XI
you are not logged in
News

Rage: 22GB Install On Xbox 360

PS3 graphics also discussed.

John Carmack from id Software has been talking about the problems of squeezing Rage on to our favourite consoles and has revealed that the Xbox 360 version will have an ‘all or nothing’ install of around 21-22 GB.

“On the 360 we don’t have a partial install option; it’s all or nothing, which is kind of unfortunate. It means you have to install 21/22GB of stuff which takes a long time but if you’ve got it and you play it on the 360 that’s the way to go.”

If you read my hands on feature with game I discussed there was some noticeable graphical problems and John has given an explanation.

“Once you get everything from memory that works pretty good, but if you’re coming straight from the hard drive then the first time you walk into everything from the DVD or from the Blu-ray – even worse in terms of total latency time – you listen to that Blu-ray churning around as its pulling everything in.”

That doesn’t quite explain the problem I encountered during my hands on,

“I did a little test in one building and span quickly 180 degrees and watched as a few textures loaded in. I then span back to the way I was facing barely five seconds ago – and the textures loaded in. Then I span back, and they loaded in again.”

It’s not long before Rage hits the shelves and we can give you a verdict but it does seem the PS3 version will be at a slight disadvantage.

John’s comments come from a one and half hour keynote speech at Quakecon which you can view below.

Source: YouTube

Read more: # #
54 Comments
  1. job
    Member
    Since: Jun 2010

    my xbox only has 20gb and its full already. don’t fancy the ps3 version if its not as good as xbox. was a day one purchase but will have to wait till the full reviews are out now.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:33.
    • Hoopiness
      Member
      Since: Sep 2009

      Sorry, haven’t watched the vid as it’s blocked here, but what’s worse about the PS3 version? Just the blu-ray vs dvd speed that is noted in the quote or is there anything actually worth worrying about?

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:38.
      • Roynaldo
        Member
        Since: Nov 2008

        Frame speed seems to be an issue on ps3 judging by the article.

        Comment posted on 11/08/2011 at 19:10.
  2. Paranoimia
    Member
    Since: Aug 2008

    Don’t see why they can’t have an install on the PS3 version.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:34.
    • rossthebassist
      Member
      Since: Nov 2009

      i vote conspiracy

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:36.
    • Tuffcub
      On the naughty step.
      Since: Dec 2008

      I dont think anyone has mentioned you can’t install the game on PS3, it’s just not been cofnirmed. I would hope you can.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:39.
      • Kovacs
        Member
        Since: Dec 2009

        Yep – as I mentioned below.

        I fully expect both versions of the game to be comparable.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:43.
      • rossthebassist
        Member
        Since: Nov 2009

        me too, but conspiracy is my reason for anything lack luster on ps3, there is no excuse for under par games on one console over another, developers are obviously paying people too much money when you get games like uncharted looking awsome but a multi platformer is dyer. just my opinion.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:44.
      • Tuffcub
        On the naughty step.
        Since: Dec 2008

        Having seen the PS3 and Xbox version side by side – I dont. We shall see..

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:44.
      • rossthebassist
        Member
        Since: Nov 2009

        and advantage i will always be jelous of :) cant wait to see for sure.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:47.
    • Erroneus
      Wanted "Trophy Hunter" but was too late.
      Since: May 2009

      They can and they have. He mentioned at the speak, that they have an install, but they are negotiating with Sony, on how much of space they can take up.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:42.
      • Faulker
        Member
        Since: Jun 2010

        What the deuce, why the hell would they limit the install size? Presuming that installing the whole game isn’t mandatory I’m sure users can decide for themselves whether they want to install something or not.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:10.
      • Kennykazey
        Member
        Since: Mar 2010

        Yeps, I hope Sony let’s them make a huge optional install to make it run smoothly. I wouldn’t mind a 10 gb optional install.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 16:03.
      • Erroneus
        Wanted "Trophy Hunter" but was too late.
        Since: May 2009

        I agree, it’s strange that companies don’t have “free access” to install what is needed and have to justify why they are using x GB.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 16:03.
  3. The Lone Steven
    Never heard of him.
    Since: May 2010

    Bloodly hell! I think Peter may end up running a what are you doing while waiting for rage to install on your xbox comp. I would have trouble waiting for it to install but then again, i don’t know how fast the installs are on the xbox. I really hope the PS3 version is not a forced install as i would be annoyed as hell. Bioshock took nearly 20 minutes to install. This would take a week.

    It looks like a lot of people are going to have to delete some stuff if their harddrives are nearly full up. I think this is the new record of the biggest install on any console.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:35.
    • Kovacs
      Member
      Since: Dec 2009

      The BioShock install took so long I thought it had bloody failed. Didn’t help that there was no indicator on screen informing the player that it was, in fact, installing. That’s just poor design in my book, which is ironic as BioShock has sublime design throughout.

      In general, I honestly couldn’t care how long a game takes to install. Kick it off, go do something else. I distinctly remember going off and learning some solo by the Chilli Peppers while MGS4 installed.

      I’m not one of those people that stares at a screen waiting for something to happen. Life’s too short. Multi-task, people.

      As for the SIZE, yeah, I can understand why that would peeve some people. That said, I have a 500GB HDD so these numbers that get bandied around don’t even phase me any more? “22 GBs? That all you got? Pff .. puh-lease …”
      ;)

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:42.
      • The Lone Steven
        Never heard of him.
        Since: May 2010

        What is that you speak of? Multi tasking? I’m a man, i can’t multitask. except on a few things.;)

        I’ll probably read or reread my entire harry potter collection. Although i am worried that my PS3 would either die or turn into a boeing 377 as it is near it’s death i think. I agree with you on the poor design on the bioshock install screen. I had no idea when it would be done or if it had failed or not. All developers need to put in an indicator if they are going to force an install.

        I think Rage will be on my never ever delete list if i do get it. That is a quarter of my HDD space taken up then.:( i would upgrade to a bigger harddrive but i doubt my PS3 has much life left in it.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:48.
      • Faulker
        Member
        Since: Jun 2010

        Digital Foundy has made a comparison of HDDs in a PS3 and in that article they say Bioshock is so slow because it copies a lot of small files which then has slow access time.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:13.
      • Faulker
        Member
        Since: Jun 2010

        Foundry*

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:14.
  4. Kovacs
    Member
    Since: Dec 2009

    I don’t have a spare 86 minutes to listen to Carmack, but is there any mention of the PS3 install? Because, yes, obviously, if the 360 has reading from the HDD and it has the total 22GB there, it’s going to be faster than reading from the Blu-ray. But how much of the game is installed on the HDD for the PS3 version?

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:37.
    • Gadbury
      Member
      Since: Jan 2009

      Carmack stated that they are still negotiating with Sony on the install-size for the PS3. They are hoping for a few more GBs to improve performance.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 20:12.
  5. Hoopiness
    Member
    Since: Sep 2009

    Tuffcub, what were you referring to when you said “slight disadvantage”?

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:45.
    • Tuffcub
      On the naughty step.
      Since: Dec 2008

      The graphics loading in.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:50.
      • Hoopiness
        Member
        Since: Sep 2009

        Ok cheers. I’d have thought that difference would be negligible really?

        I know the 360 DVD read speed is slightly quicker on average than PS3 blu-ray (iirc) but still, the way the quote reads, it’s going to be an issue on both versions of the game, no? In that case, I think the main point is that both games are going to suffer for it, not that the PS3 will be ever so slightly worse. Complete guess obviously, but I doubt you’d notice the time different much unless you are sitting with a stopwatch.

        It sounds like both sets of users will be sitting there thinking, “geez, this is slow”.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:04.
      • Hoopiness
        Member
        Since: Sep 2009

        *different = difference

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:04.
      • beeje13
        Member
        Since: Jan 2010

        I don’t think ‘slightly’ is the right word, maybe ‘significantly’ quicker would be more appropriate

        360: 12x DVD drive – 15.85 MB/s Max read speed
        PS3: 2X BD drive – 9MB/s Max read speed

        There would probably be no where near as many installs if the PS3 shipped with a 4X BD drive, but I suppose it was early on in the life of blu ray when the PS3 was being designed….. :(

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 13:37.
      • Hoopiness
        Member
        Since: Sep 2009

        I’ve read before that 15.85 – as you note – is the MAXIMUM. However, the read speed is constantly variable depending on where on the DVD the data is (ie, inside, outside). The average speed is nothing like 15.85MB.

        Thus, I’d say slightly is most definitely the right word if DVD is indeed quicker.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 14:06.
      • Hoopiness
        Member
        Since: Sep 2009

        Just googled this out of curiousity. I’m not sure whether what I read was accurate, albeit from a few sources (mainly forums), so I’m not saying it’s accurate.

        Apparently, blu-ray has a constant data transfer rate – 9MB/s.

        On the other hand, DVDs vary depending on where the data lies on the DVD. This means that the headline MAX rate you mention (15.85MB/s) is rarely reached. The average is somewhere closer to 10-10.5MB/s. Another variable is found in whether the DVD is single layer or dual layer, with the latter moving the average even lower. Some folk say that this dips below the BR average.

        As I say, I’ve no idea whatsoever, but it doesn’t sound like the different is anything but slight either way.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 14:26.
      • Kennykazey
        Member
        Since: Mar 2010

        It supposedly has more to do with the PS3’s lack of usable memory. It’s split in two, one half for cpu, one for gpu. And the PS3’s OS apparently takes up some of it already. And remember that each part of the memory is only 256 MB. The 360 has the same amount of memory, but in one pool (512 MB). The Blu’s somewhat slower reading speed just adds to the trouble.

        *Disclaimer: Everything I have just written is based on my loose memory of Carmack’s speech & skimming trough Wikipedia and may be utter bullcrap. But I recon it’s along the lines of truth.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 16:18.
  6. Reality Check
    Banned
    Since: May 2011

    This comment is hidden.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:57.
    • bunimomike
      Member
      Since: Jul 2009

      A fair point but for multi-platform titles (and owners of both consoles) then it’s nice to have options. If it comes with an install on the PS3 then that’ll help many people make up their mind assuming the graphics are almost equal with the 360. Then again, controller preferences creep in, along with a multitude of other things.

      I’ll be very disappointed if there isn’t an install on the PS3 as the very thing it’s benefited from is a mandatory Hard Drive from the very beginning (and an awesomely easy upgrade path to larger sizes too).

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:56.
  7. Sympozium Pawa
    Member
    Since: Aug 2009

    I guess it would be better buying this on pc then? I wouldn’t buy Rage anyway I have enough shooters on Steam.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 11:58.
  8. david
    Member
    Since: Apr 2010

    I thought Carmack was supposed to be a GOD when it came to programming and he cant fix these issues with the PS3 where Sony, Naughty Dog, Insomniac didn’t appear to have any issues with their AAA games.

    Interesting.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:04.
    • Hoopiness
      Member
      Since: Sep 2009

      What issues? He isn’t responsible for PS3 vs 360 read speeds. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I’m failing to see why the article even bothers picking up on this read speed bit. Surely if the case is that DVD read speeds are slightly quicker than Blu-ray, then it has been the case for every game released on both systems?

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:26.
      • Awayze
        Member
        Since: Jul 2010

        If Killzone 3 can have no loafing times and 6MB of HDD only needed, there’s no excuse about blu ray reading times.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 13:21.
      • Hoopiness
        Member
        Since: Sep 2009

        Yes, but by the sound of it, the issues noted are on Xbox and PS3. I was referring to the fact that david said “issues with the PS3″.

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 13:29.
    • psychobudgie
      Member
      Since: Nov 2009

      To be honest it merely suggests to me that the game engine has issues and they are getting out the excuses early. Just because it is ID doesn’t guarantee a great game. Look at Bioware’s latest game for a good example.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:48.
    • Gadbury
      Member
      Since: Jan 2009

      1) Rage runs at 60FPS. GOW, Resistance, Uncharted, Infamous don’t.
      2) The Megatexture tech is unique. I’m sure if Rage used tiled textures like every other game, there wouldn’t be issues with textures loading.

      Well done to Carmack for trying new ideas. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and all that!

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 20:17.
    • KwietStorm
      Member
      Since: Jul 2009

      I wasn’t aware that Sony, Insomniac, or Guerilla had large open world games on the market.

      Comment posted on 09/08/2011 at 20:46.
  9. Youles
    Member
    Since: Feb 2011

    Wasn’t sure about this game since I have both Fallout games and Borderlands on PS3. This install may be the nail in the coffin for me….and the announcement of Borderlands 2.

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:23.
    • Kennykazey
      Member
      Since: Mar 2010

      The key word is “optional”. The games is still perfectly playable on disc only, but then you have to swap disc at some point… which might save you from forming a blood-clot.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 16:23.
      • Youles
        Member
        Since: Feb 2011

        I see…although my ol’ PS3 might not cope if it causes the kind of Blu-Ray activity that Black Ops required….thought it was gonna break!!

        That and I’m looking for any reason to reduce my pre-order list….so many games coming out soon!!

        Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 16:57.
    • Kennykazey
      Member
      Since: Mar 2010

      Oh,ps3… I thought you meant for 360, where the install is optional. On the ps3 it’s mandatory but much smaller.

      Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 18:38.
  10. psychobudgie
    Member
    Since: Nov 2009

    Pee Wee works for ID?

    Comment posted on 08/08/2011 at 12:45.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Latest Comments