The second topic that has been surfacing a lot lately is our support of Blu-ray as a medium. Yes it is true - we are currently using more than 20 gigs. And yes, we do compress our level data. The fact that we store so much on disc is actually not that surprising when you look at the numbers. Consider that even with compression, each of our “levels” (or loaded areas) has more than 300 megs of unique data. And keep in mind that we’re also streaming data during level playthroughs. It doesn't take too much level data before you've gone past what can be stored on a dual-layer DVD. And between single player and multiplayer we have a lot of level data (over 40 different large loaded areas) – yes, more than will fit on a dual layer DVD.
We also include a lot of data in the form of game movies in both HD and PAL formats, high quality audio streams for all supported languages and some of those Insomniac “extras” that our fans have come to expect.
I realize that some people will still be skeptical unless we provide an actual layout of the disc. But for now I wanted to give you some better info.
I realize that some people will still be skeptical unless we provide an actual layout of the disc. But for now I wanted to give you some better info.
Of course they will be skeptical, because if you saw the latest HL2 ep2 footage in the latest 1up show which came after resistance. It blew it away, yes HL2 a game on a 2 year old engine fits nicely on a DVD.
lestat wrote:Of course they will be skeptical, because if you saw the latest HL2 ep2 footage in the latest 1up show which came after resistance. It blew it away, yes HL2 a game on a 2 year old engine fits nicely on a DVD.
Wouldn't the fact that its a 2 year old engine make it a better candidate for fitting on a DVD-9 than an engine still in development targeting higher poly models, high resolution textures (at least in theory) and a bigger world than an 8 hour FPS romp?
Talez check out the HL2 ep2 footage and check out the footage of resistance. HL2 ownz it, better detail, better physics, better lighting, drivable vehicles etc. What we've seen from resistance so far is far from impressive or ground breaking, yet other developers are doing far more with far less. Even they admit that people are gonna be skeptical because what they're showing and saying just doesn't add up compared to other games.
HL2 although impressive and likely better than Resistance is an episodic release running a 2004 engine. Of course it fits on a DVD. Again considering this gen will run for 5 or so years and as much as I will worship HL2 ep 2 I'm expecting games in 2007-2011 to be incrementally more advanced. Using an episodic release running a 2004 engine as reason why next gen media will do nothing for games over the next 5 years is as relevant as Bill's '640k ought to be enough for anybody' comment.
Pep does the advancement equal more disc space used? It has been shown that games on the xbox for instance actually got smaller in size over time than 1st/2nd gen releases.
The improvements I expect to see in games in the future are more in line with interaction, physics, destructable environments. Better lighting. Will these improvements require more media space? I don't think so, because those sort of improvements are largely processing dependant. Memory issues like we have seen in the past on consoles will limit the max amount of detail/textures that can be displayed. Not to mention larger more detailed textures require more rendering bandwdith. These systems imo don't have a lot of bandwidth and memory for that sort of thing.
There is a reason why epic won't be releaing their high detail 2kx2k+ texture sets on their console editions of ut2k7.
lestat wrote:There is a reason why epic won't be releaing their high detail 2kx2k+ texture sets on their console editions of ut2k7.
But the textures are compressed!!!111!!!!
Compression is the universal answer, lestat! More storage space for textures is just a ruse Sony are using to force consoles to have 512MB of memo... uhhhhh... Blu-Ray!
Advancement equals a bunch of things, capacity included. Source engine is massively advanced in that it looks astoundingly good on meagre hardware. Regarding media if the space is there devs will use it. If we were still on CDs and hadn't migrated to DVD I'm sure we'd be seeing some amazing advancements in space efficiency. Games have always incrementally increased in all areas including overall size.
Yeah Talez well maybe they could put those textures on the HDD and get RSX to render direct from HDD. Oh yeah 40mb/s bandwidth for texturing vs 22.4gb/s.
HDD caching will mysteriously save us all.
Actually Pep the source engine has had quite a few improvements. When it was released it didn't support a unified lighting model, HDR and motion blur. Interesting enough all those new features which make dramatic impact really don't require new assets and media storage space. Same goes with the improved physics. A lot of advancement we are now seeing in games are more processing dependant than just using better textures/assets. Better AI doesn't require more disc space for instance.
Last edited by lestat on 14 Sep 2006 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
lestat wrote:Yeah Talez well maybe they could put those textures on the HDD and get RSX to render direct from HDD. Oh yeah 40mb/s bandwidth for texturing vs 22.4gb/s.
HDD caching will mysteriously save us all.
Well its faster than rendering them straight from an optical drive
Or they could just increase the available storage space for textures. But they shouldn't need to do that because compression is the universal answer!
Out of interest though - if what lestat is saying is true - ie XBox games decreased in size over time, as developers got accustomed to the hardware limitations: Isnt the same thing going to happen with PS3, at the very least as a general trend? Let's say first gen PS3 games clock in at around 20GB. Over time, as they get used to more efficient use of space, cutting redundant data or data that unnecessarily chokes the system in other areas etc, we might see the average size reduce to something closer to, say, 12-15GB (example ffs).
The way I see it, PS3 isnt THAT much more advanced than a 360, and will only use up the full, or significant size of a bluray disc if the game is longer gameplay or content wise - eg linear RPGs or GT6 with 1500 cars. There's no point using it for storeage of ridiculously high-res textures if the RSX isnt even capable of displaying them in any significant number.
It seems to me that with the way gaming is going, FEW games are going to exceed that kind of linear length or content to fill a large portion (yes) of a BD-ROM. The limiting factor being development budgets which will restrict many developers and it already is happening.
lestat wrote:Yeah Talez well maybe they could put those textures on the HDD and get RSX to render direct from HDD. Oh yeah 40mb/s bandwidth for texturing vs 22.4gb/s.
HDD caching will mysteriously save us all.
Well its faster than rendering them straight from an optical drive
Or they could just increase the available storage space for textures. But they shouldn't need to do that because compression is the universal answer!
Yeah Talez when they create a gpu that renders direct from HDD/optical media, call me.
BTW Compression is a universal approach/answer in graphics Talez, current gpu's use compressed textures, they used lossless compressed z buffers, they use multisampling algorithms lossless colour compression to reduced mutlsampling bandwidth. Compressed geometry with slines etc. Compression increases available storage space and reduces bandwidth required, but even compression has it's limits. Once you hit those limits you need to work within them.
lestat wrote:Actually Pep the source engine has had quite a few improvements. When it was released it didn't support a unified lighting model, HDR and motion blur. Interesting enough all those new features which make dramatic impact really don't require new assets and media storage space. Same goes with the improved physics. A lot of advancement we are now seeing in games are more processing dependant than just using better textures/assets. Better AI doesn't require more disc space for instance.
I'm not arguing anything there mate as you're right. Valve are gods. I'm a massive fan of theirs and appreciate how incredibly efficient Source is. The folly is in using these specific, 2006 examples as to why next gen media will mean nothing to games over the next 5 years. If the space is there devs will use it. Being a static platform built to a 5 year cycle I fully expect devs to make use of bluray's improvements over dvd. It couldn't be more elementary.
lestat wrote:BTW Compression is a universal approach/answer in graphics Talez... snip buzzword bingo! ...Once you hit those limits you need to work within them.
The penny hasn't dropped for you yet, has it?
You're saying there's a reason Epic hasn't release high res textures on consoles for what I assume is because you won't have enough memory to stuff textures into.
What would be the obvious solution to this problem to keep the high resolution textures? Install more memory. Of course we can't really do that in this case so Epic are downsampling the textures. In this case compression hasn't been the universal answer because it hasn't been able to stuff all the textures in the available space.
Not being short sighted about storage requirements in order to be first to market is a valid answer to storage problems and in this case it might save games where compression alone won't. Obviously it won't in this case because the PS3 doesn't have any more memory over the Xbox 360 but in the case of Resistance they would either need to split the bastard over 3 or so DVD-9s or cull the content.
Peppermint Lounge wrote: If the space is there devs will use it. Being a static platform built to a 5 year cycle I fully expect devs to make use of bluray's improvements over dvd. It couldn't be more elementary.
But as lestat said, XBox games actually decreased in size over the platform's lifespan. That's not to say that DVD9 is sufficient or otherwise, but rather to say that if games start out at ~15GB, theyre not necessarily going to blow out to ~40GB by the end of the generation. They could, on average, drop down to ~12GB - who knows.
The other important point is development budgets. It's quite possible many devs wont have the time, resources or budget to make enough content to fill a large portion (yes) of a single bluray disc. And dont say textures, because there's no point filling a disc with insanely high res textures if the system lacks the memory and grunt to do anything with them, above and beyond what 360 is doing, for example.
Has it dropped for you? I made a point by taking your hdd caching comment out of context too, don’t be silly you know precisely what I meant by my compression is a universal answer to streaming issues. It helps in all cases, hence why it’s universal. Compression when it comes to storage space and bandwidth will always help, but you can’t infinitely compress data, you know this, once you hit that point you need to work within that limit. Stop trying to twist what I’ve said.
You're saying there's a reason Epic hasn't release high res textures on consoles for what I assume is because you won't have enough memory to stuff textures into.
What would be the obvious solution to this problem to keep the high resolution textures? Install more memory. Of course we can't really do that in this case so Epic are downsampling the textures. In this case compression hasn't been the universal answer because it hasn't been able to stuff all the textures in the available space.
Talez you know there are 2 forms of compression, lossless and lossy, texture reductions/downgrades are just another form of compressing your assets imo but in a lossy fashion. Currently all texture compression techniques used are lossy in quality. The texture/surface is still going to be in the game, just won't look as good as it could be.
Pat wrote:But as lestat said, XBox games actually decreased in size over the platform's lifespan. That's not to say that DVD9 is sufficient or otherwise, but rather to say that if games start out at ~15GB, theyre not necessarily going to blow out to ~40GB by the end of the generation. They could, on average, drop down to ~12GB - who knows.
The other important point is development budgets. It's quite possible many devs wont have the time, resources or budget to make enough content to fill a large portion (yes) of a single bluray disc. And dont say textures, because there's no point filling a disc with insanely high res textures if the system lacks the memory and grunt to do anything with them, above and beyond what 360 is doing, for example.
There have been refinements to existing tech resulting in more efficiency or in Halo's case the sequel was smaller by virtue of being a lesser, unfinished game (ha!). That's not to say by 2011 we won't have games running new, larger capacity engines loaded with HD content and so the cycle continues.
I would agree if it were not for the fact pep that games now are using dynamic asset generation technology. Material textures can be proceduraly generated now, unique trees are being created dynamically at run time. You don't need to store several unique trees because things like speed tree can create unique trees out a a single base set of assets. Games with massive expansive worlds use realtime terrain generation at run time, so the actual ground mesh isn't stored only parameters which guide the algorithm to build it.
With the cpu power these next gen systems have, it opens up so many possibilites when it comes dynamic asset creation. Especially when the limits of 512mb can be hit quite easily developers will need to look at other ways to cram as much visual punch in the limited space they have.
lestat wrote:
Has it dropped for you? I made a point by taking your hdd caching comment out of context too, don’t be silly you know precisely what I meant by my compression is a universal answer to streaming issues. It helps in all cases, hence why it’s universal. Compression when it comes to storage space and bandwidth will always help, but you can’t infinitely compress data, you know this, once you hit that point you need to work within that limit. Stop trying to twist what I’ve said.
So what you're saying is that we are going to need bigger storage systems (like for example Blu-Ray)? Great. We're on the same page there then.
Talez you know there are 2 forms of compression, lossless and lossy, texture reductions/downgrades are just another form of compressing your assets imo but in a lossy fashion. Currently all texture compression techniques used are lossy in quality. The texture/surface is still going to be in the game, just won't look as good as it could be.
Oh my god thats pushing the limit of semantics. Have you been taking lessons from our own "$79.95 is less than $69.95" mech?
Talez wrote:
So what you're saying is that we are going to need bigger storage systems (like for example Blu-Ray)? Great. We're on the same page there then.
Of course if developers compress assets as much a possible and still can't fit what they want on said media, yes they will need either an alternative larger storage medium or need to split the data over several discs.
Now the point i've been trying to make here is I feel that we won't reach that point given the dynamic asset generation/more advanced decompression technique trends we've been seeing in new game engines(unreal engine). The meager 512mb of system ram these systems have will limit them and also looking at last gen, 99% of games were 1-4gb in size only using half the potential storage space of dvd9, dvd9 wasn't really maxed out last gen. There are a lot indicators that say to me we should be ok with dvd.
If I'm wrong at worst i'll need to fork out money for that hd-dvd addon and so will everyone else. For the time being I'd rather keep that money in my pocket. If in 2-3 years it becomes a problem, the price of drives could come down to the point where they just bundle it with a game for free. We'll see what happens.
Oh my god thats pushing the limit of semantics. Have you been taking lessons from our own "$79.95 is less than $69.95" mech?
What's the bet Sony does a Microsoft and ends up paying a bonus to any company who fills a Blu-ray disc (at least in excess of a DVD)... even if just with useless data padding.
