Official PlayStation 3 Website is Live

[fitbabits]

The moment we've all been waiting for has finally arrived - Sony's PS3 website is now live. All you need to know about the PS3 (or all Sony want you to know, depending on which fanboy hat you're wearing) is now just one click away.

US Site (http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3) (not updated yet)
EU Site (http://eu.playstation.com/ps3/?locale=en_GB)

Thanks to TheUnknownSoldier for the tip.

Awesome! Be sure to read about the differences between the two models.

[Kelegacy]

MOTHERFUCKING AWESOME. THIS SYSTEM ROCKS! THE PS3 IS THE FUTURE. 360 SUCKS! PS3 HAS BETTER GRAPHICS! YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Viral marketing, I just earned myself four dollars and seventeen cents.

[Goronmon]

Don't forget that the PS3 is the ONLY SYSTEM WITH TRUE HD!!! ZOMG!

[Deathbane27]

The site won't load in Firefox unless I turn ScriptBlocker off. And I'm not going to.

[destoo]

... and Massive (http://eu.playstation.com/ps3/hd_image.html?images/genji2_hd_10.jpg) Damage (http://eu.playstation.com/ps3/hd_image.html?images/genji2_hd_9.jpg) .

[Chalex]

MOTHERFUCKING AWESOME. THIS SYSTEM ROCKS! THE PS3 IS THE FUTURE. 360 SUCKS! PS3 HAS BETTER GRAPHICS! YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Viral marketing, I just earned myself four dollars and seventeen cents.
QFMFT



$1.03

[Serapth]

So, I guess this means that "the web" has started. Since, you know, the web era doesnt start until Sony says it does!

So how much do I have to pay to click the link and do I need a proprietary Sony browser to view the site?

[Norse]

It says both versions support 1080p. So we'll get 1080p through component? Do tv sets support that?

[Goronmon]

It says both versions support 1080p. So we'll get 1080p through component? Do tv sets support that?They can, not sure if any actually do.

[Chameleo]

if you read PS3 explained; its all about blu-ray and High definition. explaining resolutions etc etc.

just as nintendo had to explain the name of their console, sony has to explain the reason theirs is 'next gen'.

if you have to explain it - is it really next gen? are you explaining or convincing?

[Kamalot]

It is all about the games, right? Right?!

[Kamalot]

The moment we've all been waiting for has finally arrived...
I can now get marshmallow fluff on my cheeseburger? Hot diggity! :D

Oh, you must mean the ability to replace my Xbox HD with a 500 GB model is here! (http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/28/xbox-360-hacked-for-homebrew-and-bigger-hard-drive/)

[destoo]

The moment we've all been waiting for has finally arrived...
Oh, you must mean the ability to replace my Xbox HD with a 500 GB model is here! (http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/28/xbox-360-hacked-for-homebrew-and-bigger-hard-drive/)

No. You can preorder wii's on toysrus.ca and toysrus.com.au

[fitbabits]

No. You can preorder wii's on toysrus.ca and toysrus.com.au
Which has already been covered here (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14435).

[Citizen Philip]

Loud noises! People talking loudly!

[The-Builder]

Someone needs to tell Sony that black is so last generation.

And that site has got to be one of the most boring Flash sites i've seen.

But the awesome games list, with equally awesome screenshots at high res, really makes you want to get one of them PS3's...

[Xenkylm]

Lol Philip.

Interesting that the site doesn't seem to mention (unless I missed it) the motion-sensitive controller. If it's such a selling point, wouldn't it get its own page, or at least a mention on the Warhawk game page?

Also, yeah, to mangle an old quote: "Being [a powerful console] is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

***edit***

Now i see it. Stupid press releases.

[fitbabits]

Someone needs to tell Sony that black is so last generation.

And that site has got to be one of the most boring Flash sites i've seen.

But the awesome games list, with equally awesome screenshots at high res, really makes you want to get one of them PS3's...
Holy crap, I just checked out the games list and the screenshots (didn't do it first time round as I was too immersed in Blu-Ray and HD). I suggest Sony remove them immediately as they are so poor they give the impression that games are absolutely secondary to the PS3.

[Grifter]

I was looking forward to Heavenly Sword untill I saw those screenshots. Ya think Sony would have the ability to post better looking shots of their games.

In the end not even Sony can make their launch line up look good.
It's a sad sad day.

[Xenkylm]

In the end not even Sony can make their launch line up look good.
It's a sad sad day.

That's the wrong attitude! It's a wonderful day, Sony just saved all of us $600! ;)

[Siraris]

It says both versions support 1080p. So we'll get 1080p through component? Do tv sets support that?

Component supports 1080p, HDMI just has more bandwith for a larger color depth, more sound options and HDCP.

The only thing that would stop 1080p from going over a component connection is HDCP, but since HDCP would kill Blu-Ray and HD-DVD before it even launched, most are expecting the broadcast flag won't be enabled til 2010-2012.

[Kelegacy]

It is all about the games, right? Right?!
In that case, if history is any indication, the PS3 will have the best gaming library.

I love trolling for trolls. :)

[EGO]

Kind of a boring site, all things considered, but at least they've got something up.

Maybe it got buried in all of the Gran Turismo Megatexture Version and Heavenly Sword hype, but where did this Magic The Gathering... I mean Eye of Judgement game come from? Looks kind of interesting..

And yes, once you get past your arse being chapped from the price of these systems, it IS all about the games.

[Grifter]

In that case, if history is any indication, the PS3 will have the best gaming library.

I love trolling for trolls. :)

But if a tree falls in the forest.........

[Shifteh]

I actually thought the site was pretty well done. It explains most questions (although, as already mentioned, the lack of mention of that tilty-controller-dealy is odd), and many of the games looked great.

On the other hand, certain questions that NEED to be answered aren't. I.E. - lots and lots of information on how exactly we get that fucker online.

[Siraris]

Kind of a boring site, all things considered, but at least they've got something up.

Maybe it got buried in all of the Gran Turismo Megatexture Version and Heavenly Sword hype, but where did this Magic The Gathering... I mean Eye of Judgement game come from? Looks kind of interesting..

And yes, once you get past your arse being chapped from the price of these systems, it IS all about the games.

It was near the beginning of the conference. You get the game with playing cards and a mat, and you use the eyetoy to control the creatures on screen by moving the cards around. Wasn't too detailed in what the actual gameplay is, but it looks very cool to me. I think Sony could really bring some fun and innovative gameplay if they focus on some heavy Eyetoy development.

[Reanimated]

Where are the Cell and RSX specs?

[fitbabits]

Where are the Cell and RSX specs?
In a secret underground laboratory in the Nevada desert, of course. :)

[screwtape]

It's a console that screams digital carpe diem and will redefine reality as you know it.
What the hell? The first part doesn't make any sense, and the second part is like all of Ken's crazy quotes condensed into one bite-sized turd.

[Deathbane27]

But if a tree falls in the forest.........
...and hits a mime, does anybody care?

[Doctor Setebos]

Man, Sony can't even try to be original these days:

http://nathaniel.payne.googlepages.com/sony-man.jpg

[Zechs01]

umm all the site does is take me to a picture and nothing else.

[Grifter]

In a secret underground laboratory in the Nevada desert, of course. :)

BuuullShit!! We may let people dump toxic waste and E.T. cartidges here but we have to draw the line some where. We kicked them on over to Utah,I figured If they'll take my ex-girlfriend they'll take anything.

[Cupelix]

umm all the site does is take me to a picture and nothing else. I don't get anything from the US Site either. I'm assuming there's something non-Firefox compliant about it.

[Deadend]

the black and white of the single jpg on the site seem even more like Spider-Man 3. I am confused, and bored of PS3 already.

[OSX]

Digital Carpe Diem FTW!!!

[Siraris]

I don't get anything from the US Site either. I'm assuming there's something non-Firefox compliant about it.

Or the US site is not up yet, and you should follow the link to eu.playstation.com/PS3 for details?

[Zechs01]

I don't get anything from the US Site either. I'm assuming there's something non-Firefox compliant about it.
Idk im using windows internet explorer but im gonna go see the Eu site

[Oddmaker]

Where are the Cell and RSX specs?
Still being designed to make it fit in that big black box, oh and still being designed since they havent come up with it working yet.

[jacktion]

Why the hell do they still have the Spiderman font? That is so stupid.

I remember when I first saw that. It was just the first of many bad decisions to come.

[Sinistar]

So, the premium paid for the PS3 is pretty much because of the Blu-Ray capability (aside from the obvious hardware included). So, if Blu-Ray fails to take off (and we should know within 12 months) how much do you think the price for the PS3 will come down?

Would everyone still be on this Sony-hatin' rant if the system was priced at $300? Would you buy one at that price?

What is the magic price?

[The Letter 3]

So, the premium paid for the PS3 is pretty much because of the Blu-Ray capability (aside from the obvious hardware included). So, if Blu-Ray fails to take off (and we should know within 12 months) how much do you think the price for the PS3 will come down?

Would everyone still be on this Sony-hatin' rant if the system was priced at $300? Would you buy one at that price?

What is the magic price?
I don't think there's so much of a "Sony-hatin' rant" here as Sony has had some rediculous marketing and PR moves that have supercharged the wit and ire of many people. $600 for a console and $69(?) for games isn't necessarily bad, but Sony is going to have to work hard to justify those prices and so far, they have failed miserably (c.f. "Krazy Ken").

[Reanimated]

Still being designed to make it fit in that big black box, oh and still being designed since they havent come up with it working yet.



Does that mean downgrades? :confused:

[Siraris]

I don't think there's so much of a "Sony-hatin' rant" here as Sony has had some rediculous marketing and PR moves that have supercharged the wit and ire of many people. $600 for a console and $69(?) for games isn't necessarily bad, but Sony is going to have to work hard to justify those prices and so far, they have failed miserably (c.f. "Krazy Ken").

But it is hatin', because no one from Sony ever said games are going to be $69, and there is a $499 version of the PS3 as well, not just $599. Sonys PR isn't necessarily bad, its just people like to interpret things the way they want to. If Nintendo said "Games are $59, but if some go over don't ding us", people would say "Ohhh that's cool most games will be $59 and maybe there will be a couple over $59, but they will probably be worth it". When Sony says it, it's "OMG GAMES WILL BE $99 SONY FAILS!!!!!"

[Xenkylm]

there is a $499 version of the PS3 as well, not just $599.

Yes, 'tis true, but in general people do not see terribly inclined to buy the scaled down version, even if the changes won't (in theory) influence gameplay. It's not just a sony problem. If you got stuck with the core 360, you were pretty much a n00b too.

Honestly, there is a ton of sony-bashing just for the hell of it, and that's probably not appropriate. The biggest legitimate complaint is that the system costs more because of Blu-ray. That's about it. The specs will be fantastic otherwise, the games will look great, the controller might be more fun with gyroscopes, etc. If you're not planning on buying any blu-ray movies, though, sony is boning your behind.

[Kamalot]

Would everyone still be on this Sony-hatin' rant if the system was priced at $300? Would you buy one at that price?

What is the magic price?I would totally buy a PS3 for $299, even if it couldn't play Bluray movies.

[Kamalot]

If Nintendo said "Games are $59, but if some go over don't ding us", people would say "Ohhh that's cool most games will be $59 and maybe there will be a couple over $59, but they will probably be worth it". When Sony says it, it's "OMG GAMES WILL BE $99 SONY FAILS!!!!!"Uh...no.

Games aren't worth $59.
Don't matter if they come from Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo.

[Mr.Condescension]

Component supports 1080p, HDMI just has more bandwith for a larger color depth, more sound options and HDCP.

The only thing that would stop 1080p from going over a component connection is HDCP, but since HDCP would kill Blu-Ray and HD-DVD before it even launched, most are expecting the broadcast flag won't be enabled til 2010-2012.

Even then HDCP isn't enabled for anything but movies, so games will be 1080p enabled on both versions no matter what.

[Siraris]

Yes, 'tis true, but in general people do not see terribly inclined to buy the scaled down version, even if the changes won't (in theory) influence gameplay. It's not just a sony problem. If you got stuck with the core 360, you were pretty much a n00b too.

Honestly, there is a ton of sony-bashing just for the hell of it, and that's probably not appropriate. The biggest legitimate complaint is that the system costs more because of Blu-ray. That's about it. The specs will be fantastic otherwise, the games will look great, the controller might be more fun with gyroscopes, etc. If you're not planning on buying any blu-ray movies, though, sony is boning your behind.

Well, I don't know if I agree with the comparison between the Core and the base PS3 model. With base PS3 model, the only difference will be HDMI, and the slightly smaller HDD. I doubt many people will care about Wifi and the mem card reader being missing, and since most people (right now) don't have HDMI, it won't be missed that much either, but will be embraced by tech heads. So the only real difference is the smaller HDD. With the 360 core, there is no HDD, which is big because you need to buy it seperately. I mean aside from that, both systems are the same as their premium bundle brothers.

I can understand people being hesitant about Blu-Ray, but as I always ask, would people care if it had nothing to do with HD Movies? If it was only for use with games on the PS3, would anyone care? I doubt it, right? If Sony was going around touting "Blu-Ray drive gives us room for GREAT games, TONS of extras, EASIER development" and the thought of Hi-Def movies was on no ones minds, would people be upset? That would tell a lot.

[SexualChoc]

OMFG IT'S SONY PS3 ROXXORZ!

What? Someone's already done that joke? At the begining at the thread? Well shit. I'm out.

[Goronmon]

I doubt many people will care about Wifi and the mem card reader being missing, and since most people (right now) don't have HDMI, it won't be missed that much either, but will be embraced by tech heads.I know this is FUD, but if they turn on the flag for HDCP in a few years or whatever, that $500 PS3 just because useless as a BR-player.

[Xenkylm]

would people care if it had nothing to do with HD Movies?

They might not care as much, but jeez, that'd be a tough sell for Sony! I'm not sure I ever understood the blu-ray = better graphics argument. If anything, it's just blu-ray = way more cutscenes. If that's what you'd be paying for, they might as well just put the game on more than one DVD (is changing dvds once a week that big a deal?).

I actually kinda wish Sony would come out and say "here's what a game is like with a DVD, and here's the same game on Blu-ray." If there was a real difference there, then I'd buy into the hype a bit more.

[Random Seed]

What the hell? The first part doesn't make any sense, and the second part is like all of Ken's crazy quotes condensed into one bite-sized turd.


Ya, forget that crap. I'll just keep playing my lucid dreams on my 360. YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY, SIR! :o

[Salat]

Uh...no.
Games aren't worth $59.

My copy of GRAW was worth $59 - that is until the latest DL content. Now it's worth about $74.

Oh, wait, Sony hatin'. I never really hate any of these mfrs. They want our money, we're OK giving it to them as long as we can occasionally bitch about it. Don't see how the PS3/BlueRay saga changes that very much.

[Watership]

It says both versions support 1080p. So we'll get 1080p through component? Do tv sets support that?

You can get 1080p through component.

[Tia]

If Sony was going around touting "Blu-Ray drive gives us room for GREAT games, TONS of extras, EASIER development" and the thought of Hi-Def movies was on no ones minds, would people be upset? That would tell a lot.

But it doesn't. You don't need that much room to make a great game even with ton of extras. And it certainly doesn't effect development. So, well, BR is for movies.

So what I was trying to say, this is a moo point.

[Kamalot]

...this is a moo point.

Moo

Come on...someone had to!

[Kamalot]

But it doesn't. You don't need that much room to make a great game even with ton of extras. And it certainly doesn't effect development. So, well, BR is for movies.

So what I was trying to say, this is a moo point.Snarky cow references aside, I completely agree. Bluray is NOT essential to make awesome, compelling and outstanding games. Why then is it good for gamers? Cause develoeprs can now fit more pre-rendered video on their discs?

[Sensei-X]

Any bets on how long until they 1337 haXXor the site and replace it with J-Porn?

[Mr.Condescension]

Bluray is NOT essential to make awesome, compelling and outstanding games.

Many devs have already been quoted as saying they forsee the size of DVD-9 as being a problem in the future and would like a larger optical medium for their games. I'm amazed that people ignore the folks who actually make the games. Rock Star's Table Tennis almost completely filled a DVD-9, and it's a first year game! Later on in a console's life it has been found that the average game takes 100x system RAM. For the 360 that would be 51.2 Gigs for those who are still listening. The textures for each car alone in F1 '06 are 20x larger than on the PS2. Amazing how shortsighted people can be.

edit: here are the links again. Actually, links to original links. And no, the quotes aren't originally from Playstation boards...they just catalogued them for us to see all in one place:

http://www.ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=24089&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3media&message.id=4342

[Kamalot]

I'm sure developers would like more RAM too. Just because a developer wants something does not mean it is essential to make awesome, compelling and outstanding games.

[Siraris]

I'm sure developers would like more RAM too. Just because a developer wants something does not mean it is essential to make awesome, compelling and outstanding games.

Dude, read the quotes from the developers THEMSELVES, they are saying they cannot put their games on DVD9 discs. 1 car in F1 06 is 22x the assets of the PS2 version. Mark Rein even stated that games are going to be getting to 20-30 gb.

Seriously, theres a point where arguing isn't necessary anymore.

[Mr.Condescension]

I'm sure developers would like more RAM too. Just because a developer wants something does not mean it is essential to make awesome, compelling and outstanding games.

The part about the RAM is quite true. Just imagine this, though. If the textures for GTA4 are 20x larger than the PS2 version (like the textures in F1 '06 as per the linked quotes) then it is highly doubtful it would be able to fit on a DVD-9. So you're going to now start switching disks between each mission that happens on opposite sides of the city? This has the potential to be a huge problem in streamed worlds. Mark Rein of Epic has already stated that he expects Epic's games to exceed 20GB this generation.

edit: Siraris beat me to the quotes. haha

[DaedalusFolly]

There is audio in HDMI. DVI is the digital connection with no audio. That was originally the point of HDMI...one cable to rule them all.

I got ahead of myself, or was just confused. Deleted the post, but you're too fast.

[Mr.Condescension]

I got ahead of myself, or was just confused. Deleted the post, but you're too fast.

Haha! I deleted mine too, but you're fast as well!

[Kamalot]

Dude, read the quotes from the developers THEMSELVES, they are saying they cannot put their games on DVD9 discs. 1 car in F1 06 is 22x the assets of the PS2 version. Mark Rein even stated that games are going to be getting to 20-30 gb.

Seriously, theres a point where arguing isn't necessary anymore.
Sure Siraris, you must be right. I guess that means we won't see any more 360 games since you can't fit the games on a DVD 9! Oh Noes! :rolleyes:

[Kelegacy]

Uh...no.

Games aren't worth $59.
Don't matter if they come from Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo.
We do not often agree, but this is one of the rare times that I can nod my head in your general direction.

[Kamalot]

We do not often agree, but this is one of the rare times that I can nod my head in your general direction.
Hey! Thanks! :D

[Siraris]

Sure Siraris, you must be right. I guess that means we won't see any more 360 games since you can't fit the games on a DVD 9! Oh Noes! :rolleyes:

Oh well, everything has a beginning and an end. :D

[Jack B]

Dude, read the quotes from the developers THEMSELVES, they are saying they cannot put their games on DVD9 discs. 1 car in F1 06 is 22x the assets of the PS2 version. Mark Rein even stated that games are going to be getting to 20-30 gb.

Seriously, theres a point where arguing isn't necessary anymore.

Siraris,

I read the quote about F1 06.
To give you some idea about detail levels, one car in the PS3 game takes up the same amount of memory as all 22 cars in the PS2 version!! That’s a 22 fold increase!

That's memory (ie typically ram). You're talking about disk storage, not ram. Typically, the term memory is used for ram. Persistent memory would typically use the term file size/disk storage. I wasn't there to ask the author what he meant, but that's how I would read "memory" as non persistent.

Did you see any quotes say it was 22 times the file size? 22 times the size in Ram doesn't typically equate to 22 times the file size.

Bitmaps are different than 3D objects. I would expect cars are not bitmaps, but 3D objects. They could be 22 times the file size, but I'd doubt it.

Show me the quote where it say's 22 times the "file/disk storage" for a car in F1 06.

I've seen more and more games go with procedural graphics like Oblivion's forest. Those trees are generated by code, not individually stored on disk. Procedural graphics are being used where possible, because they cut down on the painstaking process of building/creating individual assets in large games and they cut down on the disk storage needed. You'll see more and more of that in this generation.

For Full Motion Video and bitmaps...., 1080p adds to the storage size needed. For 3d objects or procedural graphics not so much.

Games that use a lot of FMV like some of the RPG's will be effected more by disk storage. Games that use less bitmaps and more 3d objects or procedural code, will be effected less.

More storage for Blu-Ray is a feature advantage over DVD-9 for sure, but it should not be exaggerated in it's importance. How many games will use multiple disks is still uncertain.

There is an old management axiom, that states "Work expands to fill the time alotted". It's similar with Ram and disk storage in programming. If programmers are given more ram and disk storage, then tend to find ways to use it, so we'll see.

[Mr.Condescension]

That's memory (ie typically ram). You're talking about disk storage, not ram. Typically, the term memory is used for ram. Persistent memory would typically use the term file size/disk storage. I wasn't there to ask the author what he meant, but that's how I would read "memory" as non persistent.

I believe the textures remain compressed in RAM and get sampled by the GPU in their compressed format. They do that to conserve memory space rather than disk space. Basically, the files don't get uncompressed until they're processed, so the point about RAM footprint vs. file size is basically moot, since it's nearly a 1:1 ratio.

Did you see any quotes say it was 22 times the file size? 22 times the size in Ram doesn't typically equate to 22 times the file size.

Well, the Guerilla guys say their textures alone are more than 10x the size. Epic's character textures have gone from 512x512 to 2048x2048 last I checked, which is a 16x increase in texture size. As stated above, since the textures remain compressed in RAM for sampling, size in RAM is basically the same as size on disk for textures.

I've seen more and more games go with procedural graphics like Oblivion's forest. Those trees are generated by code, not individually stored on disk. Procedural graphics are being used where possible, because they cut down on the painstaking process of building/creating individual assets in large games and they cut down on the disk storage needed. You'll see more and more of that in this generation.

Actually, what you describe isn't happening yet, exactly. In oblivion they generated the trees procedurally while designing, but they were stored in a traditional fashion and are not generated in game procedurally. So far it is an example of how content creators can create assets more quickly (and take up disk space with less cost). Procedurally generated in game imagery is not used extensively as of yet. For that matter, Carmack's megatextures are an example of the exact opposite, where he wants every pixel to be hand-crafted rather than a few repeated textures tiled together.

There is an old management axiom, that states "Work expands to fill the time alotted". It's similar with Ram and disk storage in programming. If programmers are given more ram and disk storage, then tend to find ways to use it, so we'll see.

It will certainly be interesting, and I'm glad to finally be able to discuss this sort of issue intelligently and calmly.

One thing that occurred to me last night was that I had forgotten that the Dreamcast launched with a CD drive. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine having a 4 Gig PS2 game on CDs in this day and age. It simply wouldn't be possible. I imagine Sega fans at the time when the PS2 was launching were saying the same thing: "we don't need more than CD. We can always just switch disks. They'll make do with what they have." Funny how things go in cycles.

[Mr.Condescension]

Sure Siraris, you must be right. I guess that means we won't see any more 360 games since you can't fit the games on a DVD 9! Oh Noes! :rolleyes:

I'm sure we will continue to see fantastic 360 games on DVD for many years to come. Developers will work with what they have. It's just that in a few years some developers might only have the option of making a particular game for the PS3 instead of the Xbox or multiple platforms because their particular game won't be feasible on DVD-9s. That, I think, is the main issue here. Some developers are saying "thank you for including blu-ray in the PS3...now I can create what I envisioned in my head."

[Kamalot]

Maybe we'll get games with multiple DVDs that we have to switch every 20-40 hours, kinda like Final Fantasy VII!

[Kamalot]

One thing that occurred to me last night was that I had forgotten that the Dreamcast launched with a CD drive.
The Dreamcast had a GD-ROM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GD-ROM). Each Dreamcast disc is built of off fundamental CD-ROM technologies, but the discs can hold up to a Gig of ROM data.

[Jack B]

I believe the textures remain compressed in RAM and get sampled by the GPU in their compressed format. They do that to conserve memory space rather than disk space. Basically, the files don't get uncompressed until they're processed, so the point about RAM footprint vs. file size is basically moot, since it's nearly a 1:1 ratio.

Yeah, I don't know enough to understand how every game handles that type of thing, but I figured a lot of the 3d objects (or parts of them certainly) wouldn't be stored as bitmaps on the drive, but objects, which do save disk space. I'll take your word for it over mine, but it would be nice to see an article discussing specifically disk space as 1:1. The GT cars example did say memory, not disk space. If he had have used disk space or file size instead of memory, it would've made it more clear.

Well, the Guerilla guys say their textures alone are more than 10x the size. Epic's character textures have gone from 512x512 to 2048x2048 last I checked, which is a 16x increase in texture size. As stated above, since the textures remain compressed in RAM for sampling, size in RAM is basically the same as size on disk for textures.

I've always assumed only part of a 3d object is 3d. Other parts are bitmaps. These are still discussing texture size, but not the complete object. Once again, I'm no expert, just fairly logical and looking for the specific statements re disk space of 3d objects as a whole not just textures.

Actually, what you describe isn't happening yet, exactly. In oblivion they generated the trees procedurally while designing, but they were stored in a traditional fashion and are not generated in game procedurally. So far it is an example of how content creators can create assets more quickly (and take up disk space with less cost). Procedurally generated in game imagery is not used extensively as of yet. For that matter, Carmack's megatextures are an example of the exact opposite, where he wants every pixel to be hand-crafted rather than a few repeated textures tiled together.

Yeah, I could see that would make sense. Procedurally, it would save tons of time and effort creating the assets (ie forest), but they wouldn't necessarily be created on the fly, but stored on the disk.

I wonder how Mass Effect and Spore will handle that. I think they're using procedural as well.

It will certainly be interesting, and I'm glad to finally be able to discuss this sort of issue intelligently and calmly.

Ditto.

All things being equal, I would much rather have 25-50gb of storage assuming it gets used. It will be interesting to see what percentage of games go above the DVD-9 gb limit. I'd consider this an advantage for Sony, although because it's added cost to the PS3 and potentially to each Blu-Ray disk produced, it remains to be seen what it's worth.

[Mr.Condescension]

The Dreamcast had a GD-ROM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GD-ROM). Each Dreamcast disc is built of off fundamental CD-ROM technologies, but the discs can hold up to a Gig of ROM data.

Good to know. I wasn't aware it was a gig. Still, it would take more than 4 of those to run GTA4 without really reducing the games textures and scale. More if they have to duplicate alot of the same data onto each disk.

[Mr.Condescension]

Yeah, I don't know enough to understand how every game handles that type of thing, but I figured a lot of the 3d objects (or parts of them certainly) wouldn't be stored as bitmaps on the drive, but objects, which do save disk space. I'll take your word for it over mine, but it would be nice to see an article discussing specifically disk space as 1:1. The GT cars example did say memory, not disk space. If he had have used disk space or file size instead of memory, it would've made it more clear.

I've been reading the debates on this same issue on the beyond3d.com forums, and that was the way the devs there said textures are used. I suppose the use of the word memory could be confusing, but I think the other comments about texture sizes and what we know about what they're already using would lend credence to them meaning file size as well.


I've always assumed only part of a 3d object is 3d. Other parts are bitmaps. These are still discussing texture size, but not the complete object. Once again, I'm no expert, just fairly logical and looking for the specific statements re disk space of 3d objects as a whole not just textures.

My understanding is that the textures take up a large portion of an objects memory footprint and disk space. I would love to see some examples of how much game data is taken up by scripting, animation, textures, geometry, etc. If anyone has something like that handy, please chime in.

Yeah, I could see that would make sense. Procedurally, it would save tons of time and effort creating the assets (ie forest), but they wouldn't necessarily be created on the fly, but stored on the disk.

The interesting thing about this is that these new techniques run contradictory to the anti-blu-ray argument that time=$, so nobody can fill the blu-ray due to production costs. Devs are talking about that not being a problem for artists because of the new tools and techniques they're getting these days. Artists work at 2048x2048 already and had to scale their work down when they were done before. Now they just leave all their detail in, so it doesn't take them longer...just the opposite. Also there are new tools that allow artists to work on a model in-engine and see their results on the fly, saving them countless hours of tweak-render-tweak-render-ad infinitum. These things, along with procedurally generated assets are making artists more productive for their time. This ends up using up more disk space more quickly in the development process, or so I have been reading.

[Jack B]

I've been reading the debates on this same issue on the beyond3d.com forums, and that was the way the devs there said textures are used. I suppose the use of the word memory could be confusing, but I think the other comments about texture sizes and what we know about what they're already using would lend credence to them meaning file size as well.

I haven't spent enough time on the subject. I should check it out at some point.

My understanding is that the textures take up a large portion of an objects memory footprint and disk space. I would love to see some examples of how much game data is taken up by scripting, animation, textures, geometry, etc. If anyone has something like that handy, please chime in.

Yep, if the textures do take up the bulk of the disk space, then it's pretty much 1:1.

The interesting thing about this is that these new techniques run contradictory to the anti-blu-ray argument that time=$, so nobody can fill the blu-ray due to production costs.

Yeah, I have no doubts some developers could fill up a Blu-Ray if given the opportunity. The procedurally generated worlds like in Mass Effect or large forests etc, might do it, if they can't be generated on the fly.

This will be interesting.

[Kamalot]

Good to know. I wasn't aware it was a gig. Still, it would take more than 4 of those to run GTA4 without really reducing the games textures and scale. More if they have to duplicate alot of the same data onto each disk.
Dreamcast came with hardware decompression that allowed games to keep compressed textures on the disc, decompressing them on the fly. You can get a 32-bit graphic 6-7 smaller when stored on the disc allowing developers to store huge graphics on each disc. Loading textures is much faster off of the GD-ROM since the file size read off of the disc is 6-7 times as small. Hardware decompression is virtually instant when done in hardware as opposed to software eating CPU cycles done in other consoles. I doubt GTA would require 4 discs but the world will never know.

[Mr.Condescension]

Dreamcast came with hardware decompression that allowed games to keep compressed textures on the disc, decompressing them on the fly. You can get a 32-bit graphic 6-7 smaller when stored on the disc allowing developers to store huge graphics on each disc. Loading textures is much faster off of the GD-ROM since the file size read off of the disc is 6-7 times as small. Hardware decompression is virtually instant when done in hardware as opposed to software eating CPU cycles done in other consoles. I doubt GTA would require 4 discs but the world will never know.

PS2, GC and Xbox games stored textures compressed on the disc. It was their way of minimizing their memory footprint. The hardware compression vs. software compression angle is interesting, but it wouldn't affect disk space demands in porting GTA4 from the ps2 to the dreamcast. It might affect performance, but not disk space requirements.

[Siraris]

I have a model that I did, a robot, in 3DSmax. Pretty simple geometry, a low-res metalic texture for the body, 26k verts on the model, it was a bit of a rush job but it looks sweet. It weighs in at about 5 megs. Models done for next-gen games will be substantially heavier than mine. Considering each F1 car in 06 will be modeled down to parts of the engine and chasis, it's going to be quite large.

Furthermore, much of the games size will be made up of textures. I calculated that a high-res texture used in a rendering engine displaying at 1920x1080 will come in at around 8 megabytes on average. Considering that it could be more, or less, and there could be hundreds of textures in one game, games will be getting quite large.

As for Oblivion, it did not use procedural trees. It uses a program known as Speedtree, which generates the 3D Geometry, LOD and Billboarding data amonghst other things. I believe that these are then stored in a file which the engine then uses to render the trees. Since I've never used Speedtree or the Oblivion engine, I can't say anymore than that. The fact is, each tree needs textures on it, for the trunk, for the leafs and anything else, and all of this takes space.

As for the file size, I never said it was 22x the file size, I said it was 22x the assets. The reason I said that is because of the vague nature of the sentence. It would stand to make sense, though, that if the size in RAM is 22x larger, it should be about equivelant in file size. As Mr.Condescension said, it's roughly a 1:1 ratio, but 22x is a huge number.