Resistance: Fall of Man update! BIG READ , come inside!
- Thread starter hey69
- Start date
There's some silly arguments going on here. The video isn't even in HD people. In the future we are going to want all the video in HD, and it will take up more space than the current NTSC video. On the other hand I do think some of this video is going to be making of stuff, maybe even all of it, because it just doesn't make sense to use this kind of quality for in-game cut-scenes - I'm sure these will be using the in-game engine instead to keep everything consistent.
(Note that a single disc release is going to lead to cheaper games, and that the DVD9 format of the 360 appears to be limited to 7.4Gb, so 7.4Gb would have been a tight squeeze without all the extra content as well as introduce layer-changes into the game, slowing down loading times. But we've been there lots of times so let's not go there again)
Also, I already wrote elsewhere that I'd be really surprised if they'd manage 1080p. However, coming this close to it, I think they'll manage to do it for Ratchett & Clank - that visual style has different requirements and probably requires more vertices and less textures. But we'll find out soon enough. They also might just go for 60fps with that game as their main priority.
(Note that a single disc release is going to lead to cheaper games, and that the DVD9 format of the 360 appears to be limited to 7.4Gb, so 7.4Gb would have been a tight squeeze without all the extra content as well as introduce layer-changes into the game, slowing down loading times. But we've been there lots of times so let's not go there again)
Also, I already wrote elsewhere that I'd be really surprised if they'd manage 1080p. However, coming this close to it, I think they'll manage to do it for Ratchett & Clank - that visual style has different requirements and probably requires more vertices and less textures. But we'll find out soon enough. They also might just go for 60fps with that game as their main priority.
More profits is what you were looking for.
No, I looked at the Japanese prices that have been announced for the launch games, and Resistance was one of those that stood out as one of the cheapest games among them (around $50 worth of Yen).
Last edited by a moderator:
I just find it funny that people are missing the fact that the 6GB of disc space saved is a combination of the PAL movies being removed AND better compression of their game data. So no, you would NOT get another 6GB of space by removing the NTSC movies.
I'd just like to add this... There is a current videogame coming out in the near future on the PC that currently uses 20GB of space on the hard drive. That includes zero in-game movies, and the game is a MMORPG. So yes, games ARE getting bigger and disc space requirements will increase as we move forward.
I'd just like to add this... There is a current videogame coming out in the near future on the PC that currently uses 20GB of space on the hard drive. That includes zero in-game movies, and the game is a MMORPG. So yes, games ARE getting bigger and disc space requirements will increase as we move forward.
Meanwhile they've announced $60 for the US titles. So what was your point again? Cheaper games?
So what?! Who's to say that 2-3yrs from now, devs aren't gonna find use for that extra space? Or God forbid, they may even NEED that extra space! Try your imagination...
That's nice...if they were making games for YOU! But explain to me why that is sooo wrong if it was available. Is it because English is enought for YOU? Just because YOU don't want it, don't mean Enrique down the road don't wanna play GTA6 in Spanish. Or play Rainbow Six: Vegas in numerous languages?pipo said:
Man, I guess they were right - common sense just ain't that common no more!
Personally, I look forward to the extra content that the dev's will throw onto the discs. How about a "Making of" special in 1080p? Or maybe new gameplay or game scenarios only made possible by the extra storage. If you don't like it, get the X360 version. If you like it, then yay for us both!
Even if they use H.264 or VC-1, 720p video, you need atleast 12mbps for a decent HD encode, and in practice judging by bitrates on released HD-DVD titles, you need about 15-18mbps given immaturity of codecs. 1 hr @ 12mbps = 5.4gb, or 6.7gb @ 15mbps avg. That means even 15 mins of HD FMV is going to eat up about 1.3-1.6gigs. Most titles probably won't have that much FMV, but Final Fantasy will have a shit load, and Lost Odyssey appears to have tons as well.
Of course, you can always cut down on quality to use less space, just like you can trim polygon budgets to fit max sustained performance, and cut texture quality due to limited texture ram, and cut resolution or blended depth complexity if one runs into bandwidth limits. The art of game programming is trimming game content to fit within many constraints while minimizing quality loss, and disc space is one of those constraints. Personally, I'd rather have the space for the future.
This argument would be completely moot if the XB360 had shipped with HD-DVD. There would be less argument over DL 30gb vs DL 50gb. It is only really because of the lack of parity in this one feature, that people are so adamant about downtalking storage capacity.
Historically, people have always seemed to find uses to utilize the extra space. There was a time when people seriously questioned the need for >32bit addressing, >32bit filesize, I mean, who the hell would have a 4+gigabyte file!? When 16mb of RAM was the standard, 1GB of system RAM seemed crazy. I used to run tons of apps on my 16mb SYSV Unix system without hassle.
We had the same debate in the PS1/N64 era, and then again in the PS2 era. Oh, PS1 games wouldn't possibly use all of the CD storage. After all, the N64 had better gfx and it only needed 64MB. But FF7 came along and the cartridge was no longer adequate. When the PS2 got a DVD drive, the same rumblings appeared. The largest PS1 games had spanned ~4 CDs, how would anyone fill up a DVD? Many PS2 titles continued to ship on CDs, thus proving you don't need DVDs really, as you could always ship 2 CDs. Then 4gig, 9gig DVD titles came and finally multi-DVD titles hit, which would require a shitload of CDs for the user to juggle.
I don't doubt that for probably the first year, most PS3 titles won't need the space. Then developers will start figuring out how to use the space. FFXIII probably won't even fit on a BD25 given Square's penchant for uber FMV, and who knows what the insane creator of Xenosaga will come up with. Probably a game so long and with so many cut scenes, the PS4 will be out before you can finish it.
DVD-9 represents enough storage to fill all RAM in the XBOX360/PS3 17 times over. Even allowing for compression that's not a big ratio. (especially since some data like textures and perhaps sound, needn't be decompressed on load) A game with 40 levels of unique textures and architecture would probably bump up against it easily without careful budgeting and reuse.
Of course, you can always cut down on quality to use less space, just like you can trim polygon budgets to fit max sustained performance, and cut texture quality due to limited texture ram, and cut resolution or blended depth complexity if one runs into bandwidth limits. The art of game programming is trimming game content to fit within many constraints while minimizing quality loss, and disc space is one of those constraints. Personally, I'd rather have the space for the future.
This argument would be completely moot if the XB360 had shipped with HD-DVD. There would be less argument over DL 30gb vs DL 50gb. It is only really because of the lack of parity in this one feature, that people are so adamant about downtalking storage capacity.
Historically, people have always seemed to find uses to utilize the extra space. There was a time when people seriously questioned the need for >32bit addressing, >32bit filesize, I mean, who the hell would have a 4+gigabyte file!? When 16mb of RAM was the standard, 1GB of system RAM seemed crazy. I used to run tons of apps on my 16mb SYSV Unix system without hassle.
We had the same debate in the PS1/N64 era, and then again in the PS2 era. Oh, PS1 games wouldn't possibly use all of the CD storage. After all, the N64 had better gfx and it only needed 64MB. But FF7 came along and the cartridge was no longer adequate. When the PS2 got a DVD drive, the same rumblings appeared. The largest PS1 games had spanned ~4 CDs, how would anyone fill up a DVD? Many PS2 titles continued to ship on CDs, thus proving you don't need DVDs really, as you could always ship 2 CDs. Then 4gig, 9gig DVD titles came and finally multi-DVD titles hit, which would require a shitload of CDs for the user to juggle.
I don't doubt that for probably the first year, most PS3 titles won't need the space. Then developers will start figuring out how to use the space. FFXIII probably won't even fit on a BD25 given Square's penchant for uber FMV, and who knows what the insane creator of Xenosaga will come up with. Probably a game so long and with so many cut scenes, the PS4 will be out before you can finish it.
DVD-9 represents enough storage to fill all RAM in the XBOX360/PS3 17 times over. Even allowing for compression that's not a big ratio. (especially since some data like textures and perhaps sound, needn't be decompressed on load) A game with 40 levels of unique textures and architecture would probably bump up against it easily without careful budgeting and reuse.
You're missing the point. it's is called localisation and it happens anyway.
They've been doing that since the first console ever you know.
DeathKnight
Regular
Why add fluff content in the first place to take it beyond the DVD-9 capacity? Sony's just trying to justify the use of higher-capacity media and the Sony devs are following suit.
I've said it before, giving devs the use of this high-capacity media just leads to/instigates laziness. 22GB = lazy. 16GB = less lazy. They actually got off their asses and found a way to re-encode the NTSC videos to PAL on the fly, and improved their data compression. We haven't gotten to the point where the extra space is legitimately needed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't it 12 gigs of raw game data (40 "levels", 300mb a piece)?
Videos on HD-DVD and BR are encoded at 1080p. 1080p is 2.3x the size of 720p (so an hour of h.264 720p is around 2.5-3GB).
Your numbers are pretty much dead on for 720p MPEG2, though. I've got a bunch of recorded OTA HD in both 1080i and 720p, and each ~1hr show takes anywhere from 5.8 to 6.2 GB.
Edit:
I was just checking the Apple page, and for some reason they recommend 7-8 Mbps for 1080p h.264? That seems a little low to me.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/faq.html
And man, this sure got offtopic, didn't it?
Last edited by a moderator:
That's probably ok for a trailer, but I wouldn't pay $20-30 for it, that's for sure...
But then again, this is from the same company that sells 128 kbps AAC music.
V
Edit:
I was just checking the Apple page, and for some reason they recommend 7-8 Mbps for 1080p h.264? That seems a little low to me.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/faq.html
And man, this sure got offtopic, didn't it?
Yeah i was having a argument with an Apple "official" at IBC some years ago over this "it´s the industry standard it´s what people want" i pointed out the countless of flaws on the material they were showing and told her it sucked.
MasterDisaster
Regular
but pretended it didn't exist.
e-x-a-t-l-y
some one there believe that 1080p are free and don't use (waste) resource
Waste is a dumb word to insert, MasterDisaster. It uses resources, but it doesn't necessarily waste them if you don't need them elsewhere. There are going to be lots of sports games for instance that really don't need the extra fillrate that sticking to 720p would offer. In fact, there are already a lot of sports games that exemplify this, in Sega's Tennis game, both NBA games, etc. I think all related team sports can probably run just fine in 1080p ...
(there is also a danger about spelling out words for emphasis if you lack the proper resources to do it ... j/k )
Last edited by a moderator:
MasterDisaster
Regular
who says that an higher resolution uses ONLY fillrate?
who make this believe to you?
http://blogs.ign.com/Comments.aspx?blog=Ted-Insomniac&entryid=34235
I'm not saying it just uses up fillrate, just giving that as an example. Note that in the quote you take from below, that means that 1080p would have been fine for the rest of the game, which is the vast majority of the game. The point is that the word waste is just inappropriate, and that there are going to be plenty of games for which 1080p is a good choice, better even than 720p.
MasterDisaster
Regular
how to use resources is a choice Arwin, that 1080p means less space for textures and models and less bandwitdh is a fact (and less fillrate, but this change from game to game)
