Oblivion on 360 gets another patch thanks to PS3 development.

RAM or hardrive/disk data? I dont see why a new location or creature on the screen would require more than the normal amount or ram. And even if it did, couldnt textures be lowered to make it fit? They are saying horse armor can't be on the screen at the same time as this tower/den/lair? It all sounds like BS to me. I have a feeling it has to do with xbox live content not allowed on PS3's store, and vice versa (that they may not be telling about). I mean is there any example of multiplatform DLC so far? I'd even accept blu-ray speed being the cause of not having a specific location streamed, but could think of another way to get around that as well (hard drive cache).

And btw hes made more than one mistake about technology before. I just find that one to be the funniest one. He gets called the "old guy" on the 1up yours show by his co-hosts for a reason. And as I said before hes infamous on gaf for sometimes not stating correct information.

 

I was referring to RAM only being maxed out within the context of this game... nobody said "console". As noted earlier, PS3 has slightly less available RAM for games than 360 (evidently due to the resident OS) so I don't understand how/why this can be so implausible to some?

 

It doesn't add up. System RAM is going to limit horse armor. If they are low on RAM, then they need to load sections of the game more often. This is fine because you can cache it on the HD. The 360 with it's ~250MB RAM vs a PC with it's 1-2GB will illustrate it. Now the PS3 can run the entire game, the world, NPCs with their armor, inventory, etc., cities, grass, trees, etc. but it simple runs out of RAM if you put armor on a horse? I can have a dozen armored NPCs but one horse breaks the game? The other DLC are instances, they load their own level, so none of this adds up. Sounds like bad reporting or a marketing maneuver.

 

Pretty much said what I was thinking (but of course you worded it much better). This DLC stuff doesnt make much sense, atleast the way Garnett explained it.

 

The reason I dug up the old IGN interview is because Todd Howard would seem to be saying that if they can't charge for it then they won't make it available. It's basically the same info 1Up blokey bloke is regurgitating only with enough spin to make the labour party proud.

 

So you think Sony is preventing developers from charging for DLC?? Not likely.

 

Would PS3 owners prefer Bethesda just not port the game at all?

It seems to me they have done a bit of work to make Oblivion an even better product on the PS3 and have taken the port very seriously.

Right about E3 2005 there was a lengthy press release from Sony that specifically commented on their vision of microtransactions. It is a Sony goal. The problem isn't the goal, but the execution of getting the entire framework in place. A number of devs have recently commented with the same, "But it is up to Sony" in regards to various online implimentations.

 

I don't think you understand the issue. Oblivion already streams data, loading sections more frequently isn't going to help the problem. Xb360 has 512 megs of Ram, PS3 has the same. I think a certain amount of that 512 used was devoted to downloadable content, so they wouldn't have to worry about running out of ram when that content is loaded. However more of that 512 is available to 360 developers when compared to PS3. When this game was first developed they targeted a minimum amount of memory on the 360 version, now they have to target slightly less on the PS3. this isn't bad reporting, this isn't a marketing maneuver, it's just a simple fact that our of the 512 available on the PS3, less of it is usable. Which can be a problem for some games when considering addon content.

 

This is a good question. In my view, it depends on how good PS3 Oblivion is.

If the port compares well to other high quality PS3 games released around the same time frame, then it should do both Sony and Bethesda justice.

Otherwise, I'd rather they do a proper PS3 game (even if a small one for download only).



Either way, for the longer term, I guess it's a positive thing 1 more developer gets their hands on Cell development. I doubt that a straight port will be able to achieve top ratings on PS3.

From some technical papers we have seen so far, Cell does require quite a bit of algorithm and code changes to achieve its max. potential. I also don't think it's a simple memory issue at that (The issue, if exist, may be resolvable if the run-time framework is reworked).

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood something. It's been my understanding that the ps3's non-unified memory divides the total in half for all practical purposes. (256 meg system ram and 256 RSX ram.) So if the gameworld data has to fit in 256 megs, wouldn't that put a stricter limit on how much can be active at any given time?

If I've misunderstood or overstated the limitations of non-unified memory, then someone please direct me in the right direction.

 

You are correct, though 256 MB is still a lot of space for gameworld data.

 

The 360 version of the game hitches and sputters with loading quite frequently in stock form, most notably so while traveling on horseback. Hence, I laughed when instead of releasing a patch to improve the swapping, they offered to let us pay to bog the console down with a bit more swapping by adding horse armor. Horse armor or not, hopefully they pay better attention to the PS3's memory limitations than they did with the 360.

 

It stutters a lot and also the framerate is quite unstable at certain conditions. If you fight in a forest during the night with a torch in your hand it's like looking at a photo album. Great game nonetheless, but it has its share of technical issues, that's one reason I'm not that surprised if the developers are having memory issues with the PS3-version.

 

There is the possibility to texture from system ram, which should help to overcome such limitations at least partly. But I wouldn't be surprised if this particular game doesn't use that option. And even if it does, it is of course not unimagineable that this option is less flexible and combined with the OS using a little more memory on the PS3, it would result in less effective RAM.

I'm considering all these issues as moot on the long run, though. You'll see them for a little while yet in games that come from the PC originally, but eventually engines will be more optimised for the PS3.

 

I do not expect anything from the ps3 before the first Naughty Dog game.

As for oblivion, considering ps2 did not even get Morrowind, is it the first time Bethesda has to deal with no DirectX game for a while ??

 

The worst section I've noticed is anything to do with Chorrol town. It takes upwards of five minutes to load the town itself and moving between sections means going out to make a cup of tea. Weird thing is that I think its only been this bad with my current character.