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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So Sony really got it right with Blu Ray

MikeB on 15 December 2008

@ NJ5

It regards additional development costs and the parts of DVD which are being read faster and optimised for. Using the harddrive for those parts is overkill, but very simple to use as a work around.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Around the Network
NJ5 on 15 December 2008
MikeB said:

@ NJ5

Yes, there must be something decreasing the performance of the drive, otherwise why would multi-plats like GTA4 require an installation on the PS3 and not 360?


It's a 360 centric game like nearly all multi-platform games currently. The game is optimised for the 360's DVD drive (CD and DVD have been optimised for for ages, Blu-Ray is new technology), bringing that onto the PS3 Blu-Ray drive without major adaptations to the loading routines would cause problems. Read the link earlier within this thread.

BTW, having an equal amount of data on a dual layer DVD, PS3 drive seek times are actually better as well.

What's the big deal about Blu-Ray in the optimization sense? From a logical (software) perspective it's just another optical media, no big secrets there...

Some PS3 exclusives are also using mandatory installations, notably MGS4.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Grampy on 15 December 2008
windbane said:
Grampy said:
Don’t bother calling me a Blu-ray hater because I have two BD burners and several more players for work. I have begun to wonder if that was a mistake. The cost of hard disk space is falling much faster than BD.

1TB disk <$100 ($0.10/GB reusable - $0.20/GB in RAID 0) so it’s cheaper to store it than to put it on Blu-ray at about $0.24/GB. Standard DVD cost about $0.04/GB, DVD-DL about $0.11/GB. Unless the cost is brought down very quickly, BD may never see wide spread adoption for anything but movies.

I am already finding increasing skepticism and resistance at professional conferences to the idea of it becoming a major data storage medium.

 

hah, you are such a blu-ray hater!  You bought your laptop without knowing it even had blu-ray.

Anyway, the cost of storing on a hard drive has always been cheaper than storing on optical media.  The point of having it on a disc is an increase in portability and insurrance that it won't go away when your hard drive dies.

No, actually that hasn't been and even today isn't true.

25x25GB BD/$300=$0.46/GB

100 x 700MB CD/$15 =$0.21/GB

25x8.5 DVD DL/$25=$0.12/GB

 

 

1TB HD/$100=$0.10/GB

800GB tape/ $35 = $0.04/GB

100x 4.7GB DVD/$21=$0.04/GB

Blu-ray is over 10x more expensive than DVD  and almost 5x more than HD server space. Not very attractive.And not very portable since so few use it.

As far as using optical media as"insurrance that it won't go away when your hard drive dies" , no thats actually what the RAID is for

 



MikeB on 15 December 2008
NJ5 said:
MikeB said:

@ NJ5

Yes, there must be something decreasing the performance of the drive, otherwise why would multi-plats like GTA4 require an installation on the PS3 and not 360?


It's a 360 centric game like nearly all multi-platform games currently. The game is optimised for the 360's DVD drive (CD and DVD have been optimised for for ages, Blu-Ray is new technology), bringing that onto the PS3 Blu-Ray drive without major adaptations to the loading routines would cause problems. Read the link earlier within this thread.

BTW, having an equal amount of data on a dual layer DVD, PS3 drive seek times are actually better as well.

What's the big deal about Blu-Ray in the optimization sense? From a logical perspective it's just another optical media, no big secrets there...

Some PS3 exclusives are also using mandatory installations, notably MGS4.

Constant read speeds requires a considerable different approach as compared variable read speeds. Devs are still learning how to get the most out of this. Konami has been designing games for CD and DVD for ages, MGS4 is their first Blu-Ray game. Motorstorm 1 was a slow loader for instance, Pacific Rift with a lot more varierty and more impressive visuals loads a lot faster (BTW requires no install at all just like Uncharted).



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

NJ5 on 15 December 2008
MikeB said:

Constant read speeds requires a considerable different approach as compared variable read speeds. Devs are still learning how to get the most out of this. Konami has been designing games for CD and DVD for ages, MGS4 is their first Blu-Ray game. Motorstorm 1 was a slow loader for instance, Pacific Rift with a lot more varierty and more impressive visuals loads a lot faster.

Constant read speeds should make optimization easier, not harder... After all, it makes the drive's behavior more predictable, therefore it should be easier to take the most out of it. That's just common sense...

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
MikeB on 15 December 2008
NJ5 said:
MikeB said:

Constant read speeds requires a considerable different approach as compared variable read speeds. Devs are still learning how to get the most out of this. Konami has been designing games for CD and DVD for ages, MGS4 is their first Blu-Ray game. Motorstorm 1 was a slow loader for instance, Pacific Rift with a lot more varierty and more impressive visuals loads a lot faster.

Constant read speeds should make optimization easier, not harder... After all, it makes the drive's behavior more predictable, therefore it should be easier to take the most out of it.

Yes, that's the case for the long run. But not for the short run with devs adapting their legacy loading routine approaches.

 



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

windbane on 15 December 2008
Grampy said:
windbane said:
Grampy said:
Don’t bother calling me a Blu-ray hater because I have two BD burners and several more players for work. I have begun to wonder if that was a mistake. The cost of hard disk space is falling much faster than BD.

1TB disk <$100 ($0.10/GB reusable - $0.20/GB in RAID 0) so it’s cheaper to store it than to put it on Blu-ray at about $0.24/GB. Standard DVD cost about $0.04/GB, DVD-DL about $0.11/GB. Unless the cost is brought down very quickly, BD may never see wide spread adoption for anything but movies.

I am already finding increasing skepticism and resistance at professional conferences to the idea of it becoming a major data storage medium.

 

hah, you are such a blu-ray hater! You bought your laptop without knowing it even had blu-ray.

Anyway, the cost of storing on a hard drive has always been cheaper than storing on optical media. The point of having it on a disc is an increase in portability and insurrance that it won't go away when your hard drive dies.

No, actually that hasn't been and even today isn't true.

25x25GB BD/$300=$0.46/GB

100 x 700MB CD/$15 =$0.21/GB

25x8.5 DVD DL/$25=$0.12/GB

 

 

 

1TB HD/$100=$0.10/GB

800GB tape/ $35 = $0.04/GB

100x 4.7GB DVD/$21=$0.04/GB

Blu-ray is over 10x more expensive than DVD and almost 5x more than HD server space. Not very attractive.And not very portable since so few use it.

As far as using optical media as"insurrance that it won't go away when your hard drive dies" , no thats actually what the RAID is for

 

 

It's more like $.08/GB for hard drives if you get the best deals. I'm finding $20 for the DVDs so you got me there. It didn't used to be that way. I've bought lots of spindles over the years...

Blu-ray will drop in price, though, as it becomes more popular. You can't bootleg blu-ray quality movies without a blu-ray burner.



MikeB on 15 December 2008

IMO ideally PS3 games would install less than 1GB of data onto the harddrive (excluding patches) for as fast as possible bootup (starting loading music and intros) and from there on start streaming everything from harddrive cache/Blu-Ray.

But devs seem to have the freedom to do whatever they want on the PS3, so many multi-platofrm companies will cut corners if they can get away with this (cheaper).



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Fumanchu on 15 December 2008
MikeB said:
NJ5 said:
MikeB said:

Constant read speeds requires a considerable different approach as compared variable read speeds. Devs are still learning how to get the most out of this. Konami has been designing games for CD and DVD for ages, MGS4 is their first Blu-Ray game. Motorstorm 1 was a slow loader for instance, Pacific Rift with a lot more varierty and more impressive visuals loads a lot faster.

Constant read speeds should make optimization easier, not harder... After all, it makes the drive's behavior more predictable, therefore it should be easier to take the most out of it.

Yes, that's the case for the long run. But not for the short run with devs adapting their legacy loading routine approaches.

 

Can you explain what this is? And why it would affect the constant linear velocity of the BD?

Do you have any seek time comparison specs?

 



Feylic on 15 December 2008
NJ5 said:
MikeB said:

Constant read speeds requires a considerable different approach as compared variable read speeds. Devs are still learning how to get the most out of this. Konami has been designing games for CD and DVD for ages, MGS4 is their first Blu-Ray game. Motorstorm 1 was a slow loader for instance, Pacific Rift with a lot more varierty and more impressive visuals loads a lot faster.

Constant read speeds should make optimization easier, not harder... After all, it makes the drive's behavior more predictable, therefore it should be easier to take the most out of it. That's just common sense...

 

You would think that, as would I. But lots of delvelopers went with installs, so maybe it's harder, or they're just taking advantage of the HDD that is on every PS3 to make things easier for themselves so they don't have to do as much.