*spin off* Game Installs & PS3

[Shifty Geezer]

Its the same thing as last gen. Why were all the games gimped by the ps2 instead of using the full extent of the original xbox abilitys.

PS2 outsold XB 4 or 5 to 1. A title didn't have to release on XB to be very profitable, so XB could be treated as a low-cost port afterthought.

This generation is more like 3:2 so far, with some titles selling nearer 1:1. Neither platform can boast such a strong position that the other can be casually addressed. Thus developers won't 'gimp' the PS3 version, but instead will make an effort to create a worthwhile title and maximises returns on investment.

 

[Arwin]

Not really, available memory and gpu are the limiting factors on current consoles, at least on non mega texture renderers.

So are you saying the speed at which you can refresh the data in the limited pool of texture memory you have is not a relevant limiting factor?

 

[joker454]

I have an anecdote from Uncharted 1 to share concerning this. There are a few areas in the game where you can very quickly move from one part of a level to another. Since I was extremely impressed with UC1's textures back then I specifically tried to produce some texture pop-in in those areas. I failed.

It's not too hard to spot texture pop in UC1, it's definitely there. Haven't finished UC2 yet though, got sidetracked with other games.

I'd like to question Joker's comment about designing around the BD drive's slower speed "not being a good solution"...

Why not? Especially for devs intending to develop their game as multiplatform title. Surely the principle design philosophy is to "develop for the lowest common denominator". When MS releases the HDD-less arcade version of the 360, that meant that all multiplatform devs had to design for that. Why, when designing a game to run equally well on both 360 and PS3, shouldn't you target the BDD speeds rather than DVD drive speeds?... seems a little inconsistent to me.

Also, with the whole HDD caching, manditory/optional installs issue... I just don't get Joker's stance... I thought the general consensus amongst devs was that the Arcade 360 was a pain in the ass because it limited all multiplat devs to having to target a HDD-less SKU rather than having the benefit of a HDD in every box? Why then when Sony does indeed ensure a HDD in every box, would a dev complain that they don't allow"optional full installs"?!?! From a developer time/money point of view, surely you would save time/money just implimenting a single partial/install system or HDD caching system for streaming your textures, than having to allow for the possiblity of both?!?!... if every user has a HDD installed from the get go, it seems like a waste to not make use of that.

Well I never said the hdd-less 360 Arcade wasn't a pain in the ass, it is. But at least on that platform we have an option. Loading too slow? Then snag an hdd for $30 off ebay and problem solved. On PS3 the only current options are mandatory installs that piss off a percentage of the populace, or a cache scheme which sometimes is effective, and sometimes isn't. Give us the full install option then our games can be seen in their best light as on the 360. We have to meet load time trc's running on optical on both, true. But if we could do full installs on both then we could push the envelope more, try things that might ride the edge of trc off just disc, but run much nicer on hdd. We can't do that now because only one platform allows full installs, and mandatory installs are frowned upon and/or not popular with some. So we don't want to be stuck in the situation where PS3 versions always load slow with no option to fix that, whereas 360 versions run slow off disc but nice off hdd. We need both consoles to be onboard with full installs, otherwise we will assume that both are always stuck with running purely off optical disc with no option to improve.

In other words, you have always have to cater to optical only on both machines, the trc's will enforce that, but we'd be able to push things further if both also supported full installs. An extremely simplified example could be boot time. If we are stuck with optical only, then lets try to get that boot time to 10 seconds, since the user can't improve that time. We have to do that because in that case the lowest common denominator is not the hardware at all, but the users out there that cry foul when loads are too long. So we cap it to say 10 seconds to make everyone happy. But if full installs were an option on both then hey, lets push it and try to do some more. The trc for loading is (fake number coming) 20 seconds, so lets use all that time to improve whatever we can. We can do that now since the 100% of users have an upgrade path available to them. Many would wait the 20 seconds and run off optical just fine, the slowness wouldn't bug them, or they won't want to delete all their home movies off their PS3 to be able to play a game. But all the rest can upgrade to a faster boot time by installing the game. That situation, if allowed on both consoles, would unlock new doors for us because we would have more time to play with.

In the end the lowest common demonitor in many ways isn't the hardware itself, but the users. If we have to cater to every user then we will aim for the lowest common denominator. If users have an easy upgrade path, then we still aim for the lowest common denominator, but we can also aim higher. Kind of a long winded explanation, but does that make more sense?

As an aside, remember as well that optical discs and hdd's work on the same principal, a platter over which a head seeks around. So by optimizing for dvd, you are also optimizing for hdd. So you can make the "best practices" argument there that forcing dvd optimization helps all platforms. It's the same as the spu argument for memory. Spu's are a pain to reorganize your data to work with them, but once you do all platforms benefit. Same with optimizing for optical disc. Even if full install option came to be on both machines, the data would still be optimized for optical either way. We'd just push the limit more.

As a second aside, I admit I can't help but feel some love for the 360 Arcade. Yeah it's a pain, but it saved many of our jobs. If we were dependent on $400+ consoles to populate this gen then the industry would have been screwed.

I get that a certain online vocal minority of gamers cares so much about manditory installs, but is it really that much of an issue that the benefit of having a HDD in every box should go completely wasted?

How do you know it's a minority? If it truly was a minority then why did Sony start pushing back on mandatory installs some time ago?

I would personally welcome manditory full installs for every game on both PS3 and 360 (balls to the arcade), but alas that'll never happen. My only solice is in the hope that next gen, HDD prices will be so darn cheap (along with a great emphasis on digital distribution for DLC) that there will be a HDD present in every SKU of every console next gen.

So would I, but not this gen, hdd's were just too small. Hopefully this issue will be obsolete next gen.

There's at least one high-profile game from a major publisher that is unplayable without an install on 360 (well, unless you can live with serious framerate hitches). It got slammed hard by reviewers so they're not likely to try this again, but it was tried. And most 'optional install' PS3 games have pretty brutal load times without the install.

Which game? If it's an early game then many of those got a free pass.

So are you saying the speed at which you can refresh the data in the limited pool of texture memory you have is not a relevant limiting factor?

No that's also an issue, but in the end of the day it all has to fit into ~300-400mb or so of texture memory to work with typical renderers. So even if you run off hdd, you still have to fit textures, normal maps, details maps, etc in that tiny memory pool. Available memory defines the upper bound of what you see on screen.

 

[eastmen]

PS2 outsold XB 4 or 5 to 1. A title didn't have to release on XB to be very profitable, so XB could be treated as a low-cost port afterthought.

This generation is more like 3:2 so far, with some titles selling nearer 1:1. Neither platform can boast such a strong position that the other can be casually addressed. Thus developers won't 'gimp' the PS3 version, but instead will make an effort to create a worthwhile title and maximises returns on investment.

the 360 still sells more while from what i still hear is easier to develop for. So do you poor more resources into the system that will sell more copies so its better able to compete with other titles on the platform or do you pour money into the system that will sell less and is harder to develop for ?

I know as a dev which one I would do

 

[obonicus]

Well I never said the hdd-less 360 Arcade wasn't a pain in the ass, it is. But at least on that platform we have an option. Loading too slow? Then snag an hdd for $30 off ebay and problem solved. On PS3 the only current options are mandatory installs that piss off a percentage of the populace, or a cache scheme which sometimes is effective, and sometimes isn't.

Wait, but the PS3 does have optional partial installs. Why would a slow-loading game that effectively mandates a full-install (and a $30 dollar HDD!) be any better than a slow-loading game that effectively mandates an 'optional' partial install? DMC4 had a freaking 5GB install -- if, as you say, the game is about as big on PS3 as it is on 360, shouldn't most of the game be there?

Give us the full install option then our games can be seen in their best light as on the 360. We have to meet load time trc's running on optical on both, true. But if we could do full installs on both then we could push the envelope more, try things that might ride the edge of trc off just disc, but run much nicer on hdd.

But this is horrible. This is exactly the cautionary tale people are saying full-installs will bring! You're not making a case for mandatory installs, you're doing the exact opposite.

As a second aside, I admit I can't help but feel some love for the 360 Arcade. Yeah it's a pain, but it saved many of our jobs. If we were dependent on $400+ consoles to populate this gen then the industry would have been screwed.

The SKUs aren't tracked separately, but most of the 'average price' data we've seen suggest that the Arcade doesn't sell vastly better than the mid-range unit, if it sells better at all. No one can explain it either.

Which game? If it's an early game then many of those got a free pass.

The Last Remnant, a late 2008 game, published and developed by Square Enix, its first actual HD game this gen, by their SaGa team, I think. Hardcore RPG fans loved it and were willing to overlook its performance issues, especially with the full install. Critics savaged it, with a share of 2/5s and a Metacritic score of 66. It performed quite a bit short of S-E's expectations, as I remember and I'm not sure it broke half a million WW.

Hopefully it's a cautionary tale to developers about what happens when they do what you're advocating.

 

[joker454]

Wait, but the PS3 does have optional partial installs. Why would a slow-loading game that effectively mandates a full-install (and a $30 dollar HDD!) be any better than a slow-loading game that effectively mandates an 'optional' partial install? DMC4 had a freaking 5GB install -- if, as you say, the game is about as big on PS3 as it is on 360, shouldn't most of the game be there?

A partial install is more q/a, it's considered different enough from running just off disc alone to merit it. A full (but optional) install though doesn't need extra q/a because it's just a complete content dump, everything still runs from a single location. So they aren't quite the same. There is zero extra code for full install support on 360, so no extra testing needed. Basically, we do absolutely nothing on our end and full optional installs on 360 just work, I like it that way.

But this is horrible. This is exactly the cautionary tale people are saying full-installs will bring! You're not making a case for mandatory installs, you're doing the exact opposite.

I don't want mandatory installs, I want them to always be optional.

The SKUs aren't tracked separately, but most of the 'average price' data we've seen suggest that the Arcade doesn't sell vastly better than the mid-range unit, if it sells better at all. No one can explain it either.

Even if it only added 5 million more units into the field, that's still a win for an industry that has already taken quite a beating. Many are hanging on by a hair, take away those 5 million and they would be gone.

The Last Remnant, a late 2008 game, published and developed by Square Enix, its first actual HD game this gen, by their SaGa team, I think. Hardcore RPG fans loved it and were willing to overlook its performance issues, especially with the full install. Critics savaged it, with a share of 2/5s and a Metacritic score of 66. It performed quite a bit short of S-E's expectations, as I remember and I'm not sure it broke half a million WW.

Hopefully it's a cautionary tale to developers about what happens when they do what you're advocating.

That might not have anything to do with what I'm suggesting though. I took a peek at reviews on metacritic and it seems like the game itself is flawed, with comments like "awkward battle system", "sloppy design", or "uninspired dungeons and a tired story". Seems like the game was doomed irregardless. It's also listed as "highly unpolished" and "technical mess", so maybe the game was shipped too early. Or maybe they just pushed it too far.

 

[obonicus]

Trimming out the beginning, since I understand better what you mean.

I don't want mandatory installs, I want them to always be optional.

Sure, but you're saying that you have an experience that would only be fully appreciated by people who do the optional install. The vocal contingent of players who we usually hear from (and which produces most of the members of the journalist press) hate playing the gimped version. It's why drastically inferior ports on the PS3 get so much flak. That sort of vitriol and bad press sometimes even leads to bad sales, though I'd hesitate to establish causation there.

Trimming out some sales stuff I would like to discuss, because it's mostly OT.

That might not have anything to do with what I'm suggesting though. I took a peek at reviews on metacritic and it seems like the game itself is flawed, with comments like "awkward battle system", "sloppy design", or "uninspired dungeons and a tired story". Seems like the game was doomed irregardless. It's also listed as "highly unpolished" and "technical mess", so maybe the game was shipped too early. Or maybe they just pushed it too far.

Make no mistake, the main complaint was the performance. There's where 'technical mess' and 'highly unpolished' come from; the game was borderline unplayable without an install on 360. I'm not saying S-E planned the game around the install feature; I'm not privy to that sort of information, naturally, and it seems highly unlikely as the update that had the install feature had been made public at around the same time. Nonetheless it's an example of what will happen if you make a game that will only run decently if you make use of the optional install. You'll get savaged -- the other complaints are actually minor compared to how much griping and whinging there was about the performance of the game. The game still gets a ton of praise from 'connoisseurs' (I'd use more unkind words to describe them, normally) as the best JRPG on 360, but only with the install.

 

[Fafalada]

I'd agree, except in this case good dev practices are already enforced by something else, the 360 Arcade. It's not like if PS3 supported optional full installs that we could then all kick back and assume hdd speed. Whatever we do has to run on the hdd-less 360 anyways.

It could also just make the Arcade the "odd man out", and give people one reason less to buy one as the future games run progressively worse on them.

Also when it comes to multiplatform, I was never of belief drive was the only limiter (or even the main one). PSP got treated as the "reject port-to platform" from day one, and we've got some "gems" from that that have up to 1minute load times even in their PSN Downloadable form (I don't even want to think how those played in their original UMD releases).

But I disgress - to get back on point - once enough data is out on consumers embracing/accepting installs as a good thing, we'll be headed into PCs mandatory install for everything land in no-time (next gen of consoles perhaps).

Unfortunately streaming of textures appears to be the new "in" thing for games. And THAT I do hate. It's in my face everytime I play Borderlands on my PC. It's ugly, it's distracting, and it totally ruins any sense of immersion you might have built up playing the game.

I can sympathize, but as far as trade-offs go, I've seen quite a bit of data on this that shows consumers will choose streaming-pop-in over increased load times vast majority of the time, especially when it comes to online-games.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

PS2 outsold XB 4 or 5 to 1. A title didn't have to release on XB to be very profitable, so XB could be treated as a low-cost port afterthought.

This generation is more like 3:2 so far, with some titles selling nearer 1:1. Neither platform can boast such a strong position that the other can be casually addressed. Thus developers won't 'gimp' the PS3 version, but instead will make an effort to create a worthwhile title and maximises returns on investment.

On the other hand however I think multiplatform games for both platforms are generally gimped as devs program to the lowest common denominator. IE - capabilities common to both systems.

PS3 has a bit of an advantage in first party games however since they appear to encourage devs to code to the metal far more than MS does with X360 exclusive devs.

But for mutiplatform games. X360 version is gimped due to PS3 limitations and PS3 versions are gimped due to X360 limitations. IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

[SG79]

Sony has to play catch up because multiplatform games still sell more on the 360.

It really depends on the title nowadays because the discrepancy globally between the two systems isn't that large, and with the demographic differences, some titles do sell better on the PS3 nowadays.

Incidentally, the publishers who had good success on the PS3 are improving their tech on the PS3. Capcom's games actually sold better on the PS3 barring the original LP (worldwide figures that is). The similar content portions of the LP2 demo were nearly identical on both consoles.

So yes, money is definitely a factor. Still, developers have made great improvements on the PS3 in recent times (let's ignore Bayonetta and Ghostbusters). There really aren't colossal difference among multiplatform games, or any major ones of interest outside of tech forums such as B3D etc.

 

[rekator]

Make no mistake, the main complaint was the performance. There's where 'technical mess' and 'highly unpolished' come from; the game was borderline unplayable without an install on 360. I'm not saying S-E planned the game around the install feature; I'm not privy to that sort of information, naturally, and it seems highly unlikely as the update that had the install feature had been made public at around the same time. Nonetheless it's an example of what will happen if you make a game that will only run decently if you make use of the optional install. You'll get savaged -- the other complaints are actually minor compared to how much griping and whinging there was about the performance of the game. The game still gets a ton of praise from 'connoisseurs' (I'd use more unkind words to describe them, normally) as the best JRPG on 360, but only with the install.

Last Remnant is totally playable without HDD install… Yes, you have more load time and more framerate lost, but is during the presentation and the loading of the battle round. I'm playing it with and without HDD install.
It's really more a problem on optimization than others thing.

 

[Prophecy2k]

A partial install is more q/a, it's considered different enough from running just off disc alone to merit it. A full (but optional) install though doesn't need extra q/a because it's just a complete content dump, everything still runs from a single location. So they aren't quite the same. There is zero extra code for full install support on 360, so no extra testing needed. Basically, we do absolutely nothing on our end and full optional installs on 360 just work, I like it that way.

I don't want mandatory installs, I want them to always be optional.

So it's basically the extra Q/A that's the problem on PS3, not really that a developer isn't given options. Since Sony allows for HDD caching, manditory installs or an optional partial install (albeit requiring extra Q/A), it certainly seems like they're giving devs enough options for them to make their decisions as to how to go about game installs for a PS3 game.

So since the Sony way is less "convienient" for devs, it's all Sony's fault and that's why MW2 has significantly higher load times for texture streaming than the 360 version? (I know that's not your insinuation Joker... I just couldn't resist)

To be honest though, I'm sure if IW approached Sony and made a stink about the extra Q/A, provided they even wanted to reduce the load times on the PS3 port by implimenting an optional partial install, then I'm quite sure Sony would have bent over backwards for them (and forwards, and then backwards again).

Since there exist already multiplatform games that do allow for an optional partial install on PS3, i'm sure the extra Q/A can't be all that much of a travesty.

Also, with regards to the manditory install feature which Sony initially pushed but then completely did a u-turn on, my assuption (however fantasitcal it may be) was that it was due to the large amounts of bad press they were getting with the intitial PS3 ports of multiplatform games which mandated an install on PS3 and didn't require one at all on the 360. At the time Sony was getting a lot of stick because of it and I can understand them not wanting to allow such to continue. My comment about it being a vocal minority was that apart from the gaming press and usual interent forum going suspects (e.g. NeoGaf nerds and "Teh Fanboyz") I'm quite sure the vast majority of mainstream gamer at the time didn't really mind the installs (again an assuption based only on empirical observations).

I'd also like to ask Joker about his want for an OS level install feature that allows for full game installs but doesn't require any extra code on the dev side... If Sony does impliment something like that, what will happen for games which don't fill the Blu-Ray disc and are in fact padded out with bum data to improve the seek times? How will an OS level install feature know what is bum data and what is game data without at least some dev code telling each PS3 what data to install? Otherwise I certainly wouldn't want a feature that would dump GBs worth of bloat onto my HDD.

I might be misinformed but it certainly doesn't sound as easy to do as it seems.

 

[obonicus]

Last Remnant is totally playable without HDD install… Yes, you have more load time and more framerate lost, but is during the presentation and the loading of the battle round. I'm playing it with and without HDD install.
It's really more a problem on optimization than others thing.

Well, you're right, it's hard to make absolute statements on framerates, different people have different tolerances. The point is that there was no tolerance whatsoever for a game that runs much better with an install. People reviewed it, for the most part, without even considering the possibility of installs, as did the vocal fans. In contrast, mandatory installs get a ton of griping but it feels like optional installs are considered a plus.

 

[Billy Idol]

I don't mind a partial install at all...to be honest: if a game doesn't need an install at all, I am immediatly worried and shout out lazy devs (sorry, had to do it, but reading the comments here I think the right word is not lazy, but avaricious : I know, it is all about the money...)!

See for instance KZ2: the devs were very proud that no install is needed stating this in every interview, and I thought (before even playing the game) that this is a bad decision. And now, we have a game without install, which has (small) load pauses in-between.
So I wonder if an install could have solved this issue? The best thing would be: optional install with the result that the loading pauses are gone...this would be the optimal solution for the gamer and no-one would complain!

Worst thing devs could do: MGS4 style install! While playing the game for the first time, it did not bother me. But this crazy installs are the reason I never play this game again!! I really want to jump between the chapters and replay some of the special levels and show them my buddies and all this stuff...not a chance to keep my nerves during the very long loading/installing screens (I am a non-smoker btw ).

 

[Arwin]

Billy Idol, I think you misunderstand something about the partial HDD install thing. When the Killzone 2 devs say they are proud that no install is needed, that does not mean they are not installing any data onto the HDD - they just don't do it as a visible part of booting up the game. Instead, they'll be streaming in information while for instance the intro-video is playing, during custscenes, etc. So they'll be using the HDD to install data, which is otherwise also known as HDD caching, basically.

I think there are all sorts of tricks you can do. Say for instance that the first environment in Killzone 2 is loaded fully into memory and doesn't require any additional streaming. So here's how the game could start:

1. load all the data into memory for the first level (the one where you walk around), and start the level.
2. during the time that the first level is being played, cache the data for the second area/level. Say that it takes a minimum of 4 minutes to get through that first level, this leaves you with 4 minutes of time to load any data you like from the BD to the HDD.
3. when installing this data, decide whether or not this is data that you'll be needing again. Data you need again you can install as part of your 'partial install' in a game specific folder. Other data could be written to the general cache and can be overwritten by the time you load the next level or by the time another game is boot up
4. rinse and repeat

Do you get the basic premise? You can both do without a partial install but instead cache to the HDD, or you can do a hidden partial install, or you can do both. In many cases, just caching at clever times to the HDD is already enough, and obviously you can facilitate such behaviour even more by designing your games to take advantage of this setup.

 

[Rotmm]

I don't mind a partial install at all...to be honest

See, I'm the opposite.

Well, almost

With a 40Gig system, I find any and all mandatory installs intrusive. More importantly, a games console should be as "pick up and play" as possible. Just been out and got my new purchase, I've got 30 mins before the wife gets home and I think to myself, "lets check out the first level or two". So I pop in the BR, get prompted for an install, realise I don't have enough space, spend a couple of minutes deciding what I want (not that I actually want) to delete, start the game again and then wait 5-10 minutes for the game to install. It'll be even worse if there's a patch, because for reasons I am still trying to fathom, a game patch that downloads and installs in about 20 seconds on the 360, can sometimes take 30 times that long on the PS3.

Start the game, watch the opening vid or whatever, keys in the door and.... bam, there goes my 30 mins.


Optional installs are fine. I often install the whole game onto the 360, not for speed but because the DVD drive is so fucking noisy. But I can do that at my leisure. More importantly, if someone comes round and we decide to have a quick game of "titleX", I can just pop it in the 360 and play. On the PS3, if it's not already installed, there's that wait again. Even worse if a friend comes around with their teens, as it'll usually be a case of having a quick game of this, changing games for another quick game, etc.

No, mandatory installs are bad. Hell, even the fact that I have to install a demo after downloading it is stupid. These console-thingies are not PC's.

 

[Prophecy2k]

See, I'm the opposite.

Well, almost

With a 40Gig system, I find any and all mandatory installs intrusive. More importantly, a games console should be as "pick up and play" as possible. Just been out and got my new purchase, I've got 30 mins before the wife gets home and I think to myself, "lets check out the first level or two". So I pop in the BR, get prompted for an install, realise I don't have enough space, spend a couple of minutes deciding what I want (not that I actually want) to delete, start the game again and then wait 5-10 minutes for the game to install. It'll be even worse if there's a patch, because for reasons I am still trying to fathom, a game patch that downloads and installs in about 20 seconds on the 360, can sometimes take 30 times that long on the PS3.

Start the game, watch the opening vid or whatever, keys in the door and.... bam, there goes my 30 mins.


Optional installs are fine. I often install the whole game onto the 360, not for speed but because the DVD drive is so fucking noisy. But I can do that at my leisure. More importantly, if someone comes round and we decide to have a quick game of "titleX", I can just pop it in the 360 and play. On the PS3, if it's not already installed, there's that wait again. Even worse if a friend comes around with their teens, as it'll usually be a case of having a quick game of this, changing games for another quick game, etc.

No, mandatory installs are bad. Hell, even the fact that I have to install a demo after downloading it is stupid. These console-thingies are not PC's.

I agree whole heartedly on the install after d/l thing!!! It's like they didn't consider that since the XMB isn't equiped with any sort of file explorer, all game/system files will be in a location that is entirely 100% predictable... hence why a patch/PSN game/demo can't just unpack while d/l-ing is completely beyond me

 

[Billy Idol]

Billy Idol, I think you misunderstand something about the partial HDD install thing. When the Killzone 2 devs say they are proud that no install is needed, that does not mean they are not installing any data onto the HDD - they just don't do it as a visible part of booting up the game. Instead, they'll be streaming in information while for instance the intro-video is playing, during custscenes, etc. So they'll be using the HDD to install data, which is otherwise also known as HDD caching, basically.

I think there are all sorts of tricks you can do. Say for instance that the first environment in Killzone 2 is loaded fully into memory and doesn't require any additional streaming. So here's how the game could start:

1. load all the data into memory for the first level (the one where you walk around), and start the level.
2. during the time that the first level is being played, cache the data for the second area/level. Say that it takes a minimum of 4 minutes to get through that first level, this leaves you with 4 minutes of time to load any data you like from the BD to the HDD.
3. when installing this data, decide whether or not this is data that you'll be needing again. Data you need again you can install as part of your 'partial install' in a game specific folder. Other data could be written to the general cache and can be overwritten by the time you load the next level or by the time another game is boot up
4. rinse and repeat

Do you get the basic premise? You can both do without a partial install but instead cache to the HDD, or you can do a hidden partial install, or you can do both. In many cases, just caching at clever times to the HDD is already enough, and obviously you can facilitate such behaviour even more by designing your games to take advantage of this setup.

Yea, I understand this. But you imply that a partial HDD install would not decrease the loading issues. Is this what you are saying...then I don't understand this to be honest, but am looking forward to an explanation.

 

[Billy Idol]

See, I'm the opposite.

Well, almost

With a 40Gig system, I find any and all mandatory installs intrusive. More importantly, a games console should be as "pick up and play" as possible. Just been out and got my new purchase, I've got 30 mins before the wife gets home and I think to myself, "lets check out the first level or two". So I pop in the BR, get prompted for an install, realise I don't have enough space, spend a couple of minutes deciding what I want (not that I actually want) to delete, start the game again and then wait 5-10 minutes for the game to install. It'll be even worse if there's a patch, because for reasons I am still trying to fathom, a game patch that downloads and installs in about 20 seconds on the 360, can sometimes take 30 times that long on the PS3.

Start the game, watch the opening vid or whatever, keys in the door and.... bam, there goes my 30 mins.


Optional installs are fine. I often install the whole game onto the 360, not for speed but because the DVD drive is so fucking noisy. But I can do that at my leisure. More importantly, if someone comes round and we decide to have a quick game of "titleX", I can just pop it in the 360 and play. On the PS3, if it's not already installed, there's that wait again. Even worse if a friend comes around with their teens, as it'll usually be a case of having a quick game of this, changing games for another quick game, etc.

No, mandatory installs are bad. Hell, even the fact that I have to install a demo after downloading it is stupid. These console-thingies are not PC's.

I have changed my HDD to a 320GB (if my clumsy hands can do it, everyone can do it!).
I mean, cheap upgrading of HDD is one of the advantages of the PS3...just do it: one of your problems solved!?

So we clearly have different opinions: I prefer one install instead of waiting 1-2 minutes every time the game starts or having longer load times while I am playing. Is (one) 15 min install before gaming really this annoying to you?
For instance: I immediately installed UT3 (PS3), allthough it is optional, never thought a second about not installing it!

As for the patch thing, this is really annoying. But this is not a fault of the PS3 and installs, but the fault of devs who don't provide quality products (it is really annoying that I have to install 2-3 patches in MW2 (PS3) in just 24 hours after launch)

As for the PSN downloads, I agree with you.

 

[Arwin]

Yea, I understand this. But you imply that a partial HDD install would not decrease the loading issues.

Where? I'm not implying that at all. Of course a partial install can decrease the loading issues. Perfect example is Assassin's Creed 2, which does a mandatory partial install that takes you 4 minutes and installs 1.5GB on the HDD. Load times after that are almost (!) identical to the 360's load times (22 seconds vs 19 seconds).

Now the real question here is, why is it still slower even if it's only marginally?

@Prophesy2k: I think it's a security issue. I've installed the same demoes as I downloaded from PSN from a BD drive, and they did install automatically. And I've seen one or two demos/games downloaded from PSN install automatically now also. So maybe they've found a new secure method of doing it that has to be used when a package is put up on the PSN before it's activated, not sure.