BioShock PS3 dev: 'Blu-ray hasn't made much difference'

Sony's Blu-ray technology "hasn't made much difference" to the upcoming PS3 version of stupendously great 360 and PC FPS BioShock, the game's associate producer has told

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Le-mo3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Of course not, as a developer it's in their best interest to keep the versions the same.

UNCyrus3732d ago

they got the quote wrong... "(we didn't utilize its potential, so) blu-ray hasn't made much difference"

InMyOpinion3732d ago

"In terms of specific things, it hasn't made much difference. The original game fit on a 360 disk so it wasn't like we were in need of room. We've tried to do what we can to make sure that the PS3 looks just as great as the 360, but in terms of necessarily utilising something specific about Blu-ray, to my knowledge, Blu-ray hasn't necessarily made a huge difference."

DARKKNIGHT3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

LOL. thats because its a port. A port which was kept timed exclusive for a long time. why would they make it better? thy made their bread. I dont understand how people post this FUD. Why compare a port? lets compare heavyhitters this fall. then well see what the verdict is. I know the answer, but i wont state it due to it being my personal opinion and i dont wanna offend anyone.

edit: lookits the 3 amigos hitting disagree. I wonder who that is? mart/firstknight/pog= same person...

Bangladesh3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

It has more to do with devs being forced to use redundant data to compensate for the ps3's slow read speed. It would seem like if Sony had really wanted blu-ray to revolutionize gaming this gen, they would have put something better than a 2x speed BR player in the ps3. Sadly, instead gamers have gotten redundant data and mandarory installs(wtf 25gb of space on the disc), when they should have had epic 100-200 hr games.

This isn't suprising because of the methods devs must take to make a game run properly on the ps3.

Winter47th3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

You think? porting a game from a last-gen format ' 9 gigs DVD' to a next-gen '50 gigs Blue-Ray' won't make much of a difference cause, well, your efforts are last-gen-ish.

HowarthsNJ3732d ago

Redundant data can be found on DVD as well. Oblivion being a good example.


This is pointless. Like i said before, THIS FALL is where the show is at. Comparing 1 year old software is pretty worthless when the big guns are around the corner. publisher is either begging for hits or tryna start sumthin

Idonthatejustcreate3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Bangladesh we are talking about the sheer amount of content you can put on the blueray disc not the speed of it. If they had utilize the blueray to the max they could have extended the gameplay of bioshock by approximetly 280%.

But here you are bashing on the ps3 again with every chance you get. Some people just can't be unbiased but I guess there's an ignore button for a reason...

rexor07173732d ago

Like they are going to do more than port it to have so much more. It will look better, but not so much better.

Bangladesh3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Are you saying that no ps3 games have mandatory installs? Are you saying that the average ps3 game is an epic game of 25gb worth of space? Because it would be lieing if it is. 25gb!! That's 5 times more space than it takes to make an average game.

@just create
So you guys are talking about something that the ps3 can't possibly do? That doesn't make sense.

Freckler3732d ago

Bangladesh is right mates, what he said has been common knowledge for over a year now. Some of you must be new to this generation.

PopEmUp3732d ago

finally you have a decent post bubble for you but not yet I need to see more of those comments coming from you, not some fanboish comments you've made in the past

Tweedy3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Can a guy make a point and back it up with proof and get bullied with disagrees.

Nice point Bangladesh.

whoelse3732d ago

When its just a port with a few minor improvements, obviously Blu-ray is less important.

HowarthsNJ3732d ago

No. I said Blu-ray being slow is a myth.

It's slightly slower than a single layer DVD 9, but equal to or slightly faster than a Double layer DVD 9.

Most if not all disc based 360 games are double layer DVD 9 with the game content not exceeding 6.7 GBs stored on the faster read areas of the DVD. MS's hidden files fill the rest of the disc.

Blu-ray can equal or better the performance of Dual layered DVD 9.

Ms Miller from 2K has been spouting the same mantra about Bioshock PS3 for months even though the game was passed on to another developer for the finishing touches.

I don't think she would be the one to go to about the final product on blu-ray. Even if they are able to lessen the compression by a few GBs that would be an improvement over DVD 9.

Bangladesh3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

I think that you are bending things alot.

iceman28853732d ago

That quote from the article hit the nail on the head.

I've never heard of people talking about blu-ray improving the game by anything other than allowing the developer to include more data on a disc and thus make the game bigger, more detailed, etc...

So logically, if the game already fit onto a smaller disc, what benefit would the blu-ray provide? Unless the developer wants to go into the original game and add in more gameplay or detail than the orignal game, then the blu-ray really doesn't make that much of a difference.

I hope that made sense.

DJ3732d ago

Let's see what Bethesda has to say about the "Redundant Data" blu-ray myth:

"Bethesda's Pete Hines also commented that recent reports of data duplication on the PS3 Oblivion disc have been exaggerated, and this technique isn't different from the Similar Strategy that was employed in the creation of the Xbox 360 Game last year."

Data duplication has been employed ever since the release of the PS1. If you have the space, use it.

HowarthsNJ3732d ago

I used this guy's research:

Single Layer DVD is 1.57MB per second Faster than Single Layer Blu-ray at data transfer (on average).

Dual Layer DVD is 1.07MB per second Slower than Single Layer Blu-ray at data transfer (on average).

Armyless3732d ago

I can't believe this article is "news" to anyone.

If you copy a "floppy" to a CD, the CD extra space hasn't made much difference.


I have 2 questions for the developer.
1) Why are you even using Blu-Ray to print your PORT of the game for the PS3? Why not just give them a DVD too?
2) If every console had next-gen storage, do you think the development of this game would have stopped at DVD capacity?

BoBo333732d ago

From what I've read and seen with my own two eyes, what Bangladesh posted is FACT. How many ps3 games do you have installed right now? The publically revealed reason for these installs is to help load times. And what is the cause of slow load times? A slow read speed. And what is another method besides installs to help load times? Duplicate data.

Hey atleast the ps3's puny 2x speed drive is whisper quiete.

DJ3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Because every PS3 comes with an internal hard drive that developers can, and should use. Hard Drives stream data exponentially faster than disc-based media, whether you're talking about CDs, DVDs, or Blu-ray.

It essentially eliminates load times, the bane of videogames, while also retaining the graphical and audio fidelity that current-gen games require. Also Bobo, it's important to understand that Slow Load Times are only partially reliant on data streaming off a storage device.

The second factor is system architecture (bandwidth, CPU speed, etc).

The third factor is proper programming.

Expy3732d ago

"It has more to do with devs being forced to use redundant data to compensate for the ps3's slow read speed. It would seem like if Sony had really wanted blu-ray to revolutionize gaming this gen, they would have put something better than a 2x speed BR player in the ps3. Sadly, instead gamers have gotten redundant data and mandarory installs(wtf 25gb of space on the disc), when they should have had epic 100-200 hr games."

John Carmack would completely disagree... which really puts you in the dust. You'll see, with his next game, RAGE, that the additional space will be an issue going down the road this gen, he's stated himself that Blu-Ray is PS3's big advantage.

gameplayer3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Look, Blu-ray's strength is it's space. It's Achille's heel (at 2x Blu-ray speed vs 12x DVD speed) is it's read speed. Period. (It has nothing to do with the 2x being a smaller number than 12x for people that don't know much about the two standards)

1. Blu-ray is a Constant Linear Velocity device. This is done because the drive is only capable of reading data up to a certain threshold (DVD started it's life like this also) so the disc spins slower and slower as it reads data farther and farther out from the center of the disc. The big point here is that the disc has to physically spin faster and slower to read from different areas. It takes milliseconds for the read head to move to a different part of the disc but it takes dozens of milliseconds for the disc to speed up or slow down causing a lag for each file read. This is why developers are forced to replicate data all over the disc to physically put the data for each area of the game close together on the disc. This helps minimize the effect and keeps it from being hundreds of extra milliseconds vs dozens of extra milliseconds but those milliseconds add up, and quickly. It has forced many developers to install games on the ps3's hard drive instead. Ironically, the larger the level on a Blu-ray disc, the worse the data lag because it uses up a larger section of the disc.

2. DVD is a Constant Angular Velocity device. It always spins at the same speed so data is read faster as you move closer to the outside of the disc. This eliminates the extra lag created by having to speed up and slow down how fast the disc is spinning. The problem with the fanboys is they always compare blu-ray to the AVERAGE read speed of DVD. This is retarded. Games are MASTERED. This means that the game data for levels are placed at the outside of the disc where the read speed is fastest and things like music, cutscenes, menus etc are placed along the inside of the disc where the read speed is slower. Furthermore, if a game is 6Gb instead of the full 8.5Gb capacity of the disc, then the inside area of the disc is filled with useless data so all of the game data is as far from the center as possible and the maximum read speed is >>ALWAYS<< reached. This is BASIC stuff guys. Mastering techniques have been used for almost as long as DVD has existed and if a developer didn't use them, it would be considered INCOMPETENT. Like fire my @ss I'm so eff'ing stupid incompetent.

There is no doubt in my mind that Blu-ray will become faster than DVD as the technology ramps up over time (actually I think that the next generation drives will in fact be faster) but the PS3 will always have a 2x Blu-ray drive and the 360 will always have a 12x DVD drive and a 2x Blu-ray drive will always be slower than a 12x DVD drive(disc mastering is a given assumption).

And for the love of god people, it's >>BLU-RAY<< not blueray or blue-ray .

DJ, data replication is a common mastering technique aswell which minimizes lag caused by minimizing movement of the read head (and changing disc speed for Blu-ray). Peter Hines didn't lie here, it is common industry practice.

3732d ago
DJ3732d ago

Yeah, exactly what I was saying. It's a common industry practice that dates WAY back, and a clever one at that.

Montrealien3732d ago

yet another article to get people up in arms for nothing. I`m just happy people that could not enjoy this game on the 360 will have a chance to on the PS3 now. We all know both consoles are very comparable in the gfx department, no storage medium will ever change that.

Montrealien3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Mr Carmack said he needed 3 discs for the same result and didn`t want to pay royalties for it, so someone is missunderstanding. ;D

popup3732d ago

The fact that the dev says "The original game fit on a 360 disk so it wasn't like we were in need of room" said it all! If they had quadrupled the size of the game and added an hour of HD footage then I imagine it would be advantageous to have Blu-Ray for the PS3 version. This is called common sense if you understand this and delusional paranoia if you don't.

Can't everyone just save for all the consoles and just talk about the games instead? :)

Ateanboy3732d ago

OFCOURSE it hasn't made much difference!!!
The game was initially created to fit on 1 DVD!!!
If the game where to have been made from scratch on the PS3, and it wasn't just a port, then they would be saying something quite different!


Beast_Master3732d ago

Wasn't the original game built using the unreal engine as well. Unreal and PS3 do not make a good match (Turok, Unreal 3) which is why so many developers are now either building their own engines or buying other ones other than epics.

DaTruth3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

Is 12x a unit of speed? Or is it 12* faster than original DVD speed. Isn't it possible that they didn't judge the Blu-ray disk speed from the original 1998 DVD speed and are actually judging it on the original BR-disk read speed, thus 2x 2006 tech speed.
Not to mention that the information is in a smaller space due to the size of the laser beam, so likely reading more at a slower speed which would explain why the read speeds are so close(not including X-box fanboy angry about HD-DVD information sites).

iamtehpwn3732d ago

It was a game Designed for a single DVD9.
Of course bluray isn't making much of a difference in this case.
But as MGS4 proved, some games absolutely need bluray.

princejb1343732d ago

of course it made no difference
the game was already made
its not like they extending the story in any way to make it a longer game

pixelsword3732d ago

This article is a big win for PS3 owners
...if the whole game fit on a DVD, OF COURSE Blu-Ray won't make a difference. So how is this a big win for PS3 owners? For all of the Naysayers of the PS3 who always said the Blu-Ray had to copy the game multiple times for it to run on a Blu-Ray... The Bioshock Devs PROVED THEM WRONG.

+ Show (33) more repliesLast reply 3732d ago
RadientFlux3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

not surprising, since the original game did fit on a DVD, now if the PS3 had twice the ram as X360 you might see better textures.

edit: I am quite aware of how much ram the PS3 has, the only reason I mentioned it is usually how much ram a system/console has that dictates the quality of the textures. Espically when the environment isn't wide open.

PirateThom3732d ago

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM as the 360, but half of it runs faster.

PirateThom3732d ago

I'm honestly still trying to work out the disagrees from this...

XBox 360 - 512 MB GDDR3 RAM @700 MHz
PS3 - 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz and 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

256 + 256 = 512, so that's the same....
3.2Ghz = 3200Mhz = 4.5 x 700Mhz = FASTER!

Really... do you people even THINK!?

morganfell3732d ago

But you actually hit the nail on the head. The game was designed for DVD9. It isn't like they bothered using higher res textures for which there were plenty of room on Bluray. Or adding additional areas to the SP Campaign. They actually did a nose above the bare amount of work by adding challenge rooms.

A 757 isn't an advantage over a Cessna 172 if the airline is only going to sale the same number of seats on the 757 as are on the Cessna 172. Bluray is no different. If devs aren't going to avail themselves of the space, if they are going to choose to develop within the limits of last generation then of course there will be no advantage.

Look at modern graphics cards or even 3D acceleration. There has been a resurgence lately of titles that are something of a throwback in graphical terms. Are they still good games? Yes, for PSN and Live Arcade. Are they pushing the limits? No.

For a dev not to avail themselves of a modern technological advantage like Bluray is no different than a dev pushing modern consoles no farther than the N64.

I love this ridiculous argument I hear from certain people I have not yet blocked that goes something like this: "You don't need more space than DVD9. There are plenty of great games on DVD9." Really? By that moronic line of reasoning devs shouldn't push modern console any harder than the N64 since there were plenty of great games using that amount of storage medium. Great games on DVD9 is an epic fail as an argument against using Bluray.

gameplayer3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

piratethom, the ps3 has more memory reserved for system operating tasks than the 360. Yes, they have the same amount of ram but the ps3 has a little less available to the developer. Also, some would argue that being able to split 512MB into any proportion is an advantage over the 256+256 configuration so one is a little faster and one is a little more flexible... advantage - who knows? Probably depends on the game and what the developer wants to do.

edit, I'm not one of the people that hit disagree btw. Not my style, I just state my opinion instead of doing the phantom disagree. :)

Bangladesh3732d ago

And if anyone needs to know, the reason the ps3 has less useable RAM is because it has a much larger OS footprint.

DaTruth3732d ago

They could have streamed higher res uncompressed textures off the BR-disk. But than they would have to practically re-do the entire game, when it's already a decent title. And MS would have a heart attack they're insecure. Last Gen we never heard all this "we're making the games exactly the same" If the Xbox could handle more than often they would do more, instead we have burnout island free download that would have fit on the BR-Disk but MS would cry.

DaTruth3732d ago

How much ram does it take to uncompress the highly compressed music and textures on the 360 that won't be compressed on the PS3? I know my computer can't play matroska video because it's too highly compressed.

DevastationEve3732d ago

you're forgetting the 10mb edram


ps3 has 256mb + 256mb
360 has 512mb + 10mb

And that edram is many times over the speed of the xdr. If people say that having 256mb of xdr is like having 1gb of gddr3, then just imagine how much having 10mb of edram would compare to the xdr.

Now, on a side note it's not just so easy to say that the memory is "like" having more. The addresses end at "x", so there's no way to address more. They still need to anticipate that there is ONLY "x" memory and that's IT. The speed just means how much can EVENTUALLY be accessed, over "n" time. The more bandwidth, the sooner it can get to the next chunk of "x" memory.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3732d ago
dro3732d ago

yep it did not make much difference because they did not plan to make the ps3 version look any different from the 360,if u want an example of a blu ray game just by MGS4...(-_-)

bumnut3732d ago

we can't have 2 towelies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

jojo3193732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

For MGS4, how much of the BR disc is taken up by movies, and how much of it is the actual game? does anybody know? I'm just curious.

I will never understand why people disagree with questions.

INehalemEXI3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

I would say 85% is taken up by game and assets. 15% FMV and its pretty close to using up the whole dual layer BD. The movies have semi-interactive qualitys as well. For example during the mission brief you can explore using the MK II. Another example would be snake peeping Naomi's assets at certain points in a cinematic you may have the ability to press a button and alter your view point.

mindedone3732d ago

That the scenes are not prerendered. Prerendered scenes take up much more space than those that are not. What would take up a lot of space is the music, voice acting, SFX, etc.

The_EE_God3731d ago

Well, you're wrong. The entire game is 33.2 GB. About 26.56 of them are uncompressed audio.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3731d ago
LiquifiedArt3732d ago

Ofcourse it doesn't. They arent pushing the limits of it. lol. What a retarted comment. And a horrible article just to start a flame war.

spunnups3732d ago

This article should be deleted but it's N4G, anything goes!

AuburnTiger3732d ago

"Graphical quality our goal was always to make sure everything looked just as good as on Xbox 360. So there was never anybody who could say, hey, why didn't I get this on 360 originally, because I don't feel like it's up to the visual quality. We're just trying to make sure that everybody is happy."

This is a perfect example how one game was held back because of another's limitations.

TheExecutive3732d ago (Edited 3732d ago )

uhhh.... they developed the game for the lowest common denominator, of course a BETTER technology didnt make a difference how would it?

EDIT: ugh. To the disagrees, I am not talking about the 360vsPS3 I am talking about DVD and Bluray.

Andor_Trask3732d ago

which basically is 360vsPS3 lol....but I know what you meant lol