Blog debate: PS3 to load games slower than the Xbox 360
by Blake Snow 
{ Sep 4th 2006 at 1:50PM }
From the "PS3 can't get a publicity break" file comes news that the system's Blu-ray load times will be slower than the DVD speeds of the Xbox 360. Following our post regarding Resistance: Fall of Man's beefy 22GBs of data, Microsoft's Andre Vrignaud (aka Ozymandias) wrote about why storage capacity isn't as important as drive speed and -- wouldn'tcha know it? -- Blu-ray has bunches of the former and not so much of the latter.
Former Sony employee Mark DeLoura responded with a long, thoughtful response sticking up for the format that fanboys love to hate, talking textures, audio, and even read speed. Naturally, there's some guffawing from the other side of the aisle as Ozymandias takes umbrage with some of DeLoura's claims, notably that textures and other media will take up a sizable chunk of that Blu-ray disc. One area they are in agreement on is that Blu-ray's read speed isn't as fast as the Xbox 360's. Says DeLoura:
"Admittedly, Blu-Ray looks dicey from several non-capacity angles. Blu-Ray movies require a 1.5x Blu-Ray drive, or 54Mbits/second. Sony announced that PS3 uses a 2x BD drive, which is 72Mbits/second or 9MB/second. The Xbox 360 uses a 12x DVD, which should give it about 16MB/second. That is significantly faster for games and will result in shorter load times. And that 12x DVD drive should be a whole lot cheaper. (Note that the PS3 drive will do 8x DVD, and even that is faster than 2x BD.)"
Says Ozymandias in response: "This is pretty much what I've been saying regarding drive speeds. A good example of where we're pretty clearly agreeing."
So, they're in agreement. The PS3 will load slower than the Xbox 360, leading one to question whether bragging about 22GB discs is the most prudent course of action. Let's hope they use the compression technologies touched on in the debate to shrink the data down considerably, even if it obviates a key selling point of the console.
... but wait, it's not all settled. Be sure to read the comments on Ozymandias' last post to get a bunch of great feedback, including this gem on the finer differences between CAV and CLV drives ("a BD25 on PS3 fares better than a DVD9 on the 360"), or Kim Pallister's link back to his own feedback on the fight and the "innovator's dilemma."
[Thanks, Hank; via DigitalBattle]
Grist - Will Resistance: FoM justify the PS3 pricetag? [Joystiq]
Point - Drive Speed More Relevant to Games Than Capacity [Ozymandias]
Counterpoint - On PS3 and Blu-Ray [Mark DeLoura]
Counter-counterpoint - Oddly, We're in Violent Agreement [Ozymandias]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
m4ndo @ Sep 4th 2006 1:56PM
Well, get ready for some fanboy ramblings on this one.
B33 @ Sep 4th 2006 2:00PM
The load times will be cut down though, since Sony requires the developers support the hard drive... There's already a few magazines out there thta have played games through development kits and have said nothing about load times. This story is coming through Microsoft... Not really trustworthy.
Loading @ Sep 4th 2006 2:03PM
LOLLERCOASTER!11! PS3 IS TEH SUXORRZ!!1. KTHXBYE
sienar @ Sep 4th 2006 2:08PM
And stories coming from sony are trustworthy?
Both are biased, and only time will tell when it comes to games. Of course it's up to the dev to come up with ways to bypass any loading time problems
Dr.Swiss @ Sep 4th 2006 2:09PM
I have a Gamecube and DS because I hate load times.
Having said that, if the game is WORTH waiting for then load times shouldn't be a factor.
Kyle Fisher @ Sep 4th 2006 4:22PM
Sony has always had terrible load times. look at the PSP and PS2.
that why I love my 360 and DS so much, the load times are usually really really good. I love to be able to just hop into a game and play for so long. and then be done.
Frozenberg @ Sep 4th 2006 2:13PM
Besides the speed difference, the Blu-Ray discs will be very susceptible to scratches and dust. Even a small scratch will cause a read error. You better give your kid a pair of gloves for changing the discs, or else a PS3 game will have a very short lifetime.
arch @ Sep 4th 2006 2:15PM
#2. hardrive wont make up for half the loading speed of a DVD9.
second the 360 has the same feature. devs use the hardrive for caching. if itst here it helps if its not it doesnt. so really if oyu think about it the PS3 hadrive makes no difference.
alienclay @ Sep 4th 2006 2:19PM
i agree with sienar post #4 and Dr.Swiss.
a lot of this depends on how devs attack the situation and make the most of things. only time will tell for sure if this makes any real difference.
Nate @ Sep 4th 2006 2:21PM
Frozenberg you do know that ps3 games will have durabis IIRC and those things are supposely resistant to steel wool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durabis
"It is claimed to be tough enough to resist screwdriver damage and make scratched optical discs (CDs and DVDs) a thing of the past." Only time will tell, and I hope it works.
nick @ Sep 4th 2006 2:21PM
This really is not a new revelation, as it's been published in the specs for some time now. But apparently the mainstream hasn't picked up on it yet.
How it'll affect games is yet to be known, as there's no published PS3 games to adequately review. We'll find out more when there's a cross platform game released.
Now mentioning the hard drive is interesting, however that'll cache games ONCE they've been loaded. You still have to initially load the game from disc.
Is it a big deal? Not necessarily. I've waited through load times on the PSP and lived to tell about it.
nambit @ Sep 4th 2006 2:22PM
How much memory does the PS3 have again? Was it 512MB or something? That's kinda a bottleneck of load-times anyhow don't you think? It's not as if the PS3 is going to load 22GB of data, so the speed isn't really necessary. They load a level, you play it, then load another... and with CLV, it's a good thing. I remember calculating the speed and it's not super different. The rotation speed also should make it quieter too.
The news has gotten kinda too nitpicky lately. Folks are also arguing over the dumbest things IMHO.
Why don't we bitch about the 360's TRAY loading CD-ROM over the SLOT LOADING of the Wii and PS3?
GamerG @ Sep 4th 2006 2:23PM
Oblivion on the 360 uses Caching, it makes some difference but it doesn't cut out load times.
Games running on PS3 dev kits almost certainly run from the machines hardrive so load times would be very low compared to how they will end up
leojsoap @ Sep 4th 2006 2:27PM
Even with the normal dose of salt I take with negative Sony news, the word "Trainwreck" is becoming more and more permiated in my mind.
I expect it to perform like the PSP, those whom have the money will adopt early, then the product will start it's slow decline as the other systems step up to the task. First to last is quite a shift.
FooAtari @ Sep 4th 2006 2:25PM
@9. There were the same kind of claims when CD's came out... Even a greay finger print can cause them to throw a wobly.
But feel free to attack your BD with screw drivers and steel wool and see how well it works after :)
Xbox Fanboy @ Sep 4th 2006 2:28PM
X360 is a failure in Japan > FACT
No Guitar Hero for X360 > FACT
PlayStation 3 is the best console with best brand, franchises and technology > FACT
Sorry USA Microshit Fanboys but Sony Japan ownz and Bill gates Peter Mooer blame you gay fanboy gaga
Einhanderkiller @ Sep 4th 2006 2:27PM
From Wikipedia on CLV:
"Constant Linear Velocity (CLV) is a method of writing or reading information from a rotating data disk. CLV means that the read/write head traverses the disk surface at a constant linear rate, which requires an increase in rotational velocity (rpm) as the head moves towards the center, and a decrease in rpm as it moves towards the rim of the disk. This distinguishes the speed control of a compact audio disc (CD) from an LP record. An LP spins at a constant angular velocity (CAV) of 33⅓ rpm. Because the linear distance travelled by the phonograph stylus per revolution of the record decreases as it moves closer to the center of the disk, the data rate increases and the data becomes more compressed."
In an article in GameDeveloper on streaming worlds, GD talked about how data on the outer ring of a DVD would be faster as opposed to putting it in the inner rings. The game they used as an example was Gun. The developers put heavily used textures, sounds, and animations on the outer ring so they could load them faster while they put less used assets in the inner rings.
Blu-Ray seems to alleviate this issue since everything is read at a constant rate.
omgwtf @ Sep 4th 2006 2:28PM
yEAH because teh 360 is the best! I will nevar evar play anythin but my 360 because Sony is gay. I HAET soeny. ANYWAY 360 is good and ID by it because they so much good gaem out better than THE OMG POS SONY BOX FROAM STUPID VIEL.
Aneyoen with any knowlegde abut HARDCORE hardware knows the 360 is 75 tiems stronger thaen teh lollerbox POS3. ILL NEVAR EVER PLAY A GAME RELEASED ON A SONNEY CONSOEL BECUASE I AHET TEHM. STUPID NOOBS FFS OMG.
OMG THE PSHIT iS USELESS TRJOAN MOVIES MACHINE WITH NO 1080P. SONEY LIES AGAIN AS AØLLWAYS STUPID I HAET THEM DIE.
BLU-REY IS PROPITARTY!!11
nootau @ Sep 4th 2006 2:29PM
Speaking for the Hard-drive, do people think that the data will magically be put on the hard drive? no, there will be loading time, while you wait for the data to be loaded onto the Hard drive...and depending on how much that is (A 22GB game...a 20GB HD isnt a very good spot for that...lol...granted they may just do 2-3GB...thats still a waste of space..)
With that said, This shouldnt be a big deal, i dont think there really will be 22GB games in the long run, the developers will get smart (if they havent already) and use texture compression and other technologies. Its just Sony's bad marketing that is trying to actually make people think that a 22GB game is actually a BETTER game than a 4-8GB game. Dont listen to Sony, they are just trying to justify the need for BluRay out of one side of their mouth, while saying you will have a great gaming experience out of the other. Sometimes the two dont mix.
I really think Sony should have taken the Nintendo stance on their hardware. Just kept their mouths shut, and talked about the games...talked about the media (movies, etc) that will be available on BluRay....talked about their online service....but stop talking about hardware specs, etc. It doesnt work. hardware is too confusing and it makes it too easy for a marketing person to screw up (as we see now) and make themselves look like liers or idiots...
GSR105725 @ Sep 4th 2006 2:29PM
Wait a second wasn't Gran Turismo HD demo'ed at E3 with super fast loading times!!!!According to Kazunori Yamauchi the loading times are faster due in part of the blu-ray drive and the HDD. Also BD are made with a hard-coating that will protect it from damage.
p.s the 360 devs cannot program games to cache onto the HDD because not every 360 systems comes with a HDD!!
kite @ Sep 4th 2006 2:35PM
...But 360 has built-in cache.
There is a difference between cached space and storage space.
And even if you have cache enough, you still need to read data from the disc to the drive when you want it cached.
Please correct me if I'm wrong
vidGuy @ Sep 4th 2006 2:40PM
This topic has been over-discussed for the last six months.
I've taken the stance that we'll see what happens, but I'm not looking forward to the load times on games like GTA4; San Andreas already has abominal load times. Developers need to make big strides in background loading and game streaming if they want their games to be playable.
Anyway, I doubt it'd be neccesary to load more than 500MB to start a game up. If a game needs to cache more than that, there's something seriously wrong.
Oh, and, "PlayStation 3 is the best console with best brand, franchises and technology > FACT"
- I disagree on points one and two, and I have yet to be convinced on point three.
CR @ Sep 4th 2006 2:43PM
Ugh, 22GB makes my head ache no matter what happens. If loaded from the disc, that'll just be plain slow. If transferred to the harddrive, that'll mean having the INSTALL a console game. Plus the PS3 basic only has a 20GB hard drive so that'll be the lowest denominator.
And now food for thought.
15GB * 1024MB/GB = 15360MB of data
15360MB / 9MB/s / 60s/min ~= 28min
Great, 30 minute install times if that space is REALLY being used for textures, levels and game code.
I think it's mostly pre-rendered movies if you ask me ;)
I hope games that use that much of a BD-ROM are few and far in between. There are some games that have an excuse for that much FMV, but frankly, most don't.
voodoo85 @ Sep 4th 2006 2:45PM
i thought this was a commonly known fact
Ethan @ Sep 4th 2006 2:47PM
thanks #19., GSR105725, You said exactly what I was going to point out, word for word.
"Wait a second wasn't Gran Turismo HD demo'ed at E3 with super fast loading times!!!!According to Kazunori Yamauchi the loading times are faster due in part of the blu-ray drive and the HDD. Also BD are made with a hard-coating that will protect it from damage.
p.s the 360 devs cannot program games to cache onto the HDD because not every 360 systems comes with a HDD!!"
These facts are right, and anyone who says otherwise is a dee dee dee. At least someone has some common sense and knoweledge around here. Give this man a star.
GamerG @ Sep 4th 2006 2:51PM
MS reckon 9gb will be ok I tend to agree, how many PC games are more than 9gb even after install? Many PC games still come on multi CD!
If a game goes a couple of gigs over I dont see why it cant be installed on the Hard drive or the Xbox live part of the game (which can only be used by people who are online anyway) could be downloaded on to the HD through the original disc to save a bit of space.
deaftly @ Sep 4th 2006 3:16PM
hey that kinda sounds like the psp's main problem besides lack of games,long ass load times, funny stuff
GamerG @ Sep 4th 2006 5:50PM
Do we really believe Kazunori Yamauchi though?? I mean Sony seem to say things and worry about the consequences later GTHD was surely running off a Hard drive and not a Blue ray disc at E3?!!
Xbox Fanboy @ Sep 4th 2006 2:57PM
No Guitar Hero for 360.
BHUAHUANAUHAUHAUHAUA
Mike K @ Sep 4th 2006 2:57PM
Guitar Hero is gay. That's the worst Pro PS3 Argument EVER! Buy a real guitar and teach yourself something useful. The fact that anyone over age 12 plays that thing is shameful.
DBX00 @ Sep 4th 2006 3:02PM
Can November hurry up and come already...I just want to play my PS3, while all these XBOX360 players continue to complain about us overpaying for a product and how they seem to love their system. For people that love their games, they spend a lot of time complaining about the other product...
Ethan @ Sep 4th 2006 3:02PM
@ GamerG, your comment lacks sense, since a HDD is not standard in the 360.
Pedro Van Faulk @ Sep 4th 2006 3:09PM
"p.s the 360 devs cannot program games to cache onto the HDD because not every 360 systems comes with a HDD!!" "
Uh oh. Someone better get over to the guys at Bethesda and tell them to stop development on that 360 game they released 6 months ago because they won't have been able to cache.
Fanboy ramblings are fun.
Jigen @ Sep 4th 2006 3:06PM
Lots of flames and trolls in this post.
Anyways, both 360 and PS3 are going to have brutal load times in many games. PS3's bluray has CLV, but is about as slow as the slowest 360 read rate.
Both systems will have problems with load times and streaming, as the processing and RAM have improved much more over the previous generation than the disk read speed.
heavyness @ Sep 4th 2006 3:06PM
the 360 will be able to load faster from the disk drive then the PS3, fact. BUT, what about decompressing? if developers wanted to, they could use one of the other threads on the 360/PS3 to decompress textures faster. so, we could have a 360 game that unloads faster from the disk drive, but slower on the decompressing.
it all boils down to the development teams and some smart programming. BUT, out of the gate, the 360 does have the advantage.
Johny @ Sep 4th 2006 3:07PM
I have a 360 and plan on getting a wii and a PS3 but im not getting a PS3 at launch and No im not a rich bastard im a smart bastard and im known to be thridty and know how to scrounge up money and anyone over 12 who plays time crisis ia shameful they should buy a real gun and shoot up somthing useful
sienar @ Sep 4th 2006 3:14PM
@33
Are you over 12?
Hart704 @ Sep 4th 2006 3:16PM
Yeah, slower as in you will not notice a difference.
Ken @ Sep 4th 2006 3:21PM
I hear the Xbox 360 won't load Final Fantasy XIII at all. Until the day Microsoft manages to get Square-Enix exclusivity, I'll stick with the PS3.
Being a developer fanboy makes life so much easier.
hohoho @ Sep 4th 2006 3:20PM
i;ll reserve judgement till the console's out with games. I'd expect the load time depends on devs. Ever tailing an old lady driving a porsche?
darryl @ Sep 4th 2006 3:21PM
Who cares about 9MB/s vs. 16MB/s? I guarantee no one will notice the difference. I would much rather have more capacity than speed. Besides, if a developer isn't pleased with a game's loading times, they can employ a hard drive cache.
More anti-PS3 FUD, nothing to see here...
VorpalMonkey @ Sep 4th 2006 3:31PM
I vote we wait and see how bad the load times are before talking about how bad they'll be. From what I have experienced of games though, it's really up to how well the devs can program/stream rather than the media.
Jigen @ Sep 4th 2006 3:25PM
Half of Joystiq's posts latley are FUD, what do you expect?
arch @ Sep 4th 2006 3:26PM
no 36. slower as in HALF the data transfer speed.
TSO @ Sep 4th 2006 3:28PM
Just a quick comment:
While this is an interesting topic and some people are providing some thoughtful insight, I think the main point is being missed.
Will longer load times deter people from buying a PS3 or 360?
Of course not. If that was the case, the PS2 and XBox would have never pushed any units. In fact, over their lifespans, developers found ways to decrease loadtimes for said systems.
The only outcome of slower loadtimes for the 360 and PS3 is more bitching by people when they boot up or wait fo the next level to load. Otherwise I feel that the overall impact will be minimal and not affect sales in the least bit.
vidGuy @ Sep 4th 2006 3:30PM
"Who cares about 9MB/s vs. 16MB/s? I guarantee no one will notice the difference."
If a game requires filling 512MB of cache to start playing, the 9MB/s system takes nearly 57 seconds versus 32 seconds on the 16MB/s system (if both can keep that read speed).
The difference is still noticeable when 128MB is being loaded: 14 seconds versus 8 seconds.
So unless developers create advanced background loading schemes, and only use them on the PS3, the BluRay drive's read speed WILL be a factor.
Now, in two years when Sony releases the PS3.1, which they have said they want to do, you won't have such a problem because they might be putting in a 4x BluRay drive.
ninja @ Sep 4th 2006 3:44PM
# 22. Ugh, 22GB makes my head ache no matter what happens. If loaded from the disc, that'll just be plain slow. If transferred to the harddrive, that'll mean having the INSTALL a console game. Plus the PS3 basic only has a 20GB hard drive so that'll be the lowest denominator.
And now food for thought.
15GB * 1024MB/GB = 15360MB of data
15360MB / 9MB/s / 60s/min ~= 28min
Great, 30 minute install times if that space is REALLY being used for textures, levels and game code.
******************************************************
As someone else already stated;
22GB of data for a game does not mean that ALL 22GB needs to be loaded at that very second to play. They are likely textures, media (music) and CG scenes that will only be loaded at specific times.
So get the inaccurate conversion talk out of here.
Leo @ Sep 4th 2006 3:39PM
In the end after all this drama I bet the PS3 load times will be equal to the PS2s. I'm sure the PS2 games will load a lil faster on the PS3 and PSone games will run smoother and load faster on the PS3.
Load times do not discourage buyers, as long as lil Jonny cries for a PS3 game he'll get it.
Its all flame bait people. It keeps Joystiq's cash flow moving. I don't blame them, I would do the same if I owned a game blog too.
My belief is, the war is going to end like this.
PS3 = 50 million systems sold
X360 = 40 million systems sold
Wii = 35 million systems sold
Reason the PS3 will sell more is because they have tremendous leverage in the subconcious of the public. Grandpa and Grandma used to say does lil Bobby want a Nintendo for christmas? not they say, Does lil Bobby want that Playstation thing for Christmas? It has been embedded in our culture here in america.
In HTML it would be:
(American Culture)
(embed)
Playstation
(/embed)
(/American Culture)
()= *not sure if it will show up if I use .
Joe A. @ Sep 4th 2006 3:44PM
Hey, ADD fanboys, will you read the post? It shows both sides of the fence. It just goes to show the blindness that B33, DBX00, and the rest of the Sony Fanboys on here have.
The PS3 has yet to be seen as a final console. The devkits (I've said this before) are IBM PCs SIMULATING a console environment. This damn thing isn't even out yet and you guys are arguing about how great it is?
It was the same thing for the 360 last year, but at least their final devkits were consoles, not simulation environments.
Both Sony and Microsoft have touted their great graphics with pre-rendered CG BS. MS Fanboys had the Madden 06 McNabb/Strahan/TO preview from last year's draft and GRAW from E3 05. Sony Fanboys have the Killzone PS3 vid that disappeared this year, upscaled GT 4 with no dirt-particle FX, Goddess of War, and a bunch of other PS3 demos at E3 with plasma TVs' sharpness settings cranked to 200%.
The next gen DVD wars are a bunch of crap anyway. It's just two companies trying to find a way to get more money from the consumer. They're just pissed because DVDs are so damned cheap now.
Optimus Prime @ Sep 4th 2006 3:49PM
This argument is OLD. N64 went with cartridges to reduce loading time at the expense of data capacity; a lot of freakin good that did Nintendo. So, STFU MX fanbois.