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

[Arwin]

Some of you have it all backwards, i think. Capcom have confirmed to I think it was Eurogamer, or IGN, not sure, that if the 360 had supported a HDD standard, they'd have done the same on the 360. As it stands, however, they were forced to build in support for disc-based play on the 360, but they weren't forced to do so on PS3.

 

[valioso]

Some of you have it all backwards, i think. Capcom have confirmed to I think it was Eurogamer, or IGN, not sure, that if the 360 had supported a HDD standard, they'd have done the same on the 360. As it stands, however, they were forced to build in support for disc-based play on the 360, but they weren't forced to do so on PS3.

But if they are able to pull it off on the 360 without the install, then why install so much data on the ps3?

 

[Arwin]

But if they are able to pull it off on the 360 without the install, then why install so much data on the ps3?

Because they haven't had to go through testing and optimising for all that on the PS3, and prefer to avoid having to do so to save a few bucks on development costs. I'm not impressed either, but I suspect they planned to use a HDD install from day one, probably chasing that elusive 'no in-game loadtimes' dream, and then Microsoft didn't approve - they don't approve HDD only games unless you have a very good reason, and I think Microsoft were pretty much dead-on with Capcom not having a very good reason in this case. They probably set everyone they could to work on the 360 version so that it could run without the HDD so that they had to delay the launch of the game as little as possible.

 

[AlNom]

Well, it seems they did a fairly good job to keep up.

 

[cthellis42]

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).

Heavenly Sword sticks 2GB on there, but I can't remember now if it's optional or not. UT3 and VF5, I believe, have optional data caches that are non-trivial in size. (2-3GB.)

R&C sticks around 400MB on there, and I don't recall being asked about dedicating any space, so I assume it's forced, but a trivial amount.


Someone is probably building up a database of all this as we speak, however.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

R&C sticks around 400MB on there, and I don't recall being asked about dedicating any space, so I assume it's forced, but a trivial amount.

How are all these installs managed? Are they cumulative, gradually gobbling up HDD space, or are they limited to a fixed partition? Do you have the option to undelete game installs, and if so, where does that option hang out?

 

[cthellis42]

How are all these installs managed? Are they cumulative, gradually gobbling up HDD space, or are they limited to a fixed partition? Do you have the option to undelete game installs, and if so, where does that option hang out?

At the top of the Game section lies the "Game Data Utility," which is where I'm pulling out my numbers. These can all be deleted, but most-if-not-all of them cannot be copied, because that's where the game-specific downloadable content lives. (Which I'm guessing they don't want freely handed out.)

Obviously I'm not counting large totals from the likes of Rock Band (which for me is at 600MB) or Motorstorm (372MB), as I know that that's from--I HAVE downloaded a bunch of content. People can all check their own totals, but since my Rock Band game data has grown as I add songs, and I have all the extra Motorstorm maps and cars (which have to live somewhere), I'm pretty sure that's where it all lies, and that people will get varied numbers.

For R&C I have a 417MB block, which COULD--I suppose--come from things like videos and commentary and such instead of being a "forced game-data install," but I'm not sure why they'd store that locally. All I know is that I downloaded no R&C content (I'm not even aware if there IS any...?) and don't remember it mentioning any kind of install, so I assume it's a semi-perminant cache. Who knows, it MAY automatically disappear if I ever need the space, but so far that hasn't come up.

Warhawk, I know, installed a 789MB file up there, but since that's pretty much exactly the network download size...? I own the retail box and don't recall authorizing an install, but do require some extra "setup" time it needed. I don't mind, but that being the case I'm a bit miffed that they still require me to put the disk in, since they tossed on all the game data anyway. Heh...

Heavenly Sword has a 2GB block, and I DO remember it specifically needing to install that before I could do anything. What I don't specifically recall is if it asked me a Y/N question beforehand; I would certainly have said yes. I don't THINK it did, but...


I assume all patch-related and update-related content will end up in the Game Data Utility section as well, so SOMEthing for each game is to be expected. (Though Uncharted seems to have left no trace, which is odd. Considering how good the game looks and how well it runs, though, obviously it shows that there's nothing wrong with BR technically... Devs just need to devote the time to the platform.) Genji tossed on, like, a dozen megs... Burnout has 25MB, but in there is probably the Gamestop car and the extra pre-order one...


It would certainly be nice to know which games force what, and what they're used for, though. There is a "Details" section in the information you can look up about each game's data cache, but they're almost universally empty. Even "Version" is frequently left blank.

Anyone can freely play around with this, though, as even demos can leave a trace. (Possibly not many, though. I think I may have just gotten random free content for games I only own in demo form.)

 

[ERP]

Because they haven't had to go through testing and optimising for all that on the PS3, and prefer to avoid having to do so to save a few bucks on development costs. I'm not impressed either, but I suspect they planned to use a HDD install from day one, probably chasing that elusive 'no in-game loadtimes' dream, and then Microsoft didn't approve - they don't approve HDD only games unless you have a very good reason, and I think Microsoft were pretty much dead-on with Capcom not having a very good reason in this case. They probably set everyone they could to work on the 360 version so that it could run without the HDD so that they had to delay the launch of the game as little as possible.

I doubt it's that complex.

No developer in there right mind would assume they could do a HD installation with pre approval by the platform owners. I remember the pain I went through just to get approval for an odd mechanism for autosave on one of my games, and how much pain it was in submission.

Besides optimising for disk layout isn't rocket science it's just time consuming and throwing more resources at it doesn't really help.

The install on PS3 was either an up front decision, for whatever reason, or it was thrown in at the last second to solve aproblem that would have been time consuming to resolve otherwise.

 

[mech]

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.

Word is Blu-Ray ISN'T slower in the real world, on average 360 and PS3 are roughly the same.

 

[AlNom]

Because Blu-ray is slower in the real world.

Would you be able to elaborate on this

Here's the thread on the PS3 & 360 drives: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42157

The BD seek times are apparently better, but is the laying out of the data on the 360 that much better to take advantage of the outer disc speed?

Does MS have the DVD ROM start reading from the outer layer first

There's at least one other major game I know of which uses the HDD for caching on PS3, but *snip*

Would you be able to name said game (just curious)

 

[PARANOiA]

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/02/07/ps3-fanboy-hands-on-hot-shots-golf-out-of-bounds/
Appears to be another mandatory 5gb install. So it goes.

 

[joker454]

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/02/07/ps3-fanboy-hands-on-hot-shots-golf-out-of-bounds/
Appears to be another mandatory 5gb install. So it goes.

So what happens to 20gb ps3 owners with a moderate amount of data on their hdd's? If they have only 9gb free and want to actively play both dmc4 and hot shots golf, does that mean they will have to delete the other games install data and go thru the 20 minute install every time they want to play?

 

[patsu]

The more forgiving people may also keep both games and delete the other saved files, or upgrade the HDD. The frustrated ones will skip the game(s). The developers will probably/hopefully try to optimize their engines further for subsequent games.

 

[chris100]

Some of you have it all backwards, i think. Capcom have confirmed to I think it was Eurogamer, or IGN, not sure, that if the 360 had supported a HDD standard, they'd have done the same on the 360. As it stands, however, they were forced to build in support for disc-based play on the 360, but they weren't forced to do so on PS3.

Even if 360 has standard HDD,it could be "optional",too.

 

[betan]

Heavenly Sword sticks 2GB on there, but I can't remember now if it's optional or not. UT3 and VF5, I believe, have optional data caches that are non-trivial in size. (2-3GB.)

R&C sticks around 400MB on there, and I don't recall being asked about dedicating any space, so I assume it's forced, but a trivial amount.

To be clear, I was asking for 360 games to see whether persistent data of any interesting size is allowed by Microsoft (for the games that are supposed to work on Arcades as well, and besides DLC).

Someone is probably building up a database of all this as we speak, however.

 

[Arwin]

I doubt it's that complex.

No developer in there right mind would assume they could do a HD installation with pre approval by the platform owners. I remember the pain I went through just to get approval for an odd mechanism for autosave on one of my games, and how much pain it was in submission.

Besides optimising for disk layout isn't rocket science it's just time consuming and throwing more resources at it doesn't really help.

The install on PS3 was either an up front decision, for whatever reason, or it was thrown in at the last second to solve aproblem that would have been time consuming to resolve otherwise.

Well, Capcom themselves stated that they were going for HDD install on both. They may have been lying, but that's the story they gave. They may just not have thought about certification for it initially, just as some never thought about 1080i support on the PS3. Later, when they found out, they decided to stick with just the no-HDD install on the 360, to save testing and perhaps even because they thought it wasn't really necessary after all, or maybe even for political reasons (we don't want to do the 360 any big favors by offering both options on that platform and only the HDD install on the PS3). It could be all of these things, to be honest. It will be hard to find out which one it really is, no doubt.

 

[one]

Though DMC4 is pretty much a single-player game, I think it will be a norm for forthcoming online-oriented games to use HDD installation (GT5P, HSG5) for constant patching and fast loading in online matches that are hard to optimize on a fixed optical disc.

 

[Hazuki Ryu]

I don't really see a need of using hdd for DMC4 on the 360 though it could probably make it as fast loading as the ps3 version, but don't you guys think Mass Effect would profit a lot from hdd install?

I mean theres some xbox that are slightly worse than others reading dvd's and i think im having some reading problems on mine Mass effect is giving me random loadings sometimes when the dvd cant keep up, the same doesnt happen to a friend of mine as much but it still happens I would think it could also reduce texture pop in problems and some slowdowns or "breaks" due to reading what do you guys think?

 

[AlNom]

Mod Note:

Due to my faulty memory, I forgot about the other HDD thread. I've merged the threads because they're very similar.

 

[rekator]

I don't really see a need of using hdd for DMC4 on the 360 though it could probably make it as fast loading as the ps3 version, but don't you guys think Mass Effect would profit a lot from hdd install?

I mean theres some xbox that are slightly worse than others reading dvd's and i think im having some reading problems on mine Mass effect is giving me random loadings sometimes when the dvd cant keep up, the same doesnt happen to a friend of mine as much but it still happens I would think it could also reduce texture pop in problems and some slowdowns or "breaks" due to reading what do you guys think?

I have got same problem with Mass effect… and I look at the DVD surface, there're trace of a grease pelicule on, so I wash it this alcohol product and glasses tissu and the 360 drive plate also.
Now, no more random loadings time and no more crash loading on PGR4 !

If this can help you…

@AlStrong: Probably you need to got a more big HDD for you memory or delete old stuffs!