HAZE to have 4GB install |
|
|
| d-range |
May 17 2008, 10:35 AM
|
X-S Senior Member
 
Group: Members
Posts: 254
Joined: 23-September 06
Member No.: 301668

|
QUOTE(NineT9mustang @ May 17 2008, 10:48 AM)  huh ^ ?
or how about um... you just buy a bigger hdd for your PS3?
Or wait no, if you wanted your PS3 to come with a bigger HDD, that would mean Sony release the PS3 with a 120GB/250GB/500GB which would make the PS3 even more expensive ($100-$400+ on top), and we all know how expensive it is already... so they gave us the answer, allowing us to expand our HDD by ourselves.
Sony did all of us a favor by including a HDD for every single console
Sony is doing us a favor by allowing us to install games to the HDD so they will load faster/smoother (or stream, however you want to technically define it)
I do not understand why people complain about memory issues or install issues.
It's like complaining you have bad gas mileage in your Ferrari
Sorry for my slight negative tone here, I don't mean to be rude, simply dont understand is all :|
Yeah because we all know putting a bigger HD in it yourself is free, and we all know casual gamers just *love* to use the screwdriver on their console and f*ck up their savegames if they do it wrong :-/ The fuss is: with install sizes like this, the HD runs out after you have a few games installed, and if you don't want to muck around with your console you can start deleting and reinstalling when you want to swap games. Terrific... At least a 360 is fully functional even without the HD, if Sony would just have put a faster optical drive in the damn machine, this crap would be unnecessary. FYI: i have both consoles, and I consider my self a computer expert (it's my job) but I actually *hate* having to view my PS3 as an upgradable computer, i don't even want to know what size of HD is in it, or that I can put a bigger one in it, and I don't want to know why I need to wait 10 minutes to install 4GB of data to it when I want to play a game. This post has been edited by d-range: May 17 2008, 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
| Naquadah |
May 17 2008, 01:46 PM
|

X-S Member

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Leeds, England
Member No.: 259336
Xbox Version: v1.2
360 version: v4.0 (jasper)

|
QUOTE(d-range @ May 17 2008, 10:11 AM)  Yeah because we all know putting a bigger HD in it yourself is free, and we all know casual gamers just *love* to use the screwdriver on their console and f*ck up their savegames if they do it wrong :-/
The fuss is: with install sizes like this, the HD runs out after you have a few games installed, and if you don't want to muck around with your console you can start deleting and reinstalling when you want to swap games. Terrific... At least a 360 is fully functional even without the HD, if Sony would just have put a faster optical drive in the damn machine, this crap would be unnecessary.
FYI: i have both consoles, and I consider my self a computer expert (it's my job) but I actually *hate* having to view my PS3 as an upgradable computer, i don't even want to know what size of HD is in it, or that I can put a bigger one in it, and I don't want to know why I need to wait 10 minutes to install 4GB of data to it when I want to play a game.
QFT!!
|
|
|
|
| |
| HotKnife420 |
May 17 2008, 04:43 PM
|
X-S Freak
    
Group: Members
Posts: 1195
Joined: 6-October 07
Member No.: 358415

|
QUOTE(d-range @ May 17 2008, 11:11 AM)  Yeah because we all know putting a bigger HD in it yourself is free, and we all know casual gamers just *love* to use the screwdriver on their console and f*ck up their savegames if they do it wrong :-/
The fuss is: with install sizes like this, the HD runs out after you have a few games installed, and if you don't want to muck around with your console you can start deleting and reinstalling when you want to swap games. Terrific... At least a 360 is fully functional even without the HD, if Sony would just have put a faster optical drive in the damn machine, this crap would be unnecessary.
FYI: i have both consoles, and I consider my self a computer expert (it's my job) but I actually *hate* having to view my PS3 as an upgradable computer, i don't even want to know what size of HD is in it, or that I can put a bigger one in it, and I don't want to know why I need to wait 10 minutes to install 4GB of data to it when I want to play a game.
I've never actually met someone who needed help upgrading the PS3 hard drive. Please actually show proof that there's someone who can't do it, and I'll bet I can still walk them through the process. Space hasn't really been an issue for me. I've got over 10 games for my PS3, some demos, and videos, and I've still got 90GB of free space. Sure, installs take a little while, but they only happen once, and they don't take all that long, anyway. GTA4 doesn't install on the 360, but it sure feels like an install when you start it up (360 version), as long as it takes to load. I think the time spent is really just "bitch fuel". As for needing a faster optical drive, the bandwidth of the device makes the rate in which the data travels a similar amount. Reading 2X on a BD is similar to reading 12X on a DVD, for data transferred in time.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Elemino |
May 17 2008, 04:56 PM
|
X-S Expert
  
Group: Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 1-December 04
From: Garland, TX
Member No.: 172367
Xbox Version: v1.0
360 version: v1 (xenon)

|
QUOTE(NineT9mustang @ May 17 2008, 04:48 AM)  or how about um... you just buy a bigger hdd for your PS3? how about um... because i shouldn't have to? QUOTE(NineT9mustang @ May 17 2008, 04:48 AM)  Sony is doing us a favor by allowing us to install games to the HDD so they will load faster/smoother (or stream, however you want to technically define it) Well that statement is problematic, because it does not make the game load any faster. In fact, most of the games on the PS3 load slower than the games on my 360. (and don't ignore my bold/underline for "most") QUOTE(NineT9mustang @ May 17 2008, 04:48 AM)  I do not understand why people complain about memory issues or install issues. Because a 40GB hard drive simply does not give you 40GB of space. The real usuable amount is in the 20's I believe. I own about 12 360 games now, and I've had probably 12 more I sold or traded. I think you see where I'm going with this. You cannot have 10 4GB games installed on a 40GB PS3 at one time. Not only do these games fill your hard drive, but they pretty much make it useless for saving anything else. The craziest thing is, people with a 360 get a bigger hard drive because they are downloading and filling it with extra content. People with a PS3 buy a bigger hard drive because they need it just to play the games they own. I could go on and on about how you have to somehow transfer your files and hope you don't lose everything, but hopefully by now you get the point. QUOTE(warmaster_670 @ May 17 2008, 09:14 AM)  right, cause it has to do with memory, of which it has almost an identical amount as the 360.......
That's true. I believe they both have 512MB. The difference is the 360's memory is unified and can share the memory for the system and the video. Where as the PS3 has an even split of 256 for the system and 256 for the video. However, the PS3 technically is supposed to be able to render better graphics (although for some reason a large portion of its games only display in 720p), so you would think they would have used unified memory as well or given the graphics side more than 256MB. Either way, why does it need these huge install files when the 360 can play the same games, look almost as good, and only save files in the 100's of MB at most instead of multiple GBs?
|
|
|
|
| |
| warmaster_670 |
May 17 2008, 05:09 PM
|

X-S Senior Member
 
Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 10-May 05
Member No.: 219996

|
QUOTE(Elemino @ May 17 2008, 12:32 PM) 
That's true. I believe they both have 512MB. The difference is the 360's memory is unified and can share the memory for the system and the video. Where as the PS3 has an even split of 256 for the system and 256 for the video. However, the PS3 technically is supposed to be able to render better graphics (although for some reason a large portion of its games only display in 720p), so you would think they would have used unified memory as well or given the graphics side more than 256MB. Either way, why does it need these huge install files when the 360 can play the same games, look almost as good, and only save files in the 100's of MB at most instead of multiple GBs?
2 things, one the companies can do it, since the PS3 has a standard HDD hwere the 360 does not, and its only got a 2x BD drive, which isnt as bad as it sounds, has a better base read rate, but doesnt go any higher the closer it gets to teh center of the disk. RAM shouldnt have anything to do with it.
|
|
|
|
| |
| anonim1979 |
May 18 2008, 01:59 AM
|
X-S Member

Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 311256

|
Raw teoretical read speed is not a problem in PS3. Problem is in that BRx2 in PS3 has access times excessing 350ms. DVD ~110ms 2xBlu-ray >350ms Every long laser jump for data causes serious delays in data transfer. You need smart cashing (takes memory!) or instalation on HDD. OR you repeat data so laser position doesn't change drasticaly and drive in PS3 doesn't need to spin up / spin down to keep (REQUIED!) in PS3 2xBR speed (BR in PS3 is CVL - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_linear_velocity ) ANYWAY Haze is crappy game. Quaz51: QUOTE Haze is 1024x576 no AA http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1...p;postcount=812Full 720p - 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels Some games: Lair 800x1080 = 864,000 pixels MGS4 / Metal Gear Online 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels GTA4 (PS3) 1152x640 = 737,280 pixels Halo3 1152x640 = 737,280 pixels Dark Sector (PS3) 1152x640 = 737,280 pixels Call of Duty 4 (PS3 , X360) 1024x600 = 614,400 pixels Haze (PS3) 1024x576 = 589,824 pixels 1024x576It is nearly SD PAL game (720x576) 
|
|
|
|
| |
|