PS3 HDD REQUIRED to Play Games but is NOT Standard?

[Asher]

My interpretation was he's requiring developers to assume the HD is there, meaning it'll be always available for game saves, etc. But it's not required to play games...

 

[ROG27]

Well, they never said to 'assume a HDD is there', simply that they are asking developers to code as if the system has a HDD, I see that as a big distinction. To assume it's there, would mean you could make your game dependant on the HDD, if you're simply asked to code as if the HDD is present then you may dedicate some extra resources to utilizing the HDD(despite the fact the install base is tiny), but you're not going to require it.

Also this wasn't directed at developers, it was directed at the general public and investors.

I see this as a public statement, that they inted to require HDD support, but I'm pretty sure that Developers are not making their decisions based on a slide that reads "HDD Required",

They must already have directions as to whether or not they can assume a HDD in 100% of all PS3's, and since Sony is not dumb, and won't risk being unable to cost-reduce, we know it's not going to be standard, take that one step further and we know that Dev MUST have been told that it wil not be on 100% of the systems.

Of course anything's possible, but why would sony do such a risk? They don't need to, it would be extremely stupid to bundle a HDD, or require it as a peripheral, and Sony's not stupid.

This idea is logically flawed...as the harddrive being removable makes hitting a cost-floor a non-factor (because a harddrive doesn't necessarily have to be phyically included inside every unit...although it could very well be bundled a la PSP Value-Pack, as I was arguing before). Later in the PS3's lifecycle, when Sony is more concerned with cost-reduction, Sony can just start making SKUs without a harddrive bundled. Simple as that. The reason MS had a problem with the XBOX 1 is because that unit could physically not be separated from the harddrive, as the harddrive was internal and unremovable.

The fact that developers must develop as though the harddrive could be present on all machines is not a mutually dependent factor on whether or not the SKU will be bundled with a HDD or not.

That is the point I am making.

 

[scooby_dooby]

That makes no sense whatsoever...

Well it's semantics anyways, I see 'assume the hdd is there' as a much stronger statement.

Bottom line is Sony has stated they are unsure of whether it will be standard, if they're unsure at this point in time it means they have told developers that it will be on 100% of systems, and that PS3 games will not require it to work. End of story.

 

[dukmahsik]

Interesting line of thought. And maybe Sony won't enter the PS3 into this price battle. They could just use the PS3 at the high end, and keep the PS2 to fight at the low end (vs the 360 core, and the Rev).

hmmm that's interesting, im not sure they'll use ps2 for the low end but they can market ps3 to high end users mostly

 

[valioso]

but if you assume the hard drive is there.. then the programmers may do the code in a way that it may break if the hard drive is not there. And if they told developers to develop as if there is no hd, like MS did.. then why the complete opposite statement now?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, they never said to 'assume a HDD is there', simply that they are asking developers to code as if the system has a HDD, I see that as a big distinction. To assume it's there, would mean you could make your game dependant on the HDD, if you're simply asked to code as if the HDD is present then you may dedicate some extra resources to utilizing the HDD (which you normally wouldn't do until the install base is larger).

I don't see the distinction you do. eg.

I'm writing a game for PS3.
Sony tell me to develop as if there's an HDD there, asking developers to code as if the system has a HDD.
I think 'okay, if I'm to write a game as if the system has an HDD, I'll create a GB sized living world to store on the HDD' and write as such.
PS3 is released and there's no HDD.
My writing for HDD scuppers my game.

They way Sony have worded this is far from clear, but it's probably the worst way to word 'HDD is optional and devs are being encouraged to right extra features to support it' whereas it's only a bad way of saying 'HDD comes as standard' IMO.

 

[ROG27]

Well it's semantics anyways, I see 'assume the hdd is there' as a much stronger statement.

Bottom line is Sony has stated they are unsure of whether it will be standard, if they're unsure at this point in time it means they have told developers that it will be on 100% of systems, and that PS3 games will not require it to work. End of story.

This argument you are making is absolutely true. In a system where the HDD is removable, the games must be made to work with both the HDD physically present and physically not present (just like XBOX360).

 

[valioso]

This argument you are making is absolutely true. In a system where the HDD is removable, the games must be made to work with both the HDD physically present and physically not present (just like XBOX360).

wouldnt that make it "assume the hd is NOT there"

 

[scooby_dooby]

This idea is logically flawed...as the harddrive being removable makes hitting a cost-floor a non-factor (because a harddrive doesn't necessarily have to be phyically included inside every unit...although it could very well be bundled a la PSP Value-Pack, as I was arguing before). Later in the PS3's lifecycle, when Sony is more concerned with cost-reduction, Sony can just start making SKUs without a harddrive bundled. .

And split your userbase in half? If the games require it then it means they have to ensure that every consumer buys a HDD, otherwise you'll end up with people buying the console and a memory card, only to find out they can't play a large amount of the games because they require the HDD. This is just a dumb idea. It has almost no benefits, and a ton of drawbacks.

It will not be required. Dev's will be encouraged to support it and every game will probably be required to support game saves on the HDD, but that's it.

 

[Nicked]

>>>wouldnt that make it "assume the hd is NOT there"

Yep. I would say its fairly obvious its going to be standard, but we'll see. I don't think debating various interpretations of Kutaragi's statements is going to achieve much.

It will not be required. Dev's will be encouraged to support it and every game will probably be required to support game saves on the HDD, but that's it.

Scooby my friend, its almost as if you WANT to believe PS3 games won't have this advantage...

 

[ROG27]

wouldnt that make it "assume the hd is NOT there"

Well, yes. You can say both of those things and mean the same thing. What you people are not taking into account is the precedent each of these companies set with their prior consoles. XBOX 1 came with an internal HDD standard. Now X360 no longer comes with a HDD standard. So you tell Devs who are used to coding for the XBOX, "This time around, assume the HDD is not there...because not every single SKU comes with a HDD, nor does it physically have to be attached to the unit the whole time." Now PS2 was a totally different precedent. The PS2 did not come with a HDD standard. PS2 devs are used to there being no HDD anywhere in sight. Now KK says to them, "This go around, program as if the HDD could be present on every unit your game is being played on. We are enforcing mandatory support."

You see how both can mean the same thing in two different cases.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't see the distinction you do. eg.

I'm writing a game for PS3.
Sony tell me to develop as if there's an HDD there, asking developers to code as if the system has a HDD.
I think 'okay, if I'm to write a game as if the system has an HDD, I'll create a GB sized living world to store on the HDD' and write as such.
PS3 is released and there's no HDD.
My writing for HDD scuppers my game.

Well I think they would ask you, the developer, to code as if the system has a HDD, with the important clarification that you cannot assume it's always there (this goes without saying if it's removeable anyways.) They'd also tell you they're not sure if it will be bundled at launch.

Based on that info, I think you'd make a game that does not require a HDD, but maybe you build in some extra caching functionality in an attempt to conform to Sony's request.

 

[ROG27]

And split your userbase in half? If the games require it then it means they have to ensure that every consumer buys a HDD, otherwise you'll end up with people buying the console and a memory card, only to find out they can't play a large amount of the games because they require the HDD. This is just a dumb idea. It has almost no benefits, and a ton of drawbacks.

It will not be required. Dev's will be encouraged to support it and every game will probably be required to support game saves on the HDD, but that's it.

That's not what I'm arguing Scooby.

Look at the slide...it is worded awkwardly, but it says, the HDD is required for the following bullet points on the slide. The bullet point relating to gameplay says "Enhance Gameplay" not "Enable Gameplay".

 

[junkheap]

I agree with scooby acutually

Let me give it a try.

Devs will create a game with say multiple paths, one for HD one without one, but both will be the same game in every way. But to push the HD sales sony wants every dev to code the game as though they have a HD. Maybe for faster loading or whatever, but the games will still work without an HD but prob slower reading off the drive than caching off a HD. But both methods will be supported helping push HD sales and whatever sony had planned for thier online or whatever else they may have in store. It doesnt harm the end user if he has a HD or not in any way, other than maybe for whatever else the HD is needed for maybe downloading extra levels, game demos as on the 360.

I dunno.. makes sense to me

 

[aldo]

I agree with scooby acutually

Let me give it a try.

Devs will create a game with say multiple paths, one for HD one without one, but both will be the same game in every way. But to push the HD sales sony wants every dev to code the game as though they have a HD. Maybe for faster loading or whatever, but the games will still work without an HD but prob slower reading off the drive than caching off a HD. But both methods will be supported helping push HD sales and whatever sony had planned for thier online or whatever else they may have in store. It doesnt harm the end user if he has a HD or not in any way, other than maybe for whatever else the HD is needed for maybe downloading extra levels, game demos as on the 360.

I dunno.. makes sense to me

Does it make sense that the developers are being told to develop specifically for a 60 GB 2.5" HDD?

-aldo

 

[Shifty Geezer]

it says, the HDD is required for the following bullet points on the slide. The bullet point relating to gameplay says "Enhance Gameplay" not "Enable Gameplay".

The formatting is wrong to mean that though. Starting from the bottom...

HDD is required for Linux OS
HDD is required for Home Server
HDD is required for Full Internet Access
HDD is required for Powerful Network Platform
HDD is required for Network Game|Application
HDD is required for Enhance Gameplay
HDD is required for Upgradeable
HDD is required for 60 GB HDD (2.5")

This list as printed only makes sense if they're a list of PS3 features, in which case the heading doesn't make much sense. Bullets points aren't always representative of that structure though. I guess they could be point talked through by the presenter. In which case the slide isn't the reference point, but the presentation, and what's said, is.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree with scooby acutually

Let me give it a try.

If all writing for the HDD means is file caching for loading times, that could probably be handled automatically by the system. Writing for a system with an HDD has to mean a lot more than that. I'm just going to remain confused until some clearer explanation comes out. Trying to make sense of this is only going to give a hazy best guess with no certainty. Personally I'd love to see an HDD present as standard as I think it could contribute a lot to gaming and the system as a whole, but the cost does seem prohibitive, unless the unit is very expensive. Or Sony have taken to making HDDs too (they make everything elses, may as well get these at cost price as well!)

 

[junkheap]

Does it make sense that the developers are being told to develop specifically for a 60 GB 2.5" HDD?

-aldo

I dunno, doesnt make a difference to me. Would it make a difference to a dev? I think its mainly to show its a small sized HD, thats all.

Just to be clear, i dont know much, in fact anything about developing games, and if it would make a diff whether they put in an option thats says if HD detected cache files. Im just stating what i see and what makes the most sense to me. I could be wrong and will be wrong on many occasions, but i dunno it makes the most sense to me.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If all writing for the HDD means is file caching for loading times, that could probably be handled automatically by the system. Writing for a system with an HDD has to mean a lot more than that.

Why? Compared to the 'support' for the PS2 HDD that alone in every game would be a huge improvement. Also, how can we assume Sony built the caching into the system, we know MS did but that doesn't mean Sony has as well...

I think it's pretty simple, required to support game saves, encouraged to support any other additional features and that's that.

 

[Nicked]

I think it's pretty simple, required to support game saves, encouraged to support any other additional features and that's that.

I have absolutely no idea how you draw that conclusion.