LittleBigPlanet fills up Blu-ray disc
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Sep 10th 2008 at 4:15PM }
Evans explains there's a lot of tutorial content in LittleBigPlanet, narrated by Stephen Fry for English audiences. As we've learned in the past from Heavenly Sword and Ratchet, it's the (uncompressed and/or multi-region) audio that takes up a significant amount of space on the Blu-ray. Evans expresses that thanks to the Blu-ray, file size hasn't been a concern. This loose attitude to size for the disc's contents will not be applied to the player-designed content, however, which Evans says is "relatively compact."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Vault @ Sep 10th 2008 4:19PM
Why compress if you don't have to, right?
Tephlon @ Sep 10th 2008 4:25PM
Yes, cause it makes much more sense to transfer the largest amount of data possible through your system's tightest bottle-neck, right?
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 4:42PM
...because any potential and advantage that Cell has over 360 CPU is wasted because it has to read and process a shit load of uncompressed data? Because Blu-Ray is shit slow as it is and it would have to be at least a couple of times faster than DVD in order to operate at DVD's efficiency?
I don't expect them to go as far as .kkrieger but devs should always compress their games as much as it's possible without loosing out on quality.
Vidikron (FU) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:00PM
They're talking about tutorials here. No big deal.
"...because any potential and advantage that Cell has over 360 CPU is wasted because it has to read and process a shit load of uncompressed data?"
Umm... you actually waste CPU cycles DEcompressing data.
cc123 @ Sep 10th 2008 5:04PM
"Because Blu-Ray is shit slow as it is and it would have to be at least a couple of times faster than DVD in order to operate at DVD's efficiency?"
What does this even mean?
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:10PM
Yes, but combined with the slowness of Blu Ray Drive I'm pretty sure it will take a lot more time than it would for Cell to simply decompress it all.
They could also save even more time by releasing installations along with compressed 9GB-12GB games, but that's a different story.
Vidikron (FU) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:12PM
@Jakka
We're still just talking about some narrated tutorials here. Why not use uncompressed audio?
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:12PM
"What does this even mean?"
This is Blu-Ray.Blu-Ray's drive speed is more-or-less as fast as DVD's drive speed however as it has to process 4-5 times as much data which definitely shows off on it's efficiency.
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:14PM
@ Vidikron
I know.In fact I agreed on it few comments below.
Sorry for a little misunderstanding but my first response was more of a rant about devs and installs overall than a LBP specific bash.
Tephlon @ Sep 10th 2008 5:37PM
"This is Blu-Ray.Blu-Ray's drive speed is more-or-less as fast as DVD's drive speed however as it has to process 4-5 times as much data which definitely shows off on it's efficiency."
Yeah, this is actually what I'm referring to as well. Yes, in the case of linear, tutorial audio it's not such a big deal, but in general I think a better balance could be reached than 'use it cause it's there'... there's typically more factors at play than that.
anonim1979 @ Sep 10th 2008 6:08PM
386 could easile keep with compressing/decompressing data from HDD with real time in DOS without any big disadvantges - google "doubledrive"...
Surely MIGHTY Cell will have no problem processing 8MB per second OF DATA TO DECOMPRESS (max teoretical speed from 2xBR i PS3)?
Or is it too much? :)
On PC in decompressing tests even modicore processors are capable of 300+MB of data/s (problem is RAM bandwidth not CPU power in fastest decompressors)
Oh sorry 8MB it's "shit load" - poor poor Cell. LOL
----------
And in BR reading most problematic is VERY SLOW access time NOT reading speed (though that is not very impressing too http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11404 )
DVD ~110ms
2xBlu-ray >350ms
Anyway - putting 40GB is more PR stunt than nessesity
35 or more will be probably uncompressed 7.1 196kHz audio (converted from mono mic ;) ) or other redundant data
On PS3:
Unreal Tournament III - 3.43 GB
Burnout Paradise (PAL) - 3.14 GB
etc.
anonim1979 @ Sep 10th 2008 6:10PM
Link for ~40 PS3's game sizes:
http://www.ps3news.com/forums/ps3-linux-news/post-ps3-dump-sizes-52113.html
Trev @ Sep 10th 2008 6:14PM
Anonim, you posted almost the exact same thing in the Bioshock article and people didn't care there either. Why don't you give your crusade against the evil PS3 a rest and go have some fun playing video games?
BananaBoat @ Sep 10th 2008 6:16PM
I think it may be better to look at why we need uncompressed audio in the first place. Does anyone really care about hearing Stephen Fry uncompressed? Uncompressed is foolish when you could just as easily use a lossless means of compression and reduce the file size considerably, while retaining (literally, thus the term "lossless") all of the sound quality. There is a point at which only the most seasoned of audio professionals (or audiophiles) can even tell the difference between uncompressed and lossy compression (for instance, put a 320kbps MP3 next to the same song right off a CD, and most people wouldn't know the difference). So to say that the game is big because of audio is a joke.
That said, I wuv you LBP, and I openly accept your warm rod...I mean...embrace....we'll talk.
Tephlon @ Sep 10th 2008 7:04PM
"Anonim, you posted almost the exact same thing in the Bioshock article and people didn't care there either. Why don't you give your crusade against the evil PS3 a rest and go have some fun playing video games?"
Chill dude, it's relative to both topics. No harm. And while it looks like some stab at the ps3, it's really more a stab at Sony and blu-ray. While the technology is fine and dandy, it simply doesn't belong in a videogame console sold in 2006. The technology simply wasn't mature enough. It confirms their greed to use the ps3 to place their format in homes and win the format war, not to improve on the videogame experience. To their credit, it worked... but at the cost to videogames. The playstation (as a game console) would be doing just fine, if not better, had it launched with a DVD drive instead of a blu-ray one.
I think this generation would've been much better off had blu-ray stayed away or released as an add-on drive when they became affordable and the tech matured. Now Sony's forced to attempt to justify the decision as anything other than a pure business/format/trojan horse one.
It isn't.
Ayrkain @ Sep 10th 2008 7:26PM
It's always Evil Greed if Sony does it, but if MS does, it's a Good Business Decision? Convenient. This wasn't even Sony talking about it, rather it was a dev. I'll take the word of someone who actually works with the hardware over blog commenters anyday.
Bastard11 @ Sep 10th 2008 9:27PM
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) & Tephlon!!
You guys obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Blu-ray has been a gift to video game development.. I don't know why exactly you think otherwise.
The speed is hardly a factor and gets greatly exaggerated. At worst you add a couple seconds to a load time if you have assets spread all over the disc and you are up against a DVD where all the important data can manage to fit on the outer rim of the disc.
Linear is far better than Angular and simplifies the process of mastering a disc. Now you only have to account for seek times which is easy enough.. and with enough space for redundant data you can streamline the loading of a particular "stage" so that seeking is all but completely unnecessary.
Some people tend to be under the misconception that disc mastering makes DVDs much faster than Blu-ray but the truth is that these days you can't fit enough data on the "speedy" area of a DVD to make a difference in a full size game. Not to mention the major speed hit you take when using a DVD9 like all games do these days.
Anyone still crying about Blu-ray's inclusion regarding the PS3 is either greatly misinformed or is actually still complaining about the added manufacturing costs equaling a higher retail price.
And with regards to compressing audio.. what exactly do you think is so great about it? It isn't kind to processing, to RAM, or cache, disc space, or quality so what exactly is this great advantage the developers are missing out on by not compressing the video or audio in LBP??
Tephlon @ Sep 10th 2008 9:37PM
"It's always Evil Greed if Sony does it, but if MS does, it's a Good Business Decision? Convenient. This wasn't even Sony talking about it, rather it was a dev. I'll take the word of someone who actually works with the hardware over blog commenters anyday."
Woah woah woah. I never brought up MS, and I'm sure as hell not defending their blunders, of which I think there are many. And I even conceded to say that sticking blu-ray in the PS3 made good business sense. It worked. I'm simply saying that they didn't do it for the sake of gaming. And it hasn't helped gaming either.
We could've waited 5-8 years to have a faster, cheaper, more mature disc format to play our games off of, and live with 9 gb or multi-disc games till then. All these 'how big are the games' arguments would've been mute had all the consoles used DVD. Again, I'm not arguing all the other factors BD brings, I'm simply saying it wasn't good for gaming this gen.
Also, what is this that "you'll take the word of someone who works with the hardware" crap. What's being stated here (concerning load times, etc) is fact. It's not being disputed by anyone. It's the interpretation of the facts where things get muddled.
Tephlon @ Sep 10th 2008 10:03PM
"You guys obviously don't know what you are talking about."
Oh my god. If only I had known!
"Blu-ray has been a gift to video game development.. I don't know why exactly you think otherwise."
I'm gonna stop quoting you here, as the rest of your comment (the techno-babble and mastering crap) holds no bearing to the topic. No one is arguing that more space (or the the lack of a constraint on space) is good for development. It's nice to think that you can build a game with all the content you (and your publishers) can afford to make.
But this space has come at a cost. You've pulled the stick out of the developers leg, but then you jabbed a pen in their eye. Trading one problem for another doesn't necessarily mean you've made huge improvements anywhere.
I don't care what you say about mastering, yada yada yada, the drive CANNOT pull data off the disc faster than it can pull it off the disc... period. Now, if you take 40 mb of data and compress it to 20 mb, the transfer off disc is going to be faster. This is just a wild, general example. As you pull the data off the drive, the processor uncompresses it and sticks it in memory, and does what it needs done with it. Under the current config, it's quite possible to balance the size gains with compression and the cpu cycles it takes to decompress it and come out ahead because it took less time than it would have had the disc had to do twice the transfer. This is not fucking rocket science people.
"And with regards to compressing audio.. what exactly do you think is so great about it? It isn't kind to processing, to RAM, or cache, disc space, or quality so what exactly is this great advantage the developers are missing out on by not compressing the video or audio in LBP??"
Jesus Christ. First off, we both admitted several times that this argument isn't quite particular to audio as in compression of data in general, but the principles do still apply. Compressing IS kind to disc space... that's the whole fucking point of it. Because it's kind to disc space it will therefore be kind to transferring the data off the disc. The data will be used in a raw format either way, so it's no different to RAM or cache, and there's minimal hit for the CPU.
Look, we're not saying compression comes free. We're saying that compression is great when looking at the big picture. You're only as fast as your slowest player. The slowest component is your bottleneck. These cpu's are powerful enough to do particular levels of decompression on the fly with little cost. (especially during loading times when the cpu isn't being taxed at all).
What I'm talking about, is balance.
Bastard11 @ Sep 10th 2008 11:59PM
First of all.. sorry.. I have no idea how or why I slipped "disc space" in there.. my mind must have wandered.
I'm really curious now as to what this "pen in the eye" is. What is this great disadvantage of Blu-ray to developers?
"I don't care what you say about mastering, yada yada yada, the drive CANNOT pull data off the disc faster than it can pull it off the disc... period. Now, if you take 40 mb of data and compress it to 20 mb, the transfer off disc is going to be faster."
Okay if you are just talking about the difference in load times I see where you are coming from.. but sorry.. are you assuming the developers aren't using any type of data compression on code? And why are you assuming this?
"This is just a wild, general example. As you pull the data off the drive, the processor uncompresses it and sticks it in memory, and does what it needs done with it. Under the current config, it's quite possible to balance the size gains with compression and the cpu cycles it takes to decompress it and come out ahead because it took less time than it would have had the disc had to do twice the transfer. This is not fucking rocket science people."
It may not be rocket science but it sure is a hell of a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.
I'm not a software engineer myself so I may lack the eloquence this topic justly deserves but there are certainly a lot more considerations that I'm aware of that you seem to be skipping.
First of all.. compressed data doesn't just magically fly off the disc, through the processor and end up uncompressed in memory without other memory footprints involved. Your program needs to be able to decompress the data.. the CPU doesn't just know to do it by itself.. so that has a footprint right there. Decompression also needs cache.. which is a very valuable and limited resource in general.. but especially when dealing with CELL.
You also need to consider the use of different compression types for different data types if you are looking for the %50 efficiency you are touting with lossless results.
"The data will be used in a raw format either way, so it's no different to RAM or cache, and there's minimal hit for the CPU."
Depending on how you manage your data this may or may not be true. I already stated before that RAM and especially cache are certainly effected by compression. Sure that might not be an issue if you are sitting at a load screen but that isn't the only way to go about things.
As far as minimal hit to the CPU? Um.
Look I know the CELL is a beast with things like decompression and video processing but it certainly isn't free. Now if you are doing any of that while you have a complex physics and collision detection system running, audio processing, video, etc..
OMG.. you have clearly never worked with the CELL before because managing all of that is an extreme pain.
But what it all boils down to is the end user experience. If compression can noticeably improve their experience then great.. but if gains are more theoretical than practical how do you justify budgeting for that?
If you manage your data right the potential gains can be reduced to seconds or even fractions of seconds on loading screen that you game may or may not even incorporate, or perhaps reduce asset pop-in issues if you are even having issues with that.
While the costs can be more than just a headache for your software engineers and dollars out of pocket.
Compression is fine.. but certainly not mandatory as you make it sound.
And Blu-ray really isn't that slow.. read speeds over a large portion of a dual layered DVD are actually slower than 2x Blu-ray.. while mastering can deal with that issue in most cases it really depends on how many assets you have and how many you plan to use together. I imagine a game like LBP has plenty of those.
phinn @ Sep 11th 2008 12:51AM
Right, thats just another beauty of the PS3's technology. If they had any reason to compress the data they would. But apparently it works quite well this way.
Tephlon @ Sep 11th 2008 9:14AM
@bastard11
Sorry. I started a long post to discuss your points but I lost it (damn you batteries!!).
But in short, yes, I'm sorry. Some of my stuff got exaggerated. I feel like towards the end of your post you were just agreeing with what I was trying to convey: With balance compression can be a very strong asset to devs and gamers.
The point I was simply trying to make is that the blu-ray drive in the PS3 has provided more than 5 times the storage of dvd with no improvements to speed at which it delivers it. If we'd waited till next gen to unleash blu-ray, the tech would've matured, brought down costs, and delivered crazy amounts of storage to the machine quickly.
Rushing it into the PS3 is just not something I think has helped gaming as a whole.
Now we spend all our time arguing about crap like this when we could've just been playing the games.
Blu-ray didn't invent storage past 9gb. It's not like it wasn't coming eventually.
But by bringing it in too early I fear they've done more damage than good... and all because sony wanted their format in people's living rooms over anyone elses.
Again, I'm not saying that it's all bad, I just think it's a shame. Cause I think this gen and next would've turned out much different had it not been an issue. I think they would've been better.
Bastard11 @ Sep 11th 2008 11:32AM
Well I just don't see it that way. Adding Blu-ray now is still a step up from DVD. Adding Blu-ray now brings down manufacturing costs now instead of later.. so imagine what they'll be able to add to the PS4 without over inflating the price. Basically.. you gotta bite the bullet at some point.. I don't see why now was such a bad idea.
As for perceived harm to the industry.. I think that may be a little more projection on the part of Blu-ray haters than an actual problem.
I'm more curious as to why Microsoft didn't go with a faster DVD drive in the 360 for what would basically equal pennies in the end.
Tephlon @ Sep 11th 2008 12:07PM
"Well I just don't see it that way. Adding Blu-ray now is still a step up from DVD. Adding Blu-ray now brings down manufacturing costs now instead of later.. so imagine what they'll be able to add to the PS4 without over inflating the price. Basically.. you gotta bite the bullet at some point.. I don't see why now was such a bad idea.
As for perceived harm to the industry.. I think that may be a little more projection on the part of Blu-ray haters than an actual problem."
Yeah, I dunno. Obviously it's just conjecture, and I certainly don't want to claim/convey that my opinion is the only right one.
I guess it's just that when I step back and look at the industry and this gen as a whole, I get the feeling that it's added more controversy and issues than what seems it's worth. I don't have a developers perspective like you seem to, so I won't claim to know better... but I just don't remember storage ever being a complaint before. All of a sudden blu-ray comes along and space is a concern. I just don't think it would be such a hot topic had it not been included this gen, and everyone would've just made their games like normal. Seeing dvd a bit more mature and accepted when it was included in the PS2 and XBOX, I just feel that it would've been had had the blu-ray drives and consoles lined up in more similar fashion.
"I'm more curious as to why Microsoft didn't go with a faster DVD drive in the 360 for what would basically equal pennies in the end."
Yeah, I wonder that myself. The drives are pretty noisy, and I think that may be a "reason", but I'm pretty sure I've heard drives much faster and much quieter than those in the 360. Sounds like poor choices for cost cutting to me.
MKA @ Sep 10th 2008 4:22PM
Filling up a blue ray with LBP fills up my heart with joy!
Marty @ Sep 10th 2008 4:52PM
Take it easy there, emo.
Remember back when we used to make a big deal about DVD's being filled with content?
...
No? Well, you shouldn't, because it never happened, and with good reason. The size of the contents on the disc doesn't make a game any better or worse than otherwise.
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 4:56PM
True. Been playing Secret of the Monkey Island all day.And it's only 3 megabytes.
Ayrkain @ Sep 10th 2008 5:01PM
Yeah, whatever you do, don't go getting excited for this game. It might spoil someone else's fun.
Vidikron (FU) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:01PM
"No? Well, you shouldn't, because it never happened, and with good reason. The size of the contents on the disc doesn't make a game any better or worse than otherwise"
Yes, it has happened. Though they were later forced to attempt to retract their statements, this happen with PGR4 and it did impact the game.
In A World (XBL) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:05PM
"The size of the contents on the disc doesn't make a game any better" ~ Marty
Define "better", cause I dunno about you, but I wouldn't wanna play Gears of War with only 700MB of blurry texture data, that's no fun... so yeah, size matters.
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 10th 2008 5:08PM
Size doesn't matter? Don't tell that to rockstar. Dunno if you remember, but not long after GTA came out one of the Housers was bitching about how the 360's limited space held them back. Maybe if they had more room to work with they could have added the fun stuff to the game.
So I'd say it can be a big deal.
Dirty @ Sep 10th 2008 5:11PM
tmacairjordan87 "they could have added the fun stuff to the game"
This is a ridiculous statement.
Marty @ Sep 10th 2008 5:22PM
As Jakka stated in so many words, you can have a game that's fun for hours without filling up a DVD or a Blu-ray disc. A full disc isn't criteria for fun.
I don't give a shit if Gears of War is 5mb or 5gb. Fun is fun, and file size has nothing to do with it.
This ridiculous clamoring over games that fill up Blu-ray discs needs to stop. It's pure ignorance. There are *plenty* of games on BRD now, many of which would fit on DVD as they are, and how many of them are must-play fun? Not all of them, and that's my point.
Metal_Gear @ Sep 10th 2008 5:23PM
@Dirty
Admit it, GTA4 got dull pretty quick. All you did was drive, shoot or play The Sims. /yawnfest
LBP on the other hand looks like it will be an awesome game. Seeing as I am one of the few people who like playing with real life friends rather than just random people online, this game with be supremely fun.
Marty @ Sep 10th 2008 5:24PM
* "many of which would NOT fit on DVD..."
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:25PM
Guys, before you start squabbling I suggest you check out .kkrieger
This little games proofs that the size doesn't matter.
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:28PM
*proves
And once again, seriously get off Joystiq, download it and play it because you'll be fucking mindblown.
96kb for a game with Dynamic Lightning that looks like Doom 3 and lasts over...20 minutes.
NINETY-SIX FUCKING KILOBYTES!!!
Vidikron (FU) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:32PM
"I don't give a shit if Gears of War is 5mb or 5gb. Fun is fun, and file size has nothing to do with it."
Except 5 MB GoW would NOT be any fun. So your statement is BS.
riggs @ Sep 10th 2008 5:34PM
i played gta4 with my friends online too, so your statement is pretty effin retarded :D
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 10th 2008 6:12PM
@Dirty
Not to get too off topic here, but no it was a completely reasonable statement. There was about 96 missions in GTA 4, and every...EVERY single one was either a chase or kill x amount of guys. Now, the other GTA's had similar mission variety except the main difference was that they had crazy off the wall shit to add to those missions.
For example, one mission in San Andreas you had to drive a dirt bike fast enough to ride up the back of a cargo plane before it took off, then kill the guys on it, plant a bomb, and skydive out. Not to mention a ton of other missions with shit like that in it.
GTA 4 took out all of that awesome stuff, and added TV and Internet (with only 1 functioning website).
Anyway sorry for the distraction, back on topic.
Burnt Meatloaf @ Sep 10th 2008 10:45PM
@Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!): while I agree with that procedural synthesis is a good idea, this demo is a really bad example because the intention was to make the demo as small as possible, and thus it is DAMN SLOW. That leaves a very bad impression as to what synthesis has to offer.
Here's an idea: main textures are regular textures, and you use synthetic microtextures, bump maps, and normal maps. The Cell has enough power to render those textures as fast as they could be loaded off the Blu-ray drive if you do it right, and you can tailor those textures to the current level, which means more re-usability.
Too bad synthesis is an idea from 20+ years ago, and not new, fresh, and trendy.
Chris Are @ Sep 10th 2008 4:22PM
This game is now even more awesome-er.
United States of Generica @ Sep 10th 2008 4:24PM
"narrated by Stephen Fry" makes me actually consider buying a PS3 :O
Vince UK @ Sep 10th 2008 4:32PM
...and the Sheepsqueezers of Splatican Five? Have they been suckcreamed as a Qvarnbeast's nobbo?
Snowblind @ Sep 10th 2008 4:35PM
He also does voice work in Fable 2, if that helps? :P
Haggard (Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 10th 2008 5:54PM
Steven Fry for the motherfucking win!
Christian @ Sep 10th 2008 4:27PM
Stephen Fry, +10 to coolness for that :)
Megadanxzero @ Sep 10th 2008 4:30PM
First Disgaea 3 and now this? I'm sure in about a year they'll 'magically' compress it for a PSN release...
Duke @ Sep 10th 2008 4:37PM
Why?
Mr Khan @ Sep 10th 2008 5:20PM
Disgaea 3 still brings a wtf
I mean, look at it. Even if all those character sprites are rendered in HD, the environments, the game itself, cannot concievably be that big
Unless they revived the ancient Red Book audio format, the ultra-raw, no-compression standard of the 32-bit CD era.