360 Limiting GTA IV In Some Ways

Last week CVG had a story from the Official PlayStation Magazine, a print entity partnered with the website, about limitations Rockstar faces on the 360. For almost the first time, we're now hearing about a title where lack of space on the disc and the lack of a guaranteed hard drive may be detrimental to Microsoft's console. "[Rockstar's creative vice president Dan Houser] continued, 'To be honest with you we haven't solved all those riddles yet.' The difficulties aren't limited to working on Microsoft's box, as Houser explains that 'both have enormous challenges' and that 'both have their own particular pleasures and pains'. Rockstar hasn't said anything about a target SKU between the two consoles, but they're currently demoing the game to press running on an Xbox 360 - so we wouldn't worry too much if you've only got Microsoft's console. Look for more on GTA IV in the next few weeks."

Comments

Consider the Source

[MarkPNeyer]

Developing on the PS3 III is an absolute nightmare. Sony is simply looking to spread some FUD about the Xbox 360 as well.

Re:Consider the Source

[Corporate Troll]

Developing on the PS3 III

That must be the new Sony console everybody's been talking about.... especially since the PS3 flopped. The PS3 III might be the next big thing in console gaming!

Re:Consider the Source

[Nerdfest]

Taking the source into account brings up the possibility the the interviews were faked, based on the company's history.

That aside, is it acceptable for a game to release for HD equipped consoles only? I seem to remember way back that a console that required a CD-ROM released one with the game ... perhaps they should look into it.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes down to a few simple things, On the PS3 you get an HD and plenty if disk storage, on the 360 you dont. That means caching and the games size is limited. Dev on the PS3 while different to the 360 isnt any harder just takes a different approach.

Re:Consider the Source

[krakelohm]

I would not call it just FUD if this is coming from the developers. It is mighty nice of OPSM to relay this *unbiased* information though, HA. Anyway I can see how this could cause challenges, but if I did own a 360, I would not be too worried.

Re:Consider the Source

[Applekid]

The source, TFA, is Dan Houser, Creative VP at Rockstar.

What would a person titled "Creative VP" have to do with announcing a technical limitation of a game that just finished releasing a trailer which implies the game is coming pretty soon? I dunno.

Would it be a big loss to target the game to HD-equipped 360's only? How about it looks less detailed if the console doesn't have one, so that those users can decide if they want extra detail and spring for the HD.

Granted adding a HD to a 360 isn't quite the same as a new controller, but remember that Sony released quite a few games clearly labelled "DUAL SHOCK REQUIRED" due to heavy non-optional use of the analog sticks. Ape Escape is one that instantly comes to mind. Nintendo also required the 8 Meg expansion for the N64 for a few games, too.

Re:Consider the Source

[badasscat]

Sony is simply looking to spread some FUD about the Xbox 360 as well.

The source is Dan Houser, who works for Rockstar last I checked, not Sony.

btw, what is new about this article that it deserves another mention on the site? This is the same quote as in the OPM article; it's apparently just CVG referencing OPM.

Re:Consider the Source

[Rude Turnip]

I'm running out to the ATM machine right now so I can put down a deposit at EB Games.

Re:Consider the Source

[PhoenixOne]

I'm sure they took stuff out of context (like ignoring the part where Houser talks about the drug rehab program he will have to put his PS3 system programmers into after they finish the project), but the DVD size and lack of harddrive will be an issue for the XBox360 going forward.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

plenty of disk storage?

If they cant get a game to fit in 15 gig then they have no business writing games. Maybe they should cut down on in-game movie crap and add more gameplay.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the ATM machine will cut it. I'm taking out a second mortgage.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes down to a few simple things, On the PS3 you get an HD and plenty if disk storage, on the 360 you dont. In all practical terms you do. Making the game HDD-only would be a first but wouldn't, IMO, be completely outrageous given the 20GB drive isn't much more expensive than a game.

Re:Consider the Source

[KDR_11k]

I heard talk from Rockstar employees about how they already hit the limit of the medium with GTASA, due to the slow layer switching (no idea if the 360 still has that issue) only one layer of the disc could be used to keep the load times lower (with streaming it'd be fatal if the loading took too long). Even without the layer switching overhead a "next-gen" GTA game is going to hit the limit of DVD9 very quickly so this report is very likely true.

From what I heard Microsoft requires that all games are basically playable (i.e. it doesn't matter that you can't feasibly finish the game without saving, it just has to be theoretically possible) on a 360 Core system OOTB, this would make HDDVD-only games not allowed.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

The Playstation 33, wow. PS1 released December 3, 1994. PS2 March 4, 2000. PS3 November 11, 2006. 63 mo, 80 mo, ave 71.5 mo...30 generations forward, so 2145 mo...178 yrs 9 mo...August 2185. The Izar colony founded and another ship disappears near Taurus II. Ice asteroid discovered by Mahmed, Home is colonized. Pine trees and poodles extinct, no more modesty, and Lucy Liu's head held prisoner.

But thank god Sony's still around.

Re:Consider the Source

[scooterjohnson]

I would suggest hitting the ATM instead of the ATM machine. I hear those things can be a pain to carry around.

Re:Consider the Source

[Pojut]

You know what, call me stupid but any time I watch a dual-layer DVD on my 360, the point at which it switches layers is practically unnoticeable. Compare this to my year-old standalone mid-range DVD player that takes nearly a full half-second to switch layers.

All I'm saying is that the whole "switching layers" argument seems like complete bullshit to me. I mean, heaven forbid it takes an additional quarter of a second in the loading times...

Would additional space be a virtue? Yes, of course it would be. However, I'll take the smaller medium if not for it's cost, then if nothing else at least for its time as a proven technology.

Optical discs are NOT the wave of the future.

Re:Consider the Source

[cbreaker]

What in the hell are you talking about?

You don't see the fact that not all 360's have hard drives as a limitation? I think everyone saw this coming from a mile away. It's not a big deal for most games but for some, it will be. They'll work around it, and do so while probably introducing more load times and stuff.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know about the layer swiching problem, but DVD9 read speeds in the 360 are the same as BD25 in the Ps3.
So the speed argument is pretty much out of the equation.

Re:Consider the Source

[aichpvee]

And isn't worth much more than a box of Cracker Jack. microsoft tried to game the system by offering an incomplete version of their console to keep from breaking the $300 barrier. Now it's coming back to bite them.

In related news, I'd like to congratulate you for being the ONE guy who managed to abbreviate Hard Disk Drive properly.

Re:Consider the Source

[superpulpsicle]

Speaking of san andreas I still haven't beat it. If you play without the flying cars, infinite machine guns and infinite cash that game is tough.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not allowed to exclude non-hard-drive-equipped Xboxes. All Xbox 360 games must be compatible with all versions of the Xbox 360, including the friggin' Core version. I'm a game developer, worked on several 360 games now, and in all of them, that was a major PITA. If you can assume they have a hard drive, for example, it alleviates the problem GTA is talking about, because you can cache off a lot of streaming stuff in free space on the hard drive. (Doesn't fix the DVD-size problem, obviously, but it can make streaming faster.)

(Now, of course, *if* they have a hard drive, you can cache the streaming stuff. However, you still have to make it load fast enough on the non-hard-drive equipped versions to meet the load time TCRs, and since you're not allowed to cut features or content if they don't have a hard drive, you end up having to design for people without a hard drive anyway. It's quite annoying, especially since the original Xbox had a hard drive!)

However, if they're having troubles with the Xbox, I've got to imagine they're worse on the PS3. I'd rather develop for the 360 than the PS3 any day of the week. With the streaming troubles in particular, imagine how much worse it is to stream it into 256 megs of memory than 512 megs. :)

The DVD size is a problem, though, and probably one that will become more pronounced as the next-generation moves along. (And to those who asked, no, the HD-DVD drive is purely a movie player -- it cannot be used to play games.)

Re:Consider the Source

[KDR_11k]

The switching layers argument applied to the PS2, if the 360 has faster switching it's no longer an issue but that still gives them barely twice the space of the disc they used for SA and that had very simple graphics with low resolution textures and everything. With the increased demands of next-gen graphics the same game with improved graphics would easily be more than twice as large and thus be too large for the DVD9. That means either less graphical improvement or a smaller gameworld to make the game fit on the disc.

Re:Consider the Source

[bozendoka]

The important thing is that he remembers his PIN number.

Re:Consider the Source

[Firefly1]

Where are you having difficulty? I might be able to offer some specific pointers. More generally, though...
For weapons, there're a couple of good maps on GameFAQs detailing where various weapons and vehicles spawn... for example, there're three spots in Los Santos where the MP5 spawns and two each for the AK-47 and sawn-off shotgun. Another set of maps details the locations of tags, horseshoes, photo opportunities, and oysters.

• before getting into the storyline missions in a given area, take the time to complete the delivery jobs. Each nets a recurring $2000 plus whatever you made on the deliveries.
• it's possible to unlock the airports early: use a car as a step to get onto the guard shack at Los Santos International. Take any plane there and fly it in circles for a stretch (or several) until you get your pilot's license. Note, though, that most planes at the other airports remain locked until you complete 'Learning to Fly'.
• the airports are also great places to work on your firearms skills - just stock up, find one of the baggage trucks, and keep shooting the tires.
• another reason to unlock the airports early: there is an M4 spawn near the western end of Los Santos' runways; out on the tarmac at Easter Bay (and incidentally next to one of the photo opportunities) is a missile launcher (not RPG). This latter comes in very handy for certain missions.
• drug dealers (the chaps wearing black muscle shirts and chains, or grey hoodies) drop about $2000 when flatlined.
• the gym on the beach is available from the very beginning of the game.

Re:Consider the Source

[Dan Ost]

Took me about 3 weeks to beat it (no cheats). Once you're out of the first city, you're basically 80% finished with the game (although flight school was almost enough to make me quit). It's really too bad...such a big world and you really only get to know the first 25% with any intimacy.

Re:Consider the Source

[smallfries]

Ok, you're stupid.

When loading a move you know exactly what order you're going to need the data off of the drive as it is linear. So the instant layer switch doesn't mean that the laser changes any quicker - it's more likely that it prebuffers.

Guess how that maps onto a seamless game with constant loading - yup, you don't know when you're going to cross from the top to the bottom layer and hence the game may glitch (very noticably) for a 1/4 second.

OK, now that we've established that you're a dumbass, there is a way around it for rockstar - but it is more work, and they might be pushing the drive to its limits to stream their data already. They could replicate all non location data (everything but the maps, geometry and local textures) on both layers, and then use some kind of spatial subdivision to split the world. They probably do this already using a quadtree or something similar. Have a line down the middle of the gameworld for the top/bottom layer and then replicate the stuff around that line on both layers. Use the hystersis this creates do a little preloading when approaching the layer so that you can take the 1/4 second hit...

Re:Consider the Source

[Neon Spiral Injector]

It is not the single layer switch that happens when watching a movie. This is predictable, and always happens at the same place. The head also does not need to move during the layer change, it just reads from the inside to the out on L1 and then switches to L2.

The problem comes from random access reads between layers.

To decrease this issue each layer has to be treated like its own disc. Once the transition is made to L2 you stay there. That means any part of the game engine that is not always in memory has to also be on both layers. Along with any textures, models, sounds, etc. that are used through out the game. So going to two layers does not double the ammount of space available due to having to store a lot of data twice.

Re:Consider the Source

[Applekid]

"You are not allowed to exclude non-hard-drive-equipped Xboxes"

Is that a mandate from Microsoft in order to be a Licensed game? Is that a rule with the development house? Is there a requirement that a screenshot of the game must look identical regardless of which version console you're using?

I'd buy the first question having a YES answer. I could even shrug my shoulders at the second having a YES. The third, well, doesn't seem very likely since already the quality of the image depends on your display hookup.

Couldn't the game, at run time, determine the availability of a HD and use that for caching high-detail textures while if unavailable it would cap itself to just low/medium detail textures streaming off the disc?

And I'm just an armchair console guy: I'm sure actual developers have already thought of that and many other potential solutions. :P

Re:Consider the Source

[Kelbear]

For what it's worth, Saints Row already has trouble loading the city at a rate fast enough to keep up with their top tier cars. I'm sure there are optimizations that can help, but there will still be an upper limit on what the Xbox360 can stream. It's not outrageous to believe that GTAIV would benefit from a harddrive or faster stream.

But there's always a benefit to be had from having more of a resource. You just work with what you have. Crackdown lets you see the other side of the city if you can get high enough. The game is cel-shaded and isn't trying to push photo-realism, but that's how they made it happen with the resources at hand. It plays butter smooth even with hell being unleashed all over the neighborhood.

Re:Consider the Source

[JebusIsLord]

You know, when trying to prove a point to someone, the worst thing you can do is insult them right upfront. That pretty much garantees they aren't going to read the rest of what you have to say. Also, it makes you sound like a socially inept basement dweller.

Re:Consider the Source

[superpulpsicle]

The mission "supply lines" is the one that I have been stuck at for a long time and still can't past it. I know of 2 other people who gave up the game because of that mission. Personally I wanted to throw my game out the window.

Re:Consider the Source

[twistedsymphony]

It can't be that strict of a licensing requirement because there are a few games that require the hard drive... FFXI and LMA Manager come to mind, I'm sure there are others.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Developing on the PS3 III is an absolute nightmare.

Said with such authority. Out of interest, what first-hand experience do you have developing on the PS3?

Re:Consider the Source

[malevolentjelly]

I heard talk from Rockstar employees about how they already hit the limit of the medium with GTASA, due to the slow layer switching (no idea if the 360 still has that issue) only one layer of the disc could be used to keep the load times lower (with streaming it'd be fatal if the loading took too long). Even without the layer switching overhead a "next-gen" GTA game is going to hit the limit of DVD9 very quickly so this report is very likely true.

From what I heard Microsoft requires that all games are basically playable (i.e. it doesn't matter that you can't feasibly finish the game without saving, it just has to be theoretically possible) on a 360 Core system OOTB, this would make HDDVD-only games not allowed. Actually, the 360 has excellent streaming performance since it doesn't have the obscene memory constraints the PS3 has (the 360 has more bandwidth, more efficient pipeline, high performance DRAM on die, and its got that 512 mb of shared RAM for added flexibility.)

Honestly, when developing an open-world 360 game (I've worked on one), the biggest problem is the lack of an HDD- which means we need to disc stream all our data. It causes some major issues.

It's sort of a toss- the 360 is conventionally more powerful in a lot of cases, but the PS3 has that standard HDD. It's ridiculous, really, since Core systems are far more scarce than Premium. Microsoft should let us use the HDD to a greater extent, when available.

Re:Consider the Source

[ThinkWeak]

Final Fantasy XI requires that it is installed on the hard drive of the 360 - taking up 11 gigs or so. Why can't there be the same mandate for GTA IV?

Re:Consider the Source

[Durzel]

You'd think someone who was trying to pass themselves off as authoritative on a subject (i.e. an actual PS3 developer) would at least get the basic facts right, like - I dunno - the actual console name.

Re:Consider the Source

[icepick72]

Well then it's a good thing you saved your insult until the last sentence. I read your complete post proving your right!

Re:Consider the Source

[oGMo]

Developing on the PS3 III is an absolute nightmare. Sony is simply looking to spread some FUD about the Xbox 360 as well.

I bet the infidels are actually committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates, too, eh?

Re:Consider the Source

[The Warlock]

The X360's DVD drive is a good deal faster than the PS2's, so it shouldn't be as big a problem this time around, though.

Re:Consider the Source

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Make sure you use the correct PIN Number.

Re:Consider the Source

[Firefly1]

Ah yes, that mission; fortunately, it's only required if you want to complete the Zero strand. Oddly enough, the last mission in the strand - 'New Model Army' - could actually be easier: someone suggested going around and bombing all of Berkley's tanks before laying the bridges.
I, too, found it much less stressful to simply leave that job on the shelf. In an attempt to provide some perspective, here's a short list of gaming challenges I've run across recently:

• fighting the final boss (the supership Ragnarok) in Warship Gunner 2's campaign without a wave cannon;
• the final battle in Black; and
• many of the (sub-)boss battles in The Red Star - yes, the game is finally out, but has not to my knowledge been shipped in great quantities

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Xbox 360 game Final Fantasy XI (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/f/finalfantasyXI/ ) is not playable without a hard drive, so clearly some developers are defying Microsoft's rule. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

The PS3 drive is CAV with faster access time and a constant read performance all over the disc. The XB360 drive is CLV with different rotating speeds and variable read performance from inner to outer space of the disc.

Peak performance of XB360 drive is higher than PS3, but at the slow end of the disc it is quite a bit slower. The access time is mostly in PS3's favour, so in the end it really depends on the application which is the better.

If data is stored in "most likely used" fashion, the XB360 drive will be faster. But if you have an application with data scattered all around the disc, the PS3 might be faster.

If you have to cross the layer you basically have to store common data redundant, to preserve performance, as the grand parent post suggested.

Re:Consider the Source

[Afrosheen]

I agree with the fantastic comments from the people above, also known as "morans". ;) Too late, I know.

Re:Consider the Source

[smallfries]

Nicely put.

But ... he was an idiot and I'm impatient

Re:Consider the Source

[Ophion]

Machine machine!

Re:Consider the Source

[nschubach]

I was waiting for the inevitable "doo-doo head" insults to start flying. Guess I'll have to wait for another thread.

Re:Consider the Source

[Babbster]

It's sort of a toss- the 360 is conventionally more powerful in a lot of cases, but the PS3 has that standard HDD. It's ridiculous, really, since Core systems are far more scarce than Premium. Microsoft should let us use the HDD to a greater extent, when available.

I suspect that the second Microsoft feels comfortable dropping the price of the 360, the core system will disappear from the market (they don't really need to worry about going below $300 with the PS3 at $600) and they'll allow developers to require the hard drive's presence. After all, they won't want to miss out on GTA: Texas...

Re:Consider the Source

[Pc_Madness]

"you don't know when you're going to cross from the top to the bottom layer and hence the game may glitch (very noticably) for a 1/4 second." Err, except as you said, this isn't a movie, and we aren't streaming the content, so we won't see the glitch since the loading is done in the background.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound exactly like an unknowledgable new graduate high on Microsoft payroll. It seems to me that the level of programming is getting worse and worse when programmers spend more and more time with technologies such as C# that makes things simple for programmers.

The programmers who are used to let the language write itself are the ones that complain the most about PS3 and its architecture. If you are familiar with PS2 or embedded systems development, PS3 is MUCH easier. Either you are regurgitating Microsoft PR FUD without actually understanding it yourself, or you need to go back to Computing 101.

Re:Consider the Source

[smallfries]

Actually it's the other way around. It's a latency issue - so in a movie you can start the loading 1/4 second before you need that data because you know it's coming. In a game you are responding to the players movements so you don't know that you need the data until they cross some line, then it's 1/4 second too late. You can't hide that glitch in the background so it affects the game performance.

Re:Consider the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

The PS3 III

Same as it ever was.

Re:Consider the Source

[KDR_11k]

Depends on the system RAM and the amount of data actually, if you can have enough area loaded that the player won't cross it fast enough you can still hide the hickups but if it's possible for the player to move across the area faster than it's loaded he could leave the loaded area. Metroid Prime had a crash caused by moving too fast from elevator to elevator as the loading couldn't keep up and the game tried to display data that wasn't loaded. I'm not sure how GTA could handle this, I think the PAL version of Metroid Prime fixed it by putting a delay on the elevator if the loading isn't done (same as it does for doors) but GTA has no barriers that could be put up if the loading can't keep up.

Re:Consider the Source

[Raenex]

You know what, call me stupid but any time I watch a dual-layer DVD on my 360, the point at which it switches layers is practically unnoticeable. I've noticed it. A pause that shouldn't be there is a wee bit jarring.

Re:Consider the Source

[Raenex]

Personally I wanted to throw my game out the window. The GTA series has always been frustrating, and as a game I find it is way overated. I bought a PS2 because of FFX and GTA3, and while GTA3 was incredible when I first saw it (actually I spent a few days just marvelling at the world), it quickly got boring and frustrating. It would have been ok if it had more frequent save points, or ad hoc save points. Instead, there was always too much repitition by having to start the mission from scratch. I rented Vice City and San Andreas, and quickly returned both.

Re:Consider the Source

[Raenex]

Final Fantasy XI requires that it is installed on the hard drive of the 360 Wow, I had no idea. Just goes to show how short-sighted Microsoft's "core" strategy was. So lots of developers haven't taken advantage of the hard drive. Yet some developers are going to require it, fragmenting their market and pissing off consumers.

Re:Consider the Source

[Raenex]

In related news, I'd like to congratulate you for being the ONE guy who managed to abbreviate Hard Disk Drive properly. Of course, people could just write out "hard drive" and avoid the confusion completely. There's too many damn acronyms.

Re:Consider the Source

[Don_dumb]

Perhaps it is easier on the PC. I am playing through this game again at the moment and I found that the way to do this mission is to start with the three that are south west of the shop. The way to attack the vans is to fly high and stoop (like a falcon) you dont have to be directly flying at the van as the gun seems to 'aim' itself. One decent sized stoop is enough to blow up the van and occupant. But the other reply about landing on the road is quite a good idea also.

Re:Consider the Source

[catprog]

Consider the question "On PS3 you've got a guarantee that every machine is going to have a hard-drive and, with Blu-ray, you've got plenty of storage, whereas on Xbox 360 there's no guarantee of a hard-drive and you're working with the DVD format. Does that create limitations?" Then he says "both have enormous challenges" and that "both have their own particular pleasures and pains".

Re:Consider the Source

[aichpvee]

But all those extra characters might clog up the tubes!

Other limitations

[ILuvRamen]

Also, it will come with a magic scanner that will determine if you're under 18 and not let U play it lol. But watch out when they release it for the Wii and you can add in your whole family as characters rofl

system requirements

[underwhelm]

One of the contributors at Kotaku suggested that Rockstar simply require the hard drive to play. I think that would be a great solution, but I'd be surprised if Microsoft let them do something like that.

Re:system requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

What really needs to happen is MS needs to get their head out of their ass and give the consumer some decent hard drive sizes at fair prices.

If they did this in collusion with the launch of the game, it would be a win win for both MS and Rockstar.

Re:system requirements

[Lectoid]

Oblivion requires a hard drive. And that's been a pretty popular game.

Re:system requirements

[EvilIdler]

People are expecting the Core to cease to exist. I'll allow MS+Rockstar this particular excluding move,
since the choice will be between Premium and Elite for new customers anyway.

Re:system requirements

[Fred Or Alive]

The Xbox 360 ports of Football Manager 2006 & 2007 both require the hard disc AFAIK, so it isn't totally unknown, although GTA IV would be the biggest titles to require it really, and it would be a kick in the bollocks for any idiots who thought they were getting anything like a good deal with the Crap Pack.

Re:system requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

That is incorrect, Oblivion doesn't require a hard drive. You are not allowed to require a hard drive -- Microsoft will not pass Xbox 360 games that don't work on the Core version. The closest they've gotten to making an exception is allowing Symphony of the Night on Xbox Live Arcade to be bigger than a memory card can hold.

Similarly, GTA can't require a hard drive. Like Oblivion, it can run FASTER on a hard-drive-equipped Xbox by using it to cache streaming data, but running GTA on a Core version must still comply with all the load time TRCs.

Re:system requirements

[Jearil]

FFXI for the 360 requires a hard drive and it has (obviously) passed Microsoft's certification to run on the system.

Just saying that it's not an absolute requirement to run without a hard drive.

Re:system requirements

[wyip]

Well if it requires a hard drive to play, that would probably effect the core system people the most. Best case, it forces people who bought the core system to buy a hard drive if they want to play GTA IV, which is more money is Microsoft's pocket. Worst case is people with core systems don't buy GTA IV, which is money lost by Rockstar. This looks like it would work ok for Microsoft... or am I overlooking something?

Re:system requirements

[billcopc]

I'd be baffled if Microsoft didn't let them do just that. Having an established franchise like GTA would be a strong driving force for hard drive sales. Sony did the same crap on the PS2 with Final Fantasy XI. The hardware doesn't sell itself, it's the software that drives everything!

Re:system requirements

[calderra]

Oblivion also fits on a fraction of a DVD-9. What is Rockstar's problem? Anyone? "Waaah. No hard drive is required." -Oblivion does just fine when users have only a memory card. You know, kind of like GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas for Playstation. I know this "memory card" thing is really new to you guys since you only developed three top-tier titles in this same series using this exact same process before, but I think you can manage. "Bu-bu-bu- One DVD is too small." -Nevermind that they destroyed space limitations with compression and smart coding when they fit GTA3-San Andreas on one disc, all of a sudden NOW this is some kind of new problem. As I've said so many other times on this site: Wacha wanna bet they'd never gripe if this wasn't Microsoft they were talking about? They did just fine for years on Playstation, but NOW it's a problem when it's the EXACT SAME issues on a Microsoft console.

Re:system requirements

[chrish]

The Core system is awesome when you've got the red ring of death though; unplug the hard drive and slap it on a Core, cheaper than buying a whole new system and trying to transfer your data.

Assuming, of course, that your Premium system dies while it's out of warranty.

I don't see the problem

[Hubbell]

I'm THANKFUL they are running into this problem, maybe they won't make GTA4 the ridiculously countryside game that San Andreas was. I loved Vice City and GTA3, but San Andreas was FAR too open, you had no idea where the fuck you were without looking at the map every 5 seconds.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Applekid]

The problem was that the open areas of SA didn't really add to the game much. It's not like Oblivion where taking a detour could pay off in a neat cave or side story or something under the radar.

The aforementioned problem is a game design problem where extra stuff was padded in but not fleshed out. It was most certainly technically possible to remove that padding but they chose not to.

Technical limitations and getting around them aren't exactly going to help game design any.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Xtravar]

I agree. And let's hope we don't have to sugar up girlfriends, feed ourselves, exercise ourselves, and dress ourselves in this one too. San Andreas was like a badass Sims game.

Re:I don't see the problem

[heffrey]

How about:

1. Drive somewhere.
2. Kill somebody.
3. Goto 2.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Durzel]

There also really isn't a vast amount of textures to deal with in Oblivion, many of the regions (especially the underground regions) look very similar. Oblivion masks this well by it's expansive and diverse storylines, it's a great game simply because there's just so many characters to interact with, things that change depending on your actions, etc. All of that is easy to squeeze onto a DVD.

GTA4 on the other hand is apparently going to include an accurate model of New York (with Rockstars own brand of humour where appropriate). I can quite imagine that amount of texture data exceeding the capacity of a DVD.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually really liked the larger area available in San Andreas (at some points, the travel distances were annoying, but most of the time the missions kept you in the right area). I just wish San Andreas had been as enjoyable thematically as Vice City (the 80s Miami Vice -like theme was awesome), because it would've been a very clear winner (the game engine improvements were pretty significant, and the missions had more variety and were more interesting).

GTA3 was much harder to navigate than San Andreas (Vice City was obviously the easiest); although it was smaller, there were a lot of places that were confusing.

Re:I don't see the problem

[metamatic]

Yeah. I thought San Andreas was the weakest GTA game. In Vice City it was worth wandering around exploring, because from time to time you'd find cool stuff. In San Andreas, most of the world was just empty scenery and buildings you couldn't enter.

I'd rather they spent more time on fleshing out the world and less on bleeding-edge graphics. Something the size of San Andreas but with the buildings more than textured boxes would be awesome.

I suspect I'm in the minority, though.

Re:I don't see the problem

[RESPAWN]

I agree wholehartedly. I finally came back to GTASA last month with the intenet of finishing it up. I forgot how annoying the whole eating/exercising thing was. Eating restores health? Fine. Lose health if you don't eat enough? WTF. Exercising makes you stronger? Great. I have to keep exercising to maintain those muscles? I don't even do that in real life!

The dressing didn't bother me too much towards the end. Eventually I picked out some nice duds and just wore them for the rest of the game. What was annoying was the damn load times between trying on clothes. I'm sure that was just a PS2 problem, but it was stupid as hell.

The whole girlfriend thing seemed kind of pointless as well. Was there any benefit to any of the girlfriends other than the kinky one from whom you stole some kind of swipe card?

I also hated how you had to go to friggin' "flight school" just to begin to be able to fly aircraft. I think most of us could have picked it up right away, especially after Vice City. But hey! At least he could swim.

Re:I don't see the problem

[TrevorB]

I may be in the minority in this thread, but I loved San Andreas' countryside because while it may have been a hindrance to gameplay, there was something else it added that a compressed city map couldn't: Mood.

The first thing I do when ever I've played any GTA game is to hop on a motorcycle and just drive for a few hours, listening to the radio stations. I'm guessing that not too many people here have ever driven on the California coast, but much like the maps of San Fran and Los Angeles, they absolutely nailed it. Driving through that countryside while tedious to some was beautiful to me. Just don't get out of your vehicle. :)

I did wish they fleshed out these areas and made them more than just visually appealing. Maybe Oblivion will give them a good swift kick in the ass on this one.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there any benefit to any of the girlfriends other than the kinky one from whom you stole some kind of swipe card?

If they were happy enough, you could take their cars without the police trying to stop you. Of course that was about as useful to CJ as a college diploma would have been.

I actually somewhat disagree with your comment about flight school, though they really should have made you go before they let you try Supply Lines. That mission was about 10,000 times easier after flight school (I ended up passing it for 4 of my friends, since I eventually got to the point where I could pass it 80% of the time). To this day, there's only two things I enjoy doing in the game since having beaten it. The first (and always the most enjoyable) is going on a crime spree in either the Hunter or the Rhino. But the second is doing the flying race in the Hydra, something I wouldn't be able to do without flight school, at least not without missing a ring and turning around or switching to hover mode.

Re:I don't see the problem

[vimh42]

That sorta sounds like a positive to me. It teaches you to pay attention to your surroundings which I honestly find difficult in GTA type games.

Is your complaint that San Andreas was too large? I played both GTA3 and Vice City and liked the size of things. I think something on an even larger scale would be cool.

Or did the larger scale of things become a detriment to cohesive design and layout of the cities (just like the real world)?

Re:I don't see the problem

[mgabrys_sf]

50-50 on SA's openness. Hard to fly a jet in a fishbowl. Even harder to fly a JUMBOJET in a fishbowl (you DID check the hanger in Las Venturas didn't you?).

Granted, it makes walking around on foot exploring pointless, but jumping out of the 747 over the virtual transamerica bld almost makes it worth it.

Re:I don't see the problem

[sam0ht]

One man's meat... I loved the countryside in San Andreas, weaving through traffic at ridiculous speeds, going vigilante in the copter, etc. The missions in the countryside were pretty fun, too. Possibly driving-game fans like me are the only ones who like the wide open rural areas, though.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to exercise to keep the muscle up. You only lose muscle when you're starving.

I would eat about six of the biggest meals every once in a while, which would put my fat bar around a quarter full. I never had to do it all that often.

The countryside was annoying. The GF thing was cute at first, but was eminently ignorable.

As for flight school, I must be the only one that broke into the airport or found the crop duster and just started flying the thing. I never needed any damn flight school to start flying.

Some of the countryside missions, involving extended chases were kind of fun. 'Body Harvest' was a really satisfying gorefest ... but otherwise yeah, the countryside stuff was kind of lame (and the storyline at that point hardly made any sense to boot).

Re:I don't see the problem

[AbRASiON]

Do I blow the mod points or do I flame you? Well I think I'm going with option B.

What the FUCK are you talking about?
If you paid damned attention to the game you'd soon become accustomed to where you are, which roads go where, what landmarks to look out for etc.

The game was nothing short of awesome, that huge landscape really really led to a hell of a lot of fun and exploration, finding cool stuff dumped in towns in the middle of nowhere.

Complaining about a game being 'too big' is right up there with one of the stupidest things I've seen posted here, seriously, I bet you still get lost on E1M1.

Also: GTA4 will be smaller but more detailed anyhow, so you get your wish.

Re:I don't see the problem

[strikethree]

You do realize that open areas are... open areas, right? Drive through the countryside in Illinois sometimes. You won't see shit but it still exists. Is it not "fleshed out"? The purpose of the countryside in San Andreas is to provide countryside.

Besides, much of that countryside "crap" is used for content later on in the game. If you had bothered to do something other than the main storyline, you would have noticed this. Try doing the triathlon or some of the off road races.

For myself, I am glad that GTA:SA was so huge. It gave a deeper atmosphere and provided more places to play.

strike

Re:I don't see the problem

[Raenex]

Oblivion masks this well by it's expansive and diverse storylines, it's a great game simply because there's just so many characters to interact with, things that change depending on your actions, etc. I dunno, Oblivion got boring fairly quickly. As you say, the textures were reused a lot -- after a while, one cave looks like another. The character voices and basic looks were reused a lot too. It was fun for awhile, playing with the stat system, magic, alchemy, etc. The missions were fun in the beginning, too. But after awhile, same old, same old. I quit on the "get everybody's help by closing all the gates". Visit city, close gate. Visit city, close gate. Yawn.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Hubbell]

Right now I can imagine almost all of the streets in vice city or gta3 easily, I had to check my map nonstop in san andreas cause it was too wide open most of the time to get bearings at all on where you were.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Floritard]

I loved the countryside. I wish they had 3 times as much. When I was younger we used to ride dirt bikes in the Colorado mountains. I hope they have long bike trails and less coarse geometry in the next one. Grabbing a dirtbike and hitting the countryside was sometimes all I did in SA. The bronco cops were real fun to mess with too. Those suckers were squirrelly. Killing rednecks was very rewarding in general. Hopefully they'll have a pseudo-Walmart in GTA IV so I can go on a justified killing spree.

Re:I don't see the problem

[mink]

Dating various girls gets you perks. Higher relationship levels gets you access to vehicles and uniforms.

From gamefaqs:

For dating Helena you will gain access to a tool shed on her farm that
contains a chainsaw, a flamethrower, Molotov cocktails, and a pistol. You will
also be able to use her Bandito car. You don't need the keys as it has no
doors to lock.

For dating Michelle you can use her garage, located at her home. It works
just like a Pay 'n' Spray, but it's free.

For dating Katie you will get you out of the hospital for free, and even better
is that you also get to keep all of your weapons after dying.

For dating Barbara you get out of jail free after being arrested, and you get to
keep all of your weapons.

I love how that's gotten cut down

[deathsquirrel]

The interviewer asks specificaly if the 360 has limitations and the interviewee says that yes, both platforms have their challenges and this becomes "DVD and lack of built-in HD is limiting GTA4!!!

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding.

Reporter: "Sir, do you support the unfettered nuclear bombing of schoolhouses full of nuns holding kittens?"

Software Guy: "Uh..."

Tomorrow's Headline: ROCKSTAR GAMES REAFFIRMS STRONG STANCE AGAINST NUNS HOLDING KITTENS, SUGGESTS NUCLEAR ATTACK

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Aphrika]

...and at that point, Mr Hauser probably thought "oh crap, we should be writing games for the PC"

Seriously though, they've got hard drives, and you can stick a game on multiple DVDs if necessary. It also hasn't been unknown for a game to be released on one specific media either - Farcry only came on DVD. Add to that the fact that 99% of game developers out there could happily develop on an x86 box rather than cryptic head-bending Cell or less common PowerPC code, and I think he'd be onto a winner.

Oh, the installed userbase is big too - more than that of all the nextgen consoles put together... heh!

So the bottom line: if you want to write decent games that sell well, write it for a current PC, then port across to current consoles. Sorted.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[davebo357]

I imagine it's because the PS3's problems are just difficulty in programming, which programmers work hard at and get done. Whereas not having enough space to make your game is an obstacle that you can't really overcome with a little elbow grease.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Anonymous Coward]

Farcry was not only released on DVD, there is also a five CD version in Canada, at least.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Zach978]

GTA as a PC only game would fail...PC gaming snobs must realize that the demographics are much different for PC gamers vs Console gamers, and that console games almost always outsell the PC equiv.

The two demographics:

• PC gaming - playing counterstrike/WoW, with virtual friends online, alone, in the dark.
  
• Console gaming - playing GTA/Madden, passing around the controller to friends (in real life), while at the same time passing the bong, listening to music, etc
  

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[LWATCDR]

"or less common PowerPC code"
Most of they code they write is in C. Yes using the Cell has it's challenges but the PPC cores in the 360 are would be pretty straight forward. BTW for what you do have to code in assembly the PPC is MUCH nicer to code for than the X86.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[The Warlock]

Bigger userbase? Really?

Given the level of graphics in the trailer, how many PCs on the market do you think could handle GTA4? I'm going to guess a whole hell of a lot less than ten million. Remember, the current market leader in PC graphics chips is not AMD or nVidia, it's intel. Think about that for a minute. Intel doesn't have anything faster than the GMA 900. You think that's going to handle GTA4? It can't even handle GTA3.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[nschubach]

That's funny, cause my PC gaming is RTS or RPG, real life friends over the Internet with my light on. And my console gaming, I prefer long story driven content on the big screen alone in the dark...

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[powerlord]

I imagine it's because the PS3's problems are just difficulty in programming, which programmers work hard at and get done. Whereas not having enough space to make your game is an obstacle that you can't really overcome with a little elbow grease.

Probably true. That I suppose is the real difference between the consoles this generation.

Nintendo: Interesting hardware that has "low" graphic limits, but has interesting interface possibilities. "Small" Optical Media (but not pushed because of "low" graphic limits).
MicroSoft: "High" graphic limits. "Easy" to program for. "Small" Optical Media. No Guaranteed Hard-Drive. (the last two become possible constraining factors based on the first item).
Sony: "High" graphic limits. "More Difficult" to program for. Guaranteed Hard-Drive. "Large" Optical Media.

Based on these, I see Nintendo and Sony providing more consistent platforms, while MS has to release a new console sooner, or risk obsoleteness.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[corky842]

Farcry only came on DVD.

So that 5-CD version I got doesn't exist?

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot a few more platform specific traits:

Nintendo: Always competing against insanely strong first party titles for customer's money. Cryptic, or nonexistant online support.

Microsoft: No peripherals options. Pervasive online support. Good developer support. Great IDE support using tools you already use. Willing to lose $5,000,000,000.00+ to be a next gen console player.

Sony: Developer support will be in a language your team does not read or write. "English" documentation will look like its been hastily passed through Babelfish. Sony will repeatedly send you 2/3 of a working dev kit, leaving it up to the developer to scavenge the remaining components. Proprietary IDE with draconian self-expiring authentication scheme. Bizarre firmware updating ritual, which threaten to brick dev kits outright, or add unannounced 'features' which drastically alter the available memory footprint.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Runefox]

Ahem. Not only is the GMA 950 more powerful and more popular these days, but ever heard of the X3000/X3100? You know, the up-and-coming Intel chip with hardware TnL, pixel shaders, vertex shaders, actual rendering pipelines, and a 667MHz dedicated core? That'll probably do it if you turn the settings down.

But let's face it here. People who buy PC's for games know what they're buying. People who buy PC's for $500 and expect it to play the latest games don't know what they're doing, buying, or even using, half the time. The problem is, in order for said PC's to be $500, they need to cut them down to be as bare as possible - A decently powerful system will probably cost someone upwards to $1000, which will be adequate to at least run newer games.

If you're just going for the games, you're fine with a console, though I personally vastly prefer the keyboard/mouse style of control. You'll save yourself some money with a console, though (well, that's the idea), and you'll get a few years out of it. If you're looking to do games, rip DVD's, browse the internet properly, use IM, e-mail, newsgroups, and generally multitask, you're looking at a better value out of a PC. For something that does both, $1000 isn't too far off the mark for the cost of a low-end PC and a game console.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that the game was initially released on DVD in late 2003, followed up by a CD version sometime in late 2005.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[JebusIsLord]

Actually, its the lack of a robust, documented SDK. Both machines require the programmers write multithreaded C code (with maybe some powerpc assembly). Microsoft has always been fantastic with SDK documentation for all their platforms, while (at least as of a year ago) parts of the PS3 SDK were still only available in Japanese, if you can believe it.

Once you write a properly multithreaded game engine, it shouldn't really care if it has 3 cores or 7.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Anonymous Coward]

>People who buy PC's for $500 and expect it to play the latest games don't know what they're doing, buying, or even using, half the time.

Bullshit. I spent $500 on the parts for my computer almost TWO YEARS AGO and it is only now that it is just barely starting to not be able to play the newest games.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Dal Platinum]

I prefer GTA games on the PC. They are easier moddable, and a source of hours of non-storyline entertainment. Here is an example:

Bridge jump

With a free Zep clip for the basement crew.

Re:I love how that's gotten cut down

[Runefox]

$500 in parts could mean anything - A $500 brand-name, bottom of the barrel, toaster PC will definitely be incapable of playing most anything recent. MAYBE if it has a GMA, but a lot of the stuff I'm seeing has VIA chipsets with SiS graphics, which are far inferior in terms of graphics performance.

And the Solution?

[morari]

Dump the consoles. There's this thing, it's called a computer. It's that little (probably beige) box with an attached television-like thingie that you use to make the game anyway. It's much better...

Re:And the Solution?

[Rude Turnip]

My Xbox 360 is a computer. A very specialized one that is much more powerful than my desktop or laptop. It sits under my TV and is small and quiet. And, it's partly subsidized by Microsoft, so it's far cheaper for me, too. The best part...it's one fixed standard, aside from this hard drive issue (hint, screw you if you don't have a hard drive), so developers can develop for one fixed set of hardware.

Re:And the Solution?

[jkmullins]

It bothers the hell out of me when people always post this response. Computers are great, but sometimes, I just want to play a damn game without having worry about tweaking my resolution and graphics settings to make it run like it should on a small, square monitor. Why bother when for a third of the price of a good gaming PC (which I do also have), I can get an HD console that I can just plug and play?

Re:And the Solution?

[morari]

And I agree on that front as probably being the only advantage that consoles do have. I've always liked Macs for that as well. It makes development easier and quicker while allowing the most optimization. But even at that, modern computers aren't too different from one another and most developers don't seem to have much trouble spanning their games across the spectrum when they try. Specifically, I remember every installment in the Grand Theft Auto series itself as being far superior on my PC.

Re:And the Solution?

[morari]

Tweaking doesn't usually seem to be that time consuming, unless you're obsessive over it. Often times it's nice to be able to turn certain "features" off, and it's always a blessing to set your own controls up as opposed to maybe being able to choose from a few predefined ones. Besides, my monitor doesn't feel very small when one takes into consideration how close I sit. I'm more comfortable in my desk chair anyway, since my living room and couch are more for lounging. I'm not saying consoles don't have their place, but over the past several years they have really just been trying to replace computers altogether. Consoles are toys, they should stay at that. I think the Wii has the right idea in that regard. They shouldn't be $600, which is about the price my current PC was to build and runs everything just fine.

Re:And the Solution?

[shidoshi]

When I play games, with the exception of Warcraft, I want to kick back on my couch and relax, not be hunched over my computer. Plus, I rather enjoy buying games without having to worry if my video card is good enough or if I have enough RAM for the game or whatever else.

Re:And the Solution?

[cbreaker]

My computer monitor is 23", not square but Widescreen, and I sit two feet from it. It's very large when you put it that way.

And why use a PC when you can use a game console? How about: It's extremely versatile, PC games are usually cheaper then console ones, it's cheap to upgrade them, you have a 101 button controller, and a mouse. There's no monthly fee to play most PC games, with the exception of MMORPG's, and MMORPG's exist for the PC.

FPS games are better with a mouse. Sorry, Halo might be fun but you'll never, ever, be as fast or accurate as you can be with a mouse.

"HD Console" is a joke. My workstation at home - an Opteron 165 with 2GB RAM and a 6800GT AGP - is still seemingly more powerful then current game consoles. You can build this system now for peanuts. Don't give me this "3rd of the price" bullcrap.

Now, not all of this is to say consoles are bad. I own one. But PC gaming is still strong, and this same old tired argument is brought up every time new game consoles are introduced. In another year, PC games will blow away console games, not that they haven't already..

Re:And the Solution?

[TheJerg]

The part everyone leaves out of the cost equation with HD consoles is the HD tv that you have to buy along with the console to take advantage of the extra power... you're talking at least another 6-800 dollars(and if you want a really nice set you could be looking at a cost of over 1500 U.S. dollars) and if you build your own pcs it can be higher for the console when all is said and done. I own a gaming pc(self built for about 800 dollars), a wii, a ps3, a psp, and a DS(which I still spend more time with than all the others right now). PCs will always exist as a gaming platform, and so will consoles. They offer users different feature sets. There's really no point debating which is superior.

Re:And the Solution?

[Kelbear]

You have to factor in the PC's monitor into the cost if you include the TV in the console's cost. Also the TV size would be compared against the monitor's size. Not really fair to compare a 20inch monitor to a 50inch TV, not an apples to apples comparison.

Or in my case, I'm playing the wii and xbox360 off the same two monitors that my PC is hooked up to.

Monitors don't really fit into the equation.

The primary difference is that the consoles have less variance in their specs compared to PC. It's a pro and a con. As console generation pass and the feature sets grow more similar, this standardization vs. flexibility will remain the primary difference distinguishing the two.

Re:And the Solution?

[Ross D Anderson]

Note the USB ports on the front of an xbox 360. While I'm not sure about mice I know for certain that you can plug in a keyboard and type messages over xbox live to one another. I suppose its up to the developers to support these forms of input (If they are allowed to).
Anyway, I keep hearing this same argument about how "PC games will blow away console games" but to be fair I don't think either PC gaming OR console gaming are going anywhere fast. Personally I prefer console gaming as of late, Gears of War is in my mind simply one of the best shooters I've ever played, probably on par with HL/HL2, but obviously the PC cannot be beaten for RTS titles and "proper" shooters like counter-strike where every twich matters.
But on this point, a lot of people, especially casual gamers, don't want games where you have to spend hours getting good, and sometimes, nor do I. This is where Halo and other console games become so much better for having a group of mates round for just a quick blast.
Anyway, just my $0.02

Re:And the Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

"My workstation at home - an Opteron 165 with 2GB RAM and a 6800GT AGP - is still seemingly more powerful then current game consoles"

I doubt that. Can your 6800GT AGP run Oblivion at 1280x720, all settings on "high", with some AA, and still get a decent framerate? If not, your system isn't quite as powerful as an xbox360.

Re:And the Solution?

[PhoenixOne]

I agree with most of that but "small and quiet"? The 360 I own is loud as hell when it loads data and it isn't much smaller than a mid-size PC.

Re:And the Solution?

[cbreaker]

Also note the USB ports on the front of the PS3 that you CAN plug USB keyboards and mice into - and most games do support the use of the keyboard (but not the mouse for FPS control.) But until that company releases the keyboard/mouse lap thing, it's not feasible to use a mouse in front of the TV.

The fact will always be that some kids will spend far too much time at anything. It doesn't matter how complicated or not a game is, there will always be people that will absolutely own you, whether it's Halo, Quake, counter strike, or any other game for that matter. You don't have to spend hours to get good at single-player Counter Strike or to play some buddies at home; only if you want to compete online. You're telling me here that you want to compete but you don't want to practice? Sounds kinda lazy, to tell you the truth.

I didn't say "PC Games will Blow Away Console Games" in terms of sales or market share. I mean in a technical sense. Because PC technology can advance every day, better looking games will appear in short order. There is no such thing as "HD Games." That's marketing speak. Games have been "HD" on the PC for many years.

Re:And the Solution?

[Ross D Anderson]

When did I say compete online? I said drop in and play a few rounds with mates. Besides the fact that many games allow for 4 people playing on the same console so theres no lugging your stuff round a mates house (And no, I'm talking social contact, so internet doesn't count), it seems that xbox games spend a lot more time tiering the players so they compete in games similar to their level i.e. Halo 2.
Face it, Counter-strike isn't exactly one of those games that you can just drop into.

And I know its blindingly obvious PC games evolve every day, but price for price the console has better graphics and a longer shelf life, I've still to see something on the PC that beats Gears of War visually. For something like that out of a PC you'd have to be spending >£200 on just a graphics card.

some translation help needed

[yincrash]

What does this sentence mean exactly?

Rockstar hasn't said anything about a target SKU between the two consoles

Re:some translation help needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Stock Keeping Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_Keeping_Unit

Re:some translation help needed

[jbellis]

"Rockstar hasn't announced which version of the PS3 (20GB/60) or 360 (Elite/Premium/Core) it will recommend for best performance."

Re:some translation help needed

[kosanovich]

Basically it means "Rockstar hasn't said anything about releasing one version of the game for the Xbox360 and another different version for the PS3"

Re:some translation help needed

[eln]

I think the submitter is either trying to convince us he's really into inventory management or he works in a warehouse. He is more likely, in reality, a hobo who sleeps in a dumpster outside of a warehouse, because even knowing the definition of SKU I can't figure out what he meant by that sentence.

Re:some translation help needed

[Cutriss]

Unlike the other reply, I'll try to actually help you out here.

What this statement means is that the reporter wants to know if Rockstar might stipulate that GTA IV for the 360 requires the hard disk, meaning that instead of potentially inhibiting the game by designing around a lack of hard disk, they would require the hard disk and simply require Core owners to buy one if they don't have one already. Rockstar has not made any indication about that.

The hard disk is standard in the PS3, so that's a known quantity on the PS3. It isn't required to play almost all the games on a 360 (the only ones I know of that require it are FFXI and the Halo 3 beta, and Halo 3 probably only requires it since the beta content is too big to be stored on a memory card). I don't have any real numbers but anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of Core 360s in the wild without a hard disk attached is very low. Considering the price of the HDD versus the memory card ($100 for 20 GB versus $40 for 0.05 GB), requiring the 360 to have a hard disk would not be an onerous burden for most gamers, I would think.

Re:some translation help needed

[Ruathal]

See, that's what I thought first. But reading it again, I think the article is saying one SKU is the PS3 and the other is the XBox 360, rather than saying that the different SKUs are the different versions of each console. I only say that because the sentence goes on to say:

...but they're currently demoing the game to press running on an Xbox 360 - so we wouldn't worry too much if you've only got Microsoft's console. Sounds like the author was trying to write that Rockstar hasn't said that they are specifically concentrating on developing towards one console and doing a half-assed port to the other.

Re:some translation help needed

[yincrash]

I would believe this to be the most likely intent.
However, I also wanted to point out with my original post that using the term SKU should not be used in news articles because it doesn't really mean anything important unless you're in a warehouse or working at a store.
Basically, that was a really piss poor sentence because several replies to my post all inferred different meanings.

Re:some translation help needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Fuck off with the term "SKU". We're customers, end-users, and so forth. We're not your inventory system or your stock boys.

It's even worse when you see some 12 year old in a forum use the term "SKU" when referring to any product coming out. For some reason people try to cling to new buzzwords. Maybe they think it makes them look smarter, or more in-the-know?

Re:some translation help needed

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't required to play almost all the games on a 360 (the only ones I know of that require it are FFXI and the Halo 3 beta, and Halo 3 probably only requires it since the beta content is too big to be stored on a memory card).

Yeah ... but I hear that the retail version of Halo 3 is going to require a hard-drive too.

Convenient that MS is now selling one for twice the going rate.

I think they are hoping the popularity of Halo 3 allows them to correct a FCK up they made by not including a HardDisk Drive, and also add more to their war-chest.

It comes down to this

[TB]

It comes down to this. Any issues devs have with the PS3 can be fixed with time as they're software based, issues on the 360 require hardware, and thats a problem. GTA4 isnt the only game strugling with the 360, you'll notice many highend EA projects have now moved from 360 to PS3 due to the space and processing issues. Miscrosoft knew these issues would come up when they decided to drop HDDVD internaly and go for the early start to try and get one up on Sony.

Re:It comes down to this

[Carbonite]

GTA4 isnt the only game strugling with the 360, you'll notice many highend EA projects have now moved from 360 to PS3 due to the space and processing issues.

Any specific examples?

Re:It comes down to this

[TB]

Wardevil is one of the more recent ones.

Re:It comes down to this

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

I can't find any reference to Wardevil being moved to PS3 only because of space or processing issues. The only reasons I've found is the vague "to focus on one platform." Can you point me in the right direction?

Also, you mentioned a number of high-end EA games. Is Wardevil being published by EA? I saw the Wardevil site and noted that it is being developed by Digi-guys but couldn't find any information on a publisher. Also - what EA games have been canceled on the 360 and moved to the PS3?

Re:It comes down to this

[TB]

Take a look around for some recent interviews or something from EA, youll probably find something there.

Re:It comes down to this

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

But you stated that there were multiple EA games that this had happened to. Are you not able to remember the names of these games?

And why did you bring up Wardevils? That doesn't look to be an EA game at all.

Re:It comes down to this

[SpeedyRich]

Lol, a vain attempt. Anyway, it doesn't matter. What really matters is that there are nary decent 360 exclusives - mostly they're cross-platform, either cross-console or PC ports. On the other hand, the PS3 gets some truly exciting - yeah, EXCITING - exclusives. You know, Metal Gear Solid. Lair. Little Big Planet. Home. Motorstorm. Wipeout. God of War 3. And so on. The 360 is old hardware. Get used to it. [hypocricy]The future is all PS3, fanboy :) [/hypocricy]

Re:It comes down to this

[douceur]

That has FUD written all over it.

Re:It comes down to this

[Anonymous Coward]

here's a hint, he made it up to feel better about himself.

Re:It comes down to this

[badboy_tw2002]

Actually, if you look at the focus of previous PS2 only publishers (Square, Rockstar), the shift has been to choosing both platforms and not doing PS3 exclusives. Then there's the fact that the Wii (which really is old hardware) has caught the eye of the whole industry and they have the driving buzz this go round. So in reality, I think there's a more balanced approach this cycle than the previous "make it for PS2 and we'll port some crap over to the rest". All 3 platforms are being looked at seriously. In other words - Get used to it. The future is all, PS3 faboy :)

Re:It comes down to this

[dustin_c1]

Wardevil is vaporware.

They started pimping cinematics and screens in 2004, well before the Xbox 360 was released, as an exclusive on the Xbox 360 platform. Now, in the middle of 2007 it is a PS3 exclusive. Any company claims you hear about why it is now a PS3 exclusive is going to ignore all the internal money, development and political issues that cause it.

And when Wardevil finally *doesn't* get released, you'll be back to a total of 0 games that were slated for Xbox 360/PS3 and ended up PS3 only.

There are no HD equipped 360's

[SuperKendall]

That aside, is it acceptable for a game to release for HD equipped consoles only?

No, because no 360 models come with an HD-DVD drive - not even the Elite. And Microsoft has forbidden developers from using the HD-DVD drive for games (thus I'm not sure it's even technically possible to do so the way it's connected and boots).

Re:There are no HD equipped 360's

[Carbonite]

I think the "HD" refers to hard drive, not HD-DVD.

0 is not 15

[SuperKendall]

The base model 360 still ships with no HD at all - so that is the baseline developers have to work with, not 15GB (which should be enough for anyone, right?)

If Microsoft had dropped the no HD model then it might possibly be acceptable, but it's not very kind to the userbase to target only a portion of users that have a special add-on. It's an option but it has some negatives.

There's not really a good way to work around the disc size limitation though, given the open ended nature of the world - you can't have users swapping discs all the time.

Re:0 is not 15

[Anonymous Coward]

MS probably thought that they wouldn't have any HD-DVD titles in the first year, only rumours about HD-DVD only titles. So, next year everybody buys the HD-DVD version. After 2-3 years everybody will be forced to upgrade. They managed to be: a) a lot cheaper than Sony for a few years, b) keep their prices low until they increase their volume.

Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

Lack of space on a DVD means to me that these guys aren't using the space well... to say that they're limited by 360 not being HD-DVD... it seems like maybe they're just lazy about how they're going about making the game look good visually. Either that or they're not compressing audio well.

I get the feeling that some devs are just better at using what space they have available. That is, I'm not so sure GTAIV is going to look and sound better than even Oblivion. I don't see it being larger...

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[TB]

All games are compressed, and have been since the 80s. With every generation of console, games have increased in size by about 4x, so why wouldnt it for this generation?

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Stevecrox]

You've seen the GTA IV trailer right? The size of the map looks much larger than San Andreas, the texturing, AI and everything else has improved (I can see them using a DVD in texturing alone.) It not like they can even use mutliple layers for the DVD because streaming issue would (probably) kick in.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[TB]

GTA4 is smaller than SA in land used but is much larger is the terms of textures, models, sound, shaders, and such, not to mention the addition of multiplayer.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm guessing you program games for a living? Otherwise I'm not sure how you can critize their ability (or lack thereof) to use the space wisely

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[drinkypoo]

It not like they can even use mutliple layers for the DVD because streaming issue would (probably) kick in.

If your streaming is designed intelligently enough and your disc layout is also well-designed, this does not have to be an issue.

I also have a hard time imagining that with all of the power involved in the Xbox 360 that procedural textures are outside the scope of the system...

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Microsoft Flight simulator with 14GB, but MS is retarded in the software making department aren't they?

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[lc_overlord]

Lack of space on a DVD means to me that these guys aren't using the space well Well not exactly, there are a few ps2 games that use multiple DVDs, though most of this is movies, it's not that hard to imagine ways to fill a few dvds of data with non video content on the new consoles, especially in games like GTA4.
The major issues for console games is often to load and manage as much data as possible, not the processing power, and in this respect the ps3 comes out on top(as well as in more or less all other areas).

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

Well for starters, when texture resolution approaches TV resolution, you're done. Second, sound quality can only get so high before further improvements become negligible.

Really, you have PS2 games on multiple DVDs and you have Oblivion on one. I think some folks just are better at getting a lot of quality content onto one disc... or at least try harder.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[shish]

Lack of space on a DVD means to me that these guys aren't using the space well...

Games developers could really do with taking some tips from these guys...

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for starters, when texture resolution approaches TV resolution, you're done.

Which TV resolution? If you're pretending not to have heard that the XBox 360 and PS3 support higher TV resolutions than the previous generation equivalents then sorry but I just don't believe you.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[tgd]

HD means harddrive.

Apparently the moderators missed that, too, though.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

LOL good thing you posted as Anonymous Coward because that's just stupid to say. My response was to someone asking why games wouldn't necessarily take up exponentially more space through console generations. And one of the reasons is that TV resolution doesn't grow exponentially. Not even close, in fact.

Plus the original Xbox supported 1080i and 720p. Only the upcoming "Elite" will support 1080 progressive.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[DrEldarion]

Which would you rather use your power for? Making a more immersive environment or procedurally generating textures?

Really, more space is only a good thing, and 360 games will suffer in one way or another for lacking it, especially later in its lifetime.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Chandon Seldon]

Well for starters, when texture resolution approaches TV resolution, you're done.

This generation just jumped from 480p to 1080p - that's a factor of six more pixels than before. If multi-DVD games were shipping with last generation consoles, that implies that we will see multi dual layer BD-ROM games in this generation, since a dual layer BD-ROM is only 5x as big as a dual layer DVD.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

My response was to someone asking why games wouldn't necessarily take up exponentially more space through console generations.

No. The question you were responding to was "With every generation of console, games have increased in size by about 4x, so why wouldnt it for this generation?". It's right there in the thread. We can all see it so why pretend otherwise?

LOL good thing you posted as Anonymous Coward because that's just stupid to say.

If this is the best you could manage then it's a good thing that nobody knows or cares who you are any more than they do who I am. We're both anonymous, or as good as.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

I don't think you know what exponents are...

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[lc_overlord]

No, texture resolution can be whatever you want it to be and still be viable using methods like mega texturing, the reason ps2 games take up more than 1 dvd is because of liberal use of in game movies.
Oblivion only takes up one dvd because it is purposefully fitted within the medium(on the xbox360 that is), it reuses a lot of data and it doesn't have that many videos in it, and those that are there are compressed with mpeg4(which isn't avaible on the ps2).

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[nschubach]

Well for starters, when texture resolution approaches TV resolution, you're done. Second, sound quality can only get so high before further improvements become negligible.

Texture resolution and screen resolution are two different things... Right now their are cards with support for 4096 x 4096 pixel textures but most textures will be in the 256x256 or 512x512 range to keep the disk requirements to a minimum. Simply using 1920x1080 textures will not magically fix the world's gaming issues.

Another note on this is when someone brings up adaptive generation of textures. These are generally small textures with repeating patterns and take longer to generate than they would to load off a bigger disc. It's all a balancing act in the end, but you can't stick with DVD/DVD9 forever.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

Actually last generation's Xbox supported 720p and 1080i. The Cube supported 480p only... speaking of which, that's the best the Wii does as well but I guess Nintendo's just weird like that.

Also, textures aren't higher for 1080p as opposed to 1080i, that's interlaced vs progressive display and doesn't mean there's more pixels in any texture image.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

I agree that they are two different things, of course. But using higher-resolution textures than the screen resolution doesn't make sense to me, even if it weren't a question of hardware limitations (storage, bandwidth, etc.). Most textures are indeed the sizes you mention, and naturally since they are *below* screen resolution, it's clear that more HD space (and RAM) for textures can't hurt.

Anyway I think folks are losing sight of what I was replying to. I was asked why the storage requirements wouldn't continue to grow exponentially with console generations. Well, they *can* (heck you could make a 300-CD game years ago if you felt like it, just put in tons of assets...), but they don't have to. And one of the reasons they don't have to is that TV resolution isn't going up exponentially so I think texture size is eventually going to stop increasing much.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[drinkypoo]

Which would you rather use your power for? Making a more immersive environment or procedurally generating textures?

Given the speed of the Blu-Ray drive, I'll take procedurally generated textures.

But actually, the answer to your question is "Mu", which means "the question cannot be answered as asked". This is because your question consists of a logical fallacy - because procedurally generated textures provide a more immersive environment. Why? First, they reduce load times. The procedure for the texture is smaller than the texture itself. Some types of procedural texture can be rendered at a variety of resolutions, meaning that you need only produce a texture with the resolution you need. And the texture can be rendered at a higher resolution when you are close to it, so that it will be smooth even when you are right up next to a wall or something similar. In order to do this without procedural textures, you need to produce very high resolution textures, and either downsample them if you want a lower-res texture (in order to save memory) or pre-generate a whole series of different-resolution textures.

Finally, the Xbox 360 has dramatically more power than the Xbox, and I personally would pay for more games using the same engine as, say, GTA:SA. In fact, I would rather buy another game for the Xbox, because I don't have a loading time problem either - I used XBcopy to copy the game to my Xbox (yes, I own a real commercially-purchased copy of the game - that, and Panzer Dragoon, and a bunch of crap that was way cheap used) and now the loading time is negligible. I never get streaming errors (LOADING... PLEASE WAIT, on a big black rectangle... that rectangle is fucking lame, it's fucked me up more than anything else anyone has done in a game in a long time.)

More space is a good thing, but not at that price. This is not the time.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I would rather buy another game for the Xbox, because I don't have a loading time problem either - I used XBcopy to copy the game to my Xbox (yes, I own a real commercially-purchased copy of the game - that, and Panzer Dragoon, and a bunch of crap that was way cheap used) and now the loading time is negligible. I never get streaming errors (LOADING... PLEASE WAIT, on a big black rectangle... that rectangle is fucking lame, it's fucked me up more than anything else anyone has done in a game in a long time.)

More space is a good thing, but not at that price. This is not the time.

Don't worry, by the time you're done with the last gen games, the PS3 will probably be more affordable :)

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[nschubach]

You also have to consider that some textures are wrapped around objects. If you only view that object from one side, you either need one texture for each side, or a texture that you can stand next to and still see it as clear as the artist intended. Instead of breaking up a billboard into several small blocks, you might be able to use one large texture to cover the whole thing. It makes for less polygon calculation as well. The Unreal Engine 3 uses texture tricks to make things look more detailed than they actually are. This requires higher quality textures as opposed to higher quality models. This is where I see the big difference between the PS3 and 360 games. The 360 is geared toward a slightly higher capacity for textures and texture "tricks" and the PS3 I think is geared toward more of a high poly-count, low texture resolution, but we'll have to see how the studios manage.

I understand where your coming from, but I thought I'd note some reasons why you'd want bigger textures.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of space on a floppy means to me that these guys aren't using the space well... to say that they're limited by Amiga not being CD-ROM... it seems like maybe they're just lazy about how they're going about making the game look good visually. Either that or they're not compressing audio well.

I get the feeling that some devs are just better at using what space they have available. That is, I'm not so sure Myst is going to look and sound better than even Secret of Monket Island. I don't see it being larger...

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[cornface]

Plus the original Xbox supported 1080i and 720p. Only the upcoming "Elite" will support 1080 progressive.

All of the 360 models support 1080p over component and VGA. This was added in one of the dashboard updates. All the elite adds is HDMI support.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

TV resolution was never the reason for previous four time texture growth. It's all been about the systems hardware. Each generation was targeting standard definition television screens, for the most part. What did change was the amount of RAM the system and the video processor had. That translates into the level designer being able to create a more detailed environment and that is what was pushing the need for more textures. This new generation is just going to lead to even more detailed environments that need more textures. My guess we will see texture requirements continue to grow until a level is uniquely textured on every surface.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Mr2001]

The Cube supported 480p only... speaking of which, that's the best the Wii does as well but I guess Nintendo's just weird like that. "Weird" like a fox. They're designing for the TVs people have today, not the TVs people might have in five years, and the result is a console that turns a profit even at half the price of its loss-leading competitors. By the time HDTV is affordable enough to find its way into more than 1 in 10 households, it'll be time for a new console anyway.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[aegzorz]

Most xbox 360 games are on dual layer dvd-roms. I should know, those DVD+R DL discs costs a fortune :)

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[dustin_c1]

Really, you have PS2 games on multiple DVDs and you have Oblivion on one. I think some folks just are better at getting a lot of quality content onto one disc... or at least try harder.

Those PS2 games you speak of span multiple DVDs because of video cut scenes. Nowadays, the cut scenes are rendered in 3d as scripted gameplay.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

The speed difference between DVD and blu-ray is not all that great. In fact, certain situations, you'll get better performance out of the blu-ray as its constant linear velocity versus constant angular velocity. Blu-ray and HD-DVD read at one consistent speed all the time, which is only a little slower than the maximum speed of the DVD drive in the X360. Its a bit of a wash either way, in other words. As for procedural textures... they are great on paper, but artists balk at using that sort of thing most of the time. They can be extremely limiting insofar that procedural tends to look 'uniform'. Water, wood, that sort of thing is ok.. until you want dirt, grime, chips, damage, paint, or any other non-repeating artistic touches. Both the X360 and PS3 are exceptionally good at this kind of calculation (Altivec and Cell SPUs, respectively) but we have yet to see even one game for either platform that takes advantage of this. For all intents and purposes, procedural textures are a nonstarter thus far in the current gen. I think you'll find as time goes on, more devs will start chomping at the bit for the extra space on blu-ray. They already are, as evidenced by this article. I'm curious to see what happens on titles like Burnout Paradise which are using the PS3 as the lead design platform. As for Microsoft not requiring HDD - they DO stipulate that games must not assume the HDD is there, UNLESS the game you are talking about is an MMO. That's why FF XI gets a pass.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Dal Platinum]

As impressive as Farbrausch's stuff is, I think having a loading time even close to the texture/model generating time of an FR demo would but a severe downside.

Their Debris demo is astounding. But it wouldn't translate well to a game environment.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

Meh. I've had an HDTV since before I bought even my original Xbox. We have that and a flat-panel nowadays. The thing is, I will have to choose: more "interesting" controls on the Wii, vs. better graphics on the 360, for every cross-platform title I'd want to buy.

Besides, HDTV is more widespread than you think, I'd say.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Mr2001]

Besides, HDTV is more widespread than you think, I'd say. Statistics say otherwise: only something like 10-15% of households have HDTV. Most people are waiting for HDTV prices to approach normal TV prices, because they don't want to spend twice as much for a screen half as big as the one they already have, especially when plenty of popular content is still only SD.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

Heh, see, I personally never understood that. Why buy a giant TV with only SD in the first place :) it looks so much worse than on a "normal" size (say, at or below 32") TV where the image isn't overly blown up. Oh well, whatevs. Though as far as Wii vs 360 vs PS3 goes, I don't think people are really buying Wiis because they feel their TV isn't good enough for the 360 but just fine for the Wii... honestly, within the next few years (during this console generation) I imagine enough folks will have HDTVs to make Nintendo's choice seem more dubious.

By the way, that statistic you mentioned... I wonder how different it would look if one limited the "households" surveyed to those that have (or plan on buying shortly) a new-ish video game console. I mean, I'm thinking a large number of households with "standard" TVs aren't in the market for a video game console in the first place (let alone a Wii in particular)

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Mr2001]

Why buy a giant TV with only SD in the first place :) it looks so much worse than on a "normal" size (say, at or below 32") TV where the image isn't overly blown up. Who said anything about a giant TV? I have a 27" SDTV that cost about $250. Because much of what I watch is 4:3 (Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, etc.), the equivalent HDTV would have to be 32", which costs nearly three times as much.

Though as far as Wii vs 360 vs PS3 goes, I don't think people are really buying Wiis because they feel their TV isn't good enough for the 360 but just fine for the Wii... It's certainly a factor. I look at the 360 and PS3, and I see no reason at all to care whether my console has HDMI outputs or Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, but those features make up a lot of the extra cost. They're no use to me, and in fact the experience may even be worse if the games are designed to be played in a higher resolution than my TV can handle. I bought a Wii for three main reasons: it's the cheapest, word of mouth says it's a lot of fun, and the features it's missing (vs. other consoles) are mainly ones I can't use anyway.

Maybe in a few years, HDTVs will be affordable. By that time, the 360 and PS3 will be cheaper anyway, so I may as well wait until I can take advantage of their most-hyped features.

I mean, I'm thinking a large number of households with "standard" TVs aren't in the market for a video game console in the first place (let alone a Wii in particular) I think you've got that backwards. The Wii is all about appealing to customers who don't fit the traditional "hardcore gamer" profile, the ones who are least likely to own a new high-end TV.

Re:Not sure MS is to blame

[Sciros]

Ok how the hell was I modded troll there? The post has gotten plenty of good, informative responses. Sheesh some folks just shouldn't get mod points I guess...

Big Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear even Rupert Murdoch took out a second mortgage for the PS3 III.

Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Mr_eX9]

I thought from the very beginning that making the hard drive optional was a step backwards in the system's design.

The original Xbox was a really ballsy system overall. It was the first (commercially successful) console to have a hard drive and internet connectivity built-in. It brought LAN gaming and broadband online gaming to console gamers in a really big way. I thought it was really cool that if I played the same couple of maps or levels in Halo over and over it only had to load them once because Bungie was able to stream the files to the hard drive.

I feel like MS pussied out on the 360's design by removing the hard drive because they took that away from developers. Instead of innovating the console market again, they just seem to be riding on the success that they've already created. Now we're finally seeing a successful multi-platform developer complain about the 360's limitations. I don't think this looks very good for the 360 or for Microsoft.

P.S.: I'm sure the PS3 has development issues too--mainly the long load times as a result of the Blu-Ray disc and still figuring out the Cell architecture. But Rockstar is used to taking crap from Sony, so they're not complaining about it.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[TB]

BD loadtimes are only an issue if the game doesnt use HD caching, but Im betting GTA4 will given its a sandbox game.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[SuperCharlie]

I agree and I squeeled like a stuck pig on my xbox forum of choice when I learned of no Hard Drive option in the 360's. I think the decision was made for a few reasons. First, I think the Hard Drive was what eventually bit MS on the rear towards the end of XB1 as far as cost. If I remember correctly (maybe not) that size drive went out of normal production and was expensive to include as the lifecycle ended. Also, besides the tard pack low cost option, I think they made the decision to up the RAM instead of including the Hard Drive which all the developers loved at the time. If this continues, I think we will see Hard Drive only games become more prevalent, however, it makes ya wonder how Oblivion can be so vast and not be dragged down w/o one as well as recent games like Crackdown which is massive and is even in the same type genre. Im leaning towards lazy devs and not the system holding them back.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Politburo]

If I remember correctly (maybe not) that size drive went out of normal production and was expensive to include as the lifecycle ended.

Doesn't make much sense to me.. they could have gotten cheaper/larger drives and just formatted them down to 8 GB.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Chandon Seldon]

Doesn't make much sense to me.. they could have gotten cheaper/larger drives and just formatted them down to 8 GB.

Or... get this... formatted it at the new disk size and pass on the tech advantage to their customers.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Chris Burke]

I feel like MS pussied out on the 360's design by removing the hard drive because they took that away from developers. Instead of innovating the console market again, they just seem to be riding on the success that they've already created. Now we're finally seeing a successful multi-platform developer complain about the 360's limitations. I don't think this looks very good for the 360 or for Microsoft.

I speculate that the thinking behind the decision was that Microsoft understands that game consoles are price-sensitive and that some gamers would be put off by a $500 console, but they didn't make the correct choice in how to act on that. The Core version is cheaper, yes, and I'm sure that appeals to some, but it's cheaper by being crippled. Nobody wants a crippled piece of hardware, even if it is cheaper, because it's missing functionality that made the full-price version attractive to begin with. Which, if I'm not mistaken, has translated into far fewer Core versions being sold than the full-price version despite it being cheaper.

So the end result is that they split developers, with most not wanting to alienate customers by requiring a hard drive that some won't have, while failing to substantially increase uptake with the cheaper model. Sounds like a case of "killing two birds with one stone" when those birds were your prized competition falcons.

The HD on the original xbox was a ballsy move for sure, and I would have thought MS would stick with it after proving it could work (give or take billions in losses, but it's not like the Core 360 saved them from that either).

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Osty]

I thought it was really cool that if I played the same couple of maps or levels in Halo over and over it only had to load them once because Bungie was able to stream the files to the hard drive.

I feel like MS pussied out on the 360's design by removing the hard drive because they took that away from developers.

Unless developers want to make you "install" your game on a console (like Final Fantasy XI), the lack of a hard drive should be transparent. If it's there, cache your data. If it's not, don't. You still have to be able to stream your data from optical media, so having the hard drive just allows you to cut down on some loading times.

This is a well-known pattern, and has already been used in many Xbox 360 games. If Rockstar can't figure it out (especially with all of the excellent developer support Microsoft provides), they have more problems than just a lack of a hard drive.

Now we're finally seeing a successful multi-platform developer complain about the 360's limitations. I don't think this looks very good for the 360 or for Microsoft.

Bethesda Software, the makers of Oblivion, complained about the exact same things Rockstar is complaining about now, but almost two years ago. Somehow they figured it out, fitting all of their content onto a single DVD and utilizing the hard drive for a stream cache when available. I'm sure Rockstar can figure it out as well.

P.S.: I'm sure the PS3 has development issues too--mainly the long load times as a result of the Blu-Ray disc and still figuring out the Cell architecture. But Rockstar is used to taking crap from Sony, so they're not complaining about it.

Actually, they are complaining about it. RTFA and you'll see that the guy complained that both consoles have difficulties. The submitter's apparent anti-MS bias caused him to leave that part out, because "Xbox 360 sucks (implies PS3 is good)" is more attention grabbing than "Xbox 360 and PS3 both suck".

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[gad_zuki!]

The 360 is much less ballsy. Essentially, they should have aimed for a 400 price mark and not done an elite or a core. If that means wired controllers and a smaller drive, then fine. Right now, MS's strategy is to hobble the premium by making sure everything works with the core. They should have just hafd one system with a HD and a damn wifi adapter. Instead, the MS wireless adapter is 100 MSRP. The 20 gig drive costs that much and the damn VGA cable is 40 dollars. This is just price gouging. This tiered pricing is not good for anyone and only leads to gouging. One system would have solved all these problems, especially when this thing is advertised as a 'live' system.

I really hope the developers push MS to let them cut core users out of the equation if they choose to and that MS starts offering saner prices on their accessories. Because when its all said and done, I could have blown another 100+ dollars and gotten a PS3.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Johnno74]

They actualy did do exactly that...

Late model Xboxes have a 10gb drive. An xbox drive is split into 5 partitions (boot, 3 swap, & data) and if you have a 10gb drive, 2gb is simply unpartitioned. If you put a modchip in you can create a new partion, and chuck more stuff in there. Unfortunately you can't make any of the stock partitions any bigger.

If you put a large HD in your xbox then the extra space is used in a partition unmodded xboxes don't have (and is unuseable without the modchip enabled)

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Mr2001]

Here's a theory: hard drives don't get cheaper at the low end, they just get bigger. If that 8 GB drive costs $25, in a couple years you might be able to get a 40 GB drive for $25 instead, but you still won't be able to get the 8 GB drive for $5.

Meanwhile, the console is expected to get cheaper, not just better. If you're still spending $25 on the hard drive, even as all the other components have gotten cheaper, that makes it harder to drop the console's price. You could use the larger hard drive as a selling point, but for something that's mainly used for saved games and caching (which is invisible to the buyer), the extra space isn't all that attractive.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft surveyed a ton of devs while developing the Xbox 360, they asked them if they wanted a standard HD or 512MB of RAM. Adding both would've raised the price too much, and we've all seen the problems Sony has run into with this.
The HDD on the PS3 wasn't added to add value to the console or out of Sony's kind heart, the machine actually needs it to compensate for the slow, cheap BD ROM drive that's standard for all PS3s.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Mark Gillespie]

The Blu-Ray "long load times" is a falsehood, invented by the XBots to make DVD look the better choice.

The facts:

BluRay uses CLV, CDs and DVDs use CAV. Blu-Ray is consistant across the entire disk, the 360 is not. The quoted figures for 360 transfer rate are at the outer 10% of the disk. In addition, when you talk about dual layer DVD's (which most of these days), the 360 reads them at 8x (12x is only for single layer 4.3GB disks).

At the end of the day, real world comparisions, at best 360 is 10% faster in certain areas of the disk, at worst, it's 30% slower. On average, they are VERY similar. But throw the PS3's standard HDD into the equasion, and the PS3 is suddenly in a totally different league.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely Sony added a HDD because, in this age of downloadable content, not having one would be fucking retarded. No?

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Ctrl-Alt-Del]

Actually, they are complaining about it. RTFA and you'll see that the guy complained that both consoles have difficulties. The submitter's apparent anti-MS bias caused him to leave that part out, because "Xbox 360 sucks (implies PS3 is good)" is more attention grabbing than "Xbox 360 and PS3 both suck".

You hit the nail on the head there. This was an interview by Official Playstation Magazine, so the pro-PS3 bias is so unsubtle as to be laughable. I'd be interested to know what Rockstar thought were the PS3-specific problems, and an intellectually honest interviewer would have been too.

As you've mentioned, the presence of the hard drive should really be taken as an optional extra, otherwise you're into the painful realm of installing software. It shouldn't be anything a bit of clever programming wouldn't solve.

I'd hate to think how much stuff they're trying to shovel on to those BluRay discs.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Yusaku Godai]

Exactly. While on the one hand I bash the X-Box and the 360 for being *too* PC-like, I think that the introduction of a hard drive and and built-in LAN were two innovations worth bringing to the console market. When Microsoft removed the hard drive from the 360 (the core system aynways) it was like a step backwards--now I still find it too PC-like, but even more stripped down.

As for the disc-size limit, this is also vindicating. I remember lots of people on Slashdot scoffing at Sony's insistence in including Blue-ray. Some of the complaints make some sense--for example that Sony is just doing it to push their HD movie format to the market. But I've said all along that it was well worth having the extra space for games, and if they're going to go with an HD format obviously they're going to use the one that they were instrumental in developing.

I already have a number of PS2 games that have had to come on multiple DVDs. And with the new consoles' support for more complex worlds and higher quality textures and other HD content, it was clear to me that DVDs would be way too limiting for large games like a GTA or a Final Fantasy. When I saw that they were developing GTA IV for the X-Box I became concerned that it would become limited by the 360 core system. I think they should just require the hard drive and require the HD-DVD drive, and then there would be much less problems.

Re:Yeah, MS really dropped the ball here

[Mr_eX9]

That's the thing of it--MS could have skipped making the Core system and just released the Premium system with the hard drive for the same $400 it costs now.

Weird Development Approach Foreshadowing Delays?

[Bones3D_mac]

I don't get it... why are they claiming the 360 is somehow imposing limitations on a game's design? Hasn't it always been developer policy to create software for the least common denominator (ie, a 360 sans hard drive) first and *then* add extra features for more powerful systems afterwards?

If I had to guess, it sounds like they are testing the waters, seeing if the 360's multiple configuration can be used as a viable scapegoat, should the developers miss the deadline they publicly set for themselves.

Sure, the PS3 fanboys are probably eating this up now, but will they be chomping at the bit later on, if it turns out the delays were actually caused by the nightmares involved in developing for the PS3?

The solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

*PLEASE INSERT DISK #3*

One DVD may be too small..

[lmnfrs]

So if a DVD is too small and is impacting their goal, why not use a second disc? I know the whole map will have to be available, among other things, so much of the data would have to be duplicated on the second disc, but there has to be a way they can separate some of the missions onto the first disc. Then once most of the missions are complete they won't ever need that data again.. So the gamer switches discs.

Re:One DVD may be too small..

[Kymri]

I'm not entirely convinced that this is an insurmountable problem, or that one disc is too small. Although it's quite derivative (love it or hate it), Saints Row does just fine, though admittedly isn't as large as GTASA. (On the other hand it isn't as tedious or boring, but that's purely subjective.)

Still, if Volition can do this with their first effort, I'm sure Rockstar will manage admirably.

Re:One DVD may be too small..

[anti-human 1]

GTA series hasn't had fancy cutscenes in the last 3 games (I don't remember, I think 2 might have). Mission setups are just waypoints and objectives, I'm sure they don't take up much space. Audio clips and textures/geometry are going to be the killers when disc space is becoming an issue. The "cutscenes" in the most recent set of GTA games seemed to be in game, as the models were exactly the same, and there wasn't really any mpeg artifacting that I've noticed.

My point is, swapping discs halfway through the storyline wouldn't really work, as all the map geometry would have to be present on BOTH discs (or more) to keep the sandbox premise. Space could only be really saved by cutting out some of the mission-specific audio clips, and actual mission information (which would be miniscule compared to everything else).

Re:One DVD may be too small..

[Anonymous Coward]

procedural synthesis of textures? maybe a handful of GBs freed?

I thought I smelled something like .kkreiger being 1mb with pretty looking textures.

meh whatever, back to the whippits for me.

sounds to me..

[Mockylock]

Sounds to me like they really didn't have the 360 in mind when they put together the game. I'm pretty sure when you're designing a game, you create a roadmap, requirements and blueprints if you know there may be certain limitations.

In they end, they have to make it work one way or another if they want to keep sales up... unless (which seems to be) Sony's giving them a bit of outside inscentive to push users in their direction because they know how popular the game is.

The 360 has been out for how long now... and they're JUST releasing GTA4? PLEASE tell me you don't think they waited for the PS3 to start developing it.

Re:sounds to me..

[steelcobra]

Sony has had 6 month exclusivity on all of the GTA games. (And true exclusivity on 1&2) And in this case, as opposed to the last gen, Sony has the more powerful console with more consistent hardware. And with the six-month lead the PS3 has, they need to optimize first for the PS3, then adjust it for the 360. And I highly doubt they're going to gimp the game on PS3 because they have to adjust for a later port on a system with 1/5 the storage per disc layer and unknown presence of a hard drive.

Does anyone else remember when Halo PC came out? A game that had been out two years on console could barely run on high-end systems because it was originally built to take advantage of all the little tricks that can only be done on known, one-configuration hardware.

RRAIDIDA

[zippthorne]

Well this thread fizzled. Somehow, in a thread making fun of redundancy, there wasn't nearly enough of it. We need more redundancy people, or at least, more "saying the same thing a different way" in the same thought

Re:RRAIDIDA

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!! +5 so damn true btw I'm posting from a wii

love, AC

Re:RRAIDIDA

[Blublu]

It's funny because it must have taken you hours to type "btw I'm posting from a wii" from a Wii.

Gates says

[TravisO]

9.4GB is enough for anyone!

Re:Gates says

[Verunks]

that's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft

Re:Gates says

[cybereal]

You must be referring to Robert Gates, since Bill Gates would definitely know that DVD's limit is 8.5GB per side.

Re:Gates says

[serialdogma]

Your confusing DVD+/-R9 with DVD-DL; DVD+/-R9 only lets you have 8.5GiB a side, but DVD-DL lets you have 9.4GiB each side.

Re:Gates says

[cybereal]

I'm sorry but you are wrong, please refer to the charts on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd#Dual_layer_record ing

Clearly you have been misinformed. Due to the nature of dual layer dvd technology, the second layer is too obscured to be used completely, which is why you get so much loss of space. The 9.4GB size is double sided single layer per side. So that's 9.4GB for the whole DVD not one side.

Re:Gates says

[serialdogma]

Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks for the correction.

this is Go4tsex

[Anonymous Coward]

the reape8 BSD's outreacch are troubles of Walnut

I said the same thing ...

[tb3]

a couple of months ago. I thought the mass storage of the 360 wasn't up to par with the PS3. Whether or not Sony can recover from the marketing disaster that was the PS3 launch is another question entirely.

Who has a 360 with no hard drive?

[gelfling]

Does such a thing even exist? Even if you ran tight on space you could upgrade to a 60GB unit. That' about 8 HD-DVD'sdatawise.

From Xbox.com:
Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU
        * Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
        * Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
        * VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
        * 128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
        * 1 MB L2 cache
CPU Game Math Performance
        * 9.6 billion dot product operations per second
Custom ATI Graphics Processor
        * 10 MB of embedded DRAM
        * 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
        * Unified shader architecture
Polygon Performance
        * 500 million triangles per second
Pixel Fill Rate
        * 16 gigasamples per second fill rate using 4x MSAA
Shader Performance
        * 48 billion shader operations per second
Memory
        * 512 MB of 700 MHz GDDR3 RAM
        * Unified memory architecture
Memory Bandwidth
        * 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
        * 256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
        * 21.6 GB/s front-side bus
Overall System Floating-Point Performance
        * 1 teraflop
Storage
        * Detachable and upgradeable 20-GB hard drive
        * 12x dual-layer DVD-ROM
        * Memory Unit support starting at 64 MB
I/O
        * Support for up to four wireless game controllers
        * Three USB 2.0 ports
        * Two memory unit slots
Optimized for Online
        * Instant, out-of-the-box access to Xbox Live features with broadband service, including Xbox Live Marketplace for downloadable content, gamer profile for digital identity, and voice chat to talk to friends while playing games, watching movies, or listening to music
        * Built-in Ethernet port
        * Wi-Fi ready: 802.11a, 802.11b, and 802.11g
        * Video camera-ready
Digital Media Support
        * Support for DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R/RW, DVD+R/RW, CD-DA, CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, WMA CD, MP3 CD, JPEG Photo CD
        * Ability to stream media from portable music devices, digital cameras, and Windows XP-based PCs
        * Ability to rip music to the Xbox 360 Hard Drive
        * Custom playlists in every game
        * Built-in Media Center Extender for Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
        * Interactive, full-screen 3-D visualizers
High-Definition Game Support
        * All games supported at 16:9, 720p, or 1080i, with anti-aliasing
        * Standard-definition and high-definition video output supported
Audio
        * Multi-channel surround sound output
        * Supports 48KHz 16-bit audio
        * 320 independent decompression channels
        * 32-bit audio processing
        * Over 256 audio channels

Re:Who has a 360 with no hard drive?

[Verunks]

there are two version of xbox 360, the core one is without hdd and the pro one has a 20gb hdd. there is also a limited edition, the elite with a 120gb hdd but the fact is that the core version has no hdd so game developers couldn't use it

Re:Who has a 360 with no hard drive?

[HAKdragon]

Does such a thing even exist?

Yeah, it's called the Core version. However, we don't know how many people bought the Core and hard drive separately.

bleah

[Anonymous Coward]

As another poster stated, developing on the PS3 is a nightmare. The tools suck. You have less memory. It requires custom code for the SPUs, which only have 128K of RAM or something. In contrast, the Xbox360 has more available RAM and about equal processing power, and its available as 6 symmetric multiprocessing PPC pipelines instead of one PPC and a bunch of DSPs.

Anybody who can't fit a next-gen game onto a dual-layer DVD deserves to fail. For example, maybe they should design their streaming system so they don't have to save copies of the same texture on the disk 47 times.

There is practically no demand for HD-DVD or Blu-ray from game developers. Seriously.

Re:bleah

[Durzel]

"128K of RAM or something". Clearly you're pretty well versed on PS3 development then, or do you just get all your info from xbox-scene.org?

Re:bleah

[Anonymous Coward]

"The PPE has a 512-KiB level 2 cache and one VMX vector unit. Each SPE is a RISC processor with 128-bit SIMD GPRs and superscalar functions. Each SPE contains 256 KiB of non-cached memory (local storage, "LS") that is shared by program code and work data."

PlayStation 3, Wikipedia

Each SPU has 256KiB of memory. Parent is off by half, but is more right than you.

Re:bleah

[Durzel]

How can he be "more right than me" when I haven't even mentioned any numbers or tech specs? I was pointing out the fallacy in armchair fanboys who usually don't have a clue how to develop games quoting FUD as if it's gospel.

Re:bleah

[mgabrys_sf]

"or something"

Hey - you convinced me. Just curious - what technical acronym is that? I'm guessing it's for:

"Origonally random sentence offers more eccentrically toned hubris in naive grammar".

They claimed both system has issues.

[kinglink]

The full interview shows how biased the magazine is. Even the linked story has it. They basically laid out the obvious flaws with the xbox 360 and all Houser could do is say yes. What a shock for the Playstation Magazine.

But on the other hand they at least mentioned he said both systems have issues. And trust me from what I've seen with the PS3 and how my company is handling it, the HD issue and the Disc capacity should be the least of their worries. The 360's issues are easy to enumerate and resolve.. the PS3, not so much.

Seriously the 360 has proven itself over and over. We have Oblivion, yet if Rockstar can't get their head out of their ass and figure out how to do the work they don't deserve your money. We have at least 4 major open world games on the 360 (hell Just Cause was also available on the PS2, at the same size world which was "fucking enormous".) And Rockstar the guys who everyone seems to think can piss gold can't figure this one out?

Please.

Re:They claimed both system has issues.

[Yusaku Godai]

Most of the issues with the PS3, I imagine, are just programming the damn thing and working with the Cell cores. I'm not saying that's an easy challenge to overcome, but the PS2 was also tough to develop for, and Rockstar has proven themselves to have some smart programmers able to really juice a system for all it's worth. The 360, on the other hand, isn't much more than a stripped down Windows machine, which is why developers (understandably) like working on it. It's comparatively simple.

The problems they'd have to overcome with a game like GTA IV on the 360 are much more difficult, as they involve trying to overcome actual physical limitations. I think that the only solutions are to require a hard drive (or face ridiculous load times) and to require the HD-DVD drive (or release a version on multiple DVDs requiring constant disc swaps--no fun). Basically, it's clear that they're going to produce enough content for this game to fill up a high capacity disc, as there are even PS2 games that fill multiple DVDs, and here we're talking about a next-gen game with thousands of high-resolution textures. So there's no way they can compress that data to a single DVD. Better require the HD-DVD drive than limit the game's possibilities. I don't see any other solution here.

Re:They claimed both system has issues.

[powerlord]

There is a third solution that is even less palatable than multiple DVDs ...

Use lower res textures/sounds, less "music" available, etc. In other words lower the size of the assets you have to fit.

This is a problem because:
1) If they do it across the board, all their users will be angry (PS3 and 360 alike)
2) If the just "dumb down" the XBox360 version, then they might tick off MS (which could put the Vista approved version in jeopardy) since it will be seen as an easy example of why the PS3 is "better" than the 360.

Requiring a hard drive is a much easier out than this choice (and I'm sure MS would love big games to push the hard-drive requirement so they can rack up the $$$ on the proprietary attachment).

On the other hand, maybe they've already figured out a different/better solution and all this is moot. :)

Re:They claimed both system has issues.

[Yusaku Godai]

I think that any solution would have to be some sort of compromise. I can't imagine a technical solution to the problem that doesn't involve inventing some sort of magic super-compression and eliminating load times from optical discs.

640k is enough

[Banaticus]

I don't know what all you script kiddies are complaining about. 640k is plenty big enough for anyone to run any program that they need to run. Grumble, grumble, wasteful bloat-ware. ;)

Not true

[sonap]

Oblivion requires a hard drive. And that's been a pretty popular game. Oblivion does NOT require a hard drive. It does use it if you have one, for caching (and thus shorter load times). Source: http://www.xbox365.com/news.cgi?id=GGurPPHLLr08172 049

Controls.

[Torvaun]

It depends. The mouse is nicer than any other controller I've use for things like aiming. However, I'm a great fan of a controller instead of a keyboard for moving. Have you tried sneaking around in Splinter Cell on a computer? Crouch, then twitch-tap the movement keys like an ADHD squirrel on amphetamines. If you just hold the damn key down, you'll alert them to your presence, and die. On the other hand, playing Hitman on the computer vs. PS2, I can pull off headshots with impunity using a mouse, less so using the analog stick.

Re:Controls.

[corky842]

Have you tried using the mousewheel to control your movement speed? No illegal drugs required.

Oh give me a break.

[otis wildflower]

Stick this on the box:

"Requirements: XBox 360 with optional hard drive of 20GB or greater."

PROBLEM SOLVED, NOW STOP WHINGEING..

Agree (sort of) but...

[A_Non_Moose]

When "limitations" are mentioned, I think about the GTA series (well, 3, VC and SA) in general.

30fps limit and/or 60hz on computer.

Think about it for a second, 30fps limit on machines that can churn out 2 to 5x that amount?

Or the 60hz, which gets even more painful to my eyes as time goes on? Hell, I've amazed people
by being able to look at a monitor and tell the diff between 60/75/85hz w/o looking at the display
properties. 60hz hurts (pun intended), 75hz is tolerable and 85hz and above is best looking and I
can't see the flicker.

Taken together, if you use directX's allowable refresh rates to change per resolutions you get all sorts
of anomolies in GTA3/vc/sa, like buildings that disapper, curbs/trees/cars that aren't drawn until/after
you've hit them.

Worst one was in SA trying to get to a clamshell w/o the "frame limiter on", you'd think that parachuting in
dropping into the water and swimming from there would give me enough time? Nope, drowned no matter what.
Turned on the limiter, swam down, got the shell and got back up with more than 1/2 lung capacity.

Starwars battelfront, IIRC from a friend of mine, had similar issues, made worse by consoles and pc's
playing online.

It comes down to: console games work within the strenghts/limits of the console, pc's OTOH have to work
within the real limits of the hardware or the artificial limits of console ports or both.

SA was the best/worst example of this. Freedom to roam, graphically stunning, little load time (I got
no more than a 2 second tick of the SATA drive), but you still had drowning without the frame limiter and
teleporting cars, and disappearing scenery if not at 60hz (sometimes the 60hz unlock was applied w/o
user intervention and had to be locked manually, AFAIR).

I've generally noticed pc -> console ports do better than v/v, because to cut the game down to fit a
console is easy, building a game back up to not look crappy on a pc rarely works (i.e. Thief3, Deus Ex:IW)

Re:Weird Development Approach Foreshadowing Delays

[Retric]

I don't get it

GTA IV was well into development before they decided to add the 360 so developers designed and built a game thinking they could use a HDD. Now that they can't use it they are running into problems with their basic design. As a developer you run into this stuff all the time when management decides to move from Oracle to MySQL well it's going to take longer and have X, Y, and Z issues...

PS: It's not hard to build PS3 games that use 30-50% of the systems capabilities the issues are in tweaking things so you can stack up graphically with games who utilize all the little tricks.

blame the CD... err DVD

[EdelFactor19]

the only problem is laziness on the ends of programmers. it's the age old adage now: CD killed the Algorithm
Once space wasn't scarce the whole art of and process of optimization and minimizing sizes went out the door. We have space so lets waste it with lots of content that doesn't add anything to gameplay but looks nice. There is no way that you can convince me that the 9 gigs or whatever on a dual layer DVD isn't enough room to put in the content they need.

I'd venture that instead the problem is bloating and the fact that the industry as a whole does this and forces the developers to do so is also notable. There are plenty of alternatives they could utilize. Not the least of which is that whole "multiple disc" thing.

The funniest thing is that Microsoft is essentially saying "things can't rely on you having a harddrive, and therefore nothing will ever utilize it, so all its going to do is prevent you from having a bajillion memory cards." Great design. Didn't even the original Xbox have a built in hard drive?

If the CD killed the algorithm, the DVD dug up its grave, defiled it, smacked it around and chopped into a several million pieces. And HDDVD / bluray is still deciding which nuclear warhead it wants to use.

Require a HD?

[StikyPad]

So put a hard drive in the system requirements. If the game is good enough, core system owners will buy the HD. Sure, it's a bigger risk since you're limiting your market, however that risk is mitigated by the fact that you won't have to compromise on the quality of the game. (Although I wonder what percent of core 360 owners don't have, or have plans to buy, a hard drive).

Re:Require a HD?

[ChaoticLimbs]

Console games do not have "hardware requirements". To do so would be completely antithetical to the purpose of console gaming. PC games have hardware requirements. The expectation for console games is that if your grandmother buys you a game for the XBOX 360, you can play the game as soon as you get it. ALWAYS. Exceptions?

60GB is...

[Twisted64]

60GB is about 8 normal dual-layer DVDs. Don't HD-DVDs hold more?

Required Hard Drive?

[axia777]

It is sad to see you guys say this. Rockstar nor Microsoft are about to crap on a couple million customers like that. I seem to remember Microsoft saying that they would never allow for any game to require the hard drive. Why? Because it would unconscionable and mean to force those 360 Core owners to buy a Hard Drive just to play the new GTA4. From a business perspective it is not practical. I know all you Premium and Elite owners don't give a fig about those poor Core owners, but it is good for them that you guys are not in control of the decision making process. I think it is high time to admit that in this instance Microsoft made a bad decision to not include a HD. Sure it is not used in every game, but in massive games like this is obviously very useful. Like Halo 1 and 2 for example. Bungie used the HD to preload the levels which made for fast and easy gameplay. The HD in X-Box was a great idea and was a major advantage. Sony should have done the same in PS2, which is why they did so in PS3. Sony made the right decision to include the HD in both SKU's. I have a hunch that this "Episodic" content that will be available for the 360 version of GTA4 will be the rest of the game that would not fit on to the DVD9. If so then I hope that they don't screw you guys by charging you more money for a game the PS3 owners paid for just once. Now that would be unconscionable and mean. BluRay is an advantage because bigger is always better. Heck, Blue Dragon for 360 is on 3 DVD9's. How many DVD9's will some fourth or fifth gen games fill? Five? Six? While many people say they don't' mind multi disc games, I say it sucks. This is next gen and the days of multi disc console game should be at and end. For PC it is all right because it is an install. But getting up to change discs for me is a pain in my ass.

flicker / eye strain = bs

[Anonymous Coward]

i call bs. you have magic eyes. the average human eye has a sampling rate, determined primarily by the propagation delays in your optic nerves, of 25 Hz. now, the nyquist criterion would state that information presented at 50 Hz or greater would be indistinguishable from continuous information. given that rods and cones and their associated neural wirings have different inherent delays, it's not unreasonable to expect that some people may see flicker from electronic displays with refresh rates approaching as high as 60 Hz. your claim, however, of being able to detect flicker at and perhaps above 75 Hz is completely ridiculous. i suggest you look into the placebo effect and how it may be affecting the way you perceive things.

aside : i've noticed lsd considerably increases my eyes' sampling rate. perhaps you have really messed up body chemistry?

Re:flicker / eye strain = bs

[mgabrys_sf]

this is a total off-track one of those but it interests me so meh to mods...

What about interference? I used to get headaches when dealing with slow refresh and the refresh from overhead flourencent lights. In a dim office - or sunlit - no problems. Well lit office - I can't tolerate less than 75hz. Could that be the problem?

Re:flicker / eye strain = bs

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you look into getting a clue before you start lecturing other people about sampling and the human visual system because you apparently know little about either.

Re:flicker / eye strain = bs

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really tell the difference between two very high frame rates, but it is good to have a game running at a higher frame rate so that if a scene is particularly hard to render it doesn't drop down to something unpleasant. Of course I wouldn't have a problem with a game running at a fixed frame rate of 30 FPS so long as it actually always maintains that frame rate.

'Drive' the model planes on the roads.

[HornWumpus]

That mission is impossible if you try to fly when killing.

You do need to fly between the delivery trucks.

Procedural Synthesis

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the game is limited by what it is--a crappy port (like most console games). Maybe if Rockstar had used procedural synthesis during development, then they wouldn't be in this bind. After all, MS has been touting procedural synthesis since it was announced that the Xbox 360 wouldn't have a next-gen optical disc format.

Basically, content is created on-the-fly, instead of creating it before distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_synthesis

Spore uses this same technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(video_game)

Game developers need to get with the times--this includes, but is not limited to, multi-core support.

Re:Procedural Synthesis

[Anonymous Coward]

procedural has it's uses. A lot of simple materials can be made procedurally. That's great for simple materials, from rusty metal, up to a road surface/grass/mud. But if you can create a movie poster billboard procedurally (for example) I will eat a hat made of shit.

What is the procedural algorithm for a photo of a sunset? for an animated neon signs/adverts like those in times square?

Procedural is not always a solution.

I won't eat a hat made of shit.

Fanboys on Slashdot?

[br4nd0nh3at]

I can't believe you guys aren't open-minded enough to see that all consoles have their strengths and weaknesses. And also that some consoles may not look like it's good but actually will turn out very good. Seriously does it matter what rockstar says, there are games out that will utilize each system accordingly. Just don't turn this sites comments into a fanboy flame war blood bath.

You know what, Rockstar?

[Aazn]

Shut up, Rockstar. Just shut up. Are you seriously telling me you can't fit an entire game on a 9.1 GB DVD? Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion only used 5.01GB on the disk, and over 40% of that is dialog. I'm sure they did something stupid like textured every single little rendered newspaper on the ground, or put dialog for pedestrians or something outlandish that is taking up so much space. I mean, Oblivion does it so nice and only uses half the disk! 200+ hours of gameplay, and you can't even finish the game without going "oops Low Disk Space warning guys?" Come on. Compress your audio!

Re:You know what, Rockstar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I mean, how DARE they add detail, or go for higher quality. How DARE they drag us kicking and screaming into the future. The nerve of some people.

Also, don't be a twat.

No ones defending the ps3?

[thecheatah]

Wow all of the comments are from people who worship the 360 or are trying to stimulate a ps3 360 fanboy battle.

I didnt see any comments from the ps3 guys so I ll say a few words.

actually now that I come to think of it, i have nothing much to say. If I say I love it you guys will assume I am a fanboy, but the fact is that Iv never had a playstation before. I had a nes, snes, n64, dreamcast, gameboy (the old brick one), DS, wii, and now a ps3. So i was never really a fanboy to begin with.

How can I say this with out sounding fanboyish? ps3 was well worth my $600.

(the 360's costs are starting to add up arn't they)

Re:No ones defending the ps3?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. I have both. I like them both.

To get my 360 premium even close to the default (60gb) PS3 spec cost the same amount as the PS3. And the 360 is just going to get more expensive over time, with Live subs and shit.

I know not everybody has a decent TV or wifi, but in a couple of years time it will be far more prevalent. Sony seem to know this, and have included these things in the base cost. Microsoft, on the other hand, pulled that stuff out, and is charging insane prices to add them back in.

The 360 can do everything the PS3 can *IF* you spend enough money. But it will cost more than the equivalent PS3 to do so. This is often overlooked by the rabid Microsoft fans (this feels weird even as I type it. Who'd have thought, eh?). But then, the type of people who blindly hate Sony because of some shit they did in the past are not the sort of people that can generally afford their own consoles in the first place. Or manage basic addition/subtraction.

All in all, Sony have presented the better package. Bluetooth, WiFi, A HDD, HDMI, Optical audio all as default, available to ALL developers. It just seems more of a designed system, rather than a rush-out-the-door system.

Saying that, I'm almost pissing myself over Forza2, so they're doing okay, despite all the shortcomings. I'm happier that Sony have some decent competition, too. It keeps the industry lively.

And I managed to type this whole post without mentioning HD disc forma... DAMN.

Re:No ones defending the ps3?

[Yusaku Godai]

Meh, I've made some comments to that tune above. I've been saying it all along. Some of these huge "epic" games are going to require more hardware--hard drives, high definition optical drives, etc. And once you buy all the add-on hardware for the 360 needed to play that stuff the cost is about the same. And you don't even have everything in a neat package like you do with the PS3.

Note, I don't even own a PS3 and don't plan to buy one soon. It's outside my price range. But it's clearly more bang for the buck...or would be if there were more games I was interested in >_>

That's a lot of pr0n

[witherstaff]

I can't wait to see what the devs are hiding in the DVD to take up all that space waiting to be unlocked by the next hot coffee.

Meanwhile the PS3 has problems too...

[CelticLo]

Finnish magazine has an interview with Ubisoft saying Splinter Cell Conviction has been pulled from the PS3.
English translation and some lovely scans of the screenshots.
http://mygen.com.au/article.php?page_id=9696017911 0181074&format=2&se_id=29

Won't be the only title that gets dropped due to having half the ram of the xbox360.

Hardware problems on both sides

[CelticLo]

The xbox360 hardrive issue is surmountable. Multiple discs or compressed data gets round 'problems' with DVD storage.

The PS3 has a problem that can't be solved as easily: half the RAM. This will affect titles, in fact already has as Ubisoft have pulled Splinter Cell Conviction. Now the PS3 cell architecture with the right progarmming team can work wonders with the physics model this title has, but there isn't enough RAM on the PS3 to implement it.
http://mygen.com.au/article.php?page_id=9696017911 0181074&format=2&se_id=29
(Australian translation of Finnish magazine with interview)

As I said the xbox360 hardrive and DVD issues are surmountable, unfortunatly the PS3 memory issue isn't.

The xbox360 features 512 MiB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700 megahertz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4 GHz on a 128-bit bus.
The PS3 has 256 MiB GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 550 MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.3 GHz and the XDR main memory via the CPU.

Re:Hardware problems on both sides

[soupd]

Well said. Wrong, but well said. The PS3s RSX has full access to Cell's 256mb XDR via one of the two FlexIO bus channels, this operates up to 35GB/sec. You can think of it as Turbocache/Hypermemory without associated latency issues. Far from insurmountable.

Sony's problems are software based? What about ...

[trdrstv]

Any issues devs have with the PS3 can be fixed with time as they're software based, issues on the 360 require hardware, and thats a problem.

There are trade offs with both systems that are hardware and software based. Let's go over a few Hardware ones to start.

The 360 has a Dual layer DVD drive and the PS3 has a dual layer Blu-ray drive. The PS3 wins for storage capacity, but loses for read speed.

The 360 also has twice as much addressable system memory as the PS3 (512 vs 256 megs).

The 360 has a hardware scaler installed so it scales games to whatever source you tell it, doesn't matter what the native res is, it can upscale from 480i to 1080p if you want it to (or any combination in between). The PS3 currently doesn't upscale anything.

The 360 doesn't come with a HDD standard, and the PS3 does. Not exactly a pure Sony win since PS3 games are now requiring Multi-gig installs to play them.

Even the controllers have compromises. Sony compromised by taking rumble out for tilt. They didn't need to for technical reasons (see Wario Ware twisted from 2003, or the Wiimote that uses both). The 360 gave us Standard AA (IE non-rechareable) batteries for the controller. Sony has a proprietary, rechargeable battery built in, but it's not user changeable.

Each system has problems (and strengths), but there are trade offs all over the place.

Splinter Cell DA

[Joker1980]

Splinter Cell Double Agent was released ages ago and it has a warning on the box : this game REQUIRES a HDD or a memory card to play. This is microsoft we're talking about as soon as the core holds em back they will change there mandates.

Re:Splinter Cell DA

[steveo777]

The most significant part of that comment

REQUIRES a HDD or a memory card to play (emphasis mine)

means that it mearly requires that you be able to save system data to play the game. Technically this does limit your market to anyone who does not own a memory card, but it is assumed universally that owners of consoles without internal memory have external memory. The HD is a different issue. Perhaps the same ballpark... well, maybe not the same ballpark, but at least the same sport.

Re:Splinter Cell DA

[Joker1980]

Indeed you are right but the point is its a game the core cant play out of the box, something microsoft mandated against. Its only a matter of time before the core (and the no HDD mandate) dissapear. After all the core is not being produced when stocks run out hence the 360 ELITE

Re:Splinter Cell DA

[steveo777]

Oh, I agree with you completely that we'll be seeing more and more games that are HDD only when the 'core' system is completely phased out. At that point, I may want to pick up a 360. Though I have played some very good 360 games, I would like to see them all developed with the systems 'full' potential.