By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Gballzack on 14 June 2007
Edit Thread
windbane said:
z64dan said:
Gballzack said:
It is kind of sad Blu-Ray's size is virtually useless in that it has to be filled up with redundant data just to avoid terrible loading times. Is Sony banking on faster readers in the future to avoid this "catch 22"?

Yeah having 25 gigs is pretty useless when 15 of the gigs are just extra copies of important info, stored close to other data so its faster for the laser to find...

I guess whenever games actually NEED 25 gigs, the loading will go from slow to incredibly frustrating.


Heh...you guys are funny.  The Oblivion guy complained that load times would be worse on the PS3 so he used duplicate data on the disc.  Okay.  However, seeing as how the DL discs actually read slower than blu-ray and blu-ray is the same speed throughout the disc, there isn't much to be worried about.

I'd also like to point out that all PS3s can install critical files like RR7, Oblivion, and others already do.  Ninja Gaiden Sigma will have a full install option.  In case you guys don't know, hard drives are much faster than optical drives.

PS3s will always have the load-time advantage.  Btw, Oblivion loaded twice as fast on the PS3.  A rather awesome port considering it also looked better and ran smoother.  I think it'll be ok. 


1. When did I say anything about load times being longer or shorter between the 360 or PS3? And why are you going to refer to both of us when you don't respond to anything I said. I asked about the possibility of eliminating the need for redundant data on the Blu-Ray to try and find some justification for the nightmare Blu-Ray is, not how fast my PS3 games are going to load by installing them onto the hard drive first.

2. The real question though is why in gods name should a console ever need to install a game first before playing it? Why not just sell a monitor with it and call it a PC? Hell, better yet, why bother with a disc at all? Oh that's right, because a certain someone is trying to force Blu-Ray on the consumer market, that's why. Hey I know, let's make an overly large disc format handicapped by redundant data, boast about how much data it can hold then turn around and make you install your games anyway to compensate for the format's shortcomings, brilliant.

JSF said:
Gballzack said:

We also have to take into consideration that the majority of the space taken up on a Blu-Ray disc game is redundant information that wouldn't be needed on a DVD-9.

This isn't true for multi-disc games however.  When you have a multi-disc game, you will need to have some redundant data between discs because the core game files need to be read and re-read now and again.  If there is no redundant data, you would have to do a lot of swapping back to disc 1 and then back to whatever later disc again.

 

Yes while this is true, it doesn't change the fact that Blu-Ray's size is basically its own worst enemy if its using a larger part of it for redundant data to reduce load times. Obviously there will be redundant data to play the game's essential functions in a multi-disc DVD9 too, but it wouldn't be redundant data for the same reason and it wouldn't be taking up a fraction of the space Blu-Ray redundant data would. Furthermore, my original point in this statement was to say that you might be able to fit a theoretical Blu-Ray game onto a single DVD-9 if you didn't have to deal with the redundant data which accounted for the space taken up on the Blu-Ray disc.