Let's Compare Tekken 6 Load Times

Late last month, Tekken 6 was released on the PS3 and the Xbox 360. The editors at Japan's Gemaga decided to see how the load times stack up.

Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions compared with the game running installed on the hard drive as well as running off the actual disk. When the game is installed on the hardware, there isn't that big of a difference between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 - the Xbox 360 is slightly fast by a few seconds, but no biggie.

However, according to Gemaga, it takes over thirty seconds (33 seconds, to be exact) to change a character and change a stage running the actual game disc on the PS3, compared with the 11 seconds it takes to start a fight on the Xbox 360 using the game disc.

The story is too old to be commented.
Immigrant3303d ago

.............................. ....

but watch them come in like fly to sh!t

vhero3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

Did anybody read the article?
"it takes over thirty seconds (33 seconds, to be exact) to change a character and change a stage running the actual game disc on the PS3, compared with the 11 seconds it takes to start a fight on the Xbox 360 using the game disc."
For the ps3 version they included the time it takes to pick your character however for 360 it clearly says "start a fight" so obviously doesn't include this time. Of course one is gonna be longer if you count more load screens HOW GOD DAMN BIASED IS THIS ARTICLE? There isnt a 30 second wait for your fight that would be a ludicrous amount of time! People this is crap. Also Kotaku are 360 notorious fanboys.

iamtehpwn3302d ago

Bluray has slower read speeds then DVD9,
But over all Bluray is much better due to capacity.

When loading is planned and coded properly, you end up with games like Uncharted 2 with practically no loading.

Anon19743302d ago

Game is slower running off the disk? Install it to hard drive.


I can't believe they're even comparing something that's so easily remedied. The question is, why didn't they just make a mandatory install? That's what the hard disk is there for.

ThanatosDMC3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

Actually, 30 seconds is extremely long for tekken. Tekken 5 online is the basis for this... people get pissed off that you wait for some douchebag to get out of the lobby, to pick a character, and then to pick a level. Then you ownt him in three rounds flat.

I usually kick/ban those people from joining my hosted games.

Tekken is superior to any fighting game, btw... especially DOA and VF.

Also, isnt there an install option to "fix" the load times. I wish we could just buy the game on PSN. It's not that big after all, i mean it's on a dvd.

commodore643302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

Well this is a bit embarrassing isn't it.

In the past we have had ps3 fans fallaciously trying to assert that multiplats on ps3 were getting better, yet the loading times of tekken6, out of the box are demonstrably 3 TIMES AS SLOW as the 360, when running disc vs disc.

I have yet to meet a person who likes loading screens, thus slow loading detracts from the gaming experience. Most reasonable people would agree.

Certainly the facts show that in quite a number of other very recent multiplats, the loading times, on ps3 - even with mandatory install - are slower than the 360 running straight off the disc.
Games in this category include Borderlands and Tekken6.
There is factual evidence for this.
If you don't believe me, get on google and do some homework.

Ultimately, I have to echo the sentiments of kotaku when they infer that the 'gaming experience', in these recent cases, is subpar on ps3.

It is now nearly 2010.
As a ps3 owner, I certainly am disappointed.
Aren't you?

talltony3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

How could you be? Sony took a chance with the cell and investing in new technology. Sony knew they would have enough 1st and 2nd party games to show what the ps3 was capable of. They figured night and day better exclusive games quality would be better than marginal multiplat differences. But how could u deny that multiplats are becoming better on ps3 lately? They really are constantly improving and in some cases actually being superior on ps3.

commodore643302d ago (Edited 3301d ago )

@ talltony

hmmm. I just stated why i was disappointed.
DIdn't you read my post?

People keep talking as if ps3 multiplats are getting near even, or better, yet Borderlands, Tekken6, Bayonetta, Ghostbusters are all very recent evidence to the contrary.

Maybe it's true that ps3 multis are getting better overall. I am certainly remaining hopeful that this will happen.
However it certainly is true that, on the whole, on many levels, they are still not quite on par.

I just find it somewhat irksome that 360 users have paid less money for supposedly shoddy hardware, yet they continue to factually demonstrate that 90% of their games run equally as well, if not better than the premium ps3.

In any case, my comment re 'disappointment' was specifically to do with loading times. Aren't you disappointed with the ps3 loading times? Even from the mandatory HDD the ps3 is often slower, or barely equal. Sure there are one or two exceptions, but a trend has been established - there can be no doubt.

On my PC I would expect faster loading from the HDD 100% of the time.
Why not the ps3?
That's a fair comment, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong.
I love my ps3 like you do.
But let's be honest.

SL1M DADDY3302d ago (Edited 3301d ago )

No? Me neither.

As for the article, who cares, the game sucks anyway. Sorry, but this game is a demonstration of poor development and how fighting games need a boost in order to maintain popularity. This game does not cut it, plain and simple.

commodore643302d ago Show
TotalPS3Fanboy3301d ago

"It is now nearly 2010.
As a ps3 owner, I certainly am disappointed.
Aren't you?"

We are not disappointed at our PS3s. We are disappointed at third party multi-platform developers.

Anon19743301d ago (Edited 3301d ago )

I'd love to see a link to that stat.

The fact is, according to game reviewers multiplats are better now on the PS3. They struggled at the start in 2007, evened out in 2008 and now routinely score higher then the 360 versions.

And I can back that up.

What are you going off of? A couple of sites that have done questionable "comparisons" on only a fraction of the multiconsole games out there?

Thanks, I'll stick with the opinions of hundreds of actual game reviewers, not a couple of pixel counters.

And when did you get a PS3 that you love so much? Wasn't it just last month you said you didn't have a PS3 because you couldn't afford it? Or was that two months ago?

commodore643301d ago (Edited 3301d ago )

"90% of their games run equally as well, if not better than the premium ps3. "

IS what i said.
You misquoted, again, darkride66.
Please pay attention to the details.

If you continue to misquote me in a public forum, as you did with LOT not so long ago, people might think you do it habitually and jump to all sorts of negative conclusions about you.

As someone who, quite rightly, is concerned about reputation, you should maybe also think about the accuracy of your public comments and assertions, especially with regard to quoting me and other websites.
Think about that - it has implications for you!

Seeing as this has now happened numerous times, you have to ask yourself if your reputation on n4g in this regard is not self-inflicted?
People take notice, you know...

It wouldn't take much for you to pay attention to the details and quote people and websites correctly, especially when it is self-evident that you misquoted ME!

That's fair, isn't it?
I know you are sensitive about any kind of harrassment, so I won't harp on.

Personal responsibility and accountability, if you please, my dearest of all gaming friends!

Anon19743300d ago (Edited 3300d ago )

I have to admit, I didn't read carefully enough. You've made the claim in the past that 100% of PS3 multiplatform games were gimped compared to their 360 versions, I must of had that in the back of my head when I read over this quote.

Still, 90% of 360 games are the same or better then the PS3 versions? Again, where are you getting this info from, because I'd love to see an actual comparison done. According to Metacritic scores, the majority of PS3 mulitplats have reviewed better this year. Not the same, but better, on average, then 360 versions. Obviously there's some disconnect between actual review scores and your 90% claim. I'm just trying to figure out why.

I will make a more concentrated effort in the future to not misquote you. My apologies.

Also, congrats on finally getting a PS3! They're nice little systems. Have you tried Uncharted or UC2 yet?

commodore643300d ago (Edited 3300d ago )

"90% of 360 games are the same or better then the PS3 versions"

Apples to apples comparisons:

----------------------------- -
360 win 105
360/ps3 tie 54
ps3 win 15
total 'apples to apples' 174.

91% of games in eurogamer comparison better or equal on 360.
(excluding ties, 86% of of all multiplats run better on the 360)

360 win 22
360/ps3 tie 22
ps3 win 14
total 'apples to apples' 58

76% of games in IGN comparison better or equal on 360.
(excluding ties 61% of multiplats, run better on 360)

----------------------------- ------
Lens of truth

360 win 25
360/ps3 tie 9
ps3 win 8
total 'apples to apples' 42.

81% of games in LOT comparison are better or equal on 360.
(excluding ties 74% of multiplats run better on the 360
----------------------------- ---

Hmmm, so yeah.
I guess i wasn't too far off and the industry supports my assertion, broadly speaking.

Eurogamer absolutely matches my pretty accurate estimate of 90% of games being equal or better on 360. (91%)
LOT nearly exactly matches and supports my assertion. (85%)
IGN shows some support for my estimate. (76%)

What is even more amazing though is, if we EXCLUDE ties, the 360 runs better multiplats: 61% IGN), 74%(LOT) and 86%(euro) of the time, based on the statistics shown.


In any case, statistically speaking, Eurogamer has by far the largest sample of multiplats and thus is the most statistically accurate analysis. Concurrently their percentage calculated to verify my assertion, EXCEEDS my assertion.

In fact, I think Eurogamer would about the only site on the net to have done so many 'apples-to-apples' comparisons.
Their rigorous analysis method and breadth of study is second to none.

The onus is on you, now, darkride66, to show me studies which refute these objective and verifiable 'apples-to-apples' studies.

Metacritic scores are not applicable for comparisons, as the scores are arbitrarily weighted according to the subjective whims of the guy who runs the site. Not only that, but NONE of the reviews actually compare apples-to-apples.

You knew that, right,darkride66?
You knew that Metacritic scores are skewed and subjective, unscientific and generalised, because they have arbitrary weightings given to scores, decided subjectively by the metacritic site owner?
... well, now you know!

Overall I think I have proven my point, with statistically accurate, measurable, objective analysis using 'apples to apples' comparison data.

I'll refer to this link in the future, when fanboys try to erroneously bring up metacritic scores when comparing cross-platform, as it is demonstrably a flawed strategy.

Anon19743300d ago

If these are all truly "apples to apples" comparisons, why all the discrepancies? Pretend for a moment that Eurogamer doesn't have a proven 360 bias in their reviews (I smiled when I saw they counted the Xbox 360 version of Orange box as 4 separate wins), how is it that in these comparisons there's still so many discrepancies between the various sites? Why did this article take Eurogamer's results as default when, for example, they say a version of game is tied while others say the PS3 version wins? Shouldn't that tip the scales in favor of the PS3 when this happens?

All the more reason why I'll stick with Metacritic scores over these questionable comparisons. The bulk of professional reviewers still say PS3 multiplats have the edge based on their own review scores. Eurogamer has a proven pro 360 bias and LOT's conclusions often border on the ridiculous. All this does is further illustrate how useless these types of comparisons are.

The problem is with your faith in these so called "apples to apples" comparisons. There simply isn't enough data to make them worthwhile, and given Eurogamer's bias, right there that taints the bulk of your examples. Because we know that Eurogamer consistently reviews 360 exclusives higher than the average game reviewer and consistently reviews PS3 exclusives lower than the average review, a clear bias exists. Right from the beginning, Eurogamer has been tight with Microsoft, even pushing their video service exclusively on XBL. Of course it's in their best interests to actively promote their partners. You wouldn't go to a racist to get information on black history month, would you?

You may have issues with Metacritic, but the industry doesn't. When deciding what games to take off XBL, Microsoft went with Metacritic scores. Ahead of sales numbers, stock prices for game companies are influenced by, you guessed it, Metacritic scores.

How are these examples you provide any better? We know Eurogamer's bias, we've seen LOT make ridiculous conclusions when deciding on their winners - see, to me that automatically brings everything they do into question, as it should with any thinking gamer. All it takes is for LOT to say two seconds difference in load time is the same as terrible controls once to make you sit back and question the validity of the rest of their comparisons.

To be more accurate in the future and to not give the wrong impression, perhaps when quoting that 90% of multiplats are the same or better on the 360, maybe you should precede that statement with "according to Eurogamer". Or, if you wish to use the IGN numbers you could say, "Of the roughly 15 percent of multiplatform games that IGN compared head to head, they found the 360 version was superior 38% of the time."

That would certainly go a long way to putting this data into perspective, rather than presenting it like the 90% same or better on the 360 number is some kind of hard fact.

You do what you have to to justify your purchasing decisions. If this is what you choose to make your decisions on, who am I to say you're wrong? Myself, I'm going to side with the game industry on this one and pay attention to the Metacritic scores and reviewers I trust.

And what does Metacritic tell us? Multiplats sucked on the PS3 in 2007, caught up in 2008, pulled ahead in 2009. And it's always nice to play them on reliable hardware without having to shell out for ridiculous subscription fees to play online.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3300d ago
NJShadow3303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

This is probably due to the fact that all PS3s come with hard drives and Namco probably focused on load time goals there. Also, Blu-Ray drives, despite being able to read massive amounts of data, load a tad bit slower than your typical disc drive. However, there is really no excuse for this as Uncharted 2 had quite literally NO load times. Time to step up Namco!

NaiNaiNai3302d ago


A tad bit

Try 2X against 24X+

cyclindk3302d ago

You don't know what that 2x or 24x is multiplying, that's ONE of the reasons why you're wrong...

The 2x on blu-ray means two times a different figure than 24x.

Not to mention the 360 doesn't read all layers of the dvd at the same rate either (reduced speed for second layer)

Mostly the 360's dvd speed is faster, but since the technologies are different it's hardly reasonable to simply compare the 2x and 24x speeds. It's nowhere CLOSE to that degree of difference though and in many situations the 2x blu-ray can actually outperform a the 360's drive, but I'm not going to get into any of this due to the fact you obviously don't grasp even the basics of past and present optical formats.

NaiNaiNai3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )


If its faster why does it always take longer to load the same amount of data. Because its not faster.

And yes it is a 2X read speed of set data that is equal to the same data that is read at 24X on the regular dvd system in the 360.

Why do you think they put the same data in multiple places on the blu-ray disk, its so the 2X read laser doesn't have to go back as far and read old data. So they place it around the system to save time as well it uses up space so really blu-ray is completely pointless since in truth it only adds 2-5 GBs more then a standard DVDDL because of the multi code placed in it.

So don't test me kid, I already know plenty of the mighty BR system and its not worth the trouble, especially since its impossible to increase its read speed, Only its burn speed, but thats only at 4x and has been out for over 4 years.

cyclindk3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

Blu-ray: transfer rate of 36.0Mbps 1x (1.5x for video and audio though)

DVD: transfer rate of 11.08Mbps 1x (LESS for video and audio)

Now take those "x" numbers and do the math, see how 'big' a difference there is.

And again ignore all the other difference if you want after you figure this one out..


Yes, the 360's optimal read speed is a bit over twice as fast as the 2x blu-ray drive in the PS3 (without the blu-ray using capacity advantages and duplicating data), but this is obviously not the same as displaying 2x versus 16x by any means, as though it were eight times as fast or something. And anyway, that speed is reduced on DVDs when reading the second layer, about half I believe.

cyclindk3302d ago

"And yes it is a 2X read speed of set data that is equal to the same data that is read at 24X on the regular dvd system in the 360."

This is completely false, I don't know where you heard this but it was an entirely misinformed source.

Blu-ray speeds are proportionally faster than DVD speeds, the 360 ousts the PS3's blu-ray drive because it IS a "proportionally" higher end drive as far as DVD drives go; this means a 16x blu-ray drive will be much faster than the equivalent (16x) DVD drive as the base 1x values are different.

NaiNaiNai3302d ago

Here I will make it simple for you. *because you said it wrong yourself*

blu-ray only does 4.5 megabites a second while DVD-9 does 1.35 a second, now if we do the sytems X factor.

blu ray reads less then 10 MBps, while the DVD-9 does 32MBps

Don't even bother adding in addition Space from the blu-ray because that would just make the read speed even slower.

don't get me wrong, Blu-ray is a great media...........For movies. but it was never made to work for games.

Go back and look at what used to happen with the games that didn't use the extra space for data speed reduction. Games like motorstorm, you would pick your car have to wait 3-5 seconds to load your paint, then pick another paint and wait another 3-5 seconds. Then if you picked another car the game would take 10 seconds to find the car and load it.

cyclindk3302d ago

I don't know why you're making an issue of the bits or bytes as the conversions I used are correct either way, so it's sort of an arbitrary point to make, but oh well.

Where are you getting the 32 MB for DVD, are you using the 24x figure?

Since when does the 360 have a 24x drive?

Max read speed I am aware of is 16x, which is referenced everywhere, but I can't seem to find a source that would indicate any 360 possess a 24x drive.

16x would put the speed around 21 to the PS3's 9 so....

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3302d ago
Excalibur3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

The screen shot crap wasn't bad enough now we are comparing load times?
This one was faster that that one by a whole 30 seconds?!? Gasp!!!

Who gives a F*(k!!!
Why do so many people have to fight with each other over who's system is better?
Bottom line we are all gamers, can't we just put this silly crap aside and enjoy gaming?

Get over it already.

3302d ago
3302d ago
Iceman X3302d ago

Did you guys notice they never said anything about the install, which i have Tekken 6 and when it's installed load times are the same as the arcade. they are talking about raw speed without the install which doesn't matter because any1 that has a PS3 and Tekken 6 will install it for better load times. Tekken 6 only take about 4.3 gb. Nice story but in the end , Kotaku = fail.

corneliuscrust3302d ago (Edited 3302d ago )

"When the game is installed on the hardware, there isn't that big of a difference between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 - the Xbox 360 is slightly fast by a few seconds, but no biggie."

...seems like it says installed for that part... and that was in the summary.

Marty83703302d ago

Speed of loading from a hard drive depends alot on the make & model of the hard drive in the PS3 or 360.

I know Sony does'nt stick to same make & model with ther PS3's so the specs can vary.

Not sure about Microsoft, but I'll guest specs could vary also.

Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.