Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
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.
You are all a bunch of idots.
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.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
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.
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!!!
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...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I'm running out to the ATM machine right now so I can put down a deposit at EB Games.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Wardevil is one of the more recent ones.
I would suggest hitting the ATM instead of the ATM machine. I hear those things can be a pain to carry around.
I start the day with coffee and I end it with a beer. In between I wonder what the hell I'm doin' here.
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.
I think the "HD" refers to hard drive, not HD-DVD.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
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.
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.
Jeremy
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.
Well then it's a good thing you saved your insult until the last sentence. I read your complete post proving your right!