By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Blu-Rays may not be big enough for Square-Enix

Andrespetmonkey on 02 July 2012
Troll_Whisperer said:
JEMC said:

Indeed, there are discs with 100 and 128GB and are called BDXL.

I wonder how much of that needed space will go for the game, and how much for the CGIs.

I hope they forget about CGI altogether next-gen.

Yeah... games really don't need it. Especially now that next gen will look pretty close to CGI.



My Music

Around the Network
Farsala on 02 July 2012

Imagine downloading a game onto the ps3 that is 100gb. Would take too long for me to care....



small44 on 02 July 2012
JEMC said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
haxxiy said:
Don't top line blu-rays manage to store even more than 50GB?


Up to 128gb I think

Indeed, there are discs with 100 and 128GB and are called BDXL.

I wonder how much of that needed space will go for the game, and how much for the CGIs.

In December 2008, Pioneer Corporation unveiled a 400 GB Blu-ray Disc (containing 16 data layers, 25 GB each) that will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. Its planned launch is in the 2009–10 time frame for ROM and 2010–13 for rewritable discs. Ongoing development is under way to create a 1 TB Blu-ray Disc as soon as 2013.

from wikipedia



PS4 - over 100 millions let's say 120m
Xbox One - 70m
Wii U - 25m

Vita - 15m if it will not get Final Fantasy Kingdoms Heart and Monster Hunter 20m otherwise
3DS - 80m

TruckOSaurus on 02 July 2012

They should focus on playable game content instead of making incredibly well rendered mountains.



Signature goes here!

Mr Khan on 02 July 2012
TruckOSaurus said:
They should focus on playable game content instead of making incredibly well rendered mountains.

Indeed. It seems Square Enix continues to remain ignorant of their own problems.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
JEMC on 02 July 2012
small44 said:
JEMC said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
haxxiy said:
Don't top line blu-rays manage to store even more than 50GB?


Up to 128gb I think

Indeed, there are discs with 100 and 128GB and are called BDXL.

I wonder how much of that needed space will go for the game, and how much for the CGIs.

In December 2008, Pioneer Corporation unveiled a 400 GB Blu-ray Disc (containing 16 data layers, 25 GB each) that will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. Its planned launch is in the 2009–10 time frame for ROM and 2010–13 for rewritable discs. Ongoing development is under way to create a 1 TB Blu-ray Disc as soon as 2013.

from wikipedia

Wow. I wonder how much one of those discs could cost.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

mysticwolf on 02 July 2012

50 GB for one game? that's crazy. How big was FF13 on PS3?

I can imagine like 15-20 years from now the average game size is 100 GB lol



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

haxxiy on 02 July 2012
mysticwolf said:
50 GB for one game? that's crazy. How big was FF13 on PS3?

I can imagine like 15-20 years from now the average game size is 100 GB lol


About 41 GB, but 32 GB of it was CGI according to EG's digital foundry. MGS4 came close to it too.

I don't think games will go far beyond 20-25 GB discounting CGI due to production costs, however there's a lot fo stuff that's compressed and could benefit from the extra space... I think? Textures for instance are apparently compressed 100:1.



 

 

 

 

 

JEMC on 03 July 2012
haxxiy said:

I don't think games will go far beyond 20-25 GB discounting CGI due to production costs, however there's a lot fo stuff that's compressed and could benefit from the extra space... I think? Textures for instance are apparently compressed 100:1.

I'm no expert, but wouldn't that bring another problem?

I mean, now the drive reads the textures compressed, then the the CPU or whatever decompresses them and then they are used. Assuming that the slower part of that operation is probably the one involving the drive reading the textures from the disc, if the console has to read the textures uncompressed from the disc, wouldn't that take longer?



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Ghutto on 03 July 2012

Just put the games on SDXC. (bye bye disk consoles)

Problem solved.

lol