*spin-off* Game size
- Thread starter MrFox
- Start date
Not to note the stress on their own servers, forcing consumers to have huge HDDs and getting huge negative PR by gamers raging over the unnecessary size of the download.
From my perspective
10GB for a game is quite a bit to ask for. 20GB is borderline bearable. anything over 40GB is unacceptable.
Bagel seed
Veteran
Retail is still going to be where the majority of sales are. If some trailblazing dev wants to create a massive eyegasm world of a game and release it at $60 more power to them, and I wouldn't fault em for it. I'd still like to play it despite not being able to download it. No restrictions = more imagination.
LightHeaven
Regular
Wouldn't Pc game sizes be a "little" inflated due multiple sets of textures (and geometries) with different resolutions?
Actually no. They usually ship pretty much with the same assets as consoles, and only sometimes offer 'high res' texture packs as an additional download. This usually adds 2-4GB of data.
In fact, console games on PS3 having BluRay are often bigger, simply because they come with audio, multiple languages, higher quality video, or in the case of exclusives, sometimes also just with more content. But especially the higher quality audio and multiple languages causes the console (at least PS3) version to be more 'inflated'
4GB for games would mean 8x the memory of the previous gen, so not necessarily bad. I personally think speed is likely more important than quantity, and remain convinced that the main differentiator will be how fast the data can be pumped around. None of these consoles' 'leaks' have given me a really good idea of any of this yet, to be honest. My rough estimate would be an 8x increase of bandwidth vs last gen for both as well, where there are likely additional advantages thanks to compressed textures making it count for more. This would suggest to me at least that next-gen games could do current gen games at 1080p and 60fps (which is an 8x increase in bandwidth use) while still adding some 'oomph' in the form of much more detailed textures and much higher polygon counts.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Bandwidth isn't going to be the differentiator when it comes to moving data around, IMO. The biggest key is going to be the robustness and speed of the storage subsystem. Even with a fast 7200 rpm desktop drive (which in itself is significantly faster than a 7200 rpm notebook drive) it'll take a while to fill up...say 3 GB of memory.
Move down to a notebook drive which will likely be chosen based on cost and/or heat and/or power consumption rather than price and that time just got a whole lot longer.
Which means a likely reliance on streaming data. Considering streaming data on a PC with a fast 7200 RPM drive still leads to ugly texture pop in, then that will just put that much more emphasis on having a good storage subsystem. Especially if we end up dealing with higher resolution textures.
I imagine that texture pop in is going to be worse for next gen consoles that combine streaming with higher res textures.
Regards,
SB
I think that 170GB thing was just the same Rage assets with lossless compression or something like that. The fundamental level of detail in the game world would have been unchanged, it's only that the compression artifacts would have been significantly reduced.
So in one way this means that they've already made a 170GB game.
In another way it means that you could get such games to fit onto a single 50GB disc or a similar sized digital download. It's just a question of using the proper lossy compression scheme for the textures (and in this next gen it may also involve the geometry if anyone tries to virtualize that too).
So in one way this means that they've already made a 170GB game.
In another way it means that you could get such games to fit onto a single 50GB disc or a similar sized digital download. It's just a question of using the proper lossy compression scheme for the textures (and in this next gen it may also involve the geometry if anyone tries to virtualize that too).
Bagel seed
Veteran
My bet is on a small flash drive included or just additional memory like MS has done that could be as a buffer for streaming. In that case you have to wonder which is a better idea.
Issue with that is that its dynamic and reallocates files based on usage, the benefit is that it presents itself as a single volume to developers but the downside is that you cant count on a given level of performance. This will lead to varying, and very un-console-like, user experiences.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Unfortunately both of those would be prohibitively expensive in a consumer console currently. The Fusion for example is a combination 128 GB SSD and 1 TB HDD. That would account for over 100 USD on the BOM (175-250 USD Retail) Using an Intel style acceleration drive (20 GB SSD) would be cheaper but also not terribly effective for games unless you only play one or two games repeatedly at a time.
Regards,
SB
I'd split it into dedicated volumes of flash.
Os/Apps and games.
Most used apps would be loaded into flash for speedy access. This way you don't need a massive flash drive for future use. You just have some tier 1 storage that adopts to user habits.
The games partition could be used for loading game saves into it since you'd only be playing one game concurrently. When you initiate a game, during loading, in the background the game save is copied onto the flash volume.
Bagel seed
Veteran
I doubt any flash choice would be a bundled SSD. I'm thinking more along the lines of some flash chips in a small amount, < 16 GB, directly embedded near the CPU/GPU.
Come on, we had these discussions a million times.
Space is dictated by the 360 dvd size. The rest of the platforms get the same assets on occasion higher res textures is supplied but it's rare.
The ssd / mechanical / optical / cache discussion has also been done though that could use a refresh with new data on ssd.
Space is dictated by the 360 dvd size. The rest of the platforms get the same assets on occasion higher res textures is supplied but it's rare.
The ssd / mechanical / optical / cache discussion has also been done though that could use a refresh with new data on ssd.
It would have to be a dynamic caching system from data coming from BluRay or other sources. But then the problem may well be that it wears too fast. I don't know how far they've come with that.
Also, do we think they'll go with a laptop drive again? Or is a regular size drive in order? (assuming they do go for hdd, but I assume that's an important one as more and more people will want digital only).
The whole storage thing is one of my biggest interests, for sure.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The HDD that they go for is going to have to be a compromise between power consumption, heat, performance, cost, and size.
So lets take a look.
7200 RPM versus 5400 RPM.
7200 RPM drives would allow for faster speeds. The drawback is higher heat, power consumption, and cost.
Notebook (1.8" or 2.5") versus Desktop (3.5")
A desktop drive will almost always be faster, especially on the outer edges of the drive. It will also be cheaper. The drawback is that it's larger, uses more power (more mass to spin and more distance for the read heads to move), and generates more heat (those platters and larger read head motors).
From a budget and hardware design POV, you'd want a Notebook drive running at 5400 RPM. That gains you size, cost, power, and heat advantages making the design of the console easier.
From a performance POV, you'd want a desktop drive running at 7200 RPM. That gains you speed. And uh...speed.
IMO, the most likely compromise will be a notebook drive running at 7200 RPM.
But that said, I would not be surprised if one or both decided to go with a 5400 RPM drive again or some hybrid like WD's 5900 RPM or variable RPM (highly unlikely, IMO) drives. The thinking in this case will be that it's faster than an optical drive and has significant cost savings in terms of money and heat compared to a 7200 RPM drive.
And 5400 RPM drives won't be horribly slow. Areal density has increased significantly since the X360/PS3 launched so they'll still be faster than the drives that launched in those. But they'll still be relatively slow and a major bottleneck. Then again even a 7200 RPM desktop drive will be a significant bottleneck, just less of one.
A flash cache is decent, but mostly beneficial when the workload is predictable. In a machine tailored around gaming. That's going to be hit and miss as to whether it's noticeable by someone in your target audience or not. For someone who plays COD multiplayer everyday it's an obvious win. For someone that frequently hops between multiple games, not so much. So then you have to consider whether the cost involved will bring in enough additional sales that it's a better design decision than not having one.
Regards,
SB
Skyrim is 4.5GB on PS3/X360 and PC. Storage space is not a problem if you plan the game right.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Wasn't Uncharted 2 and 3 around $20 million? God of War 3 was around twice that, but it's that a rather low cost for a AAA game? I'm sure higher resolution textures will be used next-gen. I'm positive it will be used, a lot, by Sony's 1st party games. Some studios may ask for 100GB disks from Sony.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Possibly, but consider that for those games you mentioned, I'd be surprised if the game data including textures took up more than 10-15 GB of data. The rest will be video and uncompressed audio for multiple languages.
Game developer's only use a small fraction of BD 25/50 for game data. Hell most developers don't even use the full capacity of a single dual layer DVD for game data as they often have to include multiple languages and FMV.
Regards,
SB
