Devil May Cry 4 to require 30 minute install process on PS3

Ruined · 12-23-2007, 12:54 PM

Unlike the 360 version, of course

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamespot

Our early play throughs have all been fairly positive, although we did find one annoying feature with the PS3 version. The game needs to install a large chunk of files on the PS3's drive, and it takes quite a lot of time (roughly 20-30 minutes by our count). This obviously only happens the first time you play the game, but it's still quite a jarring experience to be faced with a PC-like install process on a console game.

Tell me again how great that Blu-Ray drive is, ganthc? You know, the one that operates at less than half the speed of 360's 12x DVD?

PunkMunkey · 12-23-2007, 03:32 PM

How does it install the information on a 360 without a HDD? Or will the 360 just suffer from excruciatingly painful load times?

Ruined · 12-23-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkMunkey

How does it install the information on a 360 without a HDD? Or will the 360 just suffer from excruciatingly painful load times?

360's DVDROM drive is over twice as fast as the PS3's BD drive, so it doesn't need to be installed to the HD. And of course, 360's with HDs have the benefit of a 2GB HD cache.

Lets not lump PS3's slow disc performance with 360's - 360 loads speedily off disc.

PunkMunkey · 12-23-2007, 04:19 PM

Well, would data transfer rate not be a function of both disc speed and bandwidth? If so, I'm not 100% convinced that the 360 will see shorter load times without an install like the one utilized for the PS3 but that would be great if it does.

umainebearman · 12-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkMunkey

Well, would data transfer rate not be a function of both disc speed and bandwidth? If so, I'm not 100% convinced that the 360 will see shorter load times without an install like the one utilized for the PS3 but that would be great if it does.

One of the big draws to console gaming for me was to avoid the whole install process. 20 to 30 minutes is the average install time for a PC game. Sony is taking a serious step backwards here. I am in no way shape or form interested in this game but I could sacrifice a little load time to save space on my hard drive.

Yeah that BD drive and all that extra space on br discs are suuuuuure coming in handy.

Ruined · 12-23-2007, 05:03 PM

It sure is a step backwards. Let's face it, XBOX1 came with a hard drive standard in every console and there was never anything like this because Microsoft forbid it - they refused to allow devs to force users into hard drive management when the DVDROM drive did the loading just fine.

In this case, the PS3's BD drive simply isn't fast enough to keep up with loading and streaming of assets for today's gaming. On the other hand, the 12x DVDROM drive in the XBOX 360 is fast enough for these purposes.

While the XBOX 360's drive obviously isn't as fast as a hard drive, it is fast enough to ensure minimal load times while at the same time prevent time-consuming installs and space management nightmares as your game library increases; plus you always have the option of getting an HD for the 360, which still prevents installs by implementing a limited dynamic caching mechanism (three 2gb partitions reserved for all games maximum). It may not be long before the 20GB PS3 user can only play any given 4 games at once (even less if he has any other content on the drive) without having to go into his HD and start manually deleting game installs - and I think that is one thing that many specifically turned to consoles to avoid.

MooglePorn · 12-23-2007, 07:47 PM

If games like Uncharted and Resistance and Ratchet and Clank can look as amazing as they do and load as fast as they do and install nothing, there is NO reason for any game to require it really.

Lazy developers.

That said, most of the games that install make it an option, and when you do load times are instant... so DMC4 could very well trump the 360 version in performance and loading thanks to the install.

Also, Oblivion installed 5GB in like 30 seconds... same thing with UT3... so I can't see why a "30 minute" install process is even possible.

PunkMunkey · 12-24-2007, 01:11 AM

Only marginally related topic here...

I'm kinda still trying to wrap my head around the whole data throughput issue. Perhaps someone can clarify for me.

OK...purely hypothetical numbers here:

If you've got a 1X speed Disc Drive with a transfer rate of say 10MBps is the data throughput not equal to a 2X speed drive with a transfer rate of 5MBps? And isn't data throughput the most important factor in load times?

Am I totally off base here?

MooglePorn · 12-24-2007, 01:34 AM

There are compensators like that, yes... From what I have read BD transfer rates are not as bad as Ruined implies, but they are worse than DVD rates on the 360 by a fair margin.

Ruined · 12-24-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkMunkey

If you've got a 1X speed Disc Drive with a transfer rate of say 10MBps is the data throughput not equal to a 2X speed drive with a transfer rate of 5MBps? And isn't data throughput the most important factor in load times?

Am I totally off base here?

Pretty much, because that figure would only be useful if you were copying a file stored perfectly in order across the disc. Games need to zoom all around the disc to load textures, sounds, maps, models, etc, that cannot be stored in sequential order for obvious reasons. Devs can somewhat offset the super slow seek times of BD by essentially storing multiple copies of the same data across the BD disc (Bethesda did this for Oblivion), but even doing this (which negates the extra space of BD, btw) it was still not fast enough to avoid a 5GB permanent hard drive install. So it must be pretty darn slow.

If you were comparing only read speeds, though, a 2x BDROM drive like the one in the PS3 is 72mbps constant - whlle a 12x DVDROM like the one in 360 is 66-130mbps depending on location of disc. On average a 2x BD drive is about equal to a 5.5x DVDROM drive.

MooglePorn · 12-24-2007, 02:39 PM

The install for Oblivion is not "permanent" in any way... you can delete it at any time without effecting the game, then it will install again next time you play. No biggie.

Both systems have positives and negatives and both have amazing looking and sounding games. The lack of a firm HDD effects 360 development negatively, and the lower disc speed of BD effects PS3 development negatively... same for DVD size restrictions and dedicated video RAM, or open-ended online's benefits (mods, free, etc.) versus streamlined interfaces on the 360.

As any non-fanboy knows, both consoles offer great experiences and different upsides... that's why threads like this are silly. DMC must install on the PS3? Big whoop... it will almost surely load faster thanks to it. After seeing the comparison vid on gametrailers and knowing they both look identical, I will be getting the PS3 version... the hardware is just better, so I always go PS3 when it's not a gimped version.

MJZ · 12-24-2007, 08:38 PM

I'm a long time fan of the Xbox and 360, but the decision to exclude an internal HDD on the 360 annoys me because of the benefits it brings and the one spec for devs. They should have fitted every 360 with an internal 7 GB HDD to cover the "reserved for system use" portion on all current external HDDs. The devs can then code to one console spec, all games can make use of caching and the external HDD is then a dedicated storage device.

12-23-2007, 03:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
PunkMunkey Join Date: Jul 2002	How does it install the information on a 360 without a HDD? Or will the 360 just suffer from excruciatingly painful load times? __________________ ...you left me feeling hopeful I'd never see your face again.

12-23-2007, 04:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
PunkMunkey Join Date: Jul 2002	Well, would data transfer rate not be a function of both disc speed and bandwidth? If so, I'm not 100% convinced that the 360 will see shorter load times without an install like the one utilized for the PS3 but that would be great if it does. __________________ ...you left me feeling hopeful I'd never see your face again.

12-23-2007, 05:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ruined It's Good to Play Together Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: NJ, USA	It sure is a step backwards. Let's face it, XBOX1 came with a hard drive standard in every console and there was never anything like this because Microsoft forbid it - they refused to allow devs to force users into hard drive management when the DVDROM drive did the loading just fine. In this case, the PS3's BD drive simply isn't fast enough to keep up with loading and streaming of assets for today's gaming. On the other hand, the 12x DVDROM drive in the XBOX 360 is fast enough for these purposes. While the XBOX 360's drive obviously isn't as fast as a hard drive, it is fast enough to ensure minimal load times while at the same time prevent time-consuming installs and space management nightmares as your game library increases; plus you always have the option of getting an HD for the 360, which still prevents installs by implementing a limited dynamic caching mechanism (three 2gb partitions reserved for all games maximum). It may not be long before the 20GB PS3 user can only play any given 4 games at once (even less if he has any other content on the drive) without having to go into his HD and start manually deleting game installs - and I think that is one thing that many specifically turned to consoles to avoid. __________________ For every shadow, no matter how deep, is threatened by morning light.

12-24-2007, 01:11 AM	#8 (permalink)
PunkMunkey Join Date: Jul 2002	Only marginally related topic here... I'm kinda still trying to wrap my head around the whole data throughput issue. Perhaps someone can clarify for me. OK...purely hypothetical numbers here: If you've got a 1X speed Disc Drive with a transfer rate of say 10MBps is the data throughput not equal to a 2X speed drive with a transfer rate of 5MBps? And isn't data throughput the most important factor in load times? Am I totally off base here? __________________ ...you left me feeling hopeful I'd never see your face again. Last edited by PunkMunkey : 12-24-2007 at 03:14 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-23-2007, 07:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	If games like Uncharted and Resistance and Ratchet and Clank can look as amazing as they do and load as fast as they do and install nothing, there is NO reason for any game to require it really. Lazy developers. That said, most of the games that install make it an option, and when you do load times are instant... so DMC4 could very well trump the 360 version in performance and loading thanks to the install. Also, Oblivion installed 5GB in like 30 seconds... same thing with UT3... so I can't see why a "30 minute" install process is even possible.

12-24-2007, 01:34 AM	#9 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	There are compensators like that, yes... From what I have read BD transfer rates are not as bad as Ruined implies, but they are worse than DVD rates on the 360 by a fair margin.

12-24-2007, 02:39 PM	#11 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	The install for Oblivion is not "permanent" in any way... you can delete it at any time without effecting the game, then it will install again next time you play. No biggie. Both systems have positives and negatives and both have amazing looking and sounding games. The lack of a firm HDD effects 360 development negatively, and the lower disc speed of BD effects PS3 development negatively... same for DVD size restrictions and dedicated video RAM, or open-ended online's benefits (mods, free, etc.) versus streamlined interfaces on the 360. As any non-fanboy knows, both consoles offer great experiences and different upsides... that's why threads like this are silly. DMC must install on the PS3? Big whoop... it will almost surely load faster thanks to it. After seeing the comparison vid on gametrailers and knowing they both look identical, I will be getting the PS3 version... the hardware is just better, so I always go PS3 when it's not a gimped version.

12-24-2007, 08:38 PM	#12 (permalink)
MJZ Actor Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: England	I'm a long time fan of the Xbox and 360, but the decision to exclude an internal HDD on the 360 annoys me because of the benefits it brings and the one spec for devs. They should have fitted every 360 with an internal 7 GB HDD to cover the "reserved for system use" portion on all current external HDDs. The devs can then code to one console spec, all games can make use of caching and the external HDD is then a dedicated storage device.