Blu-ray and ps3.
- Thread starter Tsmit42
- Start date
- Status
WE7 is a future CD game and it is by no means niche. 
Anyway, there is no need to commit on the BR or no thingie now. IMO, i dont really think PS3 games will be that large. Most games will still be optimized for 480p first and maybe later 720p/1080i. I have seen enough PC games that go at really higher resolution with really good textures, and they did not take up the spaces. Maybe they might have really high quality audio and video. But whatever for now.
Anyway, there is no need to commit on the BR or no thingie now. IMO, i dont really think PS3 games will be that large. Most games will still be optimized for 480p first and maybe later 720p/1080i. I have seen enough PC games that go at really higher resolution with really good textures, and they did not take up the spaces. Maybe they might have really high quality audio and video. But whatever for now.
I think not all games really filled da DVDs to da brim. Most of them have dummy files that 1)to confuse the hackez 2)improve loading times. GTA for instance, has been ripped to a CDr size. Some missing stations there are but still highly playable.
10X the size? Maybe 10X the graphics with 2-3X increase in city size. Ya know, instead of having Portland -> load -> Shoreside -> load -> Stuanton. You have 3 of them together continuously. PS3 as a console will still be RAM limited.
10X the size? Maybe 10X the graphics with 2-3X increase in city size. Ya know, instead of having Portland -> load -> Shoreside -> load -> Stuanton. You have 3 of them together continuously. PS3 as a console will still be RAM limited.
I'm not with it today... I mean't 10X the city size in textures and other junk not 10x the city size. Again I mis-worded it, my mistake.
But I still stand by my belief, PS3 games won't fit on DVD's and blu-ray is pretty much the only logical medium for ps3. Sony also even said blu-ray will be a forerunner for game consoles because the graphics will need a ton of space.
I mean't 10X the city size in textures and other junk not 10x the city size. Again I mis-worded it, my mistake.But I still stand by my belief, PS3 games won't fit on DVD's and blu-ray is pretty much the only logical medium for ps3. Sony also even said blu-ray will be a forerunner for game consoles because the graphics will need a ton of space.
Don´t you guys think that the mere fact that PS2 games are close to filling a DVD justification enough to have BR? Aside from PS3 being the perfect launching pad for the format, the content will be greatly, greatly improved and that means bigger files for almost everything.
Take GTA3 for example. Imagine the exact same game, now add to the character model 10X the polygon count, many more texture passes, much higher resolution textures and such. Repeat that procedure for the entire game, and increase the quality of the audio.
Guess what? What we just added represent much bigger files, and suddenly DVD isn´t big enough to store the exact same game. Now factor the natural evolution in game design, I mean, all the added gameplay elelments and the need for BR or some other sort of higher storage capacity disc becomes evident.
Take GTA3 for example. Imagine the exact same game, now add to the character model 10X the polygon count, many more texture passes, much higher resolution textures and such. Repeat that procedure for the entire game, and increase the quality of the audio.
Guess what? What we just added represent much bigger files, and suddenly DVD isn´t big enough to store the exact same game. Now factor the natural evolution in game design, I mean, all the added gameplay elelments and the need for BR or some other sort of higher storage capacity disc becomes evident.
Psychogenics
Newcomer
Paul said:I'm not with it today...
But I still stand by my belief, PS3 games won't fit on DVD's and blu-ray is pretty much the only logical medium for ps3. Sony also even said blu-ray will be a forerunner for game consoles because the graphics will need a ton of space.
Paul where did you get the qoute? because I'm soo excited just to know where for proof.
Almasy said:
Are those PS2 games really filling up the DVD, or is a great portion of the disc filled with 'dummy files'.
I've read that these dummy files are there for copy protection purposes.
Isn't MGS2:Substance PC version on one CD, how can it fit on CD if on PS2 it takes almost whole DVD?
The same with GT:Vice City PC vs. PS2.
I don't believe that there really is much need for larger storage format for games.
Edit: I just realised that the PC vs. PS2 comparison doesn't quite hold water, as in PC the much of the data is compressed on CD, where it is decompressed onto HD. I haven't played PC games for years
Well, VF4:Evo isn't out yet, and that was the one specifically mentioned, so if it is CD (don't know, myself) it will be a new title and a not-unimportant one. Certainly I don't think too many will anymore--the use was more widespread in the beginning. But it alludes to some of the same considerations--if a developers doesn't HAVE to use a certain medium, why will they?
There's also a difference between "can fill" and "must fill." Certainly you'll agree that most games don't aspire to as huge environs as GTA or MGS, and games can get away with being plenty big and plenty good looking even in GC's smaller medium. Certainly devs CAN spill well beyond DVD capabilities, but how many will WANT to, after factoring in all other costs/concerns?
The biggest PC install I know of offhand is FFXI, and tags in at 4.5 gigs, which is still well past the norm.
Granted I'm thinking simply and there are always tons of concerns behind the scenes, but I'm running the simple formula of "more complexity = more time" and since of course time = money, that adds up to more cost. Especially since the PS3 will be an entirely new (and probably very different design even though carrying similar intentions as the EE) beast to work with, initial development will be slower-going as it is.
I have no idea what they'll fit. Remember, if the PS3 is also upping the power tremendously, isn't it also going to be increasing its efficiency by a lot as well? We don't yet know how well the beast will handle texturing et al, it may be that the overall effect doesn't kick up the file sizes tremendously. This is yet ANOTHER thing we won't know enough about for quite some time.
I don't think ever started out as high, nor its medium as high as we're seeing right now. I also don't think it dropped down to negligence levels just two years afterward. (I haven't come across any all-encompassing data charts for DVD price history, but there's a decent article here to at least get an overview.) The lowest priced DVD players were $500 in '97 and just got under $200 in '99? Blu Ray players are at WHAT right now? I certainly think BR will go WAYYYYY down, but it remains to be seen whether it will hit consumer-grade levels by the time the PS3 is in production.
I'm just not willing to think Sony will paint themselves into a corner with it should Blu Ray still be quite an issue price-wise. I'm certainly they WANT it to be a part, but I'm also certain they're not going to place all bets on it HAVING to be, nor that they would be willing to take immense losses to assure it being there.
Plus, provided the Blu Ray player can still play all the assorted DVD types and CDs (which it should be), game devs aren't going to be forced into adopting Blu Ray immediately anyway. (And if Sony DOES force them and the media IS still a substantial cost...? There's only so far one can browbeat developers before they migrate elsewhere.)
Multiple consoles gives Sony more options and gives consumers more options. If the cost of Blu Ray at the time is still too prohibitive, they may choose to take a hit on the manufacturing/media confusion end over hemmorhaging cash like there's no tomorrow or pricing too high and losing more market share to Microsoft and Nintendo. (Both of which have announced their intention to feed lots of time and effort and, most importantly, $$$ into console endeavors.) Sony can choose to match them dollar-for-dollar, or they can try to outplay them.
They already have a LOT riding just on CELL--I don't think they'll want Blu Ray to become another major factor if it looks like it will be. [/url]
Paul said:
There's also a difference between "can fill" and "must fill." Certainly you'll agree that most games don't aspire to as huge environs as GTA or MGS, and games can get away with being plenty big and plenty good looking even in GC's smaller medium. Certainly devs CAN spill well beyond DVD capabilities, but how many will WANT to, after factoring in all other costs/concerns?
The biggest PC install I know of offhand is FFXI, and tags in at 4.5 gigs, which is still well past the norm.
Granted I'm thinking simply and there are always tons of concerns behind the scenes, but I'm running the simple formula of "more complexity = more time" and since of course time = money, that adds up to more cost.
Especially since the PS3 will be an entirely new (and probably very different design even though carrying similar intentions as the EE) beast to work with, initial development will be slower-going as it is. I have no idea what they'll fit. Remember, if the PS3 is also upping the power tremendously, isn't it also going to be increasing its efficiency by a lot as well? We don't yet know how well the beast will handle texturing et al, it may be that the overall effect doesn't kick up the file sizes tremendously. This is yet ANOTHER thing we won't know enough about for quite some time.
I don't think ever started out as high, nor its medium as high as we're seeing right now. I also don't think it dropped down to negligence levels just two years afterward. (I haven't come across any all-encompassing data charts for DVD price history, but there's a decent article here to at least get an overview.) The lowest priced DVD players were $500 in '97 and just got under $200 in '99? Blu Ray players are at WHAT right now?
I certainly think BR will go WAYYYYY down, but it remains to be seen whether it will hit consumer-grade levels by the time the PS3 is in production.I'm just not willing to think Sony will paint themselves into a corner with it should Blu Ray still be quite an issue price-wise. I'm certainly they WANT it to be a part, but I'm also certain they're not going to place all bets on it HAVING to be, nor that they would be willing to take immense losses to assure it being there.
Plus, provided the Blu Ray player can still play all the assorted DVD types and CDs (which it should be), game devs aren't going to be forced into adopting Blu Ray immediately anyway. (And if Sony DOES force them and the media IS still a substantial cost...? There's only so far one can browbeat developers before they migrate elsewhere.)
Multiple consoles gives Sony more options and gives consumers more options. If the cost of Blu Ray at the time is still too prohibitive, they may choose to take a hit on the manufacturing/media confusion end over hemmorhaging cash like there's no tomorrow or pricing too high and losing more market share to Microsoft and Nintendo. (Both of which have announced their intention to feed lots of time and effort and, most importantly, $$$ into console endeavors.) Sony can choose to match them dollar-for-dollar, or they can try to outplay them.
They already have a LOT riding just on CELL--I don't think they'll want Blu Ray to become another major factor if it looks like it will be. [/url]
cthellis42 said:
Granted I'm thinking simply and there are always tons of concerns behind the scenes, but I'm running the simple formula of "more complexity = more time" and since of course time = money, that adds up to more cost.
I just watched the HL2 trailer from E3 and I remember the VALVe guy stating that already all the textures they produce are at a resolution of 2K*2K. Obviously, the space required is prohibative aswell as problems in the PC's 3D subsystem to actually render in real-time using these... but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
Obviously production times will increase rapidly, but solutions will emerge. For example, there can be shader reuse, developers can (as they already are beginnign to) produce libraries of models and textures that are utilized by the dev for multiple projects. Perhaps we'll even see 3rd party companies form that have expansive libraries of models and textures. Companies will streamline, thy'll make due.
Otherwise, we'd be stuck with a meg of game data left over from the days when games were distributed on just floppies.
Don't mean to be a jerk, but I have no idea how so many people talk like this. Almost everything SCE is doing or projecting for use in PS3 is produced or manufactured within the Sony Group. They have intimate knowledge of the forward roadmap, they have knowledge of realistic progress, problems, etc.
My mind's telling me a company like Microsoft (as opposed to Nintendo and Sony) is who you should be worried about then. They're technology is in the hands of others. Many, many others whose progress isn't certain and a slip-up as seen by nVidia/TSMC in the fall of 2003 (all the while all indications prior to was that the future was just peachy) would be utterly disasterous.
Paul said:
And your point is? If you don't see the distinct difference between marketing a console as an computer entertainment product or a video gaming machine, then I really can't help ya. The name as more to do with the strategy and the targeted image, rather than the companies name.
Don't mean to be a jerk, but I have no idea how so many people talk like this. Almost everything SCE is doing or projecting for use in PS3 is produced or manufactured within the Sony Group. They have intimate knowledge of the forward roadmap, they have knowledge of realistic progress, problems, etc.
My mind's telling me a company like Microsoft (as opposed to Nintendo and Sony) is who you should be worried about then. They're technology is in the hands of others. Many, many others whose progress isn't certain and a slip-up as seen by nVidia/TSMC in the fall of 2003 (all the while all indications prior to was that the future was just peachy) would be utterly disasterous.[/quote]
I am more worried about them. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot riding on CELL.
Frankly, the chip impresses the bejeezus out of me, which is one reason I can do little but downplay it--the brain rebels.
But CELL is a complicated design with rather astounding goals, both in the short term and the long. It needs to be solid on its own hardware and software end, and for the PS3 at least, it needs to be embraced properly by the game developers at large who only started down the programming paths similar to it with the EE, and it's looking like it may get substantially more complex.
I'm actually not too worried on it from a hardware/performance end--especially since IBM is involved--but there's still the end result of "what will it all amount to"? Will we see a similar ramp-up as with the EE, where devs aren't used to the architecture and tap it on slow boil? Will there be other CELL-enabled devices to chain to the PS3 when it launches, or are they concentrating all their efforts on that launch to begin with, at which point other things slowly filter in the next year or two?
I'm not dissing it, but I AM aware--and few people would disagree--that CELL is trying to pull off something big. Something big and complex and broaching new ground. I'm certain there is an INTESTE amount of effort behind it, but that still doesn't discount the question: "Can they pull it off?" Can they pull off the concept? Can they pull off a solid launch? On the PS3 itself, well other developers be able to match that effort and produce along side?
...or will it, too, be on slow boil, and lose more ground before they build up momentum? Will the market adopt it, or turn aside after judging its initial release mostly bark and little bite? <shrugs> I think Sony is playing for the long run, and moving in a direction no one has before--which as almost any company will tell you is a dangerous thing. ^_^;; There are a lot of concerns they have to address within themselves, and a lot of groundwork to lay down before they launch, and then a big balancing act to follow.
I haven't said Sony is going to crash and burn, I've just said it will be complicates.
Ergo if Blu Ray is going to complicate things further, they have even more decisions to make.And because console versions of games can run in 32-64mb there really isn't much need for more then that much memory for games either
?!If we only used the absolute minimum we need technology wouldn't go forward very fast.
So do the consoles - compression is just about the easiest way to optimize your load times when all else is at the limit.
Compression argument doesn't apply to streaming multimedia stuff though(movies, music etc.) which is where PC ports will cut first to meet the limited space requirements of the outdated optical media standard on the platform.
The PC "norm" is dictated by hardware limitations - namely CD. If DVD was the standard shipping media for PC games, the size of installs would have increased proportionally in no time.
Silent Hill 2 used a lot of DVD Space on PS2 and Xbox (IIRC over 3 gig), with lots of compression we managed to just get it on 2/3 CD's for PC. It used 2.X Gig on the harddrive, which wouldn't have be needed if we could have shipped with DVD. And most of that wasn't movies and audio (IIRC together they took around a CD's worth).
The landscape renderer I was using for PH had a single landscape texture at 150 Mb (DXT1 compressed), the renderer could have used the next size up but I couldn't look at 600Mb for a single texture PER Level.
Also we often have to duplicate data to speed up streaming of ingame data. A single texture may need to be physically in several places on disk to reduce seek time and ensure a smooth game.
More space the better, I reckon I'd want 50-100 Gb for the next generation storage medium for it to last out the 5 years its meant to be around. A first gen game could easily need 10-20 Gb so after a couple more generations....
The landscape renderer I was using for PH had a single landscape texture at 150 Mb (DXT1 compressed), the renderer could have used the next size up but I couldn't look at 600Mb for a single texture PER Level.
Also we often have to duplicate data to speed up streaming of ingame data. A single texture may need to be physically in several places on disk to reduce seek time and ensure a smooth game.
More space the better, I reckon I'd want 50-100 Gb for the next generation storage medium for it to last out the 5 years its meant to be around. A first gen game could easily need 10-20 Gb so after a couple more generations....
i fail to see how anyone can argue the need of bigger storage space for the next generation....
i mean, pretty much every game will have DD and DTS encoding, hi resolution textures, hi resolution polygon models, some will have FMV which will have to be encoded in HD standard, which takes up quite a lot of space...
it's like the need to go from VHS to DVD really.... bigger and better storage space is inevitable, whether some people like it or not... i don't get why some people are so adamant that PS3 or XBOX2 will be *better* without blue ray or any other format. it can only be a good thing, why argue that....
just think of a next generation Final Fantasy or GTA game. the amount of data needed to render a superior version of those games will probably take up most of a blue ray disc as well once u take into account the thousands of VERY hi-res textures, voices, DD or DTS encoded sound (GTA in particular, with all those radio stations, thats a whole lot of space already)...
granted, there will be procedurally-generated textures and shaders which take up very very little space but what about all the rest?
i mean, pretty much every game will have DD and DTS encoding, hi resolution textures, hi resolution polygon models, some will have FMV which will have to be encoded in HD standard, which takes up quite a lot of space...
it's like the need to go from VHS to DVD really.... bigger and better storage space is inevitable, whether some people like it or not... i don't get why some people are so adamant that PS3 or XBOX2 will be *better* without blue ray or any other format. it can only be a good thing, why argue that....
just think of a next generation Final Fantasy or GTA game. the amount of data needed to render a superior version of those games will probably take up most of a blue ray disc as well once u take into account the thousands of VERY hi-res textures, voices, DD or DTS encoded sound (GTA in particular, with all those radio stations, thats a whole lot of space already)...
granted, there will be procedurally-generated textures and shaders which take up very very little space but what about all the rest?
Curious, was there any reencoding going on on that part - or was stuff like movies kept in MPEG2 across platforms?DeanoC said:
You should have JPEGed it
Exactly. Multiple levels occuring in a similar/same looking locale theoretically share most of their texture and other resources but once on disc you'll want to store each of them separately as a whole rather then trying to hunt for data all around the disc.
Heh, this would be something for BD naysayers to ponder. Although at this point I'm more concerned with the speed of future optical media. Current specs for stuff like BD are somewhat on the low side (I guess 3-4x speed BD drive would work nicely but I wonder how realistic is that)...
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Well... 36 Mbps for Read and Write operations from and to the Blu-Ray disc is not bad for a 1x Blu-Ray Player... I expect the read speed will increase, but not the Write and Re-Write ( 36 Mbps is more than enough for 1080p compressed with MPEG2 ) as increasing Read speed should be cheaper.
PlayStation 3 might use a 2x Read, 1x Write/Re-Write Blu-Ray device...
2x = 72 Mbps = 9 MB/s of uncompressed data
1x DVD = ~1.352 MB/s
1x Blu-Ray = ~4.5 MB/s
Blu-Ray = 3.328 * DVD as far as Read speed is concerned...
9 MB/s = 6.65x ( DVD ) = 2x ( Blu-Ray )
4x Blu-Ray = 144 Mbps = 18 MB/s
I think that 2x Blu-Ray is feasible for PlayStation 3 ( 2x Read, 1x Write/Re-Write ), but 4x is pushing it a little bit...
Of course a Blu-Ray with 4x Read and 2x Write/Re-Write ( can I dream ? well even 1x for Write/Re-Write would not be bad.. it is still 4.5 MB/s ) would make an HDD utterly pointless... AFAIK the file system of Blu-Ray is more similar to what you would have in a HDD than in CDs or DVDs...
That would be a sure way of not needing an HDD at all, not even for buffering: you would save money by not including an HDD and you have a more reliabe machine.
PlayStation 3's main RAM ( added to e-DRAM in the Cell based CPU which should have e-DRAM on it ) should be enough not to need a swap file as bad as PlayStation 2 ( I think at least 256 MB of external, not embedded, RAM should be feasible )... They managed to make Linux work in 32 MB using the HDD to store the swap file...
Well, my idea is storing the swap file, the Linux OS and all the directories Linux would create in abig Blu-Ray disc.
You would take a Linux disc given by Sony which would copy all the data it needs in main RAM.
That would set-up a basic GUI ( well, a nice slick looking one ) and would recognize the ethernet ( required... it would need broadband ) and the HW...
Then you would pop in your new 50 GB Re-Writable Blu-Ray disc given in the new PlayStation 3 Linux kit and you would format it and install set-up data: this would create '/' and 'swap' directories.
The set-up starts and you are guided through it and once you finished configuring the OS in the set-up ( normal Linux Install ) it would download all the packages from the net and install them.
Once that is finished you reboot the PlayStation 3 and load the Kernel and other "favorite programs" ( like the web browser, the shell and some other ones... ) into PlayStation 3's RAM.
Blu-Ray would then work as a normal HDD would...
I do not think it is all bad... 10 GB more than the current PlayStation 2's HDD.
PlayStation 3 might use a 2x Read, 1x Write/Re-Write Blu-Ray device...
2x = 72 Mbps = 9 MB/s of uncompressed data
1x DVD = ~1.352 MB/s
1x Blu-Ray = ~4.5 MB/s
Blu-Ray = 3.328 * DVD as far as Read speed is concerned...
9 MB/s = 6.65x ( DVD ) = 2x ( Blu-Ray )
4x Blu-Ray = 144 Mbps = 18 MB/s
I think that 2x Blu-Ray is feasible for PlayStation 3 ( 2x Read, 1x Write/Re-Write ), but 4x is pushing it a little bit...
Of course a Blu-Ray with 4x Read and 2x Write/Re-Write ( can I dream ?
well even 1x for Write/Re-Write would not be bad.. it is still 4.5 MB/s ) would make an HDD utterly pointless... AFAIK the file system of Blu-Ray is more similar to what you would have in a HDD than in CDs or DVDs...That would be a sure way of not needing an HDD at all, not even for buffering: you would save money by not including an HDD and you have a more reliabe machine.
PlayStation 3's main RAM ( added to e-DRAM in the Cell based CPU which should have e-DRAM on it ) should be enough not to need a swap file as bad as PlayStation 2 ( I think at least 256 MB of external, not embedded, RAM should be feasible )... They managed to make Linux work in 32 MB using the HDD to store the swap file...
Well, my idea is storing the swap file, the Linux OS and all the directories Linux would create in abig Blu-Ray disc.
You would take a Linux disc given by Sony which would copy all the data it needs in main RAM.
That would set-up a basic GUI ( well, a nice slick looking one ) and would recognize the ethernet ( required... it would need broadband ) and the HW...
Then you would pop in your new 50 GB Re-Writable Blu-Ray disc given in the new PlayStation 3 Linux kit and you would format it and install set-up data: this would create '/' and 'swap' directories.
The set-up starts and you are guided through it and once you finished configuring the OS in the set-up ( normal Linux Install ) it would download all the packages from the net and install them.
Once that is finished you reboot the PlayStation 3 and load the Kernel and other "favorite programs" ( like the web browser, the shell and some other ones... ) into PlayStation 3's RAM.
Blu-Ray would then work as a normal HDD would...
I do not think it is all bad... 10 GB more than the current PlayStation 2's HDD.
- Status
Similar threads
