1x BD is 36 Mbits/sec (though 1.5x - 54 Mbits/s is actually the minimum spec).
1x DVD is 11 Mbits/sec.
So 2x BD is 72 Mbits/s, while 12x DVD is 132 Mbits/s, but BD is constant-speed while DVD is variable and only reaches maximum at the outer edge of the disc (and it starts reading at the center, so only a full disc will ever even hit the maximum). So a 12x DVD starts off slower than 2x BD, but will average (with a full disc) about 6-7x - i.e. about the same.
jwalk on
0
Options
ZeroFillFeeling much better.A nice, green leaf.Registered Userregular
1x BD is 36 Mbits/sec (though 1.5x - 54 Mbits/s is actually the minimum spec).
1x DVD is 11 Mbits/sec.
So 2x BD is 72 Mbits/s, while 12x DVD is 132 Mbits/s, but BD is constant-speed while DVD is variable and only reaches maximum at the outer edge of the disc (and it starts reading at the center, so only a full disc will ever even hit the maximum). So a 12x DVD starts off slower than 2x BD, but will average (with a full disc) about 6-7x - i.e. about the same.
Right, so it'll average the same only with a full disc. With less than a full disc, the Blu-Ray will be faster.
On top of all of this, I need to ask something:
You said that 1x BD is 36 Mbits/sec and 1x DVD is 11 Mbits/sec. Doesn't that mean that BD can read the same amount of data in less than a third of the time as a DVD?
EDIT: I realize that a full Blu-Ray also CONTAINS more data, but the point is that for a fixed amount of data, it appears to be faster.
Defender on
0
Options
ZeroFillFeeling much better.A nice, green leaf.Registered Userregular
edited May 2007
For now of course, and probably forever in the ps3.
CDs and DVDs had a similar relation when DVD-ROMs were first released. As later generations of the technology came through though, DVDs pulled ahead.
Oh they plan to ramp up BD to 8x very quickly (288 Mbits/s - blows away 16x DVD, 176 max/80-90 average).
No idea if an 8x drive (or 4x/6x) will make it into a future revision of the PS3 of course, but there's no reason they could not.
I don't think Sony wants to sell PS3s at a loss forever, so I don't imagine future revisions will happen in any less than 3 years from launch, and I doubt it will feature upgrades, since they'll want to be able to advertise the console at a lower price, like the new ps2.
ZeroFill on
0
Options
ZeroFillFeeling much better.A nice, green leaf.Registered Userregular
For now of course, and probably forever in the ps3.
CDs and DVDs had a similar relation when DVD-ROMs were first released. As later generations of the technology came through though, DVDs pulled ahead.
But the PS3 will always be slow.
I'm not seeing how Blu-Ray is "slow" at all. Please back this up with actual numbers.
The numbers are already in the thread, what I was getting at is that the PS3 will be slow because they have 1st generation technology in it
Once Blu-Ray matures and the drives become faster, I'm sure it will surpass DVD in transfer rate.
Just not in the PS3.
But the numbers in the thread say that 1x DVD is 11 Mbps and 1x BD is 36 Mbps. That has BD at over triple the speed of DVD.
What I'm saying is that 1x DVD is ancient technology now, and nothing uses it, and is thus irrelevant. The 360 has a 12x drive as was stated earlier.
so yes if you took a 1x BD drive back in time to the release of 1x DVD, it would be 3 times as fast.
OK so now the missing piece of information is "what speed is the drive in the PS3?" Because I don't know that.
(Also, as has been stated, later PS3s may have faster drives.)
The PS3s now are shipped with 2x Blu Ray drives.
EDIT: And if I recall, both the PS2 and Xbox updated their drives later on in the consoles life, so I see no reason why this wouldn't happen for the PS3 later on down the road.
Javen on
0
Options
ZeroFillFeeling much better.A nice, green leaf.Registered Userregular
For now of course, and probably forever in the ps3.
CDs and DVDs had a similar relation when DVD-ROMs were first released. As later generations of the technology came through though, DVDs pulled ahead.
But the PS3 will always be slow.
I'm not seeing how Blu-Ray is "slow" at all. Please back this up with actual numbers.
The numbers are already in the thread, what I was getting at is that the PS3 will be slow because they have 1st generation technology in it
Once Blu-Ray matures and the drives become faster, I'm sure it will surpass DVD in transfer rate.
Just not in the PS3.
But the numbers in the thread say that 1x DVD is 11 Mbps and 1x BD is 36 Mbps. That has BD at over triple the speed of DVD.
What I'm saying is that 1x DVD is ancient technology now, and nothing uses it, and is thus irrelevant. The 360 has a 12x drive as was stated earlier.
so yes if you took a 1x BD drive back in time to the release of 1x DVD, it would be 3 times as fast.
OK so now the missing piece of information is "what speed is the drive in the PS3?" Because I don't know that.
(Also, as has been stated, later PS3s may have faster drives.)
The PS3s now are shipped with 2x Blu Ray drives.
EDIT: And if I recall, both the PS2 and Xbox updated their drives later on in the consoles life, so I see no reason why this wouldn't happen for the PS3 later on down the road.
It's possible, but I know the manufacturing costs are an issue with the ps3, hence it's price. As the techonolgy comes down in price they can either choose to cut losses or make a profit on the consoles, or upgrade and maintain the same console price.
I just think there's less wiggle room on the price with the PS3, than the last gen consoles. They're simply not moving units in the same numbers that they were.
For now of course, and probably forever in the ps3.
CDs and DVDs had a similar relation when DVD-ROMs were first released. As later generations of the technology came through though, DVDs pulled ahead.
But the PS3 will always be slow.
I'm not seeing how Blu-Ray is "slow" at all. Please back this up with actual numbers.
The numbers are already in the thread, what I was getting at is that the PS3 will be slow because they have 1st generation technology in it
Once Blu-Ray matures and the drives become faster, I'm sure it will surpass DVD in transfer rate.
Just not in the PS3.
But the numbers in the thread say that 1x DVD is 11 Mbps and 1x BD is 36 Mbps. That has BD at over triple the speed of DVD.
What I'm saying is that 1x DVD is ancient technology now, and nothing uses it, and is thus irrelevant. The 360 has a 12x drive as was stated earlier.
so yes if you took a 1x BD drive back in time to the release of 1x DVD, it would be 3 times as fast.
OK so now the missing piece of information is "what speed is the drive in the PS3?" Because I don't know that.
(Also, as has been stated, later PS3s may have faster drives.)
The PS3s now are shipped with 2x Blu Ray drives.
EDIT: And if I recall, both the PS2 and Xbox updated their drives later on in the consoles life, so I see no reason why this wouldn't happen for the PS3 later on down the road.
OK so the 360 is running at 132 Mbps (average on a full disc) and the PS3 is at 72 Mbps (constant). So even if you consider that the 360 is slower at the center, and only reaches its average if the disc is full and equal amounts of reading are done on the inside and the outside, it would appear that the 360 has noticably faster reading. Now couple that with the fact that the 360 is going to have lower-res textures and stuff in many cases (due to the smaller disc capacity), and you have a much faster load time. This does not, however, count any kind of "install to hard drive" that the PS3 may do. While you could conceivably do that on the 360, no game can require that since the HD is optional.
I just think there's less wiggle room on the price with the PS3, than the last gen consoles. They're simply not moving units in the same numbers that they were.
That may be in part because their previous generation is still the top-selling console, somehow.
For now of course, and probably forever in the ps3.
CDs and DVDs had a similar relation when DVD-ROMs were first released. As later generations of the technology came through though, DVDs pulled ahead.
But the PS3 will always be slow.
I'm not seeing how Blu-Ray is "slow" at all. Please back this up with actual numbers.
The numbers are already in the thread, what I was getting at is that the PS3 will be slow because they have 1st generation technology in it
Once Blu-Ray matures and the drives become faster, I'm sure it will surpass DVD in transfer rate.
Just not in the PS3.
But the numbers in the thread say that 1x DVD is 11 Mbps and 1x BD is 36 Mbps. That has BD at over triple the speed of DVD.
What I'm saying is that 1x DVD is ancient technology now, and nothing uses it, and is thus irrelevant. The 360 has a 12x drive as was stated earlier.
so yes if you took a 1x BD drive back in time to the release of 1x DVD, it would be 3 times as fast.
OK so now the missing piece of information is "what speed is the drive in the PS3?" Because I don't know that.
(Also, as has been stated, later PS3s may have faster drives.)
The PS3s now are shipped with 2x Blu Ray drives.
EDIT: And if I recall, both the PS2 and Xbox updated their drives later on in the consoles life, so I see no reason why this wouldn't happen for the PS3 later on down the road.
OK so the 360 is running at 132 Mbps (average on a full disc) and the PS3 is at 72 Mbps (constant). So even if you consider that the 360 is slower at the center, and only reaches its average if the disc is full and equal amounts of reading are done on the inside and the outside, it would appear that the 360 has noticably faster reading. Now couple that with the fact that the 360 is going to have lower-res textures and stuff in many cases (due to the smaller disc capacity), and you have a much faster load time. This does not, however, count any kind of "install to hard drive" that the PS3 may do. While you could conceivably do that on the 360, no game can require that since the HD is optional.
But, as has been said earlier in the thread, that they're approaching 8x BD drives very quickly, so it seems inevitable that Blu Ray will overtake the 360 in terms of speed. And, hopefully with that, these pregame installs will be an issue of the past.
You know, I gotta say, I think people are just being whiny about pregame installs. I did the same thing once. I was playing SOTN or something on the PS1 and I was like "LOADING?!?! YOU'RE LOADING? YOU'RE A CONSOLE, YOU DON'T GET TO LOAD THINGS!"
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
It's not that i have a problem with installing shit; like you said, we've been doing it for PC games for years, but it would be nice if they could bring this new technology to a point where it wouldn't be necessary.
Javen on
0
Options
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
You know, I gotta say, I think people are just being whiny about pregame installs. I did the same thing once. I was playing SOTN or something on the PS1 and I was like "LOADING?!?! YOU'RE LOADING? YOU'RE A CONSOLE, YOU DON'T GET TO LOAD THINGS!"
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
I've been saying for years that I'd rather spend ten minutes watching an install screen before I play a game then two hours watching loading screens when I'm just trying to play the fucking thing.
Rankenphile on
0
Options
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
edited May 2007
also, you know what I want to see?
Xbox 360 dvd games that you can also play on your pc. same disc, same fucking servers, one fucking box.
Seriously, it can't be that fucking far off, right?
You know, I gotta say, I think people are just being whiny about pregame installs. I did the same thing once. I was playing SOTN or something on the PS1 and I was like "LOADING?!?! YOU'RE LOADING? YOU'RE A CONSOLE, YOU DON'T GET TO LOAD THINGS!"
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
I've been saying for years that I'd rather spend ten minutes watching an install screen before I play a game then two hours watching loading screens when I'm just trying to play the fucking thing.
Yeah, I mean, Quake 2 can be played off the CD with no install. But I wouldn't want to do that because the load times (think 1998 CD-ROM speeds) would suck ass. I'd rather pay for it one time, up front, read the whole disc once and be done with it than have to pay for it every time I play. In total, I think I'd be spending a lot less time if I just got it over with up front.
Xbox 360 dvd games that you can also play on your pc. same disc, same fucking servers, one fucking box.
Seriously, it can't be that fucking far off, right?
not possible with the current iteration of xbox
but a future one?
sure i mean the 360 is all "media center lol" and stuff
so it's pretty reasonable a thing to assume the next generation of xbox will basically be a gaming-optimized PC you hook up to your TV and that Vista games will be Vista games regardless
OK so the 360 is running at 132 Mbps (average on a full disc) and the PS3 is at 72 Mbps (constant).
No, 132 maximum, the average is closer to 75-80, or pretty nearly the same as the PS3.
I don't know how much data Spiderman3 copies, but if it's say, 5 gigs (like Ridge Racer) that would take 9-10 minutes.... which is probably about double Gabe's attention span... 8-)
The difference of course is that 5 gigs would be over half DVD9, but only 20% of a BD25...
In other words it will be a while before someone makes a PS3 game on a BD50 and requires you to install 50% of it...
It's not that i have a problem with installing shit; like you said, we've been doing it for PC games for years, but it would be nice if they could bring this new technology to a point where it wouldn't be necessary.
So that's true, it would be cool just to play off the disc. But there are some other upsides to installing.
1) If your disc breaks or your hard drive fails (but not both at the same time), you still have the game and can play it. You may need to reinstall it on a new drive, but you still have it.
2) You don't need to find your disc and put it in the system every time you want to play. (Some games require it anyway for copy-protection, but systems like Steam can get around that.)
3) Mods and patches usually can't be written to the disc. You'd need to have games on rewritable discs and have RW burners in your system to do that.
Defender on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
You know, I gotta say, I think people are just being whiny about pregame installs. I did the same thing once. I was playing SOTN or something on the PS1 and I was like "LOADING?!?! YOU'RE LOADING? YOU'RE A CONSOLE, YOU DON'T GET TO LOAD THINGS!"
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
I've been saying for years that I'd rather spend ten minutes watching an install screen before I play a game then two hours watching loading screens when I'm just trying to play the fucking thing.
Yeah, I mean, Quake 2 can be played off the CD with no install. But I wouldn't want to do that because the load times (think 1998 CD-ROM speeds) would suck ass. I'd rather pay for it one time, up front, read the whole disc once and be done with it than have to pay for it every time I play. In total, I think I'd be spending a lot less time if I just got it over with up front.
Yeah, that would be sweet. Too bad that arrangement doesn't exist anywhere on any gaming platform. There are still load times on the PC and that functions pretty much exactly the way you just described.
Xbox 360 dvd games that you can also play on your pc. same disc, same fucking servers, one fucking box.
Seriously, it can't be that fucking far off, right?
not possible with the current iteration of xbox
but a future one?
sure i mean the 360 is all "media center lol" and stuff
so it's pretty reasonable a thing to assume the next generation of xbox will basically be a gaming-optimized PC you hook up to your TV and that Vista games will be Vista games regardless
I think he was saying it the other way.
"The PC should play the 360 games" is what I read.
City of Heroes sometimes drives me crazy with its loadtimes
because my computer is more than capable of laughing at its loadtimes with running things at maximum graphical settings, after all the engine is like 5 years old
but that basically has nothing to do with loadtimes, and everything to do with their server architecture, which can be maddening in it's sporadic ponderousness
Xbox 360 dvd games that you can also play on your pc. same disc, same fucking servers, one fucking box.
Seriously, it can't be that fucking far off, right?
not possible with the current iteration of xbox
but a future one?
sure i mean the 360 is all "media center lol" and stuff
so it's pretty reasonable a thing to assume the next generation of xbox will basically be a gaming-optimized PC you hook up to your TV and that Vista games will be Vista games regardless
I think he was saying it the other way.
"The PC should play the 360 games" is what I read.
You know, I gotta say, I think people are just being whiny about pregame installs. I did the same thing once. I was playing SOTN or something on the PS1 and I was like "LOADING?!?! YOU'RE LOADING? YOU'RE A CONSOLE, YOU DON'T GET TO LOAD THINGS!"
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
I've been saying for years that I'd rather spend ten minutes watching an install screen before I play a game then two hours watching loading screens when I'm just trying to play the fucking thing.
Yeah, I mean, Quake 2 can be played off the CD with no install. But I wouldn't want to do that because the load times (think 1998 CD-ROM speeds) would suck ass. I'd rather pay for it one time, up front, read the whole disc once and be done with it than have to pay for it every time I play. In total, I think I'd be spending a lot less time if I just got it over with up front.
Yeah, that would be sweet. Too bad that arrangement doesn't exist anywhere on any gaming platform. There are still load times on the PC and that functions pretty much exactly the way you just described.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The situation I described was the reality for Quake 2; I could play it off my slow-ass 1998 CD-ROM drive, which would have bad load times, or off my hard drive, which would have much better load times but I'd have to pay for it up-front with one solid read-and-copy of the disc.
Xbox 360 dvd games that you can also play on your pc. same disc, same fucking servers, one fucking box.
Seriously, it can't be that fucking far off, right?
not possible with the current iteration of xbox
but a future one?
sure i mean the 360 is all "media center lol" and stuff
so it's pretty reasonable a thing to assume the next generation of xbox will basically be a gaming-optimized PC you hook up to your TV and that Vista games will be Vista games regardless
I think he was saying it the other way.
"The PC should play the 360 games" is what I read.
but it can
emu emu lol
But isn't the 360 using DirectX 10, which is only available in Vista or on the 360 itself?
Defender on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
You know, I gotta say, I think people are just being whiny about pregame installs. I did the same thing once. I was playing SOTN or something on the PS1 and I was like "LOADING?!?! YOU'RE LOADING? YOU'RE A CONSOLE, YOU DON'T GET TO LOAD THINGS!"
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
I've been saying for years that I'd rather spend ten minutes watching an install screen before I play a game then two hours watching loading screens when I'm just trying to play the fucking thing.
Yeah, I mean, Quake 2 can be played off the CD with no install. But I wouldn't want to do that because the load times (think 1998 CD-ROM speeds) would suck ass. I'd rather pay for it one time, up front, read the whole disc once and be done with it than have to pay for it every time I play. In total, I think I'd be spending a lot less time if I just got it over with up front.
Yeah, that would be sweet. Too bad that arrangement doesn't exist anywhere on any gaming platform. There are still load times on the PC and that functions pretty much exactly the way you just described.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The situation I described was the reality for Quake 2; I could play it off my slow-ass 1998 CD-ROM drive, which would have bad load times, or off my hard drive, which would have much better load times but I'd have to pay for it up-front with one solid read-and-copy of the disc.
That's fair, I'd say. If you're okay with playing nothing but oldschool games. I'm saying, if you want to play new games, load times are a fact of life no matter what platform you're on.
That's fair, I'd say. If you're okay with playing nothing but oldschool games. I'm saying, if you want to play new games, load times are a fact of life no matter what platform you're on.
Oh well yeah now that cartridges are off the market for all "main" consoles. I believe that installing to a hard drive lowers the total amount of load time because hard drives are read faster than discs, so as long as you play the game for a good amount of time, the savings in load times will eventually add up to be greater than the seven minutes or whatever that it takes to install.
Defender on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
That's fair, I'd say. If you're okay with playing nothing but oldschool games. I'm saying, if you want to play new games, load times are a fact of life no matter what platform you're on.
Oh well yeah now that cartridges are off the market for all "main" consoles. I believe that installing to a hard drive lowers the total amount of load time because hard drives are read faster than discs, so as long as you play the game for a good amount of time, the savings in load times will eventually add up to be greater than the seven minutes or whatever that it takes to install.
Yeah.
Unless you're playing F.E.A.R. Goddamnit. Bullshit loadtimes and a 5cd install. Motherfuckers.
I've always liked the keyboard and mouse because it's so customizable. So even if you don't like the default setup, you can change things around until it's something that you're naturally comfortable with.
Posts
1x DVD is 11 Mbits/sec.
So 2x BD is 72 Mbits/s, while 12x DVD is 132 Mbits/s, but BD is constant-speed while DVD is variable and only reaches maximum at the outer edge of the disc (and it starts reading at the center, so only a full disc will ever even hit the maximum). So a 12x DVD starts off slower than 2x BD, but will average (with a full disc) about 6-7x - i.e. about the same.
that sucked.
Right, so it'll average the same only with a full disc. With less than a full disc, the Blu-Ray will be faster.
On top of all of this, I need to ask something:
You said that 1x BD is 36 Mbits/sec and 1x DVD is 11 Mbits/sec. Doesn't that mean that BD can read the same amount of data in less than a third of the time as a DVD?
EDIT: I realize that a full Blu-Ray also CONTAINS more data, but the point is that for a fixed amount of data, it appears to be faster.
CDs and DVDs had a similar relation when DVD-ROMs were first released. As later generations of the technology came through though, DVDs pulled ahead.
But the PS3 will always be slow.
I'm not seeing how Blu-Ray is "slow" at all. Please back this up with actual numbers.
The numbers are already in the thread, what I was getting at is that the PS3 will be slow because they have 1st generation technology in it
Once Blu-Ray matures and the drives become faster, I'm sure it will surpass DVD in transfer rate.
Just not in the PS3.
No idea if an 8x drive (or 4x/6x) will make it into a future revision of the PS3 of course, but there's no reason they could not.
But the numbers in the thread say that 1x DVD is 11 Mbps and 1x BD is 36 Mbps. That has BD at over triple the speed of DVD.
I don't think Sony wants to sell PS3s at a loss forever, so I don't imagine future revisions will happen in any less than 3 years from launch, and I doubt it will feature upgrades, since they'll want to be able to advertise the console at a lower price, like the new ps2.
What I'm saying is that 1x DVD is ancient technology now, and nothing uses it, and is thus irrelevant. The 360 has a 12x drive as was stated earlier.
so yes if you took a 1x BD drive back in time to the release of 1x DVD, it would be 3 times as fast.
OK so now the missing piece of information is "what speed is the drive in the PS3?" Because I don't know that.
(Also, as has been stated, later PS3s may have faster drives.)
The PS3s now are shipped with 2x Blu Ray drives.
EDIT: And if I recall, both the PS2 and Xbox updated their drives later on in the consoles life, so I see no reason why this wouldn't happen for the PS3 later on down the road.
It's possible, but I know the manufacturing costs are an issue with the ps3, hence it's price. As the techonolgy comes down in price they can either choose to cut losses or make a profit on the consoles, or upgrade and maintain the same console price.
I just think there's less wiggle room on the price with the PS3, than the last gen consoles. They're simply not moving units in the same numbers that they were.
OK so the 360 is running at 132 Mbps (average on a full disc) and the PS3 is at 72 Mbps (constant). So even if you consider that the 360 is slower at the center, and only reaches its average if the disc is full and equal amounts of reading are done on the inside and the outside, it would appear that the 360 has noticably faster reading. Now couple that with the fact that the 360 is going to have lower-res textures and stuff in many cases (due to the smaller disc capacity), and you have a much faster load time. This does not, however, count any kind of "install to hard drive" that the PS3 may do. While you could conceivably do that on the 360, no game can require that since the HD is optional.
That may be in part because their previous generation is still the top-selling console, somehow.
But, as has been said earlier in the thread, that they're approaching 8x BD drives very quickly, so it seems inevitable that Blu Ray will overtake the 360 in terms of speed. And, hopefully with that, these pregame installs will be an issue of the past.
Up until then I had only used cartridge-based Nintendo systems. Well, those were the only consoles, anyway. I was totally cool with load times on the various PC platforms like C64, Apple ][c or Apple ][e, DOS-based IBM stuff, Amiga, Apple 2GS...whatever. But on a console, WHOA, UNACCEPTABLE!
Then I realized that my objection was dumb.
We've been installing PC games forever. People install gigs of WoW off of a bigass BLOCK of CDs, then download gigs of patches. So taking seven minutes to install a game? Just not a big deal.
I've been saying for years that I'd rather spend ten minutes watching an install screen before I play a game then two hours watching loading screens when I'm just trying to play the fucking thing.
Xbox 360 dvd games that you can also play on your pc. same disc, same fucking servers, one fucking box.
Seriously, it can't be that fucking far off, right?
except kotor
kotor's load times pissed me off
not because they were unreasonable
but because god damn it the game was so good just let me play already god damn it i want to see what happens you fucks
Yeah, I mean, Quake 2 can be played off the CD with no install. But I wouldn't want to do that because the load times (think 1998 CD-ROM speeds) would suck ass. I'd rather pay for it one time, up front, read the whole disc once and be done with it than have to pay for it every time I play. In total, I think I'd be spending a lot less time if I just got it over with up front.
not possible with the current iteration of xbox
but a future one?
sure i mean the 360 is all "media center lol" and stuff
so it's pretty reasonable a thing to assume the next generation of xbox will basically be a gaming-optimized PC you hook up to your TV and that Vista games will be Vista games regardless
I don't know how much data Spiderman3 copies, but if it's say, 5 gigs (like Ridge Racer) that would take 9-10 minutes.... which is probably about double Gabe's attention span... 8-)
The difference of course is that 5 gigs would be over half DVD9, but only 20% of a BD25...
In other words it will be a while before someone makes a PS3 game on a BD50 and requires you to install 50% of it...
So that's true, it would be cool just to play off the disc. But there are some other upsides to installing.
1) If your disc breaks or your hard drive fails (but not both at the same time), you still have the game and can play it. You may need to reinstall it on a new drive, but you still have it.
2) You don't need to find your disc and put it in the system every time you want to play. (Some games require it anyway for copy-protection, but systems like Steam can get around that.)
3) Mods and patches usually can't be written to the disc. You'd need to have games on rewritable discs and have RW burners in your system to do that.
Yeah, that would be sweet. Too bad that arrangement doesn't exist anywhere on any gaming platform. There are still load times on the PC and that functions pretty much exactly the way you just described.
I think he was saying it the other way.
"The PC should play the 360 games" is what I read.
because my computer is more than capable of laughing at its loadtimes with running things at maximum graphical settings, after all the engine is like 5 years old
but that basically has nothing to do with loadtimes, and everything to do with their server architecture, which can be maddening in it's sporadic ponderousness
but it can
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The situation I described was the reality for Quake 2; I could play it off my slow-ass 1998 CD-ROM drive, which would have bad load times, or off my hard drive, which would have much better load times but I'd have to pay for it up-front with one solid read-and-copy of the disc.
But isn't the 360 using DirectX 10, which is only available in Vista or on the 360 itself?
That's fair, I'd say. If you're okay with playing nothing but oldschool games. I'm saying, if you want to play new games, load times are a fact of life no matter what platform you're on.
Oh well yeah now that cartridges are off the market for all "main" consoles. I believe that installing to a hard drive lowers the total amount of load time because hard drives are read faster than discs, so as long as you play the game for a good amount of time, the savings in load times will eventually add up to be greater than the seven minutes or whatever that it takes to install.
Yeah.
Unless you're playing F.E.A.R. Goddamnit. Bullshit loadtimes and a 5cd install. Motherfuckers.
i thought that was pretty keen
but i'm one of those philistines who prefers a controller to keyboard and mouse for first person shooters
gross.
Whatever floats your boat. I hate that shit but y'know. Different strokes.
i know everyone recoils when i say that
like i just admitted to thinking my cousin's got a nice pair of tits or something
but honestly i've just never really dug keyboard and mouse