Support NeoGAF

[Acosta]

Shogmaster, could you stop being so harsh and callm down a little please? It's just my opinion and I can pass without questions like, "are you dense?" to note how stupid and wrong it´s my opinion. With a "no agree" it´s more than enough.

Right now, I can put a highly detailed 720p (1280x720) WMV9 movie on my SXGA computer screen and enjoy it's full res glory, or via S-Vid out of my vid card, display it on my 480i SD TV set and hardly tell the difference from a normal 480i MPEG2 DVD version. Do you think anyone in their right mind would choose the second option?!? It's all about the fucking display!

Let me clarify, sorry for not make clear my point. I haven´t say display it´s unimportant. I have said there is lot of people that have no idea what a HDTV is, for example. For them, the only thing is going to count it´s that Xenon just reproduces old fashioned DVDs, when PS3 is going to reproduce them and the new techonology coming from the future brought here with alien technology, Blue-Ray. So, it´s the same, but more.

From a consumer point the "more" and the price is what matters in lot of moments. So they can´t appreciate it on their TVs? they will appreciate it, they will put blue-rays disc on normal TVs and will say that it looks way better than DVDs, and they will tell his friends that it´s a true cinematic experience, that it´s more colorful and defined (what the shop assistant told him) or the joy of not having to change a disc to see the complete trilogy of LOTR. Market work this way sometimes, specially when there is a company like Sony at full force behind it.

Less is bad, more is good. Put clear and easy to understand features that your product has and other not and you will have an advantadge in many cases, specially in a case of direct competence with few products on market, like home consoles, that makes easy to compare.

And please, again, I respect your view and this is just how I see things from an analytical and personal point of view. I have no interest in "which is better" and I just hope every console to be awesome so I can enjoy it. We have no need of having a big discussion about something that only time will clarify.

 

[human5892]

Wow, talk about totally missing the point of his post.

How are those examples have any fucking relevance to the question at hand? Don't be a tard!

It seems as if you're operating under the assumption that variables will remain a steady constant. I'm simply arguing that extra space would be wise to have should those variables change. NOTE: I'm not talking about transfer speeds or RAM here, just pure data capacity -- that point seems to have been misinterpreted.

How about higher cost of the console and the games? That's pretty bad in my book.

As I already stated, I don't think the PS3 will cost more than the Xbox 2, regardless of media. As for the games, I'd pay $5 more for a game that required the extra space if I knew it had been put to good use.

EDIT: Lawdy lawdy, this thread is moving too fast for me.

 

[Azih]

Don't tell me you seriously believe any such big releases on BR and HDDVD will be released in 480p, just by copying two DVDs onto the new media?

The necessarily makes all the difference Marc. You made it seem like the guy was saying something he wasn't. I called you on it. End of that little thread.

I don't know what the heck tangent you're going on but anything that HDDVD and BRDVD can do can be replicated by standard DVD. It just would take a lot of DVDs. And THIS is an issue about how annoying disc swapping is and like I said. I don't care about that discussion.

 

[sonycowboy]

That would make sense if any those new high end PC games that require minimum of 512MB of system RAM and 128MB of frame buffer for the video card actually exceeded capacity of a single DVD EVAR! Think about that for a second and let it sink in.

I dont think even the most optimistic Sony worshipper nor XBot here would expect the PS3 and Xenon to exceed 512MB of RAM, thus operating under the relatively safe assumption that neither the PS3 or Xenon will have anything over 512MB, why in the hell do you think capacity of a the optical media will ever impact either of those two system's game content?!?

The media to RAM ratio for the next gen is plenty good with the regular DVD. HD-DVD and BR for gaming is a total waste unless BR and HD-DVD drives are exponentially faster in data transfer speed, and there was way more than 512MB of RAM to fill up. It's safe to assume that the DVD drive for the Xenon will be close to or at 16X, and at that speed, any speed advantage BR and HD-DVD has over 16X DVD won't be significant enough fro less than 512MB of system RAM IMO.

:lol :lol :lol

So, you're arguing that overall storage space is meaningless because it can't all be loaded at once?

That might be meaningful with textures, but you only load as much of a "world" as you need to be on a screen at a given time. That still doesn't change the fact that the PS3 (at 50GB) "world" could be up to 7x larger than an Xbox 2 (at 7GB).

How the heck does the amount of ram a system has affect that?

 

[Shogmaster]

No, Shogmaster is not on my ignore list, I read his posts, but I still don't understand how a faster loading speed and faster streaming speed is something of lesser importance in machines that may only have 256MB (or 512MB, even that is not that much) Or do you seriously think that engines that stream graphics will just not be necessary on next gen consoles?

How fast a BRD drive may end up in PS3 (or if it may end up at all) is up to speculation, obviously.

Streaming data speed is pretty damn important and if BR and HD-DVD drive will be significantly more faster than 16X DVD, than I'd support paying more for them. But obviously, we don't have that kind of data, so any specualtion in that repect is just mere mental masterbation at this point.

If CD > DVD read speed difference during the two format's transition is anything to go by, it won't be that big a difference IMO. No way that BR that will go into PS3 will be a fast top of the line BR drive. It will be one of the slowest speed BR drive for sake of minimizing cost.

You mean the same way PS2 was going to cost $700 as it was using a DVD drive?

First time hearing that figure. All I remember is Sega opting not to go DVD because they wanted to hit a low pricepoint with DC ($200 for US launch was hella low).

 

[Nerevar]

read his posts, but I still don't understand how a faster loading speed and faster streaming speed is something of lesser importance in machines that may only have 256MB (or 512MB, even that is not that much) Or do you seriously think that engines that stream graphics will just not be necessary on next gen consoles?

Huh? When games stream data in, obviously data that is no longer needed is unloaded to make room for the data that's about to be needed...

Of course it is unloaded from RAM. But a standard memory heirarchy stores data in a series of caches. The on-chip memory being the fastest, RAM being bigger but a little slower, and the optical data being a whole lot bigger but a whole lot slower. About the only thing done on a console that is streamed constantly from the optical media is an FMV. Everything else goes from the optical media->RAM. There is not a single game engine (that I know of that is designed by anyone competent) that loads data texture data directly from the optical media to CPU cache. It's incredibly inefficient and would be terribly slow. Even with the supposedly "super-fast read speed" of blu-ray, you need to load the data into RAM first to get respectable speed. Therefore, the amount of RAM is going to be a limiting factor on texture size and quality much moreso than the storage capacity on the disc. Keep in mind that CPU game try to minimize the access attempts made to the HDD during gameplay because that is considered "too slow." And I haven't checked, but I highly doubt that the read speed of the BRD exceeds that of a HDD.

It seems as if you're operating under the assumption that variables will remain a steady constant. I'm simply arguing that extra space would be wise to have should those variables change.

But we're dealing with a console, where the variables are static. We're not going to see more than the initial amount of memory on the console after it ships. So there's no point in arguing that it would be more efficient for more memory.

 

[kaching]

I know for a fact that neither blu-Ray nor HD-DVD outputs 1080p as part of it's standard. They might have the bandwidth for it though, so you might see some high-end stuff that upconverts Blu-Ray content to 1080p and outputs it over HDMI to sets that support it (most 1080p sets currently or set to go on the market don't accept a 1080p input, either).

Blu-Ray spec: http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13627/Index.html

The BD-ROM format for movie distribution supports three highly advanced video codecs, including MPEG-2, so an author can choose the most suitable one for a particular application. All codecs are industry standards, meaning easy integration with existing authoring tools, and choice from wide range of encoding solutions. All consumer video resolutions are available:
- 1920 x 1080 HD (50i, 60i and 24p)
- 1280 x 720 HD (50p, 60p and 24p)
- 720 x 576/480 SD (50i or 60i)

Can't find anything specific at HD-DVD Promotion group site right now.

 

[Nerevar]

I'm sure of it simply because when Sony was asked why their next 1080p HDTVs do not support 1080p input, they responded by saying that next-gen media formats such as blu-ray don't even support 1080p output so it would be a waste to include it. I would assume they wouldn't lie about their own products, but if I'm wrong, then so be it.

 

[human5892]

But we're dealing with a console, where the variables are static. We're not going to see more than the initial amount of memory on the console after it ships. So there's no point in arguing that it would be more efficient for more memory.

See my edit as well as sonycowboy's post.

Also, if RAM was such a limiting factor, than theoretically the very first PS2 games should not be any bigger than the PS2 games we have now, since the system's RAM remained constant. Yet the PS2 games we have now dwarf those from 2000. Who's to say this trend won't continue? It seems unlikely that after decades of increasing demands for storage space that we've finally hit a wall.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Would it kill the experience to stop playing for a minute in the middle of a 10 hour game to switch a disc? What, you don't have a fucking bladder? You want to finish the game without lifting your ass off the couch even once?

HOW'S THIS EVEN A GAMING ISSUE PEOPLE?!?

It's an issue because people actually believe that it is, or rather, will be an issue. To me, it's a FUD issue that plays well into format-holders hands...the same as the potential that more disc space can offer better games and whatnot. In the end, it's all about $$$ and that's either the manufacturer saving it or making it with the inclusion of what type of disc format as standard. I don't see the size or complexity of a game being hindered by media size when you're talking about gigabytes of space to work with.

Until I see a real reason to buy into BR, HD-DVD, etc...I don't buy the preceding hype. Still got lots o' DVDs and don't really care to buy newer replacements already for, IMO, what will be relatively little gain for the consumer. Yeah, I got a new-fangled HDTV, too. Tech-wet-dream is easy...but I'm not going to pay for it if it's not worth it. Already paid way too much for a DVD player at their advent, and it wasn't really worth it until much later, when I got a better-quality, more fully-featured player....4 years later. Of course, that's me. If I want BRD/HD-DVD, which I'm sure I might when the content's worth it over what I get now, I'll get a good player at the right time. I'm more concerned about what the games are going to be like on X2, PS3, Rev to care about whether it supports so-and-so format.

 

[Nerevar]

Also, if RAM was such a limiting factor, than theoretically the very first PS2 games should not be any bigger than the PS2 games we have now, since the system's RAM remained constant. Yet the PS2 games we have now dwarf those from 2000. Who's to say this trend won't continue? It seems unlikely that after decades of increasing demands for storage space that we've finally hit a wall.

You're talking about the size of the "gameworld". That definitely has increased. I'm talking about texture and model quality, which really hasn't increased that much over the game's lifespan. As was pointed out - the theoretical size of the gameworld on a 50gb blu-ray is going to be much larger. But most developers could get around that by shipping a game on multiple discs. But, as Marconnelly pointed out, some people won't want to do that so they'll go with PS3. I just think that the percentage of the market who think that way is going to be very small. I could be wrong though.

 

[Lord Error]

The necessarily makes all the difference Marc. You made it seem like the guy was saying something he wasn't. I called you on it. End of that little thread.

I just called him on the ridiculousness of what he said, and I stand by that. Should I be allowed to seriously say things like "The huge Asteriod will hit the Earth in a two hour time, bit this may not necessarily be true", and not be called on for the silliness of what I just said?

It would require a hell of a lot stupidity on publisher's part to release a LOTR movie that looks the same on BRD to it's DVD version. Sure, it MAY happen, but the chances of that happening pretty much equal my asteroid example above.

Of course it is unloaded from RAM. But a standard memory heirarchy stores data in a series of caches. The on-chip memory being the fastest, RAM being bigger but a little slower, and the optical data being a whole lot bigger but a whole lot slower. About the only thing done on a console that is streamed constantly from the optical media is an FMV. Everything else goes from the optical media->RAM.

OK, I will have to ask you to now read Shog's post above yours As you can see he agrees that the streaming speed is important. Besides, I'm sure you know that there are many games now that do constantly stream chunks of game world data from the disc, to allow you to move around with no loading time.

 

[ypo]

"Would it kill the experience to stop playing for a minute in the middle of a 10 hour game to switch a disc? What, you don't have a fucking bladder? You want to finish the game without lifting your ass off the couch even once?

HOW'S THIS EVEN A GAMING ISSUE PEOPLE?!?"

:lol Personally I prefer games to be on one disc than multiple discs. It kills the continuity of the game. This same storage issue has been argued many times in the past. As history have shown, it's always bullshit. There're always uses for extra storage space. You seems to be on the bullshit side of the argument here. After all the PSP is too powerful for its own good according to you. :lol

 

[Shogmaster]

:lol :lol :lol

So, you're arguing that overall storage space is meaningless because it can't all be loaded at once?

That might be meaningful with textures, but you only load as much of a "world" as you need to be on a screen at a given time. That still doesn't change the fact that the PS3 (at 50GB) "world" could be up to 7x larger than an Xbox 2 (at 7GB).

How the heck does the amount of ram a system has affect that?

Do you even have the foggiest idea what you are talking about here? I really think you don't. What good is a 30GB worth of world data that exist on BR if the system can only get to at most 512MB of it at any given time, and more importantly, your bladder only has capacity for around 4~6 hours? Even the worst FMV fest of a game won't be able to use up 7GB in 4~6 hours of gameplay.

 

[quin]

Do we even know for sure that the ps3 will be able to play blue ray movies or are they only using it for a storage format?

 

[Lord Error]

First time hearing that figure. All I remember is Sega opting not to go DVD because they wanted to hit a low pricepoint with DC ($200 for US launch was hella low).

It was one of those ridiculous numbers being thrown around by various analysts (and I mean real analysts)

As long as the price does not suffer, I don't see why anyone should care if there's a higher tech in the box (refer to my earlier reply to you about the PSP, that you seem to have missed

 

[ypo]

"What good is a 30GB worth of world data that exist on BR if the system can only get to at most 512MB of it at any given time"

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[bishoptl]

A couple of things:

1 - Shogmaster, you're reminding me of Angry White Guy from the pilot episode of Dead Like Me. That's not a good thing. Take a mandatory break before you stroke out in front of your monitor.

2 - Getting up to switch discs while playing is bullshit. While I love my C-64 and 1541 disk drive, I expect more from gaming technology two decades down the road. If you want to create a sense of disconnect during a game session, I can't think of a better way - it sucked then, and it will suck now. No amount of spinning will change this.

3 - Anyone who complained during the current generation that PS2 was holding back Xbox and Gamecube development has absolutely no right to bitch when others speculate that Xenon specifications will hold back a more powerful PS3 (and potentially Revolution). Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury, but here it'll just get you kicked off the boards for being a sanctimonious twat.

Carry on.

 

[kaching]

I know it might be a hard concept to wrap your simple noggin around, but capacity is seperate from power in this example. We are talking about media to RAM ratio, not today's PC gaming to tomorrow's console gaming power ratio. NOTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER.

No shit, Shog. Try to get a better grasp of this concept yourself: In this gen we've gone from games mostly distributed on CD, so no more than 650-700 meg worth of space used, to games requiring DVD storage for 2-4 gigs of data, according to anonymous MS dev commentary offered a page or two back.

That's with 32-64 meg of RAM. Even if you lowball next-gen RAM at 256 meg, that's still 4x more than the max RAM offered this gen. If storage requirements are linear, you'd expect to need 8-16gig of storage by middle of next gen.

EDIT: Dammit, Bish! Why couldn't you have let him stay just a little longer

 

[kaching]

I'm sure of it simply because when Sony was asked why their next 1080p HDTVs do not support 1080p input, they responded by saying that next-gen media formats such as blu-ray don't even support 1080p output so it would be a waste to include it. I would assume they wouldn't lie about their own products, but if I'm wrong, then so be it.

Then, please link. Because official info posted on the official BR site seems to be out of sync with what "Sony" said.

 

[Nerevar]

Then, please link. Because official info posted on the official BR site seems to be out of sync with what "Sony" said.

I don't have an official "link", it was the "unofficial" Sony PR response at the last CES when they were asked why their 1080p sets did not support 1080p input. And as I said, I didn't think their Sony PR people would lie about their own products (at least lie about by saying it was worse than it actually was).

 

[IJoel]

2 - Getting up to switch discs while playing is bullshit. While I love my C-64 and 1541 disk drive, I expect more from gaming technology two decades down the road. If you want to create a sense of disconnect during a game session, I can't think of a better way - it sucked then, and it will suck now. No amount of spinning will change this.

3 - Anyone who complained during the current generation that PS2 was holding back Xbox and Gamecube development has absolutely no right to bitch when others speculate that Xenon specifications will hold back a more powerful PS3 (and potentially Revolution). Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury, but here it'll just get you kicked off the boards for being a sanctimonious twat.

Carry on.

Re: 2 - I will probably never get the big deal about having to switch discs once while playing a game. It's not like people start and finish games in one session. It certainly didn't factor at all while playing RE4.

3 - I completely agree, though the issue at hand is really that media storage has no bearing in the game quality. At worst, we'd have poorly compressed cutscenes, or non hi-def cutscenes, and that doesn't really hinder gameplay. Of course, given multiple versions of a game, I'll choose the one that looks the best. Same as I do now.

 

[kaching]

It may not be a lie, Nerevar. It could simply be misinformed. Happens quite a bit with large, international companies, as we've seen many times before just related to games.

 

[Vark]

2 - Getting up to switch discs while playing is bullshit. While I love my C-64 and 1541 disk drive, I expect more from gaming technology two decades down the road. If you want to create a sense of disconnect during a game session, I can't think of a better way - it sucked then, and it will suck now. No amount of spinning will change this.

it's annoying, but I think the point is its in no way a deal breaker. No one will buy a PS3 over an Xbox simply because one makes you 'switch discs'. Average consumers don't care.

 

[bishoptl]

By itself, it may not be a dealbreaker, but cumulatively it's one more nail.

 

[koam]

Man, this is getting so tiresome. Basically, this DVD vs BR/HD-DVD battle is the same crap as the mini-DVD vs DVD battle we had at the beggining of this generation. Games WILL use more memory, 1080i FMVs, always DD5.1, more textures and higher res, you think it won't raise the memory size? Basically, the same games will be on all three consoles except they will be downsampled for the lower end mediums.

 

[Azih]

I just called him on the ridiculousness of what he said, and I stand by that.

His point was that extra storage capacity does not equal better quality. Which is true. His point also was that DVD can replicate anything HDDVD or BRDVD could do, and this is also true. You're mixing marketing arguments with technical arguments here.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

I personally could care less but I by no means think that my opinion is righteous...it's just my opinion. IMHO, HDDVD/BR are just 'pearls before swine anyway'. I quite sure that the if you took a poll of how many gamers currently hook up there consoles to a television you'll see that the vast majority are using composite A/V that came packed with the system. And I'd bet you $20 that you see a bigger than expected percentage are still hooking consoles via RF adaptors! I know most of my pals have the minimum of S-video and most are component/HD, but that because we're hard core gamers with adult salaries!

I personally don't want my movie player mixed with my console, but I realzie that that's just me. I'm not reallyl that impressed with either the PS2 or XBox as a DVD player. They're pretty good and get the job done, but I'm a moviephile, and have a couple of serious DVD players for my movies. If and when the HD format gets rolling, I'll want a serious HD DVD player. I hope that didn't come across as arrogant.

I'm quite Ma and Pa Kettle won't give a rat's ass about Xenon when they grab a console for their son Jethro, the X-mas after Xenon launch. All this elitist specualtion that the XBox successor is 'teh doomed' is just typical GAF pontification.

 

[jedimike]

Man, this is getting so tiresome. Basically, this DVD vs BR/HD-DVD battle is the same crap as the mini-DVD vs DVD battle we had at the beggining of this generation. Games WILL use more memory, 1080i FMVs, always DD5.1, more textures and higher res, you think it won't raise the memory size? Basically, the same games will be on all three consoles except they will be downsampled for the lower end mediums.

You're missing the point.... everyone knows that games will grow. Will devs suddenly need 40GB?... no. Most next gen games will be able to fit on one DVD. Look at gamecube... It holds about 1/4th data of a DVD. Similar to DVD holding about 1/4th the data of BR. Exactly how many GC games come on more than one disc?... certainly less than 1%.

Would I like MS to use HD-DVD? Hell yes. For many of the reasons everyone has mentioned. However, I completely understand why MS would not want to use HD-DVD and the decision that MS has made will have little to no impact on games coming out for the system. It's simply a moot point and has zero impact on my purchase decision.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

One thing I would note with regards to disc swapping, is that although I presonally don't like it, just remember Final Fantasy VII on PlayStation - it was the game that really kicked off the PS boom, and how many discs did it come on?

IMO I'm all for next gen media if it can improve the games, but I'm not convinced yet it will.

It all comes back to the games in the end - the system that the games that mass market wants to play will be the system that wins, regardless of what media the game is on.

 

[thorns]

One thing people don't take into account is the great cpu power these new machines will have. You'll be able to store very high quality hidef video and very high quality audio, as well as textures in a small amount of space using advanced (and very cpu intensive for current consoles) compression methods. Having multiple cores means you can simultaneously do decoding or uncompression while doing other stuff. It's always nice to have more space, but it won't be as much of a problem as people make it to be.
FMVs will for the most part (and almost already are) will be exctinct, and real time cutscenes take a fraction of the space FMVs do.

Having 512mb vs. 256mb is a much bigger improvement than 9gb dvd vs. 15/25gb dvd, in terms of world size you can portray in a game. Of course if the lack of a HD-DVD drive is just to increase the profit margin and not to add more performance, then it's not good for us naturally.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Having 512mb vs. 256mb is a much bigger improvement than 9gb dvd vs. 15/25gb dvd

Good point - i imagine if you asked most devs to choose, they'd go for the 512mb every time.

 

[Argyle]

Of course it is unloaded from RAM. But a standard memory heirarchy stores data in a series of caches. The on-chip memory being the fastest, RAM being bigger but a little slower, and the optical data being a whole lot bigger but a whole lot slower. About the only thing done on a console that is streamed constantly from the optical media is an FMV. Everything else goes from the optical media->RAM. There is not a single game engine (that I know of that is designed by anyone competent) that loads data texture data directly from the optical media to CPU cache. It's incredibly inefficient and would be terribly slow. Even with the supposedly "super-fast read speed" of blu-ray, you need to load the data into RAM first to get respectable speed. Therefore, the amount of RAM is going to be a limiting factor on texture size and quality much moreso than the storage capacity on the disc. Keep in mind that CPU game try to minimize the access attempts made to the HDD during gameplay because that is considered "too slow." And I haven't checked, but I highly doubt that the read speed of the BRD exceeds that of a HDD.



But we're dealing with a console, where the variables are static. We're not going to see more than the initial amount of memory on the console after it ships. So there's no point in arguing that it would be more efficient for more memory.

Apologies if the quotes get mangled and whatnot, I'm posting via Lynx, so no cool graphics for me!

How can I put this nicely...no. Just no. You have no idea how a game console or a game engine works. Let me try to clear this up for you.

You are right, loading textures into CPU cache would be incredibly inefficient. That's why no one does it - they load into MAIN RAM instead, where the GPU can access the texture.

Many, many game engines stream geometry, textures, sounds...Take a look at the Jak games, or GTA. They are constantly streaming data off the disc.

 

[JayFro]

More from the MS game dev.....

...going with HD-DVD or Blue-ray until one is clearly a 'winner' in the next generation of storager mediums is really foolish.

Making gamers and developers pay more to buy, develop, and test games (and the box the games play on) - with litterally ZERO improvement of graphics, game quality, or sound quality is foolish.

Assuming that even if the Xbox 2 came with an HD-DVD drive in it, the thing would actually be a really high quality device for HD-DVD movie watching is foolish.

Sticking with standard grade DVD's doesn't mean you're locked into 8gigs. It means that you can use as many 8 gig disks as you want, and it would *still* cost less than supporting HD-DVD or Blue ray.

I honestly can't see how or why anyone would want MS to put an HD-DVD drive in the console. There's absolutely no guarantee HD-DVD's will catch on in any big way. There's absolutely no guarantee blue-ray will catch on in a big way... so if MS put the drive in the box and HD-DVD's didn't catch on for 10 years, wouldn't you feel like you spent money on something for nothing? The only thing that is completely guaranteed is that DVD's are popular, they're perfectly functional, and they can easily provide (cheaply) the storage necessay for games. More storage does NOT equal better games.

Yes, with significant graphical upgrades comes the need for more storage, no doubt about it... but DVD's are ultra cheap, and you can spread your game out on multiple disks, if space becomes an issue... therefore, what's lost? Nothing except for the convenience of not having to switch disks.

Yes... it could take away from the experience, marginally... but honestly, when I wathed the extended version of Return of the King, I didn't mind switching disks. It was actually a good imposed 'break', and a place where I felt like I could take a moment to stretch, etc.

In any case, I'm not concerned. I know that MS has (from the beginning) done all it could to push gaming & the future of gaming, and to focus on an excellent gaming experience. That hasn't changed, and I (for one) have no doubt the finished product will be nothing anyone will complain much about.

 

[hooo]

Apologies if the quotes get mangled and whatnot, I'm posting via Lynx, so no cool graphics for me!

Man jailed for using Lynx

Be careful where you post my graphically challenged friend, be very careful.

This thread is nothing but a preview of the nonsense to come, :lol Lots of hype, spinning and hypocrisy. The lesser space will provide lots of issues for the xbox 2 when it comes to some multiplatform games from developers that just don't care, but I don't think it'll affect much of the content at all for anything developed with it as a platform in mind.

The bigger issue here, and what's really causing all this clamor is that MS is actually trying to build a console that isn't going to bleed them dry like the xbox did. It seems like some are so shocked by this, they have to rationalize the choices MS made because of cost as something that is of trivial importance except for the blatantly obvious negatives (ie it won't play HD consumer content). Yes the lack of a next gen storage is going to limit the console and no it's not the end of the world.

 

[Borys]

Imagine, just for a one second, if it was Sony that would like to stay with standard DVDs and MS would go with the HD-DVD.

Sony would be eaten and buried alive by the same people that are rationalising Microsoft choice.

See the difference? Double standards are a big no-no in my book. I am really shocked by all those replies backing MS, stunned even. I don't know what to say...

 

[Lord Error]

I honestly can't see how or why anyone would want MS to put an HD-DVD drive in the console.

Yeah, seriously, who in the right mind could possibly want more and better tech, rather than less for the same money.
:lol
Again, such backwards thinking. Funny.

Considering that HDDVD and BR will most definitely play standard DVDs, the only persons that I can see not wanting such thing in consoles would be people with some money vested in Microsoft shares - those worried about their fianancial bottom line - and even they probably shouldn't care given MS's financial state.

 

[ypo]

" It was actually a good imposed 'break', and a place where I felt like I could take a moment to stretch, etc."

:lol MS should stick to CD drives. That way you can get a lot more of those good breaks.

 

[Azih]

Imagine, just for a one second, if it was Sony that would like to stay with standard DVDs and MS would go with the HD-DVD.

Sony would be eaten and buried alive by the same people that are rationalising Microsoft choice.

Your assumption sucks balls. I'm not a Sony basher or a MS lover.

Argue my points, don't carry out ad hominiem attacks based on what you think I think or what you think I would do in your hypothetical situation.

 

[rastex]

One of the things that some people are discounting is the emergence of... well emergent games, and these open world style of games where there are no real levels. If you know anything about gaming over the past couple of years, it's that GTAs success has ushered in a new style of games that grant players the ability to go anywhere and anytime. Having multiple game discs would just totally break this style of game since no matter what point you'd load the next disc, it would break the continuity of the entire world.

For level-based games, having multiple discs doesn't really matter, but right now industry trends are going away from this approach. How promenent the open-world genre becomes will factor into how many exclusives PS3 will get over Xenon. If open-world games don't become very popular (look at MMORPGs, only a few are really successful despite a mass of choice) then the impact on Xenon probably won't be significant. Of course there's always the possibility of procedural geometry, and more importantly procedural textures... Necessity does breed innovation as they say.

 

[Azih]

One of the things that some people are discounting is the emergence of... well emergent games, and these open world style of games where there are no real levels. If you know anything about gaming over the past couple of years, it's that GTAs success has ushered in a new style of games that grant players the ability to go anywhere and anytime. Having multiple game discs would just totally break this style of game since no matter what point you'd load the next disc, it would break the continuity of the entire world.

Well this is a point. There's always the Mercenary approach of having two free roaming areas. You spend half the game in the first one and the other half on the second one.

Because yeah, switching a disc once in the middle of a 20 hour game isn't a problem at all. The problem comes if you have to switch back and forth multiple times. THAT would be a major issue.

Of course there's also the point that gamers have shown that they're perfectly happy with less than stellar graphics in a game as long as it's free roaming. (GTA games look assy for example) So free roaming games require less assets than tightly scripted linear level based adventures anyway.

 

[kaching]

More from the MS game dev.....

Jayfro, if you're going to keep quoting Anonymous MS Dev Guy, you should think about providing a link.

so if MS put the drive in the box and HD-DVD's didn't catch on for 10 years, wouldn't you feel like you spent money on something for nothing?

As long as devs can make use of the space for the GAMES released on Xbox2, no. HD-DVD doesn't need to catch on for it to be worth its value in a *proprietary* implementation like a game console. Just because Xbox games are burned on standard DVD tech doesn't mean they will play in any device that has a DVD standard drives, other than to tell me this is an xbox disc and I'm shit out of luck to do anything further. The content on the disc is hardware proprietary, so whether the physical storage format is standard and widely accepted is moot.

More storage does NOT equal better games.

Absolutely, but the demands of increasingly ambitious game design will continue to require increasing amounts of storage.

 

[JayFro]

More from Darkfalz aka MS game dev.....

Imagine you've got Splinter Cell 4 on both boxes

The game looks the same on both
The game plays the same on both
The game sounds the same on both

Xbox 2 version has LIVE support, and all the extra offerings that come with LIVE support (which you can assume will be far greater than anything this generation offers). The Xbox 2 version supports custom soundtracks, etc...

Maybe the single player campaigns are on one disk, and the multiplayer maps/etc are on the other disk for the Xbox 2 version.

Clearly, one of the two offers more in the gameplay department, has more customization, and is the better experience. So yeah, I'd take the Xbox 2 one any day.

That aside, it's not the cross platform games that will sell me on one system or the other... and frankly, I haven't bought hardly any cross platform games on my Xbox. I bought my Xbox for Halo, Halo 2, Project Gotham, Ralisport, Fable, Knights of the Old Republic, KOTOR II, Top Spin, Amped, Conker's, UC:II, Fuzion Frenzy, KFC, Counter Strike, Outrun, etc. I like the Xbox library of games... the cross platform games are alright, but that's not what sells me on a system... so even though I'd still pick an Xbox 2 cross platform game over a PS3 cross platform game (due to the LIVE aware/LIVE feature set that Sony just can't offer) - that's (in the end) somewhat beside the point.

I haven't seen, and can't imagine that Sony could possibly come up with something in any decent amount of time that could compete with LIVE.

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=325454&page=8&pp=15


And before everyone freaks about where the link is from just know this guy is legit and does work for MS. He has been involved with the site for 4+ years posting randomly as well as another guy by the name of Bender.

 

[Azih]

Absolutely, but the demands of increasingly ambitious game design will continue to require increasing amounts of storage.

I'll agree with that as well. The question is how soon or late into the next generation will DVDs be tapped out and how disruptive will a multi DVD game release be for gameplay. I ain't making any predictions on that either way.

 

[Nerevar]

How can I put this nicely...no. Just no. You have no idea how a game console or a game engine works. Let me try to clear this up for you.

You are right, loading textures into CPU cache would be incredibly inefficient. That's why no one does it - they load into MAIN RAM instead, where the GPU can access the texture.

Many, many game engines stream geometry, textures, sounds...Take a look at the Jak games, or GTA. They are constantly streaming data off the disc.

You say I have no idea how game design works ... then repeat exactly what I said. Thanks for clearing that up though!

I know games stream data off of a disc, but the streamed data gets loaded into RAM first. If you're streaming the maximum amount of data you can into RAM, then it doesn't matter if your disc is streaming it at 16x or 250x - you're still streaming into RAM. Thanks for reinforcing my point!

Imagine, just for a one second, if it was Sony that would like to stay with standard DVDs and MS would go with the HD-DVD.

Sony would be eaten and buried alive by the same people that are rationalising Microsoft choice.

See the difference? Double standards are a big no-no in my book. I am really shocked by all those replies backing MS, stunned even. I don't know what to say...

Believe it or not, fanboyism does not run every single gamer. My main desire is to dispel the false notion that going with standard DVD over any HD media format will be some sort of major limiting factor next gen. The people who spout stupidity like "if you defend MS in this argument you're a fanboy" are the ones who would most likely defend Sony if they went the same route, because they present no solid argument and clearly lack any sort of grasp of the issues at hand. But hey - if you want to fall into the hype marketing machine of "better tech = better games", then by all means, be my guest.

 

[Lord Error]

I know games stream data off of a disc, but the streamed data gets loaded into RAM first. If you're streaming the maximum amount of data you can into RAM, then it doesn't matter if your disc is streaming it at 16x or 250x - you're still streaming into RAM. Thanks for reinforcing my point!

Nerevar, I don't think you understand how streaming in games like GTA works. I'll leave for someone else to explain it, as I'm too busy now, but it most definitely DOES matter whether you can stream at 16x or 250x, that much you can trust me on.

 

[Nerevar]

Nerevar, I don't think you understand how streaming in games like GTA works. I'll leave for someone else to explain it, as I'm too busy now, but it most definitely DOES matter whether you can stream at 16x or 250x, that much you can trust me on.

Look, I don't even know how we got into this discussion. This was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Yes, if you're constantly loading in data about the gameworld for a game like GTA, this does create an issue where speed becomes more important. Those games are using relatively large worlds and thus need reams of data to keep up with feeding info to the system about what to render. This is of course entirely different from a FPS or other enclosed environment game, where high-detail textures are loaded into RAM and then accessed from there several times to reduce disc access and speed up the game. As I said, this is a problem which could conceivably be corrected by limiting gameplay to certain regions (ala the GTA3, the original one), and spreading out the content to multiple discs. Who knows how feasible this is though. And who knows if this is even a good idea. But considering that they're already doing it now with PCs (look at GTA PC), I don't see it being a problem. As I said, I could be wrong though.

 

[hooo]

I know games stream data off of a disc, but the streamed data gets loaded into RAM first. If you're streaming the maximum amount of data you can into RAM, then it doesn't matter if your disc is streaming it at 16x or 250x - you're still streaming into RAM. Thanks for reinforcing my point!

:lol I'm crying to restrain the laughter. Ram limits what's drawn to screen at the very least, and at the very worst, the whole level. In many games like Jak, Metroid, Resident Evil, PoP, and GTA, things that are in the next room or around the corner very well may not be loaded. The best case is to not have anything loaded into ram that doesn't need to be drawn for a frame, but that's unrealistic so mostly, it's limited to what's needed for an area around the player. Why do you think those doors in Metroid Prime were used for? They aren't there just for nostalgia.

 

[Nerevar]

:lol I'm crying to restrain the laughter. Ram limits what's drawn to screen at the very least, and at the very worst, the whole level. In many games like Jak, Metroid, Resident Evil, PoP, and GTA, things that are in the next room or around the corner very well may not be loaded. The best case is to not have anything loaded into ram that doesn't need to be drawn for a frame, but that's unrealistic so mostly, it's limited to what's needed for an area around the player. Why do you think those doors in Metroid Prime were used for? They aren't there just for nostalgia.

Exactly ... your point? How does this contradict what I'm saying? I'm saying that once you've filled that large cache of data, it doesn't matter how fast your access times are - it's not doing you any good. Metroid Prime is a great example of this in that the streaming off the disc to RAM is happening in the background - the doors keep the information that is not fully loaded hidden. Games like GTA are a whole different bag as they are constantly streaming data into main RAM to deal with the large world.

 

[hooo]

Exactly ... your point? How does this contradict what I'm saying? I'm saying that once you've filled that large cache of data, it doesn't matter how fast your access times are - it's not doing you any good. Metroid Prime is a great example of this in that the streaming off the disc to RAM is happening in the background - the doors keep the information that is not fully loaded hidden. Games like GTA are a whole different bag as they are constantly streaming data into main RAM to deal with the large world.

:lol Each room in Metroid Prime is practically limited to the total amount of ram in a GC, but not the whole world. If the GOD wasn't limited to a gig and a half, the game could have been much larger if the dev's cared to make it so. That's the whole point. The amount of ram limits what's practically rendered where as disk space limits the total size of the game world. The way you're talking it sounds like there's no point in having more disk space than total ram. :lol I mean really how is that not funny?