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

Forums - Gaming - Skyrim Dawnguard PS3: Punished for choosing wrong console

Adinnieken on 16 October 2012
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.



Around the Network
sergiodaly on 16 October 2012
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

lilbroex on 16 October 2012
sergiodaly said:
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.


The fact is that its a useless feat. Trying to play a game while using the HDD as RAM would slow the game to a crawl if you were lucky.



deskpro2k3 on 16 October 2012
lilbroex said:
sergiodaly said:
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.


The fact is that its a useless feat. Trying to play a game while using the HDD as RAM would slow the game to a crawl if you were lucky.


i'm not gadget savvy, but what if sony make an external ram upgrade?



lilbroex on 16 October 2012
deskpro2k3 said:
lilbroex said:
sergiodaly said:
walsufnir said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.


caching to hdd? swapping is magnitudes slower than ram... so where is the benefit? especially with slow 2.5"-hdds attached to a sata 1.5g-interface.

 

and why shouldn't they release it? it sold very well and shoveled a lot of money, even on ps3. games with issues have always been released.

you can try to make it as insignificant as you want... the fact is that the feat. is there and some developers use it, so some kind of benefit must come from it.

 

if you buy broken stuff, the seller will obviously make money from you... that does not make it right. i will not support any dev team or publisher that make this kind of business cause my money is not to waste.


The fact is that its a useless feat. Trying to play a game while using the HDD as RAM would slow the game to a crawl if you were lucky.


i'm not gadget savvy, but what if sony make an external ram upgrade?


.....RAM doesn't work that way. The entire point of RAM is to be an extremely fast area for temporarirly placing and loading data. If there was a way around this, people wouldn't use RAM at all. The speed of RAM is faster than any modern external port can reach at maximum capacity, much less under load. There is no way around a memory bottleneck. Just ask N64 devs.



Around the Network
monkeymonk65 on 16 October 2012

Bethesda tackles massive projects and then never fucking ends up finishing them and release the games with bugs and glitches. It's ridiculous. People have a good reason for holding off from buying their games.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 16 October 2012

a stance that has to be made is wht i choose.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

sergiodaly on 16 October 2012
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.

believe me... i know the differences between HDD and RAM... that does not make it useless. in this thread people also say Xbox can use 480Mb for game data and you also know that is impossible to use 480MB for game data, and i didn't see you running here and  use all your technical knowledge to say they are wrong. my point was not to say that HDD cache could solve this, if people was talking about PS3 RAM they should that this into consideration in their 4th grade math...

also, HDD cache is not used in Xbox because there are units without HDD so devs can't rely on that.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

BenVTrigger on 16 October 2012
sergiodaly said:
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.

believe me... i know the differences between HDD and RAM... that does not make it useless. in this thread people also say Xbox can use 480Mb for game data and you also know that is impossible to use 480MB for game data, and i didn't see you running here and  use all your technical knowledge to say they are wrong. my point was not to say that HDD cache could solve this, if people was talking about PS3 RAM they should that this into consideration in their 4th grade math...

also, HDD cache is not used in Xbox because there are units without HDD so devs can't rely on that.


THe 360 can use 480MB of RAM for games.....thats already taking out the amount reserved for the OS.



Ajescent on 16 October 2012
deskpro2k3 said:

bethesda need to call up naughty dog, kojima, and guerilla games for help. they seriously can use some tips and pointers. even square enix can help them. they're porting over FF14 Online, an MMORPG.

Hmmm....SE is a better shout, but I dunno...wait till 14 comes out on PS3s before giving them praise.

No to mention SoE did DCuniverse and....that...really good F2Pmmo aimed at kids that I've forgotten the name of for some reason. As part of Sony they will most likely be helping out already- then again, Skyrim is not an MMO, it's an open world WRPG, two different beasts...



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?