PS3 Oblivion Seeing Double To Counteract Blu-Ray

In the newest February 2007 issue of EGM an interesting tidbit is hidden in the middle of a story about Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. Specifically, it comes from Todd Howard, talking about the PlayStation 3 version of Oblivion.

Howard notes: "Drive speed matters more to me [than capacity], and Blu-ray is slower", with EGM revealing that "the PS3 Oblivion team compensated for the slower drive by duplicating data across the Blu-ray disc, making it faster to find and load."

Read Full Story >>
bung tickler6398d ago

dumbest attempt to put a positive spin on blu-g@y ever...

grifter0246398d ago

"I'm getting twice the game with my future Oblivion for PS3 purchase. Advantage: Sony!" How are you getting twice the game???? Is there more game in oblivion then im led to beleive???? Ive only played half the game???? I dont understand weird... but then again most people on this forum dont really listen to you so whatever.. just wait to get your ps3.. okkk buddy.

DJ6398d ago

He's just quoting the author of the article. No reason to start up crap.

This is probably one of the most clever tricks I've seen yet. I wonder if other devs are going to start copying this method considering there's plenty of space on Blu-ray for this.

BIadestarX6398d ago (Edited 6398d ago )

WHAT! WTF! "This is probably one of the most clever tricks I've seen yet." That's nice spin! But something hind the back of you head made you say this, "I wonder if other devs are going to start copying this method considering there's plenty of space on Blu-ray for this.". Now ask yourself this questions. What's the point of having the extra space if developers have to resolve to fill the disk with crap that they wouldn't have to do if the blu-ray drive wouldn't be so slow. This is extra work for the developers. This is redundant! " I wonder if other devs are going to start copying this method considering there's plenty of space on Blu-ray for this. " Well, only for the PS3 since obviously they will not have a choice. For once DJ admit that Sony screw up on this one. Even the Idea that developers have to place the content multiple times to compensate blu-ray broken speed sounds bad enough.

Genki6398d ago

but Blu-Ray, no matter how you cut it, is a good thing, and this supplements that claim. Remember, load times on the 360 version of Oblivion were atrocious, and that was on a DVD, so you saying that it's pointless is just hypocritical.

"What's the point of having the extra space if developers have to resolve to fill the disk with crap that they wouldn't have to do if the blu-ray drive wouldn't be so slow."

And you would accuse him of a spin? This is the first I've ever heard of this technique being used, so this isn't NECESSARY, as you would just love for it to be, to add ammunition to your anti-Sony campaign. It's a compromise, and you can spin it any way you want to, but regardless, load times on this title WILL be faster than the 360 version. You conveniently failed to mention that fact though.

"Well, only for the PS3 since obviously they will not have a choice."

Again, you counter a supposed spin with one of your own. ONCE AGAIN, considering this is most likely the first time anyone has heard of this technique, you CANNOT say that developers will not have a choice. There's always the option of HDD installation, and besides, not everybody will develop a game the same way as Bethesda, which is also probably why there aren't any games with load times as slow as Oblivion's.

I'll be the first one to admit that the inclusion of a slow optical drive was a pretty big mistake on Sony's part, but then you must also admit that the option to do something like this is a good thing as well. After all, this game fit on a DVD anyway, so even if this was used on a single layer BD, that leaves at least 6 GB of additional space IF they needed to use it. And you would accuse him of a spin? There's two sides to that coin.

DJ6398d ago (Edited 6398d ago )

to put into system RAM. But I played Resistance and that game had absolutely no load-time issues, despite the enormous levels and tons of things going on.

Different devs have different requirements, that's all. That, and Oblivion was originally built with PC architecture (and no disc loading) in mind.

Edit: Thanks Genki.

BIadestarX6397d ago

DJ, duhh you didn't notice that on resistance becase they are doing something similar to work arround the drive being slow issue.


If you short term memory fanboys are able to remember you would know that "There are still padding files, but they're a relatively meager 420MB per region." what do you think these padding files were? They did the same.

Genki6397d ago (Edited 6397d ago )

as much as you like to slander people for giving what you call misinformation and lack of proof, YOU PROVE that those padding files are duplicate assets.

Until then, your bold statement is merely assumption, don't be a hypocrite. Again, aren't you the one accusing him of spinning information? Give your anti-Sony campaign a rest, and just speak sensibly. If you don't know, don't pass your assumptions off as fact.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 6397d ago
InMyOpinion6398d ago

Where did it say it will load faster on blu-ray? I read it like they use this technique to get to the same load times as on the 360. It would be nice for Ps3 owners if it loaded faster though. I wish they had optimized the 360 versions load times as well.

Genki6398d ago (Edited 6398d ago )

I suppose it didn't state that exactly, but for all intents and purposes, I was pleading a case for Blu-Ray in that it is not worthless. Note that even if they doubled the entire game(which apparently isn't necessary, according to ArsTechnica), a single layer BD would still have an additional 6 GB of space.

I would hypothesize though that this technique could potentially speed up load times past the 360 version, but again, just speculation on my part.

Kratos126397d ago

Actually since Oblivion is about 7GB the blue ray will still have around 14GB if they duplicate the data. Also with 50 gb and 200 gb blue rays discs in the near future this certainly wont be an issue.

Marty83706398d ago

Blu-Ray is a very nice technology, however, some have questionned the speed of the drive used in the PS3. Not that I have a problem with that, but I think a proper comparison would be good to educate people on this board.

1X Blu-ray = 4.5 MBps

1X DVD = 1.32 MBps

That would be nice like that. But most people don't know that DVD use a variable transfer rate and that the number they use on the box or in the specs is actually the maximum speed that is almost never reached. Blu-Ray use a constant rate.

A simple analysis of the NEC 16X DVD drive that I have in my computer gave me those numbers :

Start speed : 6.73X
End speed : 15.54X
Average speed : 11.60X = 15.31 MBps

Transposed to the 12X DVD drive give those numbers (when I compared to what some people got, pretty much the same) :

Start speed : 5.05X
End speed : 11.66X
Average speed : 8.7X = 11.484 MBps

Now that give an average that is still higher than the 9MBps transfer rate the PS3 BD drive is capable of. But there is still another little problem.

When reading dual-layer disc, the peak reading speed drop to around 8X, not the full 12X. (Not exactly sure how much it drops because I can't run drive test on a 360 because I don't have one, but it does drop so to give it the benifit of the doubt, I'll give numbers for both 8X and 10X) And we know that next-gen games will, for the vast majority, use double layer DVD discs. Blu-ray don't suffer any penalties for reading dual-layers discs.

So based on this, with a DVD9 game this is what we get :

Start speed : 3.37X
End speed : 7.77X
Average speed : 5.8X = 7.656 MBps

Start speed : 4.21X
End speed : 9.71X
Average speed : 7.25X = 9.57 MBps

Ah ! Now we get something that is more representative. While in some situations the BD drive is indeed slower than the 12X DVD drive, in reality, it compares quite well to it. Both have advantages in different situations, but the 2X BD Drive isn't as slow as some want it to look like.

achira6398d ago

yep, thats right! i hope the loading times are fast, with this little trick. i will buy this game again, if all the errors disappear. (the pc version had some bugs).

BIadestarX6397d ago

Stop twisting what's already know as fact. Freaken Sony fanboys.

"Blu-Ray might have its perks, but loading times aren't one of them. Compared to the 360's 12x DVD drive, transferring speeds at 16MB/second, the PS3's Blu-Ray drive limps along at 2x speed, transferring at 9MB/second."

Link to support this fact:
Bottom line (without all the fanboy trash you wrote) PS3 drive max "speed transferring at 9MB/second.", XBox "360's 12x DVD drive, transferring speeds at 16MB/second". For those idiots that can't count up to 20. 16MB > 9MB, and 16 is 2x 9. So, xbox 360 drive is 2x faster than the PS3 drive. Sony gave developers more room to store data and less speed to move it. wow, what a trade of. Since the 360 drive is fast enough developers don't have to resort to these work-arounds.

Genki6397d ago (Edited 6397d ago )

It's amazing, that as much as you get on people for not posting the truth, you post just as much, if not more, BS yourself. What are you trying to get at? Lies and slanted truths ARE NOT THE TRUTH.


360 DVD drive MAX SPEED is 16MB, and that max speed is rarely reached, when the laser is reading on the edge of the disc, otherwise, it can be ANYWHERE from 8MB-16MB

PS3 BD drive has a CONSTANT read speed of 9MB, as it's CLV, ad the 360's drive is CAV, hence the variance in speed.

"Bladestar's argument about 12x DVD's max speed is worthless because not only is 12x the theoretical max speed, the outer 600MB of space on a 360 DVD is blocked off due to security purposes. It couldn't reach that speed if it wanted to. Worse yet, it's dual layer so half the data is only read at a theoretical max of 8x speed."

-Quoted for truth

Now that the truth has been put out there, this DOES IN FACT mean that you can expect the 360 to read faster than the PS3 MOST of the time, but you can also consider that to usually be a negligible difference, as that 16MB is rarely ever reached.

360 reads faster for the most part, but it's not as drastic as you would like for it to be. Quit accusing people of doing the same thing that you yourself do, you are one of the biggest hypocrites on this site, and you either don't realize it or try to hide it.