*merge/rename* The Importance of an H.D.D. (e.g. caches, streaming etc)

What are the specs for the 20/120GB drives for the 360? Are they both 5400RPM? Any idea what the buffer size is too?

I wonder just how much of a difference the hard drive specs (e.g. access times, buffer size, spin rate, disk density...) make, something which could be examined on the PS3 by swapping out the drives.
 
I think the harddrive definitely was the better investment here. Together with the BluRay it offers a lot of streaming options that really improve load-times. Especially the HDD I think should help not having to keep as much in RAM as you'd otherwise have to. And of course it has all those other advantages that Shifty mentioned.
For the downloadable content I agree, but not many games could use less RAM when a harddrive is available. For streaming it's just a higher bandwidth cache and doesn't reduce RAM requirements.

Because it's used as a cache in games, I think it makes more sense not to make it standard. With the PS3 in particular it makes even more sense to make it optional, as someone could pop in some flash memory to use as a cache instead, like Readyboost in Vista. The streaming stuff that Insomniac is doing doesn't require the HDD, and having one only improves the pop-in during the heaviest of BW loads (which may not even arise) over a BR-only solution.

The only reason that a game would actually need a HDD is if it wrote hundreds of MB of game state data to the HDD during gameplay and it was done at a speed faster than can be written to the memory card. I don't think I've ever seen anything like that, even on the PC.
 
*sub-thread* Console Games and Hard Drive Usage

Mod's Note:
Let's not dwell on the comic too much please. It's meant to be tongue-in-cheek. :)
-AlStrong

Aargh, couldn't find it today in Melbourne. Guess it'll have to be tomorrow.

Oh, and this made me laugh:
20080206.jpg

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/02/06
 
Yeah, you could play it on the 360 immediately. Unless of course, your 360 is dead. Which is a plausible scenario. Oops!

edit, from the IGN review,

Like most multi-console games, any review would inevitably have to come down to which system is better, and for this instance, the PS3 winds up winning out just slightly. It's not in the gameplay department, because DMC4 plays the same regardless of which system that you play on. Nor is it in the visual department, because visual issues are virtually negligible. For example, the 360 has some harder edges to some characters during cutscenes, and a little more screen tearing than the PS3 at times. The PS3 can be a wee bit darker during some scenes, though. Both systems show off a certain amount of render passing that pops into focus on sweeping vista shots, but they occur at the same time on each system and are quickly dismissed. However, observing these differences will only come via frame-by-frame analysis of each game side-by-side. Even then, you're still receiving an incredible visual experience.

No, the edge comes in the fact that the PS3 installs a large amount of game files to the hard drive, dramatically reducing load times between stages and cinematics. I've timed the game on both systems numerous times, and each time has been consistently in the PS3's favor. Transitions to gameplay from starting menus are relatively close, frequently within half a second or so of each other, but when you're loading up a cutscene or having another pause in the action, the 360's times are easily three times that of the PS3.

From the 1up interview;
1UP: With the PS3 version, it's mandatory to install it to your harddrive, yet on the Xbox 360 it is not. Why is that? Why wouldn't you just let PS3 owners put it in their console and play off the disc, like how Xbox 360 owners can play, or at least make it an option? On the reverse side, why not offer an install if Xbox 360 owners had enough room on their HD? The load times on 360 are very short in any case, so was any of this really necessary?

HK: Actually, we wanted to do the same thing for the Xbox 360 version, but because there are models of the 360 that are sold without a hard drive, we received a no-go from Microsoft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
seems to be some conflicting reports regarding the loading times... comparing actual loading times for one particular case, i don't think the difference will be that significant; but considering how many load times there are throughout the game, i think it would be nice to have a more seamless experience. that said, a ~21 minute install is also quite the wait... but as long as you only have to do it once, i don't really mind.

its funny how big of debate people are having over at neogaf regarding the loading times. personally, weighing the pros and cons of both, i think its a wash.
 
Are there any games that have optional HDD install?

Install, no… used 360 HDD for caching data, yes, ex: Oblivion, Two world, and others
But this is automatic cache so if you play a other game who used this, it rewrite on.
 
Because they ran out of development time since this is one of their first PS3 efforts, and also HDD is standard on every PS3 ?

Anyway, what loading time are they referring to ? I have only played the demo briefly. There are many short breaks in between rooms. That's not it right ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because they ran out of development time since this is one of their first PS3 efforts, and also HDD is standard on every PS3 ?

Anyway, what loading time are they referring to ? I have only played the demo briefly. There are many short breaks in between rooms. That's not it right ?

I think it takes like an hour to install the game before you can play it for the first time.

I agree, these installs should be completely optional, especially if it's obviously not required for the game to operate.
 
I think it takes like an hour to install the game before you can play it for the first time.

20 minutes.

But do the breaks in-between rooms count as load time ? I always wonder why I can't just bash through the door to get to the next one.

I remember some rooms have extra animation (e.g., panning the scene). So perhaps those are the "official" load time ?

EDIT: How big is the game ? I actually don't mind installing it to HDD and playing without the disc (Capcom might as well enable it !). It's more convenient that way and would encourage me to play other games besides Resistance. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think people realize how much loading is in this game. It's literally a series of rooms or areas. Every time you go through a door there is loading. Everytime a cut scenes loads there is loading. Every time you start a special mission there is loading. You are literally hitting load points every 2 mins or so. Some areas are bigger than others and take longer to load.

If they didn't put it in, people would just be complaing how much time they were wasting just waiting at loading screens.

It's not zero loading time for the PS3 either. It's anywhere from 1-5 seconds. So if it was 3x times longer it would be more like 3-15seconds which I would consider too long for this game considering how much loading it does.
 
I always wonder why I can't just bash through the door to get to the next one.

Sectional loading can be easier to deal with. Halo PC takes great advantage of the concept. It's also easier to determine if the engine should render objects behind the door because... there's simpley nothing there!
 
I don't think people realize how much loading is in this game. It's literally a series of rooms or areas. Every time you go through a door there is loading. Everytime a cut scenes loads there is loading. Every time you start a special mission there is loading. You are literally hitting load points every 2 mins or so. Some areas are bigger than others and take longer to load.

If they didn't put it in, people would just be complaing how much time they were wasting just waiting at loading screens.

It's not zero loading time for the PS3 either. It's anywhere from 1-5 seconds. So if it was 3x times longer it would be more like 3-15seconds which I would consider too long for this game considering how much loading it does.
+1.
i tried to get this point across a few posts back.
 
Install, no… used 360 HDD for caching data, yes, ex: Oblivion, Two world, and others
But this is automatic cache so if you play a other game who used this, it rewrite on.

Are there any games that install persistent data on the hard drive at all, besides save and config files?

BTW, Oblivion PS3 uses persistent cache, but there are other games that use temp cache (R6 Vegas).
 
The point is that they obviously didn't make it a requirement on the 360. Why did they make it mandatory on the PS3?

Because Blu-ray is slower in the real world. There's at least one other major game I know of which uses the HDD for caching on PS3, but doesn't bother on 360 even if it's present, because they could hit their load time targets off the DVD. But they were wiser not to make it a user-visible 20 min installation process, just an invisible longer progress bar the first time you play a level - so they didn't get engulfed into a storm in a teacup.
 
i doubt the difference between blu-ray and DVD is that significant.
its possible Capcom developed DMC4 for PS3 knowing the HDD is standard.
 
Back
Top