Yes. That's the basis of good UI design, minimising the number hoops a person has to go through to do what they want. It's the difference between Disney Life having no 'continue watching' option so you have to find your programme manually (a search in lots of cases) followed by fast forwarding to where you were, versus Disney+ where you just go down to 'Continue Watching'. Despite being only a matter of seconds of wasted time, I wouldn't use Disney Plus because the interface was so stupidly lame.Is clicks really an issue if it only takes 1-2 seconds?
Yes. That's the basis of good UI design, minimising the number hoops a person has to go through to do what they want. It's the difference between Disney Life having no 'continue watching' option so you have to find your programme manually (a search in lots of cases) followed by fast forwarding to where you were, versus Disney+ where you just go down to 'Continue Watching'. Despite being only a matter of seconds of wasted time, I wouldn't use Disney Plus because the interface was so stupidly lame.
I understand that but most cases in games is going to be click on app and then click on continue, that's it.
"Also, load times are still going to be a number of seconds as previously described with loading assets just being a small part of the load process. Instantiating the objects and game state also takes time. Saving that world state to storage mean you can have 2 second resumes (just dumping the state from storage) versus maybe 30 for a full from-scratch load.";-)
Then Cerney has been lying
Load times are hugely variable. Some vast open worlds with lots to populate will take longer to load. Having load times in the 1-2 seconds isn't a promise that all games will load in that time, but a sort of expectation. It'd be the same as saying load times on PS3 would be in the 30-40 seconds realm, while some games take five minutes. Suspend/resume means all games take a couple of seconds to get playing, and provides a simple interface for devs. Although I am curious about the power-down time. It'll take time to write that data and we don't have write speeds. I suppose that'll take however long it takes while powering down to 'sleep'.Then Cerney has been lying because I'm sure he wouldn't think 30 seconds is instant loads.
I'm pretty sure he said during the deep dive thing that he expects loads to be like 1-2 seconds.
It's not about filling RAM. Loading a scene means loading the models and textures and data from storage, and then building the memory structures in RAM to represent the different objects. The processor has to do a lot of work. Once those data structures are complete, you can dump a copy of the RAM to SSD and then restore it in under 3 seconds.I don't see how it could be though, you can fill the ram in under 3 seconds.
Yes and yes, but you also have far more assets (we hope) and more complex worlds. You can't stream actual game objects, only the pieces needed to assemble those game objects. You also can't expect all games to use the best possible practices. Longer load times for more complex worlds are almost a certainty. I don't imagine Bethesda's next-gen Elder Scrolls to load in two seconds.Wouldn't there be less to populate upfront because of the streaming potential of the new drives?
The much more capable CPUs must also help with the loads.
I don't imagine Bethesda's next-gen Elder Scrolls to load in two seconds.
some next gen games take 30 seconds to load that's a bad look.
No more than '1080p' console on machines that ended up with sub-HD games. Expect really quick load on early titles, and then longer load times on later games as the hardware gets stretched. Unless you can come up with a solution to the need for processing to build game content from the asset pieces on the storage?I kind of do though. We will see though if Sony use instant loading in there marketing. Because if they do and some next gen games take 30 seconds to load that's a bad look.