Oblivion: PS3 technical limitations arise, 360 gets shader fix

SuperEclipse · February 3rd, 2007, 11:45 AM

Oblivion: PS3 technical limitations arise, 360 gets shader fix

The 1up rep discussed what Bethesda told him about the limitations of PS3's lack of memory:

"There's no horse armor, etc...It's a technical limitation. They just don't have enough memory to load every peice of downloadable content. They tried it, did some work arounds, but the performance isn't there. They hope to have some, but they're going to have to pick and choose [unlike the 360 version, which has tons of downloadable content, all of which can be used in the game]".

Furthermore,the shader which helps the textures in the distance is coming to the 360.

Good news for 360 fans/Oblivion fans... bad news for PS3 (as usual)

Links to the 1up show
WMV: http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/1...03_640x360.zip

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156932

More confirmation: Xbox 360 hardware > PS3 hardware

Not looking good for the so called, All power PS3.. :lol: First FEAR etc now this??

mogcaiz · February 3rd, 2007, 12:10 PM

Christ!
This is damn sad news, concidering I've always favoured ps3 to be the greatest. However now Im getting more and more tempted to get xbox instead.
The memory system have been confirmed that xbox 360 handles memory and ram much better than ps3's memory solution....
I will probably buy both of them one day anyways.. o.O

New2Ya · February 3rd, 2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperEclipse

Oblivion: PS3 technical limitations arise, 360 gets shader fix

The 1up rep discussed what Bethesda told him about the limitations of PS3's lack of memory:

"There's no horse armor, etc...It's a technical limitation. They just don't have enough memory to load every peice of downloadable content. They tried it, did some work arounds, but the performance isn't there. They hope to have some, but they're going to have to pick and choose [unlike the 360 version, which has tons of downloadable content, all of which can be used in the game]".

Furthermore,the shader which helps the textures in the distance is coming to the 360.

Good news for 360 fans/Oblivion fans... bad news for PS3 (as usual)

Links to the 1up show
WMV: http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/1...03_640x360.zip

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156932

More confirmation: Xbox 360 hardware > PS3 hardware

Not looking good for the so called, All power PS3.. :lol: First FEAR etc now this??

Just to make this clear: PS3 is stronger than the 360. Memory isnt power. The hardware of the PS3 has been used for less than 20%. There's a lot more to the machine than what they know now... all devs agree on it.

And I dont see how this is helping Oblivion fans, since PS3 will have Oblivion fans... It's a multiplatform game... :closedeyes:
It's only sad for Oblivion fans.

Unless you believe all Oblivion fans are mindless 360 fanboys... Would be pretty darn sad.

SuperEclipse · February 3rd, 2007, 01:29 PM

360 Just as good if not better.

You don't see a problem here? FEAR is another game like many others.

Oh yea, emory is a big part.. You can have a super PC but if u have little memory and you want to play one these new games. You have problem if you dont have alot..

Wow, thats looks great.. PS3 looks soooooooo much better.

-----
PS3
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/ar...1034453078.jpg

360
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/8...g_3854286.html

Many PS3 game claim to have visuals problems as well.

Black_Star · February 3rd, 2007, 02:09 PM

PS3 and 360 have the same amount of memory. It is just used differently. Also, the game can fit on a DVD but not a 25 GB disk? Sounds like the devs aren't being too smart to me.

SuperEclipse · February 3rd, 2007, 02:16 PM

^it has alot do with Ccompression..

PS3 sucks at it..

it will be funny when the PS3 weighs in at 10GB or more because the PS3 doesn't allow for the same type of compression 360 does. While the Oblivion for the 360 is 5GB..

Also like they claimed Fall of man was a 22GB wasnt.. ahaha. It was just stuffing its bra.

Black_Star · February 3rd, 2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperEclipse

^it has alot do with Ccompression..

PS3 sucks at it..

PS3 weighs in at 10GB or more because the PS3 doesn't allow for the same type of compression 360 does. While the Oblivion for the 360 is 5GB..

Also like they claimed Fall of man was a 22GB wasnt.. ahaha. It was just stuffing its bra.

It was 22 GB at first. Insomniac compressed it down to about 13 GB.

SuperEclipse · February 3rd, 2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonmaster980

It was 22 GB at first. Insomniac compressed it down to about 13 GB.

No they didnt, they still claimed after it was out it was 22GB. Till they got pwned. And its 17GB not 13GB.

ultamaSora · February 3rd, 2007, 03:36 PM

Oblivion was one of the games I wanted to get, when I was going to get a PS3, but hearing this, it makes me want to get a 360 even more.

Koji · February 3rd, 2007, 03:38 PM

Heheh, and Sony acted so high and mighty over this last year. Well, they're probably gonna be the next Atari--a memorable console created by a memorable company which has failed to keep up with the 2 most important game developing features. 1) the modern times and 2) respecting the players.

New2Ya · February 3rd, 2007, 04:29 PM

SuperEcipse, get rid of that picture. It messes up the screen. Read the rules.

And dont be deceived by that PS3 picture, the devs from the game already made clear that the visuals will be dealt with as last. Pretty obvious anyways, since gameplay is more important than visuals.

Quote:

Oblivion was one of the games I wanted to get, when I was going to get a PS3, but hearing this, it makes me want to get a 360 even more.

Well it's still coming to the PS3 and it will still have the expansions. The interview just says that they dont know how to make use of the memory of the PS3... That's all basically.

Quote:

Heheh, and Sony acted so high and mighty over this last year. Well, they're probably gonna be the next Atari--a memorable console created by a memorable company which has failed to keep up with the 2 most important game developing features. 1) the modern times and 2) respecting the players.

I dont know what the modern times have to do with it... If one console is from older times, its the Wii... Yet its probably the most respected console by consumers...

As for respect from players. The PS3 is still getting a lot of backup from people. Its just the money that is holding people from buying it. Which will change, most probably...

Quote:

it will be funny when the PS3 weighs in at 10GB or more because the PS3 doesn't allow for the same type of compression 360 does. While the Oblivion for the 360 is 5GB..

But really, whats the issue here?! PS3 uses Bluray, where it can even use Bluray disks from 50GB. Enough room for the Gigabytes you're making fun of...

My friend, even if compression is a problem, PS3 can still use one disk where the 360 needs two or three...

TheMuffinMan · February 3rd, 2007, 04:40 PM

Just to throw it into the discussion of PS3 limitations:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Is Blu-Ray good for Gaming?

One of the bigger controversies surrounding the PS3 is whether or not the inclusion of the Blu-ray drive was a good idea. The upside? You get a ton more storage than a DVD and, ifyour Sony, you also get your format into many homes using a gaming system as a Trojan horse.

The more storage you have for games the better, right? Well, let's review the oft-discussed downsides: Blu-ray drives are expensive, but they are also slow. The 2X Blu-ray drive in the PS3 moves data at 9MB a second. Not bad, right? It's actually relatively slow. There was some arguing over the speed of the Blu-ray player between Ozymandias and Mark DeLoura, as chronicled here, but they seem to agree that Sony's Blu-ray drive is slow:

Quote:

Admittedly, Blu-Ray looks dicey from several non-capacity angles. Blu-Ray movies require a 1.5x Blu-Ray drive, or 54Mbits/second. Sony announced that PS3 uses a 2x BD drive, which is 72Mbits/second or 9MB/second. The Xbox 360 uses a 12x DVD, which should give it about 16MB/second. That is significantly faster for games and will result in shorter load times. And that 12x DVD drive should be a whole lot cheaper. (Note that the PS3 drive will do 8x DVD, and even that is faster than 2x BD.)

This is not good. One of the ways around this slow loading time is to enable a one-time install of many of the game's assets onto the hard drive of the PS3. In the case of Genji it decreases load times from 12 seconds to 4 seconds, which is a significant improvement. However, if you buy and play a lot of games, that may lead to some troublesome data management, as even 60GB drives may seem small after installing a few dozen games. Who wants to install their console games anyway? Isn't this one of the reasons we're not gaming on a computer?

There is another way around this, if you're a developer: use the extra space of the Blu-ray disc and make your data redundant. Put important game data on multiple places on the game disc, and that way you decrease the amount of space the laser needs to travel to load the data you use often.

According to this month's Electronic Gaming Monthly, this is how Oblivion is going to get around the slow-loading issue with its PS3 release. Said Bethesda's Todd Howard, "Drive speed matters more to me [than total capacity], and Blu-ray is slower."

Of course, if you use data redundancy to boost speeds the way Bethesda is, you may very well eat up the extra space of that Blu-ray disc without being able to fit any more information on the disc than you would have put on a standard DVD-9. The advantage of the media is compromised, and all that remains is a higher price.

So there you go: you can either install game assets on the hard drive or place redundant game data around the disc. The problem with both of these solutions is that one of the advantages of Blu-ray become less compelling. Why bother with a large Blu-ray disc when you're putting that data on the hard drive before you play anyway? You could have simply put that extra information on a DVD and then moved it onto the hard drive. The same can be said about the redundancy approach: why not just use a standard DVD and have it load quickly in the first place instead of doubling or tripling up your data on a slower but larger disc?

The Blu-ray drive is useful for movies, of course, but for gaming, Blu-ray doesn't look like it's the best choice until faster drives are released. There is every possibility of a future PS3 revision with a faster Blu-ray drive, but that won't help current PS3 owners. Blu-ray may be the future for storage that's both large and fast, but right now it seems shoe-horned into gaming applications. It seems like developers may actually do better by shipping some of their PS3 games on DVDs. Games will load faster and manufacturers will save money on the discs. Would Sony allow it?

New2Ya · February 3rd, 2007, 04:51 PM

^
I really dont see the problem. Its a different way of playing games. You store some of it on your harddrive. Ooooooh what a disaster!!

Sorry, I find it truly silly... People always find comments against the introduction of new ways of storing your data. Memorycards work the same way. I dont buy 20 memorycards for all the games I have.

No, I just delete data from games I dont play anyways. Besides, when I finish a game, I rather replay it from the beginning...

So there's no loss IMO.

The Conquerer · February 3rd, 2007, 04:52 PM

Okay how in the world does the 360 has more memory storage than the PS3?
I'd give it to the 360 and say that the 360 is better at compressing data than the PS3 even though I just found that out, but overall the PS3 has loads more of possible memory storage.

And agreeing with what New2ya said, if a game that is released on the PS3 takes up exactly 20gigs of space that would be 1 full blu-ray disk, spread that across the 360's format and it could be like 2-3, it would be 4 but yeah the 360 has better compression as was mentioned.

But yeah 50gigs is a lot, in the future some games may just have to use somewhere near that amount.

TheMuffinMan · February 3rd, 2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

The problem with both of these solutions is that one of the advantages of Blu-ray become less compelling. Why bother with a large Blu-ray disc when you're putting that data on the hard drive before you play anyway? You could have simply put that extra information on a DVD and then moved it onto the hard drive. The same can be said about the redundancy approach: why not just use a standard DVD and have it load quickly in the first place instead of doubling or tripling up your data on a slower but larger disc?

The problem being, New2ya, is that now the Blu-ray's flagship advantage over HD-DVD that you simply love to bring up, the amount of space on the disc, is rendered useless because Developers have to waste that space just to make up for the limitations in the disc format. In order to avoid ridiculous load-times and lag, Developers have to actually store the same exact files multiple times throughout the disc, taking up a large amount of the space the Blu-ray provide, just to compensate for how slow the Disc reads. Or they have to use up the other PS3 advantage, a larger hard-drive

So, the one thing about the Blu-ray that you believe 100% trumps the DVD, is in reality wasted because of Blu-Ray limitations, and is instead spent compensating for the flaws in the disc format rather than being taken advantage of.