PS3 1.80 SDK - Lower Memory Footprint

[Deleted member 651465]

But it still doesn't support xvid.....

XviD ...the pirate's dream?

 

[KNiVES]

Jumpurs pointed this out to me once, PS3 games that want to utilize the reduced footprint from the word go can always include the firmware update on the disc.

 

[Johnnytoxic]

yeah but about half of ps3 owners dont go online and just casual gamers, so devlopers wont really be able to make use of the slightly more memory will they? Because it might run smooth on peoples with the update, but people that dont bother with online or anything will have much more hitching and lower fps and stuff.

Err dont they include the updates with the game ??? So you have to update before you can play.

 

[Energize]

XviD ...the pirate's dream?

Indeed, and a very popular format used on websites as well. It doesn't support wmv either, as sony care more about not giving money to microsoft than they do about their customers. Then there is the fact that it doesn't play level 5.1 h.264. Thereforce any h.264 videos you encode with standard programs won't play on the ps3. And there is no excuse for them not to support avi ffs, or license fee free ogg, flac and mkv formats that are very popular among audiophiles. It's these small things that make the difference between the ps3 being a crap multimedia player and a good one. People don't want to spend hours encoding their home movies or whatever to play them on the ps3, or have to use linux just to play a video.

 

[Caustic]

I've seen it all now.

Comparing two different consoles based on the amount of available memory is quite simply ludicrous.

Err, in a thread titled 'Lower memory footprint', comparing the memory footprint of the 360 and the PS3 is kinda the point. Someone asked how this affects the end user, and I gave an example.

The key bit here is how there are so many differences between two consoles, and one that people often ignore is the software.

I read somewhere that the reason the PS3 version of Oblivion doesn't have all the add-ons that the 360 version does is because of memory differences. Perhaps these footprint changes by Sony would help that.

Sony have been good with the PSP updates, looks like the PS3 support is just as good.

 

[tomanders91]

Err dont they include the updates with the game ??? So you have to update before you can play.

It does on PSP, i dont think there is on PS3, since games update themsevles and not the whole system.

 

[Caustic]

It does on PSP, i dont think there is on PS3, since games update themsevles and not the whole system.

I don't have a PS3, but I think it will do in the future if it doesn't now.

 

[Xionic]

i agree, i dont see it being an issue for the firmware update to be included on the bluray disk, its not like theyr short on the space

Xionic

 

[Nanoman]

This was part of the reason PS3 games tended not to look any better than the 360, despite the (perhaps arguable) PS3's hardware advantage. When a game has 64MB less mem, something has to go, and removing a few textures etc, is often the choice made.

Mate they were 360 ports thats why !! You cant compare !!

 

[Kreeeee]

Jumpurs pointed this out to me once, PS3 games that want to utilize the reduced footprint from the word go can always include the firmware update on the disc.

I thought that was face stompingly obvious?

 

[JUMPURS]

Indeed, and a very popular format used on websites as well. It doesn't support wmv either, as sony care more about not giving money to microsoft than they do about their customers. Then there is the fact that it doesn't play level 5.1 h.264. Thereforce any h.264 videos you encode with standard programs won't play on the ps3. And there is no excuse for them not to support avi ffs, or license fee free ogg, flac and mkv formats that are very popular among audiophiles. It's these small things that make the difference between the ps3 being a crap multimedia player and a good one. People don't want to spend hours encoding their home movies or whatever to play them on the ps3, or have to use linux just to play a video.

The problem with xvid is iirc, there isn't a defined standard for xvid. There are lot of different variations of xvid.
Both Sony and MS use formats which are clearly defined and tested, that is why Sony wont implement it, and i can see their point. If they start claiming to support xvid, but not a specific one, they get flamed/sued etc.

Q.
One thing about video file playback. It seems that quality is not constant, and picutre quality falls from time to time.
K1
We don't have an answer to how much quality we can guarantee from playback of video files created by PCs. Although there is standards such as "mpeg-4", there are many cases where the files contain data that are way off the standard.
K2
We have codecs in place that play back data following proper standards, and functions to improve the quality of these picutres. We need more work on handling data that is outside the standard.
K1
For now, out main goal is to allow playback of as many standard as possible.

Q.
From that point of view, how about playback of WMV and Divx?
K1
The problem with those formats are that they are not industry standards like "mpeg-4", but format that is locked in by various corporations.
But I understand the demand (laugh).
Q.
How about overcoming the licencing fees for such formats by selling update for WMV playback at the playstation store for 500yen?
K1
We don't want to resort to such measures (laugh). And its not a matter of not implementing because it is by another company.

 

[Caustic]

Mate they were 360 ports thats why !! You cant compare !!

Why not? Ports might tend to be bad, but it is because of hardware differences versus time, esp. when you have to scale something down. And, in this case, one factor is the PS3 has less available ram.

For a PS3 only game, 'only' having 416MB is not really going to make a big difference, but to port a game using 480MB causes problems. Things like this make ports hard and make them often inferior.

Make no mistake, don't think I am trying to say the PS3 is rubbish and the 360 amazing, I am merely trying to show why the 1.80SDK is a good thing for developers and customers alike.