TheChosenOne
Newcomer
Lol...did no one else get the joke?
...or maybe my humor/sarcasm detector is broken.
...or maybe my humor/sarcasm detector is broken.
PS3 OS Resources.
- Thread starter Aeoniss
- Start date
Interesting info. Cool.
It may be, but you can understand if some people choose not to adopt in their minds one number or another until a primary source confirms. I think that's a positive aspect of their own critical thinking path rather than a negative, so it'd be nice if the recent hostility around the subject died down a bit.
That's pretty much it. Stuff that is standard on the other box is optional (read: more memory) on PS3, even though a a lot of that optional stuff really should be standard since most games need it anyways. The OS could be 1k and it wouldn't mean anything because we'd have to load a bunch of other modules anyways. Add in the msaa and edram factors, and other factors like some of the voodoo needed to help PS3 games perform (which also takes more memory) and the PS3 will likely always be at a memory deficiency. So there it is, my opinion, now we just have to see how many more passively snide comments will be directed at me in this thread, but that just makes my point that talking negatively about PS3 on forums isn't easy, hence why bother. I'm sure the mods can agree on that since they are the ones that have to come in and constantly clean/remove posts in these kinds of threads
Like _phil_ who's another developer?
I've heard a vague comment like his on another forum, and I really have no reason to believe otherwise. I wasn't provided by a number due to an NDA but I was told it's below 40MB for sure.
For anyone reading this thread for the first time, it's confusing so you'll just take whichever answer you personally choose to stand by for reasons of your own.
Can Xbox 360 games unload the standard stuff on Xbox 360 to make some room for what they want to do at an arbitrary point of time when the standard stuff is not really necessary?
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is not a multiplatform development thread. So why does everything have to be a versus argument? I know this is unimaginable to some (not specifically you) but there are those who are curious about what's going on irrespective of what other consoles are doing.
I don't think it's that about talking negatively about PS3, but you generally talk subjectively and almost always from a console warrior perspective as opposed to user/gamer/developer.
I'm sure the mods can agree on that since they are the ones that have to come in and constantly clean/remove posts in these kinds of threads
I believe the reason you get so many free passes is because you are a game developer which is a scarce resource relative to others. So this post won't live long probably either. :|
And to be clear, your PS3 bashing posts are truly awesome when supported by developer specific and original (to this forums) insights. Saying however, I won't provide facts because fanboys become upset when PS3 is criticized is not my understanding of intelligent argument since what you are doing is still criticizing but without any real fact or argument.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your bloated PS3 OS comment either. But when people are trying to find out what's going on with OS and it's memory allocation, 360 comparisons are not original nor relevant without knowing quantitative details for each console. Even if it was somewhat relevant, physical memory is not the only factor that needs to be considered.
This line of reasoning is disengenuous, imo.
First, in and of itself, a console's OS memory footprint is irrelevant - it simply is what it is. You work with what you have. Knowing an exact number is really only relevant in the context of multiplatform development. In fact, this whole quest to nail down exactly what each console's OS memory footprint is began as a result of some multiplatform devs publicly stating it is an issue on one of the platforms. In other words, the whole issue started as a "versus" argument.
Second, devs must talk subjectively due to confidentiality clauses. Moreover, it seems natural for a dev who makes his/her living developing multiplatform titles to have opinions about the platforms on which they work. For you (and others) to insinuate that Joker argues from a "console warrior's" perspective is simplistic, disrespectful, and more than a little ironic.
Third, it's kind of amusing how you consider Joker's posts as "PS3 bashing". I for one have never got that impression from his posts about multiplatform development, nor have I got that impression from other devs such as nAo, Faf, Fran, ERP, etc. I always took their intentions to be that of correcting misconceptions, certainly not "bashing". Like I said, the fact that certain people chose to view information/informed opinions as "bashing" or " being a console warrior" is quite telling.
the ignoramus
Regular
Everyone, this is NOT a thread to be bringing in multiplatform versus arguments or other off-topic material. The thread title should be clear. Specifically, putting forward the versus arguments instead of taking the information for what it is, is not conducive to the spirit of the thread. Yes, it is part of the original search for the figure, but we can make do without stirring the Defense Forces!
Betan, Joker is hardly a console warrior. He may take more liberties with his presentation of information than you would like, but when he speaks it's certainly not to build one console up or tear another one down; the information is presented plainly. This whole nonsense in this thread has more to do with the perception Joker has of the weak state of the typical PS3 fanboys psyche and the blowback here among some for that commentary and a perceived jab.
Nobody gets free passes, and if Joker posts something you feel violates the forum rules, well just report it.
Joker doesn't have any PS3 'bashing' posts as far as I am aware. He might speak in relative terms more lowly of it or wish for a technical improvement/allowance from time to time; is that bashing? If he speaks in favor of a multiplatform title's rendition on the 360 vs the PS3, is that bashing? As far as I am concerned, whenever it counts, Joker is full above board, professional, and very kind and helpful. And above all else still, he is a great contributor/debater in the actual technical threads which occur and are the focus of this forums existence.
To the extent that he may have been perceived to have been 'baiting' with the line of reasoning that PS3 fans across this forum (and the idea of this forum especially made me scratch my head) would lose their sanity if he spoke of 'the truths,' well... I agree with you and asked him to refrain from that in post #115. He did so, and that should have been the end of that vein period, yet here we are.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it depends how you choose to view it. From the sounds of it, if you choose to use virtually no features like friends list and voice chats the PS3 can use as little as 24MB. So from that perspective, it would "not be bloated". But it also sounds like if you actually add up the features to bring it to parity to the 360, it goes up significantly in size.
It's a glass half full, glass half empty kind of thing...
.. I'm not so sure I agree with the moderating here. A bit slanted..
@On topic:
I'm aware of the memory modules and how they can increase the "Total OS" size. One thing I was curious though, was that some OS features have been phased out entirely- like Universal friends list (previously 24MB) is now incorporated into the XMB itself (and thus the root OS memory allocation).
Lacking Edram provides benefits and cons to the PS3's architecture, in particular with matters relating to MSAA\AA (As we've seen with countless titles), but I'm still not sure I'd call it a "Memory handicapped" platform.. Especially if we exclude the "...In terms of multiplatform development" clause.
@On topic:
I'm aware of the memory modules and how they can increase the "Total OS" size. One thing I was curious though, was that some OS features have been phased out entirely- like Universal friends list (previously 24MB) is now incorporated into the XMB itself (and thus the root OS memory allocation).
Lacking Edram provides benefits and cons to the PS3's architecture, in particular with matters relating to MSAA\AA (As we've seen with countless titles), but I'm still not sure I'd call it a "Memory handicapped" platform.. Especially if we exclude the "...In terms of multiplatform development" clause.
the ignoramus
Regular
How come a game like Burnout Paradise (online integration on both platforms) appears to be an equal conversion almost across the board. Am I to understand that the texture work in that game is uniformly equal because the developer decided to hold back the Xbox version of that game.
If by the standard stuff "most games need it anyways" joker454 meant high-level stuff such as voice messaging, forcing it for devs who don't need it may not be always welcomed. On the other hand, if "the standard stuff" means real necessity such as drivers to output images onto the screen, then making it optional makes not much sense. It seems joker454 is blurring the boundary of high-level and low-level stuff for some reason. In other words, it's the boundary between a quantitative analysis and an opinion that can be easily countered by the "design choice" argument.
I think that's a sound theory, one, but I also think the practicalities are such that the boundaries are clear enough because the overhead with PS3 is that pronounced. That is, if the difference between having voice chat on XB360 or not is the saving of 300kb, it's fairly irrelevant, and can be rolled into the standard features of the persistent OS use. Bare in mind the XB360 has cross-game, multi-person chat, all within its OS footprint, whereas PS3 has to add per-game voice-chat at considerable overhead. I don't think there are any 'optional extras' on XB360 that truly are optional and would free up considerable RAM when you consider the design philosophy of XB360 is very online centric. eg. 'Friends Lists' are an optional extra with a crazy overhead (at least going by the old figures) on PS3 where online support is pants, whereas XB360 makes the lists compulsory. Sure, not having friend list forced on XB360 takes up some RAM that devs could otherwise use, so something like Uncharted that doesn't need it would have an unnecessary overhead, but XB360 manages all these features efficiently so the impact is minimal. I would happily take cross-game chat over a bit more RAM, especially if the implemented can be handled in a 32 MB total OS footprint along with other features!
I think people are arguing 'minimum' and 'minimum practical' values here without a clear distinction which one we want to know and why. Using the hackneyed car analogy, it's like saying "Car A only costs £5000 whereas Car B costs £10000" not factoring in that Car A comes without brakes, lights, nor seats as standard and these are optional extras all costing £7000 each. PS3's basic OS might be less than XB360's with the minimum possible configuration, but the moment you add in the 'optional extras' that aren't particularly optional, the cost is way, way higher.
As to which figure we care about, the raw, minimum figure is worth knowing only for curiosity's sake, but doesn't mean much. The figure that is relevant is the total RAM taken away from developers by the OS to implement the features that gamers want, and the XB360 figure is relevant to that as a cross-platform concern. As such, it's perfectly reasonable IMO for a developer with cross-platform experience to see the topic in the light of how it affects developers, and to express their opinion with reference to different platforms.
What's not reasonable is people polluting the Tech Forum with remarks about user bias. The thread is too progressed to execute an easy clean-up, and some of the points raised are worth hearing and moving them elsewhere would likely see them lost, so this thread stays as is, but expect subsequent OT talk to be forcibly removed.
On topic IMO consists of console OS base amounts, feature requirements, feature use, specifically identifying how much games on PS3 have RAM reserved to implement features, and with relevant debate about how those features are or may be implemented and how things could be changed. (eg. Why the blinkers do PS3's features require so much overhead?!?!)
I think people are arguing 'minimum' and 'minimum practical' values here without a clear distinction which one we want to know and why. Using the hackneyed car analogy, it's like saying "Car A only costs £5000 whereas Car B costs £10000" not factoring in that Car A comes without brakes, lights, nor seats as standard and these are optional extras all costing £7000 each. PS3's basic OS might be less than XB360's with the minimum possible configuration, but the moment you add in the 'optional extras' that aren't particularly optional, the cost is way, way higher.
As to which figure we care about, the raw, minimum figure is worth knowing only for curiosity's sake, but doesn't mean much. The figure that is relevant is the total RAM taken away from developers by the OS to implement the features that gamers want, and the XB360 figure is relevant to that as a cross-platform concern. As such, it's perfectly reasonable IMO for a developer with cross-platform experience to see the topic in the light of how it affects developers, and to express their opinion with reference to different platforms.
What's not reasonable is people polluting the Tech Forum with remarks about user bias.
The thread is too progressed to execute an easy clean-up, and some of the points raised are worth hearing and moving them elsewhere would likely see them lost, so this thread stays as is, but expect subsequent OT talk to be forcibly removed.On topic IMO consists of console OS base amounts, feature requirements, feature use, specifically identifying how much games on PS3 have RAM reserved to implement features, and with relevant debate about how those features are or may be implemented and how things could be changed. (eg. Why the blinkers do PS3's features require so much overhead?!?!)
This is the crux of the discussion. I am also curious about the VM support in-game. I was told Sony cannot touch the 2Gb VM allocated to games at the moment. I have no idea what this mean yet, or whether the claim is true. DeanA mentioned that games would not use VM for performance reasons. Perhaps Sony is still working on missing OS facilities to enable swapping of these in-game XMB features in and out of HDD.
The other possible reason is Sony has not optimized these optional modules yet (First priority was to shrink the core OS).
Similar threads
- Sticky