How important is storage capacity for today's games?
Remember the days when games had to fit on a few 1.4MB floppies or they were physically impractical? The extent to which those days are long gone was put into stark relief by a recent Eurogamer interview in which Sony worldwide studio head Phil Harrison said that some PS3 games were already nearing the 25GB capacity of current Blu-ray discs. In the same interview, Harrison said he expected PS3 games to fill newer 50GB-capacity discs by the end of next year. It's enough to make us wonder -- what's going in to all that space, and what are we as gamers getting out of it?Historically, storage capacity has been an important factor in game design. Adding more space to early arcade, PC and console games meant adding more floppy discs or RAM chips, increasing the cost of production and reducing profit margins. This forced game designers to be resourceful, making the best of what they had with innovative graphical and programming tricks.
With the jump to CD-ROMs and their 700MB of storage capacity, developers were suddenly faced with the opposite problem -- too much space. Early CD-ROM developers filled the bounty with slapdash video and pre-rendered graphics that often had little to no impact on gameplay or even game enjoyment. Still, epics like Myst and Final Fantasy VII presented impressive gameplay experiences that could only be done on CD, sealing the fate of cartridge-based consoles like the Nintendo 64.
Since then we've had a few more big jumps in storage capacity, but again we seem to be getting to a point where game designers are running up against the storage limits of the day's medium. Yet the actual core programs that drive today's games is only eating up a fraction of that space. Aesthetic features like high-definition cutscenes and textures, and auditory features like extensive spoken dialogue and 7.1 Dolby surround sound are gobbling up amounts of space that would be considered nearly unfathomable just ten years ago. More disc space can also lead to more detailed and expansive levels and more complex character animations, enriching the gameplay experience more directly.
Sony is obviously betting that this console arms race will hinge on stuffing as much as possible onto these higher capacity discs, and that regular DVDs won't be up to the requirements of modern games in just a few years time. History shows this may be a safe bet -- nature hates a vacuum, and game developers similarly hate leaving empty space on a storage medium for too long. But unlike the early days of expensive ROM chips, adding more space today is as simple as adding another cheap-to-produce DVD to the game case. Sure, it's annoying having to change discs mid-game, but will gamers consider the convenience of a single disc worthy of an expensive, unproven blue-laser drive technology in their system?
While retail console games taking up more disc space than ever, the size trend is being reversed in other areas. Blockbuster Xbox Live Arcade games routinely come in at only a few megabytes, and the Nintendo DS' one gigabit storage capacity hasn't stopped it from becoming a success. On the PC side, games like Will Wright's upcoming Spore use procedurally generated content to limit disk space usage without limiting graphical or audio fidelity. This is all by way of saying that when it comes to game storage, it's not the size that matters, but what you do with it that counts.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
chiralfox @ Oct 18th 2006 6:04PM
Along with space you also need the speed to deliver content through the bottleneck (in this case, optical drives) to the faster components like memory and CPUs.
Heaven forbid that games become 50 GB only to plague us with horrendous load times because developers are too stubborn to look at alternatives to software bloat.
It's a trite example, but the PSP is a good example of great disc space that comes with a trade-off (GameSpot had a cold boot load time article on the subject).
Ness @ Oct 18th 2006 6:03PM
Im for whatever works in my favor....Me(gamer)FTW!!!!
killploki @ Oct 18th 2006 6:04PM
ok, lets see....sony fanboys will comment that its 100% necessary and switching discs midway through a game sucks, while the microsoft and nintendo fans will talk about how it is not needed and switching the disc isnt a big deal.
that should just about sum up the comments section for this story, no need to continue reading.
Shogan @ Oct 18th 2006 6:10PM
While more storage for games is good, and disc swapping is annoying, do we really need that much space? DVD may be reaching a point now where multiple discs could be necessary due to all the cutscenes and non-game crap, but 10x the amount of the curent medium seems a bit excessive. And will multiplatform games give PS3 games 10x the gaming experience, or just a whole lot more fluff?
dsub @ Oct 18th 2006 11:09PM
How important is storage capacity for today's games?
DVD's offer an ample enough amount of Storage for developers to create their games with. Sony may be claiming that games like Resistance have already hit near the 25GB mark, and that may be the case prior to the developer making any effort to optimize or compress the game, but the reality is, if developers are still finding no issues in XBOX360 games on DVD's at this point in time, there really isn't the huge outcry and need to a massive storage medium like Sony would like you to believe.
Honestly, I think it comes down to a matter of MS really not being THAT stupid. They knew HDDVD and Blu-Ray were on the horizon, and you cannot think for one second that they didn't extensively look into whether or not developers thought more storage capacity was necessary before they made the decision to not include HDDVD.
So to answer the question, in today's games, the current DVD standard of storage capacity if sufficient for games. Perhaps 3-4 years down the line there could be the possibility of perhaps a 2-disc DVD game or two on the 360, but nothing more.
dynamius @ Oct 18th 2006 6:15PM
extreme amount of disc space available could be too much of a good thing. i can see spoiled lazy developers developing games at the most inefficient manner. in the end, the consumer suffers.
given the access time and speed of the blu-ray drive of the ps3, it'd be impractical to use a the storage room provided for use in actual in-game assets (unless we're talking about a 500+ hour linear jrpg or something), therefore, the only use i currently see for it is a lot of high def pre-rendered cinematics. but then you'd think that by now, developers would rather use in-game engine cinematics... at least that's what i prefer to watch.
Jose @ Oct 18th 2006 6:22PM
Only people with small storage capacity say that size doesn't matter. Hmph!
striderhayasa @ Oct 18th 2006 6:19PM
uh. storage vs transfer speed vs price. If it's mass storage, with fast transfer speed at an affordable cost then I'm there. Otherwise...pass.
NoHitHair @ Oct 18th 2006 6:17PM
As far as I'm concerned, developers are still faced with too much space as much as they were when the PlayStation first came out. Having a ridiculous amount of space allows at least three things to happen, none of which are good:
1. Sloppy programming due to no worries about space requirements. This drastically slows down the program, is far more unstable and liable to crash and makes debugging MUCH harder. Many of the mistakes made today with gaming is due to lazy and inexperienced fresh-out-of-college programmers.
2. Forces developers to adopt a policy where their game has more eye-grabbers than their competitors, who are assumed to be utilizing their additional space on CGs. The company's focus shifts to ensuring that they create lavish and stunning film within their game to justify the additional space they were given. CG has historically required an enormous amount of man hours - ones that could be better used elsewhere.
3. Allows developers to ignore "tightening" and "polishing" the game itself (i.e., story, plot, gameplay, etc.) through an assumption that the millions spent on the game's visual aspects will end up carrying it. This has unfortunately largely proved to be true as often times screenshots and a little "super-realism" hype can go a long way.
It's really sad that this trend has only strengthened in the past few years. I had hoped that developers would utilize the additional space for enormous sprawling games with near-infinite possibilities and huge branching storylines, multiple endings and jaw-dropping voice acting (or something to that effect). After Final Fantasy III-US (VI-JPN) and Chrono Trigger released, their creators spoke at length about how large the cartridge sizes had gotten and that they had crammed every little bit they could into the small size of the SNES limitations.
Instead of adding more to our games, we've sacrificed what could've been an unbelievable time for gaming for a couple hours of pretty movies.
mupwangle @ Oct 18th 2006 6:19PM
I wonder how this sudden requirement for extra space will gel with the current movement towards digital distribution? ADSL speeds are increasing dramatically but downloading 1GB+ of data is still a pain. With a tenfold speed increase (which I wouldn't be surprised if that's all we see for a while) that would mean that 10Gb would still be a pain. And it would be easier to get in the car and drive to the shops than download 50Gb.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the need for smaller file sizes becomes for prevalent.
Todd @ Oct 18th 2006 6:20PM
All of that extra storage space will be filled with cut scenes. Games will develop to the point where a cut scene will happen ever 5 minutes as you play the game. If fact, things will eventually progress to the point in which you will observe a cut scene even when you pause the game.
JJ @ Oct 18th 2006 6:23PM
The problem is the argument can go both ways on both sides.
In the end i'm all for a happy medium, use the space if they want or not.
You could say the same things with devs being lazy for OS's that cater to them as well, like the XNA tools everyone raves about from microsoft, one could spin it that its bad because it makes devs lazy by giving them all unified tools.
In the end developers will make use of whatever they can good, good or bad. We'll never know because its always going to be one of those "what ifs". Like "What if" we never had CDroms or DVD roms, what would the gaming climate be like today? What if cartridges were the way of the future? etc etc.
I personally odnt have a problem with more storage capacity and so on. Tech moves forward irregardless of how we feel about it in terms of gaming software. Heck, i bet next gen we'll have systems capable of UHD (ultra high defintion) with monitors that out put like 2400p or something.
I mean minutes of video file in UHD takes up terabytes of space and looks more realistic than life!
Lion @ Oct 18th 2006 6:24PM
It would be foolish to assume that disc size doesn't matter at all, but it doesn't matter as much as some would have you believe. Higher storage capacities enable developers to use larger texture graphics and more pre-rendered/pre-recorded video and audio. Games will, conceiveably look nicer in 1080p on the PS3 than they will in 1080p on the Xbox 360 (or zoomed up close to the textures) ... Until compression improves. While the amount of compression one can do is finite, there is still room to improve copression techniques. If compression improves enough, it is possible that the storage capacity advantage for the PS3 could be negated. (Unlikely, in my opinion; but possible nevertheless.)
L3ftonm3 @ Oct 18th 2006 6:28PM
Ill take multiple discs if it means the levels are going to load up faster, I have no problem if a game is broken up into chapters like a book and require me to change discs. Im still curious to see how large the load times are going to be for ps3.
Trogdor @ Oct 18th 2006 6:29PM
mine is bigger than yours.
striderhayasa @ Oct 18th 2006 6:28PM
@ nohithair
Agreed. If you read the comments of many developers about the next gen they speak at length about their graphics engine. How the extra storage will allow for HD, better textures and such. If you remember...even though the 64 had severe space limitations in comparison to PS games, 64 games were often time larger in terms of scope and size. I remember playing Shadows of the Emipre on 64.
If you knew exactly where to go and what to do and did it perfectly, any one stage could take you almost and hour to complete. Turok and Turok 2 also come to mind. The stages in those games where huge. I would be more confident about the next gen if the additional technology was used to showcase more than just eye candy. Improved AI, and improved physics would be great.
When are we going to use the resources to go beyond..."same gameplay just better graphics"... ?
Cyport @ Oct 18th 2006 6:36PM
Don't forget that bigger games will reduce piracy. Already PSP games can be downloaded and played, but how will people cope with downloading PS3 games. 25GB or 50GB could take weeks if not months, after that the bandwith rate could be used up already.
Still 25GB could mean that games won't just be games. They could have dvd like bonuses and more levels.
m3mnoch @ Oct 18th 2006 6:46PM
my problem with the storage situation is that more storage means more expensive games.
all that extra content -- the higher res textures, the multi-layered audio, the super-detailed fmv's, more detailed animation sequences -- all of them take more developer time to create.
you do not get greater fidelity for free.
it takes more time. takes more developers. takes more budget to pay the developers. takes more platforms to spread the cost....
eventually, game prices hike. we're feeling it with the recent $50 to $60+ jump in this generation of prices.
[soapbox]
so, no. quality before quantity. i want smaller, digitally delivered, episodic games. i want shareware/television business models. pilot is free, charge for the rest. (we're getting there with the xbl demos that are coming down.)
these days, it's not the technology that is the largest expense for developers, it's the art. it's the creative.
why not keep your budget in tact by building smaller games and proving your concept first before you blow the rest of your wad making the other 90% of the content noone will ever see because they just don't have the time to play or because they don't know it exists because there just isn't enough marketing dollars behind it.
maybe, just maybe a studio like clover would have survived on its own then, eh?
[/soapbox]
m3mnoch.
jojo29 @ Oct 19th 2006 9:31AM
one forgets that the Sony PS3 has a built in HD in BOTH versions so matter which one develepors can use that for loading:)
Ben @ Oct 18th 2006 6:39PM
I gotta admit, the comments for this article thus far have been the most unbiased, and respectful comments ever left after a Joystiq article. Kudos.
arch @ Oct 18th 2006 6:41PM
no #2. we will argue that with MSs compression techniques, no game next gen will surpass DVD9, AND will have shorter loading times ON that medium. thats our argument. in other words, yes 100% no needed. notice hopw sony fans have no argument to this. frankly never have for bluray.
arch @ Oct 18th 2006 6:44PM
and no. bluray does not make better textures, and no it doesnt make games look nicer on its 1080p than anothers, and no it doesnt make the graphics look better or higher res. frankly it impossible for the PS3 to have higher textures because it has less memory for it.
Teddy N @ Oct 18th 2006 6:47PM
@ Number 2
You forgot the PC fans, who will simply explain that whether you've got multiple CDs or a single DVD, it doesn't matter because you just need a single disc or none at all to play once it's installed!
Limestallc @ Oct 18th 2006 6:49PM
Having more space may sound good but durring this generation I think it could be a double edged sword. Sure it may give developers the ability to add huge textures with near lossless compression and that may look amazing but remember the blu-ray drive in the ps3 is only 2x. A 2x BRD isnt much faster than a 12x DVD drive so loading those huge textures just add tons to the load times of games. If developers really want to take advantage of the size they would have to do it for things like video and sound because those usually can be loaded off of the disc in real time. I developers do the wrong things with the space it could only hurt the game.
Keeko_ca @ Oct 18th 2006 6:50PM
Everyone jumps on the "higher texture quality bandwagon" when discussing the capacity size topic of the BluRay medium. If the devs are going to push higher textures...the CPU/GPU can only output so much at once per frame...what would devs cut back on then? Frame rates?
rdj75 @ Oct 18th 2006 6:51PM
16. Don't forget that bigger games will reduce piracy. Already PSP games can be downloaded and played, but how will people cope with downloading PS3 games. 25GB or 50GB could take weeks if not months, after that the bandwith rate could be used up already.
Still 25GB could mean that games won't just be games. They could have dvd like bonuses and more levels.
What kind of internet connection do you have that it will take weeks if not months. Hell when the project gotham demo came out on the marketplace it took me only 30 minutes to download a file that was just over 1gig in size (comcast is my isp). With a good download speed and a good server you can download extremely large files in relatively no time at all.
JUJUSTSHUTUP @ Oct 18th 2006 6:51PM
its funny more storage but now we get swamped with micro transactions, GTHD anyone?
John Lucas @ Oct 18th 2006 6:51PM
Those who think we need so much space for gaming do not take into consideration EFFICIENCY.
I can say the number 5 as simply "5".
Or I can say it "FIVE".
Or "2 + 3".
Or "The midpoint of the decimal system (base 10)"
Or "One more number greater than four which was one more number greater than three which was one more number greater than two which was one more number greater than one".
But I can simply say "5" and get it over with.
Make it as simple & condensed as you can to get your point across programming wise.
It's in the talents of the developers.
All of this ties in to the graphic freaks' mentality.
Gameplay doesn't take that much room.
All of this stuff is ambience features which are nice & sometimes necessary but mostly are just fluff.
They have techniques to cram info into smaller spaces for quicker recall & smooth flow of program.
So use them.
When the focus is not on the right things people think you need infinite amount of room to get your point across. There is no real need for either of these formats at this stage of gaming.
Yeah I can build a house as big as the planet Earth & maybe the planet Jupiter but if I'm not good at placing my furnishings in the house it will never be enough. Not even the Sun will be enough nor the Milky Way itself. I'll always need more room because I am not good at packaging my belongings in my household.
They haven't even begun to fill in DVD's yet! Someone on another of these stories said gargantuan Oblivion only takes 900MB! So if that's true then all this noise about gamespace is moot.
All of that usually is reserved for FMV cutscenes which would be better used by in-game cutscenes (nothing new if anybody remembered Goldeneye 007 & Perfect Dark on the N64 which used them masterfully).
That's exactly where it's going anyway. I think people are getting tired of watching their games like movies & want to PLAY them more.
Focus on the GAME part of the word "videogame" rather than just the VIDEO part.
John Lucas
otakucode @ Oct 18th 2006 6:52PM
Software is a gas. It expands to fill the space given.
This is a LAW. There are tradeoffs that can be done. You can compress data, and it will (almost always) result in quality loss (which no one should be willing to tolerate unless it's absolutely unavoidable) and an increased load on the processing unit. The greater the compression, and the less the quality loss, the greater the load on the CPU. This is a LAW.
The argument about space frequently revolves around textures. Sure, bitmapped textures take up a lot of space. Textures are not like the JPEG pictures you have on your hard drive. You can't just say "640x480" looks good. Textures are not presented head-on in a fixed pixel ratio setting. The JPEG standard, and all modern image compression standards, are based around this assumption. And it falls apart, quality-wise, when you put that picture on a multi-faceted polygon, twist and stretch and skew it along different dimensions like gets done in games.
Music. I will not address the misguided people who use their TV speakers for their primary gaming audio needs. They argue selfishly that everyone should limit themselves to stereo because it's good enough for them. That is a fallacious argument and won't convince anyone of anything. Music in games has not been multi-channel as far as I can tell. Stereo has been it. Compression like MP3 only addresses stereo, and is quite lossy. All those using surround-sound will benefit from less audio compression and more distinct channels. This takes up a load more space than you would probably guess.
Sound effects. More than music, sound effects suffer from the same effects textures do. They are not presented in a fixed soundfield like modern audio compression algorithms take as an assumption, so compression has worse side-effects. Sound effects are heard from varying distances, bouncing off of varying materials, including doppler effects of approaching and regressing sound sources, etc. This is a lot of processing and the purest and rawest input possible is desired here. And uncompressed audio takes a lot of space.
Cutscenes. Cutscenes obviously take a lot of space. Even if you accept lossy compression, a requirement because 50GB would hold only a few seconds of HD-resolution video in an uncompressed state (without sound!). Games can often include more cutscene material than an entire feature-length movie. Some games are played over 50, 100, or more hours of playtime. Those games need a great deal of space, and will be using all available space assuming these companies actually get off their butts and jettison the disgusting Bink video codec they paid for 15 years ago and have been using to death ever since (since it doesn't cost them anything extra). As with any image compression, the more space you save, the more quality you lose or the more burden you put on the CPU.
Levels. Levels, right now, typically do not contain much data when compared with other content. This should change. You know how there are loads of things you can intersect with in the game world, like tree branches going through your clothes and other anomolous things like that that we're used to? If you want to get rid of that, and have a tree branch act like a tree branch and your shirt act like a shirt, we need a lot more polygons. Polygons take space, and as video card skyrocket in their ability to crunch millions of polygons per frame, we have to store them somewhere.
Me @ Oct 18th 2006 6:53PM
#2 Killploki said it correctly the first time. The fact of the matter though, is that more space will create better and bigger games with better quality audio and visuals. You guys don't honestly think that the majority of developers out there will just get lazy because they have sufficient space to make a good game and end up making a crappy game do ya. All i have to say is RESISTANCE !!!!! You guys will see what blu-ray has done for the PS3 once it launches on November 17th....What's amazing is that it's a launch title and is prolly going to be one of the best shooters of all time. There were some videos of all the online options and even gameplay on www.ps3blog.net (a total of 6 videos, which i think are on www.youtube.com also). Everybody that has played it says it's great and it will probably have more online options than any 360 fps to date. Even has 4 player split screen !!!! Once you check this out you will see what blu-ray is allowing developers to do....also the fact that the PNP allowes for complete devloper freedom isn't a bad thing at all...the shit is gonna be great.....ohh yeah one more thing to add......my refurbished 360 that i got back from the microsoft repair shop here in texas has already broke, so i'll be on my 3rd one now !!!!!!! I think i'll sale the next refurbished one on ebay to get some extra money for PS3 games. Microsoft sux when it comes to making hardware...end story !!!
Crills @ Oct 18th 2006 6:56PM
@2 Well of course sony fanboys are going to complain. Its kinda annoying to switch to a third disc (FFVII) or forth (FFVIII) when your playing a game that your really enjoying. You'll understand if ever Square Enix ever makes a game for the x360.
zymman @ Oct 18th 2006 6:56PM
The only, and let me stress *ONLY*, reason a PS3 game would be filling up that much space at launch is due to less or no compression (on both the video and audio side). All this really means is that it will be easier for the blu ray drive to read the information off the disc and thus make its slower drive be able to run games at equivalent load times to the 360. Launch games are notorious for being rushed and it would be foolish to believe that any game at launch would need anywhere near that kind of space. The scary thing is that if Sony or other developers ever intend to use that space for something it really would be needed for it would be something like a game 5 times the size of San Andreas. With a a family, a job, and other responsibilities now, that is a scary thought for me. I put 150 hours into Oblivion and only completed maybe half of the content available. 10 to 20 hours of gameplay is a perfectly reasonable amount for me to desire out of a game now. I think a lot of the reason that music DVD's haven't succeeded is for this reason. Back when records only allowed about 40 minutes of info on two sides that's how long (or less) an album was. When CD's were introduced and it extended to about 80 minutes, so did the length of the album. No one wants to listen to a 5 hour rap album and no one wants to play a 500 hour game. Period. (If you do, get World Of Warcraft, I hear it goes on forever).
Franky Digital @ Oct 18th 2006 6:57PM
I read a lot of forum-chatter recently that talked about how the PS3 Bluray drive would be reducing load times of games. This is absolutely incorrect. The first-gen Bluray drives are no different than any other first-gen disc media readers: they read at speeds than the 60x CD-ROM/DVD-ROM readers we have nowadays. This means longer load times - and when coupled with the exponentially larger amount of data to load, prepare to wait quite a while in between levels.
However, the real question is this: do you think developers are actually going to spend the time filling the discs with extra stuff that affects gameplay (more and larger levels, more story/voice acting, etc) for games that are the same price as previous generation ones? Just because there's more disc space does not mean you're going to get more for your money, and if they do start really taking advantage of the space, it's only going to increase development time, development cost and ultimately end-consumer costs.
And truly, that's not likely to happen. The trend over time has been to give the gamer less content for more money, and with microtransactions merely "moments" away, this trend is sure to continue.
What really matters the most is the core code of the game. The physics, the AI, the tightness of the game engine - that is all a reflection of the coding. All 12 MBs* of it.
(* Sample size; point is the code - the real soul of the game - is a trivial size when compared to our current storage mediums, regardless of how complicated a game is)
otakucode @ Oct 18th 2006 6:59PM
John Lucas: Whoever said Oblivion takes up 900MB was lying to you. Oblivion takes 4.35GB of space. And it employs copious compression tactics. Notice how you need a monster PC to run it decently? That's thanks, in a large part, to the compression. Everything is a trade-off. Yes, there can be lazy developers and they can cause unneeded bloat. However, in a perfect world where a developer does not make a single mistake, they cannot fit more content in a given space simply because they want to. They have to make performance considerations, storage considerations, and other things into account.
I would be very interested to hear from any developers who have worked on titles with long load times. Were those load times due to bandwidth issues between the optical/hard drive and the CPU? I would guess not. Most of the load time is probably taken up by decompression, transfer of data to the video card, and other computational work that must be done in memory (loading everything to do with the level such as NPC data structures, AI pathing, and a titanic amount of other things).
Akela Talamasca @ Oct 18th 2006 7:07PM
And let's not forget about the upcoming trend in procedural programming, with its tiny space footprint!
otakucode @ Oct 18th 2006 7:09PM
For those of you throwing out the "speed" canard about Blu-Ray being slow... do you have any idea what you are talking about? A CD transfer rate of 2x is not the same as a DVD transfer rate of 2x is not the same as a BD-ROM transfer rate of 2x.
Here, memorize this:
CD at 48x = 7200Kbit/s
DVD at 16x = ~20Mbit/s
BD-ROM at 2x = 72Mbit/s
Why would something reading at 72Mbit/s take longer to load than something reading at 20Mbit/s? (and that would be assuming your console DVD-ROM reads at 16x... it's not even close)
LaughingTarget @ Oct 18th 2006 7:10PM
otakucode -
The SUBSTANCE of Oblivion takes up 900MB. Everything else is fluff to make it look pretty.
Seriously, all the extra space is going to be used for is cosmetics. BluRay won't make the games play better than a dual-layer DVD. They'll be just as bad or good as the developer can make them, the only thing better is the wrapping paper.
Al @ Oct 18th 2006 7:13PM
*starts to speak* ... Oh, killploki (#2) just summed it up right there.
jojo29 @ Oct 18th 2006 7:30PM
off topic abit
you guys should check out the latest editorial from EGM.. made me LOL..EGM are now officially the bitches of Microsofts...must feel nice selling out for those big bucks right Dan Hsu:)
Adam @ Oct 18th 2006 7:18PM
I'm really getting sick of this discussion.
it has nothing to do with switching disks. it has to do with High Definition content.
Do you ever stop to ask yourself why we need HD dvds and blue ray disks in the first place? Outside of games?
It's because HD content. TV shows and movies simply can't be put on a regular DVD. they take up far too much space.
Since all next gen games will be displayed in HD (sony even going as far as 1080p) these games will quickly fill up a dvd. Regardless of compression methods.
Developers time and time again have said that the biggest draw back to the 360 is it's lack of space on the dvd9s.
microsoft wants HD content and next gen visuals on last generation storage devices.
and no. it won't make the games play better. but it will make them prettier. and i suppose that only seems to matter when your favorite console has the prettiest graphics.
DBX00 @ Oct 18th 2006 7:19PM
Blu Ray Advantages
Audio - Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD
Video - up to 9 hours of HD content (I'm no expert, but having games in 1080p and then compressing the data to fit on DVD9 has to put a strain on the CPU during gameplay to decompress that stuff. As a result, you aren't pushing the CPU/GPU to its full capacity resulting in a further decline in the graphical detail you push on the screen.)
Flexibility - Current games run on single layer discs at 25GB, but the drive is capable of reading 50GB discs and up. This makes the format flexible for any future needs of a developer.
Gameplay - Increased level of detail and enhanced graphic engine can be produced to quickly create realistic world with enormous amount of detail. This may not be apparent in launch titles (although the PS3 6 month delay will probably result in better than usual launch titles).
In conclusion, not everyone is going to agree on whether lossless audio, more HD content, or enhanced detailed worlds really mean much to gameplay. However, these things are capabilities the PS3 has BEYOND the XBOX360 so if all things remain equal should result in a better gaming experience. Let me be clear, I don't think all things are equal because Sony simply produces better and more first party games while still having better third party support.
otakucode @ Oct 18th 2006 7:20PM
LaughingPaper: Black and white movies can draw a person in just as much as a full-color HDTV movie with surround sound. I wouldn't argue that games can be done which are compelling in a small footprint. But arguing that there is NOTHING to be gained by giving creators a more expansive and less restrictive canvas has little merit, I believe.
One of the difficulty in talking about games is their extreme amount of multi-dimensionality. Yes, you can have a good game without graphics so good you feel like you're going to fall into the TV. But good games CAN be done with those graphics. Games, in fact, that cannot be done otherwise.
Jake @ Oct 18th 2006 7:20PM
Doesn't the PS3 RAM limit it from having "more high rez textures" than the 360. I am no expert, but I thought the two systems had the same RAM.
I mean, you could have more total textures, but not in game at a time.
The bottom line is that the extra memory will be great for a game like Final Fantasy, but really won't add to a game like Resistance Fall of Man. Developers aren't going to get that lazy with compression because higher compressed games load a little faster. Also, with the Flops that the PS3 can pull, you want to be hammering through compressed stuff.
So, there are a few potential advantages if you assume that a developer isn't going to make a $200 game that is essentially 10 Oblivion sized games in one.
1) Games built on cutscenes, like FF. You won't need multiple discs.
2) Games that have every language, director interviews, extra cutscenes not using game engine, etc. Fluff and buff if you will.
3) More than one game on a disc. Sounds crazy, but it is possible with Greatest Hits down the road or something.
4) If developers truly can find a way to use it to an advantage on a single $60 game. By "truly" use it, I mean to improve gameplay. This will probably happen some time, but it is hard to know what to expect.
5) Game + Movie combo.
6) 1080p movies (likely the biggest)
Disadvantages:
1) Possibly less reliable.
2) Slightly more expensive disc leading to lower margins for developers, possibly leading to smaller budgets?
3) Slower read speed likely will yield longer load times. However, early indication is that they won't be ridiculous or anything.
4) Sony es teh ballz suzors. I kid.
mykie @ Oct 18th 2006 7:28PM
Here is root the directory structure of one of these 25gb PS3 games looks like:
D:>dir /a:h
Volume in BluRay drive has no label.
Volume Serial Number is B093-121C
Directory of BluRay drive
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 214 boot.ini
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 933,028,464 file0000.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 1,453,835,843 file0001.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 2,354,774,234 file0002.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 852,565,293 file0003.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 1,223,223,827 file0004.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 723,672,421 file0005.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 3,412,424,963 file0006.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 2,112,791,618 file0007.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 4,798,135,932 file0008.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 3,135,853,433 file0009.chk
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 0 IO.SYS
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 762 IPH.PH
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 1,071,788,032 hiberfil.sys
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 250,032 NTLDR
11/17/2006 03:11 PM 1,610,612,736 pagefile.sys
11/17/2006 03:11 PM PS3GAME
11/17/2006 03:11 PM RECYCLER
11/17/2006 03:11 PM System Volume Information
11/17/2006 03:11 PM WINDOWS
10 File(s) 23,682,957,804 bytes
4 Dir(s) 0 bytes free
Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 7:31PM
otakucode
ur numbers are wrong thats why. a 12x dvd like the one in the 360 is faster than a 2x bluray drive
Mb = megabits
MB =megabytes
Blu-ray 1x: 36Mbps / 4.5MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps
Blu-ray 2x: 72Mbp / 8MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps
Blu-ray 3x: 108Mbps / 13.5MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps
Blu-ray 4x: 144MBps / 18MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps
and a link for you
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek
thats why u hear longer loading times
and not compressing the data would not help loading times. specially with streaming background decompression. any programer will tell u u always compress as it makes it quicker to move that data. so lower transfer rate and bigger files mean longer load time
John Lucas @ Oct 18th 2006 7:31PM
To otakucode:
Okay I'm not an expert on Oblivion I'm just saying what I heard the poster say on that other Joystiq story. Tech talk goes over my head as I care more for the end presentation. It's nice to know how the gears work but what am I getting in the end is what I care about more.
Now don't get me wrong. I implored that unnecessary spatial upgrades were unneeded/moot. We certainly can't go back to the 8-bit days where dialogue input & code input was limited to a shallow pool. But remember that the driving force behind the technical upgrades was the gameplay sought by the developers.
More room for deeper games. Graphics came along for the ride. And the graphics themselves were thought of in the context of gameplay as well. Clearer objects, more objects, more distinct backgrounds from foregrounds. All so that the gameplay can become more smooth-flowing & engaging.
Ever since the Cinema Age of gaming took root (see Sean Malstrom's piece "Theory of Cycles" http://thewiikly.zogdog.com/article.php?article=3&ed=1 ) people have lost focus on what is supposed to drive gaming. It's all about looks now. All of those recent space increases went to nothing more than visual allure & pizzazz. I have no problem with graphics improving but it seems that's all they're doing.
Load times suck. And too many FMV's make the game experience drag. I'm loving the mystery, detective-esque elements of Resident Evil Zero that I'm playing recently but so many times was a cutscene added just for the hell of it. I SEE why my Gamecube version needed two discs. Sometimes I'm like is there a point to all this? Get back to the game! The gameplay of puzzle solving, map-reading, monster busting is what makes Resident Evil great. The ambience of the dark creepy graphics is icing on the cake. Definitely brings you in more but it's the play that makes the game great. And even the graphics don't take up all that much room compared to the FMV.
N64's Perfect Dark's cutscenes were more engaging to me because whatever I was using was on the screen in the in-game cutscene. And at anytime I can interrupt & the game cutscene would end morphing instantly into the gameplay as soon as I touched the button.
There's a guard walking down the corridor towards me? Press the A Button & instantly I'm ready to engage him as he notices me ready to fight.
It's active not passive & that makes a hell of a difference. FMV's should be used sparingly (mostly for endings & intros) & load times (loadscreens) should be gone by now. There's no excuse for those in the 7th generation.
I remember RPG's in the 8-bit days & then the 16-bit days. There wasn't much room for complex dialogue back in the 8-bit days. I got into RPG's once the space increased to where a good story could be told in the game with character dialogue. See Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger & any other RPGs of that era like Lufia.
But story is central to JRPG's so that was part of the gameplay. The space limitations expanded from a valid reason.
I'm looking at my Battalion Wars game with its long loading times & just one game mode & I'm like where is all this programming going? I like the game but compared to its GBA/DS counterparts it's very skimpy on the features. No two-player? No practice mode? No mapmaker? No side mission modes? Hopefully the Wii sequel will fix these things.
All gen long I thought the 6th generation would surpass the limitations of the previous generations when it came to content. Sometimes it did (Super Smash Bros. Melee, my god!) & sometimes it didn't (Battalion Wars).
All I see this doing is making gaming more expensive & less properly-focused, & less productive.
Graphics are finished in thr 6th gen. You make an accurate illustrative or realistically styled depiction of the idea you want to produce. So from now on concentrate on the content that your idea is supposed to contain. And do it within the generous boundaries of space we currently have available which are plenty for nearly all games.
Remember the ENIAC took up a city block at one time until people started making these things more effiecient to the point that we can now hold 'em in our laps.
USE the tools EFFICIENTLY.
John Lucas
otakucode @ Oct 18th 2006 7:32PM
mykie: So I take it the PS3 runs on Windows XP? Neat trick how they manage to put a swap file on a read-only disc too.
otakucode @ Oct 18th 2006 7:40PM
Lefty: The numbers I was using for the maximum DVD speed for a 16x drive came from the Lite-On website. I can't find any site other than that GameStop blog that cites DVD drives with a transfer rate higher than 22,160 Kbit/sec. I'm not sure where he came up with the much higher number.
And ask any developer (oh hey, here's one in my chair!) and they'll tell you that reading compressed data is better than noncompressed only when the tradeoff works out. If it takes 1s to read 1MB of data, and 5s to decompress the data, you're not going to compress the data unless you can get a compression ratio of 5:1. And only then if your processor isn't too busy with other things. And only then if the quality loss is acceptable.
Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 7:44PM
otakucode
no reply?
hope u understand its not just fanboy rant but hard facts.
the one area bluray beats dvd is that its a constant speed. dvd's rarely ever reach max speed as they are variable speed. the best bet is to take the avg
2x bluray is 72Mbps/8MBps
12x dvd is an avg speed of 90-100Mbps/12-13MBps.
just the facts. just the facts
Lefty @ Oct 18th 2006 7:46PM
ok than let me find u more sources on what is common knowledge
and a link ot ur info would be nice