Post by: KAGE360 on October 17, 2006, 12:33:00 PM
QUOTE
"Already, at our launch titles, we're getting up close to the 25GB limit that we have on our Blu-Ray discs this year," he claimed. "Next year we'll raise that to 50GB, and I'd expect that well be getting close to that in the fairly near future as well."
Speaking in an interview with GamesIndustry.biz journalist Rob Fahey, Harrison decried suggestions that the Blu-Ray drive had been included in the machine purely to push Sony's agenda with regard to Blu-Ray movies.
"It's got nothing to do with movies," he 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."
Speaking in an interview with GamesIndustry.biz journalist Rob Fahey, Harrison decried suggestions that the Blu-Ray drive had been included in the machine purely to push Sony's agenda with regard to Blu-Ray movies.
"It's got nothing to do with movies," he 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."
http://www.gamesindu...e.php?aid=20417
Post by: Pheidias on October 17, 2006, 12:43:00 PM
Post by: incognegro on October 17, 2006, 01:05:00 PM
Post by: epsilon72 on October 17, 2006, 01:42:00 PM
Post by: Pheidias on October 17, 2006, 01:53:00 PM
Post by: thax on October 17, 2006, 02:57:00 PM
Post by: Boydster on October 17, 2006, 03:16:00 PM
Probably is, they're just beefing up the story to make it sound better.
Post by: silentbob343 on October 17, 2006, 03:17:00 PM
QUOTE(thax @ Oct 17 2006, 04:28 PM) 
If space is so critical to games, then why aren't PC games getting enormous when they could be installed using multiple DVD's onto large HDDs?
It is a matter of compression techniques and how the game will be run. Take for example Battlfield 1942, 2 CDs, but when installed it is over 2.5GBs. More space could make thing easier for developers, but if I had to guess most of that 25GBs coming from Mpeg-2 HD cuts scenes etc. Like the above poster stated if they had all the different languages supported, different audio tracks for the languages etc, then that would also account for the size.
Did any of you guys see this over at hardocp? Thought it was pretty interesting.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/04/Ga..._be_70_smaller/
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Oct 17 2006, 10:19 PM
Post by: m_hael on October 17, 2006, 02:44:00 PM
http://www.gametrail...pe=wmv&id=14016
in which the guys pretty much says... they're using the space on R:FOM because they can... not because they need it.
Post by: Pheidias on October 17, 2006, 03:47:00 PM
That last plasma rifle in R:FOM looks of the hook.
And when you acctually don't need to ever worry about space being a problem I would think its easier for developers and producers to find ways to use and enhance the experience and take away any form of thinking in the line of, wait we can't use that it needs to much space.
I hope we will see 20 or so unlockable 1080p 2min clips for THPS.
Its never bad to have too much space, but it very bad to have too little space
Post by: m_hael on October 17, 2006, 04:06:00 PM
Post by: Deftech on October 17, 2006, 03:38:00 PM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 05:37 PM) 
without limits nothing gets better... it just gets bigger.
Post by: silentbob343 on October 17, 2006, 05:06:00 PM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 05:37 PM)
without limits nothing gets better... it just gets bigger.
While poetic, we both know constraints can be very big hindrances in the creative development of any product, but also serve to help keep teams focused. If a developer wants to use the excess space to be lazy they can, but I'm sure we'll also see developers utilize the increased capacity. Why have increases in processing power, i.e. CPU and GPU? There will always be limits they just get pushed further out with advances in technology, but they still exist and people will reach them.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Oct 18 2006, 12:07 AM
Post by: m_hael on October 17, 2006, 05:13:00 PM
Post by: twistedsymphony on October 17, 2006, 05:52:00 PM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 05:37 PM)
without limits nothing gets better... it just gets bigger.
I never thought of it that way but that really is quite true; where do our innovations come from but in attempt to overcome our limits.
If you look at the PC industry, hardware keeps getting faster and more powerful, yet as soon as the limits on hardware have been lifted, Windows and other bloatware make haste to utilize more hardware. The Sys Reqs for Vista are ludacris... What's encouraging MS to innovate in terms of making Windows more efficient?
Similarly the increased popularity of laptops has put a limit on size and heat for processors and as a result we've got whole product lines of processors that are not only faster but smaller and dissipate less heat. It wouldn't have ever happened if limits on the CPU size and heat output did not exist.
Post by: silentbob343 on October 17, 2006, 07:29:00 PM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 06:44 PM)
constraints are also what brings about the biggest jumps in technology & rendering.... without them things don't change or get better, they simply get bigger.
That word word makes a difference and was not in your original statement. Depending on your perspective the constraints will be different. For the HD DVD and Blu Ray Alliances the constraint was how to fit more data on to the standard 12cm disc, overcoming a physical constraint. Now if Blu-Ray and HD DVD disc were the size of old 33LP record I would agree they merely became bigger.
I wouldn't worry too much about encoding/rendering techniques not innovating because of the increased capacity. In my first post in this thread I linked to a story about more effective algorithms being tested that take 1GB of textures and shrink them to 300MB.
We both agree that constraints/limits help drive innovation, but just because a limit gets pushed back further does not always mean innovation will stop. To increase carrying capacity of discs you can; create more efficient codec’s and/or increase capacity of the media. Both can be used, just because you implement one solution doesn’t mean you can’t have the other.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Oct 18 2006, 02:39 AM
Post by: Foe-hammer on October 17, 2006, 07:42:00 PM
Post by: throwingks on October 17, 2006, 07:43:00 PM
Post by: m_hael on October 17, 2006, 08:11:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Oct 17 2006, 06:00 PM)
I wouldn't worry too much about encoding/rendering techniques not innovating because of the increased capacity. In my first post in this thread I linked to a story about more effective algorithms being tested that take 1GB of textures and shrink them to 300MB.
Allegorithmic's applications cannot be used in general purpose solutions so whilst their example is valid it isn't the norm. Their methods will NOT compress existing data, what they do is allow you to use algorithmic texture generation techniques within normal applications.
I already gave a fairly good rundown of the pro's and cons of their tech on another post... tho I can't find it now (might have been on xbox.com).
Post by: dvsone on October 17, 2006, 09:13:00 PM
Post by: KAGE360 on October 17, 2006, 11:24:00 PM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 17 2006, 10:18 PM)
I already gave a fairly good rundown of the pro's and cons of their tech on another post... tho I can't find it now (might have been on xbox.com).
you mean this rundown?:
QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 8 2006, 01:54 AM)
I hate to destroy any dreams here but... and its a BIG huge freaking massive but...
Allegorithmic's "new" techniques are not new; their "solution" is new. The product they are selling is a plugin that can generate textures from a set of variables; Procedural synthesis. What it does NOT do is compress an existing texture. This is what was meant when he said Developers need to learn how to use it.
The root of the problem lies in artistic flair, if your textures are generated by an algorithm then they are inherently mathematical : regular, patterned, repeating or fractal.
Whilst I don't doubt that some games can and will benefit largely from tech similar to this and probably from this solution too, I will say this ... artists don't like math and have an inate distrust of pixels they did not generate.
Elements this tech will be good at involve.
Asphalt
rocks
grass
tree's & foliage
noise
sky & clouds
textiles
fractals
normal maps for glass/steel/concrete
and many many more
what this tech is NOT good at is.
decals
photo-realistic anything
most games use a LOT of decals & photorealistic textures.
his estimate of 70% makes a HUGE assumption; that an entire game had EVERY texture designed using the tools they create. Sadly that tool cannot create a face, a hair style, an 'adio" shoe decal... so games which people in them simply cannot use it to the max.
It (procedural synthesis) will help - its already in use in many games - but it is not the saviour of all that is games nor is it going to ruin Blu-ray... it is simply another tool in our arsenal and in this case a product needing to sell and thus sensationalised by a sneaky headline.
Post by: NicoBech on October 18, 2006, 03:18:00 AM
QUOTE(dvsone @ Oct 18 2006, 04:44 AM)
Funny that sony says digital distrubution is the future, yet they are saying alot of their games will use close to 50GB of data this generation. Games need to shrink not grow in size.
My thoughts exactly.... why boast about e-distribution being the future, when you go out and say that games are goin to be closer to 50gB... with an ideal 10mbit down connection it would take around 14 hours to download a game.... and that would take an ecual good server... (i've got a 10mbit down and i've only come across a handfull of current server able to give me my 1meg/s down.....)
I personally doesn't think much of prerenders... give me engine-powered cutscenes and leave the cutscenes for all the new point and click adventure games that are going to be developed... (crossing my fingers and hoping..)
Post by: redwolf on October 18, 2006, 04:30:00 AM
Post by: Martinchris23 on October 18, 2006, 05:47:00 AM
IMHO it's either lazy coding (why compress/calculate on-the-fly when you have this much storage space?) or a massive inefficiency of the Cell architecture.
From experience, the less reading a drive needs to do of a storage medium the better - anyone know the MTBF for the PS3's drive?
Post by: m_hael on October 18, 2006, 06:52:00 AM
QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Oct 18 2006, 04:18 AM)
From experience, the less reading a drive needs to do of a storage medium the better - anyone know the MTBF for the PS3's drive?
< 360
Post by: Pheidias on October 18, 2006, 08:03:00 AM
2x blueray is ~75mbits/s and 12x dvd is ~ 120mbits
So the ps3 will move stuff slower of the discs then the xbox360.
Not sure though but if they utilize the HDD alot then they should be able to cache alot of the game and thereby not need the speed. But If the ps1 and ps2 is any indication the load times WILL be horrible
MTBF = Mean-time-between-failure?
This post has been edited by Pheidias: Oct 18 2006, 03:05 PM
Post by: throwingks on October 18, 2006, 08:22:00 AM
Post by: m_hael on October 18, 2006, 07:57:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Oct 18 2006, 06:53 AM)
^ No, no, no. MTBF = Maximum Time for Blu-ray's Failure.
a daily acronym for sure.