PSN game bloat?

[Shifty Geezer]

The lack of a download size cap on PSN titles is a plus versus XBLive! Arcade where it gives the developers more freedom, but I'm looking at some titles and thinking there must be a shed-load of bloat going on. I can't see what's taking up greater than a hundred megs for some of these titles. Take for example Super Rub-a-dub. The demo is 183 MBs. I'm guessing that includes all the game assets too. But still, it's water, which is procedurally generated, and some simple models with negligible animation. How the heck is it 183 MBs?! Uncompressed 1080p backdrops for every level? 5.1 lossless soundtracks? Is there some latent software overhead to PSN titles that puffs them out to sizes way in excess of the assets that make them? What's going on?

 

[Gradthrawn]

The lack of a download size cap on PSN titles is a plus versus XBLive! Arcade where it gives the developers more freedom, but I'm looking at some titles and thinking there must be a shed-load of bloat going on. I can't see what's taking up greater than a hundred megs for some of these titles. Take for example Super Rub-a-dub. The demo is 183 MBs. I'm guessing that includes all the game assets too. But still, it's water, which is procedurally generated, and some simple models with negligible animation. How the heck is it 183 MBs?! Uncompressed 1080p backdrops for every level? 5.1 lossless soundtracks? Is there some latent software overhead to PSN titles that puffs them out to sizes way in excess of the assets that make them? What's going on?

If they don't have to bother compressing it just simply for the sake of size (and not performance), then why bother? Seems like a waste of time to me (if its simply for size). Especially if they're well under 1 - 2 GB.

Though, that doesn't really answer your question, as there may actually be a real reason. But its what came to mind. What other examples do you have, that seem bloated to you?

 

[Arwin]

Yes, the Super-rub-a-dub demo is actually the full game. If you buy it and already have the demo, it just unlocks it. And the full game is actually quite large, though whether or not it really requires that much space I don't know. But there are a whole bunch of levels and some of them are quite a bit bigger than the initial ones, not to mention that there is a lot of interesting ways in which water flows throughout some of the levels (whirlpools, etc.).

Fun game. I couldn't stop playing until I had all golds ... it rewards you with a golden duck too. Took me about 8 hours or so? Add to that the countless times I've shown it to people - it's very much an all-ages experience. Quite worth the money!

 

[Dominik D]

@Gradthrawn: bandwidth doesn't come for free. If you reach 1mln downloads, +-50megs makes a difference. I'm not sure but I think there was a MS slide somewhere on the Intertubes that games below 50MB (old cap) get some advantages. There has to be a reason for that, that would easily translate to PSN. Was I dreaming or can someone confirm?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thanks for the sales pitch Arwin, but moving back onto topic Is there much deviation at all in art? Are there unique backdrops for every level? Lots of different audio tracks? The 3D content I've seen comes in well under a meg by my random guessing. Code is minimal. I can't see why this game takes up more than a dozen megs. And that's final product. These titles should be being archived for download!

Gradthawn : Reasons for smaller sized are faster downloads meaning less server overhead and quicker access for buyers, which is always a plus, as well as playing nicely with cheapskate ISPs who don't like people using bandwidth, and faster loading if assets are compressed. Seriously, it's madness to think of sending anything over the internet that's not suitably compressed!

 

[Arwin]

I'm not sure ... I can make some screenshots of later levels. But if there really is bloat and I were to guess, then probably something silly like lossless audio.

 

[Gradthrawn]

@Gradthrawn: bandwidth doesn't come for free. If you reach 1mln downloads, +-50megs makes a difference. I'm not sure but I think there was a MS slide somewhere on the Intertubes that games below 50MB (old cap) get some advantages. There has to be a reason for that, that would easily translate to PSN. Was I dreaming or can someone confirm?

Gradthawn : Reasons for smaller sized are faster downloads meaning less server overhead and quicker access for buyers, which is always a plus, as well as playing nicely with cheapskate ISPs who don't like people using bandwidth, and faster loading if assets are compressed. Seriously, it's madness to think of sending anything over the internet that's not suitably compressed!

True, bandwidth isn't free. I forget some ISP have monthly bandwidth caps in certain regions.

In terms of user friendliness, however, increased compression would reduce load on servers as the downloads would be faster, but likely increase the install time for the consumer in the end. The "install" (decompression, if I remember the SCEA rep right) procedure on some of these downloaded games is rather long.

Conversely, were I to compare it to Live!, they have smaller files, and no, long, additional install steps. At least, none that I can remember (haven't been online with my 360 in months though). So, I guess my argument of larger files for shorter installs is also moot.

 

[patsu]

Are the newer PSN games more space efficient ? Super rub-a-dub is a pretty old game although it has 50+ levels. I am not in the office now, so I can't check other PSN game size. GT5P is rather lean right ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dunno. There's never a file size until you're ready to download. But I don't think I've seen anything under 100 MBs, even with the simplistic 2D shooters.

 

[desmond]

Are the newer PSN games more space efficient ? Super rub-a-dub is a pretty old game although it has 50+ levels. I am not in the office now, so I can't check other PSN game size. GT5P is rather lean right ?

1.8 gigs.

 

[Arwin]

Which considering the amount of content isn't that big either.

I've bought most games, and I can check what their size is after download (once my wife's done with watching Angel ). I'm loth to compare most of these games to Live Arcade games though. There's not a whole lot of them that look like they take up a lot of space ... Even a fairly simple game like Lumines Live already struggled to fit within the initial limits. Game demos are just as big as they are on the PS3.

Few games are of a size that bothers me, though, or give me a feeling that my HD is being ripped off. Most of the games ooze quality, and I guess that comes at a price. I'm sure they could be even smaller if they really, really tried, but that effort is better spent elsewhere for now. I'm thinking that Loco Roco on the PSP, tiny game that it was on a tiny console, was still 64mb.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I really like Sony's approach to PSN in consideration they put full PS3 games on there as well as arcade games too. Having games that run completely off an HDD is a really nice thing to have if you have the space to allocate. Choice is a good thing and Sony is doing a good job of providing that.

 

[betan]

I don't know about duck game but I setup bandwidth monitoring for snake demo (77 MB reported by PSN), and the total transfered amount was very similar to that, and installed data was reported something like 78 MB.
In case anybody cares.

To my surprise I noticed if you don't choose background download, PS3 automatically installs the demo after download. (Totally unrelated to that) I suspect it's not the decompression, but encryption that prevents it from installing in the background mode. I wish there was an option though (is there?), I wouldn't mind reallocating a couple of CPU cycles while folding.

 

[patsu]

I really like Sony's approach to PSN in consideration they put full PS3 games on there as well as arcade games too. Having games that run completely off an HDD is a really nice thing to have if you have the space to allocate. Choice is a good thing and Sony is doing a good job of providing that.

Yeah, having a full game on HDD is nice. I'd recommnd people to get the PSN version of Warhawk so they don't suffer the same problem as me. I always have RFOM in the drive bay and are too lazy to switch to a different game. I got GT5P from PSN as a result.

 

[Arwin]

To my surprise I noticed if you don't choose background download, PS3 automatically installs the demo after download.

Yeah, I noticed this too with the BluRay demo disc on the Official Playstation UK Magazine ... if I install a game from there, it will also automatically do the install part.

 

[dlm]

To my surprise I noticed if you don't choose background download, PS3 automatically installs the demo after download. (Totally unrelated to that) I suspect it's not the decompression, but encryption that prevents it from installing in the background mode. I wish there was an option though (is there?), I wouldn't mind reallocating a couple of CPU cycles while folding.

It shouldn't be an option, it should be automatic. The idea of "installing" on a console is one more sign that Sony doesn't understand software. Installers are pointless when your target configuration is constant.

It's especially dumb on the PS3 for several reasons:
- The installer is the same size as the final product
- The installer is deleted after use anyway, so even if there was a size-savings, you couldn't save bandwidth after deleting a demo by keeping the installer
- The user can't do anything with the installer but run it
- When running it, there's no options that control the behavior anyway

Given these constraints, the fact that there's an installer at all seems more to be like Sony just putting it in there because PC software usually has installers, not because they were actually thinking about how things *should* work (there should be no installation, the downloader should simply target all of the files to the final location as they're pulled down in the first place).

 

[-tkf-]

It shouldn't be an option, it should be automatic. The idea of "installing" on a console is one more sign that Sony doesn't understand software. Installers are pointless when your target configuration is constant.

GT5 demo didn´t require an installation afaik.

 

[betan]

It shouldn't be an option, it should be automatic. The idea of "installing" on a console is one more sign that Sony doesn't understand software. Installers are pointless when your target configuration is constant.

It's especially dumb on the PS3 for several reasons:
- The installer is the same size as the final product

That doesn't mean it's not compressed, and even if install data was significantly smaller than installed data the decompression can be "streamable" anyway.

- The installer is deleted after use anyway, so even if there was a size-savings, you couldn't save bandwidth after deleting a demo by keeping the installer
- The user can't do anything with the installer but run it
- When running it, there's no options that control the behavior anyway

Given these constraints, the fact that there's an installer at all seems more to be like Sony just putting it in there because PC software usually has installers, not because they were actually thinking about how things *should* work (there should be no installation, the downloader should simply target all of the files to the final location as they're pulled down in the first place).

You are looking from mostly valid usability point of view.

I can argue however why an option is better for now.

First of all, the installation is not streamable because the digital signature needs to be validated. Probably signing DRMed installed data requires similar constraints.
Currently, installation data may be deleted but who is to say Sony is not planning a p2p download service for faster and cheaper PSN downloads?

So why not make a two stage auto install as what PS Store or demo disc is doing?
I'm pretty sure installation data is written to an unencrypted part of HD with minimal CPU and FS overhead. We know for a fact that installed data and installation data are different because of DRM encryption. What we don't know is how feasible for 7th or 6th SPU to spare those CPU cycles during a "hard realtime" gaming. Even if a very low priority task ends up being acceptable, I don't know if current DRMed FS is optimized for simultaneous writing.

Of course in the end, this may all be interpreted as poor planning on Sony's part.

 

[dlm]

That doesn't mean it's not compressed, and even if install data was significantly smaller than installed data the decompression can be "streamable" anyway.

Absolutely, I wasn't arguing against compression. I was merely indicating that if it's being used at all, it's not being used very well.

First of all, the installation is not streamable because the digital signature needs to be validated. Probably signing DRMed installed data requires similar constraints.

That's an easy problem to solve, though. The hypervisor for each box gets a key that is used to sign a portion of the downloaded binary after it has been downloaded and validated. Until the box is signed with the local key, it's basically considered an NX portion of disk. It's a simple three-way handshake. EDIT: Actually, based on your post, it sounds like this is exactly what they do already.

Currently, installation data may be deleted but who is to say Sony is not planning a p2p download service for faster and cheaper PSN downloads?

I can say it. No consumer would stand for it. The only reasonable option is to make this an opt-in proposition, and you would never get enough people to opt-in to get any value out of something like this. Even then, it's a political landmine. Unless someone gives Sony some really bad advice, they wouldn't touch this sort of thing with a 10-foot pole.

So why not make a two stage auto install as what PS Store or demo disc is doing?

I don't think it's a problem. My problem is that the user is required to take an explicit step to run an installer. It's the equivalent of me writing an installer for a piece of software with a piece of UI that says nothing but "Click Next" with a "Next" button. It's silly.

What we don't know is how feasible for 7th or 6th SPU to spare those CPU cycles during a "hard realtime" gaming. Even if a very low priority task ends up being acceptable, I don't know if current DRMed FS is optimized for simultaneous writing.

Fortunately, modern architectures allow for prioritizing both IO and CPU usage. There's no reason why the install stage can't be put on low priority so that they'd simply get starved in the case that a game needs to do work.

Of course in the end, this may all be interpreted as poor planning on Sony's part.

Another possibility I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the design discussions for their download/install process.

 

[patsu]

I have a feeling many of these user inconveniences stamp from security concerns.

For example, nothing in background download gets installed automatically without the user's consent.

The every-page plugin alert dialog is another one. Nothing unknown should be used/displayed unless the user agrees to it.

The hardware may be well protected but the Playstation Network is pretty open. So they put up road blocks at the user level to restrict access (Vista takes similar approach). Doesn't mean I agree with them all though.