RAGE : It Deserves its own thread now!
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
And why microsoft don't use more capable software system storage as bluray?If you read all post carmak said ps3 could has little bit higher quality at the end....
He also mentioned that texture quality for all systems will have to be reduced due to the PS3 limitations.
So the cuts go both ways with regards to "lowest common denominator." PS3 will end up degrading X360 experience in some ways, while X360 will degrade PS3 experience in other ways.
And PC will suffer due to compromises on both of those systems.
And I think we can point to Arcades 199 USD price tag as a good reason why MS didn't go with either Blue Ray or more likely (at the time) HD-DVD drive. If the PS3 was around 199 USD, it'd be hard not to pick one up. Just as it's hard not to pick up a X360 for 199 USD.
Regards,
SB
Are you positive? I only remember them saying they might look into an HD-DVD option say, for the PC's collector's edition, back when the format war was all the rage (a-ha!
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Are you positive? I only remember them saying they might look into an HD-DVD option say, for the PC's collector's edition, back when the format war was all the rage (a-ha!
If this was being released in Japan by a Japanese company I'd be saying oh yeah no doubt.
PC games moved to DVDs in Japan 3-4 years before it became commonplace in the US.
I highly doubt it'll appear in Blue Ray form on PC unless it's a bonus for the Collector's/Limited/Special edition where they include both the DVD version and Blue Ray version. And where higher cost can support the increased cost in pressing a Blue Ray version of the game.
Regards,
SB
Are you positive? I only remember them saying they might look into an HD-DVD option say, for the PC's collector's edition, back when the format war was all the rage (a-ha!
Hmm, not set in stone but...
http://blogs.ign.com/XoZeN/2008/07/31/97912/
green.pixel
Veteran
Last edited by a moderator:
He also mentioned that texture quality for all systems will have to be reduced due to the PS3 limitations.
So the cuts go both ways with regards to "lowest common denominator." PS3 will end up degrading X360 experience in some ways, while X360 will degrade PS3 experience in other ways.
And PC will suffer due to compromises on both of those systems.
And I think we can point to Arcades 199 USD price tag as a good reason why MS didn't go with either Blue Ray or more likely (at the time) HD-DVD drive. If the PS3 was around 199 USD, it'd be hard not to pick one up. Just as it's hard not to pick up a X360 for 199 USD.
Regards,
SB
However he talking a little bit less in different ways what a little bit can change awfully on both version? Seriously... He said also to porting from pc to 360 and after ps3, Why ps3 could be reduced quality texture on 360 if will be a 360 porting? The same words of Carmak on platforms developing are confuse. ps3 decrease texture quality but could be a little bit higher to 360
uh?
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks! I missed that one. If that happens I'll probably buy a BRplayer too. I really disliked not having a DVD version of DOOM 3 even though (here in Europe) during the same timeframe both FarCry and UT2004 were DVD releases.
However he talking a little bit less in different ways what a little bit can change awfully on both version? Seriously... He said also to porting from pc to 360 and after ps3, Why ps3 could be reduced quality texture on 360 if will be a 360 porting? The same words of Carmak on platforms developing are confuse. ps3 decrease texture quality but could be a little bit higher to 360
He's talking about three different things:
1) Storage space: because of the limitations of DVD, the XBOX 360 version will require more aggressive MegaTexture compression. They got a system setup right now that will simulate all the positions in the world the player can reach + visibility. The parts of the world the player is less likely to visit (or only see at a distance) will have more compression. The goal being that for the most part you shouldn't notice the extra compression.
2) Optical read speed: even though the PS3 uses BR thus not have the storage space problem above, according to JC reading from BR is slower than DVD so they might still use the same amount of MT compression as the XBOX version so that the resulting files are smaller and faster to read off the blu-ray disk.
3) Run-time video memory: because the PS3 has a split memory architecture (256 + 256) there's extra (as in: unused) video memory when compared to XBOX which is shared thus if they only need, say, 200mb of video memory they can use the remaining 312mb for the rest of the game in the XBOX version. The PS3 is "stuck" with 256mb for the rest of the game. To avoid letting the extra 56mb of video memory on the PS3 "go to waste" they might raise the texture quality/reduce CPU compression load at run-time by making use of the extra video memory (from all that we know so far, the MT tiles are decompressed on the fly from the disk and recompressed into DXT).
Every single PS3 has HDD , I dont think this is a problem ...
I think he know that he will not able to deliver what he promised so he started to make excuses from now ... When the game comes out with these negatives he's going to say ` oh I've told you , dont blame me ... This is not my fault , this is result of console's limited capabilites bla bla bla ` ...
Every single PS3 has HDD , I dont think this is a problem ...
I think he know that he will not able to deliver what he promised so he started to make excuses from now ... When the game comes out with these negatives he's going to say ` oh I've told you , dont blame me ... This is not my fault , this is result of console's limited capabilites bla bla bla ` ...
I have the same opinion. Why to limit ps3 version like 2 dvd how 360 when bluray offer a lot of space?
It seems on ps3 will be just a porting of 360 version and no more.You can't just use 20+gb of hdd space, there are limits imposed to devs as to much much hdd space a game can use. So just because they could ship with 50gb of data on a blu-ray does not mean then can install it all to hdd, they are still bound by optical drive limitations to a certain extent.
More importantly though, the 20gb and 40gb PS3 models are having space issues due to frequent mandatory game installs, and at this pace if left unchecked the 60gb model will also become handicapped. The average user does not spend more money on an hdd upgrade, so mandatory permanent installs are becoming an issue. Sony is starting to apply pressure discouraging them. It's a light pressure at the moment, but it will increase over time. I'm sure 1st parties will still be able to do whatever they want, but the rules for 3rd parties will tighten up regarding mandatory installs. They will still probably be able to get away with ~1gb or so of install, but will that really make such a dramatic difference to that particular game to where the lack of it means the game is a gimped port?
Right, many games already use hdd as cache on both PS3/360, there's no reason to think that ID won't do the same. But different games get different benefits from an hdd cache. Because it's temporary hdd space that means it needs to be filled every time, meaning you still have to hit the optical disc to fill it. A game like Uncharted can mask that hit more than an open world game because its very compartmentalized, you move from one tight zone to another, so the need to update the cache (and hence read from optical disc) in a given unit of time is kept under strict/predictable control. A more open game like Rage won't have that luxury.
From the description of the tech and the game, it seems like Rage would benefit more from a large permanent install than a small hdd cache (hence Rage will love PC's). They will likely make use of an hdd cache if they see benefit from it, but the permanent install option is not guaranteed both because of tightening policies, and because permanent installs reflect a "bad user experience" in the console world. In other words, one shouldn't automatically assume it will be a gimped port.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder... is the HDD Install for the NXE a fixed process in that the disc contents are copied 1:1? Or can developers control how the HDD install feature operates?
I'd have to ask around about that (not my department) but my guess is that it's a fixed process, it just dumps the disc over 1:1 and NXE just flips a bit someplace to have it run from this 'mounted' disc instead of the default optical part. I assume that because the process works even with old games that came out long before any of the NXE run from hdd functionality.
You hear that a lot, that the devs must do x/y/z carefully. I'm going under the insane assumption that most already do their job carefully, and that ID falls under that as well
It doesn't negate the benefit of hdd streaming, but it's fairly clear that some games will benefit from it more than others both by the nature of the game, nature of the tech, looks of the textures, etc. There's piles of factors.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going under the insane assumption that most already do their job carefully, and that ID falls under that as well
That's the problem. Even if they wanted to explore, they couldn't because there is no storage space for the source assets to begin with. Even if they could do it for 30% of the cases, they are all irrelevant now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
