MTV demystifies PS3 mandatory installs

While I'd prefer people not get into flaming, a few points I'd like to make:

* While I'm all for the concept of faster load times, a few things trouble me. Namely, the forced inclusion of the feature. Load times are a tricky thing. They can hamper you if too long, but at the same time, any properly optimized game should be able to load in a respectably brief time. Anyone who has played Burnout: Paradise can attest to the single load at the beginning, you won't see any more of them. A company should be able to code appropriately and then offer installation as an OPTION ONLY for those that desire even quicker loads. Then create a disc-read-only standard for online loads.

* The idea itself creates a slippery slope. Right now 5 GB isnt too much (though the 20 and 40 owners may disagree). However, nothing is really stopping game developers from going much higher, especially with the proposed increases in game and Blu-ray disc size. 5 GB is probably alright, but imagine 10 or 20....all while still requiring the disc put in ever time.

* The PC argument. Many people say the PS3 is a PC and should be accepted as one with installations. I can't subscribe to this argument. The PS3 is a game console. One of the paramount beauties of console gaming is it's quick "pick up and play" ability. Kids take games to friends' houses, pop stuff in, eject stuff, never having to think about dealing with installations, available memory, hardware restrictions, etc. The second you accept the PS3 is a PC you accept all the drawbacks of a PC. Waiting 30 minutes once at home to install may not seem so bad, but take your game to a friends' house and then accept a 30 minute wait after school or work, and things aren't so fun anymore.

Anyway, those are my main thoughts on the matter. Feel free to agree or disagree, but keep it clean. Thanks for reading.

Not sure what HD DVD has to do with this.... did you mean DVD?

I'm confused... why are they comparing HD DVD to Blu-ray? With 360 and PS3 games, it's DVD VS Blu-ray.

Personally, I'm surprised at how underused the ability to pre-install is with PS3 games. I'd gladly sacrifice a chunk of my hard drive (and wait the oh so agonizing 15 minutes to install once) if it means that I deal with less load times in-game. I think people who make the argument that installs take up too much space aren't really thinking it through. I have a 60 gig PS3, and I have a crapload of content on it, and still plenty of space.

But it's also clear that developers CAN make a game (even a multi-platform one) with impressive load times without pre-installing. Just look at COD4.

Good to know all that extra space is being put to good use.

That's a stupid article, actually. It claims that Dark Sector doesn't require installation. Interesting, because I seem to recall being made to wait a few minutes before getting to play it the first time (not that I think there's anything wrong with that), and there's a 1300 meg Dark Sector data file on my PS3. I love it when the media write about things they don't understand.

@Justin

You make some valid arguments and I agree for the most part. I've never seen the comparison between PC and PS3 before though. That's usually something that people say about the Xbox; especially taking into account DirectX etc.

My opinion is that the phenomenon of "compulsory installs" will be phased out going forward as the developers become more efficient with the technology. Right now it doesn't affect me in the slightest and if people are disgruntled about having to wait a few minutes before playing a game as it sets itself up they really need to compliment their gaming hobby with something else. 20 minute install? Go walk the dog, play the guitar, makes some tea, read a book, surf the web.

Are we really a cadre of people who can think of NOTHING to do when faced with 20 minutes of waiting?

This is the (current) price we pay to be part of this age of gaming. If you really don't like it then stick to consoles where this is not a factor. I hear the Genesis has fast load times.

Well this was a helluva lot more readable than Joystiq's take on the story.

But you used HD-DVD where you should've used DVD many times.

"Quite some time now"? You mean "The last three months"? I don't think there was much for compulsory installs before DMC4, that was the first big one.

The problem is that the devs aren't changing how they code, which is to wait until they need some data, then stop the game entirely, load the data, then keep going. Instead they say "our old, easy way doesn't work with Blu-Ray, guess we'll have to use the hard drive". Devs who have a better handle on blu-ray and the cell processor realize that the solution is to stream data continually from the disk, which is what things like Burnout and Uncharted do.

More devs will realize this and start putting it to use in their games, but expect a few more big install games while developers from last gen realize that reading off disk isn't instantaneous when you're reading gigs worth of data.

Virtua Fighter 5 isn't a mandatory install, but 2.5GB or over 10% of available HDD space on my 20GB PS3 is uncalled for.

2.5GB install for a fighting game... Unbelievable.

I'm all about fast load times. I only have a 40 gig, but at least I can expand it if need be. (my game library is currently quite small)

Though, it is interesting to see why the large installs are necessary.

Biggest load of tripe I have ever heard, firstly, the author clearly does not know the difference between DVD and HD DVD, secondly, Blu-ray in PS3 is faster than 360's DVD drive (see FUDbuster below), so on multiplatforms, where the textures are supposed to be the same, there should be no difference in load times. Unless of course, you have lazy developers.

It sounds like the later, as some of the best looking PS3 games, have very little in the way of load times. Namely, Ratchet and Clank Future tools of destruction, and Unchartered Drakes Fortune.

FUDBuster:

1. The 360's DVD drive is quoted by Microsoft as being 12x. However, here is the first catch. That is ONLY for single layer discs. with DVD9 dual layer, it's actually only 8x.

2. The 360's DVD drive is CAV, which means the data transfer rate varies across the disc surface. Microsoft of course, quote the fastest, 8x (88.8 mbps), on the inner of the disc. At the outer, it's closer to 4x. (44.4 mbps)

3. the 2x Blu-ray drive in the PS3 (used for both movies and PS3 games), use CLV, delivering constant data transfer rates across the entire 50GB of the disc. (72mbps)

As you can see, the 360 is marginally faster for a very small part of the DVD disc. It can deliver about 1-2GB of data on a DVD faster than the PS3, however, the PS3 can deliver the full 50GB of data faster than 90% of the 360's DVD.

In the real world applications, and certainly with the current
multi-platform titles, there is little to choose between PS3 and 360 load times, unless of coarse you use the standard HDD in the PS3, in which case, unless the developers have royally screwed up, the PS3 will always have much shorter load times.

When exactly did MTV become a credible source for anything especially gaming news?

I don't think we'll be seeing many more mandatory installs on many games. People who aren't into hardcore gaming (read anyone who doesn't read this and other game blog things) are going to eventually get tired of having to install some games while other games will work right off the bat (DMC4 V Uncharted).

Remember, this is the generation where devs can no longer let once unnoticeable issues go unnoticed any longer. Lazy development is going to separate the 'haves' from the 'have nots'. Installing, graphics, gameplay, glitches, etc. are all fair game this go 'round/

it might be a hassle now, but all the room for growth will be a blessing 3-4 years from now.


(ps if i can play a game like uncharted, 1 load at the beginning, then i think other devs should take notes or something.)

Still it makes no sense that you but a game on a BRD and it uses exactly the amount of hd space that a dvd has, Devil MC4 is kinda of a ripoff for that, the xbox users only needed a dvd and we a BRD and the hd space of the dvd WTF!?

Um....wasn't the original report of this published on APRIL FIRST? Perhaps there's a little significance to that date, you know April 1st?

Perhaps it's foolish to consider the date, perhaps now. But it does sound a little more than implausible to essentially say that the empty space on a blu-ray disc causes it to perform slowly. That's a little like saying a Nascar race car will slow down as it's fuel load lightens because the fuel pump has to work harder to pump the fuel to the engine...