backtop


Print 106 comment(s) - last by XtremeM3.. on Oct 19 at 1:17 AM

PS3 launch titles nearing 25GB limit, next year's expected to reach 50GB

During an interview with EuroGamer, Sony's worldwide studio boss Phil Harrison justified the use of the much-maligned Blu-Ray technology in the PlayStation 3 by stating that launch titles are already nearing the single-layer 25GB media limit, and titles next year are expected to approach the 50GB mark.

Harrison brought up the game sizes as an argument against those who suggested that the Blu-Ray drive was in the PS3 purely to push Sony's technology for movies. "It's got nothing to do with movies," Harrison responded. "DVD is not sufficient capacity to power the kind of data consumption, or to feed the data consumption needs of Cell and RSX - just purely as a gameplay device, we need Blu-Ray to supply the kind of data that PS3 games use."

And it's not just for pre-rendered cutscenes in 1080p either, apparently. Harrison hopes that developers will use the extra space for more than just graphics - 7.1 channel surround sound, more voices for characters, and varied animation sequences were cited as examples in addition to the expected high-resolution textures and high-polygon models. Cutscenes weren't discounted entirely though. "I see nothing wrong with having non-interactive, full HD sequences as part of the game," Harrison said. "That's all part of the production value and the experience that you get when you buy the game. I don't see that as a weakness at all."

The Blu-Ray drive has been criticized heavily for bringing up the cost of the PS3, and for short supplies of laser diodes causing a delay of the European launch until 2007.  Harrison announced earlier this year that the upcoming title Resistance would use a whopping 20GB of the 25GB Blu-ray capacity when it is released.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

/.
By AppaYipYip on 10/18/2006 12:14:41 AM , Rating: 1
As rediculous as the PS3 seems...I'm still excited to see what the games look like. I hope the play value is as impressive as the system specs and size of the games.




RE: /.
By msva124 on 10/18/2006 12:21:02 AM , Rating: 1
I just hope the new final fantasy is good.


RE: /.
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:27:36 AM , Rating: 3
finaly fantasy hasnt been good in almost a decade.


RE: /.
By theflux on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: /.
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:32:30 AM , Rating: 1
ff7 is what im talking about, and it came out a decade ago. all the rest of them since then have been OK at best, 9 is about the only one that you MIGHT could call good. ff10 was aweful ff8 was aweful, the one on teh gamecube is aweful, the online game is aweful. final fantasy is the most overrated game series of all time.


RE: /.
By theflux on 10/18/2006 12:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
If all of them are so "aweful" (I assume you don't mean awe-inspiring) why do you keep playing them? I mean given that you obviously didn't like 7 or 8, why bother playing X which seemed like more of the same? I would hope you would actually play a game before saying it's awful, but this is the internet so to each his own.


RE: /.
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:45:24 AM , Rating: 1
no i loved 7, hated 8, played 9 to see how it would be and thought it was decent. and then of course i played 10 since it was the first one on the ps3, and my friend has a gamecube and i played around with the one on it for a while and didnt like it.


RE: /.
By akugami on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: /.
By IceTron on 10/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: /.
By Xavian on 10/18/2006 3:01:45 AM , Rating: 5
agreed, but agreed in a less... viscious manner :P


RE: /.
By aos007 on 10/18/2006 2:21:00 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed... Only a dimwit can claim that FF8 sucked. And only a dimwit can claim that FF7 was better that most other FF's.

FF7 was by far the waekest of all recent FF's. What with its crappy, illogical, inconsistent story, lame dialogue and so on. Only the battle system was good.

Hint: FF is played for their stories. If you don't care about that then you're playing the wrong game. Hell, you're in the wrong genre.


RE: /.
By akugami on 10/18/2006 2:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Pot meet Kettle.

Anyways, stereotyping is as always screwed up (not that I don't do it occasionally msyelf). FF8 sucked. Big time. I am not the only one to feel that way. The story has always been the driving force while the gameplay was always secondary. I have played all of the FF 1-9, including downloading translated roms of the ones that didn't make it to the US and playing them on emulators.

I found FF8 boring as all heck. That doesn't make me a dimwit. I graduated National Honor Society in high school and had one of the highest SAT scores in my whole graduating class. Calling someone else a dimwit because they have a differing opinion is the height of stupidity. You liked FF8? Great, like it. However that doesn't make you smarter for liking it nor does it make you right for liking it and others like me wrong for not liking it.


RE: /.
By tuteja1986 on 10/18/2006 12:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
I am over Final Fantasy :! FF4 was the best FF in the series but FF7 was also good but i am sick of the combat system and i hated FF12 :!!


RE: /.
By Mudvillager on 10/18/2006 8:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
FF IV was boring. I've only played up to FF VI and out of the bunch none of them even touches FF VI.


RE: /.
By brshoemak on 10/18/2006 1:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I've played up to X and I still say VI wipes the floor with all of those (although XII was up there).

FF VI FTW


RE: /.
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 2:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to say that FFIV was my second favorite out of all fo them.

I loved the soundtrack and still do. To this day, whenever I heard the boss battle theme (called Battle 2), I always envision the fight against Valvadez in my head where Rosa shouts, "Kain! Jump!" when Valvadez begins to spin up again. Kind of sad, but hey... it happens :P.

*May be some spoilers for those who haven't played FFIV*

Probably the worst part about FFIV is the somewhat weak background story and the wham-bang-we're-at-the-moon plot change. Also, it's a bit better if you don't play the original SNES cartridge version. It was a bit dumbed down for American audiences (hell, they gave us FFMQ because they didn't think we were smart enough to handle a true FF game :P) and they even removed Cecil's DARK WAVE (also known as DARK) move.

*End any possible spoilers*

But hey, we all know that Chrono Trigger is better than Final Fantasy VI, right? My brother and I still argue over that to this day (he's "Pro-FF6").


RE: /.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: /.
By TejTrescent on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: /.
By tuteja1986 on 10/18/2006 8:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
Highly Disagree :! FF12 wasn't that awesome and i hated the combat system.

Gameplay : 6 Really hated the new combat system
Graphic : 7 Could have been better , looked craper than FF10
Sound : 10 Was awesome :)
Story : 9 Was great but i have played so many RPG thats its ending wasn't great
Art,Level Design 5 : Horrible , only Sea side area i liked but the cities were lame

Before you start getting totally angery with my post... i have play loads of rpg and even the real hardcore FF fanboy didn't like the game.


RE: /.
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 9:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Eh, Kristopher... I don't know if I can honestly agree with that.

I've played Final Fantasy XII and I literally stopped playing after about an hour. I just didn't care for the bastardized MMO feel that the game had. Sorry, but when you release over 12 games in a series, you expect some continuity in gameplay over the series (of course, you can add new things.. such as Limit Breaks for example, as I had absolutely no problem with Limit Breaks being added as it didn't greatly affect the continuity).

You may say that I'm stuck in the times... that because FFVI was my favorite Final Fantasy that I'm "dated". Sorry that I enjoy the semi-turn-based RPGs versus the wanna-be-world-of-warcraft RPGs.

Referring to the combat system a bit more, I felt that the system just took too much control away. The game felt like you were playing a game like World of Warcraft, because you mostly control one character. It's kind of like how Final Fantasy Mystic Quest had the "Auto" mode that controlled all the other characters but the Hero. Although, the Auto mode wasn't that bad in this game, because the game was so simplistic and the characters would literally switch between offense and support when needed. Kind of surprising for a game that garners such hatred from Final Fantasy fans. (Although, FFMQ has one of my favorite battle themes out of all FF games).

FFXII also really had a Vagrant Story feel to it for some reason...

*************SPOILER******************


Hey, at least the blondie died in the beginning :D. So much for the Honeymoon though?



**********END SPOILER*****************


RE: /.
By msva124 on 10/18/2006 12:32:48 AM , Rating: 1
2001 was a decade ago?


RE: /.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/18/2006 12:33:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
finaly fantasy hasnt been good in almost a decade.

Oh and actually more than a decade if you're a Yoshitaka Amano fan :) FF6 > FF7 anyone?

(ok I've successfully derailed my own site. Sorry)


RE: /.
By Furen on 10/18/2006 12:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
=)

Completely agree with you. I love FF6 and still play it over once in a while. I played through the first disc of FF7 (most of the first disc, anyway) and just couldn't find the willpower to keep playing the damn thing. That's saying a lot considering that I did play FF8 all the way through 'cause I found the junction/draw system interesting. 9 was horrible and 10 was uninspired but pretty.


RE: /.
By ikuto on 10/18/2006 11:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, im glad i still see some support for FF6 as being the last great FF in the series because i felt the same way. It had the long story and really got me connected with each and every character. To me it is a masterpiece, the music itself was the best out of the series even though FF IV had a couple good ones. I could listen through all the songs in FF VI. Classic. Usually it is all about FF VII having better enemies than FF VI and etc in other forums. I did buy PSX only for FF VII, it didn't disappoint at all, but not like what i experience from FF VI. For me the music really sets the mood in RPGs, FF VII & FF VIII had some, but FF VI had the right song for every situation and set the mood just right.


RE: /.
By Heron Kusanagi on 10/18/2006 1:34:34 AM , Rating: 3
Come on, FF8 wasn't that bad. Neither is FF10 for that matter. The strangest to me was FF11 though.

And besides, even if people don't like FF, I guess Devil May Cry 4 could put a smile on people's face.

And Kubicki...who cares whether you derailed your site? In fact, it's cool seeing you having strong opinions of things. Guess not all news personnel are neutral. :P


RE: /.
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 9:52:43 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, FFVI was much better than the over-hyped FFVII.

A lot of people seem to push the story as being amazing in FFVII, but if you ever watch anime, it's just your typical Evangelion-esque story that has more holes than swiss cheese. Sorry, but I didn't care for Evangelion's plot holes, and just because it's a Final Fantasy, that doesn't mean that I'll ignore that fact.

Also, too many people are in some sort of fascination with Sephiroth. His Masamune's a bit too overbearing, although my replica of Ichigo's Tensa Zangetsu is the same size, so I can't say much :P.

Although the change from 2D to 3D was quite a turn-around and it was a bit interesting. FFVII was the only reason I bought a PSX to begin with :P.


RE: /.
By Furen on 10/18/2006 11:56:27 AM , Rating: 1
I will say that FF7 brought RPGs to the mainstream, most likely because of all the FMV sequences and huge ad campaign. Before FF7 RPG gaming was a rather small niche, at least in the US.


RE: /.
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 2:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think the game to really propel RPGs based on that would be FFX if anything. I think FFX pulled further away from the norm with the inclusion of voices and flamboyant/stereotypical characters.

Because, if you look at the differences between say... FFVI and FFX, the big differences are 3D, voice acting, video and them flamboyant/stereotypical characters. Other than that, nothing's really different.

Also, looking at the differences between say FFVII and FFX you have more realistic 3d models, voice acting, better CGI in the FMVs.

So, it really seems that a good amount of fans like the RPGs for the flair. They may not like having to read all the text as well. I know in Enchanted Arms for the X360, a lot of the dialog is spoken (and thank God there's a Japanese voice track) and that may entice the newer gamers more.

I'm really not 100% sure and I know I personally cannot say, because I've been playing the console RPGs (I won't call them RPGs because people complain too much... I personally call them "Static RPGs") for awhile and have much more fun playing the remakes of the old games onto newer consoles (such as FFIV Advance for the GBA/DS).

Oh and by the way... it's not very apparent from this post, but I didn't like FFX :P. On that note, don't even get me started on FFX-2 hehe.


RE: /.
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to have to agree with this. I really wish we'd see a new game that felt like the old games that made us love the series in the first place.

I guess what we REALLY need is Blue Dragon for the XBOX 360 :P.


RE: /.
By LtFarva on 10/18/2006 10:09:45 AM , Rating: 1
to each his own really...

Personally, I thought 7 was overrated. Great game, but highly overrated.
I enjoyed 8 and 10 a lot more.


RE: /.
By Hydrofirex on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: /.
By aos007 on 10/18/2006 2:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, until you hit 30+ hours and realize that you haven't played it EXACTLY the way that designer wanted and find it almost impossible to continue because you didn't take advantage of undocumented skill levelling up. I couldn't believe anyone sane would level up monsters as if they were expert players (or better yet, game programmers who know exactly how the algorithm works). That spoiled my entire game experience. Does anybody even play the entire game any more before giving all these crazy glowing reviews? There's no way a game with such a major flaw can get more than 80%. Morrowind was much better.


RE: /.
By exdeath on 10/18/2006 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 1
FF6 was the *Final* Fantasy. FF4 was probably the best of the Final Fantasy games (with Xenogears being probably the best RPG ever made despite its rushed finish)

FF7 was just a mini game fest with a CGI showcase showing off Square’s then new SGI machines. Full of random scenes spliced in for no apparent reason (random death of a character seemingly introduced randomly at the beginning of the game, etc). FF7 AC the movie had more plot. This was the start of Square ‘ricing out’ the Final Fantasy name after joining Sony. This included the beginning of shallow characters that are just way too cool for themselves and sporting various kanji or Pantene hair. I’m surprised Seph didn’t have a Akuma kanji on his back and a Honda logo earring with flashing blue LEDs in his sword.

FF8 was... well I’m not really sure what this was, but it wasn’t a Final Fantasy title. Gun blades, and dragons with laser guided nuclear missiles? Uhm ok.

FF9 was an attempt to go back to the roots of the series after die hard fans criticized FF7 and after FF8 bombed. It failed miserably to achieve that purpose. WTF is up with some of the character designs!? And the crystal returns huh? For like 5 seconds in a CGI.

FF10 finally returns us to a world befitting of the Final Fantasy title (Spira at least). Got the fantasy feel back a little even though some of the characters were out of place. But something didn't seem quite right, maybe the fact that when we finally started to see some emotion, it was already done with the scene.

FF-X2 … the first Final Fantasy game I ever returned/exchanged. Total fan service, wtf Yuna Croft? Nothing but mini games, 3000 slightly differing endings based on what % you get in the mini games, and a nice try to throw in a last minute story and boss out of thin air in the last 5 minutes of the game. Beat in only 4 hours.


The name should have been changed after FF6. Everything since then has been nothing but 'make a game and slap the title FF on it and it will sell automatically even if it sucks'

Want a good RPG series that sticks to core story values? Play the whole Xenosaga series. It has its flaws, but at least the developers poured their heart into the story and didn’t just slap some CGI story board together. Yeah, just like Square use to do.




RE: /.
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 2:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
The reason they're different is because after Final Fantasy 6, Hironobu Sakaguchi no longer took a hands-on approach to the games. He became a bit distanced from them in other words.

He left Squaresoft after Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within bombed hardcore (There's the WMD that Bush was looking for ;)). He's now the head of Mistwalker Studio, which was partly funded by Microsoft to develop games for the XBOX 360.

Mistwalker is actually making some great looking games, namely: Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. Blue Dragon from a pure developer name standpoint sounds incredible. Sakaguchi is the lead with people such as Uematsu doing the music and Toriyama doing the character designs. Those names in themselves are a bit reminiscient of Chrono Trigger (except Uemastu was really only a sub-composer to Mitsuda), which is also a good thing :). There's actually a really nice preview video on XBOX Live at the moment from the Tokyo Game Show if you're interested in getting to look at the game.


RE: /.
By ViperROhb34 on 10/18/2006 9:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
I've read in two magazines.. I think one was game informer.. and the other had an article where they intervied the developers of Elder Scrolls- Oblivion.

Both mentioned the same thing... that the Bluray reads slower then DVD.. so load times would not be any beter.. according to Oblivion developers they could not make the loading any better on PS3 because of this..

Now I'm thinking.. how long will a 25-50gig game load on PS3? The load times even on DVD would be slow.. So they would almost certainly have to store part of the game on the Hardrive because loading off a disc that reads slower then DVD and is also 3-5 times the size.. SLOW !



RE: /.
By superkdogg on 10/18/2006 10:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
Meh, I'm still anti-blu-ray on principle. Sony and DRM are taking away my rights to make an honest copy of media that I purchased. I'm surprised nobody has pursued making ink that doesn't show up on copy machines so that we, the dangerous, untrustworthy consumers do not make illegal books.

Oh well, have fun watching the blue ray movies, PS3 guys. Maybe there will be a game in there too.


RE: /.
By othercents on 10/18/2006 11:15:03 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Sony and DRM are taking away my rights to make an honest copy of media that I purchased.

It is not just Sony or Blu-Ray. HD-DVD is the same way. They where both created in conjunction with the entertainment industry to keep people from stealing what they created. I personally like to be able to make copies of what I own. This is especially true if you have little children. Hopefully some movie company will allow trade-in of unplayable scratched CDs for free.

Other


RE: /.
By Hydrofirex on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
The reason the disks are being filled....
By Chillin1248 on 10/18/2006 12:44:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
varied animation sequences


quote:
Cutscenes weren't discounted entirely though. "I see nothing wrong with having non-interactive, full HD sequences as part of the game," Harrison said. "That's all part of the production value and the experience that you get when you buy the game. I don't see that as a weakness at all."


So it is being filled up with HD cutscenes mainly, but there is no reason that these can't be done using a in-game engine and thus save a large amount of space.

-------
Chillin




RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
they're also being filled up with languages for 12 or so different regions.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By Chillin1248 on 10/18/2006 1:00:36 AM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't think text would take up much space... Unless they did the cutscenes twelve times over in different languages for lip-synching?

-------
Chillin


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 1:21:14 AM , Rating: 1
12 different languages for speach in a game can take up a lot of space i would imagine.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By Xavian on 10/18/2006 2:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
unlikely, remember a character takes up a single byte in space, be it code or in the game itself. this means that to even take up 1GB of space in text you would need to use 1,073,741,824 characters. Over a billion characters and i seriously doubt even 12 languages worth of text would take up a billon characters, let alone times that by 5-10 (for 5-10GB).

Make no mistake, the extra space is being used for HD FMV's thats all, if they used an in-game engine for the games, im pretty sure you could any future PS3 game on a single DVD9.

Remember also, this extra space isn't going to improve gameplay either, since no sane development studio would attempt to fill up 25GB with actual data (textures, level data, models etc) because the amount they would spend would be more then they would get back in profits.

Add to this, compression which is almost lossless nowadays and using lossless compression for audio, means i really cant see console games using up a DVD9 until the next generation after this one.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 2:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
whos talking about text? im talking about recorded speech here.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By Xavian on 10/18/2006 2:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
Even recorded speech wouldn't take up that much room, if you use lossless compression, but to use uncompressed audio is just wastefull. Maybe because of the extra space it will make developers more wasteful of space?


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By otispunkmeyer on 10/18/2006 4:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
you maybe right

look at video cards and memory

2Gb is now the standard, and GPU's get more powerful each release.

it jus lets dev's be a little lazy, because they have the power to do it and do it quick

take fear for example, not the best looking game ever but if u didnt have 2gb or ram and a high end GPU when it came out you weren't gonna get the full experience.

where as HL2 looked almost as good, if not better in some areas and thats runs very well on even low end hardware.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By BZDTemp on 10/18/2006 7:11:29 AM , Rating: 2
Both HL2 and FEAR run fine on low end but only with low end settings and then they both look pretty ugly.

And if you say HL2 looks as good as FEAR then you haven't played FEAR in full glory. The soft shadows alone give a lot to the game and HL2 does not have that just like HL2 is lacking a lot of other effects.


By thecoolnessrune on 10/18/2006 9:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Im still stuck on a GeForce 4MX 420 and 440. HL2 was a godsend. 800x600 all low settings looked absolutely stunning compared to what I've been able to play. Is there better available in the game? Certainly. This is in direct contrast to games like Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising. That game can run pretty well, but it plain looks old and is choppy even at 640x480. At least with HL2, us people without the cash for a full mobo, cpu, ram, and video card upgrade have the ability to play and it still look very good.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By dead1ne on 10/18/2006 3:10:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually they could easily use the space for higher resolution textures and higher polygon count models and levels. The reason for this being that they already have the higher resolutions of them they only scale them down to save space and for performance reasons. So assuming the PS3 is powerful enough for higher resolution models etc. then there would be no reason for them not to include the higher resolution versons.


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 9:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
I understand where you're coming from, but I just doubt that the PS3 is that powerful of a machine, especially in comparison to a lot of the high-end gaming rigs that're built. Those high-end rigs end up using a more advanced graphics card built by the same company.. and usually multiple ones at the same time! They've got better processors (and more dedicated processors instead of Cells special purpose processors), so that helps to make up for the OS overhead.

I just don't see how they justify putting so much on a disc, unless it is exactly what everyone else is saying how they're cutting manufacturing corners making every language in one. If that is true, maybe... just finally... I won't be stuck listening to horrible English voice acting in Japanese games anymore :).


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By Trisped on 10/18/2006 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
it is not that they are cutting a corner, I think PS3 games are suppose to be any region. This will reduce costs because only one disc must be stamped, instead of 10.

I think the only real reasons for the bloat are HD video and not compressing data. I can see the HD video, as everyone is expecting movie quality game play. Not compressing data is stupid though, as you can read data from a disk and decopress it faster then you can if you read it strait.

You also have to remember, these disks are only 2.5x larger then a DVD. So if something filled up a DVD last time, it is going to be at least half the BD this time.


By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 3:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I thought all consoles were region-locked this generation (again)?

I know none of the portable consoles (DS and PSP) are region locked, which I think is fantastic! A bit of a disclaimer: PSP UMD movies are region locked :).


RE: The reason the disks are being filled....
By Pandamonium on 10/18/2006 12:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have well designed engines than pretty HD cutscenes. It feels more seamless that way.


By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, the MGS games would have been lame if they used fmv rather than the engine


hmmm
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:18:03 AM , Rating: 4
if by "games" they mean "resistance" then this article is right. though multidisk games havent been a problem since the psx so i still dont see how the blu-ray drive is justified other than to force sonys format on the market. with rising production costs being a huge concern, im not seeing how they plan to fill these blu-ray disks without charging 80 dollars a pop for games.




RE: hmmm
By theflux on 10/18/2006 12:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
What are the size of the other games, by the way? I looked for an article backing up your claim that only resistance was larger than DVD-9, but couldn't find it. A link would be nice.

Also what is your source for a blu-ray disc being what I would assume $20 more than a dvd-9 to manufacture? Given that XBOX 360 charges $60 for third party games, and the price of PS3 games has been announced as $60 as well, I'd like to find out the true cost of BD media.


RE: hmmm
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: hmmm
By theflux on 10/18/2006 12:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Textures are always created at a much higher resolution than what appears in a game. They are downsampled to meet media size requirements, engine requirements, video memory requirements.

Having that amount of textures is actually really easy to come by, but not necessary for a game. In fact, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell the difference after a certain level once detail textures are applied.

In short, No.


RE: hmmm
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
its not texture detail they're talking about its texture variety.


RE: hmmm
By Furen on 10/18/2006 1:06:22 AM , Rating: 4
Textures, even at insanely high-resolutions, will not fill up your media faster than they'll fill up your memory (256MB of VRAM, I doubt there will be much turbocaching going on in games, regardless of whether or not the capability is there). So saying that you need more space for bigger textures/more textures is retarded, to say the least. I'd say that this is the usual Sony spin being applied to all the criticism over the console's cost. Longer games, voice acting, FMVs and anything that streams will increase the need for a bigger capacity storage medium, but including more of this WILL increase production costs, and they're already pretty high to begin with.


RE: hmmm
By Xavian on 10/18/2006 2:48:36 AM , Rating: 4
Indeed, remember the PS3 is limited by RAM space, it cant just suddently use a >512MB texture, because then it would have to stream the texture data off the disc itself, in 512MB chunks. This would slow any game to a crawl, so ultra-sized textures are not going to happen.

All that leaves is the number of textures, now as additional textures that are made, they cost more time and money, which means a greater financial outlay and less overall profits for the development studio and thus the publisher who is funding them.

Eventually we are going to get to the point where its not financially feasible with the current userbase of gaming to produce a complex game. Nowadays spiraling development costs, low profit or high loss development studios are the norm, this is scary, because before the great gaming crash back before the NES, the situation was very much the same, development studios going out of business or getting smaller because of lowering profit margins. The only difference here is instead of massive game saturation causing it, its the greater costs of making a game.

Ofcourse when Nintendo came in and changed the gaming market to licence system, the whole gaming market was revitalized. But could Nintendo once again see a similar event coming and thus created the Wii in order to avoid it (much less development costs, emphasis on fun and not technology)?


RE: hmmm
By Marlowe on 10/18/2006 4:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
I just tried the DEFCON demo from Steam, a pretty cool game! It supposedly has a game engine of 1 MB - the rest of the size is the soundtrack.

On another note, In a period of time, painters tried to make their works as realistic as possible, and pictures became almost like photographs. Later they moved away from that and became more abstract and focused more on feelings and whatnot. (I'm NOT an art expert) I think video games are going the way of art.

(ALWAYS backup your comment before pressing Preview.. I've lost some very long and long-in-the-making comments here because of the "Oops!" error message) *angry*


RE: hmmm
By Spivonious on 10/18/2006 4:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
Just hit back on your browser.


RE: hmmm
By ViperROhb34 on 10/18/2006 9:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
I've read in two magazines.. I think one was game informer.. and the other had an article where they intervied the developers of Elder Scrolls- Oblivion.

Both mentioned the same thing... that the Bluray reads slower then DVD.. so load times would not be any beter.. according to Oblivion developers they could not make the loading any better on PS3 because of this..

Now I'm thinking.. how long will a 25-50gig game load on PS3? The load times even on DVD would be slow.. So they would almost certainly have to store part of the game on the Hardrive because loading off a disc that reads slower then DVD and is also 3-5 times the size.. SLOW !



When the line blurs
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 10:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
Folks... I pose a question. Do we even really play video games anymore? Are we just playing interactive movies?

I purchased the entire Xenosaga trilogy for kicks, and my sister ended up playing the first one (since all I play is WoW anyway). She got frustrated after a couple hours, because she maybe got 10 minutes of play time past the cutscenes and FMVs! If this is what games are supposed to end up like because we have 25-50GB of space available... ugh, that's not a game. That's reminiscient of the old interactive DVD movie games that they used to publish. The best part is when my sister read the back of Xenosaga III, where it boasted the amount of cinematic features in the game. I think she just sighed :P.

It seems publishers try to put too much "flash" in a game, and it just ends up leaving the "picture dull." Sure, graphics are nice. Videos here and there can be great extra added effect. But, we pay $40-60 (depending on console) for a game... not a movie.

Any opinions on the amount of cutscenes or FMVs in games these days?




RE: When the line blurs
By AncientPC on 10/18/2006 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a gaming preference and that's why the Japanese market tends to favor RPG-style games more.

For the longest time my brother hated RPGs of all kinds and only played sports or racing games. Meanwhile I was playing FF series, etc. I told him to approach RPGs more as a novel / interactive movie rather than the gameplay and as a result he became more interested in the game.

I'm sure others will disagree, but I honestly think in RPGs storyline should come first, then gameplay and then graphics. That's why older classic RPGs get replayed so much more often than newer, flashier RPGs.


RE: When the line blurs
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/18/2006 2:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we even really play video games anymore? Are we just playing interactive movies?

This is an awesome point. At DT we are kicking around the idea of do we cite a video game like a movie or like a board game? The consensus in the journalism community seems to be that games are move of movies than board games.


RE: When the line blurs
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 2:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not sure you could actually cite a video game as either. Because when you talk about a movie, you tend to use sentences like these:

Nicholas Cage's character said, "It was Travolta!"

But in a video game, you tend to stick away from specifics and hone on generalizations such as:

The heroine hissed at the protagonist and yelled, "Get them paws off me!"

You tend to use those generic terms, especially since in movies, you relate actors to roles (that's why people sometimes have a hard time seeing a comedic actor do a serious role), but in video games, you simply relate a ficticious character to a personality. Such as the annoying little brat who needs to be slapped in Enchanted Arms.

I think that goes along with what you're getting at... if not, I may need a bit more information as I just write/proofread sometimes, but I'm no journalist ;).


RE: When the line blurs
By aos007 on 10/18/2006 2:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
But the Xenosaga 1 is one of the best games on PS2! Seriously, it has probably the best story and soundtrack of any PS2 game (and that includes FF).

Some of us really like "interactive movies". Really, really like. Just like we like anime. We play for the story, not for the button mashing nor for the brain and reflex tease. I do plenty of work at actual work - I don't want to do the same again at home holding the controller. Personally, the best games are ones that have a great gameplay AND tons of cutscenes.

If you don't like those games, there are plenty of other types of games that do not require watching cutscenes (FPS, RTS, action-adventures, sports games). I play those too. But believe me, there are a lot of people who enjoy their cutscenes. That is why they keep making them. It's not like there's a lack of games without cutscenes anyway, is there? There is only a lack of RPGs - specifically japanese ones - without cutscenes. But a japanese RPG without cutscenes would be like an american FPS without blood.


RE: When the line blurs
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I don't care if a game has a great story, you're missing a completely ignored portion of gaming... how the story is portrayed/unraveled to the user.

I'll use books for an example. In a book, a premise (background story) can be something incredibly different and such a great idea, but if the author doesn't develop everything well, then he's messed up how he portrayed his vision to the end user.

The idea of the book not being portrayed well is what I'd consider Xenosaga. A good story (as you claim), yet the game portrays this story through an excess amount of cutscenes whether in-game or FMVs and not as much actual gameplay. For some people, this simply does not hold water.

What disgusts me, is that you're telling me... a person who's played console RPGs (my "Static RPGs") for a long time, that I should stop playing RPGs because some people prefer interactive movies. I don't like that one bit. The old games had cutscenes in them, but they most certainly weren't excessive (they were all in-game as well). Oh and I do play all of those other games sans the sports genre.

It almost seems like you mistook my point. I don't hate cutscenes in games. I don't like excessive cutscenes in games where I can set the controller down for a good 5-10 minutes and read the screen (excluding opening and ending movies, I could understand them being longer). That's not a game, aos007!


RE: When the line blurs
By Spivonious on 10/18/2006 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 3
I hate it when a game is mostly movies. I want to play the game, not watch it. The worst is when you feel like you are just steering the character to the next cutscene. The best games never go to a cutscene, they just make the story part of the game (the Half-Life series comes to mind).


Bull and shite
By MikeO on 10/18/2006 4:49:15 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Harrison brought up the game sizes as an argument against those who suggested that the Blu-Ray drive was in the PS3 purely to push Sony's technology for movies. "It's got nothing to do with movies," Harrison responded.


Nothing to do with movies? Please Sony, we're not retards so just drop the bullsh*t. Even Sony fanboys know that's 100% pure bullsh*t. Maybe it's not there *purely* for movies, but c'mon...

quote:
"DVD is not sufficient capacity to power the kind of data consumption, or to feed the data consumption needs of Cell and RSX - just purely as a gameplay device, we need Blu-Ray to supply the kind of data that PS3 games use."


We'll see about that won't we. It'd be interesting if Microsoft shipped the next EA sports game on a DVD and Sony the exact same game on a 25 or 50 gb blu-ray disk filled to the brim...




RE: Bull and shite
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 4:56:07 AM , Rating: 1
i love how they pretend like the rsx is some uber powerful graphics processor and not just a neutered 7900. i mean comeon my 6800gt has almost twice the memory bandwidth to it. hell the ps3 wont even be able to handle something like crysis. i doubt we'll be seeing crysis ship on 3 dual layer dvd's


RE: Bull and shite
By ani4ani on 10/18/2006 4:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting for the first game developed for the PS3 to be ported to the XBOX, which then can either be supplied on 3-4 DVD's or in the case of the PS3 a single Blu ray disc. Alternatively, lets listen to the complaints when the XBOX version is missing all the extras, cut-scenes, textures etc. Whats the big deal for God sake, why not have the game on a single disc, no swapping, no missing elements, if the game costs the same either way?

How many people are running on 200MB hard drives these days? How many people would be happy with 10 tracks on an MP3 player [the average you could have only 5 years ago? - remember those mighty 32MB RIO's?]. If I suggested 10 years ago that I needed to carry a 1000 CD's to listen to my dicsman, you would have thought me mad? Now people are slamming the Zune because it is only 30GB!

Vista is 8 x bigger than Win 95!

I for one lay any odds that we will have 50 GB games within the next 3 years, and any odds that the 360 will be fitted with a high capacity drive before then.

PS, I am no Sony Fan boy, I enjoy both of my 360's


RE: Bull and shite
By crispy78 on 10/18/2006 6:40:05 PM , Rating: 1
Not to get too far off topic, but the fact that Vista is 8x bigger than 95 is not a good thing. It's because Windows code has become so bloated over the last decade.

Anyway, back on topic; who cares if the game comes on multiple disks? Is it really that hard to get up swap a disk every few hours? Maybe I'm just old school since I remember games that came on four or five 5 1/4" floppies and constantly had to be swapped.


RE: Bull and shite
By ViperROhb34 on 10/18/2006 9:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I've read in two magazines.. I think one was game informer.. and the other had an article where they intervied the developers of Elder Scrolls- Oblivion.

Both mentioned the same thing... that the Bluray reads slower then DVD.. so load times would not be any beter.. according to Oblivion developers they could not make the loading any better on PS3 because of this..

Now I'm thinking.. how long will a 25-50gig game load on PS3? The load times even on DVD would be slow.. So they would almost certainly have to store part of the game on the Hardrive because loading off a disc that reads slower then DVD and is also 3-5 times the size.. SLOW !



That's what happen when...
By Le Québécois on 10/18/2006 1:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
You offer them one share of the pie and they end up taking it all.

You give them more power, they'll do less efficient programing.

You give them more space, they'll do less efficient or not even use good compression technology.

MS is pretty good at this game too. Look at how much ressource was needed to run windows XP when it first came out. The same will probably happen with Vista.

The more you give to people the less work they will do to make the most out of it.

I don't say more power or new tech is a bad thing. Far from it. It's just that most of the people won't use it like they should.

Look at Half-life2 and Doom3 for exemple. Those games can run on pretty old hardware and still look pretty amazing. Now on the other side. Take Halo. The Xbox is if I remember correctly a Pentium3/Celeron 600mhz with a modified Geforce3. Now back when I tryed it on my old PC(AthlonXP 2500 and Radeon 9800pro I couldn't even play it with AA of AF and the game was plain ugly compare to other game of its time (like UT2004 which was running at 1024 with 8XAA and 4XAF with full details).

One good thing is that eventually they won't be able to do bad programing and will need to optimize their work since consoles aren't upgrade able like PC.




RE: That's what happen when...
By leidegre on 10/18/2006 2:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
Did you take in to consideration that the games you play on XBox, or any other console, usally run at a very low resolution. Both NTSC (648x486) and PAL (720x486) use a pretty low resolution, it's not until you crank up the HD stuff that the actual image quailty goes up, (assumin you can render those resolutions).

Halo running on a PC, and on a monitor CRT or LCD, would never look as good in low resolutions as on a old PAL or NTSC TV. Why I don't know exactly, but you can try it out yourself. Play Halo on a PC, set the resolution to 800x600, and use a TV out if possible. It should look as good as on the XBox, now there can also be XBox specific imporvments, and a much smaller overhead from the DirectX API which is used in XBox, but this is one thing that will make a difference.


By Le Québécois on 10/18/2006 3:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
Ok just think about this for a second. Why can PC games that can run at higher resolution than HDTV only need one DVD while on the PS3 they need a whole 25GB Blu-ray?

Same thing could be said about the Xbox360 which do HD like the PS3 and so far doesn't seems to have less picture quality than PS3 games I've seen(and I've seen a lot of screen shots). Still they all manage to put their game on a single DVD.

If only PS3 programers could do some optimization and then still fill the whole 25GB. Now that would make some incredible game. But until I see it happening...


By Trugentleman02 on 10/18/2006 1:45:47 AM , Rating: 5
Come on, you can't take what any head person at Sony says at face value. They are known to go spewing out anything to get ahead of the competition. I rather hear it from developers than sony's people.




FF
By Pessimism on 10/18/2006 9:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
FF1 for NES was the best. You had to think carefully about who you attacked, lest you attack an already dead opponent and have your attack be INEFFECTIVE.

Oh and I agree with the other guy, cinematic cutscenes are a waste of space. More time seems to be spent on them now than game content. And for the love of all that is dear, at least make them so you can press a key and skip them.




RE: FF
By Aikouka on 10/18/2006 10:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
Pessimism, it sounds like you may like Enchanted Arms if that's the style gameplay that you're looking for. All you really have to look past is the very... very annoying stereotypical Japanese characters. The game has that some concept where if you set an attack for a character and a previous attack kills it, any character set to only act upon that now-deceased enemy doesn't get to act. It definitely requires more planning, especially since you can swap characters out after each fight and have over a hundred golems to choose from (of course, you have to find and make them!) Also, HP is really only an in-battle health monicker. The real status that determines your player's "health" is their Vitality Points, which will go down depending on if they die in a battle or how many turns are used in a battle.


Multiple discs? Hell no
By Blackraven on 10/18/2006 9:19:54 AM , Rating: 4
Come on, let's not go back anymore to the old-school days.

In this day of age, one disc MUST fit all.

Disc swapping in our timeline is PURELY LAME. Come on, this is 2006 and NOT 1996.





subject here
By ilkhan on 10/18/2006 2:52:08 AM , Rating: 3
I might pick up a PS3 next x-mas season after the price has dropped to a reasonable level. I'll need a blu-Ray player anyway...and much as I hate console game(rs), there might be something interesting after a year of game releases. Maybe.




By cubby1223 on 10/18/2006 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 3
I could rattle off numerous games that fit on a single floppy, that were far more fun to play the vast majority of dvd-packed console games today.

What could possibly cause the jump from most all games fitting on a 8gb dvd, to filling a 25gb blu-ray disc? Is the PS3 just that difficult to optimize for? Or do the developers just throw in more & more hd fmv's, maybe several demo fmv's of future releases?




surely...
By otispunkmeyer on 10/18/2006 4:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
some of the space has got to be taken up just including the multiple languages?

i thought blu-ray was so big that they could jus make one disc, instead of different disks for different parts of the world. you all buy the same one, then choose your language

surely thats part of the reason?




atari
By nah on 10/18/2006 5:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
remember the atari 2600--i played my first games there---still miss it




Cut scenes are a negative
By Eug on 10/18/2006 7:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
I HATE cut scenes. Why do they persist and keep expanding this "feature"?




Filling up already?
By Narutoyasha76 on 10/18/2006 1:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
Doubt IT. For one HD Games (excluding HD Movies) do not need 25 GB nor 50 GB unless the code was not optimized and full of garbage. Second, Sony's decision to hardwire a Blue-Ray disc player was purely a decision to push the technology in the HD-DVD vs BD-ROM format "wars." Third if it is true that games already need 25GB of space, then forget about buying Unreal Tournament 2007 or other "next gen" games for the PC (unless you have a 500+ GB hard drive).

Don't get me wrong, I would buy a PS3 (when it comes down to $299 or less) but I'm a little skeptic when it comes to filling a 25 to 50 GB disc with only one game.





Ha..
By XtremeM3 on 10/19/2006 1:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
I hope whoever was argueing with me months ago about game size is reading this. Regardless of why the games are utilizing the space - sloppy coding/cut scenes/audio...whatever. I told you so. The space is there, and developers will use it, and anyone who thinks they won't is just silly.

Jeff





For "filling data needs"
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2006 9:40:57 AM , Rating: 1
Blu-ray is worse than DVD.

The makers of Oblivion explicitly stated that the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 pulls data off the disc slower than DVDs. So yes there may be more data there, but the processor and GPU aren't going to get to it any faster from the disc than with a DVD.

Games like Gears of War seem to look just fine with "only" 8.5GB of space to work with.




Playstation: A History
By daftrok on 10/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: Playstation: A History
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 2:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
resolution has absolutely nothing to do with space requirements unless you're talking about video. and actually whether or not sound is 5.1 or 7.1 shouldnt either unless you are again talking about video. for a developer to hire the amount of people required to make a large amount of varied textures for a game to push it to 50 gigs would cost A LOT. games are already getting expensive just filling up a dvd9. graphics take more than space, they take people to make them in the first place.


RE: Playstation: A History
By Xavian on 10/18/2006 2:59:38 AM , Rating: 3
resolution means nothing for space. The resolution simply determines how many polygons make up a model, scene etc. Polygons themselves are NOT stored, they are built from code and textures are applied to them as a skin of sorts. the code and the textures are independant from 'full screen resolutions', the textures are expanded (or stretched if the texture is too small, but often the texture is large and is merely shrunk to fit the model) or shrunk depending on the resolution.

Thus the only thing that doubles in data are FMV's because they are not built in realtime, but rather built via a rendering server farm and then compressed and then stored on the disc. Anything built in realtime is completely independant of screen resolution.


RE: Playstation: A History
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 3:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
? resolution is only talking about the amount of pixels used to display a scene. the amount of polys and textures and all that nonsense is the exact same whether it be at 720p or 1080p, 1080p merely gives a sharper image.


RE: Playstation: A History
By daftrok on 10/18/2006 2:26:47 PM , Rating: 1
D-OH! That wa stupid of me. Well in that case its gonna be a REALLY long time before the 50 GB mark is pushed.


RE: Playstation: A History
By ViperROhb34 on 10/18/2006 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
I've read in two magazines.. I think one was game informer.. and the other had an article where they intervied the developers of Elder Scrolls- Oblivion.

Both mentioned the same thing... that the Bluray reads slower then DVD.. so load times would not be any beter.. according to Oblivion developers they could not make the loading any better on PS3 because of this..

Now I'm thinking.. how long will a 25-50gig game load on PS3? The load times even on DVD would be slow.. So they would almost certainly have to store part of the game on the Hardrive because loading off a disc that reads slower then DVD and is also 3-5 times the size.. SLOW !



will the ps3 haters please stand up
By Armorize on 10/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: will the ps3 haters please stand up
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 12:51:17 AM , Rating: 5
there will never be a day when a game doesnt come to the xbox360 merely due to dvd9 storage space. its really quite simple you see. if a dvd9 runs out of space, you just put the rest on another dvd9. i know that might be really complicated and confusing for you to understand, but nothing has prevented them from doing it since the playstations release, and i really doubt its going to become impossible all of the sudden.


By ViperROhb34 on 10/18/2006 9:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
I've read in two magazines.. I think one was game informer.. and the other had an article where they intervied the developers of Elder Scrolls- Oblivion.

Both mentioned the same thing... that the Bluray reads slower then DVD.. so load times would not be any beter.. according to Oblivion developers they could not make the loading any better on PS3 because of this..

Now I'm thinking.. how long will a 25-50gig game load on PS3? The load times even on DVD would be slow.. So they would almost certainly have to store part of the game on the Hardrive because loading off a disc that reads slower then DVD and is also 3-5 times the size.. SLOW !



By regnez on 10/18/2006 12:53:06 AM , Rating: 3
will the PS3 fanboy please stand down...


RE: will the ps3 haters please stand up
By akugami on 10/18/2006 1:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
Resistance: Fall of Man is said to take 20GB. But...uhhh....yeah...HD movies...multiple voice overs for the various international versions on the same disc. From what I've read of the developer blog, each level takes roughly 300MB of data. So...assuming outside of movies that it takes roughly 1GB of data for the core game elements (not that it comes anywhere near this mind you) and let's bump it up to 500MB of data per level, a 14 level game would only take 8GB. A DVD9 is 8.5GB. As for HD movies...considering the power of the PS3, they could easily do excellent quality real time cutscenes that should rival (or enough to not matter) CGI used on the PS2 and Xbox.

I've been arguing many times that the Blu-Ray drive that Sony fanboys always are raving about is nothing more than something that adds no value to the PS3 and is foisted on gamers in an attempt to win the HD movie market. A multi-billion dollar market from licensing fees. For the cost of manufactoring one BR disc, you can make 2-3 DVD9's. Transfer speed is just as fast on a decent DVD drive as a BR drive.

As for the visual quality of the games, I think a certain amount is going to be lost since only the videophiles and certain early adopters have HDTV's. From various reports, it's pegged at about 15-20% of the current TV viewing audience. While it's great that HDTV's are finally making inroads into consumer's homes, one has to realize that not all of them want or will even buy a games system. For Joe Consumer, the Wii will still look very good, though oviously not as good as the PS3. The problem is that the Xbox360 will look just as good as the PS3 on SDTV's and that extra oomph of the PS3 (which I don't consider a major advantage over the Xbox360) will mean little.

And while Nintendo related, why aren't there more news posts like this one http://tinyurl.com/y9c36y rather than the usual flamebait stuff?


By king272 on 10/18/2006 2:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone remeber VoOm? It too was targeted at a small audience and lost out to a service that catered to everyone not just HD videophiles.


RE: will the ps3 haters please stand up
By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 2:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
i actually doubt there will be any extra oomph over xbox360 titles. specs indicate that the xenos might actually be a faster part than the rsx. neither have good vram bandwidth, but the xenos has the edram which cuts back out the amount needed for it.


RE: will the ps3 haters please stand up
By otispunkmeyer on 10/18/2006 4:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
xenos is also a tile based renderer too. remeber the kyro cards? they were tile based, and for what they were they were pretty good


By ttnuagadam on 10/18/2006 4:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
its sort of tile based. it uses tiles to be able to fit an entire 720p framebuffer with fsaa and hdr etc in the edram. since the edram is only 10 megs it wont fit an entire frame at once, but since they can split it into tiles they just do chunks of the scene at a time. this way the only tax on the bandwidth as far as the framebuffer is concerned is storing the tiles rather than actually having to use the ddr3 bandwidth for the framebuffer.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Related Articles
Sony's Phil Harrison on 1080p, Blu-ray
September 27, 2006, 8:37 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki