DVDs are big enough for Next-Gen + File sizes for X360 launch games
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
I think it's been said developers will take advantage of the HDD if it's there to speed up load times but in the sense of how much content is in a game the size of the disk medium is still the limiting factor. The HDD will not perfom compression/decompression or add content to games on it's own.
edited:
Removed a portion I'm not sure is the best way at going at what I was descibing.
end edit:
edited:
Removed a portion I'm not sure is the best way at going at what I was descibing.
end edit:
Last edited by a moderator:
If the HDD had been standard, it is possible that it would have indirectly allowed games to take up less disk space.
If the constraint on keeping seek times low on the DVD were shifted to the much better seek time on the HDD, then a lot of the redundant data and weird file placement needed for acceptable streaming on slower optical media would no longer be necessary (or at least be less necessary).
Perhaps in the future, when disk pressure becomes more noticeable, HDD use will be encouraged.
If the constraint on keeping seek times low on the DVD were shifted to the much better seek time on the HDD, then a lot of the redundant data and weird file placement needed for acceptable streaming on slower optical media would no longer be necessary (or at least be less necessary).
Perhaps in the future, when disk pressure becomes more noticeable, HDD use will be encouraged.
scificube said:
The size of a disk is potentially *a* limiting factor in terms of content. But not currently, and not if your game is structured in such a way as to allow for multiple disks, and not if you're talking about downloaded content too.
If your game needs to be able to radomly access data from a greater than 360-disk-sized amount of storage, and you can't use the HDD, then it would become a limiting factor.
Currently, I consider time and budget to be the likely actual limitations in terms of how much content a game has. And I'm thinking in terms of measurable (by MBs) quantity of assets, not quality of graphics, length of game or "amount of fun" a game can provide.
Last edited by a moderator:
function said:
hmmm...well I can't resist an inviation to jabber so...
I don't think we're discussing where game are now but where games are going.
I am not sure when downloadable game content will become the standard but I don't think it's anytime soon. Games will not be distributed online (not live arcade games either) on the PS3 or the X360 for allot of reasons that are probably obvious so I won't get into them.
As far as the HDD is concerned when it was not included standard with the X360 it effectively was removed from being able to provide space savings on DVDs for developers because developers could not ensure that it would be there in every system. Developers are forced to place content on the disk media as if the HDD is not there and this means redundant data consumes space that could have been used for more unique content. The other option is horrible load times for everyone without a hard disk drive and possibly other problems if their game engine relies on streaming content continuously or at regular intervals behind the scene. (If the HDD is not there this would probably be a bad idea in the first place without redundant data and placement tricks.)
I agree that time and budget will be major factors in the end as to how space a game actually needs. I just want to say again though that if nothing changes from last gen...ie. the same number of textures coupled with the same amount of usage along with HD resolutions the size of that content will consume 2-4 times as much space on the media with this alone. We already know that more of everything is coming though...how much more is an unknown but it is fair to say "more content than last gen" will be there general case. As perhaps an extreme example we can look to Factor 5's "Lair" and note how their models use 100,000+ polys and some 10 texture layers. Perhaps I didn't characterize that right and I apologize if I didn't but I think the point here is clear enough. I've seen it said many times the the cost of content creation is growing at alarming rate...it doesn't seem a stretch to me that the cost is going up because the quality is better and that there will be more of it in various forms...which to me implies significant growth in amount of storage needed for games.
Last edited by a moderator:
seismologist
Regular
expletive said:And use your external HD-DVD drive to load both for no swapping.
ok you lost me there. How do you load games onto an external HD DVD drive?
I don't think it's so obvious at all. With the addition of background downloading, the 360 could easily enable this any day now. The entire infrastructure is already there. They'd probably need to release larger HDDs, too, if they wanted to be serious about it, but that seems pretty easy for them to do. What reason do they have not to make it available? If it doesn't work, no big deal - they don't lose much money on it - but if it does, than it could quickly become a force to be reckoned with in games distribution. Maybe not the standard, but certainly significant.scificube said:
silhouette
Regular
AlphaWolf said:You don't know how to load a disc into a drive? I thought it was pretty simple. Perhaps they will need to include a diagram for you.
I think you missed what he meant.
Yeah.. Like good old Amiga days... Disk 1 goes to DF0:, disk 2 goes to DF1:
Btw, ppl, do not forget that, now many ppl play their games with wireless controllers. It is even worse for them to swap the dvds, as they need to get up from the couch now
.. Anyway, I guess it would be ok if you do it once in a while, but frequent change would be definitely a no-no.crystalcube
Newcomer
scooby_dooby said:
but there should be a valid compression/decompression algorithm to make use of that computing power. Just adding Ghz will not help compression e.g. zipping a file on 386 and a top of the range pentium will result in same size of file. Do we know for sure that compression capability on Xbox was limited because of its processor and there is newer compression scheme which will utilizes more cpu and help Xbox360 ?
Can you give an idea of the compression schemes in operation at the moment and how these will scale? For images are current-gen games using something lossy like JPEG? Are 3D models being compressed tightly? Is there much scope for higher compression next-gen without getting lossy artefacts?ERP said:
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Milking?
I do not know who says this my friend. PS2 was good value and I can use DVD function with no remote with only controller. Only extra purchase is memory card and that is "standard" for consoles. I do not think PS3 will have different design.
weaksauce said:
I do not know who says this my friend. PS2 was good value and I can use DVD function with no remote with only controller. Only extra purchase is memory card and that is "standard" for consoles. I do not think PS3 will have different design.
Agressive compression often results in lower quality though. A JPEG at 50% compression may take longer to decompress than a JPEG at 10% compression, and so only 10% compression is used on XB, but at 50% compression the file will show artefacts. Whereas in lossless compression the space savings between high and low compression ratios isn't a great deal. If XB textures are compressed with ZIP at low compression, XB360 textures compressed at aggressive ZIP aren't going to fit 4x as much data in the same file size, based on my experience compressing files.scooby_dooby said:
The argument over compression is whether compression schemes exist than get much more quality in only a little more space. It's an area that can only be considered with some real info on the matter. Fobbing it off as 'they'll use better compression' is assuming there's substantial improvements that can be made in this area, which is just as silly as assuming compression won't manage the job. I for one am unwilling to believe compression will succeed or fail until I hear of news of viable compression schemes and compare them to existing solutions - info which I just plain don't have. A quick Google has come up with this site that shows not a great deal of variation between different compression amounts. The difference between best and worst compressions on that list is barely 2x, so if XB games were compressed with the worst compression possible and XB360 compressed with the best, that's a doubling of available space. And if that's the case, the devs are stupid because LZOP compression gives better compression and faster decompression times than the less efficient algorithms. If this chart is in any way representative it shows that you're not going to be able to compress things even as much as twice as much on XB360 than XB. That to me still sounds like lots of highres models and other content won't fit in a DVD9 unless you go lossy.
There's a few people making a big deal of it, but mostly this thread is raising questions and looking for answers. It's certainly something I'm interested in learning about rather than forming an opinion on what is or isn't possible without having sufficient knowledge to make an educated guess on the outcomes. The main impetus of this discussion came from an article that was stating it's not an issue, but subsequent debate shows, at least to me, there's points that shouldn't be ignored and if we are to accept DVD9 will allow next-gen quality to implemented at it's fullest and not suffer a quality difference versus a larger storage medium, these points should be considered and resolved. If compression is going to be an effective solution, how is that going to be achieved? Where's the info showing much higher compression can be achieved without it being lossy and showing problems? Or, we just face that fact there's no answer we can come to at the moent and just wait and see what happens
scooby_dooby
Legend
Shifty Geezer said:
I think what he trying to imply is currently 70% of games are audio, and video, thise things won't really grow. So in order to assess growth, you need to look at the stuff other than A/V and see at what rate those files are growing.
As for your previous post, there is no measure of 'success' or 'failure' there are only factors. One factor is that compression WILL be better, it doesn't mean they have to lower the quality on the JPG's like you suggest, it means they can use compression where it otherwise might not have been feasible. It's just one factor that will help.
Sethamin said:
For a game to be exclusively released as a downloadable game every system needs to have a HDD or the developer has to accept catering to a fractured audience. Gamers will need larger HDDs or the ability to DL their games again for free after the initial purchase. Both gamers and content providers will need more bandwidth to make this process amenable to the masses. Gamers will most likely have to contend with DRM to a far greater extent if Valve's approach to things is any indication. Gamers and third party vendors will have to affectively wave good-bye to trading in games for credit towards other gaming needs which IMO is a bad thing despite how some devs hate the practice (give em a cut EB, Gamestop etc...they made the darn games!) For that matter I think publishers and third party vendors will rile against it out of self preservation.
There a many issues to contend with before I think going completely to online distribution will work and be accepted. At least as well as I can see.