As more and more developers have come to grips with the complexity of programming for it, supporters of the platform have seen a resurgence of the PlayStation brand. Several high profile games have landed in the waiting hands of eager gamers, and for the most part, mirror their Xbox 360 counterparts -- but has it come at a cost? The PS3 really is beginning to morph into a PC, and that has startled some fans of console gaming.
We saw the first glimpse of this when we started downloading demos from PSN. Instead of mimicking the relatively seamless Xbox Live formula that we had been accustomed to, Sony opted to have us install the games on our hard drive in a way that closely resembled the PC experience.
Next came news that Epic was offering us the choice of installing Unreal Tournament III on the drive, in an effort to shorten loading times. We shrugged it off again, as it seemed to be in our best interests at the time. The key to it all was that we were still empowered by choice: we could still enjoy the game without the install, and it never once felt forced.
More on this, after the jump.
Then came the stunner that sent 40GB PS3 owners reeling: Devil May Cry 4 would require you to install the game before playing it. As expected, message boards lit up with angry gamers wondering why the Xbox 360 -- a Microsoft platform -- was able to do what the PS3 version could not: play smoothly without making us sit through a 20-minute install beforehand. After all, wasn't Devil May Cry native to the PlayStation bloodline?
Now we have word from of PS3Style (who claims to have a pre-release copy of the game) that they've done it again with the port of Lost Planet. Stunning? Maybe not, but I wouldn't exactly call it welcome news either. The option to install the game on your PS3 is attractive, but the magic is sort of lost when the choice is taken away from us. And bear in mind, we're not talking about some upstart company here -- this is Capcom, and they are highly respected for creating some of the greatest games on any platform.
So what does this mean for the future of the PS3? Can this be tossed aside as part of the growing pains that we must endure while the last remaining gremlins (with programming for it) are ironed out... or is this the price we have to pay for Sony making their console so radical in the eyes of those that give it life -- through their code?
We've seen some spectacular games on the PS3 since its release, and we look forward to a time when the console's big names really start flowing onto the platform like in the past. However, we hope that developers don't use the hard drive as a crutch much longer. We prefer to see it supplement our games instead, like the way things used to be. Regardless of what happens, we don't want to see forced installs becoming a trend. It has to stop.
Contest:
9:31 AM on 02.17.2008
| 
Also, from what I hear, it barely made a difference in DMC4 compared to the 360 version. So what (truly) gives?
B-Radicate is right -- it's a console, not a PC. Console gamers don't have time to sit and wait for an install. I can't even stand sitting through the screens telling me who developed and published a game.
From what people say about installing, it's not even that beneficial. Perhaps if the game was some huge undertaking like Oblivion, but even then, it would be a huge HD space hog. If you can't justify installing something like Oblivion, why the fuck must gamers sit through an install of fucking Devil May Cry 4, of ALL games?
40 gig users need to upgrade.
Granted, a 4 GB download from Japan is going to take awhile, but maybe a heads up on how much I was going to download or an estimate of tim would've been nice. Instead you get some random numbers that flicker past. Seriously. Apparently those numbers must be file names or something, but seeing "506890204" fly past followed by "320485993" What am I doing at that point?
I would've gotten up and left, but apparently every 20 minutes, the system needed to reboot the game, only to redownload MORE patches.
Microsoft, a 120GB for even $100 is a crazy idea. I can now get a 750GB Sata 3.0 at a Best Buy for $150. So please, give us a kit to make our 360 better. These stupid Rock Band songs are taking the room out of my pathetic 20GB.
I had to free up space after reaching 15gb on my 60gb PSTriples. I have 64 PS3 Titles. I went back, & deleted all the unplayed games of my HD. Now I have 35gb's again. That's what the "Game Data Utility" is for in the XMB.
The only problem I have with these installs.
( PSN Network Demos I don't do. )
Is the fact it's taking too long to perform these Data Dumps. I see this RIGHT NOW as a Capcom Policy....
However if it makes the game better I'll do it! But the only gripe everyone is having is the time factor! Which goes hand in hand with the amount of Data. Which is a reason for bitching.
Which I am Guilty of.
Also, I can upgrade my HD (which is not likely to fill up any time soon), so I really don't mind.
Why should 40gb users have to do anything? Didn't they just drop a large chunk of change on a GAME system? It's not a pc, so it shouldn't act like one.
Is that where sony went wrong? Did they think that gamers purchased consoles for the primary purpose of something other than playing games?
I hear your complaints about the 360. Now that they're offering downloadable versions of their original XBOX titles, I fear for the room left on my 360. However, I don't like the idea of them forcing installs on us. Now that the PS3 is the very likely winner of the HD format wars, I was ready to start putting aside money for one. But how long will it take to fill up the PS3's HDD? Sure, it will definitely take longer to fill, but when we have to install every game, space may get scarce pretty quickly.
The point that I got from the article was not the size of the installs, but the lack of choice in doing so. Also, it doesn't seem that the installs are in an effort to "make it better", as evidenced by the point that 360 is capable of playing the same games without the install.
I own all 3 consoles (and a PC), and the reason why I play on consoles is to avoid all the damn install/upgrade/patch nonsense that is typical on PC.
Take away the choice of install or not, and then offer only a marginal benefit is going to anger gamers.
I don't want to go game shopping, see something I want, and then have to calculate if I have enough HDD space on my PS3 to install it. Could be a deal-breaker to some.
1) I'd much rather have a console that lets me upgrade my hard drive to whatever I would like at normal prices instead of a ridiculous cost for 120 gigs.
2) PSN's downloads aren't riddled with a FAILED DRM system that punishes users for upgrading their console or the many people who've received new consoles after a RRoD.
Until they vastly improve their DRM License Transfer method to meet the standard of both its competitors (PS3 and Wii), I'm not gonna buy shit from them.
Because of Microsoft's DRM problem, I'll be buying a PS3 (with PS2 backwards compatibility) a lot sooner than I had planned, and 360 exclusives are all that I'll keep my 360 for.
Sony has been one of the both good and bad influences in the console market since their first console. Until the PlayStation, every gamer could save their progress without purchasing a memory card, even the Sega Saturn, which was CD based, had sufficient internal memory to save some stuff. But not the PSOne. After that every other manufacturer saw the money on that and joined in.
Now, reading your last statement in another way, yeah, I hope these installations stay within the PS3 and nowhere else.
Oops! Point 2 was targeted at M$, not PSN, and I meant that PSN doesn't have that problem.
please cry more over spilled milk.
It will force me to play a juggling game where I need to uninstall some games to play others. Then I will feel like playing DMC4 again and have to sit there for 20 minutes after uninstalling it a week ago.
With a PC I don't see it as big of a deal because I have a 520 GB hard drive. I am not too worried about running out of room.
And no matter how stupid it may seem, Sony has been claiming the PS3 is a computer since before it came out:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9642
And can you install Linux to any other console, besides the PS2, which was also called a computer?
Plus if nobody realized it SCEA stands for Sony Computer Entertainment.
My point: None of this is new, and is just a support article for Sony haters, like the muslims still bitching about that danish cartoon.
It's why your paying so much for a hard drive that would be considered small on an ipod.
The problem is the monopolisation of the hardware.
Having the option certainly wouldn't hurt but the real solution will be 3rd party HD upgrades.
And it wouldn't be a precedent, I remember 3rd party psx memory cards that were double the size of official ones and cheaper at the same time. And that was on non-standard sony hardware, standardised pc hds whould be a sinch for some manufacturer to macgyver for ps3.
And theres a lot of reasons other than forced downloads that PS3 could be called a computer. People still want to play games on it primarily, though.
Can any of the "no big deal" sheep tell me why someone should have to install games on something they bought to play games specifically on? Games that are available to play on other systems without installation required?
The same game is released on 360 and PS3. Both versions are pretty identical.
Xbox 360 version just loads.
PS3 version requires install, which = bullshit.
Having to upgrade a HD just to play your normal console games = bullshit.
I can't believe the attitudes of some of you people. It must be fanboyism. As a PS3 and 360 owner, if I run into the above situation, you can believe I'll buy the 360 version. Having the option is a cool idea but being [i]required[i] to do so is bullshit. Plain and simple.
lol slippery slope.
And then you'll get a crappy OS like Vista in the PS4 :(
No, Sony has said every kind of shit that the PS3 is, just to get more publicity.
Don't use stupidity as a response to someone else's point.
It makes you look stupid.
Consoles have always been systems where you can play immediately. If that changes, there's no need for a console market anymore.
For some reason I own the Prince of Persia Trilogy for both PC and PS2, as sometimes I don't want to be bothered with installing the game.
Western Digital 250GB Sata 2.5 hard drive £60
You're right, and that actually doesn't change on the PS3.
But guess what, you'll probably be uninstalling other games' cache for the next one.
You're a bit misguided about console gaming. It isn't the immediate play feature that defines console gaming from PC gaming. It's the fact that you don't have to keep upgrading your hardware to keep up with gaming techonology.
...as in upgrading your HD if you get too many games?
Not just HDs, but the fact that new generations of consoles come out defeats your point about not having to upgrade hardware. No console is Forward Compatible.
No, not misguided, I just mentioned one of the pros of console gaming. Both mine and yours are correct, and others like the comfort of a living room and a sofa, local multiplayer, etc.
But figure out this, for each hardware upgrade I do on my PC, it runs about 4 years of games, same with consoles. PC games are currently cheaper than console games. I waste less money upgrading my PC than buying a new console.
It's not that PC gaming is evolving as a platform, it's the console hardware that's devolving.
Yes, I wasn't going against your point, just saying that you'll only upgrade for the price of commodity.
You either buy a new memory card or delete old saves, catch my drift?
I was thinking more like graphics card, sound card, and ram. Besides, it's not like external hard drives are that expensive.