According to Ryan Schneider, spokesman for Insomniac Games, "Resistance: Fall of Man" Blu-ray PS3 game is making good use of the new format, using up a massive 22 gigabytes for music, level data, textures and code. These discs can only hold 25 gigabytes in total per layer. Pointing to the fact that HD-DVD cannot store this much information on a single layer disc, he kind of threw some sand in Microsoft and Toshiba's eyes. He said for this reason of extra storage capacity, this game will be PS3/Blu-ray only.
Schneider offered some distinguishing stats (which he called MTV News on Tuesday to further clarify). The game, he said, currently takes up 22 Gigabytes of memory on a Blu-Ray disc, the new disc format supported by the PS3 that is one-half of a VHS-vs.-Betamax format war erupting between tech companies throughout the year. While the music and vocals in "Resistance" take up only about 1 Gigabyte of disc space, graphics, level data and programming code occupy most of the remaining 21.
News source: CDFreaks
Schneider offered some distinguishing stats (which he called MTV News on Tuesday to further clarify). The game, he said, currently takes up 22 Gigabytes of memory on a Blu-Ray disc, the new disc format supported by the PS3 that is one-half of a VHS-vs.-Betamax format war erupting between tech companies throughout the year. While the music and vocals in "Resistance" take up only about 1 Gigabyte of disc space, graphics, level data and programming code occupy most of the remaining 21.
News source: CDFreaks
Almost certainly - thank goodness we now properly recognise the achievements of such sizes instead of foolishly calling it bloatware or such like....
Unless it's that giant crab...
and I wonder when the hell developers understand that GRAPHIC IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT - GAMEPLAY IS WHAT MAKE GAMES GREAT !!!
I wonder how much disc space Xbox 360 games use if they were uncompressed.
I wonder how much disc space Xbox 360 games use if they were uncompressed.
I agree, I'm willing to bet its all completely uncompressed BMP maps and RAW FMV files. I mean why bother compressing anything when they give you all that extra space that would otherwise be wasted.
Of course using uncompressed data may save a few system processes while the game is being played so maybe its not such a bad thing.
One must wonder why Sony has been pushing developers to use MPEG-2... is it purely so they can make bogus claims like this? Or are they limited by the hardware in the PS3?
Or maybe the single PPC core on the cell can't decode anything else fast enough?
/joke
I thought people were done referring to storage space as memory like in the early days of computing. If it takes 22 Gigs of memory to play this, then the PS3 must some sort of supercomputer!
Blu-ray Disc - Read Only Memory
unless their using that tech where the entire scene is 'built' using vector descriptions (like the .product)...
in which case, the ps3 must be some kinda monster 'cos that's seriously processor intensive!!
the same developers also said that the more space you have to play with the less efficent you produce the game code.
just think of the load times on this game they are gonna be massive considering the blu-ray drive is only 2x
and 2x DVD has a theorectical maximum of 3MB/sec
so even an 8X DVD will have a faster read speed then a 2x blu-ray, this is what the 360 uses. Blu-rays load times for the PS3 will be astronomical for this game.
Usually the compiled code is what, 3% of the final distribution size? Assuming bad coding here is pure speculation. And besides, I'd rather have bloated code than slow code, if space is not a problem.
This is pure PR and nothing more.
Only textures and FMV movies could possibly take up such space. Thats only possible if you dont compress the textures or FMV's and use a wildly inefficent format to store the FMV's and textures. Also remember that very often people cannot tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed textures when playing games and completely uncompressed FMV's are extremely processor intensive.
This is pure PR BS to defend their decision to develop on the PS3. Why cant they just say, we developed on the PS3 because Sony paid us to do it? they would get more trust and respect from the gaming community if they did, instead of giving BS.
I'll wait until we see the full game hit store shelves before I pass judgment, though.
Compression technologies have advanced to the point where you cant tell the different between uncompressed and compressed textures, but save massively on valuble space. Theres not gonna be any large increase in textures, because all those artists would be spending a few more years then a usual development cycle working on them all. So all we are dealing with is some developer using the same amount of textures as a normal game but with uncompressed textures, which people cannot tell the different between.
Its an excessive waste of space in the extreme and trying to justify the developers choice in the PS3. If they used compression technology on textures and FMV's there would be only a extremely minimal loss in quality, but would be able to fit the game on a DVD-9 disc. But they wont because they dont want people to see how useless blu-ray is for a game console.
Not only will the loading times be astornimical. but the PS3 or any other machien dont' have the memory for all those HD high res textures used in modern games uncompressed.
So in effect, instead of using DDS textures on the disk and using possibly at most 5 GB of data on the disk. the PS3 will not only have to load the textures from the disk uncompressed, it'll also need to compress them first. and as anyone knows, real time compression sucks compared to the compression quality you get from an actualy image handlign software doign it beforehad. Seeing as .DDS textures are loaded into video memory allready int heir compressed format, unlike other formats which are decompressed and recompressed.
... 1 gig of music
... and 16 gigs of random 1's and 0's
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34701
Ummm, Insomniac is fully owned by Sony?
According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps. However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps). Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate. While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware. If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.