Slashdot Mirror
Certain Xbox 360 Titles May Fill 4 DVDs
MBCook writes "A Joystiq post says that certain 'highly anticipated' Xbox 360 titles will fill four discs-worth of content. From the post: 'From the high-res textures fit for an HDTV to the higher polygon counts befitting a next-gen console, the space available on standard DVDs is suddenly in increasingly short supply. [...] According to Game Informer, nearly every developer they talked to at X05 expressed difficulties fitting their launch titles onto a single disc. One unnamed yet highly anticipated game in particular is said to currently occupy a full four 9Gb DVDs.'" Relatedly, Microsoft has announced that mainland Asia should expect a March 2006 launch date for the 360 console.
No one will ever need to fill more than 4 dvds!
No wonder they cost so much to make. I thought Myst 4 was huge ( 2 dvd9s). I bet the "highly anticipated title" is Oblivion.
I play no games which do not fit on a 5.25" floppy.
Sure, not having to swap discs is kinda nice, but not if its going to add $200-$300 bucks to the price of the console to cover the price of an HD-DVD drive. I'm just not that lazy.
Besides, this isn't exactly breaking new ground here. There were plenty of Playstation 1 games that came out on multiple CDs.
Until they start filling those 36 gigs with AI, Physics, Ginormous dynamic levels, or dare I say it, Gameplay, I'm not biting.
In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
"a full four DVDs"
not
"four full DVDs"
WTF?
I have a feeling that some of the 360 games already suffered from the problem. A few games had features removed from them, possibly for space requirements? This really isnt news though as it was obvious from the very beginning. When some games (Such as a great ps2 game, namely god of war) can fill a dual layer disk without high-res textures, i think it would be -easy- for a game to fill up more than one dl-dvd. I think its just a matter of time, rather than saying it wont happen. Afterall, this generation is suppose to last till 2010 or longer.
Back when Microsoft got ass-raped by Sony at E3 I was thinking, wow, Microsoft really is having problems with the 360. And the 360 was the supposed to be the console where Microsoft got it right and learned from all the mistakes from the first Xbox fiasco.
Looking back over the half-year or so since E3 I never imagined a console could go so badly. It's like someone taking a driving test and managing to not just hit a few cones, but managing to hit EVERY SINGLE ONE. I can't think of a single thing Microsoft has managed to do right over the past half-year.
I really don't see why Microsoft doesn't just go ahead an cancel the 360. What exactly is the point of going forward? Who the hell outside of hardcore Xbox fans would even think of buying a 360? I don't Microsoft could win the next gen even if they were giving 360's away for free.
Wouldn't the billions Microsoft is going to lose on an even more futile effort in the console marketplace be better spent battling Linux and OpenOffice/OpenDocument?
Xbox 360 games are likely to get more detail and more complex over time, so being limited to 9GB per disk is going to become more and more of a problem.
Anyone want to bet Microsoft do an "updated" Xbox with higher capacity DVD and other tweaks...?
Meanwhile, PS3 developers get to use a whole Blu-Ray disc...
I'm not sure I quite understand this.. PC games have been high res for many years. They don't seem to require multiple DVD-9s...
HDTV is about the same as what a typical PC can output and PC games do not require 4 DVDs.
Why would the XBox need much larger textures than the latest PC games?
PC games have been using higher resolution for years and rarely need multiple DVDs. I haven't really paid attention to how the 360 compares to a PC, but if they're about on par, then something's amiss.
./ readers have likely seen the .kkreiger game that fits in like 96K. This is of course an extreme tradeoff while you wait for the game to recreate all its textures from high level combinations to bitmaps. But texture compression is nothing new and is often seen in 3d hardware. Again, I haven't dug into the 360, but I would imagine there's one or two texture compression options available and build into the hardware. Either the company isnt using them, or the compression isn't enough.
Of course, if the 360 boasts larger texture capabilities, or more polys, that's potentially more texture sizes and more geometry data to store. It's also possible that console games include more full motion video cutscenes than a PC game, which 360 owners would naturally prefer at HiDef resolutions.
Naturally there is a compression tradeoff between space and time. By now many
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Article: -1 flamebait.
Article poster: -1 drooling moron.
Slashdot: -1 Has Jumped The Shark.
From the god-damned Joystiq article:
"[UPDATE: or perhaps not, duuur]"
The link there goes to this comment:
"How can ES: Oblivion [..] only take up one disk for the pc and four for the 360?"
Obvious answer: because it doesn't take up four disks on the 360?
That's the last straw. Slashdot goes in my hosts file as redirected to 127.0.0.1 to force me to avoid it. Reading Slashdot is detrimental to my mental health, I just get angry at the brutally retarded stories these days. Be gone with you.
High-res textures and higher polygon counts causing more disks? That is kind of hard to believe. In general even if a model is very poly that shouldn't take up too much space. If they really need more then one DVD for models and textures they need to learn about data management. There are lots of ways to reuse texture and make the games look good.
To me it seems like the problem is video based. Videos take up a lot of space on a disk, especially since they now have to be HD videos. They should rely less on pre rendering thing and think about scripting things with the game engine.
Games should not have to use 40 Gigs of space. Look at kkrieger (can be found at http://www.theprodukkt.com/). This is a first person shooter demo that is on par with most first person shooters today, and it only takes 96 kilobytes. That can fit on a floppy disk!
If you need more then a DVD for your game there is defiantly a ton of optimizing you can do.
If they used 9GB discs instead of 9Gb discs, they'd be able to cram those 4, and 4 more onto a disc.
Oh Noes! You'll have to get up off the couch.
I seem to remember having to do this for some PS2 games, PS1 games, whole bunch of compgames, and just about anything that used a floppy.
Of course Higher-Res stuff is going to take up more room.
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Whilst it may seem that filling four DVD discs with data would be a hardy feat to achieve, the reality is that this will not be all that uncommon with truly next-generation games.
There are many factors to consider, firstly an Xbox360 DVD can only store 7GB of data, but more importantly, they will have to duplicate data across discs.
On each disc they will have the base code for the game and standard/repeated textures + models that make up the majority of data.
There will not be ~25GB+ of discrete, nor completely unique data on each disc, the game may take up 12GB, but require 5GB for base code + common resources. So we have 2GB left over on each disc for unique areas/sound/textures, but need to fit 7GB onto the disc. In that scenario it would take 4 DVD discs.
An example of this being the Final Fantasy titles and the CGI they contained on PSOne.
You can actually play the whole of FFVII on Disc One, the code is all there, but the movies are changed on each disc (to test this, remove a Disc and replace it with another, the game will play fine but CGI sequences will be out of whack). There is not 2.8GB of data.
I can imagine this being an issue within the next-generation (commented on by everyone from Rockstar and Epic to Square-Enix and Namco so far), more with publishers than consumers, but its not insurmountable.
Maybe what's taking all this room is pre-rendered cutscenes! It seems japanese developers love to fill discs with them... and Microsoft's decision to stick to DVD could help them break out of this vicious circle! There was a time when CGs made sense, but no longer; rendering all cutscenes in real time is now feasible - and it even adds a sense of visual coherence to the game.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Anyone else remember when three entire game discs were filled with storyline and had a real emotional impact on you? I'm referring mostly to games like FFVII. It seems the problem with the game designers today is that they're so stuck on graphics that they miss some of the most importent elements of a game. A storyline that moves you. Ok I'm done being sappy, but this is one thing that has been bugging me about quite a few of the "next gen" games.
Behold, another webcomic!
Perhaps Sony thought about this, and thats why they "loose" extra money for putting a Blueray drive into it.
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
This seems like the perfect time for developers to start using procedural textures/models. They could save enormously on space, and could even be a selling point for a game...
My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
Swapping to another disc after a few days of play then to another a few days later never bothered me when I played Final Fantasy 7 on the Playstation, so I dont think that this will bother me now. Its not like your going to have to swap discs every 20 minutes is it? And I very much doubt that you'll have to swap backwards and forwards between discs.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
While the commenters above are right to point out that comparable PC games managed to do fine on single disks, this sort of memory-hogging is part and parcel of the sort of games (particularly console games) which are in the limelight right now. The PS3 and 360 hype is mostly about high-definition this and hundreds-of-characters that, so unless there are a series of sudden breakthroughs in procedural texturing, modelling, animation and dialogue, they're going to require more and more storage space.
Procedural assets are probably going to become more important in future anyway, due to RAM limitations (the rendering capacity of these machines is mismatched with the amount of room for things to render).
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What's the difference between HDTV and my 24" monitor running at 1600x1200?
Why would an HDTV game need higher resolution textures than a PC game?
1080i is 1920x1080 - 153,600 pixels larger than my 1600x1200 monitor, mainly in the width.
720p is 1280x720 - not even close to my monitor resolution.
Are the bigger textures needed because the screen is physically larger? That doesn't make any sense - that's like saying you need to use bigger textures on a 15" monitor running at 1024x768 than a 14" monitor running the same resolution.
Bigger textures are better - but these aren't HDTV driven. They're simply driven by the quality of video acceleration these days.
Which means I want my 5 dvds of textures on my PC, damnit.
If anything, I'm calling bullshit - they're using the same 1024x1024 textures that we've been using for a year or so on the high-quality-texture setting, just without compression.
The problem with rendered custscenes with the in-game engine is that you're stuck with the in-game limitations and small bugs can really add up. Playing No One Lives Forever is very difficult for me now because of the lack of lip movement. And VTM: Bloodlines... enough with the skating characters! Something glitched in my models, I guess, because when characters were supposed to move in the opening cutscenes, they'd freeze in a position, and then skid to where they were supposed to go. A pre-rendered scene, you know that it will always display the same way, and you can bypass limitations in the engine. Then again, when well done, those in-engine cutscenes can be much more immersive. Bioware has always done well in that respect, I think, reserving FMV for chapter cutscenes and using the engine for the smaller scenes in-game.
And for Heaven's sake, enough with the attempts to randomize cutscenes... That just leads to situations where invincibility flags get stuck on, cutscene length varies from 2 seconds to 10 minutes, and glitches become all the more evident. Go ahead and script all of the actions. If the user has seen the cutscene before, they'll probably just skip it. The stress on the system is easier too, no AI checking for what to do next, more bandwidth available to preload the next scene. And the scenes where they make it "interactive" by giving you regular control, but having an invincible or, worse, just extremely difficult foe, so as to force you to lose to advance the plot, those drive me crazy. Mainly, you don't know that you can't win, so you'll keep reloading and playing, trying to avoid the loss of your weapons or the like. And worse, some of them actually allow you to win, and then act like you were still beaten. As much as I dislike a lot of the scenarious where you're arbitrarily stripped of your ingame loot, I vastly prefer it when it's just plain scripted, not something I'm made to feel I'm in control of.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.