Rage: 22GB Install On Xbox 360

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



  1. 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.

    • 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?

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

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

    • i vote conspiracy

    • 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.

      • Yep – as I mentioned below.

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

      • 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.

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

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  3. 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.

    • 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 …”

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • Foundry*

  4. 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?

    • 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.

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

    • The graphics loading in.

      • 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”.

      • *different = difference

      • 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….. :(

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  6. I rather stick to playing PS3 exclusive games. They look & play better. I bet this won’t look as good as KillZone 2 or 3. Anyway id’s last good game was DOOM & Quake so i am not to bothered about this.

    • 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).

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

  8. 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.


    • 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?

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

      • 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”.

    • 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.

    • 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!

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

  9. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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!!

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

  10. Pee Wee works for ID?

Comments are now closed for this post.