? Dunno what youre on about as usual? Stop reading 360fanboy.com?
Has it not been said that the PS3 can't really handle streaming data from a full BR disc? pretty sure it has, where did you see Ratchet and Clank is 25gig? ps3fanboy perhaps?
Uh-oh. PS3 'Orange Box' fails.
- Thread starter ic1male
- Start date
Has it not been said that the PS3 can't really handle streaming data from a full BR disc? pretty sure it has, where did you see Ratchet and Clank is 25gig? ps3fanboy perhaps?
Soldato
Well yeah it's better than mis-leading advertising from Sonythought the PS3 struggled to deal with games over 9gb anyway?
Yeah, We'd rather swap discs than get misleading adverts. <-- Sarcasm
Tell me where they mislead? They advertise bluray, The games are on Bluray. Movies are on Bluray.
And show me a game that struggles over 9gb, Proof. Don't just spout. As I've not seen any proof of any game struggling, And I've played most of them. And shock horror i'm pretty sure they are all on Bluray
Last edited:
Soldato
I really doubt that!
Sorry 22Gb. http://www.ps3vault.com/ratchet-and-clank-takes-up-22gb-runs-at-60fps-support-720p-and-1080i-2190
As does Ratchet & Clank before localization.
You say that, but that year wait (to the detriment of the ps3) may be the sole reason why blu-ray survives as a format, and that is important to the sony machine as a whole.
Soldato
Ratchet & Clank is 22gig,
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 443
The xbox 360 uses heavy compression.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7062459.stm
go to picture 7 that track was compressed from 6gb to 600mb which is pretty impressive. Obviously the ps3 doesn't have to do that with blu ray.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7062459.stm
go to picture 7 that track was compressed from 6gb to 600mb which is pretty impressive. Obviously the ps3 doesn't have to do that with blu ray.
Associate
well.....
i'd guess at the fact that reviewers were playing the game on 360 a few months back when Rockstar were previewing it to all, suggests the 360 is not holding it up.
i'd also suggest that Microsoft agreeing to pay for the release of new download content in early 08 (at around the time the game is now coming out) for the 360 version, say's that it was not the 360 version that is holding up proceedings.
i'd finish on the fact that a few games on PS3 are being put back and that the likely hood of it being PS3 stands a far better chance of being true rather than the 360 version.
Soldato
okay some PS3 Bluray pluses and some other good news tagged on.
That's 1 lot of good news due to Naughty Dog loving the PS3. Always good to have a good developer on a console, Who put in the extra effort.
And that's Epic, Yet again a fantastic company, Who are wanting and willing to put the extra time and effort into the PS3 hardware. With positive results for the end user.
That's Rockstar, Another good Company we all want on our sides, and yet again, They are wanting to use the PS3 the way it's meant to be used, and they are willing and ready to put in the extra work.
And then something I didnt know about.
Awesome News all-round for PS3 users.
That's 1 lot of good news due to Naughty Dog loving the PS3. Always good to have a good developer on a console, Who put in the extra effort.
And that's Epic, Yet again a fantastic company, Who are wanting and willing to put the extra time and effort into the PS3 hardware. With positive results for the end user.
That's Rockstar, Another good Company we all want on our sides, and yet again, They are wanting to use the PS3 the way it's meant to be used, and they are willing and ready to put in the extra work.
And then something I didnt know about.
Awesome News all-round for PS3 users.
Does anybody remember the talk, when the PS2 came out, about it needing a DVD drive?
I won't go into it too much, as I remember discussing this in another thread ages ago, but at the time DVD was still pretty new. The DVD drive made it more expensive, and the initial games on the PS2 came out on black CDs anyway.
So what was the point?
650mb was enough!
Later though, it wasn't enough.
As time goes on, games will require more space.
Good that they included the DVD drive, or later titles would've been on multiple disks, not just one or two.
Can't people see that it could well be the same way with bluray?
Fair enough, the XBOX360 has DVD9, and it does well with it.
But, if games are already using an entire disk, where can they expand in the future? Sure, multiple disks may not put some people off. They'd certainly put me off.
Some of the latest PC games have been coming on multiple DVD9 disks. Stranglehold was one, Blacksite: Area 51 was another. Obviously on the PC it doesn't matter, as once installed, you don't need to change disks.
The XBOX360 versions fitted on a DVD9. Why is this? Compress the sound/textures/movie quality to make it fit? It works, and I'm sure it still looks and sounds fine. But, surely it would still be better if they didn't have to compress everything?
Anyway, for now, DVD9 is still working, no worries. I don't know, maybe in a year or two, Microsoft will have another console out anyway, so by the time games are needing multiple disks, there'll be a new console anyway, with HD-DVD built in or whatever.
I do think it was worth their while futureproofing the PS3 to some extent, by fitting the bluray drive. It means devs do have more space to play with if they want/need it. The cost, obviously drops as time goes by anyway. In a few years, I'm sure, like the PS2s DVD drive, we'll all just take it for granted, and be glad it's there.
Plus, I'm delighted to have a bluray player already for movies. The only downside I can see of it, is the dent it's making in my wallet, as I can't resist constantly buying more, because they look so damn great. Did a comparison at home yesterday, a friends DVD edition of Pirates 3, and my bluray version. Granted, both on the same telly, via PS3, DVD was upscaled. Up close, compression artifacts, looked quite a dirty picture, bluray, could see the film grain, but also lots of extra detail, and no compression artifacts.
(Nothing to do with bluray for games on the end there, just another reason I'm glad the PS3 has a bluray drive - and to be fair, was one of the positive points as to why I wanted/purchased one [a ps3] in the first place)
V1N.
Associate
what, like cooking mama.... no thanks
they tell me that the Table Tennis game uses some of the engine that will be found in the new GTA and that is why that same tennis game is not on PS3 as it struggles with said engine. but you know what rumors are.
Like all your posts praising it to high heaven despite it's flaws
for sure
Soldato
Either way, ive read enough on 360 limitations as well, even if that was the case, it doesnt matter as they both have the same release date!
Lets just hope the 360 version isnt cut/mega compressed to fit on DVD.
jk
Soldato
Yea that would be the RAGE engine, which was actually developed on all 3 consoles, including the Wii.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 443
The two consoles are at the very least, the same in terms of raw power with blu ray giving the ps3 giving more flexability with regards to uncompressed sound and textures. If gears is the benchmark in graphics for the 360 then the evidence that UT3 is coming to the ps3 renforces this theory.
They work in differenet ways. PS3 coding has to focus on CPU coding compared to the 360 which relays on the GPU more. COD4 has shown the best way is to develop the two seperately. If the ps3 came out first and the xbox second i'm sure the current situation would be the reverse.
With regards to the orange box I honestly don't know why they bothered except to make a quick buck. They obviously don't care how it turns out for the ps3 at valve otherwise they would have developed it themselves like infinity ward have done. They should be criticized for it.
As time goes on this will become a non issue. Can't wait to see what the ps3 can offer in terms of AI and vast expansive gameplay and draw distances which i'm hoping FF13 will take advantage of.
They work in differenet ways. PS3 coding has to focus on CPU coding compared to the 360 which relays on the GPU more. COD4 has shown the best way is to develop the two seperately. If the ps3 came out first and the xbox second i'm sure the current situation would be the reverse.
With regards to the orange box I honestly don't know why they bothered except to make a quick buck. They obviously don't care how it turns out for the ps3 at valve otherwise they would have developed it themselves like infinity ward have done. They should be criticized for it.
As time goes on this will become a non issue. Can't wait to see what the ps3 can offer in terms of AI and vast expansive gameplay and draw distances which i'm hoping FF13 will take advantage of.
Blu-Ray is an advantage more than a disadvantage without doubt and Sony are definitely right to advertise it. Is it a massive advantage... no, not really, it doesn't offer anything to the average gamer over a DVD9 bar a couple of gb potential for usage.
It's main advantages are High-Definition video (note: not graphics) such as cut-scenes or movie tie-in propaganda, or for things such as foreign voice-overs and localization options.
As a games media there is practically nothing in it. Blu-Ray does offer that space should it be able to be used conveniently. Blu-Ray IS better than DVD9, but not in the ways the hype-wagons would want you to believe.
As for the discussion on Resistance being 22gb, it's moot as has been discussed before. I believe I read that the cut-scenes were in-game but pre-rendered taking up a nice amount of space, and textures are organised by level, so there is multiple texture repetition on a disc (mentioned by a guy at Harmonix). Also, it has uncompressed audio, which is a good thing, but the audio in Resistance is actually quite poor anyway, though with the success of the first one I expect the second one to be much more like a blockbuster movie.
It's main advantages are High-Definition video (note: not graphics) such as cut-scenes or movie tie-in propaganda, or for things such as foreign voice-overs and localization options.
As a games media there is practically nothing in it. Blu-Ray does offer that space should it be able to be used conveniently. Blu-Ray IS better than DVD9, but not in the ways the hype-wagons would want you to believe.
As for the discussion on Resistance being 22gb, it's moot as has been discussed before. I believe I read that the cut-scenes were in-game but pre-rendered taking up a nice amount of space, and textures are organised by level, so there is multiple texture repetition on a disc (mentioned by a guy at Harmonix). Also, it has uncompressed audio, which is a good thing, but the audio in Resistance is actually quite poor anyway, though with the success of the first one I expect the second one to be much more like a blockbuster movie.
Soldato
So what your saying is 50Gb is only a little bit better than 9Gb as all its used for is cutscenes?
LOL !
LOL !
Soldato
Sorry to quote you, this is meant in general.
What is the problem with a game taking up 22GB when it can be compressed to fit on a DVD9, why should they , if they have 25GB of space they use it, simple as that, so what if they have textures in multiple locations on the disc?
Regarding Ratchet & Clank, the loading is very fast and it does not use several GB's of space on the harddisk, I think it is a 700MB or so so I guess streaming works just fine.
No, if you actually read my post you'd understand it instead of doing your usual PS3 thing.
What I said is, 50gb is good, but most of it is used for cut-scenes, localization etc... The benefits of it over DVD9 are minimal in terms of actual gameplay.
Those games that have used more such as Resistance could quite easily fit onto a DVD9, but the limitations of Blu-Ray (or more precisely, the BR drive speed/memory) of the PS3 mean multiple file information must be placed onto a disc, as seen with Resistance or Lair. I would assume the same with Ratchet & Clank too.
The only games utilising these 'massive' space are exclusive games on the PS3, or games which have had major delays (such as Oblivion or Vegas). But those that are taking up a LOT of space on Blu-Ray aren't offering anything over what has already been done on DVD9.
I've written about this before anyway, but BR is a good format, but it would have been greatly benefitted by a faster speed. As for people saying "Uncompressed textures" etc.. don't exactly understand system limitations. Yes the disc is capable of holding them, but the system isn't capable of running them (at least not en masse), so again, BR doesn't prove beneficial again (except for cut-scenes).
What you should is hear-say (yes, I understand the irony of saying so) and assumptions, what I'm posting about is knowlege and studies.
It is possible BR may be further used coming towards the middle/end of the PS3's life-cycle, but the benefit of BR isn't what Sony (or people like you) would have you believe, it really isn't.
As I've also mentioned, how many developers of multi-format games are actually ditching the Xbox360 to work solely on PS3, very few (due to the install base of the Xbox360), so with the limitations of DVD9 in mind, why would companies go above these for the sake of Blu-Ray?
That's what I said. The is nothing wrong with using it, however it's no more beneficial than a DVD9. I never said there was a problem with it, the only problem I have is with people saying "Well that's the benefit of Blu-Ray!"... What is? The fact that you have to use more space to accomplish the same results?