There is the carnival games footage on the PS Blog. It looks great and is running at a solid 60 frames. The PS3 version is a great choice. It has the manditory install, but id said it will run better than the 360 uninstalled. For the 360 to run like the PS3, it will require a full install of each disc, which requires ether installing both or having to install disc 1, unionstalling as you move to disc 2, and then installing disc 3 just to play the MP at it's best. So as much as the 360 got love from RAGE, the PS3 seems to be getting the most convient console set up. And it looks great on PS3 too. Sony and id put together a winner here. I think id deserves the praise like Valve got, for putting the time in to make the PS3 version phenomenal.
8 gig installs, full disc installs...am I the only one here that can see HDD installs are the way to go? DVD is too small for some of todays games and BR is too slow for others.
@Death Its not blu ray thats to slow just the slow drive in the PS3.Bluray is actually able to be quite fast.So expect a 12x BD next gen to be plenty fast enough.
even in the ps3, the relatively slwo player, is faster to stream anything than the dvd player of the others consoles, so...stop talking about that ridiculous point.
LOL@stupid mandatory install argument, and others lies "ps3 guys spend 45 min installing" LOL, it's 5 minutes or less most of the time...and loading times are = to xbox (where install are also mandatory and larger : with smaller hdd !, if you want to kill the ugly noise from the dvd access)
It's not just BluRay that's too slow. Optical drives in general are too slow for games, and they present significant bottlenecks.
In a game textures have to be loaded in a fraction of a second for the best quality. An optical drive comes no where near the speed required for loading the textures in the required amount of time. They work around it by allowing textures to be delayed, e.g. popup.
Installing a game dramatically decreases popup, simply because a hard drive, though (too) slow still, is a couple of orders magnitude faster than an optical drive.
The problem is particularly serious in a game like Rage, as the size of textures is a few times bigger than the average game. To load that much data from an optical drive is very slow, so the game becomes much more memory intensive as the developer will try to keep as much data as possible in the main memory. There are ways to get around it, but expect very significant popup.
I think console gamers should embrace the install. Especially if that little bit of time it takes to install means a better end product and faster load times.
Actually yes one has to be better.The systems are not equal so the games shouldn't be equal.PC gamers don't want their version equal to consoles.The more powerful console should always be the better of the two or the developers look bad.
Like a PC? I don't like PC gaming in the slightest, but i do agree that on both the 360 and the ps3, developers should have 100% control of their games as long as it doesn't interfere with security.
But thats the thing. If the devs required a 15GB install, I'm sure Sony wouldn't say no (well maybe. That would be huge haha). Sales of the game would be pretty low though.
Then again, theres clearly ways around it. Installing individual chapters seemed to work fine for MGS4.
Like a PC, which is what the game was mainly done on lol. Console users should be glad they even got this game. I'll be getting it on PC myself. Sony is known for letting devs have leeway in doing things the way they wanna do them, which is great. The PS3 and PSP became open platforms.
It's Sony's platform. There are certain restrictions that apply, so that not every game that releases requires a 15gb install, as that would decrease potential game sales, as people would only be able to play 4 different games at a time with a 60 GB console.
There have to be rules to promote equality and sales of a platform.
sorry but 8gb? 4 is something i can understand but 8gb is basically half a game in most cases. If they needed it i can understand but i have my doubts that they need all that space versus the fact that its probably easier to just install it rather than optimize for the ps3
The only reason I can think of is that the Blu Ray drive reads slow, only at 2x compared to the DVD's 12x. That means that in order to get the game to read fast, they need to install 8gb of data that is used the most in the game. The other stuff on the disc that is not installed would be stuff that is not used as often and can be read at a slower speed.
Otherwise, they would have to put the same data over and over and over again onto the Blu Ray disc and may even need a dual layer disc to fit all of the extra data.
This saves them from having to do that.
I could be wrong, but that is my best guess. Hope that helps.
the slower disc read speed of blu ray is definetly the reason however i think you can combat that with better streaming texture technology. if a game like uncharted can look that great without install of any kind and a great looking sandbox game like infamous 2 only has a 2.5gb install there is no reason rage need an 8gb install. I know carmak, lead programmer for the id engine, likes to talk about megatextures which is basically massive textures with high resolution. this type of approach is fine on PC's was plentiful harddrive space and RAM but that won't work on the PS3.
My point games like uncharted and infamous now this and find way around it to help eliminate or lessen HD installs. if id optimized rage and it's engine more there is no reason they can't decrease that install atleast by a bit
I addressed your point in my previous post. The way those games get around no install, small install is that they put the most used data on the discs over and over and over again. Not all the data on the disc is unique. A lot of it is used quite a bit during the game, say nathan drakes textures on himself would be used a lot.
Nathan Drakes textures are probably put on the disc multiple times, throughout the disc so that it loads fast and doesn't have to go all the way back to the start of the disc to read it.
@FragMnTagM 2x for Bluray is equal to 8x dvd.Except that Dvd speed is not constant.So for example 12xDVD drive reads at 12x at the outer part of the first layer then reads slower as it moves towards the center.An even slower on the second layer.While the Bluray is constant doesn't slow down even on the second layer.The truth is they are near equal if the game actually uses the full DvD.
I have read up on that, and it seems you are right. However, the seek time is what kills it as there is so much more data on the disc.
I think that is why it takes longer for games to load on the PS3. Not much longer, we are talking seconds here. But there is simply more data to read as a lot of stuff is uncompressed, especially audio in the games.
Thanks for being mature about the discussion. I appreciate having intelligent, and thoughtful discussions on here instead of the usual trolling and flame wars.
Yea the seek time is pretty slow its the one fault in the PS3 BD drive.Higher speed drives will fix the issue but for now they just need to repeat the data multiple times on the disc.This way it can be found much quicker.However having the HDD means you can put that data their and not have to repeat it at all.An it is faster to access then having to use the repeating method. Now my main reason for wanting the PS3 version is simple.1 scratch resistant BD or 3 scratch prone DVDs.I am horrible at taking care of disc.
Hope it pays off. I don't want to see sub-HD resolution, screen tearing, or any other annoying faults that third-parties look over on PS3.
well it better be the better version then...
Sony shouldn't have any say so, If the Dev Company needs 15gb to make there game run right it should be a given..
The waiting is the hardest part