform.

I wasn't suggesting they were against it, I was suggesting in might be more ideal to not have to develop it as downloadable content and instead just include it in the original game. The only advantage to downloadable content is if it is paid for or if it includes some form of advertising to subsidize the cost. There is always a cost to develop and distribute, downloadable or not.

Perhaps......anyhow, since PGR4 won't make it to the PS3 regardless, we'll take what we can get.

Hey I'm looking forward to it too, I'm just curious about GTHD which is going to be compared to PGR4 a lot.

It will probably be compared to GT5 Prologue which is supposed to be a free download this fall.

After seeing the trailers for Prologue there is hardly a comparison. I am not a sim racing fan, but I will probably download it just for the eye candy.

I definitely think the limits of DVD will be pushed this generation, but no time soon. Weighing the pro's versus the cons of mandating HD disc storage in every console.. I still have to support MS decision to go with the cheaper more established format. In 3-4 years when that limit has been completely pushed, HD disc storage is cheaper and more readily available.. then I have no problem supporting its mandated use in every console.

The time-of-day lighting in PGR4 may suffer from the limit of the DVD.. but on the grand scheme of things.. how small is time-of-day lighting, considering the 100's of the other titles (both current and future) that seem to fit and play perfectly well on the 360's DVD storage system.

Looking at the competition, the addition of HD storage has not proven itself worth the cost, the loss in market share, the contant delays in hardware and software.. and most importantly the suffering gaming library woes.. all of which the PS3 has experienced.

Until the PS3 can use its extra disc storage capabilities to prove beyond a doubt.. and technically show its superiority in game play, game length and game graphics over whats available on the 360, I'll continue to believe that Bluray or any HD disc storage isnt absolute necessary this generation of console gaming.

As of right now Bluray and HD disc still only serves one real purpose in my eyes.. and thats HD movie playback.



That post was...a....de....light!


My view exactly. :D :D :D

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=884062

If these screen shots
http://www.bizarrecreations.com/images/news_content/01-08-07/cropsheet.jpg

are what happens when a game is limited by a DVD, then I hope all the games are limited because those weather and time of day shots look excellent.

The entire thing was found to be bogus.

The entire thing was found to be bogus.

So they will have different times of day per city then? If so, it seems odd the a Bizarre staff member would lie about it. Do you have a link?

So they will have different times of day per city then?No. It'll have something even better and more expansive than night and day. Much as you may want it to be, this isn't the event the heralds the necessity of BD.

so what's the story? Does the game have day/night transition during a race, along with random weather changes? That is a lot of variation! If they do this, I am in.

In my opinion staying with DVD would have been no problems if they had included the HDD as standard for all SKU's. (perhaps 20gig for the core and 120 for the premium -right from day 1)

When push comes to shove, they could then have released the games on 2 or more DVD's, and included a Game disk and an Install disk, so disk swapping was limited to the setup process only.

In fact, the lack of a HDD as standard kit is a much more serious shortcoming of the 360 than the decision to stay with DVD.

Agreed. In fact, it's long been my position that programmers for the 360 should program under the assumption that a hard drive is in use, simply omitting effects/elements of AI/etc that the drive would facilitate. This way, nothing major would be affected, but the absence of these effects would spur more drive sales.

No. It'll have something even better and more expansive than night and day. Much as you may want it to be, this isn't the event the heralds the necessity of BD.

So the comments about night and day aren't bogus then. Thanks. FYI, There are examples from before PGR4 for games being content reduced for DVD and games there are games that do take advantage of blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Wesley Hester
The entire thing was found to be bogus.

There are examples from before PGR4 for games being content reduced for DVD and games there are games that do take advantage of blu-ray.There aren't enough examples of either to justify a next-gen optical drive in any system. Even with lil' ol' DVD-9, PGR4 will deliver a deep and satisfying experience, despite the efforts of PS3/BD enthusiasts to make a mountain out of minutia.

The day will come when next-gen optical will become a necessity, but it's not this generation.

There aren't enough examples of either to justify a next-gen optical drive in any system. Even with lil' ol' DVD-9, PGR4 will deliver a deep and satisfying experience, despite the efforts of PS3/BD enthusiasts to make a mountain out of minutia.

Its awesome looking... its just not exactly what it would have been, if space wasnt a limitation.

There aren't enough examples of either to justify a next-gen optical drive in any system. Even with lil' ol' DVD-9, PGR4 will deliver a deep and satisfying experience, despite the efforts of PS3/BD enthusiasts to make a mountain out of minutia.

The day will come when next-gen optical will become a necessity, but it's not this generation.

I don't think anybody in this thread said PGR4 will not deliver a deep and satisfying experience, I certainly didn't.

Right now, no there aren't a lot of examples but there are some games this generation that it has proven to be a benefit as well as some games on the other end of the stick. Long term it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Back in the day some Dreamcast/PS2 (I had both) hating fans argued against the PS2 using DVD as well, history repeats. PS2 games were mostly CD in the beginning but over time they were mostly DVD.

I don't think anybody in this thread said PGR4 will not deliver a deep and satisfying experience, I certainly didn't.True, you haven't, but the thread title states explicitly PGR4 would be "limited" and the net effect has been Sony fanbois (and even Sony itself) wringing its hands with glee.

Back in the day some Dreamcast/PS2 (I had both) hating fans argued against the PS2 using DVD as well, history repeats.(I still have both!) But there are some variations in history this time around. DVD was a fairly well established media format upon the PS2's release. BD is still in its infancy and is counting on the PS3 to drive it.

True, you haven't, but the thread title states explicitly PGR4 would be "limited" and the net effect has been Sony fanbois (and even Sony itself) wringing its hands with glee.

(I still have both!) But there are some variations in history this time around. DVD was a fairly well established media format upon the PS2's release. BD is still in its infancy and is counting on the PS3 to drive it.

What do you expect, it came straight from a member of Bizarre (I have no doubt MS and Bizarre wish that comment was never made public). MS has attacked Sony for including a Blu-ray drive in the past so of course Sony is going to react. I bet Sony has made comments before about MS in regards to DVD's. It goes both ways it always has and most likely always will between the two company's in the console industry. Doesn't change the fact that developers (Team Ninja and Starbreeze for example, happen to be dev's that have reduced content on games) have stated they wished MS went with a next gen drive.

I agree, Sony is definitely counting on the PS3 to drive blu-ray sales. It certainly is working (maybe not as much as they wanted but it is having quite an effect) based upon what the latest Neilsan numbers show.

Doesn't change the fact that developers (Team Ninja and Starbreeze for example, happen to be dev's that have reduced content on games) have stated they wished MS went with a next gen drive.Sure, developers would love for all the consoles to have Deep Thought CPUs driven by matter/antimatter reactors and warp drive. They're not the ones paying to manufacture the hardware! Development costs for both hardware and software have gone through the roof; the industry doesn't need more bloat -- it needs to get leaner and more accessible. (Hence, I think, the reason the Wii is moving a great number of units while PS3 sales are floating around the potty.)

As for the developers' statements, a little context is in order. Team Ninja's Itagaki stated pretty clearly that DVD-9 would limit high-def cutscenes in his games, which some folks might be willing to shell out an extra $100 for, but I'm guessing more people would prefer bigger oomph in the real-time environment. Starbreeze, meanwhile, not only managed to fit The Darkness on a single 360 DVD and make it as visually appealing as its PS3 counterpart, but also to include the full movie "To Kill A Mockingbird" among its TV programming in-game.

So really the situation, as it stands, just doesn't scream out for the extra hardware bloat. I'm fully prepared that things will change a few years down the road, but the reports of the death of DVD-9 have been greatly exaggerated.

Who reported the Death of a DVD-9? Are you just trying to be extreme again, lol no need to answer. :)


edit: Hey the Wii looks cool and is fun for some game, but it comes behind the 360/PS3 in terms of what I look for in gaming by quite a bit. No doubt the Wii is doing better though.

Sure, developers would love for all the consoles to have Deep Thought CPUs driven by matter/antimatter reactors and warp drive. They're not the ones paying to manufacture the hardware! Development costs for both hardware and software have gone through the roof; the industry doesn't need more bloat -- it needs to get leaner and more accessible. (Hence, I think, the reason the Wii is moving a great number of units while PS3 sales are floating around the potty.)


agreed. I think a lot of people miss the bigger picture. Any gamer would want the biggest, best game possible..but with costs the way they are..there's literally a handful of developers that have the resources to make a game that would truly take advantage of bd. Sure, any of them can bloat the game with uncompressed textures to make it utilize more of the disc..but this isn't necessary. When dvd games like oblivion or mass effect take years to make...how long do you think it would take to make an equivalent bd-50 game, one that truly needs all of that space? What studios could afford to take the financial gamble?

I wonder what percentage of PC games will be made on BD over the next 3 years.

It will probably be compared to GT5 Prologue which is supposed to be a free download this fall.

After seeing the trailers for Prologue there is hardly a comparison. I am not a sim racing fan, but I will probably download it just for the eye candy.

Its an apples to oranges comparison....IMHO the replays in GT5 look pretty snazzy, but its not exactly anything we haven't seen before..the replays for all the GT games have looked pretty. Its when you stop and look at textures and car models. I predict PGR4 will have the superior textures, and GT5 will have lesser quality track graphics but ultra-high quality car models. Me, I prefer the tracks..since you can't drive the 3rd person mode in any GT game to begin with, what do I care what the cars look like...all I ever see are two transparent gauges :D

Anyhow when the two come out...Someone will like the car models and lighting on the GT game better and claim its superior. (And the replays showing the way the cars move and are lit DO make it look like broadcast TV).

Someone else will notice the environments look much better on the PGR game and claim its superior (the first rolling demos from PGR3, 2 years ago, looked like cgi cars superimposed over photorealistic cities....only it was all in game and for the large part the game retained that look).

Someone else will say the car handling in PGR4 is a joke, and claim GT is superior.

Another person will claim that all you do is race against mindless bumpercars in GT5, and claim PGR superior.

And on and on it goes....

And I also find it funny when Team Ninja comments on not having enough space, when they generally make games that could almost be fit on CARTRIDGES. DoA # whatever, Ninja Gaiden? Real space-crushers there....

"High Definition cut scenes"...thats what I'm paying $600 for a BD drive for?

so what's the story? Does the game have day/night transition during a race, along with random weather changes? That is a lot of variation! If they do this, I am in.

Anyone else see the very natural progression from day to night and then back in Dead Rising? It totally adds to the realism in a subtle way.

I wonder what percentage of PC games will be made on BD over the next 3 years.

I'd wager 0. They don't really have a reason since they aren't trying to push a format.

I wonder what percentage of PC games will be made on BD over the next 3 years.


Did you see how long it took them to go from CD to DVD? That was just one medium because the drives were coming standard on every computer made. That isn't the case for HD-DVD or BR. I see it taking longer then 3 no matter which format wins to have games coming on them.

Anyone else see the very natural progression from day to night and then back in Dead Rising? It totally adds to the realism in a subtle way.


Not really it added different tatics vs eye candy

So the comments about night and day aren't bogus then. Thanks. FYI, There are examples from before PGR4 for games being content reduced for DVD and games there are games that do take advantage of blu-ray.


The comments about features being "cut" are bogus.

http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?article_id=5257

"We've never had to cut content to fit on the disc, and we probably never will. "

The comments about features being "cut" are bogus.

http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?article_id=5257

"We've never had to cut content to fit on the disc, and we probably never will. "

Damage control.

agreed. I think a lot of people miss the bigger picture. Any gamer would want the biggest, best game possible..but with costs the way they are..there's literally a handful of developers that have the resources to make a game that would truly take advantage of bd. Sure, any of them can bloat the game with uncompressed textures to make it utilize more of the disc..but this isn't necessary. When dvd games like oblivion or mass effect take years to make...how long do you think it would take to make an equivalent bd-50 game, one that truly needs all of that space? What studios could afford to take the financial gamble?


Umm Killzone 2 comes to mind as that possible game to be great with what is hoped to be expected from BD-50 and all that space and the power of the PS3 to work with.

Umm Killzone 2 comes to mind as that possible game to be great with what is hoped to be expected from BD-50 and all that space and the power of the PS3 to work with.I'm sure it will be stunning and be a showcase for the PS3's capabilities, but it goes back to the issue of bloat: so far the game's budget is rumored to be above $40 million USD, making it the most expensive media project in the Netherlands (Guerrilla's home nation). Devs like EA and Activision might be able to foot the bill, but the games industry as a whole really isn't in a position to throw this kind of money at its projects on a consistent basis. This whole "bigger budgets" mentality hasn't been very healthy for Hollywood, and it isn't healthy for the games industry either.

Crysis on DVD!! Even this game doesn't need HD-DVD or BR

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2007/07/crysis-box-art.jpg

How do you know that Crysis isn't on 2 DVDs in that box?

DVDs on the 360 are compressed (you can't really compress textures any more than they already are). But PC games can compress absolutely everything on the disc and then dump it all uncompressed on the hard drive.

Like I said, though, certain things aren't going to decompress at all on the hard drive, like audio or textures.

How do you know that Crysis isn't on 2 DVDs in that box?

DVDs on the 360 are compressed (you can't really compress textures any more than they already are). But PC games can compress absolutely everything on the disc and then dump it all uncompressed on the hard drive.

Like I said, though, certain things aren't going to decompress at all on the hard drive, like audio or textures.

I'm not arguing your point, I'm just stating that even the newest "next gen" PC titles aren't going to be available in HD-DVD or BR, just the DVD media.

I'm sure it will be stunning and be a showcase for the PS3's capabilities, but it goes back to the issue of bloat: so far the game's budget is rumored to be above $40 million USD, making it the most expensive media project in the Netherlands (Guerrilla's home nation). Devs like EA and Activision might be able to foot the bill, but the games industry as a whole really isn't in a position to throw this kind of money at its projects on a consistent basis. This whole "bigger budgets" mentality hasn't been very healthy for Hollywood, and it isn't healthy for the games industry either.

I am not sure that big budgets ruin games.

The biggest budget that comes to mind this year would be Halo 3. They have a rumored minimum budget of $75 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It will spend more in just advertising than many games spend to begin with. Let the hype show begin. But, I don't think that spending all that money means that Halo 3 is going to suck.

I am not sure that big budgets ruin games.

The biggest budget that comes to mind this year would be Halo 3. They have a rumored minimum budget of $75 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It will spend more in just advertising than many games spend to begin with. Let the hype show begin. But, I don't think that spending all that money means that Halo 3 is going to suck.


We are talking about game development only. The advertising is obvious.

Considering Blue Dragon requires 3 DVDs, i'd say hd/blu ray media is needed. RAcing games can't have multiple disks like adventure games and is usually crippled. Forza 2 for example with limited tracks and simple car textures.

We are talking about game development only. The advertising is obvious.

In development costs only Halo 3 would still be the biggest budget game of this year. My point still stands. Halo 3 will not suck because of its enormous budget.

The biggest budget that comes to mind this year would be Halo 3. They have a rumored minimum budget of $75 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where are you getting this figure? I've heard that MS wanted a minimum $75 million budget for the Halo movie project (to be financed separately by Universal), but I haven't come across any rumored cost estimate for Halo 3. Link, please!

But, I don't think that spending all that money means that Halo 3 is going to suck. My point had nothing to do with the quality of any given big-budget title, but regarding the health of the games industry overall.

Considering Blue Dragon requires 3 DVDs, i'd say hd/blu ray media is needed. RAcing games can't have multiple disks like adventure games and is usually crippled. Forza 2 for example with limited tracks and simple car textures.

Cars have textures? News to me. If you are talking about how the race cars are decorated, the designs are anything but simple.

I've never once felt limited by Forza's track selection, and the detail in the tracks is absolutely astounding. There are buildings 1/4mi away from the actual track. There are helicopters, track maintenance vehicles, buildings, parking lots, fences, and tons of other things that don't affect game play at all other than the fact that they look cool. If they were truly limited by DVD9 on Forza 2, they would have limited the amount of objects that weren't near the track itself, and they obviously didn't do that.

Cars have textures? News to me. If you are talking about how the race cars are decorated, the designs are anything but simple.

I've never once felt limited by Forza's track selection, and the detail in the tracks is absolutely astounding. There are buildings 1/4mi away from the actual track. There are helicopters, track maintenance vehicles, buildings, parking lots, fences, and tons of other things that don't affect game play at all other than the fact that they look cool. If they were truly limited by DVD9 on Forza 2, they would have limited the amount of objects that weren't near the track itself, and they obviously didn't do that.


stop just stop with the fanboy bs.

thanks.

stop just stop with the fanboy bs.

thanks.

How was that BS at all? It is all true. Drive around in Forza 2 (if you actually own the game you criticized) and take a look at the detail that is off track.

Considering Blue Dragon requires 3 DVDs, i'd say hd/blu ray media is needed. RAcing games can't have multiple disks like adventure games and is usually crippled. Forza 2 for example with limited tracks and simple car textures.
Blue Dragon is a FMV filled RPG adventure, hardly comparable to a racing game.

Forza 2 crippled? 12 environments with multiple variations per environment is fairly par for a racing game. The car textures had nothing to do with disc space, but was limited in processing power because most of the power was being dedicated to the physics engine.

Wasn't one of the big complaints about Motorstorm the lack of tracks? Only 8? Hmm, with all the space on the BD50 disc as well.

Considering Blue Dragon requires 3 DVDs, i'd say hd/blu ray media is needed. RAcing games can't have multiple disks like adventure games and is usually crippled. Forza 2 for example with limited tracks and simple car textures.


Do you even own or had spent some time to play the game. You bring up Blue Dragon and I bring up Mass Effect that there is no need of concern :rolleyes:

Where are you getting this figure? I've heard that MS wanted a minimum $75 million budget for the Halo movie project (to be financed separately by Universal), but I haven't come across any rumored cost estimate for Halo 3. Link, please!

My point had nothing to do with the quality of any given big-budget title, but regarding the health of the games industry overall.

I heard it by word of mouth from a friend who is a hardcore Halo player. That is why I stated in my post that it was a rumor. He was probably mistaken and was thinking of the movie as well. Anyway, I think that everyone can figure out that Halo 3 has an enormous budget without any kind of confirmation.

stop just stop with the fanboy bs.

thanks.

implying that forza2 is limited or "crippled" is complete fanboy bs. but that's just my opinion. I assume you've put time into the game?

have to admit i am a bit disappointed. Not that I was planning on purchasing PGR4, but just the fact that there are so many sacrifices being made in general just to get games to run... just adds to my dissatisfaction with what everyone totes as "next-gen". Then again, NEXT is a relative term.

heh... you can get a raise, and be pushed into the next tax bracket.. which could lower your income.

I wonder 15-20 years from now what the excuses will be. Oh well. I'll just stick to GAMEPLAY as the major factor in judging and buying games.

i own both systems so i have no built in bias either way. when i compare the xbox360 to my newer ps3 the 360 is more like a xbox1.5. where as the ps3 to me seems a bit ahead of its time. some of the features are to me 2 years away from being totally utilized.

i own both systems so i have no built in bias either way. when i compare the xbox360 to my newer ps3 the 360 is more like a xbox1.5.

yeah right...

i own both systems so i have no built in bias either way. when i compare the xbox360 to my newer ps3 the 360 is more like a xbox1.5. where as the ps3 to me seems a bit ahead of its time. some of the features are to me 2 years away from being totally utilized.
This certainly wins fanboy statement of the day. Hmmm... the RSX in the PS3 is older tech than the Xenos in the 360. Some games run at a higher framerate on the 360. The 360 can scale games to any resolution. Many multiplatform games look better on the 360. So, does that make the PS3 PS2.4?

i own both systems so i have no built in bias either way. when i compare the xbox360 to my newer ps3 the 360 is more like a xbox1.5. where as the ps3 to me seems a bit ahead of its time. some of the features are to me 2 years away from being totally utilized.
Talk about a BS statement, jeez.

Sorry, but anyone that thinks BD50 is a must for games just proves to me that they know nothing about compression. The only reason some games on the PS3 need more space is because:

1) the dev isn't using as much compression as the could because they don't need too. Why bother when you have 50GB but, that doesn't mean it can't be compressed enough to fit onto a DVD.

2) The dev chose to use fully rendered HD video instead of using the in game engine to render the cut scenes. I will avoid games like Blue Dragon and MSG because I hate watching my game, I want to play it. I hated that every 10 minutes in MSG you had to watch a 10 minute cut scene (it got boring and I never finished the game).

You will never see a game anytime soon that will actually need 50GB of space fully compressed (the amount of money needed to make a game of that size would be astronomical). Anyone that believes Sony's propaganda about games need Blu-Ray need to do a little research and stop taking everything Sony says as fact. How many times does Sony have to lie to it fans before they stop blindly following them.

i own both systems so i have no built in bias either way. when i compare the xbox360 to my newer ps3 the 360 is more like a xbox1.5. where as the ps3 to me seems a bit ahead of its time. some of the features are to me 2 years away from being totally utilized.


I have both systems too. When I compare the 360 to the PS3, the notable difference is that the 360 has lots of great games to play, superior online support,and near universal use of microphones in online play.

The PS3 can play blu-ray movies.

Talk about a BS statement, jeez.

Sorry, but anyone that thinks BD50 is a must for games just proves to me that they know nothing about compression. The only reason some games on the PS3 need more space is because:

1) the dev isn't using as much compression as the could because they don't need too. Why bother when you have 50GB but, that doesn't mean it can't be compressed enough to fit onto a DVD.

2) The dev chose to use fully rendered HD video instead of using the in game engine to render the cut scenes. I will avoid games like Blue Dragon and MSG because I hate watching my game, I want to play it. I hated that every 10 minutes in MSG you had to watch a 10 minute cut scene (it got boring and I never finished the game).

You will never see a game anytime soon that will actually need 50GB of space fully compressed (the amount of money needed to make a game of that size would be astronomical). Anyone that believes Sony's propaganda about games need Blu-Ray need to do a little research and stop taking everything Sony says as fact. How many times does Sony have to lie to it fans before they stop blindly following them.

It's funny that you try to correct information with bad information.

1) It's not an issue of compression. There is going to be a level of compression because you want to keep your data loads as fast as reasonably possible. It's going to happen when you have a lot of textures in bigger games. Something like PGR4 where it's likely to be streaming a lot of unique textures constantly on the track. Nobody is talking about needing BD50 at full capacity. People are saying games are going to be bigger than 7 gigs because that's essentially how much space you have when working on a 360. If games even need 9 gigs on average, you're already going to need a bigger format. That doesn't mean developers won't design around the 7 gig limit to make it fit, but they are designing around it.

2) You do realize that MGS's content for cut scenes was real time not HD video right? They've always used real time cinematics.

Again, nobody is talking about needing 50 gigs of data in a game. We're just talking about needing 8 gigs. It's not propaganda at all and developers will tell you that. Heck developers are telling you that already. I'm a developer and I'm telling you that. Come on, it's simple logic. Let's lay it out a bit.

1) How big were games on the Xbox and PS2? Did some of those games fill the disc? Yes.
2) Are games filling the disc early on in the generation? Yes.
3) Does a high res texture take up more space than a low res texture? Yes.
4) Why is there more RAM in the system? Because there are higher quality data assets.
5) If there are higher quality data assets, isn't it safe to assume games are getting bigger? Yes.
6) If games last gen were already starting to fill the disc, isn't it reasonable to expect games with bigger data assets to take up more space and actually move past the 7 gig barrier on the 360? Yes.

Now does that mean you can't make games fit on a DVD? No. Does that mean you can't make great games on a DVD in HD? No. Stop trying to make this an extreme argument. What me, developers, and other people are stating is that if we're already feeling constrained now at the beginning of the console lifespan, it's going to be harder as gamers demand better graphics and visuals later on in the lifespan to still make it fit.

It's funny that you try to correct information with bad information.

1) It's not an issue of compression. There is going to be a level of compression because you want to keep your data loads as fast as reasonably possible. It's going to happen when you have a lot of textures in bigger games. Something like PGR4 where it's likely to be streaming a lot of unique textures constantly on the track. Nobody is talking about needing BD50 at full capacity. People are saying games are going to be bigger than 7 gigs because that's essentially how much space you have when working on a 360. If games even need 9 gigs on average, you're already going to need a bigger format. That doesn't mean developers won't design around the 7 gig limit to make it fit, but they are designing around it.

2) You do realize that MGS's content for cut scenes was real time not HD video right? They've always used real time cinematics.

Again, nobody is talking about needing 50 gigs of data in a game. We're just talking about needing 8 gigs. It's not propaganda at all and developers will tell you that. Heck developers are telling you that already. I'm a developer and I'm telling you that. Come on, it's simple logic. Let's lay it out a bit.

1) How big were games on the Xbox and PS2? Did some of those games fill the disc? Yes.
2) Are games filling the disc early on in the generation? Yes.
3) Does a high res texture take up more space than a low res texture? Yes.
4) Why is there more RAM in the system? Because there are higher quality data assets.
5) If there are higher quality data assets, isn't it safe to assume games are getting bigger? Yes.
6) If games last gen were already starting to fill the disc, isn't it reasonable to expect games with bigger data assets to take up more space and actually move past the 7 gig barrier on the 360? Yes.

Now does that mean you can't make games fit on a DVD? No. Does that mean you can't make great games on a DVD in HD? No. Stop trying to make this an extreme argument. What me, developers, and other people are stating is that if we're already feeling constrained now at the beginning of the console lifespan, it's going to be harder as gamers demand better graphics and visuals later on in the lifespan to still make it fit.

Well said.

This is the kind of thing that developers should think about, but normal owners, (like myself) are probably unqualified to talk about. It would be like discussing the proper technique to use in a gall bladder surgery, when you've never been to medical school.

As a consumer, I can only look at the games that are available and determine whether or not I like they way they look and play. There's no way for me to accurately judge the degree to which DVD-9's space is a limitation, cell programing difficulty is a limitation, or how developers will overcome these limitations.

That being said, I know I've tried to be an arm chair expert before. But I'm going to try not to do it in the future. To me, the proof will have to be in the pudding - what are the real life games like - because all this other discussion is best left to specialist in the field.

"You will never see a game anytime soon that will actually need 50GB of space fully compressed (the amount of money needed to make a game of that size would be astronomical). Anyone that believes Sony's propaganda about games need Blu-Ray need to do a little research and stop taking everything Sony says as fact. How many times does Sony have to lie to it fans before they stop blindly following them."

It looks like the wait for that nonexistent game is over.

Old link that talks about 20G textures.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/11/id-software-debuts-new-engine-at-apple-conference/

New stuff from IGN.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/810/810542p1.html

Helloooooo MEAGATEXTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Regardless of the compression, the game will require two DVDs for all platforms ... but the PS3."

I don't know what the big deal is with just having multiple disks. I will wait for the reviews and buy the superior version. But one thing is becoming clear..........more storage medium is needed.

Clearly more space is an advantage, and lack their of is a disadvantage.

You can still have great games on a DVD, but you really can't compare that to BR-disc.

Apples and oranges.

The PS3 exclusives will start to utilize the BR capacity in the next year or so. And of course in the coming years to a greter extent. The evolution of gaming is a bunch of incremental steps with a big step every now and then. BR-disc is one of those big steps, but utilizing it will be incremental.

The next MS console will probably include a BR drive.

"You will never see a game anytime soon that will actually need 50GB of space fully compressed (the amount of money needed to make a game of that size would be astronomical). Anyone that believes Sony's propaganda about games need Blu-Ray need to do a little research and stop taking everything Sony says as fact. How many times does Sony have to lie to it fans before they stop blindly following them."

It looks like the wait for that nonexistent game is over.

Old link that talks about 20G textures.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/11/id-software-debuts-new-engine-at-apple-conference/

New stuff from IGN.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/810/810542p1.html

Helloooooo MEAGATEXTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Regardless of the compression, the game will require two DVDs for all platforms ... but the PS3."

I don't know what the big deal is with just having multiple disks. I will wait for the reviews and buy the superior version. But one thing is becoming clear..........more storage medium is needed.

I think John Carmack and id are being lazy and not using enough compression. They probably have no idea what they're doing.... :rolleyes:

Crysis on DVD!! Even this game doesn't need HD-DVD or BR

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2007/07/crysis-box-art.jpg


For one, most pcs only have dvd players, hence the games are on dvds. Doesn't make too much sense to put it on a hd-dvd or blu-ray if most people don't have the players. Therefore, they put them on dvd install disks, which load on to the PC hard drive. Hence, switching disks is somewhat irrelevant, since everything is on the hard drive. Historically, it has been the same. Before dvds, there was cds, before that, floppys, etc. Also the level of compression between the install disks & the game files itself when installed onto the drive is probably much different.

Storage space is at most a minor issue now. It won't become a serious issue for several years yet, by which point, we'll be looking to a new generation of gaming systems from all three manufacturers. At present however, the cross-platform games look and perform equally well on both the system with the DVD9 and the one with the BD -- and in many cases better on the former. BD is nice, to be sure. But some of you are confusing "nice" with "necessary".

You will never see a game anytime soon that will actually need 50GB of space fully compressed (the amount of money needed to make a game of that size would be astronomical). Anyone that believes Sony's propaganda about games need Blu-Ray need to do a little research and stop taking everything Sony says as fact. How many times does Sony have to lie to it fans before they stop blindly following them.


Yeah, I don't know about that.

I want to see how big Final Fantasy 13 is going to be. All their cut scenes will probably be 1080p. That can eat up a ton of space.

And I did read somewhere that GT5 is rumored to be 40GB. Again, True HD graphics will eat up alot of space. Unfortuanatly, I can't remember where I read that, or even if the source was reliable. I think it was because otherwise I would have dismissed it.

Yeah, I don't know about that.

I want to see how big Final Fantasy 13 is going to be. All their cut scenes will probably be 1080p. That can eat up a ton of space.

And I did read somewhere that GT5 is rumored to be 40GB. Again, True HD graphics will eat up alot of space. Unfortuanatly, I can't remember where I read that, or even if the source was reliable. I think it was because otherwise I would have dismissed it.

don't get caught up in the buzzwords. "True HD" graphics do not eat up so much space that they are impossible on dvd. Cutscenes aren't a justification for more space, and the premium price included in that, imo. I'm more interested in playing games.

In a few years when that space is really starting to become an issue and is needed, the new consoles will be coming out. The argument against dvd is more sensationalism right now than anything.

don't get caught up in the buzzwords. "True HD" graphics do not eat up so much space that they are impossible on dvd. Cutscenes aren't a justification for more space, and the premium price included in that, imo. I'm more interested in playing games.

In a few years when that space is really starting to become an issue and is needed, the new consoles will be coming out. The argument against dvd is more sensationalism right now than anything.

Stop trying to bring up FMV. We're not talking about that. We're talking about actual art content such as textures which take up the most space usually breaching the 7 to 7.5 gig barrier. John Carmack and id already said their game needs to span across 2 DVDs and this generation is still early. It already is becoming an issue unless you don't think John Carmack and id are quality developers.

Looks like ids new game will actually use more then 1 DVD's worth of data. They annouced release on PC, 360 and PS3. The PC and 360 will ship on 2 DVDs and the PS3 will ship on a single BluRay disc. It sounds like the extra space is required for their "megatexture 2" technology.

I hate to admit it, but many Sony was actually right about the need for extra disc space.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6176188.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

Stop trying to bring up FMV. We're not talking about that. We're talking about actual art content such as textures which take up the most space usually breaching the 7 to 7.5 gig barrier. John Carmack and id already said their game needs to span across 2 DVDs and this generation is still early. It already is becoming an issue unless you don't think John Carmack and id are quality developers.

it might be a good idea to wait until this game comes out (which is when...I didn't even see a release date so I'm guessing 2008 at the earliest), and then compare the two versions. I'm not dismissing the space issue completely..I'm just saying it's such a small issue now and really seems to have been a point of sensationalism around here lately.

Storage space is at most a minor issue now. It won't become a serious issue for several years yet, by which point, we'll be looking to a new generation of gaming systems from all three manufacturers. At present however, the cross-platform games look and perform equally well on both the system with the DVD9 and the one with the BD -- and in many cases better on the former. BD is nice, to be sure. But some of you are confusing "nice" with "necessary".

You basically wrote my whole reply..

Thanks for saving me the time and effort..

:0)

John Carmack and id already said their game needs to span across 2 DVDs and this generation is still early.And yet, it will still run on the 360. Hence, next-gen optical is not "needed".

It already is becoming an issue unless you don't think John Carmack and id are quality developers.I think they are quality developers in that they are not bellyaching about the hardships of playtesting across multiple discs.

And yet, it will still run on the 360. Hence, next-gen optical is not "needed".

There is a growing necessity though. Not an immediate one perhaps, which is what every person who owns a 360 keeps harping on. Why must you be dead set against the idea BR might actually mean a better crop of games for the PS3 in the future just because the 360 is hitting it's peak sooner? Great lineup, yes? Better than PS3s? Remains to be seen, but it was no different when everyone looked at PS2s dominence in the marketplace and attributed it to the huige library of great games. Sony gave Microsoft the lead this time, but I don't expect them to not make up for it with games that can't be done on the 360 in the future. I own a 360, I'm happy with it. I honestly don't think it will have the edge though, all the way until the end of the generation. I do see PS3 games inevitably surpassing 360 games once developers finally begin to utilize the more advantageous hardware supplied in the PS3.

I think they are quality developers in that they are not bellyaching about the hardships of playtesting across multiple discs.

In the future, developers will begin to prefer to not have to release more ambitiously designed games across multiple discs, if there's the option of a console they can release it on that requires only one.

Let me know when companies make the announcment it is time to move on from DVD. Until then I will enjoy the games that come out. I am not heavy set to a point that the day I buy a game that requires you to get your ass off the couch and change disc to move forward in a game.

It is funny to me that if the PS3 and 360 came out at the same time at the prices they are at and a game was released on both formats with the 360 requiring 3 disc and the PS3 of course with BR and they played the same minus the features of Live vs PSN. I would still pick the cheaper system that does the same job as the more expensive system. I am fully aware it has been stated about games like Lair and R-FOM can't be done on the 360. The games do not have a leaps and bound in playability or graphically then what I play today on the 360. Your a dragon that shoots fire and runs over little men in a game how hard would it be to make a game on the 360 doing the same thing. I am sure it could be done.

Let me know when companies make the announcment it is time to move on from DVD.

Ask and you shall receive.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/809/809066p1.html

A brand new Rockstar franchise is set to make its debut exclusively on PlayStation 3, with Sony claiming that the GTA developer wants to "make a game that you can truly only do on PS3, harnessing the power of CELL and Blu-ray disc".


Now yes the article states that it was Sony's claim, however such a deal would not have been made unless it was somewhat true because Rockstar as far as I know is in the business of making money and they wouldn't sign away exclusive rights to a new franchise unless there was a serious reason like development. Because we know the install base isn't there yet for a serious return on a big investment. Maybe there's a kickback from Sony on the table. But I'm interested in seeing how this turns out regardless of the terms.

I think John Carmack and id are being lazy and not using enough compression. They probably have no idea what they're doing.... :rolleyes:


Just like EA and 2K that announce the dvd version can play 60FPS on the 360 vs 30FPS on the BR PS3.

Lets hope Carmack doesn't announce the same thing for this game. It is great they can do now with the space for BR but as we have been seeing for the last 7 months with delays for muliplatform games and exclusive games for the PS3 have the delays they have had. Why? All that space doesn't gurantee a good game.

There is a growing necessity though. Not an immediate one perhaps, Not immediate, and not until the end of this generation.

Why must you be dead set against the idea BR might actually mean a better crop of games for the PS3 in the future just because the 360 is hitting it's peak sooner?I've never made any kind of statement as such. Please do not presume to put words in my mouth. If you care to read this thread, you'd know that I'm sure that PS3 games are eventually going to outshine 360 games, but I believe it's only going to be a handful -- hardly worth the extra investment on the part of either Sony or the consumer.

In the future, developers will begin to prefer to not have to release more ambitiously designed games across multiple discs, if there's the option of a console they can release it on that requires only one.That's only if you look at development in the vaccuum of the number of discs required -- while ignoring other factors like installed user base, ease of development, and overall production budget.

Ask and you shall receive.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/809/809066p1.htmlHe asked. He didn't receive. While the new R* franchise will surely benefit from being developed exclusively on the PS3, it's ludicrous to say that this signals the death knell of DVD-9.

Ask and you shall receive.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/809/809066p1.html



Now yes the article states that it was Sony's claim, however such a deal would not have been made unless it was somewhat true because Rockstar as far as I know is in the business of making money and they wouldn't sign away exclusive rights to a new franchise unless there was a serious reason like development. Because we know the install base isn't there yet for a serious return on a big investment. Maybe there's a kickback from Sony on the table. But I'm interested in seeing how this turns out regardless of the terms.


With this announcment where in there does it state that DVD is dead? Does this tell me no more games are going to made for the 360?

Not immediate, and not until the end of this generation.

I'm not suggesting the 360 will be obsolete due to being entirely inferior to the PS3 by any means, I said that even now there are developers who are distinguishing between the two based on what can and can't be done on either based on the specifications of each. Early on complaints were targeted at the hard to develop PS3, now they're beginning to target the limitations of the 360. With technology and game development techniques always progressing faster and further at the rate they tend to, the PS3 simply offers a platform that surpasses the 360s capability when it comes to developing the games that will define this generation.

I've never made any kind of statement as such. Please do not presume to put words in my mouth. If you care to read this thread, you'd know that I'm sure that PS3 games are eventually going to outshine 360 games, but I believe it's only going to be a handful -- hardly worth the extra investment on the part of either Sony or the consumer.

I apologize, despite quoting you, the "you" is actually a reference to anyone, namely 360 owners (I am one so I'm not targeting you) who gets their back up at the notion that PS3 games will inevitably offer things the 360 can't, the point is the sames goes for the 360. Will Sony Online shape up to parallel the universal ease of Live? Probably not, but it would be good for Sony if it did.

That's only if you look at development in the vaccuum of the number of discs required -- while ignoring other factors like installed user base, ease of development, and overall production budget.

Someone better tell Rockstar they're looking at the development of their new franchise in a vacuum. They're going to lose a lot of marketing and development dollars creating an exclusive franchise for the PS3.

He asked. He didn't receive. While the new R* franchise will surely benefit from being developed exclusively on the PS3, it's ludicrous to say that this signals the death knell of DVD-9.

I have read this thread, and he never asked for news of the death of the DVD9. He asked for news of when companies announced it was time to move on from the format. I guess I thought making a major announcement stating that they chose to agree to develop an exclusive franchise for the PS3 was Rockstar's way of doing just that, since there was no similar announcement made for an exclusive 360 franchise and GTAIV remains a multi-platform release.

With this announcment where in there does it state that DVD is dead? Does this tell me no more games are going to made for the 360?


Again unless Rockstar and Sony suddenly don't qualify as companies, there are two major forces in gaming and entertainment that have made an example of the limitations of the DVD format. Not to mention the home theatre community, major movie studios and Blockbuster. I never said it had anything to do with developers abandoning the 360 suddenly due to the inferiority of DVD9. I said that developers might begin to prefer to develop one over the other because there is no need to compromise a game's design based on the hardware.

I want to argue about this, but then I remember that I don't know enough about these things to say for sure. Maybe you do, or maybe you don't, I'm not sure. But I do know that being theoretically more powerful won't help the PS3. The need to actually make a lot of great games like the 360 has/is making.

The proof will be in the pooding. The PS3 will convince me it's an uber machine when it actually starts being uber, not before.

I said that even now there are developers who are distinguishing between the two based on what can and can't be done on either based on the specifications of each.Not much of a surprise. Ever since the advent of console gaming, there have been limitations faced on each and every platform available. It's inherent to the genre of console gaming systems.

Early on complaints were targeted at the hard to develop PS3, now they're beginning to target the limitations of the 360. With technology and game development techniques always progressing faster and further at the rate they tend to, the PS3 simply offers a platform that surpasses the 360s capability when it comes to developing the games that will define this generation.I would think, given the massive investment by Sony, as well as the premium price that the user has to pay for the hardware, that the games of the PS3 had better surpass the 360's capability. Though let us not forget that developers still have a lot of potential to unlock with the 360 as well. As a platform, it's not going to stand still.

I have read this thread, and he never asked for news of the death of the DVD9. He asked for news of when companies announced it was time to move on from the format.Hair splitting aside, said announcement heralded neither.

Again unless Rockstar and Sony suddenly don't qualify as companies, there are two major forces in gaming and entertainment that have made an example of the limitations of the DVD format.No. They have made an example of the potential of Cell and Blu-Ray, not the limations of DVD-9. There's a big difference.

Not much of a surprise. Ever since the advent of console gaming, there have been limitations faced on each and every platform available. It's inherent to the genre of console gaming systems.

I know it's not surprising, the implication of what I said was that those distinctions are leading developers to realize that one platform is more limited than the other. As BR comes out of the clear from the format war, as many reports indicate, and as developers themselves realize the advantages of the format over DVD9, it won't just be a matter of discs anymore. PS3 will gain a better install base and developers will have to seriously consider which platform will truly deliver the pinnacle of this generations games.

I would think, given the massive investment by Sony, as well as the premium price that the user has to pay for the hardware, that the games of the PS3 had better surpass the 360's capability. Though let us not forget that developers still have a lot of potential to unlock with the 360 as well. As a
platform, it's not going to stand still.


Never said it would, the 360 is doing superbly in the market and it's not going to slow down. I just don't think its the fastest runner of the lot. I don't know if Sony's investment is as relevant as Microsoft's considering the warranty extension, but yes it is priced at a premium for a premium product. The base model now has a minimum 60GB hard drive and you get a BR player. It comes down to choice, but when I buy one I'll be all too thrilled to have a stellar game console and a HD movie player. And by the time I buy one the price will have probably dropped again.

No. They have made an example of the potential of Cell and Blu-Ray, not the limations of DVD-9. There's a big difference.

Couple that announcement with the statement that Dan Houser, Creative VP at Rockstar, made in May where he stated that the lack of a dedicated HDD and the DVD9 format were limiting the development of GTAIV.

I see the wording of the article as little more than a technicality, the 360 doesn't need to be mentioned in order to interpret it as a comment on why the franchise isn't planned to be multi-platform. They may as well of said, "They want to take advantage of the CELL processor and Blu-Ray, guess who has neither of those?" But because it is ambiguously worded I suppose I submit the suggestion as personal speculation. It doesn't change the fact that Rockstar has yet to jump on that "unlocked potential" of the 360 and announce an exclusive franchise for it as well.

I know it's not surprising, the implication of what I said was that those distinctions are leading developers to realize that one platform is more limited than the other.There's a difference between what developers have implied versus what you and others have inferred, methinks.

As BR comes out of the clear from the format war, as many reports indicate, and as developers themselves realize the advantages of the format over DVD9, it won't just be a matter of discs anymore.First, BD is a long, long way "out of the clear" in the format war, especially with the PS3 not selling or shipping as Sony had promised at this time last year. Second, if it had only been a "matter of discs" as opposed to GPU, consumer price, and developer support, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

PS3 will gain a better install base and developers will have to seriously consider which platform will truly deliver the pinnacle of this generations games. There are many, many factors other than its preturnatural technical prowess that will determine the PS3 install base. Price and software selection are going to be the two greatest factors, and unfortunately for Sony, the PS3 is going to have neither up through holiday 2008 -- and possibly beyond.

It comes down to choice, but when I buy one I'll be all too thrilled to have a stellar game console and a HD movie player.That's fine for you -- but all I have to do is upgrade my PC with a BD drive and I'll have the same thing.

Couple that announcement with the statement that Dan Houser, Creative VP at Rockstar, made in May where he stated that the lack of a dedicated HDD and the DVD9 format were limiting the development of GTAIV. Not exactly the best example you could have brought up. There's a subtle difference between hardware "creating limitations" (which can be worked around) and "limiting" (which can't). Rockstar knows how to work with and without a hard drive (witness GTA3, GTAVC and GTASA) -- but if rumors have any credibility, it's actually the PS3 hardware holding up GTAIV. (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/03/1542206&from=rss)

There's a difference between what developers have implied versus what you and others have inferred, methinks.

Developers have gone on record saying that during the current development cycle, the limitations of DVD9 have been an issue. Hence the starting of this thread. PGR4 will not offer day and night versions of each track. A compromise was made. Is that "working around", or dumbing down? It probably won't vastly affect how the game will play or be received, but it's not what they intended to do when designing the game and it is only one of many cases which exist now and will continue to pop up in the future where games will more and more be compromised in size or in ambition of content to comply with the limitation. Or the alternative, such games are developed for a system that offers no such limitation.


First, BD is a long, long way "out of the clear" in the format war, especially with the PS3 not selling or shipping as Sony had promised at this time last year.

It is not as long as you think, despite this being a gaming board, the PS3 having a HD player that is on winning side of a format war is an advantage. And the PS3 helping the install base of BR players is one of the reasons. The other is support from distributers, like Blockbuster which very boldly exclusively put support behind BR. Now, in addition developers are at a point where BR is offering more than DVD9 can. Disc is not the only issue of course. 360 has a phenomenal online infrastructure and has been easier to develop for. Why? Because it's not a giant leap ahead of what developers were working with before. The PS3 has two pieces of vastly different technology, theres a learning curve. As developers round that curve and come out more experienced, which is happening now and will continue to happen to more of them as time goes on, there will be a divide in the games offered for both consoles and how well they are received respectively when they are inevitably compared to each other.

but all I have to do is upgrade my PC with a BD drive and I'll have the same thing.

They'll be running you quite a bit until they become more mainstream. $449.99 USD for a 2x BR burner. On top of a graphics card that has an HDCP output provided you don't already have one, and then a display with an HDCP-capable DVI or HDMI input to display it of course.

Not exactly the best example you could have brought up. There's a subtle difference between hardware "creating limitations" (which can be worked around) and "limiting" (which can't). Rockstar knows how to work with and without a hard drive (witness GTA3, GTAVC and GTASA) -- but if rumors have any credibility, it's actually the PS3 hardware holding up GTAIV.

Actually it still is, I quoted someone from Rockstar who is actually involved with development and came out and said exactly what the issue was. You quoted a third party analyst, who based his conclusion on unnamed sources and perhaps the official statement from Rockstar which cited "technological issues" as the cause of the delay. "Technological Issues" which could just as easily suggest Rockstar is still "working around" the hardware issues with the 360, which they have cited as a problem before.

I don't need to ignore their achievements in the past, but those games had lower res textures, less code and will generally be seen as inferior to the latest incarnation if Rockstar has anything to say about it, and they seem to be dead set on proving themselves given the well recieved demos and now the delay. And those other games were done on the same medium Rockstar is trying to release this reinvention of the franchise on. Doesn't it make sense that there might be an issue with that? It's smaller than SA, but reportedly much denser and density means content and content means code and high-res textures and a necessary place to put it all so that when it comes back out during gameplay everything works the way it should and looks good while doing it. Doesn't logically that mean that there might be an issue with cramming everything on a DVD9? Doesn't BR offer a solution?

I don't know, I guess I'm in the wrong forum, but I own a 360 and don't take it upon myself to bash my own console for the sake of argument. It just makes sense that a superior technology is just that. It doesn't make the 360 inferior by any means, it just means that Sony isn't taking this generation lightly and won't live it out in last. They will become a force to reckon with as 2008 and beyond comes on and I don't think that 2009 is going to be the last year of this generation and therefore there is still much more competition to be had between the two rivals. That just means better games on both platforms and hopefully by that time, people will truly have two competitive libraries to compare against each other. Hopefully I'll have picked up a PS3 and enjoy all of them.

Developers have gone on record saying that during the current development cycle, the limitations of DVD9 have been an issue. Hence the starting of this thread. PGR4 will not offer day and night versions of each track. A compromise was made. Is that "working around", or dumbing down? It probably won't vastly affect how the game will play or be received, but it's not what they intended to do when designing the game and it is only one of many cases which exist now and will continue to pop up in the future where games will more and more be compromised in size or in ambition of content to comply with the limitation. Or the alternative, such games are developed for a system that offers no such limitation.



They'll be running you quite a bit until they become more mainstream. $449.99 USD for a 2x BR burner. On top of a graphics card that has an HDCP output provided you don't already have one, and then a display with an HDCP-capable DVI or HDMI input to display it of course.



Actually it still is, I quoted someone from Rockstar who is actually involved with development and came out and said exactly what the issue was. You quoted a third party analyst, who based his conclusion on unnamed sources and perhaps the official statement from Rockstar which cited "technological issues" as the cause of the delay. "Technological Issues" which could just as easily suggest Rockstar is still "working around" the hardware issues with the 360, which they have cited as a problem before.

I don't need to ignore their achievements in the past, but those games had lower res textures, less code and will generally be seen as inferior to the latest incarnation if Rockstar has anything to say about it, and they seem to be dead set on proving themselves given the well recieved demos and now the delay. And those other games were done on the same medium Rockstar is trying to release this reinvention of the franchise on. Doesn't it make sense that there might be an issue with that? It's smaller than SA, but reportedly much denser and density means content and content means code and high-rez textures and a necessary place to put it all so that when it comes back out during gameplay everything works the way it should and looks good while doing it. Doesn't logically that mean that there might be an issue with cramming everything on a DVD9, doesn't BR offer a solution?

I don't know, I guess I'm in the wrong forum, but I own a 360 and don't take it upon myself to bash my own console for the sake of argument. It just makes sense that a superior technology is just that. It doesn't make the 360 inferior by any means, it just means that Sony isn't taking this generation lightly and won't live it out in last. They will become a force to reckon with as 2008 and beyond comes on and I don't think that 2009 is going to be the last year of this generation and therefore there is still much more competition to be had between the two rivals. That just means better games on both platforms and hopefully by that time, people will truly have two competitive libraries to compare against each other. Hopefully I'll have picked up a PS3 and enjoy all of them.


great post

it might be a good idea to wait until this game comes out (which is when...I didn't even see a release date so I'm guessing 2008 at the earliest), and then compare the two versions. I'm not dismissing the space issue completely..I'm just saying it's such a small issue now and really seems to have been a point of sensationalism around here lately.

Why do I have to wait and compare? It already is coming out on 2 DVDs which is enough proof that they need more space than the 7 to 7.5 gigs allotted on the 360. This isn't a quality or version comparison. This is simply proof that developers are going to be pressed to make it fit with some developers realizing they can't.

And yet, it will still run on the 360. Hence, next-gen optical is not "needed".

I think they are quality developers in that they are not bellyaching about the hardships of playtesting across multiple discs.

Nobody is saying you can't use multiple discs on the 360. That isn't the point of this topic. The point is to what extent 7 to 7.5 gigs of space will be enough for this generation and was there a need to have capacity larger than that for this generation. Many developers are already expressing early on in this generation that they are having trouble making it fit. Many will find a way to make it fit. Other games won't even fill a DVD. The simple fact is some already are and need more space. If it was a case of simply swapping discs, then DVD isn't even needed because you can swap all the discs you want on CD. But nobody argues that DVD isn't needed. And realisitically, whether it gets out or not, it's extra effort, time, manpower, headache from baggage that comes with it, and cost to develop on multiple discs which is why developers try to avoid it rather than just saying lets do it.

Nobody is saying you can't use multiple discs on the 360. That isn't the point of this topic. The point is to what extent 7 to 7.5 gigs of space will be enough for this generation and was there a need to have capacity larger than that for this generation. Many developers are already expressing early on in this generation that they are having trouble making it fit. Many will find a way to make it fit. Other games won't even fill a DVD. The simple fact is some already are and need more space. If it was a case of simply swapping discs, then DVD isn't even needed because you can swap all the discs you want on CD. But nobody argues that DVD isn't needed. And realisitically, whether it gets out or not, it's extra effort, time, manpower, headache from baggage that comes with it, and cost to develop on multiple discs which is why developers try to avoid it rather than just saying lets do it.

Thank you. My favourite word in that post: realistically. Not in 360 Land, I guess I'm an outlaw, but realistically.

Just like EA and 2K that announce the dvd version can play 60FPS on the 360 vs 30FPS on the BR PS3.

Lets hope Carmack doesn't announce the same thing for this game. It is great they can do now with the space for BR but as we have been seeing for the last 7 months with delays for muliplatform games and exclusive games for the PS3 have the delays they have had. Why? All that space doesn't gurantee a good game.

Why are you pulling out random tangents to try and confuse the issue? Performance has nothing to do with capacity and content. They're completely seperate issues. Nobody is saying that capacity guarentees quality and it seems silly to even try to even mock somebody with that stance when nobody ever suggested otherwise. Everything you tried to post here has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why do you even try to take an extreme stance on the matter with even trying to suggest someone is saying DVD9 is dead. Nobody is saying that. As I stated earlier, nobody is saying you can't make great games on DVD. Nobody is saying developers won't try to make DVD work for games on the 360. Nobody is saying that you can't make HD games on DVD. And nobody is saying DVD is useless and dead. Stop trying to take an extreme stance on the subject. The simple point is 7 to 7.5 gigs of space is going to start to put pressure on developers and in some cases already is. Even to a lesser extent that maybe Sony wasn't so stupid or wasting peoples money and time by offering a higher capacity regardless of other motivations involved with it.

Developers have gone on record saying that during the current development cycle, the limitations of DVD9 have been an issue.But not an issue that necessarily means DVD-9 is at the end of its useful life, nor one that justifies the extra hardware bloat of next-gen optical systems. Is DVD-9 at an awkward stage in its life between prime time and obsolescence? I'd argue it is. Is it still serving as a useful and economic workhorse? Judging by the offerings of the current generation, the answer is an overwhelming "yes".

Hence the starting of this thread.Despite the protestations of the otherwise knowledgeable DK, the starting of this thread was really to tweak the nose of those who have nay-sayed the so-called "need" for a next-gen optical drive in current systems. You'll notice that DK hasn't started any threads in the Xbox forum that present Microsoft in any kind of positive light.

PGR4 will not offer day and night versions of each track.N-ring is not exactly race-worthy at night. I have no doubt nighttime Vegas or NYC could be added in the existing game structure if Bizarre chooses to.

A compromise was made. Is that "working around", or dumbing down? It probably won't vastly affect how the game will play or be received, but it's not what they intended to do when designing the gameStop right there. Niether you nor I nor the original thread poster can claim to have any clue what Bizarre had intended when they designed the game. Let the developers speak for themselves, please.

It is not as long as you think, despite this being a gaming board, the PS3 having a HD player that is on winning side of a format war is an advantage.The format war is not going to be decided as quickly as you might believe. Europe, for example, isn't embracing BD the way it's embraced HD-DVD.

The PS3 has two pieces of vastly different technology, theres a learning curve.A familiar refrain. "Just wait until the developers get a grip on the PS3 hardware". It's worth mentioning (again) that there is also a learning curve involved in the 360, and that its games are not going to stand still either. They will continue to get more impressive over the course of the console's cycle.

They'll be running you quite a bit until they become more mainstream.I can either wait for developers to get a grip on PS3 hardware, or I can wait for prices on BD drives to come down. Not a difficult choice, really.

On top of a graphics card that has an HDCP output provided you don't already have one, and then a display with an HDCP-capable DVI or HDMI input to display it of course.I've got everything but the BD drive, and so will a great number of other PC gamers.

Actually it still is, I quoted someone from Rockstar who is actually involved with development and came out and said exactly what the issue was.I believe the issue was a lack of a hard drive, not storage capacity, which is the gist of this thread.

You quoted a third party analyst, who based his conclusion on unnamed sources and perhaps the official statement from Rockstar which cited "technological issues" as the cause of the delay.I was quite up front that it was a rumor and the credibility of said rumor could be in question. But if it does turn out to be true, it turns your argument upside down.

Doesn't logically that mean that there might be an issue with cramming everything on a DVD9? Doesn't BR offer a solution?BD offers a superior solution that comes with numerous strings attached in terms of manufacturing, development, and consumer cost -- the aforementioned bloat which I find highly troubling to the industry as a whole.

That just means better games on both platforms and hopefully by that time, people will truly have two competitive libraries to compare against each other.That's actually the most awesome thing that anyone has said in this entire thread. Kudos! (Sincere bow.)

Nobody is saying you can't use multiple discs on the 360. That isn't the point of this topic.I'm well aware of the point of this topic.

The point is to what extent 7 to 7.5 gigs of space will be enough for this generation and was there a need to have capacity larger than that for this generation.We've all agreed, to a certain extent, that there isn't a need for a larger capacity this generation.

Many developers are already expressing early on in this generation that they are having trouble making it fit.Developers complain, of course, but they don't have to spring for the fancy hardware. And yet they're making the games fit with room to spare (a la Starbreeze) and delivering quality games for the foreseeable future. The handful of games that can't be done without more space are going to shine on the PS3, as they ought to. It doesn't mean that DVD-9 is really all that limited, nor does it mean BD was the best idea Sony ever had.

If it was a case of simply swapping discs, then DVD isn't even needed because you can swap all the discs you want on CD. But nobody argues that DVD isn't needed.That's because DVD is established, it is mainstream, and it is relatively cheap to produce.

And realisitically, whether it gets out or not, it's extra effort, time, manpower, headache from baggage that comes with it, and cost to develop on multiple discs which is why developers try to avoid it rather than just saying lets do it.Point taken.

great postWhat is it with PS3 partisans quoting an entire post only to follow with a two word reply, anywhoo? :D

That's actually the most awesome thing that anyone has said in this entire thread. Kudos! (Sincere bow.)


Although you gave me kudos and a bow, I am honoured by the way, I must press on with a rebuttal if you'll accept it.

But not an issue that necessarily means DVD-9 is at the end of its useful life, nor one that justifies the extra hardware bloat of next-gen optical systems. Is DVD-9 at an awkward stage in its life between prime time and obsolescence? I'd argue it is. Is it stillserving as a useful and economic workhorse? Judging by the offerings of the current generation, the answer is an overwhelming "yes".

I've never made that an argument. It is and will remain useful, it has to, it's all the 360 has. I'm not saying developers are going to start lining up for Sony exclusives and abandon the 360 suddenly because it has less of a hardware advantage.

Despite the protestations of the otherwise knowledgeable DK, the starting of this thread was really to tweak the nose of those who have nay-sayed the so-called "need" for a next-gen optical drive in current systems. You'll notice that DK hasn't started any threads in the Xbox forum that present Microsoft in any kind of positive light.

Whatever DKs intentions were in starting the thread, it does not change the fact that there is, as Darknight pointed out, even at this stage in the generation, a growing call for capacity that goes beyond what the DVD9 can offer. Even in an Xbox forum that warrants discussion of wether that might be an issue. I think it is.

N-ring is not exactly race-worthy at night. I have no doubt nighttime Vegas or NYC could be added in the existing game structure if Bizarre chooses to.


Well that's the point isn't it? They did choose to, the hardware capability told them otherwise.

Stop right there. Niether you nor I nor the original thread poster can claim to have any clue what Bizarre had intended when they designed the game. Let the developers speak for themselves, please.

Despite your stern warning, I'm afraid I can't stop now that I've started. Call it OCD if you want. In any case, was it not you who told me earlier that I would have understood your position had I "cared to read this thread?" I'm afraid I have. The original post is a link to a discussion in a forum on Blizzard's website. A user asked wether there would be a day and night set for each track. A user by the name of "Ben", the moderator and a member of the Blizzard Staff had the answer: You won't see different times of day per city because this involves recreating all the textures again (one for day and one for night). Whilst this wasn't a problem for our dev team, it was a problem fitting all this data onto a single DVD.

If it wasn't in the original design, the issue of DVD space would never have been mentioned.

The format war is not going to be decided as quickly as you might believe. Europe, for example, isn't embracing BD the way it's embraced HD-DVD.


Not Europe!? Actually the only statistics I've heard in HD-DVDs favor in terms of European adoption, failed to count PS3s in their statistics. With an adoption rate of 5-1 in NA, I highly doubt it's far off that overseas if a realistic survey was conducted.

A familiar refrain. "Just wait until the developers get a grip on the PS3 hardware". It's worth mentioning (again) that there is also a learning curve involved in the 360, and that its games are not going to stand still either. They will continue to get more impressive over the course of the console's cycle.

Even more familiar "Ours has one too." Luckily ours, is also mine so that's cool. The point is, no it doesn't. The learning curve took developers no time to pass, the games were very good, very fast. After this holiday season, I don't know if I expect too many new tricks from Microsoft developers. It's not played out entirely, don't misunderstand me, but I think if you're looking at them side by side there's an undeniable advantage on the hardware side of things in Sony's favour, whereas the 360 is understood because it's already meeting its potential.

I can either wait for developers to get a grip on PS3 hardware, or I can wait for prices on BD drives to come down. Not a difficult choice, really.

You should watch the gameplay demo of MGS4. It's a pretty tight grip. But wait away.

I believe the issue was a lack of a hard drive, not storage capacity, which is the gist of this thread.

Actually it was how to put the full game on a DVD9 so that everything was in the right place for smooth gameplay. With so much going on all at once, it has to access different code and textures all at once consistently. On BR, it can be put wherever and however you want it to be because theres no issue of space. The lack of a dedicated HDD just amplified the problem because it couldn't act as a kind of buffer for the more common content in the game.

I've got everything but the BD drive, and so will a great number of other PC gamers.

You know I'm all for multi-platform gaming. But those items still required more money than a PS3 for the same functionality. BR playback and gaming. Yes the drive will probably be a burner. Advantage PCs.

I was quite up front that it was a rumor and the credibility of said rumor could be in question. But if it does turn out to be true, it turns your argument upside down.

Credibility indeed. That analyst is also more than likely an investor, who made gains on selling his stock in Sony and Take Two and buying Microsoft before he published the article. I prefer to stick to the people who make games, not the people who make a game out of them.

BD offers a superior solution that comes with numerous strings attached in terms of manufacturing, development, and consumer cost -- the aforementioned bloat which I find highly troubling to the industry as a whole.

Fortunately as with any new technology, costs are coming down! Even the porn industry is embracing BR due to the now cheaper manufacturing process, I read, this isn't from experience ;). Cheaper manufacturing means lower cost for the consumer. Beta-Max syndrome averted. I think multiple disc or downloadable content development as Darknight mentioned is more of an issue for developers than creating content for BR playback.

BR is where the industry is going, movie and yet to be proven in gaming as well. Again the DVD won't one day just die in the gaming world, but there will be a noticeable difference in what the 360 isn't capable of in comparison to the PS3. People who think games will be downloaded next-gen must be ready to pay for some serious new fiber optic service from their cable or DSL company. I actually hope its flash memory. But I guess time will tell.

We've all agreed, to a certain extent, that there isn't a need for a larger capacity this generation.

I don't know how long you anticipate this generation to last, but if this is the topic of discussion now, then it most definitely will be needed within the next two years which is well within the current generation.

Developers complain, of course, but they don't have to spring for the fancy hardware. And yet they're making the games fit with room to spare (a la Starbreeze) and delivering quality games for the foreseeable future. The handful of games that can't be done without more space are going to shine on the PS3, as they ought to. It doesn't mean that DVD-9 is really all that limited, nor does it mean BD was the best idea Sony ever had.

Fancy hardware? You mean hardware that will inevitably wind up in millions of living rooms when BR surpasses DVD as the mass format and are available as cheap as DVD players were even two years ago?

That's because DVD is established, it is mainstream, and it is relatively cheap to produce.

Now it is, it wasn't when the PS2 first came out. What do you think helped to establish it? PS3 is doing the same thing for BR and just the same, as the technology gets older the costs will lower across the board.

Anyone who argues that DVD9 will not present a challenge in terms of storage capacity this generation is letting their emotional attachment to the 360 get the better of them.

But does the 360 "need" Blu ray? No way. There is so much more to a good game than massive textures and HD video/audio.

In fact, unless the PS3 moves a lot more units, the 360 will actually limit the value of the Blu Ray drive on the PS3, because if they have to squeeze it onto 1 DVD for the 360, the motivation for the developers to really "take advantage" of the extra storage on the PS3 will not be an economicaly sound decision.

Exclusives might be a different proposition, but they are going to be as rare as hens teeth.

This generation is about multi-platform 3rd party. The example of GTA4 being delayed is an ironic example of how one consoles fate now impacts on the others.

I agree that DVD9 will be somewhat of a limiting factor for a handfull of games this generation but not something that will ruin the experience... with some space conscious programming and compressiong they will be able to fit almost all games onto 1 dvd and if not then a few games will take up 2 dvd's... not a big deal really considering how much faster the games will load and how much cheaper the hardware is compared to the bluray counterpart. I think the gains of using dvd9 this generation outweigh the cost of switching over to bluray or HDDVD as a storage medium.

I know this article is really old but, it illustrates some good points on why DVD will most likely not be a problem this genereation.

http://www.gamesfirst.com/index.php?id=1132

Someone said earlier in this thread that you can only compress textures so much which is just BS. Compression always gets better year after year and devs learn how to take advantage of a systems power more efficiently with less code as time goes on. Carmack is probably exaggerating the issue and I bet they haven't compressed there textures as much as they can. I'll place a bet with anyone that if they release a game on the 360 it will be on 1 DVD9 and be exactly the same as the PS3 version would.

I know this article is really old but, it illustrates some good points on why DVD will most likely not be a problem this genereation.

http://www.gamesfirst.com/index.php?id=1132

Someone said earlier in this thread that you can only compress textures so much which is just BS. Compression always gets better year after year and devs learn how to take advantage of a systems power more efficiently with less code as time goes on. Carmack is probably exaggerating the issue and I bet they haven't compressed there textures as much as they can. I'll place a bet with anyone that if they release a game on the 360 it will be on 1 DVD9 and be exactly the same as the PS3 version would.

They've already announced that they'll be releasing 2 DVD9 game for pc/360 & 1 bd game for ps3.

You're probably right that it'll be very similar to the ps3 version though.

Anyone who argues that DVD9 will not present a challenge in terms of storage capacity this generation is letting their emotional attachment to the 360 get the better of them.
Anyone that thinks the PS3 will have better games because of Blu-Ray is letting there emotional attachment to the PS3 get the better of them. Many people in this thread are trying to imply that because games can be stored on BD for the PS3 that they'll look, sound and play better (I'm not saying you are one of those folks Quidam). This is just so not true, the type of media that a game is stored on does not have a direct impact on the way a game looks, sounds and plays. I don't care if there is a future game that takes up 50GB. The only difference will be that the PS3 will be on 1 BD50 and the 360 version would be on 6 DVD9s.

Lets take a simplified hypothetical example here:
I think most of us can agree that COD4 has some of the best looking graphics to date for both consoles. Lets pretend that games, when it is done, takes up 15GB of space. Obviously, this will fit fine on a single BD25 but would require 2 DVD9s. The game will still look, sound and play the same on both console only, at some point, you would have to switch disc on the 360. Just because a game is stored on BD doesn't mean that BD is going to magically make it look and play better. Theoretically, you could store GRAW 2 on 5 or 6 CDs (or however many it would take) and it would look identical to the DVD9 version when played back on the 360.

The type of media does not directly affect the quality of a game, it just stores the code. If anything (setting storage space aside) DVD has a slight edge because current DVD drives can stream media off the disc faster then current BD drives. The "games will look better on BD because they can store more TrueHD graphics" type of comments need to stop because that is just not true. I'll cave in and admit that down the road some games may require more then one DVD but, they'll look exactly them same as there BD counterpart, just stored across multiply disc.

They've already announced that they'll be releasing 2 DVD9 game for pc/360 & 1 bd game for ps3.

You're probably right that it'll be very similar to the ps3 version though.
Didn't realize that, guess I lost that bet then. I'll go out on a limb and say that there will be virtually no differences between the 2 console versions.

^^

I've heard the arguments on both sides. Supposedly some games are easier to split than others. Splitting of games can create development challenges if it's not linear like RPGS, etc. Personally I dont really care about developer challenges, as I'm not the one doing the developing.

In this case it appears that the dev didn't want to split across multiple dvds, therefore chose to squeeze it onto a single dvd. Is the game limited in some way by this decision? Yes. In a meaningful way? For most, I'd guess not. As time progresses more devs will have to make the "squeeze or split" decision. Therefore it is potentially a limiting factor, but probably not one that will make or break a game. Also from what I understand, there are aspects that have to be copied on every dvd such as the engine, sounds, shared graphics, etc. Therefore every additional dvd will already be partially filled. So you may get a few gigs of additional content per dvd (I'm not sure on the exact figure).

I'm of the opinion that the game should sound better given the higher audio bitrates on ps3 games compared side to side with the 360 version if they used different audio samples and if you have the proper audio equipment. Even so, it's not something you'd really notice if you only had the lower bitrate 360 version.

Regarding the drive speed, I believe the ps3 is constant speed, while the 360 is variable. I think I've seen figures which stated that the speeds are pretty similar when averaged. I think the 2nd dvd layer is slower, and the same is probably true of a 2nd blu-ray layer.

Didn't realize that, guess I lost that bet then. I'll go out on a limb and say that there will be virtually no differences between the 2 console versions.

Quick article.


Id Software's annual QuakeCon convention has been making quite a stir lately with new information on such titles as Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Castle Wolfenstein, and their latest title Rage.

During John Carmack and CEO Todd Hollenshead's keynote speech at QuakeCon, id software unveiled their new title Rage. Carmack described the game as "50% run-n-gun, with a significant aspect of driving and action."

According to IGN, Rage will allow players to earn cash from races and put it towards modifying their vehicles. Also revealed, id software is aiming for a "Teen" rating, cutting back on the blood and guts.

When the title ships, Rage will be coming to PC and Xbox 360 fans in a two disc set, where as on the PS3, id software said they'll be able to fit the huge adventure onto just one blu-ray. I guess HD storage space is required...

On another note. Id Software confirmed that the upcoming Castle Wolfenstein game will be coming to the PlayStation 3 alongside the previously announced Xbox 360 and PC versions. Not much is known yet on the game but Roger Avary, screenwriter behind Silent Hill, will be writing and directing the movie.

I think most of us can agree that COD4 has some of the best looking graphics to date for both consoles. Lets pretend that games, when it is done, takes up 15GB of space. Obviously, this will fit fine on a single BD25 but would require 2 DVD9s. The game will still look, sound and play the same on both console only, at some point, you would have to switch disc on the 360. Just because a game is stored on BD doesn't mean that BD is going to magically make it look and play better. Theoretically, you could store GRAW 2 on 5 or 6 CDs (or however many it would take) and it would look identical to the DVD9 version when played back on the 360.

Actually as the drives inevitably get faster, BR doesn't have the compression issues DVD9 has when it comes to large amounts of content being physically written to the disc in such a way that they can playback smoothly. People cite the 2K and EA announcement about faster FPS in their sports titles, think of what goes on in a sports game versus what goes on in a game like GTAIV. In a sports game you have a uniform arena that is already loaded and variations in lighting and animation. It's not an intensive amount of vastly different and new data to be processed every second. In GTA you can hop in a well-detailed car, bang it down a street of other traffic as pedestrians go about their business, all the while time moves on and police AI tracks your indiscretions until the heat is on you and the police have finally cornered you, at which point you jump out of your vehicle which is now damaged to the point it has caught fire and you send off a few rounds hitting the policemen in the shoulder and he reacts with a realistic central nervous system, he fires back, no longer functioning well with his left shoulder but still attempting to bring you down, and then boom you're car explodes and sets of a chain reaction to all the cars that were too near the explosion. All that code and texture has to be put in a place where it can be accessed at a moment's notice on a constant basis.

The bottom line is you can't ignore that BR has an advantage when it comes to really ambitious titles, which even now are being held back by the limitations of the lesser technology. It's not just about raw storage space, it's about where the data is actually stored on the physical disc. With BR data can be packed more densely and as a consequence it can be read more quickly because it's right next to each other. Drive speed is a challenge that DVD faced back on the PS2, why is it suddenly so hard to give the PS3 the same grace because the technology it went with wasn't the easy way out. I for one choose to think Sony took the hard way because they knew that in the end it served many interests, which include gaming as future games will show.

Now before you jump on me, does this mean the DVD is dead and no one should develop for it? No. That makes no sense. The heart of the matter is that there is no reason to deny that BR is a superior technology. And with it comes the potential for games that can only be fully realized on the format. Sure they could be released on DVD9s with a few aforementioned "work arounds". However when it's a non-linear game with mass amounts of content that need to be accessed at any time, let's say GTA Las Vegas, then multiple discs is no longer a solution. Obviously Rockstar is doing their best to work around just that issue. So the question is how long will it be before developers begin moving some more ambitiously designed games over to the PS3 to save the hassle? Just because it can be done, doesn't mean they want to pay for it to be. I don't mean all, but it might be more than 360 owners will appreciate if they are done well enough. Only time will tell.

You've brought up GTAIV a few time now but, every article I've seen about the delay blames the PS3 version not the 360.

Yes, a game like GTA would be harder to split between multiply disc but, it could be done and look virtually identical on both consoles. There have been other non-linear games that used more then one disc. Correct me if I'm wrong but, some FF games have used more then one disc and you could still go anywhere in the world without having to put disc 1 back in if you where on disc 3. I not saying it would be easy to split a game like GTA but, it's not impossible. I do agree with you that only time will reveal if devs are willing to take the time to figure it out. Guess we'll have to wait and see. By the time it becomes a really big problem we could be looking at the next generation consoles. If you take the average 5 year life of console then the 360 is already over 1/3 of its way through that lifespan.

I still stand by my statement that just because a game is on BD doesn't mean it will be better then its DVD counterpart. Too many people seem to be thinking of it in the BD movies vs. DVD movies way, where movies on BD are clearly superior to there DVD counterparts. It's just not that clear cut when you are talking about games.

By the way HDTV_ME, I'm not jumping on you, just discussing. ;)

Anyone that thinks the PS3 will have better games because of Blu-Ray is letting there emotional attachment to the PS3 get the better of them. Many people in this thread are trying to imply that because games can be stored on BD for the PS3 that they'll look, sound and play better (I'm not saying you are one of those folks Quidam).

Well I'm glad, because last time I checked I was the owner of Three 360's and Zero PS3's.

Actually, you would make a great Politician because I don't care what other folk are trying to imply -you quoted me. It's a fact that DVD9 represents a constraint. IMHO not a serious one, and I think it was the right compromise to make in terms of keeping the price down -but another 2-3 years down the road, things might look different. At this point, it's hard to say how much of a constraint it's going to turn out to be -but there's going to be a lot of good games between now and then -bring it on.

Wait, is HDTV_ME really claiming that the PS3 has faster load times? Really????

Maybe Sony should have saved money on the BD drive and added more memory to their system. That's the complaints I keep hearing about the PS3 anyway - it has insufficient memory. I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

ps3 can use both video and main memory, also XDR ram in ps3 is alot faster then the memory in the 360.

ps3 can use both video and main memory, also XDR ram in ps3 is alot faster then the memory in the 360.

Yeah, but there doesn't appear to be much left due to the bloated O/S, and it didn't have a lot to begin with.... that's what I gather from the interview with Carmack. He seems to think the PS3 has a fundemental flaw in its design because it lacks sufficient memory. Of course, I don't know first hand how bad the situation is.

Yeah, but there doesn't appear to be much left due to the bloated O/S, and it didn't have a lot to begin with.... that's what I gather from the interview with Carmack. He seems to think the PS3 has a fundemental flaw in its design because it lacks sufficient memory. Of course, I don't know first hand how bad the situation is.

I recall Carmack citing doom and gloom with the PS2 memory situation as well. Judging from the game library it seemed to do quite well.

I recall Carmack citing doom and gloom with the PS2 memory situation as well. Judging from the game library it seemed to do quite well.


Carmack is quoted as an authority in this very thread when he was critical of the size of DVD-9 , but when he is critical of PS3 memory then he's a hack?

Wait, is HDTV_ME really claiming that the PS3 has faster load times? Really????

Not sure about games that are on both formats because I don't own any titles for both, but motorstorm takes longer than any game I own to load.

You've brought up GTAIV a few time now but, every article I've seen about the delay blames the PS3 version not the 360.

All the articles I've seen regarding that rumour originate from a report from Michael Pachter, a market analyst who arbitrarily made the claim that it had to do with development issues with the PS3 while the official statement from Rockstar cited only having "technological issues" with no reference to either console.

I am sure there are probably problems on both sides to be honest, but I have a hard time believing a third party source who cites no statement from Rockstar officials, and who also has invested in one or more of the companies involved. Analyst reoports are often used as a quick cash grab, they sell the company that looks bad, in this case Sony and buy into Microsoft. Sell and buy enough of each, release the article, and you've made a decent profit. That's why until it comes from someone from Rockstar that it is the PS3 it doesn't hold much water.

However, there was a statement made in May from Creative VP Dan Houser, citing the lack of a dedicated HDD on every 350 and DVD9 as a complication. He did however go on to say there were issues with both consoles but I can't help but notice he chose to only go into specifics about what they couldn't do because of the 360 and nothing about what issues the PS3 presented.


Wait, is HDTV_ME really claiming that the PS3 has faster load times? Really????

No actually. I'm not. The load times are much faster on the 360. Older technology, optimized hardware. They have faster drives, they have essentially figured out how to operate around a DVD9 platform. They have yet to solve all the development riddles for BD. I am saying that as they do learn the format and as revisions of the console come out, you will see a shift in how data intensive games play out on each.

Here's an example, right now if I were to put an apple one mile away, and another two miles away, the 360 runner could go the two miles and back and retrieve it in about the same time it takes the PS3 to get the apple back from 1km. But with BR you can have apples lining that 1km stretch. So when the runner comes back with one apple from the 360, the BR runner has a bushel full. Worst analogy ever, but I'm just attempting to illustrate that data is further apart on a DVD9, so couple density with increasing drive speeds and you will inevitably see a difference in how games play out in future additions to each's library.

By the way HDTV_ME, I'm not jumping on you, just discussing.

I love discussion, so it's all good. Sometimes people just get their knickers in a twist when you say BR is an advantage in a 360 forum.

I own a 360 and not a PS3. But I still don't see how people think DVD9 is going to be the be all end all of this generation for another 3-4 years when BR is the next generation of optical drive. Right now theres no difference because the DVD is proven and BR is still developing as it gets older. It's the same with any technology. Although we have yet to see major differences, the point is there have been grumblings here and there from several developers regarding the issues DVD9 presents and we're not even in mid-generation yet. Does that mean the PS3 doesn't have other issues that are just as challenging? Of course not, and as much has been said before.

But in the case of the PS3 it is in a technical sense more advanced and less understood, PS2 developers use to complain about its backwards design and said it was hard to develop for. I think they got past that considering the consoles success, even to this day. Sony didn't build a machine that would be number one now, and second tomorrow, I think they realized they would have to bow down to market dominance by the 360 early on and build up their share slowly, in the meantime early BR adopters could get the PS3 as a cheap alternative to standalone players and it would increase their install base on that end as well. I know the difference between movies and games, but I don't think I'm mistaken in thinking that inevtiably the next generation drive is going to surpass a last generation one. Even though it isn't doing so immediately while it's still in its infancy.

I think there's a lot more to come from future generations of games for the console. Why does that have to threaten us 360 owners, we'll still have great games, but perhaps just not all of them. And I think the reason might be the hardware difference. That's all.

PS: There's another article where Pachter anticipated the delay for GTAIV but due to financial reasons not technical ones, because the original release was too close to that of Halo 3 and so to increase profitability he suggested it might be delayed by Take-Two. I have a feeling he took "technological issues" and defined what that meant with pure speculation.

Full article:
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=16362

I recall Carmack citing doom and gloom with the PS2 memory situation as well. Judging from the game library it seemed to do quite well.
No one is saying anything about doom and gloom for the PS3 but, Sony thought the Cell processor was going to be the end all of processors. It just didn't turn out that way which is why Sony added the RSX GPU to PS3 design (remember, originally the PS3 didn't have a GPU in it's design, the Cell was going to do it all). The PS3 is obviously a powerful machine but, it is a fact that it has less memory then the 360. Will that negatively impact games down the road? Probably not because the devs will find ways to work around as they did with the PS2.

Yeah, but there doesn't appear to be much left due to the bloated O/S, and it didn't have a lot to begin with.... that's what I gather from the interview with Carmack. He seems to think the PS3 has a fundemental flaw in its design because it lacks sufficient memory. Of course, I don't know first hand how bad the situation is.


you also forget, ps3 games ultilize the HD with faster loadtimes. Something 360 is handicapped with. Rumors of hd only games are outthere for the 360 but that would limit 25% of potential sales so thats probably not gonna happen.

Yeah, but there doesn't appear to be much left due to the bloated O/S, and it didn't have a lot to begin with.... that's what I gather from the interview with Carmack. He seems to think the PS3 has a fundemental flaw in its design because it lacks sufficient memory. Of course, I don't know first hand how bad the situation is.

There's still a fair amount of memory, just a bit less on the PS3. All he's saying is that the PS3 being the least amount of the memory because of dedicating memory to the OS, the 360 does it too, that in order for them to be compatible across the board, they make sure it fits within the PS3 memory. The memory foot print is getting smaller too as time goes on, but yes you do have a bit less memory on the PS3 at the moment.

Plus his flaw with the PS3 is not the memory. It's the multi processor approach which the 360 has and the PC now does too. He doesn't like multi-core. He only talked about memory in relation to that he uses the PS3 as a benchmark since it has the least amount at any given time. You're mixing things up.

Wait, is HDTV_ME really claiming that the PS3 has faster load times? Really????

It's capable of having comparable load times. People seem to forget that the data rate on the BD drive is constant where as the data rate on the DVD is averaged. In the end they become comparable. It's sorta like how a 52X CD-R drive really isn't 52X. It's just 52X when it peaks out which is at the very end.

Maybe Sony should have saved money on the BD drive and added more memory to their system. That's the complaints I keep hearing about the PS3 anyway - it has insufficient memory. I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

That's a great point. In fact both the PS3 and 360 would have benefitted greatly by having twice the memory they currently enjoy.

If the PS3 had more memory than the 360, and had not been delayed by including Blu-Ray technology, I think they would have been in much better shape than they are right now.

There's still a fair amount of memory, just a bit less on the PS3. All he's saying is that the PS3 being the least amount of the memory because of dedicating memory to the OS, the 360 does it too, that in order for them to be compatible across the board, they make sure it fits within the PS3 memory. The memory foot print is getting smaller too as time goes on, but yes you do have a bit less memory on the PS3 at the moment.

Plus his flaw with the PS3 is not the memory. It's the multi processor approach which the 360 has and the PC now does too. He doesn't like multi-core. He only talked about memory in relation to that he uses the PS3 as a benchmark since it has the least amount at any given time. You're mixing things up.

I have to disagree somewhat on this point. One of the big differences between PC gaming and console gaming (hugely in favor of the PC) is the ability to add extra memory. Games (and applications) that previously chugged, all of a sudden start to scream along. With more memory you get bigger buffers and less/shorter load-times.

However, I wouldn't like to suggest that the PS3 has a memory issue when compared to the 360 -I'd say they are pretty close to being equally constrained in this area -in fact it would probably depend on the type of game as to which unit has the advantage -memory wise (due to their different architectures)

I have to disagree somewhat on this point. One of the big differences between PC gaming and console gaming (hugely in favor of the PC) is the ability to add extra memory. Games (and applications) that previously chugged, all of a sudden start to scream along. With more memory you get bigger buffers and less/shorter load-times.

However, I wouldn't like to suggest that the PS3 has a memory issue when compared to the 360 -I'd say they are pretty close to being equally constrained in this area -in fact it would probably depend on the type of game as to which unit has the advantage -memory wise (due to their different architectures)

I'm not quite sure where you're disagreeing with my point, but while it is true there is an advantage of being able to add memory, it is also a disadvantage as well. The problem with PCs is that the hardware configuration varies so much where as consoles are a set hardware that you can aim to try and take full advantage of. So while a PC may be able to have four gigs, it doesn't mean a game will take advantage of all that memory.

I'm not quite sure where you're disagreeing with my point, but while it is true there is an advantage of being able to add memory, it is also a disadvantage as well. The problem with PCs is that the hardware configuration varies so much where as consoles are a set hardware that you can aim to try and take full advantage of. So while a PC may be able to have four gigs, it doesn't mean a game will take advantage of all that memory.

I'm disagreeing with your comment about "fair amount of memory"..

That's a relative term, and when I compared it to a PC, I was not comparing the ability to "add" memory (which I agree has disadvantages compared to a console where the technical spec is not subject to change) but the fact that if you want, you can create a PC that has an appropriate amount of memory to play todays hi-def games. It so happens that the amount of memory inolved is significantly greater than what we see on both the 360 and PS3.

The debate about Blu-Ray vs DVD9 is probably misguided. Memory limitations is where both these systems are truly constrained IMHO.

PS. I also think the 360's reliance on DVD9 is a minor issue compared to the fact that they have a SKU with no HDD..

PS. I also think the 360's reliance on DVD9 is a minor issue compared to the fact that they have a SKU with no HDD..
Now I completely agree with this. The HDD should have been standard on the 360. Always felt like a step backwards being that the Xbox 1 had a HDD standard yet it is optional on the next gen 360. MS should have made the premium with a 40 or 60GB HDD and the core with 20GB (or at least 20GB premium/10GB core). Who wants to join me in saying that 100% without a doubt the next MS console will have a HDD standard on every machine.

Even if you "average out" the dvd speed on the xbox compared to the BR drive on the PS3 the PS3 is MUCH slower at loading.. even with the HD caching. PS3 may get slightly faster as time goes on and they learn to optimize disc access but they aren't going to all of a suddent throw in 16x BR drives in newer versions of PS3. The hardware inside will change little if any. New PS3's won't all of a sudden load games faster.

Even if you "average out" the dvd speed on the xbox compared to the BR drive on the PS3 the PS3 is MUCH slower at loading.. even with the HD caching. PS3 may get slightly faster as time goes on and they learn to optimize disc access but they aren't going to all of a suddent throw in 16x BR drives in newer versions of PS3. The hardware inside will change little if any. New PS3's won't all of a sudden load games faster.


2x Blu-ray Drive (72Mbps(9MB/s))
Single Layer (2x CLV) - Constant Linear Velocity (Same speed across entire disk)
Double Layer - Couldn't find any data but no games have been released on a double layer yet.

Entire Blu-ray Disk is read at 9MB/s.

12x DVD-Rom Drive
SL (9.25MB/S-15.85MB/s(AVG ~8x(10.57MB/s)
DL (4.36MB/s-10.57MB/s(AVG ~6x(7.93MB/s)

SL(DVD-5) 12x Max (5-12x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)
DL(DVD-9) 8x Max (3.3-8x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)

SL DVD is 1.57MB/s > SL Blu-ray
DL DVD is 1.07MB/s < SL Blu-ray

Majority of 360 games are on DVD-9.

Sources:
Hitachi 12x DVD-Rom Faq (Page 2)
http://www.hitachi.us/supportingdocs...d% 20speed%22
What is DVD?
http://www.videohelp.com/dvd
Blu-ray.com Blu-ray FAQ
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
Wikipedia - Constant Linear Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_linear_velocity
Wikipedia - Constant Angular Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_angular_velocity

So anyway I did some research and I really just want to know if there is an truth to this or do I have it all wrong.

The bolded text is the punchline of the post. I think you're mistaken in that you think a 12xdvd will read as much data as a 12x blu-ray/hd-dvd.

If that were true then why does the PS3 version of Oblivion load MUCH faster on the PS3 when doing quick traveling, etc. The developers did state the game takes advantage of the HDD on the 360 when present (I was using the 20GB 360).

There's still a fair amount of memory, just a bit less on the PS3. All he's saying is that .... but yes you do have a bit less memory on the PS3 at the moment.


(emphasis added)

I think that's what you are saying, not what Carmack is saying.

You're working pretty hard to minimize the issue's importance; saying it's just a bit less memory at the moment. He, on the other hand, used explitives and anologies to dramatize the situation. He clearly views the PS3's memory problem as a fundemental issue preventing him from making games the way he wants them to be made.

While you are both talking about the same subject, your version doesn't accurately reflect his tone. He's not saying there's a fair amount of memory, just a bit less on the PS3 - You are the one saying that. He's describes the PS3's memory problem as a "big deal," which is an impression you were trying pretty hard to avoid.

So I don't think you accurately characterized what Carmack was saying.

(emphasis added)

I think that's what you are saying, not what Carmack is saying.

You're working pretty hard to minimize the issue's importance; saying it's just a bit less memory at the moment. He, on the other hand, used explitives and anologies to dramatize the situation. He clearly views the PS3's memory problem as a fundemental issue preventing him from making games the way he wants them to be made.

While you are both talking about the same subject, your version doesn't accurately reflect his tone. He's not saying there's a fair amount of memory, just a bit less on the PS3 - You are the one saying that. He's describes the PS3's memory problem as a "big deal," which is an impression you were trying pretty hard to avoid.

So I don't think you accurately characterized what Carmack was saying.

Are we reading the same article? I'm strictly going by what he said in the Game Informer article and I do think I'm accurately portraying what he said. His explitives refer to the Sony OS which is pretty bloated in that memory, not referring to the memory situation directly. There is about a 50 meg difference in memory right now between the PS3 and and 360, and yes with 512 total across both, a 10% difference is still significant. You're making it sound like he completely ripped into it. I agree with what Carmack said with regards to memory and it is a weak point compared to the PS3 and 360 but we're not talking like a situation between the PS2 and Xbox where the Xbox had almost twice as much memory. I've stated this in depth in the Carmack thread in the other forum.

Are we reading the same article? I'm strictly going by what he said in the Game Informer article and I do think I'm accurately portraying what he said. His explitives refer to the Sony OS which is pretty bloated in that memory, not referring to the memory situation directly. There is about a 50 meg difference in memory right now between the PS3 and and 360, and yes with 512 total across both, a 10% difference is still significant. You're making it sound like he completely ripped into it. I agree with what Carmack said with regards to memory and it is a weak point compared to the PS3 and 360 but we're not talking like a situation between the PS2 and Xbox where the Xbox had almost twice as much memory. I've stated this in depth in the Carmack thread in the other forum.

For what it's worth, I suspect Carmacks comments are as much (if not more) about the different architecture as versus the actual lack of memory.

Yes, he's talking memory limitations, but (I suspect) more in the context of the his 3D engine design, which probably works much better with a unified/linear memory model.

So although it's totally wrong to dismiss him as a Hack (Fact: The man is a programming genius) it also needs to be taken in context. He's faced with having to "deal" with a new programming paradigm (the Cell) and it's no doubt going to require a lot of new ideas and re-work -and all that effort just to get it to do what his Engine can already do on a more conventional CPU design. Not surprising that he's not too excited about that.

He's not alone. One of my favorite Xbox titles (strangers Wrath) was developed by a guy who quit the business because of the fact that hardware is effectively designed by bean-counters. The developers just have to "live" what what they are given and simply rebuild all their tools every new generation -not to advance the industry, but just to stay in the game.

Ironicly, in demanding cheaper hardware, we have probably deprived ourselves of cheaper/better/more games.

In the name of balance, there are other developers of note who are pumped up and excited about the Cell, and what it means for the future of software design.

ps. I have to say I'm kind of impressed by the quality of everyones postings on this thread -no name calling, just genuine opinions..

Ironicly, in demanding cheaper hardware, we have probably deprived ourselves of cheaper/better/more games.

Which is exactly why I don't understand it when 360 enthusiasts cite the PS3s cost as the overlying issue when they say it costs more but you get the same things on a 360 which costs less. You simply don't. You get a next-gen drive, a processor that hasn't even really been touched in terms of potential, and now in the least a 60GB HDD. You get a system that gives these developers something more to work with.

The 360 is doing really well right now because it's not leaps ahead of what developers had to work with before. So a few generations of titles and they're already starting to make stellar games for it, one after the other. That's great for gaming and for us. No complaints here.

However that doesn't fundamentally change the fact that the PS3 has more potential than the 360 does. As a consequence of this early advantage, it may only help their short game if the PS3 starts picking up steam as developers unlock the ways in which it bests the 360 from a technical standpoint, and begin to incorporate those benefits into their game design. That is an inevitability as we hear more about how DVD9 is somewhat limited when it comes to games that are attempting to define this generation as something truly new and different, or simply much better than the last for more reasons than a bump in resolution.

People who cite compression must not understand that, as with anything, despite how many ways you try to slice it, compression only works so far before it affects the quality of the original content. Think of bitrates in a MP3, 320k sounds a lot better than 128k but it also takes up more space. If a title is large enough or has a complex design, compression is not always the answer because first, it can't diminish the quality of the content and second, decompression may not be able to occur fast enough.

I won't pretend to know what goes into compressing content for games, I'm not a developer, but logic and a few basic principles suggest that if it were that easy, this thread and other likes it wouldn't exist. Developers wouldn't let things like, "fitting things like what we're developing on a DVD is not always easy" slip and then fix it with a PR-friendly statement once the forums get buzzing and MS sends a memo to one of the Dev's executives.

The point is, there are issues. The only real issues developers have with the PS3 are not in what they can't do, but in what they don't know how to do yet. To me, that's a big difference and one that will spell some stiff competition for the 360 in the future.

For what it's worth, I suspect Carmacks comments are as much (if not more) about the different architecture as versus the actual lack of memory.

Yes, he's talking memory limitations, but (I suspect) more in the context of the his 3D engine design, which probably works much better with a unified/linear memory model.

So although it's totally wrong to dismiss him as a Hack (Fact: The man is a programming genius) it also needs to be taken in context. He's faced with having to "deal" with a new programming paradigm (the Cell) and it's no doubt going to require a lot of new ideas and re-work -and all that effort just to get it to do what his Engine can already do on a more conventional CPU design. Not surprising that he's not too excited about that.

He's not alone. One of my favorite Xbox titles (strangers Wrath) was developed by a guy who quit the business because of the fact that hardware is effectively designed by bean-counters. The developers just have to "live" what what they are given and simply rebuild all their tools every new generation -not to advance the industry, but just to stay in the game.

Ironicly, in demanding cheaper hardware, we have probably deprived ourselves of cheaper/better/more games.

In the name of balance, there are other developers of note who are pumped up and excited about the Cell, and what it means for the future of software design.

ps. I have to say I'm kind of impressed by the quality of everyones postings on this thread -no name calling, just genuine opinions..


Oh ya, totally and I said as much in the official thread about Carmack in the PS forum. His whole complaint deals with hardware architecture more than memory and they are valid complaints. I was just trying to clarify what he was saying when it came to memory in this thread since some people seem to think he's saying one thing or trying to stretch it beyond the scope of what he really means when in reality most people don't know what they're talking about. You're pretty spot on and I agree with what you've said here.

You're making it sound like he completely ripped into it.

He DID completely rip into it. He said "The PS3 is not the favorite platform", and "given the choice, we’d rather develop on the Xbox 360." He ridiculed the PS3 by saying other developers would see their tech demo and say " “it’s running on the PS3!” (laughs) They’d sit there and stare at it for a while," demonstrating just how big of an issue the PS3 has with development.

The biggest issue, according to Carmack, is the memory. And it's not just the size of the memory, or the size of the O/S. What you don't mention, that Carmack does, is that the PS3 has partitioned memory. So it's 256 memory minus 96 for their system. The 360 is 512 megs of unified, minus 32 for their system. That distinction, which you don't mention, Carmack thinks is a "big deal." By describing it as only a 10% difference you are minimizing the difficulting that the PS3 memory situation puts on developers.

Just to be clear, I don't mind you disagreeing with Carmack. But you shouldn't mischaracterize what he is saying by acting like he thinks it's minor matter.

He DID completely rip into it. He said "The PS3 is not the favorite platform", and "given the choice, we’d rather develop on the Xbox 360." He ridiculed the PS3 by saying other developers would see their tech demo and say " “it’s running on the PS3!” (laughs) They’d sit there and stare at it for a while," demonstrating just how big of an issue the PS3 has with development.

The biggest issue, according to Carmack, is the memory. And it's not just the size of the memory, or the size of the O/S. What you don't mention, that Carmack does, is that the PS3 has partitioned memory. So it's 256 memory minus 96 for their system. The 360 is 512 megs of unified, minus 32 for their system. That distinction, which you don't mention, Carmack thinks is a "big deal." By describing it as only a 10% difference you are minimizing the difficulting that the PS3 memory situation puts on developers.

Just to be clear, I don't mind you disagreeing with Carmack. But you shouldn't mischaracterize what he is saying by acting like he thinks it's minor matter.

Obviously Carmack is annoyed at the hurdles in developing for the PS3. Just as in any area of work, developers are going to differ some in their preferences for work tools. Other developers have said very good things about the PS3 and are very excited about working with the cell. Also, by looking at played demonstrations of KZ2, Uncharted, and MGS4, its pretty clear that the PS3 can be utilized exceptionally despite its limitations.

Clearly, the 360 was built to be easier to develop for. Great games are already rolling out for both systems, so at this point I don't see the point in arguing about the system differences.

Obviously Carmack is annoyed at the hurdles in developing for the PS3. Just as in any area of work, developers are going to differ some in their preferences for work tools. Other developers have said very good things about the PS3 and are very excited about working with the cell. Also, by looking at played demonstrations of KZ2, Uncharted, and MGS4, its pretty clear that the PS3 can be utilized exceptionally despite its limitations.

Clearly, the 360 was built to be easier to develop for. Great games are already rolling out for both systems, so at this point I don't see the point in arguing about the system differences.

To be clear, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Carmack. I don't know enough about the subject to say. My only point was in agreement with yours - and to correct what I felt was Darknights mischaracterization of what Carmack said. Certainly some people have said good things, some have said bad about both systems. In the end, they'll probably both have a bunch of great games to play, and I consider myself lucky to be able to game on both consoles.

He DID completely rip into it. He said "The PS3 is not the favorite platform", and "given the choice, we’d rather develop on the Xbox 360." He ridiculed the PS3 by saying other developers would see their tech demo and say " “it’s running on the PS3!” (laughs) They’d sit there and stare at it for a while," demonstrating just how big of an issue the PS3 has with development.

The biggest issue, according to Carmack, is the memory. And it's not just the size of the memory, or the size of the O/S. What you don't mention, that Carmack does, is that the PS3 has partitioned memory. So it's 256 memory minus 96 for their system. The 360 is 512 megs of unified, minus 32 for their system. That distinction, which you don't mention, Carmack thinks is a "big deal." By describing it as only a 10% difference you are minimizing the difficulting that the PS3 memory situation puts on developers.

Just to be clear, I don't mind you disagreeing with Carmack. But you shouldn't mischaracterize what he is saying by acting like he thinks it's minor matter.

I meant in regards to the memory. You're jumping around. He didn't rip into it because of the memory. I addressed the partitioned memory in the other thread which you seem to have read cuz you keep pulling info out of it. It's not 256 minus 96. It's 512 minus 84. There's a huge difference there by what you're saying and what the truth it. There is a 10% difference in total memory between the two systems. I have not minimized anything as I stated in the other thread that I agreed with Carmack on the memory issue and that the PS3 is the least common denominator because of it having the least amount of memory. Look, if you wanted to talk more in general about Carmack, post in the other thread. I'm simply addressing memory here, and the memory is not his biggest complaint, nor did he rip into the system on the memory issue. He just said he has to use the PS3 as the lowest common denominator because Sony's OS or crap as he puts it takes up more space than the other system. His real complaint lies in the overall architecture. Go read the other thread where this is all clearly stated.

To be clear, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Carmack. I don't know enough about the subject to say. My only point was in agreement with yours - and to correct what I felt was Darknights mischaracterization of what Carmack said. Certainly some people have said good things, some have said bad about both systems. In the end, they'll probably both have a bunch of great games to play, and I consider myself lucky to be able to game on both consoles.

I know, to be clear I just quoted you to add to what you were saying, not disagree.

To be clear, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Carmack. I don't know enough about the subject to say. My only point was in agreement with yours - and to correct what I felt was Darknights mischaracterization of what Carmack said. Certainly some people have said good things, some have said bad about both systems. In the end, they'll probably both have a bunch of great games to play, and I consider myself lucky to be able to game on both consoles.

You keep using this scape goat that you "don't know enough about the subject to say" yet you keep commenting with something to say. Maybe you should take your own advice because I keep having to clarify to you and you don't seem to understand. Again, I've clearly outlined that Carmack was right and his points were valid in the other thread. I just disagreed with how the memory issue was being characterized here in this thread because it is not the crutch of his complaint and he only lightly touched on that aspect.

You keep using this scape goat that you "don't know enough about the subject to say" yet you keep commenting with something to say. Maybe you should take your own advice because I keep having to clarify to you and you don't seem to understand. Again, I've clearly outlined that Carmack was right and his points were valid in the other thread. I just disagreed with how the memory issue was being characterized here in this thread because it is not the crutch of his complaint and he only lightly touched on that aspect.


I'm not using that as a scape goat. I don't know enough to independently judge Carmacks claims. But I do know enough to read what he has to say, and to determine whether you were accurately reflecting what he said. You weren't. You were saying you agreed with him, but what you said you agreed with is different than what he was saying. You were claiming Carmack was implying it was a minor issue, rather than a "big deal". I don't know if Carmack is right, but I do know you are wrong.

Further, maybe you could do a better job admitting the limits of your knowledge. Your post have the tale-tell signs of one who is over-inflanting their resume' to gain credibility.

Finally, how can you say the memory issue wasn't the crutch of his complaint? Go back and read the article again, and then tell me what he said was the the biggest thing they worry about. Again, you are mischaracterizing what Carmack said.

I'm not using that as a scape goat. I don't know enough to independently judge Carmacks claims. But I do know enough to read what he has to say, and to determine whether you were accurately reflecting what he said. You weren't. You were saying you agreed with him, but what you said you agreed with is different than what he was saying. You were claiming Carmack was implying it was a minor issue, rather than a "big deal". I don't know if Carmack is right, but I do know you are wrong.

Further, maybe you could do a better job admitting the limits of your knowledge. Your post have the tale-tell signs of one who is over-inflanting their resume' to gain credibility.

Finally, how can you say the memory issue wasn't the crutch of his complaint? Go back and read the article again, and then tell me what he said was the the biggest thing they worry about. Again, you are mischaracterizing what Carmack said.

The memory is minor in his argument. His beef with the system has a lot more to do with the architecture. His explitives referred to what Sony was using the memory for and not directly at the size of the memory. I was accurately pointing out where his real issues are where as you were saying false things such as the explitives referred to the memory limitation when it more referred to what Sony was using it for. That's a distinct difference.

How can I say the memory issue wasn't the crutch of his complaint? Because I read the whole article and I've seen him talk about the issue in the past. Even ignoring his past complaints, the article alone touches slightly on the PS3 being the lowest common denominator when it comes to memory, that Sony's OS is bloated with crap that he doesn't like, but his true dislike comes from the architecture and multi core processing. That's what the article states. I'm not mischaracterizing anything.

The limits of my knowledge? First off, since you claim to not really know anything, how can you claim what I'm saying isn't true? Carmack was wrong about 96 megs out of 256 and I was correcting that. Since you seem to know where I'm wrong please point them out to me.

You either have severe reading comprehension issues or a problem with veracity.






























Either way, I'm done with you.

You either have severe reading comprehension issues or a problem with veracity.

Either way, I'm done with you.

I don't get how I have a reading comprehension problem when you stated his stance on the memory situation with explitives when he specifically said the content reserved by Sony was full of explitives. That to me showed you didn't read it properly. Plus I like how you're done with me now that I asked you to prove how I was wrong and to defend your stance on your attack against me.

Thats got to be it. Kyser must be on vacation with the family. Can't say I blame him.

I'll explain one more time, this time very slowly and without big words. I don't know or care if you are right or Carmack is right. My only point is that you are mischaracterizing what Carmack said. Which of you is correct is anyone's guess, so long as you don't pretend Carmacks position is something other than what it is.

Now, maybe you understood that, or maybe you didn't. But if you did, you would see why I wouldn't argue with you about whether "Carmack was wrong about 96 megs out of 256". He could well be wrong, and you could be right, but that would be a non sequitur, oops, I mean that would be unrelated to what we are talking about here.

Do I need to make this more clear? Let me try - for the purposes of our conversation, I don't care whether Carmack is wrong about what he has stated about the PS3. What you are wrong about is your distortion of Carmacks stated opinion. Anything else other than that, I have no opinion on whether you are wrong.

The reason I'm done with you is that you refuse to admit that which is most obvious. The article is right here (http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0803.1731.12214.htm). We'll let other readers look and see whether Carmacks points about memory led one to believe he thinks it's a minor issue, or whether he seems pretty concerned about it. And once again, I don't care if you agree with Carmack. The only question is if Carmacks article implies that the PS3 memory problems are a minor issue or a "big deal", (which is the term he uses to describe it.)

I see what you're getting at now. You're concentrating on the fact that he said their biggest worry right now is the memory, but the key phrase here is "right now". That's a pretty localized event and I'm talking about his overall view in the entire picture of things which in the scope of the entire platform, the memory issue is not as big to him as other aspects in the architecture. However, he's past that point now because he's given the task to someone else so that hurdle is overcome in the scope of the project and now the new biggest worry is the memory which wasn't as big as the issue of multiple core. I'm putting it in context while you're focusing on the phrase "biggest worry" without having any context to the meaning.

Yeah, I was a little harsh. I'm just going to erase my last post.

Sorry to all who had to read it. But I am done talking about this.