Capcom US has responded to CVG's report yesterday that PS3 Devil May Cry 4 forces gamers to sit through a mandatory 21 minute install time - with little improvement to load times there after.
Just to be sure, we timed the 5GB install process (which you can't opt-out of) on our PS3 retail version and it clocked in at 21 minutes, 41 seconds.
After installation, we timed DMC4's load times to be only one or two seconds shy of those in the 360 counterpart. Hardly worth sitting through 21 minutes of concept art, then.
Capcom community man Chris Kramer disagrees: "It's true: the first time you drop your DMC4 Blu-ray disc into your PS3 tray, you're going to be treated to an exciting 22 - 25 minute load process as the disc spins a few gigs of data onto your hard drive," he admits.
"If you don't want to watch the 'Previously, on Devil May Cry...' portion of the install process, go make a sandwich and grab a soda, then come on back," Kramer joked. "You're going to be spending some serious time with this game, and we don't want you going hungry. Low blood sugar will make you dizzy and you'll need to be focused like an Alan Parsons Project to defeat the enemies in this game.
"Wah! Have you ever played a PC game? At least we aren't making you shuffle multiple discs into a ROM drive, or continuously click 'Yes!' on a series of endless Windows dialog boxes," the Capcom man continues, possibly shuffling the install-less yet basically identical 360 version out of view.
"Installing on a console may seem like a weird idea, but there's a real benefit," says Kramer.
"Once installed," he claims, "the PS3 version of the game has near-Super Nintendo speed load times. You'll be amazed how fast levels load, the virtually instantaneous transition from cut scenes to action and that you're continuously playing the game."
We're a good few hours into both versions and the load times on the PS3 version are a few seconds shorter than the 360 cousin at best. They're definitely no way near "Super Nintendo speed".
DMC4 is out on Friday. And it'll cost you an extra £10 on PS3. Check online stores for the best deal. Either way, it's still a great game - look out for the review tomorrow.
The truth is, CVG, that without this mandatory 5 GB install the loading times on the PS3 version would be 2-3 times slower than the Xbox 360 due to the slower read speed of the Blu-ray drive, which would then become a big issue for PS3 owners. By enforcing an install, Capcom are ensuring that no PS3 owner has to complain about long loading times in a game that traditionally doesn't have any. Clearly Capcom consider the 360's loading speeds the absolute maximum a gamer should endure.
It may have been better to have made it optional or used the same install method that PS3 Oblivion used which secretly and transparently installed 4.4 GB of data to the HDD during gameplay with no apparent delay whatsoever. I'm not sure how Bethesda did this but I don't recall any excessive loading times in that game even when I booted it up for the first time. Maybe Capcom should have asked them how they did it?
Still it's ONE 20 minute install and that's it. And PC owners don't get any choice when they play their games; all *must* be installed to the HDD and some, like MMORPGs, take far, far longer than 20 minutes.
Why are they ripping off and annoying PS3 owners? Seems crazy, I doubt any would want the benefit of a few seconds difference in load speeds, 21 minutes is a long installation even when compared to large PC games.
Why are they ripping off and annoying PS3 owners? Seems crazy, I doubt any would want the benefit of a few seconds difference in load speeds, 21 minutes is a long installation even when compared to large PC games.
I agree. Considering this series made its name on the PS2, you would think they would show more love or give something extra to PS3 owners. Instead they are treated to a 20min install period, ever so slightly inferior textures and a Ł10 more retail price...
The PS3's 2X Blu-ray Disc drive has much slower read speeds compared with a 12X 360 DVD drive, that's why. Of course, Capcom (and presumably Sony) don't want people to be aware of that fact so they're kind of glossing round it.
There are advantages to using BD drives though and that is that they can access data at a constant speed no matter where it's reading it off the disc, with a DVD drive, data is read faster in the middle and progressively slower as you move to the outer edge, in fact past a certain point, it's actually slower than BD I believe. The way round that is to put constantly accessed data in the centre of the DVD and that's what developers do.
Why are they ripping off and annoying PS3 owners? Seems crazy, I doubt any would want the benefit of a few seconds difference in load speeds, 21 minutes is a long installation even when compared to large PC games.
I agree. Considering this series made its name on the PS2, you would think they would show more love or give something extra to PS3 owners. Instead they are treated to a 20min install period, ever so slightly inferior textures and a Ł10 more retail price...
The ripping off will be the extra fee/royalties that Sony get per game compared to M$( which is why PC games are cheaper overall, and it pays for your hardware!!!!!! ), from what ive seen most PS3 games are more expensive than the 360 versions( mind you i only checked that out once or twice )
Instead they are treated to a 20min install period, ever so slightly inferior textures and a Ł10 more retail price...
The texture resolution in both games is actually identical, it's just that the PS3 version does temporal anti-aliasing by blending two frames together hence the motion-blur effect during gameplay. It's needs to do this because the PS3 cannot do HDR lighting and AA at the same time, a side-effect of it using an off-the-shelf GeForce 7800 GTX GPU from NVIDIA. The Xbox 360 version doesn't need to do this as it can do 'normal' AA and HDR, thanks to its ATI GPU.
As far as I can tell both versions have their graphical pros and cons... the 360 demo had minor tearing and lousy texture filtering (seen as nasty shimmering on floors, etc.) whereas the PS3 version doesn't. The 360 version does AA slightly better and the colour palette looks marginally more vibrant, is all. To choose between them is near impossible (ignoring the price difference). I've opted for the PS3 version, despite owning a 360, simply because I've played the previous games on the PS2 and prefer its controller for this game since it feels more comfortable. I also have the Dualshock 3 controller and the demo supports rumble so I'm not missing out on anything from the 360 bar the Achievements, which honestly don't interest me anymore.
...with a DVD drive, data is read faster in the middle and progressively slower as you move to the outer edge, in fact past a certain point, it's actually slower than BD I believe. The way round that is to put constantly accessed data in the centre of the DVD and that's what developers do.
Incorrect, as far as I'm aware. Data is read more quickly from the outside edge as it is spinning faster than the inside. Hence, games like GTA which read data constantly on the fly push their data to the outside by padding the first chunk of the disc with empty dummy files.
i have both machines and i have to say i have never noticed a price difference in software before this. no way would i pay more for the ps3 version. my first choice normally is for ps3 though as i have a nunchuck and mouse (splitfish frag fx) set up so its a first choice if the game is multi format (and a FPS). 20 minutes set up...i can live with that and grab a beer in the process. demos on ps3 are the same though, you download for 10 minutes then wait another 3 or 4 while it installs. not quite sure what that's all about
Well whatever, my point remains valid and that is that whereas 2X BD offers constant but slower read speeds than 12X DVD, 12X DVD has variable read speeds which means that data has to be carefully placed on the disc. BD could actually be advantageous to large open world games like GTAIV though as I'm guessing that it will pretty much fill up a DVD-9, meaning that Rockstar cannot simply place the data in the fastest area of the DVD. We'll have to wait and see though, it'll be interesting to see if GTAIV on the PS3 requires a mandatory install like DMC4...
Well whatever, my point remains valid and that is that whereas 2X BD offers constant but slower read speeds than 12X DVD, 12X DVD has variable read speeds which means that data has to be carefully placed on the disc.
Actually, the data read spead for both systems is the same for most games. The x360DVD drive reads at 12x but only from outside edge of single layer DVD's. For DL DVD discs, it reads at 8x maximum.
Anyway, Andy is making himself look like a biased fool with an agenda. You install the game and get shorter in-game loading times in return. It's as simple as that. Based on what I've seen in the demo there's a lot of screenswitching so a few seconds less loading everytime will improve the in-game experience.
Well whatever, my point remains valid and that is that whereas 2X BD offers constant but slower read speeds than 12X DVD, 12X DVD has variable read speeds which means that data has to be carefully placed on the disc. BD could actually be advantageous to large open world games like GTAIV though as I'm guessing that it will pretty much fill up a DVD-9, meaning that Rockstar cannot simply place the data in the fastest area of the DVD. We'll have to wait and see though, it'll be interesting to see if GTAIV on the PS3 requires a mandatory install like DMC4...
Absolutely your point remains. Didn't mean to cause offence. Just being a technical stickler!
Capcom have never been the most interested in technical optimisation. I remember some years ago when the first Devil May Cry hit shelves I read an article (I forget in which mag) in which an insider lamented Capcom's attitude towards localisation; specifically 60Hz options for Europe. It would, this insider stated, take a team of two coders perhaps an afternoon to write in 60Hz code for the European market, and his employers couldn't be bothered at that. Is it then any surprise that they seem to be giving PS3 owners such a raw deal?
Mind you, we 360 whores might not be having the last laugh. Chances are our version will have crippling load times and then we'll be dreaming of that twenty minute install...
The PS3 is incapable of spooling data from the disc drive as the game progresses is it? That'll be GTA4 up the swanny then!
And why in the good name of all that is holy in this gaming world does it take a PS3 twenty minutes to copy a mere 5 gig from BD to HDD?
The mind boggles. Capcom, I salute your bizarre genius; you've made the most powerful console on the market sound like a horse and cart.
Or not the most powerful depending on what you read. I have read many articles (mainly from sony) which state the awesome power it yeilds and yet I have read many articles from people who know a lot about how processors work which state that the sequential processing cores on the cell actually make it a poor choice for games in comparison to the parallel processing cores on the 360 (After all the cell was designed as a media encoder chip and is being used as such on toshiba tvs). Add this to the graphics card problems and the memory allocation on the PS3 and it may explain why most games either look slightly better on 360 or have slight antialiasing problems on the ps3 versions(cod4, assasins creed etc).
Anyway, on topic.... Why on earth did sony not allow developers to have the choice of releasing on either BR or DVD? Surely then DMC could have arrived on a dvd which could have solved the problem (it clearly does not need the storage space of a BR disc as it is on DVD on the 360.
Oops.... So having blu-ray in a games machine has no advantage?.... was Sony more intrested in winning a format war than making a solid games console??..
Oops.... So having blu-ray in a games machine has no advantage?
Storage
That is true, but the fact remains that the PS3 BR drive has around half the transfer speed of the 360s dvd drive. It reminds me of the NEOGEO days, they released a 2xCD-Rom version which offered cheaper and higher storage capacity than the carts but you had to wait an age (admittedly with a cool juggling monkey to watch) for the games to load as opposed to instant loading form the cart. Until the BR Drives get up to the data transfer speeds of the DVD Drives then it is a crippled storage medium for games just as cd was for the NEOGEO.
Again, the PS3 bluray drive reads discs as fast as the x360 reads dual layer DVD discs. And the constant read speed of Blu-Ray disc is an advantage, as this makes it far more predictable for games developers for determining how much data will be streamed at any time.
Anyone who uses a PS3 knows loading times are not really an issue in practice. Naughty Dog for example had it nailed with uncharted. No install and no loading.
Oops.... So having blu-ray in a games machine has no advantage?.... was Sony more intrested in winning a format war than making a solid games console??..
Yes, that's EXACTLY what they were doing. I guess they stand to make more money from an entirely new video format than they do from a console.
Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with putting Blu-Ray in it (or else, had a non-Blu Ray version), it would have been out earlier, and would have been a LOT cheaper.
Again, the PS3 bluray drive reads discs as fast as the x360 reads dual layer DVD discs. And the constant read speed of Blu-Ray disc is an advantage, as this makes it far more predictable for games developers for determining how much data will be streamed at any time.
Anyone who uses a PS3 knows loading times are not really an issue in practice. Naughty Dog for example had it nailed with uncharted. No install and no loading.
That's not necessarily true,... I've had to watch that coin spinning for a while at times on my PS3.
Well whatever, my point remains valid and that is that whereas 2X BD offers constant but slower read speeds than 12X DVD, 12X DVD has variable read speeds which means that data has to be carefully placed on the disc. BD could actually be advantageous to large open world games like GTAIV though as I'm guessing that it will pretty much fill up a DVD-9, meaning that Rockstar cannot simply place the data in the fastest area of the DVD. We'll have to wait and see though, it'll be interesting to see if GTAIV on the PS3 requires a mandatory install like DMC4...
Given that you have to install DMC4 on PS3 to get acceptable loading times, I'm struggling to see how the larger capacity of BD is an advantage - it will mean other games eating up even more than the 5gb this one needs and with a 40GB HD, it will fill up very very quickly (at least it will once a decent selection of games appears ).
If this kind of thing becomes the norm for PS3 then its a complete farce - it wrecks one of the major advantages that a games console has - ie the removal of much of the hassle that comes with the PC as a gaming platorm and offers the user the ability to play with minimum fuss and effort! I want to be able to stick a disc in and get a game running in a minute (or two at most). I dont want to wait whilst a game takes 20 minutes to install. I dont want to delete it all again when I run out of HD space. I dont want to wait another 20 mins to install the game again when I decide I want another go in a 2 months time.
Capcom has dropped a clanger with this and if I were Sony, I'd be really p*ssed with them.
Well whatever, my point remains valid and that is that whereas 2X BD offers constant but slower read speeds than 12X DVD, 12X DVD has variable read speeds which means that data has to be carefully placed on the disc. BD could actually be advantageous to large open world games like GTAIV though as I'm guessing that it will pretty much fill up a DVD-9, meaning that Rockstar cannot simply place the data in the fastest area of the DVD. We'll have to wait and see though, it'll be interesting to see if GTAIV on the PS3 requires a mandatory install like DMC4...
Given that you have to install DMC4 on PS3 to get acceptable loading times, I'm struggling to see how the larger capacity of BD is an advantage - it will mean other games eating up even more than the 5gb this one needs and with a 40GB HD, it will fill up very very quickly (at least it will once a decent selection of games appears ).
If this kind of thing becomes the norm for PS3 then its a complete farce - it wrecks one of the major advantages that a games console has - ie the removal of much of the hassle that comes with the PC as a gaming platorm and offers the user the ability to play with minimum fuss and effort! I want to be able to stick a disc in and get a game running in a minute (or two at most). I dont want to wait whilst a game takes 20 minutes to install. I dont want to delete it all again when I run out of HD space. I dont want to wait another 20 mins to install the game again when I decide I want another go in a 2 months time.
Capcom has dropped a clanger with this and if I were Sony, I'd be really p*ssed with them.
Anyway, on topic.... Why on earth did sony not allow developers to have the choice of releasing on either BR or DVD? Surely then DMC could have arrived on a dvd which could have solved the problem (it clearly does not need the storage space of a BR disc as it is on DVD on the 360.
Actually that's a really bloody good point!
I mean we all know that most multiformat games that are on both the PS3 and 360 are going to be nigh on identical so it follows that they'll use the same amount of space on a disc. Seems wasteful of a 25 GB disc if just 8 GB is used and, as you correctly, say it would have been the ideal way to get round the slower loading times of 2X BD (and I'm sure it is slower than 12X DVD). I think the PS3 only reads DVDs at 8X though so it would still be slightly slower than the 360.
I guess the reason for all games being on BD is so that Sony can push the format and make people believe that the PS3 is superior to the 360 because its disc format holds a lot more data. Obviously that simply is not true.... at least not at this point in time.
Given that you have to install DMC4 on PS3 to get acceptable loading times, I'm struggling to see how the larger capacity of BD is an advantage...
Well it is an advantage in the sense that RPGs for example can come on a single disc instead of the four, say, that Lost Odyssey comes on for the 360. However, it does seem bizarre that we have these large capacity 25-50 GB discs on the PS3 but in order to use them efficiently we have to install large chunks of data to a limited size HDD in order to get round the issue of slower loading speeds! It really isn't a great advert for BD as a storage format for console games really, is it?
Although this PS3 copying stuff to the HDD is getting a bit old.......and annoying, I've still opted for the PS3 version. I own both the 360 and PS3, but like some others have already said, i've played the other DMC's on the PS2 and I just prefer the PS3 controller on this particular game.
However this whole Ł10 for a little bit of extra content is a total rip off. Does that mean that 360 get a below average amount of content, since there price is well below an average price?
Also it is true you can just delete the 5GB of data once you completely stop playing the game or trade it in if you think it sucks.
The Ł10 difference in price is purely down to the retailers and the fact that the Xbox 360 market is substantially larger than the PS3 one in the UK. I believe both versions actually carry the same RRP which is Ł49.99.
Still the price difference makes no odds to me as I want to play the version I'm most comfortable with and that's the PS3 version.
FFS PEOPLE! Most of you must be on crack! This has nothing to do with the PS3 or the BR drive speed it is all down to capcom. Does Uncharted make install 5GB of data on my HDD for over 20mins before I play? the answer is NO!What about RFOM? Again the answer is NO!
Resistance has long loading times between its self-contained levels though and Uncharted constantly streams data from the BD as you play thus eliminating load times completely apart from the initial one. DMC4 loads individual areas from the disc when you pass through doors - it doesn't stream - which means you need fast access times to make them unnoticeable. That is the reason PS3 DMC4 requires a mandatory HDD install and why the 360 version doesn't.
If they are all around the 5 gig install mark, then yes, you soon will - 8 games installed tops...
Most PS3 games come with optional installs though apart from Oblivion (which uses 4.4 GB) and now DMC4 (4.9 GB). Hopefully this will always be the case so you can play some games with no install and slightly longer loading times. Otherwise you will end up filling the HDD quickly, particularly those with 40 GB HDDs. When I first heard about PS3 games installing to HDDs, I made a point of making sure that I upgraded my PS3 as soon as I got and I did. On 23rd March last year when I picked up my 60 GB HDD PS3, I fitted a 160 GB HDD for an extra Ł60 so space isn't an issue for me... yet!
Resistance has long loading times between its self-contained levels though
you forgot Motorstorm - you can read a medium sized book in time it takes that to load. Even just switching cars takes forever to appear
Exactly. That, F1 and Resistance are perfect examples of games that suffer from Blu-ray's poor read speeds and none of those have optional installs. Only those games that cache data to the HDD via an install or those that stream data from the disc constantly like Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank ToD have acceptable ones.
The differences apparently amount to 1-2 seconds at most.
Obviously Xbox 360 owners will soon know what the real difference is between the demo and retail version because they've been playing the former from the HDD (as if it was installed) whereas the final game will be running only off a disc. PS3 owners shouldn't notice any difference at all... in fact between selecting the Mission and the Nero appearing onscreen, takes around 1-2 seconds tops on my PS3 and about the same on the 360 (since they use the same kind of HDD anyway). I'd imagine that will be slightly longer for the 360 game but they have a Ł10 discount to make up for it!
FFS PEOPLE! Most of you must be on crack! This has nothing to do with the PS3 or the BR drive speed it is all down to capcom. Does Uncharted make install 5GB of data on my HDD for over 20mins before I play? the answer is NO!What about RFOM? Again the answer is NO!
Yer but those games were never running along side a 360 copy for comparison, this is & why have capcom made you install this 5gb?, not an option, MADE YOU?, they are obviously having problems with the PS3?.
I just think this is a worrying trend & its something that's making console gaming take a step backwards? for no real apparent benefit?...
Exactly. That, F1 and Resistance are perfect examples of games that suffer from Blu-ray's poor read speeds and none of those have optional installs. Only those games that cache data to the HDD via an install or those that stream data from the disc constantly like Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank ToD have acceptable ones.
O come on. There's nothing wrong with resistance loading times. You only get 10 seconds of loading every 30 minutes or something. Almost every PS3 game I've played has acceptable loading times, HDD caching or not. You guys need to stop taking bluray placebo pills because as a x360 & PS3 owner I don't notice any system bound difference in loading times. The only games that did annoy me were motorstorm and PGR3 with their 20+ seconds of loading. Oh and folklore.
Why are they ripping off and annoying PS3 owners? Seems crazy, I doubt any would want the benefit of a few seconds difference in load speeds, 21 minutes is a long installation even when compared to large PC games.
Companies have been ripping off PS3 owners for some time--they're always getting the inferior versions of 3rd party titles, and this one is no exception.
yer but it's never been done this badly on a console before...
Since when is taking full advantage of the hardware a bad thing? It's not like you'll soon run out of space with 40 or 60GB.
If they are all around the 5gig install mark, then yes, you soon will - 8 games installed tops...
It's really easy to uninstall a game if that's the case.
Yes, but then, two months down the line, you fancy playing it again - you've gotta reinstall it (and most likely, uninstall summink else to make space). What a ballache. Hopefully, this mandatory install thing is the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, but then, two months down the line, you fancy playing it again - you've gotta reinstall it (and most likely, uninstall summink else to make space). What a ballache. Hopefully, this mandatory install thing is the exception rather than the rule.
True, but as for now there are only a couple of games that use it.
Yes, but then, two months down the line, you fancy playing it again - you've gotta reinstall it (and most likely, uninstall summink else to make space). What a ballache. Hopefully, this mandatory install thing is the exception rather than the rule.
True, but as for now there are only a couple of games that use it.
So it costs an extra tenner. For what? A 21 minute wait so you can play the damm game? Its ridiculous.
As for being forced to install the game thats a really dumb idea as well. If every Ps3 game had a 5gb install, you would only have enougth disc space to store about 10 games on a 60gb machine(some space is already taken up on the Hdd when you first buy the machine from the system partition)and even less on a 40gb machine depending on how much space you already have free on your Hdd. Ok, you can buy a bigger Hdd, but you shouldn't have to if you've already spent the extra cash for a 60gb.
Yes, installing a game on your Ps3 is in theroy a good idea because it will cut down on load times, but you should have a choice like you do with NGSigma and other games, not being forced to install a game weather you want to or not.
Yeah probably everything has been said. But I must get something of my chest. Why the f-ck are they/you comparing this to a PC installation. Come on! This is a CONSOLE and the beauty of consoles is the straight forward use. No installations, no compatibility issues and so on. If you wanted all the hussle you would by the PC version wouldnt you? CAPCOM, GET THAT? ITS A CONSOLE!!
The mind boggles. Capcom, I salute your bizarre genius; you've made the most powerful console on the market sound like a horse and cart.
If anything, I'd say it raises some serious doubts about the PS3 being the most powerful console on the market...
Dumbass. This soo easily turns into a mines better than yours arguement.
Ever thought of it from the point of view that they wanted to get the game out on time so they chose to utilise the hard drive (as your guaranteed one with EVERY PS3!) in order to get it out quicker?
Oh, Unchatered load times? There is hardly any as some levels carry on directly from the previous one or a cut scene will hide it. Uncharted is a good example of a developer knowing and understanding the hardware.
As for the 360 gets better games nonsense that WILL change when more and more developers start using it as its lead platform as there is much more potential in the PS3 than the 2 year old Xbox 360. When developers start utilisingh the Blu Discs more and more with bigger, more complex games the 360 will start to look like an OAP. As for as for the supposed slower Blu ray drive they wil find ways to sort this out or had everyone forgotten the PS3 is the only upgradable Blu Ray player on the market?
Anyway, I kinda agree with the developer, He's basically saying stop moaning about and get playing!
i was gonna buy the ps3 version simply because i dont have any ps3 games to play on the machine, all the latest multiformat games out recently ive bought on 360, cod4, orange box, stranglehold, darkness, and was gonna buy dmc4 on ps3 jus so the machine isnt just sittin there but im not payin an extra Ł10 and waitin 20 mins before i can play the game! its a p**s take and capcom are too lazy to do anything about it. shame on you capcom
well, according to ign.com, the load times between both version was enough for them to mention it several times in their review; something in the neighborhood of the 360's load times being like 3 to 4 times longer than the PS3 version. but hey, i wasns't really planning on getting DMC4 anyway. played the demo, and it just seems like DMC3 with prettier graphics--well, at least you cna manuever the camera. hopefully Dark Sector can sate my 3rd person action for a while. bring on RE5 Capcom!
Again, the PS3 bluray drive reads discs as fast as the x360 reads dual layer DVD discs. And the constant read speed of Blu-Ray disc is an advantage, as this makes it far more predictable for games developers for determining how much data will be streamed at any time.
Anyone who uses a PS3 knows loading times are not really an issue in practice. Naughty Dog for example had it nailed with uncharted. No install and no loading.
If what you say is true, which I seriously doubt going off the number of reports of slower data access from a BluRay drive, then why the hell does the 360 version read the game fine without the need to install 5GBs worth of data?
well, according to ign.com, the load times between both version was enough for them to mention it several times in their review; something in the neighborhood of the 360's load times being like 3 to 4 times longer than the PS3 version. but hey, i wasns't really planning on getting DMC4 anyway. played the demo, and it just seems like DMC3 with prettier graphics--well, at least you cna manuever the camera. hopefully Dark Sector can sate my 3rd person action for a while. bring on RE5 Capcom!
As a 360 owner that already has the game and has completed the first 5 mission's, I can confirm the following; 3-4 seconds loading between cut-scenes, Near instant switch between gameplay and cut-scenes.
As for the actual game, I didn't think the core gameplay was anything like DMC3. If anything this is more like the original with the better aspects of DMC3 added in. Must also say that I haven't seen much of Dante yet but Nero's character has been great so far and Johnny Yong Bosch has done great job with the voice work for him.
i was gonna buy the ps3 version simply because i dont have any ps3 games to play on the machine, all the latest multiformat games out recently ive bought on 360, cod4, orange box, stranglehold, darkness, and was gonna buy dmc4 on ps3 jus so the machine isnt just sittin there but im not payin an extra Ł10 and waitin 20 mins before i can play the game! its a p**s take and capcom are too lazy to do anything about it. shame on you capcom
Wow, all this fuss over some installation. Doesn't bug me one bit! Who remembers having to rewind a cassette after dying to reload a level? It took even longer if you forgot to set the counter so you knew where you were and where you needed to be.
Whoa this thread is turning into a war zone! Maybe I could address each argument here and we could all get back to our normal lives. I mean PS3 and 360 owners slagging each other down to the ground when you could use that energy for something constructive - like slagging the Wii !!! - lol - Joke, but really now:
Point 1): Looks like DMC4 shows that games can be streamed faster of a DVD than a Blu-Ray
Well yeah, the Blu-Ray drive is quite slow and the DVD drive in the 360 is fast in compairson (spelling). But the type of game DMC4 is doesnt help either, lots of short areas very quickly ran through.
Point 2): YAY! So the 360 gets a better version!
Well no actually, you get shorter loading times on the PS3 plus if your a fan of the other DMC games then chances are you'll feel more at home with the PS3 pad.
Point 3): Yeah but 20 minute install - thats taking the p**s!
If you cant wait 20 minutes for ONE TIME ONLY then I think you some hyper active issues you need to deal with. Back when I was a boy my ZX Spectrum took that time to load a game EVERY time! And R-Type on the C64 was even worse - once you done one level you had to load the next and if you lost all three lives at any point you had to reload the WHOLE game again! Kids today....
Point 4): Either way Sony putting Blu-Ray in the PS3 seems to be a mistake.
I doubt that, I think the problem here is the DMC4 development teams inablity to use the Blu-Ray streaming technology to do an install while the start of the is going on just like Oblivion which instals about 4gig. Getting HD games to fit onto a DL DVD, now theres a mistake - Blue Dragon on 360, what was that? 4 discs?
Point 5): Well installing games onto a systems HDD is gonna cause problems when you have more than about 7 games that need installs.
Thats right, Im gonna need more space on my PS3 - phew at least I can install a 250gig HDD for 60 quid! What does your 120gig 360 HDD cost? 120 quid? OUCH!!!! Whats that? Think you wont need that extra space? I had Final Fantasy XI and that took about 12gig of space. Burnout Paradise has forced HDD usage if you wanna play online. So dont come around here saying that installing games to a consoles HDD is a bad idea and you dont no part in it because its the way thing are gonna go! Better save up that 120 pound now!
Point 6): Wow, you really seem to hate the 360?
I dont hate it. Although I would like it a bit more if mine didnt have 3 red lights. But after owning both I think the PS3 come out on top.
they should of gave xbox 360 owners the choice of installing game data, then the xbox load speed would be even faster than the ps3
Erm... no that's not correct at all because both machines use the same kind of HDDs (2.5" 5,400rpm 8 MB SATA) so the loading times would be pretty much identical. This is proven by playing both the PS3 and 360 demos, which of course run off the HDD... both have very similar loading times.
The sole reason I will purchase the PS3 version over the 360 is because I don't want to listen to the load DVD drive on the 360 (I have both). The 360 drive spin is just plain and simple...loud!
Moonblade, you're fighting a losing battle here in trying to defend the PS3.
Listen to the 90% of gamers (the majority of which are PS3 owners) who aren't impressed with this, you can't change their mind. Learn to live with the fact that the not everyone sucks their PS3 off.
Unbiased gamers appreciate great games, this is just an inconvenience that doesn't need to happen.
i really think the blue-ray vs hd dvd, is just a format war at the moment, like when video first apeared it was betamax vs vhs. ok blue-ray has more storage, but no games have been developed yet that require that much space, as muti format titles are still being developed with the 360 first. only ps3 exclusives might start to pack more info on a disk. so really it's about movies and muti-media for now. some film companies have decided to release dvd's only on blue-ray disks in the future, which is gonna leave the hd dvd format out in the cold. sony didn't want to make a short live games console, they wanted to make a multi media console with hopefully a 10 year life span. only time will tell if the blue-ray disk is the winning format. however it looks like the gamble is already starting to pay off, on the dvd movie side. maybe because sony backs a lot of films, and microsoft don't! as for devil may cry, i'm getting the ps3 version. ign said in there review the ps3 version has the edge because of the quicker loading time. they fail to mention the 20 min install though. however i'd rather stick a game in and wait just once for a bit to install stuff, and then play a more fluid version always after.
If what you say is true, which I seriously doubt going off the number of reports of slower data access from a BluRay drive, then why the hell does the 360 version read the game fine without the need to install 5GBs worth of data?
Is having 2x longer loading times fine? Installing the game was a design choice of capcom that can't be realised on the x360 because it's against MS's policy.
Reports of people saying bluray has less data tranfer are comparing a 2x BD with a constant 12x DVD drive which is incorrect. The x360 has a 5-12x DVD Drive for single layer DVD's and when reading a dual-layer DVD, it is only a 3,3-8x DVD Drive.
2x Blu-ray Drive (72Mbps(9MB/s))
Entire Blu-ray Disk is read at 9MB/s.
12x DVD-Rom Drive SL (9.25MB/S-15.85MB/s(AVG ~8x(10.57MB/s) DL (4.36MB/s-10.57MB/s(AVG ~6x(7.93MB/s) SL(DVD-5) 12x Max (5-12x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge) DL(DVD-9) 8x Max (3.3-8x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)
Single layer: http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4716/dvdvsbdrs1af.png
Also, this is coming from devs:
From my own personal experience testing a Sony BD-RE drive (actually uses a Panasonic drive mechanism) and a Hitachi-LG drive of similar specs, for similar sized data sets the BD drive typically has almost the same if not significantly faster random seek times. That's generally because data sets between 4-8GB span the entire disc for for DVD-ROM while only covering a third of a BD-ROM, so on average a BD-ROM is going to have seek times in the range 50-100ms with a worst case scenario of around 200-230ms. The DVD-ROM drive will average between 110-150ms with a worst case scenario of around 170-230ms.
Of course once you start getting into larger data sets that that Blu-Ray can handle the average and worst case scenarios (which is an entire disc sweep which takes around 350-400ms) will eclipse the worst case conditions on a DVD-ROM. That being said, even with 23+GB of data with a 100 randomly generate seek sectors I still get around 100ms on average. Besides, if you find the need to randomly jump around to random sectors greater than 4GB in span, then your title has bigger issues than the capabilities of the drive.
Damn I was thinking of getting this for the 360, but now seeing as its in some repair centre in HAVANT where ever that is?!?!. Seems like it wont be back for another 3 weeks, I'm thinking of biting the bullet and going for the PS3 version hmmm decision decisions?!?!
I'M A STUPID f**king TOOL. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY OR THE GAMES MARKET, DESIGN PROCESS AND MANUFACTURERING PROCESS.
I, IN TWO ARTICLES, HAVE SHOWEN MYSELF TO HAVE THE INABILITY TO WAIT A MEER 20 MINUTES FOR A GAME. OF COURSE, I ASSUME NO-ONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS MY POSITION. THAT'S BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T. THEY THINK I'M AN IDIOT.
I'M GOING TO DO THE WORLD A FAVOUR AND SHOOT MYSELF.
Ooo, yeah, those naught load times. Sony are trying to make their console into a PC, now. I'mm with ya, brother. I'm a complete tool, too. I don't mind spewing my s**t all over the internet like I have aright to express such a retarded opinion.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
), from what ive seen most PS3 games are more expensive than the 360 versions( mind you i only checked that out once or twice )
It took even longer if you forgot to set the counter so you knew where you were and where you needed to be.
