1) Installation
2) Digital Delivery
3) Wait 2.5 minutes
4) Hidden stream of data( cutscene, menu, in game streaming, etc )
5) flash memory support for gaming
6) different optic support (and transfer rate ) for gaming purpose than a conventional BR disk
i'd like to have a 8 GB of ram to "fill" and make a 10 minutes installation than NOT have 8 GB ram and get stuck with only 2GB for an entire gen
Don't the rumored specs for PS4 exclude it from having a standard HDD instead having a measly 16 GB of storage?
I think console generations work as a three legged race; to define a standard you need at least two manufacturers tied to each other running for the same goal with the same approach; otherwise developers won't go that extra mile just for one console. In this case installs so the game has better textures/graphics.
Different optic support and transfer rate, what do you suggest? They have to use what's coming/available, if there's no breakthrough then there's no solution.
You are putting way to much emphasis on textires memory is used for other things as well. Animations being a primary.
OEM also seems to play a big part at keeping next gen hardware costs down.
Forgot to mention animations, I really thought I was missing something that takes space.
But it was accounted for nonetheless even if I didn't think of it specifically, I talked about other things taking ram space rather than textures, streaming data and the like when laying down the generalization I was making.
The point was to suggest a pattern in order to be able to work on top of it as a means to make a point; not quantify it in anyway, so of course suggesting a game will load the full RAM amount for a segment is as big of a generalization as it can be made. Problem is I can't really think of a better way to do it; it's a means to an end.
Games now are already requiring mandatory installs on Ps3 and even on xbox you have games telling you to install before hand BF3 and GR:FS are recent examples with Halo 4 requiring 8 gigs for multiplayer. So next gen I see that as a more common route for developers.
I don't know about that, PS4 is thought to have only 16 GB of storage; Wii U 8 GB; which is not much if it's gonna get used for that. I'm sure a part of it will be used as a scratch disk, as even the wii had 64 MB of the flash bank that could be used for that; and optional installs should be allowed still for external drives and the like; but not so sure about it being the absolute standard/something developers will go for from the get go (providing the PS4 16 GB information is right).
I think next generation standard is as dependent of the route sony goes for as Microsoft's. Obligatory hard drive standard having a price; and without it doing things like obligatory installs from the get go is risky.
They are already building assests with high end textures and just down porting . Thats why the cost to develope next gen isnt expected to be as high as a jump finacially as it was last time. They assets are already being built this way.
Depends. I'm sure PC developers develop that way, somewhat independent from the target platforms (and their console versions are a task of fitting it in there), but I'm not so sure about console exclusive endeavours/lower end developers and japanese developers (with some exceptions) I mean I'm sure they draw their art a bit over the resolution or might compress this and that more in order to fit the console in the end having better quality masters; but I doubt they're working as if they expect the game to look great at some extra high resolution.
But of course, this is conjecture. I agree the price shouldn't jump as much as last time (hell no), but everything has a cost involved. I'm not a game developer but I'm an artist/designer so even if I pretty much always work in high resolution modes if I know it's gonna be seen on a monitor screen alone rather than printed or seen in high resolution then I can mask and slack off on a lot of details.
Have you ever got your hands on videogame asset art in editable psd's and took the time to dissect it? It's often full of defects steaming from not being meant to be seen at that resolution so the designer thought he could get away with it. It's very high resolution, but it's meant to be shrunk down; it's simpler/cheaper to clean up that high resolution rendition for consumption rather than starting over but it takes extra time.
But this is a very complex criteria; I'm not meaning to dwell on it too much, there's realistic textures, drawn assets, HUD, all kinds of variants depending on the game we're talking about. (and my example was regarding drawn assets)
So thats not gonna be a cause for devs to not max out textures on the higher end machines. It will just be compressed more for the weaker hardware. Besides the next xbox is gonna come out first with cross plat form tool set so just like this gen the xbox will at least start as the primarylatform along with PC.
I'm sure the development environment and tools will help, but I'm also sure it'll still mean an initial development cost increment for some developers and extra time spent on textures if they want it to look flawless; more texture resolution always has a cost. Also, current PC's often have 8 GB and up, but that doesn't mean they're using them effectively, too many things holding them back (disc medium still being dvd also playing a part); having a console with 8 GB is a different beast altogether.
Even if we can control texture detail like that I think one will have to take into account the optical drive's transfer speed; it's not as you can just turn the knob up to maximum and walk away.
