Are you talking zone loading? Because I know starting the games takes forever but once you're in most of those are 30 seconds at worst. At that point I just pull out my phone and make a bad post on these forums that I'll regret later.
Grand Theft Auto Online can definitely do that, and possibly the "offline" singleplayer component as well.
On multiplatform releases, the Xbox One X tends to edge out the Playstation 4 Pro in load times by a not-unsubstantial percentage (10%-ish), not because its storage is faster but because of higher memory bandwidth. In a game with short load times, of course, this is barely noticeable.
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Bloodborne used to be a god damned eternity. Like the fear of waiting for load times made dying that much worse on launch.
Assassin's Creed Origins has some weird loading. It's fine for the most part. But the coliseum and race track are separate areas, and if you try to leave back into the normal world, that load takes forever.
If you let your eagle fly too far as well, it doesn't snap back to you, it'll actually cut to black and load for 1-2 seconds. Or 4-5 seconds if you're in a busy area like a city. It can be surprisingly disruptive, but I've gotten used to it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Yeah there are games that have such annoying loading times that if I start the game I almost never change what I'm playing because I don't want to wait for it to load. Borderlands 3 for example has like a 3 minute start. So when I start the game I just put my console to sleep and only play that game.
Look, I would never EVER exaggerate for effect, never in a million years. In fact, if you asked me to make up some hyperbole about how long load times are, not only would I refuse, I would set myself on fire and forcibly launch myself in your general direction with such force that it would carry the embers of my ruined corpse across the pacific ocean to land at you doorstep, so that I could ring the bell, and just before I perished I would scrawl "told you so" using my own ashes on your front porch. Personally, I think that anyone that would try to make up outlandish claims about loading times being unrealistically longer than they actually are should be perforated, rolled, folded, sliced, twisted and then woven into a nice ornamental hat that can be worn by the next pedant that doesn't understand sarcasm or irony.
Sorry, it's been a rough decade these last few months. Apologies if my attempt at humor is offensive to anyone. It really has been a rough few months.
+12
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I don't mind games with a long front load if they are quick in the actual game. Borderlands 3 takes a long time to actually load the first time, but is pretty quick despite the very large environments after that. Last of Us 2 is the same way - long up front load time but once you're in there are barely any loading screens whatsoever.
The Thailand flooding in 2011 that caused the HD shortages is what got me to pull the trigger on a SSD and I know some people had SSDs long before then. That's almost 10 years of getting spoiled by SSD speed increases making load times on PCs so much nicer. Now consoles are finally catching up to this and suddenly it's like this new thing again.
The Thailand flooding in 2011 that caused the HD shortages is what got me to pull the trigger on a SSD and I know some people had SSDs long before then. That's almost 10 years of getting spoiled by SSD speed increases making load times on PCs so much nicer. Now consoles are finally catching up to this and suddenly it's like this new thing again.
Well, it's helped by the fact that plenty of games have abysmally long load times on PC as well, even with SSDs. Looking at you, GTA V and Stellaris.
The Thailand flooding in 2011 that caused the HD shortages is what got me to pull the trigger on a SSD and I know some people had SSDs long before then. That's almost 10 years of getting spoiled by SSD speed increases making load times on PCs so much nicer. Now consoles are finally catching up to this and suddenly it's like this new thing again.
Well, it's helped by the fact that plenty of games have abysmally long load times on PC as well, even with SSDs. Looking at you, GTA V and Stellaris.
I know just enough about the technical side to know I don't know nearly enough about the technical side, but a lot of that is down to the modularity of PCs. Like, developers can't rely on the fact that a PC will have a SSD, so they still have to load data into RAM before they use it, and can't know how long that loading will take. SSDs become just faster HDDs because that the only way they can treat them.
Seeing some of the frankly insane tricks some console developers have pulled off to hide data loads and streamline the process, most of those can only be done because they know exactly what hardware they're dealing with. The next gen should be able to blow right past PC loads, at least until a developer feels brave enough to add 'SSD install required' to their game requirements.
The Thailand flooding in 2011 that caused the HD shortages is what got me to pull the trigger on a SSD and I know some people had SSDs long before then. That's almost 10 years of getting spoiled by SSD speed increases making load times on PCs so much nicer. Now consoles are finally catching up to this and suddenly it's like this new thing again.
Well, it's helped by the fact that plenty of games have abysmally long load times on PC as well, even with SSDs. Looking at you, GTA V and Stellaris.
I know just enough about the technical side to know I don't know nearly enough about the technical side, but a lot of that is down to the modularity of PCs. Like, developers can't rely on the fact that a PC will have a SSD, so they still have to load data into RAM before they use it, and can't know how long that loading will take. SSDs become just faster HDDs because that the only way they can treat them.
Seeing some of the frankly insane tricks some console developers have pulled off to hide data loads and streamline the process, most of those can only be done because they know exactly what hardware they're dealing with. The next gen should be able to blow right past PC loads, at least until a developer feels braze enough to add 'SSD install required' to their game requirements.
Relative levels of optimization on multi-platform releases are frequently not kind--or at least not as kind as they should be--to PC loading times. Sometimes that's the superior visual assets being larger on PC, sometimes it's just the developer response to a wide variation of hardware, and of course sometimes the developer just doesn't give a shit and has other concerns in mind. Your Star Citizens and Microsoft Flight Simulators are very much exceptions to the rule where loading times are a cornerstone concern of development, I suspect.
And there's good reason for that. Look at the Switch--an extremely popular console, introduced later into the current generation, which across the board has the worse loading times of any console. Sometimes Nintendo is able to program around that, but there are just as many, or more, cases of much worse load times on multi-platform games compared to Xbox One and Playstation 4 (the basic models, mind you). And you run into this on exclusive releases too (Deadly Premonition 2 has truly abysmal load times). If it's had an effect on the Switch's success, I can't see it (aside from the fact that not all third-party titles do well on the Switch compared to the other consoles, even Xbox One which has fewer units sold now).
The PS5 has some truly meaty bandwidth for its physical storage. But that's going to inevitably be a night and day difference between purpose-designed software taking advantage of it, and the rest of the PS5 games not to mention the large library of PS4 games that many people are looking forward to playing on their PS5s (I know I would). Stuff that fell short on PSFro, etc. I'm 100% into backwards compatibility, so I can relate. But the experience there is going to be a lot more like "Installing your PS4 onto SSD storage," than something world-changing. But there's going to be improvement...hell, load times are shorter for 15-year-old Xbox games when you play them on Xbox One X already. But they're still there.
The next gen should be able to blow right past PC loads, at least until a developer feels brave enough to add 'SSD install required' to their game requirements.
Nearly all big budget single-player "PC" games are "console" games first and foremost so that's exactly what is going to happen.
when I can get a budget 500 GB SSD for 70 bucks. We should already be at the SSD required stage for PCs
That's true for most laptops or Surface Pro-style convertibles. Aside from not all SSDs being equal, a lot of people on PCs in particular still need the sort of storage room that mechanical drives are much better at supplying.
Next gen consoles are launching with 1 TB, you think game devs care whether you can afford 5 TB SSDs or not?
Yeah... About that. Ps5 is rumored to be some weird non even number, and of course keep in mind the system data reserved from the start these days takes 300gb or so.
Well that's just reinforcing my point. They aren't going to care if PC gamers have to juggle their valuable SSD size like the console "plebs" will already have to. As soon as AAA companies dump the now-current gen of consoles they are going to start mandating SSDs of some speed in their PC ports.
Destiny 2 on a PS4 Pro without an SSD is on the order of 10 minutes of loading screens to get into the game if you've been logged out - longer if the game wasn't running. Then on the order of minutes of loading to go from one planet or activity to another. Loading the equipment screen and menus even takes several seconds, which is the bit that annoys me the most.
Well that's just reinforcing my point. They aren't going to care if PC gamers have to juggle their valuable SSD size like the console "plebs" will already have to. As soon as AAA companies dump the now-current gen of consoles they are going to start mandating SSDs of some speed in their PC ports.
They won't. If anything it'll just be a check wether or not the system has the game loading up on an SSD or not. Like how some games just check to see if you're running RTX or a 21:9 monitor or whatever. Then just optimize from there.
Looks like there was so much backlash and mocking in the internet that the officially hosted Trailer was taken down, publisher news announcements for the game were taken down, and all mention of the game got removed from the publisher's website.
Crazy to think that game was probably done and now will never be released. No big loss or anything but still, crazy. How many people were asleep at the wheel on this one..
Crazy to think that game was probably done and now will never be released. No big loss or anything but still, crazy. How many people were asleep at the wheel on this one..
this is kind of where I'm at on it. like how did it get this far without even one single person realizing what a bad look this is
Crazy to think that game was probably done and now will never be released. No big loss or anything but still, crazy. How many people were asleep at the wheel on this one..
this is kind of where I'm at on it. like how did it get this far without even one single person realizing what a bad look this is
small correction, it turns out that those guys are the publishers, not the devs
but the devs are just three more white guys, so not much material difference
It's a serious difference, as pretty much all cases of mistaken identity are ("Here is the relevant party. Except they're completely different people, every single one of them. Whoops.")
It just means that this was probably a bad decision on management's part from the start.
So Microsoft did their Xbox presentation and didn't give a price, so that's the ball back in Sony's court. Honestly, this is getting silly. In the Before Times, they'd never have made it out of E3 without revealing a price, at least not without getting crucified by the gaming press and being held to have 'lost' the event.
I don't get why Sony doesn't just come out with it. They outsold Microsoft by a very big margin and they should capitalize on it. Personally I think they should come out and say unlike Microsoft we are confident in our product and it's price point. Make it seem like either cowardice or lack of confidence is what is holding Microsoft back. There only logical reason I can see for waiting is that the supply chain disruptions were more severe or more ongoing then expected and Sony doesn't actually know how much they will sell them for.
There is no way Microsoft can undercut then by any large amount and at this point, with BC a real thing, people are already pretty deep into whichever ecosystem they currently own.
I don't get why Sony doesn't just come out with it. They outsold Microsoft by a very big margin and they should capitalize on it. Personally I think they should come out and say unlike Microsoft we are confident in our product and it's price point. Make it seem like either cowardice or lack of confidence is what is holding Microsoft back. There only logical reason I can see for waiting is that the supply chain disruptions were more severe or more ongoing then expected and Sony doesn't actually know how much they will sell them for.
Because they don't want Microsoft to look at their numbers, decide to take the hit, and announce a price $50/100 lower.
Brand loyalty really isn't a big thing, it's how the dominant console between the two went from the 360 to the PS4.
It's absolutely a staring contest.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+11
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I don't get why Sony doesn't just come out with it. They outsold Microsoft by a very big margin and they should capitalize on it. Personally I think they should come out and say unlike Microsoft we are confident in our product and it's price point. Make it seem like either cowardice or lack of confidence is what is holding Microsoft back. There only logical reason I can see for waiting is that the supply chain disruptions were more severe or more ongoing then expected and Sony doesn't actually know how much they will sell them for.
Because they don't want Microsoft to look at their numbers, decide to take the hit, and announce a price $50/100 lower.
Brand loyalty really isn't a big thing, it's how the dominant console between the two went from the 360 to the PS4.
It's absolutely a staring contest.
Hmmm I don’t fully agree with this statement. I was going with an Xbone before I heard anything about the PS4. The problem was Microsoft literally committed complete seppuku to such a degree, it’s now studied in marketing classes world wide it was such an exceptional disaster. I have no intention of changing the console ecosystem I am in next generation. I suspect others might be similar.
Neither company is going to do a Microsoft again here and whoever is lower will just price match.
Yeah, but that's going to be an embarrassing moment for whoever has to drop their price to match.
You can get more loyalty from existing users, especially if you have BC so they're taking something with them.
But for new customers, price is going to be the biggest consideration.
I don't get why Sony doesn't just come out with it. They outsold Microsoft by a very big margin and they should capitalize on it. Personally I think they should come out and say unlike Microsoft we are confident in our product and it's price point. Make it seem like either cowardice or lack of confidence is what is holding Microsoft back. There only logical reason I can see for waiting is that the supply chain disruptions were more severe or more ongoing then expected and Sony doesn't actually know how much they will sell them for.
There is no way Microsoft can undercut then by any large amount and at this point, with BC a real thing, people are already pretty deep into whichever ecosystem they currently own.
Microsoft is absolutely capable of undercutting them. You or I don't know that they will or won't--remember, they decided that despite being way behind Playstation 4, they would launch and sell the Xbox One X at a profit and they did--but they are capable of. Sony is one console generation (technically less) removed from Playstation being literally the only profitable major arm (because phones, televisions, music, and movie licensing were all hemorrhaging money or barely breaking even). Microsoft is a corporation several times their size, and isn't dependent on Xbox keeping the entire ship afloat (which is good, because it took into around the time of Xbox 360's launch for hardware to be profitable, and a few years after that for Xbox Live Gold to be as well).
A great deal less speculatively, with the trademark for Xbox Series S already a real thing, Microsoft almost certainly will undercut them with a economy model without a disc drive that comes in below the price of the less expensive PS5AD. That device will probably occupy a space between the PS5 and the PSFro. The question is if Microsoft can justify trying to undercut them on the premium model Xbox Series X, which has a substantial lead on graphical and CPU power over both PS5 models.
Unless I'm missing something, that leaves Microsoft in the position to decide if they're going to undercut one or both models. Which they might not (see the XB1X launch price again). That leaves Sony in a less flexible position, especially since the overall bottom line is far more dependent on Playstation's profitability.
Of course, it may not matter. The original Xbox launched at the same price as the PS2, despite being substantially more powerful (and including a hard drive), and still came way, way behind in sales (it only beat out the cheaper Gamecube that launched at the same time). Sony could still dominate with a more expensive and less powerful console (than the premium competitor) again.
Posts
On multiplatform releases, the Xbox One X tends to edge out the Playstation 4 Pro in load times by a not-unsubstantial percentage (10%-ish), not because its storage is faster but because of higher memory bandwidth. In a game with short load times, of course, this is barely noticeable.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
If you let your eagle fly too far as well, it doesn't snap back to you, it'll actually cut to black and load for 1-2 seconds. Or 4-5 seconds if you're in a busy area like a city. It can be surprisingly disruptive, but I've gotten used to it.
My roommate would start the game, load his save, make like, 2 sandwiches and the game would still be at 75%.
Once he was in and playing, it wasn't nearly as bad, but it is definitely felt on some of the games released in the last year.
Steam: TheArcadeBear
Sorry, it's been a rough decade these last few months. Apologies if my attempt at humor is offensive to anyone. It really has been a rough few months.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Well, it's helped by the fact that plenty of games have abysmally long load times on PC as well, even with SSDs. Looking at you, GTA V and Stellaris.
I know just enough about the technical side to know I don't know nearly enough about the technical side, but a lot of that is down to the modularity of PCs. Like, developers can't rely on the fact that a PC will have a SSD, so they still have to load data into RAM before they use it, and can't know how long that loading will take. SSDs become just faster HDDs because that the only way they can treat them.
Seeing some of the frankly insane tricks some console developers have pulled off to hide data loads and streamline the process, most of those can only be done because they know exactly what hardware they're dealing with. The next gen should be able to blow right past PC loads, at least until a developer feels brave enough to add 'SSD install required' to their game requirements.
Relative levels of optimization on multi-platform releases are frequently not kind--or at least not as kind as they should be--to PC loading times. Sometimes that's the superior visual assets being larger on PC, sometimes it's just the developer response to a wide variation of hardware, and of course sometimes the developer just doesn't give a shit and has other concerns in mind. Your Star Citizens and Microsoft Flight Simulators are very much exceptions to the rule where loading times are a cornerstone concern of development, I suspect.
And there's good reason for that. Look at the Switch--an extremely popular console, introduced later into the current generation, which across the board has the worse loading times of any console. Sometimes Nintendo is able to program around that, but there are just as many, or more, cases of much worse load times on multi-platform games compared to Xbox One and Playstation 4 (the basic models, mind you). And you run into this on exclusive releases too (Deadly Premonition 2 has truly abysmal load times). If it's had an effect on the Switch's success, I can't see it (aside from the fact that not all third-party titles do well on the Switch compared to the other consoles, even Xbox One which has fewer units sold now).
The PS5 has some truly meaty bandwidth for its physical storage. But that's going to inevitably be a night and day difference between purpose-designed software taking advantage of it, and the rest of the PS5 games not to mention the large library of PS4 games that many people are looking forward to playing on their PS5s (I know I would). Stuff that fell short on PSFro, etc. I'm 100% into backwards compatibility, so I can relate. But the experience there is going to be a lot more like "Installing your PS4 onto SSD storage," than something world-changing. But there's going to be improvement...hell, load times are shorter for 15-year-old Xbox games when you play them on Xbox One X already. But they're still there.
Nearly all big budget single-player "PC" games are "console" games first and foremost so that's exactly what is going to happen.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
That's true for most laptops or Surface Pro-style convertibles. Aside from not all SSDs being equal, a lot of people on PCs in particular still need the sort of storage room that mechanical drives are much better at supplying.
Yeah... About that. Ps5 is rumored to be some weird non even number, and of course keep in mind the system data reserved from the start these days takes 300gb or so.
Some good points in the thread as to how this is really shitty.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
They won't. If anything it'll just be a check wether or not the system has the game loading up on an SSD or not. Like how some games just check to see if you're running RTX or a 21:9 monitor or whatever. Then just optimize from there.
Steam: pandas_gota_gun
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
PSN:Furlion
this is kind of where I'm at on it. like how did it get this far without even one single person realizing what a bad look this is
but then you see the dev team
and it starts to make sense
Wowee.
PSN:Furlion
but the devs are just three more white guys, so not much material difference
It's a serious difference, as pretty much all cases of mistaken identity are ("Here is the relevant party. Except they're completely different people, every single one of them. Whoops.")
It just means that this was probably a bad decision on management's part from the start.
There is no way Microsoft can undercut then by any large amount and at this point, with BC a real thing, people are already pretty deep into whichever ecosystem they currently own.
PSN:Furlion
Brand loyalty really isn't a big thing, it's how the dominant console between the two went from the 360 to the PS4.
It's absolutely a staring contest.
Hmmm I don’t fully agree with this statement. I was going with an Xbone before I heard anything about the PS4. The problem was Microsoft literally committed complete seppuku to such a degree, it’s now studied in marketing classes world wide it was such an exceptional disaster. I have no intention of changing the console ecosystem I am in next generation. I suspect others might be similar.
Neither company is going to do a Microsoft again here and whoever is lower will just price match.
You can get more loyalty from existing users, especially if you have BC so they're taking something with them.
But for new customers, price is going to be the biggest consideration.
Microsoft is absolutely capable of undercutting them. You or I don't know that they will or won't--remember, they decided that despite being way behind Playstation 4, they would launch and sell the Xbox One X at a profit and they did--but they are capable of. Sony is one console generation (technically less) removed from Playstation being literally the only profitable major arm (because phones, televisions, music, and movie licensing were all hemorrhaging money or barely breaking even). Microsoft is a corporation several times their size, and isn't dependent on Xbox keeping the entire ship afloat (which is good, because it took into around the time of Xbox 360's launch for hardware to be profitable, and a few years after that for Xbox Live Gold to be as well).
A great deal less speculatively, with the trademark for Xbox Series S already a real thing, Microsoft almost certainly will undercut them with a economy model without a disc drive that comes in below the price of the less expensive PS5AD. That device will probably occupy a space between the PS5 and the PSFro. The question is if Microsoft can justify trying to undercut them on the premium model Xbox Series X, which has a substantial lead on graphical and CPU power over both PS5 models.
Unless I'm missing something, that leaves Microsoft in the position to decide if they're going to undercut one or both models. Which they might not (see the XB1X launch price again). That leaves Sony in a less flexible position, especially since the overall bottom line is far more dependent on Playstation's profitability.
Of course, it may not matter. The original Xbox launched at the same price as the PS2, despite being substantially more powerful (and including a hard drive), and still came way, way behind in sales (it only beat out the cheaper Gamecube that launched at the same time). Sony could still dominate with a more expensive and less powerful console (than the premium competitor) again.
Also, acronym soup.