Whatever works man. Every PS3 has a HDD and a Blu-ray drive. Insomniac, ND, R* already have streaming with no or minimal pop-in, with and without pre-installs.
RAGE : It Deserves its own thread now!
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
- Status
Whatever works man. Every PS3 has a HDD and a Blu-ray drive. Insomniac, ND, R* already have streaming with no or minimal pop-in, with and without pre-installs.
It's awesome that Carmack calls them on it though. Ahhh, the benefits of having already become a millionaire and not having to suck up to anyoneThe entire problem could be solved though if Microsoft would just stop raping people on hard drive prices.
Heh, yeah, Carmack seems to break NDA routinely without fear
Even mentioning the the multi-disc royalty structure is I imagine under NDA..I disagree about the hard drive thing though, A) you'll always have some without a HDD since the Core 360 has been on sale for years, and simply splintering your userbase isn't feasible B ) to match Blu Ray, you'd need 20GB+ installs which would take excruciatingly long, lead to storage issues quickly, etc. I'd say simply biting the bullet on green lighting more multi-disc titles is the only realistic solution.
Of course, it's mere technical curiosity on my part. Megatexturing is fairly new and unlike current streaming ideas, so I wonder if they've managed to make it workable purely off a blu-ray drive.
Ether_Snake
Newcomer
Like I said on GAF:
They could remove one of the masks used for specular and transparency, and make it so that if something has transparency it can have no specular, that way you end up with one less mega texture on the disc. Basically, instead of using two different "textures" for specular and transparency, you use only one. Then you can also compress the mask map you have by half, causing a lower resolution transparency/specular map that takes less space. That can save some space. But then you might have to reduce by half the resolution of the game's texture as well to save even more space.
Another trick, some will not like for HD games but it can work fine if you're not too picky; get rid of the specular mask altogether and use the diffuse itself as a specular mask. That means you'll almost never have a "logical" specular mask, but you'll still break up the specularity and how much so can be adjusted in the material through a contrast manipulation of the texture in the material itself. I did that a lot on Naruto, almost never used a specular mask, just to save memory. Heck, I'd even use a concrete texture and turn it into a metal one by adding specularity and using the diffuse as a mask to save on memory Not the kind of thing I find acceptable for high-end games, but depending on your goals it can be useful. Altho I don't see someone doing that for a WHOLE game, so with mega textures that approach is not the best. Preventing the use of transparency+specular at the same time is a good choice IMO.
If they use any other masks for other things like skin shaders, etc., those would be further limited as well. Maybe even a compressed diffuse or normal map (one smaller than the other for example, ending up with either a lower resolution normal map or diffuse map, if not both).
There's a lot of cheating that can be done texture-wise to save memory, but looking at the quality of Rage and its art direction I think that they would go for reduced resolution of no specular+transparency in the same material route first. Streaming content off Live or something like that is a bit crazy IMO.
They could remove one of the masks used for specular and transparency, and make it so that if something has transparency it can have no specular, that way you end up with one less mega texture on the disc. Basically, instead of using two different "textures" for specular and transparency, you use only one. Then you can also compress the mask map you have by half, causing a lower resolution transparency/specular map that takes less space. That can save some space. But then you might have to reduce by half the resolution of the game's texture as well to save even more space.
Another trick, some will not like for HD games but it can work fine if you're not too picky; get rid of the specular mask altogether and use the diffuse itself as a specular mask. That means you'll almost never have a "logical" specular mask, but you'll still break up the specularity and how much so can be adjusted in the material through a contrast manipulation of the texture in the material itself. I did that a lot on Naruto, almost never used a specular mask, just to save memory. Heck, I'd even use a concrete texture and turn it into a metal one by adding specularity and using the diffuse as a mask to save on memory
Not the kind of thing I find acceptable for high-end games, but depending on your goals it can be useful. Altho I don't see someone doing that for a WHOLE game, so with mega textures that approach is not the best. Preventing the use of transparency+specular at the same time is a good choice IMO.If they use any other masks for other things like skin shaders, etc., those would be further limited as well. Maybe even a compressed diffuse or normal map (one smaller than the other for example, ending up with either a lower resolution normal map or diffuse map, if not both).
There's a lot of cheating that can be done texture-wise to save memory, but looking at the quality of Rage and its art direction I think that they would go for reduced resolution of no specular+transparency in the same material route first. Streaming content off Live or something like that is a bit crazy IMO.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I thought the numbers re-enforce that PS3 BD is faster over 60% of 7GB available on a X360 dual layer DVD.
License fees are per disc printed, right? Something like $10 for a game. If that is per disc, waived for the second disc, it could be $10 to MS for each 1 or 2 disc game printed, but $20 for a 3 disc game.
Whatever the pricing, it has to be there as a deterrent. It's certainly not fair to charge on discs rather than per game product, and it's not going to be a money maker! This does also reflect back on the BluRay versus DVD debate - of the titles that work on DVD, how many are being made to work on DVD because of financial penalties for going multidisc? Okay, not many, as we're not seeing much of games go past 15 GBs...
Has there been any conformation that it is a license fees at all? At least in the Kotaku article it leaves open the possiblity that id just wants MS to absorb the costs of needing a third disk for the 360 version.
woundingchaney
Regular
The issue is touched on in this interview (towards the beginning):
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169112
Though I apologize as I am not sure if your statement is directly answered. It seems he feels that the royalties are done in order to hamper multi-disk development. Anyways, kudos to Carmack for addressing the issue and putting the spotlight on MS (surely he is breaking NDA) for a restrictive practice.
Costs of including a disc are cents. That wouldn't be anything to worry about. The only way the cost could be prohibitive is if it's dollars for that extra disc, and those costs will only come from license fees.
That would seem unlikely--DVDs are pennies to press and it is akin to id Software asking Sony to pony up for the extra development effort they had to put in on the PS3. Illogical at best.
This was a surprising bit of NDA slippage, but it makes sense: MS has structured their royalty system to play to their strengths. BDR is one of the few technical advantages the PS3 has and what better way to detour usage than by increasing royalties for multi-disk games? They create the caveat for RPGs/MMOs of course due to previous generation precedent. This isn't too far off from what we have heard about the other side asking about performance parity and getting validated.
At this point in time this sort of behavior seems pretty stupid IMO. RAGE is a 2009 title (maybe even 2010) and it isn't unexpected that as the generation progresses some games would push the limits of the consoles. With few exceptions almost every 3rd party game has fit onto a DVD (with some elbow grease) and multidisk games are the exception, not the rule. MS minimized the DVD hurdle early on, when it probably was the biggest mind share issue, and now people mainly want games. A budget gamer interested in RAGE, looking at lowest cost of entry (which as time has progressed I think we are more and more entering that zone of consumers), isn't typically going to pass over a $199 console (which the 360 looks soon to be) because the game they want is 3 disks and 99% of games are single disks. Right now MS has positioned themselves where they can offer disk spanning in many cases (which id indicates works for RAGE with now issue other than laziness and interweb fanboi flaming) and, with the fall update, will offer the ability for consumers to install their games to the HDD.
We knew that some games would be multidisk by the end of the generation, I think scoob and I were guessing 5% on the 360 by the end. id Tech5 is one of those technologies that makes trade offs that put more pressure on the store medium. Seeing as MS hit most of their early goals (strong launch, install base, minimized BDR impact until the 360 could get cheaper, multiplatform developers seriously take into consideration 360 limitations when developing a game concept) I think it would be time to drop the disk based royalty scheme. If they are going to detour developers, or worse harm the quality of the games on their platform, due to marketing concerns over BDR this late in the game then they are truly DUMB. Everyone knows BDR is bigger and the PS3 has a standard HDD--those are PS3 strengths. While the impact of BDR bullet points will never fully be neutralized (and as it gains momentum in the market it will become a more important sales point as the PS3 goes through price reductions) from a game development standpoint very, very developers at this point will intentionally create a game of diminished quality on the 360 due to storage issues. The install base is too big, the consumers buy too much software, and there is too much competition for most developers to go a route that plays "not nice" with the DVD storage. They either work around it with DVD spanning, new compression techniques, HDD installs, and so forth. The fiscal realities alone should detour gimping the 360 version.
Disk based royalties at this point in time don't make a lot of sense. From a behind the scenes "push your prerogative" perspective I am sure from MS's strategic pov it was an important concession early on as they cemented their install base (much to the chagrin I am sure of technophiles). But at this point I am sure it is more of an annoyance to game developers and someone, like id Software, looking to push id Tech5 they want to make sure any future id Tech5 licensees can use the product knowing they won't be cramped onto 2 disks. This is as much id Software looking out for themselves (which they are always pretty open and vocal about their unique experience in the market) as it is looking out for potential partners.
My money is on id in this case. I don't see MS in 2009 (year 4) gimping a major game over disk royalties. What is a 3rd disk when you already have 2? Heck, if I am MS PR I go to John and say, "Ok Mr. Carmack, we heard you. We will work with you on the royalties because of our limitation; but we are also excited to see how you also work with our advantages that you yourself noted, and that they offset this concession to our limitations. I am sure a compromise can be reached that balances out the issue." i.e. Look John, multi-disks makes us look bad... but disk space was a concession for, among other things, GPU performance. So make us cry with an extra disk and smile with pushing that extra GPU power you have. Deal? Shady? A little. I wonder, though, if Wolfenstein going from a 360/PC exclusive to a multiplatform title had anything to do with multidisk issues now that I think of it...
archangelmorph
Veteran
Hmph!
He should have just got MS to publish the game on the 360 like they did for Lost Odyssey (4 disc title)..
He should have just got MS to publish the game on the 360 like they did for Lost Odyssey (4 disc title)..
woundingchaney
Regular
Yeah thats what I meant. Will other developers that use the engine (assuming its licensed) need to use 2 or 3 discs?
woundingchaney
Regular
Well Im inclined to think that they would given the tech the engine is based on. Though much of this would of course depend on the game they are building. To be honest Im not the one to rightly answer the question.
I believe that in his 2007 keynote JC stated that the engine will "eventually" be opensource.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even more moronic is that MS have enabled game installations, so short of a disc for an uninstall, the player wouldn't have to use three disks to play the game! MS's position on this will demonstrate most clearly their stance on development and royalties, whether they are nickle-and-diming developers or not. A relapse on this position would be fair; a stubborn continuation of overcharging just shows they're out for as much money as they can get.
I've been wondering if it could be more than just disk based royalties that bothered J.Carmack.
I agree with Shifty royalties are likely not to be based only on the number of disks but going with more than one disk msut come with a premium (depending on disks number).
But there are other costs, packaging for a two dvd game is not that different from for one disk.
When you go with three you have to consider a different and bigger package => more costs.
Same for shipping less dvd per case/box (not sure if it's the proper word) => more costs
I guess it's the adding of different little costs that J.Carmack would want Ms to compensate.
He is really clever imho it's clearly that Ms will settle over his request now that he has made it loud.
I agree with Shifty royalties are likely not to be based only on the number of disks but going with more than one disk msut come with a premium (depending on disks number).
But there are other costs, packaging for a two dvd game is not that different from for one disk.
When you go with three you have to consider a different and bigger package => more costs.
Same for shipping less dvd per case/box (not sure if it's the proper word) => more costs
I guess it's the adding of different little costs that J.Carmack would want Ms to compensate.
He is really clever imho it's clearly that Ms will settle over his request now that he has made it loud.
I'm thinking loyalties are based on number of disks, and it's naughty of MS to do it this way!
Miniscule at best. Morrowind came on 3 CDs stacked on a spindle. I know multi-DVD box sets with fold open arrays of disks - the LOTR movies come to mind. It'll still amount to less then a dollar a pop, I'm sure, for a case the same size as a DVD case. Certainly nothing prohibitive.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
