Support NeoGAF

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

OK, thanks.

If you're correct about tweet number 3 really referring to getting rid of the disc, then it sounds like basically all bases are covered.

- No mandatory installs, devs must defer to auto caching
- Optional partial installs for improved performance are allowed though (if the dev wants to provide that option)
- Optional full installs are possible if you want to put the whole game on HDD permanently (doesn't require developer to do anything)

That would all be a good total solution. I've asked yosp again though, about the option to full-install

I do not think there is optional istalling as it is pointless because of caching....
This is how I think it goes.... Game reseves space from hdd where it caches game data... After Game is fully cached it does not need disk for other than verification and possibly has launcher that is not copied to hdd... meaning you do not have virtual disk on hdd but data cached.... If devs so choose they can read data from br and hdd at the same time. It is not install but every game reserves hdd space as cache. No need to clear cache ever (untill hdd space ends)

 

[Raist]

For the sake of example, lets just say every game is 50 GB.

Now, does this mean, instead of each game taking 50 GB of space ( ie. 3 games being 150 GB total), all I need is at least 50GB on my HDD for all of my games? So once I play a new game, the cache is cleared and the new game is put in the old game's place?

Is that it?

Yes.

I do not think there is optional istalling as it is pointless because of caching....

Not necessarily. The caching is something implemented by Sony at the HW level to improve load times an all games, on average.
Devs are allowed the option to have a partial install. They might want to put some particular, frequently used data on the HDD to improve performances, and not just be limited to stuff automatically copied from the disc as soon as it's been used once.

It's essentially overall a compromise between devs wanting to have mandatory installs (which will now be done at the HW level but won't be permanent) and users not necessarily wanting to HAVE TO permanently install stuff on their harddrive without being given the choice.

 

[viveks86]

For the sake of example, lets just say every game is 50 GB.

Now, does this mean, instead of each game taking 50 GB of space ( ie. 3 games being 150 GB total), all I need is at least 50GB on my HDD for all of my games? So once I play a new game, the cache is cleared and the new game is put in the old game's place?

Is that it?

If you are opting for the automatic caching as opposed to the optional full install, then my answer will be "sort of". If you check the OP, the whole 50GB example is their interpretation of it. We don't know how much actually gets cached. It could be lesser or more (for more than 1 game, of course) than 50 GB. My guess is lesser than 50 GB. Caching could be limited to content required + or - a few levels in the game, which needn't take up 50 GB.

 

[Vashetti]

So now that we have this knowledge, what's the best option for a PS4 HDD:

A 5400 HDD?
7200?

5400 SSHD?
7200 SSHD?

SSD?

 

[Caronte]

I don't think there is a contradiction if you take all those tweets in context. Here's what I think:



This is in context of mandatory installs. Shu says the caching happens automatically in the background, so there is no such thing as a mandatory install. He does not talk about the presence or lack of optional install



This is in context of the question being asked. There is no way to install the disk version onto HDD and get rid of the disk.

Here is a follow up on the exact same twitter conversation:



This is confirmation that the option still exists.

And finally, the one I posted:



Again, explicit confirmation of the option for a full game install.

We need to look at twitter responses in context of the conversation, otherwise it can get really confusing

I hope you are right. Sony should clarify this.

 

[Mass Effect]

Yoshida is confusing the hell out of everyone. We need a full explanation on how this works.

 

[viveks86]

I do not think there is optional istalling as it is pointless because of caching....
This is how I think it goes.... Game reseves space from hdd where it caches game data... After Game is fully cached it does not need disk for other than verification and possibly has launcher that is not copied to hdd... meaning you do not have virtual disk on hdd but data cached.... If devs so choose they can read data from br and hdd at the same time. It is not install but every game reserves hdd space as cache. No need to clear cache ever (untill hdd space ends)

Your assumption (bolded part) contradicts what we have learnt so far. Check my previous post and let me know your thoughts.

 

[-PXG-]

Yes.

Alright

If you are opting for the automatic caching as opposed to the optional full install, then my answer will be "sort of". If you check the OP, the whole 50GB example is their interpretation of it. We don't know how much actually gets cached. It could be lesser or more than 50 GB. My guess is lesser than 50 GB. Caching could be limited to content required + or - a few levels in the game, which needn't take up 50 GB.

That was my next question. I highly doubt it will copy the ENTIRE image into the PS4's cache. There is just no way. It's too big. I can see up to about 10 GB max, but nothing more. Either way, this is very good news.

Oh....and this...

I'm pretty sure it just means 49 GB is required in the event you wish to install the game. I don't think I've ever heard Sony say that full installs are required for physical games. That would be insane. Your HDD would fill up in an instant. It doesn't make any sense. I think you guys are freaking out over nothing.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=87346267&postcount=424

Assuming things aren't lost in translation with Yoshida (or he isn't full of shit), I guess I was sort of right.

 

[BigDug13]

I do not think there is optional istalling as it is pointless because of caching....
This is how I think it goes.... Game reseves space from hdd where it caches game data... After Game is fully cached it does not need disk for other than verification and possibly has launcher that is not copied to hdd... meaning you do not have virtual disk on hdd but data cached.... If devs so choose they can read data from br and hdd at the same time. It is not install but every game reserves hdd space as cache. No need to clear cache ever (untill hdd space ends)

It's not pointless. The blu-ray drive in this one is 3x faster than PS3 and it's pretty loud. I don't want to put unnecessary strain on the optical drive first of all, and I don't want unnecessary noise everytime I play a game second of all.

So give me the OPTION of a full install like the Xbox 360 has done for years now. It spins up the disc for verification just like pre-Steam PC gaming, then stops using the optical drive completely.

 

[RoadHazard]

For the sake of example, lets just say every game is 50 GB.

Now, does this mean, instead of each game taking 50 GB of space ( ie. 3 games being 150 GB total), all I need is at least 50GB on my HDD for all of my games? So once I play a new game, the cache is cleared and the new game is put in the old game's place?

Is that it?

Yes.

No. Or, rather, we don't know. I think it's more likely that those games will take up 150 GB on your HDD, given that you have that much space available. Maybe you can set how much of the total HDD space game caches are allowed to take, and the least used data will be overwritten when it reaches that limit. Having a hard 50 GB limit would severely limit the usefulness of the caching if you ever play more than one game at once (not literally at once, but you know what I mean), as the different games would constantly be overwriting each others' cached data.

If you are opting for the automatic caching as opposed to the optional full install, then my answer will be "sort of". If you check the OP, the whole 50GB example is their interpretation of it. We don't know how much actually gets cached. It could be lesser or more than 50 GB. My guess is lesser than 50 GB. Caching could be limited to content required + or - a few levels in the game, which needn't take up 50 GB.

COD requires 49 GB of free HDD space. That very much implies it will be fully cached on the HDD if you play it long it enough.

 

[GotchaForce]

I'm no tech person, so this all confuses me. What I imagine when you install the data of a disc to a drive is that, well....it's the data of that game. I don't get how if you copy Killzone to something and then Call of Duty to something it's all the same stuff.

Also, does this mean there's only 1 cache ever? Every game once that one install is done for the rest of the time I play games on PS4 for the next ten years it only uses the one install?

 

[viveks86]

That was my next question. I highly doubt it will copy the ENTIRE image into the PS4's cache. There is just no way. It's too big. I can see up to about 10 GB max, but nothing more. Either way, this is very good news.

It is, indeed. Also, to clarify, I meant > 50 GB for more than 1 game. Will clarify in my post as well.

I think all this confusion is because people send out tweets and Shu tries his best to answer the specific question, but the internet might start taking it out of context and inserting assumptions that don't pertain to the question.

 

[Wurdfurd]

So now that we have this knowledge, what's the best option for a PS4 HDD:

A 5400 HDD?
7200?

5400 SSHD?
7200 SSHD?

SSD?

If you're going physical, SSD I'd say. Digital, SSHD.

 

[mrklaw]

So now that we have this knowledge, what's the best option for a PS4 HDD:

A 5400 HDD?
7200?

5400 SSHD?
7200 SSHD?

SSD?

too many unknowns.

If cost is no issue, then SSD. But whether an SSHD will be of use (especially the smaller cache ones) won't really be known until people get their hands on PS4s and try it out.

 

[RoadHazard]

I'm no tech person, so this all confuses me. What I imagine when you install the data of a disc to a drive is that, well....it's the data of that game. I don't get how if you copy Killzone to something and then Call of Duty to something it's all the same stuff.

It's not. The people who believe it's just one cache area of 50 GB or whatever think that if you first play one game, then another, the second game will overwrite the first game's cached data. I believe it will just be written into free space on the HDD (unless there is no free space or some cache limit has been reached, in which case the least used cache data would probably be overwritten), so that after playing both for a while they will both be fully cached. We'll see.

 

[Raist]

No. Or, rather, we don't know. I think it's more likely that those games will take up 150 GB on your HDD, given that you have that much space available. Maybe you can set how much of the total HDD space game caches are allowed to take, and the least used data will be overwritten when it reaches that limit. Having a hard 50 GB limit would severely limit the usefulness of the caching if you ever play more than one game at once (not literally at once, but you know what I mean), as the different games would constantly be overwriting each others' cached data.

That doesn't make any sense in the context of everything said by various people, including Yoshida, because if the automatic caching works that way, it would be a mandatory full install at the end of the day. Just a progressive one instead of being in one go.

COD requires 49 GB of free HDD space. That very much implies it will be fully cached on the HDD if you play it long it enough.

Again, size requirements are NOT the actual reflect of what ends up being used. They take into account temporary decompression of stuff, and space that should be left free on the disk in order for everything to work properly. See it as a "safe" zone rather than actual, permanent requirement.

This is exactly what happens with PC games. They recommend X GB of free storage space minimum, but what ends up being installed is always lower than that.

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

It's not pointless. The blu-ray drive in this one is 3x faster than PS3 and it's pretty loud. I don't want to put unnecessary strain on the optical drive first of all, and I don't want unnecessary noise everytime I play a game second of all.

So give me the OPTION of a full install like the Xbox 360 has done for years now. It spins up the disc for verification just like pre-Steam PC gaming, then stops using the optical drive completely.

Did you not read what i wrote?

And viveks I think your post just backs my post .
First. You do not have virtual disk (like the digital version of game) on HDD. Yosp just mean you cannot install disk version and have digital version. Context when reading is key here
Second. You get data on hdd for faster loading (games reserved cache).
Third. All data cached and disk is basically there just to launch/verify game.

 

[viveks86]

COD requires 49 GB of free HDD space. That very much implies it will be fully cached on the HDD if you play it long it enough.

You are inserting some assumptions here. Here's the original article that reported it.

http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/64302/call-of-duty-ghosts-ps4-allegedly-requires-49-gb-for-install

The back side of the cover states that the game requires a minimum of 49 GB, presumably for a game installation. It's unclear if this requirement is for mandatory or optional installation.

The backside of a cover will always list what is required to ensure there are no issues while playing the game. In order to utilize the full game install option, you will indeed require the full 49 GB. Is the same required for automatic caching, we don't know yet.

 

[erawsd]

I'm no tech person, so this all confuses me. What I imagine when you install the data of a disc to a drive is that, well....it's the data of that game. I don't get how if you copy Killzone to something and then Call of Duty to something it's all the same stuff.

Also, does this mean there's only 1 cache ever? Every game once that one install is done for the rest of the time I play games on PS4 for the next ten years it only uses the one install?

They are both, effectively, doing the exact same thing. There is really only one key difference, and that is player involvement.

With permanent full installs the player now has to constantly manage his HDD, especially with 30-50GB installs for every game. You're probably going to fit ~7 or 8 games on a 500GB HDD before you have to do the dance everytime you pick up a new game.

With disk caching the console will do most of the heavy lifting, deciding when it needs to flush the game data. You should never have a situation when you put your brand new game in the console and it says "Sorry, come back when you delete some shit".

Whether its only 1 cache or more, that'll be up to whatever parameters Sony has in place (hopefully nothing stupid like flushing the data after every play session). It could just eat up free space until a player needs it for things like game saves, movies, video sharing, ect. It wouldn't surprise me if the OS reserves 50GB of space so that you can always have at least one game cached.

 

[viveks86]

And viveks I think your post just backs my post .
First. You do not have virtual disk (like the digital version of game) on HDD. Yosp just mean you cannot install disk version and have digital version. Context when reading is key here
Second. You get data on hdd for faster loading (games reserved cache).
Third. All data cached and disk is basically there just to launch/verify game.

I didn't think your entire post contradicts what we have learnt. You have extrapolated based on your understanding of caching in general. It is definitely plausible. I was only referring to the part of your post that I had highlighted. That is a direct contradiction.

 

[RoadHazard]

That doesn't make any sense in the context of everything said by various people, including Yoshida, because if the automatic caching works that way, it would be a mandatory full install at the end of the day. Just a progressive one instead of being in one go.

Yes, if you play enough of the game for all data on the disc to be accessed (which causes it to get copied to the HDD). Although Cerny did say that during downtime (basically when the game isn't reading anything off the disc, I guess) the console can jump ahead and copy data over that hasn't been accessed yet, so the full game will most likely end up on the HDD sooner rather than later.

Again, size requirements are NOT the actual reflect of what ends up being used. They take into account temporary decompression of stuff, and space that should be left free on the disk in order for everything to work properly. See it as a "safe" zone rather than actual, permanent requirement.

Well, this is just pure speculation (as is much of what I've written, since we just don't know certain things yet).

Anyway, we'll see!

 

[GalacticaN7]

I see a lot of back and forth in here.

Am I to assume we are just confused and don't exactly know what the deal is, and need clarification? Or has there been a definitive answer?

 

[gofreak]

I do not think there is optional istalling as it is pointless because of caching....
This is how I think it goes.... Game reseves space from hdd where it caches game data... After Game is fully cached it does not need disk for other than verification and possibly has launcher that is not copied to hdd... meaning you do not have virtual disk on hdd but data cached.... If devs so choose they can read data from br and hdd at the same time. It is not install but every game reserves hdd space as cache. No need to clear cache ever (untill hdd space ends)

If it worked like you said then optional full installs would be kind of pointless. If it's a shared cache, though - which it may well be - then the option to fully install would give additional control to the user.

I think auto caching is great, by the way, if it rids us of mandatory installs. But these other options in addition - if the cache is a limited/shared one - would give a complete solution that ought to keep everyone happy.

 

[mrklaw]

I see a lot of back and forth in here.

Am I to assume we are just confused and don't exactly know what the deal is, and need clarification? Or has there been a definitive answer?

yes

 

[vg260]

Man, that sucks? I hope there'll be an option for full install, because I want better loading times and I don't want to hear the BR-drive.

Same here. Full game installs are why I went to the 360 for everything but PS3 exclusives.

No option for full installs is really disappointing.

 

[viveks86]

I see a lot of back and forth in here.

Am I to assume we are just confused and don't exactly know what the deal is, and need clarification? Or has there been a definitive answer?

I think there is a lot of confusion. But I also think it's our fault. In my opinion, more clarification would be nice, but is not required. If you see any flaws in my detailed post in the previous page, let me know. If there can be a consensus that it makes sense, I'd like it to go into the OP.

Same here. Full game installs are why I went to the 360 for everything but PS3 exclusives.

No option for full installs is really disappointing.

This is not true. Please see my post in the previous page.

 

[viveks86]

They are both, effectively, doing the exact same thing. There is really only one key difference, and that is player involvement.

With permanent full installs the player now has to constantly manage his HDD, especially with 30-50GB installs for every game. You're probably going to fit ~7 or 8 games on a 500GB HDD before you have to do the dance everytime you pick up a new game.

With disk caching the console will do most of the heavy lifting, deciding when it needs to flush the game data. You should never have a situation when you put your brand new game in the console and it says "Sorry, come back when you delete some shit".

Whether its only 1 cache or more, that'll be up to whatever parameters Sony has in place (hopefully nothing stupid like flushing the data after every play session). It could just eat up free space until a player needs it for things like game saves, movies, video sharing, ect. It wouldn't surprise me if the OS reserves 50GB of space so that you can always have at least one game cached.

Great post. Recommend everyone to read this.

 

[BigDug13]

Did you not read what i wrote?

And viveks I think your post just backs my post .
First. You do not have virtual disk (like the digital version of game) on HDD. Yosp just mean you cannot install disk version and have digital version. Context when reading is key here
Second. You get data on hdd for faster loading (games reserved cache).
Third. All data cached and disk is basically there just to launch/verify game.

I'm having trouble processing your grammar to be honest and I'm not really clear exactly what you're saying. I never thought it was a virtual disk, nor do I want that as my "install" option.

I also do NOT want my HDD management to be handled by the PS4. I don't want it determining what cache to delete in order to make room for another game. I want the power to do that just like the 360. I want the option to install the game. I want the machine to tell me when I'm reaching the limits of my HDD space, and I want to make the decision about what games to delete to make room. Just like the 360.

 

[Green Yoshi]

Phew *wipes brow*



http://www.gamepur.com/news/12566-n...ames-not-install-voice-commands-without-.html

Isn't that a Fake Twitter Account? ;-)

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

I didn't think your entire post contradicts what we have learnt. You have extrapolated based on your understanding of caching in general. It is definitely plausible. I was only referring to the part of your post that I had highlighted. That is a direct contradiction.

I have only few things to say.
One: requrement is requirement.
Two: Context is important. Install and caching seems to be used as same. Only separated to separate (I assume here) it from what installing is usually.
Having all would be nice, but ! do not feel it at all to be case here.

 

[Bedameister]

Isn't that a Fake Twitter Account? ;-)

You mean Yosp? No he's real. There is a fake Kaz account in fact.

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

I'm having trouble processing your grammar to be honest and I'm not really clear exactly what you're saying. I never thought it was a virtual disk, nor do I want that as my "install" option.

I also do NOT want my HDD management to be handled by the PS4. I don't want it determining what cache to delete in order to make room for another game. I want the power to do that just like the 360. I want the option to install the game. I want the machine to tell me when I'm reaching the limits of my HDD space, and I want to make the decision about what games to delete to make room. Just like the 360.

It just means games are "installed" automatically by caching data to games reserved cache space in hdd. There is no separate install as data has to be in hdd with XBO and ps4. That reserved cache space do not have to be cleared ever if user do not want to. But things seem unclear still.

 

[GalacticaN7]

I think there is a lot of confusion. But I also think it's our fault. In my opinion, more clarification would be nice, but is not required. If you see any flaws in my detailed post in the previous page, let me know. If there can be a consensus that it makes sense, I'd like it to go into the OP.

My fault, I didn't see your post on the previous, but that does put it into context a bit....though it's still a bit confusing, but not as muddled as it was before.

 

[viveks86]

I have only few things to say.
One: requrement is requirement.

Not sure what that means. What do you mean by "requirement" in the first place?

Two: Context is important. Install and caching seems to be used as same. Only separated to separate (I assume here) it from what installing is usually.

Read erawsd's post. Even though they may be the same from a lay person's standpoint, there is a BIG difference between caching and typical installation. Both are options that can co-exist.

Having all would be nice, but ! do not feel it at all to be case here.

Though you are allowed to feel however you please, it doesn't align with what we have learned so far. That's the only issue I had with your post.

 

[viveks86]

My fault, I didn't see your post on the previous, but that does put it into context a bit....though it's still a bit confusing, but not as muddled as it was before.

Let me know what questions you have and I'll try to answer. I'm also doing this to see if my understanding could be wrong. So the more challenges I see, the better

 

[RoadHazard]

Not sure what that means. What do you mean by "requirement" in the first place?

He probably refers to the COD box saying that it requires a minimum of 49 GB of free space? And that that means it really does require that. That's my guess, anyway.

 

[GalacticaN7]

Let me know what questions you have and I'll try to answer. I'm also doing this to see if my understanding could be wrong. So the more challenges I see, the better

Okay, so if we break it down, it looks like we have multiple options, and you can correct me where I am wrong:

-We have the option for full install from disc
-The game reserves upwards of 50gigs of data for cache for quick recall until we remove that data from system
-We can play from disc and game will background install assets onto HDD as is chosen by developer

Am I in the realm of accurate?

 

[viveks86]

It just means games are "installed" automatically by caching data to games reserved cache space in hdd. There is no separate install as data has to be in hdd with XBO and ps4. That reserved cache space do not have to be cleared ever if user do not want to. But things seem unclear still.

This is, again, in direct contradiction to what has been said. The XBO requires everything to be on HDD, not the PS4. What about this is unclear? If you are confused, ask them in a question format and I can try explaining. You are just making assumptions based on a single tweet taken out of context.

 

[sono]

I have read the various views in this thread and am still a bit confused.

Either an install is mandatory or not - the op seems to state they are not

Moving onto caching -is this saying caching is mandatory in all games or not ?

if its mandatory ..After I finish the game I can re-use the space, as I can with a mandatory install .. so are we saying the real benefit is that caching on a e.g 50G game may be a lot less than 50G.

but I think where we end up is this is how the PS3 currently works for some bluray games anyway ?

 

[viveks86]

He probably refers to the COD box saying that it requires a minimum of 49 GB of free space? And that that means it really does require that. That's my guess, anyway.

Ah I see. Think we have addressed that already. Requirements on the back of the cover are to ensure the user has all options without receiving any errors. erawsd's post highlights this quite nicely.

With disk caching the console will do most of the heavy lifting, deciding when it needs to flush the game data. You should never have a situation when you put your brand new game in the console and it says "Sorry, come back when you delete some shit".

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

Not sure what that means. What do you mean by "requirement" in the first place?

If game requires for example 50GB of hdd space it requires it. Optional stuff is never requirement. Move compatible games do not say move required, they say move compatible. Move required games say move required. And that is primary reason for my feeling.

I know asset data and such is normally cached. I think they just want to separate from install as install is done normally before using software and caching while using software.

Edit: Could be the case that it is to cover bases for best user exp. Still my explained solution could do the same and Game could even let user to decide overwritable hdd space for new game to reserve or just "clear" oldest reservations untill it gets enough hdd space to reserve.

For optimal user exp. your case is better.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Reading through this topic is one of the most confusing things ever.

 

[RoadHazard]

Okay, so if we break it down, it looks like we have multiple options, and you can correct me where I am wrong:

[1] -We have the option for full install from disc
-The game reserves upwards of 50gigs of data for cache for quick recall until we remove that data from system
[2] -We can play from disc and game will background install assets onto HDD as is chosen by developer

Am I in the realm of accurate?

[1] Dont think so, because Yoshida explicitly said disc-based games cannot be installed. The can just be cached, which is an automatic process.

[2] This is a bit unclear. The way Cerny described it implies that all data will get cached as it is read from the BD, which should mean that there's no dev involvement. The HDD is simply used as a cache. Devs request some data to be read, and the PS4 either reads it from the HDD (if it's already there) or from the BD, with the latter resulting in the data being copied to the HDD so it's there the next time it's needed. But of course it's also possible that devs have some control over what data gets cached or not, we just don't know that yet.

but I think where we end up is this is how the PS3 currently works for some bluray games anyway ?

Maybe, but on the PS3 it's on a game-by-game basis. Devs can implement caching in their games, but it doesn't happen automatically. My understanding is that it does on the PS4.

 

[viveks86]

I have read the various views in this thread and am still a bit confused.

Either an install is mandatory or not - the op seems to state they are not

It is not mandatory. The option is available, however.

Moving onto caching -is this saying caching is mandatory in all games or not ?

It says caching is automatic when running from disk. You can't disable that. It is to ensure everyone has the same experience as intended. Is there additional caching even if the title is fully installed on disk. I don't think so, since the COD back cover would not say 49GB if caching was on top of the full install.

if its mandatory ..After I finish the game I can re-use the space, as I can with a mandatory install .. so are we saying the real benefit is that caching on a e.g 50G game may be a lot less than 50G.

Exactly. That's the primary difference between caching and full install.

but I think where we end up is this is how the PS3 currently works for some bluray games anyway ?

AFAIK, if nothing is installed, it streams from disk. Hence the longer load times and pronounced noise levels.

 

[bigboss370]

Spoiler

I'm still going all digital...

this is the greatest lol.

Also, no user made themes sucks.

what???

 

[CraZed]

Then you can't install the game like on 360. I don't like that.

Why? Caching is done on the fly and is not permanent. Meaning you don't have to wait for the install AND you don't have to worry as much about filling your HDD.

This is for physical media only of course. Having it as an option is much better than mandatory installs across the board. The flexibility allows developers to use whatever better serves a game's performance.

 

[RoadHazard]

It is not mandatory. The option is available, however.

Is it?

 

[viveks86]

Okay, so if we break it down, it looks like we have multiple options, and you can correct me where I am wrong:

-We have the option for full install from disc

Yes. This was explicitly confirmed twice. The only post that seemingly contradicts this was in reference to getting rid of the disk. I've highlighted those tweets in my post. Not sure why RoadHazard still doesn't think so

-The game reserves upwards of 50gigs of data for cache for quick recall until we remove that data from system'

50 GB is a number that the website has interpreted. We don't know what the real number is. It could be less than or equal to 50 GB. My guess is, it would be lesser. There is no point calling it "caching' if it reserves the whole amount. At 50 GB, caching = install.

-We can play from disc and game will background install assets onto HDD as is chosen by developer

Correct. This has been confirmed multiple times. Whether the game streams from disk during this time, or the install happens so quickly that it actually streams through HDD as the install is happening, we don't know. But don't think that matters. Bottom line is that you can insert the disk and start playing right away.

 

[viveks86]

Is it?

You are taking that tweet out of context. I have said this before. Read the question first, then read his answer.

Artur Godlewski ‏@antic604 27 Aug
@yosp With forced installs on PS4, will it be possible to play w/o disc in tray? I'd love to collect pretty boxes but hate swapping discs

Artur Godlewski ‏@antic604 27 Aug
@Riki_Achmadi @yosp But how would you prevent people from sharing the same disc & installing the game multiple times? On-line registration?

Riki Achmadi ‏@Riki_Achmadi 27 Aug
@antic604 @yosp well i thought it's pretty clear how Shuhei showed us how to "share" games with PS4..^^, so the answer is yes, you could.

Shuhei Yoshida
‏@yosp
@Riki_Achmadi @antic604 I was using a digital version of games, you cannot install a disk version onto HDD.
4:55 AM - 27 Aug 13

He is referring to not being able to install on HDD and getting rid of the disk.

 

[RoadHazard]

You are taking that tweet out of context. I have said this before. Read the question first, then read his answer.



He is referring to not being able to install on HDD and getting rid of the disk.

Oh, yeah. Still doesn't confirm that you can manually install games though. Might be that there's just the automatic caching.

50 GB is a number that the website has interpreted. We don't know what the real number is. It could be less than or equal to 50 GB. My guess is, it would be lesser. There is no point calling it "caching' if it reserves the whole amount. At 50 GB, caching = install.

So, again, why does COD require 49 GB of free space? Seems like the only reason for that is if the entire game gets cached on the HDD, which is exactly how I've understood it working. Data is read from the BD the first time you play the game, and is copied to the HDD. The next time that same data is read, it's instead read from the HDD.