RAGE Devours Xbox 360 Hard Drives
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
sounds like the pc will be asking for this amount too. well, still thinking if i should get this game.
I simply don't have enough room for that. I have a pro console from forever ago and just had to delete pretty much all of my demos so I could download the Fallout 3 DLC. I have about 3 gigs left. Is there any way I could like use an external hard drive or something?
Yeah, but I'm thinking I might get a disk for this one. I don't know how long 15gb would take to download from Steam servers but L4D2 took a couple of days when I downloaded it (11Gb). The problem wasn't on my side, the Steam servers were the bottleneck.Skorpyo said:
The 360 version's mandatory install doesn't really affect me, since I'm probably gonna get Rage on PC, and even if I did decide to get it on teh 360, I have an elite so the space wouldn't be much of an issue, but... does this mean that the game'll be a 22gb download from steam?
Ow, my bandwidth :<
stupid 95gb cap, WHY DO YOU DESTROY MY DREAMS?!
Ow, my bandwidth :<
stupid 95gb cap, WHY DO YOU DESTROY MY DREAMS?!
It's only 22Gb. I have some individual files nearly that size. Do 360s require some special proprietary HDD? Or can they just use off-the-shelf drives? I just slapped another two terabytes in my home server and it cost me about $65.
I'm not a console gamer so I don't really know, but can't you just do that?
I'm not a console gamer so I don't really know, but can't you just do that?
My word, this really goes to show you had old these consoles are getting. We skipped over a nex-gen reveal for the motion control fad, and this is the outcome.
Personally, I don't care, as I play the big hitters on PC anyway.
Also, its kind of sad that people would complain how large a game is. We should be asking for twice the size by now, as it means the game will have that much more. Really, can we stop living in 2002 and get this thing rolling or what?
Personally, I don't care, as I play the big hitters on PC anyway.
Also, its kind of sad that people would complain how large a game is. We should be asking for twice the size by now, as it means the game will have that much more. Really, can we stop living in 2002 and get this thing rolling or what?
It seems to me that most people who are reacting on this,never watched the keynote.
John explains with ridiculously detailed words how and why the game needs so much space.
It's because of a new technique he invented,that frees processor and graphics card resources,with the side effect that space need rises.
The industry standard other developers follow,is to use low resolution textures that are being drawn by the graphics card multiple times.
Carmack's idea was to use larger resolution textures, so they can cover up surfaces by being drawn once,so the processor and graphics card have to execute the the command "draw that texture there" only once per texture.
That means that less work is being thrown on the processor and graphics card,for a cost on required gigabytes space.
In other words,the game could be only 10 gigabytes instead of 22,but then you wouldn't have a frame rate of 60fps,but it would be like watching a slide show on the xbox360.
John explains with ridiculously detailed words how and why the game needs so much space.
It's because of a new technique he invented,that frees processor and graphics card resources,with the side effect that space need rises.
The industry standard other developers follow,is to use low resolution textures that are being drawn by the graphics card multiple times.
Carmack's idea was to use larger resolution textures, so they can cover up surfaces by being drawn once,so the processor and graphics card have to execute the the command "draw that texture there" only once per texture.
That means that less work is being thrown on the processor and graphics card,for a cost on required gigabytes space.
In other words,the game could be only 10 gigabytes instead of 22,but then you wouldn't have a frame rate of 60fps,but it would be like watching a slide show on the xbox360.
That's because Sony will let you plug any 2.5" SATA drive into your PS3... whereas MS HDDs have a wee bit of custom code frontending them (firmware based, iirc) and without that frontend the system will refuse to recognise the HDD.Korten12 said:$130 for a 120GB HDD?Irridium said:
I got my 500GB ps3 HDD for less then $100.
Except Carmack isn't a game designer, he's a software engineer.Elementlmage said:
edit: and before someone say "well then he shouldn't have anything to do with game design then"...
HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING THE GAMES
He heads/oversees the programming groups that create and refine id's various engines and related tech.
Can someone tell me why the 360 version is better? I have both consoles but I'd like to know why exactly (or how)
look on the bright side. maybe the game with decent amount of work put into it isntead of some 8 hour long eye candy in 4 gbs. also, away with the idiocy of leading every 5 minutes and having to spin up the disc every time.
Really? that i didnt knew. why does anyone still use eggsbox anyway?
Not really. most games are oversized based on the things were getting. de to the fact that 500 gb drive is not a problem anymore, they dont care for optimization. same goes for the graphics engines. had the programmers put as much work into optimizing games as they did, say, in 2002, we could run the new games much easier on older computers. but they dont care about that anymore, because after all, everyone buys new computer every 3 years anyway, right? right? well, no. but they dont know that.
More flexible memory usage. 360 has 512MB RAM shared between system and graphics while the PS3 has 256MB/256MB for each... that means that with the 360 should either require more than 256MB RAM usage they can use any 'spare' mem not utilised by the other.Quiet Stranger said:
Playing without an install brings into play the BRDs much lower data transfer speed.
"Better" is not the right word because it has a very general meaning.Quiet Stranger said:
The main difference between the two versions,is that PS3 uses a Cell processor,which have a completely different architecture than the architecture both xbox360 and PC has.
PS3 has such an architecture that requires multiple kernels running.
If there is a bug,the developer will have to find in which kernel it happened,which makes bug-finding and fixing a harder and longer procedure.
That's also the same reason most ps3 games take more time to make than xbox360 or PC games.
Developers have to code one version for ps3,and one for everything else.
It's harder to make something work on ps3.