We see it all the time. Some PS3 games have mandatory installs. 5gb for Bioshock is the most recent we've heard of it. Many people rightly see this as a fault of the PS3.
But the question I pose to you is, would you rather have the option of deleting the install data at any time you please or would you rather have the space never given to you in the first place?
I know you think the PS3 is the first console to take game data off of the game disk and dump it onto your HDD in order to reduce load times. But it's as old as the original Xbox. Do you remember putting a game into your xbox only to be greeted by an un-skippable opening cutscene? You also didn't know how much space you were supposed to have on the HDD because you were dealing in arbitrary "blocks" all you knew was that you were given 500,000 "blocks".
This is data caching. Do you remember turning on your 360 for the first time and noticing the HDD had 13Gb of free space? Was Hexic a 7gb game? No, that space was allocated for caching of game data, os, and game updates. (Yes, if you clear your fragmented cache, you lose your game updates.) Caching isn't mandatory for the 360 because they don't all have HDDs, when you don't have a HDD the game disk spins like a hurricane non-stop.
What's more mandatory, space you can get back, or space you weren't given?
Why, when you find out the PS3 has a game that requires some data storage, do we treat it as news?
brainderailment's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
I don't get it.
I think its funny that people bitch about this so much saying its a travesty, but yet Microsoft felt they were missing out so much they are adding that as a feature to help improve load times etc... funny eh?
Either way, if I've waited months to kill some Jedi, waiting for five minutes while it does the install isn't going to kill me. Once I start smashing people into the ground (<3 right stick force throws), I'm not going to want to stop and that pee break while it installs becomes pretty valuable.
I would rather pay $100 and get a 250gig hardrive (my choice of brands) for my PS3 then spend $100 and get a 60gig xbox 360 hard drive which probably has Nextar or something cheap inside..lol
plus, not sure if you can use an external HDD on the 360 but for my PS3 I have all my music and movies a plugin away and I love it, so my PS3 has 750gigs of space available to it :)
You can use an external for your PS3 as well. Just make sure it's FAT instead of NTFS.
Blu ray is slow, and it's absolutely ridiculous that a game requires 5GB of space to play on a console. Developers are trying to use all kinds of data redundancy tricks to get around the speed issues, but why for the love of god should a game be 40GB? Sony is retarded.
Think about it. You bought say a 20GB PS3. You bought 5 games which require 4GB installs each. Your 20GB PS3 only really comes w/ 14GB available. So you'd only be able to have 2 games installed at a time. So, every time you switch to a different game you have to delete one and install another; which can take 10-15 mins.
on a 40GB you can just about squeeze in 6 required installs if you don't have anything else on there. no demos, no vids, no pics, no music. & yes, everyone knows you can switch the HDD & it's not that hard to do. But, in reality, the majority of people never will.
that's why. :P
Also the installs dont necessarily make the load times faster.
For Soul Calibur 4 via: "http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/searchdiary?of=5&word=*[Game%20Compare]"
360: 12 seconds when loading new stage for first time. 8 seconds every subsequent load of that stage.
PS3: No HDD install = 16 seconds every load. HDD install = 10 seconds every load
Lol @ finishing sentences....lol
"plus, not sure if you can use an external HDD on the 360 but for my PS3 I have all my music and movies a plugin away and I love it, so my PS3 has 750gigs of space available to it :) "
I have a 500gig external and 400 of those gigs are FAT32...so awesome!
Every PC game reqires an install......Cry moar?
""why for the love of god should a game be 40GB?"
Why should a game be 7gb? Why can't we just use cds? "
I know you're trying to be sarcastic; but honestly. by that same logic why not say hell a game would be so much better if it was a billion GB. the fact of the matter is it wouldn't because the system is still restrained by it's physical RAM. Which by comparison to PCs is measly. thats why textures always look like ass; & textures are what take up the majority of space in games.
Besides, people who can't wait for a little longer to play the game should seriously find another hobby.
Why? The thing is, while you are playing those PS3 games that require installs, you DON'T have that space and if you want it back you have to clear it, then if you want to play the game again, you have to reinstall it. Lame. Convoluted and lame.
I'll just buy a 120bg hard drive and install games on my own accord without it being mandated. Yes the hard drives cost a lot, but with the 360 and 120 HDD combined it doesn't cost any more than a PS3 and I can have all the space I want, to do with what I please.
Oh wait, I might only have 113gb when I fire up the new hard drive. Fiddlesticks.
What was your point here? To stop the complaints about mandatory installs? Something like that just shouldn't be mandatory, it's a poor fix for the hardware's shortcomings.
The PS3 doesn't work right. It's a Blu-Ray movie player that has a video game feature, not the other way around.
It's already stated that owners of 360's will need a hard drive to play online. This is a known fact.