Gamershell: MGS4 has 4.6 GB required install

[Madrun Badrun]

That's over a third of the 360's available space  :'(

spoiler (click to show/hide)

though if it's just to compensate for the slow bluray drive then my dreams may not be shattered. 

[close]

[cool breeze]

I am not defending the installs at all here, but I'm not bothered by them and would rather every game at least have an option for it to install.  It could be because I play a lot of PC games or something, but I don't have much of a problem with having to wait 7-25 or how many minutes to play a game.  If hard drive space really is an issue, you could always buy a cheap hard drive online and install it yourself.  I only keep a few games on my hard drive that I play every once in a while.  Isn't the problem with the slow bluray read speeds? Even if that is the case the developers should still allow you to play with slow loading times and give you the option for an install.  I also don't understand that with some games like Lost Planet, DMC4, and GTA4 that they didn't just put them on DVD which should be faster than bluray since PS2 games have no problems running, right...?

[MCD]

optional installs are always welcome, mandatory is no good.

[Powerslave]

I'm just sort of sad that I made my last post so thoughtful and nobody's responded to it.

This is why I kinda stopped making long posts. I used to make such long posts a couple of years ago, but I noticed it didn't pay off or people didn't respond/read them.

[ferrarimanf355]

I preordered the LE version of this game. At least I have an 80GB PS3... 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

... although these installs shouldn't be needed with teh Bru-ray...

[close]

[duckman2000]

Both Halo 3 and Gears of War are on older, inferior hardware, and are located on a disc that's a whopping 8GBs. That's less than one sixth of the size of a BRD. Even less if you consider the cache MGS4 requires. With those limitations, at least Epic and Bungie saw fit to work within them, and produced something that is at least comparable to that of MGS4s. Not better, not exactly equal, but the quality is in the same range.

No, dude. Halo 3 character models are shit. They are not in the same range; it's a step up from Halo 2, but then that was absolutely miserable by Xbox standards. MGS4 has the character model shit down. And FYI, when I was talking about the atmospheric FX, I was doing as a counter to the ridiculous claim that the game doesn't look that good. It looks damned good, some less than brilliant textures be damned.

[Eel O'Brian]

i read the long posts, but if I don't necessarily have anything to add i don't usually respond

[Van Cruncheon]

let's say you have a 60gb unit. let's say 50% of all games you buy have a 2-6gb install, 3.5 on average. if i buy 30 games -- and i have over 120 for the ps2 -- i have 3.5 x 15 = 52.5gb worth of installs, leaving very little room for demo/game downloads, game caches, and the occasional oddball game that wants to write a massive save. this is bullshit.

my pc has 500gb space. my pc also has convenient uninstall and backup features, and a defrag option.

[Van Cruncheon]

i don't see this "amazing detail" on the mgs4 models -- i just see halo 3 level polys and ps2 textures on great modeling efforts

[MoxManiac]

I just put a 160GB HDD in my PS3 so this does not bother me one bit

[bork]

Hey, uh...I got a gaming-class laptop in 2004 that cost $3,200 and it only came with a 50gb hard drive.  Just saying.

Of course the installs I had to do would actually install the ENTIRE GAME to the hard drive.

I just put a 160GB HDD in my PS3 so this does not bother me one bit

I did this over a year ago.  Being able to upgrade the HDD was the reason I paid less and got the 20gb model in the first place.  The required installs are dumb, but how games out there use them right now, three?  Four?  Bit too early to be going into full-on panic mode.

Plus you guys act like the PS3 has a ton of games worth owning, "LOLZ LOLZ." 

[duckman2000]

let's say you have a 60gb unit. let's say 50% of all games you buy have a 2-6gb install, 3.5 on average. if i buy 30 games -- and i have over 120 for the ps2 -- i have 3.5 x 15 = 52.5gb worth of installs, leaving very little room for demo/game downloads, game caches, and the occasional oddball game that wants to write a massive save. this is bullshit.

So then delete the caches of games you don't play on a regular basis (and given your attitude towards games in general, that list has got to be massive). You don't lose your saves (much like the PC idea of uninstalling while keeping game saves).

And the demo and game downloads, that sounds like you're enjoying another awesome PC function, eh? So in the end, the issue you guys are having is that the HDD is too small. Then upgrade it. You get what you pay for, which in the case of the PS3 involves a 60GB HDD, with the option to install a larger HDD at an additional cost.

sigh - what is the difference? are you serious? when was the last time you had a gaming PC with 40/60 gig storage capacity? 1992 possibly?

60 gig capacity is already too small if it installs this much stuff - i'm off to work in 10 minutes, when i get back, i'll break down what i have on my 60 gig and you'll see i have to decide WHICH game i have installs + DLC. NO music, no movies, no photos (i can stream all of that from my PC), 1 Demo (MGO!) so  just GAMES and DLC INSTALLS.

do i have the same problem on my PC? NO. Why? Because even a shitty pc comes with over 500gigs of storage. I may have to delete games at some point (well, i would if i didn't actuall have 2.5TB), but we are talking about 50-100 games before it even crosses my mind.

The PC defense is a fantasy - the stark reality is we have to go back to 486 times to have anywhere NEAR a comprable situation (and then we were balking at 8 meg games, so even it's probably not the same EITHER) . Put it into numbers, see how laughable the "same as a PC" argument is.

What a bunch of crap. Going back only a few years, the standard HDD size was 80GB, and that's a generous estimate. The PC I bought last year, from a dedicated gaming PC company, was configured with an 80GB as the baseline standard. 1992? You'd be the king of the neighborhood if you pimped a PC with a whopping 1GB of HDD space back in those days. Speaking of arguments riddled with holes, now we are falling back on pure fantasy to keep the autonomous gripemobile going?

As you've already concluded, upgrading the HDD will solve this issue. You get what you pay for, and the budget price here gives you a system that gives you good and bad PC functionalities, on a budget level. I don't like developers falling back on patches, but I do like media storage. And I'll like mandatory installs if they are justified. A few seconds shorter loading times in a multiplatform game at the cost of 5GB of HDD space, that might be worth questioning. But people throwing around shit about Konami being lazy and there being no need for a mandatory install, that's just ridiculous at this point. No one here can say why exactly it needs this install, yet people are already calling foul.
 

[Christopher]

This is the last game I'm going to get before I"m done with videogames

[duckman2000]

yes, i made an horrific error with 60 gig - it was more like 200 mb back in 1992. yes. but a few years and standard hard drive was 80gig? I'm not sure about that, but hey. Even so, why is something that an albeit standard pc practice now acceptable on consoles? especially when the nearest rival console that has the same games does not exhibit the same problem?

I'm not understanding this argument. I ran into space issues with my Premium after only a few months, due to frivolous downloading of demos. Game patches also require cache space, and if I'm not entirely mistaken, game caches and "saves" do take up space. Not a lot of it, but then there's also not a ton of space on that HDD.

At the end of the day, going with an 80 gig drive has to be driven by -your- purchasing gaming habits and what -you- want to put up with. For me , that's completely different and i'm at my limit of HDD. I can't really take the argument any further! I'm at... my... hdd... limit. I play a lot of PC games and do music/photo work on it so i made sure it was fit for purpose : tons and tons of space. Do i really have to start taking this into account for the PS3? Can you see the wider retail implications here? You can see where this is going in the X360 vs PS3 debate without anyone pointing it out surely? 

But that's something you, as a "poweruser" (haven't gotten to use that in a few years, woohoo), should take into account. The HDD size was likely determined based on your average user. A dude who downloads a reasonable amount of demos, stores a reasonable amount of music and pictures, and who doesn't play all of the games in his library on a regular basis. For that person, 60GB (now 80GB) is really not a small amount of space. When you consider that the competition sells a system that features over 40GB less usable space and also pimps its game media content download functionalities, it's really not that limited. You, on the other hand, fall outside the average user bracket, and people like you (and me) will have to upgrade. And that option is there, but as with any other situation where you fall outside the average user bracket, there's an additional cost involved.

hold on here - NO ONE is complaining about devs being lazy, or the time it takes to install before i can play games -the first time- (note i'm making a distinction here) , or anything of that of any sort. It's the juggling of games that is the problem. It has implications for Sony's answer to XBL , it has implications about replayability of games (if you stick with the stock drive (as i suspect the vast majority of consumers will)) then you are surely going to have to limit your choice of accessible games. As i say, i'm AT THAT POINT NOW and i've bought most multiparty games on x360.

You haven't read Raban's posts in this thread, have you? If one was to assume that his posts were based on findings after actually playing the game, one could very easily be led to believe that the game cache is just there because Kojima is too lazy to figure out another way to get the same result. And that's what I'm questioning, this knee-jerk reaction against game installs when in reality, no one knows why this cache is needed. I don't even like the company, but I have hard time stomaching the idea that this install is somehow a lazy shortcut. We'll see when it comes out, the cache may or may not seem justified.

[Sho Nuff]

I'm gonna wait it out and get the 360 version with no install and 720p 4xMSAA

[duckman2000]

I'd enjoy reading the breakdowns between install time and estimated time spent switching discs. Didn't some idiots do something of the sort with DCM4? Which, by the way, would be an example of a situation where some griping makes sense. Was that optional or mandatory?

[Raban]

You haven't read Raban's posts in this thread, have you? If one was to assume that his posts were based on findings after actually playing the game, one could very easily be led to believe that the game cache is just there because Kojima is too lazy to figure out another way to get the same result. And that's what I'm questioning, this knee-jerk reaction against game installs when in reality, no one knows why this cache is needed. I don't even like the company, but I have hard time stomaching the idea that this install is somehow a lazy shortcut. We'll see when it comes out, the cache may or may not seem justified.

Did you even read my last whopping-ass post or did your attention trail off? I never specified that Kojima was the lazy one, that's Corporate Identity bullshit. I'm saying that because of online and standard HDD, devs are sure to become lazy in regards to bug testing and gameplay elements that they'll just ship out a patch for later on.

You went from being respectable and calming my crazy-ass down to becoming a crazy-ass yourself.

But that's something you, as a "poweruser" (haven't gotten to use that in a few years, woohoo), should take into account. The HDD size was likely determined based on your average user. A dude who downloads a reasonable amount of demos, stores a reasonable amount of music and pictures, and who doesn't play all of the games in his library on a regular basis. For that person, 60GB (now 80GB) is really not a small amount of space. When you consider that the competition sells a system that features over 40GB less usable space and also pimps its game media content download functionalities, it's really not that limited. You, on the other hand, fall outside the average user bracket, and people like you (and me) will have to upgrade. And that option is there, but as with any other situation where you fall outside the average user bracket, there's an additional cost involved.

Good job with anecdotal ass residue there. Everybody I know who has a PS3, hardcore gamer or not, buys trailers and demos up like they were in limited release, and most of them don't bother to uninstall them, even after they've finished playing. If we run with MY piece of anecdotal evidence instead of yours, not only is the time taken to install a 4GB cache onto your hard drive, but also the time taken to uninstall shit you don't seem to use anymore to make room for said cache.

Oh yeah, and it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, you crazy motherfucker, to call the devs lazy. Almost every top-billing game has received a major patch to fix performance issues weeks after release. This is called laziness on the developer's behalf.

EDIT: Btw,




Neck and neck? Fuck no. Comparable? I'd say so.

[duckman2000]

Oh yeah, and it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, you crazy motherfucker, to call the devs lazy. Almost every top-billing game has received a major patch to fix performance issues weeks after release. This is called laziness on the developer's behalf.

Sure, that qualifies. Not as laziness, but it sucks that the "we'll fix it in post" has become common practice. But the outrage over this particular situation is a knee-jerk reaction. We don't know what benefit the cache will have, yet it's already widely labeled an atrocity. Maybe I misread this, but I could have sworn that you yourself went on a longer rant regarding the time and money spent on developing this exclusive game, and questioning why it would still require this cache. That to me is the same as opnely doubting that the developer is doing the best job it can do. And as we don't actually know what this cache is and what it benefits, going on a raging bender over its mere existence is more than a little bit premature.

Good job with anecdotal ass residue there. Everybody I know who has a PS3, hardcore gamer or not, buys trailers and demos up like they were in limited release, and most of them don't bother to uninstall them, even after they've finished playing. If we run with MY piece of anecdotal evidence instead of yours, not only is the time taken to install a 4GB cache onto your hard drive, but also the time taken to uninstall shit you don't seem to use anymore to make room for said cache.

Uh, then that's their fucking problem then, isn't it? You can't really in good conscience bitch about having no more space on a HDD if you aren't prepared to at least clean up the crap that you don't use. And as for my anecdotal evidence, I'm really just suggesting that Sony designed this with a specific average in mind. Whether that average is correct or not, I don't know. But I seem to recall one of the Sony head honchos even acknowledging this, and referencing the upgradeable HDD as a solution for the "power users".

[Cormacaroni]

I think Kojima and his whole team are a very talented, hard-working bunch of individuals. Happy now, duckman?

The install still sucks but it's not their fault they have to deal with a shitty 1x speed 1st-gen BR drive. The HDD install is the best way to solve the problems it creates - slow-ass loading times, stuttering, texture and geometry pop-in etc. etc. It's not a great solution, which is why Borys and Raban are riled, but it's pretty damn clear from the gradual position shift from Kojima Productions' and Sony PR that it IS a solution to a problem, not a 'feature' that will make the game greater than it would have been on a 360.

[Van Cruncheon]

I'm gonna wait it out and get the 360 version with no install and 720p 4xMSAA

good plan!

[duckman2000]

Which games use this install method anyway? I mean, all games install a cache of some sort, but I don't think I actually own a PS3 game that requires a multi-GB install. I'm more concerned about the increasing size of demos at this point, but then I guess most of those can be uninstalled without giving a shit.

[pilonv1]

I thought it changed the load times by like 2-3 seconds. If we take 3 seconds cut off per load on a 20 minute install, you'd need FOUR HUNDRED (400) loading screens to make a difference.

[AdmiralViscen]

The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
 

What's the difference between console and PC, really? Both Microsoft and Sony have gone straight for offering budget gaming PCs (complete with giving developers the luxury of releasing unfinished games knowing that it can be finished with a few patches distributed across the network), so unless you're a Wiiner, don't gripe too loud about having to deal with PC traditions. So you have to delete a few game caches, which would be exactly how it'd work on a PC. Big deal. If you have a 60GB machine, then you should have ample storage for game caches. That is, unless you filled the HDD with music, photos or video, but then you wouldn't have done that since you don't want the whole PC in a box situation anyway.

But then this whole situation is mostly annoying because it's so god damned pathetic; the majority of people "concerned" with this are not only bent console jockeys (I want simplicity, waah waah), but shitsifting Xtards at that. Of course, the arguments would be reversed if the situation was reversed. It's getting to be too fucking predictable, and that includes my own involvement.

No dude, there are actual 20GB owners who are fucked by this. And dcharlie makes a good point about Home. I personally like to pop in games off and on over the course of years, and I like not having to delete shit and then wait 10 minutes for an install. And if you're going to be doing this sort of Home interface it becomes even dumber.

Even 40 and 60GB owners will eventually be fucked if we keep getting 4 games every 7 months that take up 5GB each.

Never mind all the giant patches and shit I keep having to download and install. And the savegame files that are out of control huge (my Ratchet save is over 100MB IIRC). and 7GB or so isntantly eaten up when you format your HDD for PS3. I doubt a 20GB owner could even fit 3 games on it.

I owned like 3 PS3 games, none with installs and had like 8GB left before upgrading.

[Raban]

Sure, that qualifies. Not as laziness, but it sucks that the "we'll fix it in post" has become common practice. But the outrage over this particular situation is a knee-jerk reaction. We don't know what benefit the cache will have, yet it's already widely labeled an atrocity. Maybe I misread this, but I could have sworn that you yourself went on a longer rant regarding the time and money spent on developing this exclusive game, and questioning why it would still require this cache. That to me is the same as opnely doubting that the developer is doing the best job it can do. And as we don't actually know what this cache is and what it benefits, going on a raging bender over its mere existence is more than a little bit premature.

My argument is that you defending mandatory HD installs is baseless and doesn't make a lick of sense. Not only did you state you didn't give a shit, but you're jumping on my ass about a ton of accusations I didn't make. The anger I expressed in this thread wasn't caused solely by MGS4, but rather a culmination of this next-gen bullshit, where nothing is really improved at all except minor visual effects and the like. MGS4 just happened to push me over the edge because of the fact that even a PS3 exclusive game can't get its shit straight. You're definitely misinterpreting the theme behind my argument, because I'll happily admit KojiPro is probably working their asses off to get MGS4 done, but after three games, four years with the system, and around 40 million dollars, what's coming out looks like substandard.

And I know you're gonna say "WE'VE ONLY SEEN SCREENSHOTS AND VIDEOS, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED THE GAME BLAH BLAH BLAH", but the matter of the fact is, KojiPro's PR shipped or approved those images and videos for public release, which means they think in some way that what we've seen so far is a good showcase of the technical side of the game.

Uh, then that's their fucking problem then, isn't it? You can't really in good conscience bitch about having no more space on a HDD if you aren't prepared to at least clean up the crap that you don't use. And as for my anecdotal evidence, I'm really just suggesting that Sony designed this with a specific average in mind. Whether that average is correct or not, I don't know. But I seem to recall one of the Sony head honchos even acknowledging this, and referencing the upgradeable HDD as a solution for the "power users".

What kind of flip-flopping is this? First you use casual gamers as an example supporting your side, now you don't give a shit about them. Thumbs up!

[Cormacaroni]

I'm gonna wait it out and get the 360 version with no install and 720p 4xMSAA

good plan!

The genius of it is he wins even if the 360 version never happens!

[duckman2000]

But yeah, maybe casuals will be fine. I just can't tell either way. Maybe casual PS3 fans will be fine if the anecdotal "movies, one or two games" theory is on the money?

I have a few seasons of Blackadder, the whole Bottom series and a few movies (not HD quality, mind you), as well as a bunch of music and a handful of PSN games and demos on the HDD, and I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20GB left. Now, I don't have any games that require multi-GB installs on there, and I don't think I will for some time. I don't know really, it'd always be better with more space, but in my case, dropping a few demos would clean things up quite a bit. I don't know which bracket I fit into, but I'm not feeling terribly cramped yet.

Again though, if the install gives worthwhile benefits, then I'm all for it. And I'm not going to claim that they should make it optional, because I don't know if the game is designed to allow for that. DMC4 does not sound worthwhile, but I don't know yet if MGS4 is as useless.

What kind of flip-flopping is this? First you use casual gamers as an example supporting your side, now you don't give a shit about them. Thumbs up!

There's NO flip-flopping there though. I'm talking about a possible estimate of average usage, which would be what Sony likely went by in determining the HDD size. I don't know if their estimate is correct or not, but the console clearly wasn't designed for enthusiasts. That much has been said by people from Sony.

[Raban]

But yeah, maybe casuals will be fine. I just can't tell either way. Maybe casual PS3 fans will be fine if the anecdotal "movies, one or two games" theory is on the money?

I have a few seasons of Blackadder, the whole Bottom series and a few movies (not HD quality, mind you), as well as a bunch of music and a handful of PSN games and demos on the HDD, and I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20GB left. Now, I don't have any games that require multi-GB installs on there, and I don't think I will for some time. I don't know really, it'd always be better with more space, but in my case, dropping a few demos would clean things up quite a bit. I don't know which bracket I fit into, but I'm not feeling terribly cramped yet.

Again though, if the install gives worthwhile benefits, then I'm all for it. And I'm not going to claim that they should make it optional, because I don't know if the game is designed to allow for that. DMC4 does not sound worthwhile, but I don't know yet if MGS4 is as useless.

 

Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works

We're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.

Duckman, would you buy an L-shaped condom?

[duckman2000]

The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
 

What's the difference between console and PC, really? Both Microsoft and Sony have gone straight for offering budget gaming PCs (complete with giving developers the luxury of releasing unfinished games knowing that it can be finished with a few patches distributed across the network), so unless you're a Wiiner, don't gripe too loud about having to deal with PC traditions. So you have to delete a few game caches, which would be exactly how it'd work on a PC. Big deal. If you have a 60GB machine, then you should have ample storage for game caches. That is, unless you filled the HDD with music, photos or video, but then you wouldn't have done that since you don't want the whole PC in a box situation anyway.

But then this whole situation is mostly annoying because it's so god damned pathetic; the majority of people "concerned" with this are not only bent console jockeys (I want simplicity, waah waah), but shitsifting Xtards at that. Of course, the arguments would be reversed if the situation was reversed. It's getting to be too fucking predictable, and that includes my own involvement.

No dude, there are actual 20GB owners who are fucked by this. And dcharlie makes a good point about Home. I personally like to pop in games off and on over the course of years, and I like not having to delete shit and then wait 10 minutes for an install. And if you're going to be doing this sort of Home interface it becomes even dumber.

Even 40 and 60GB owners will eventually be fucked if we keep getting 4 games every 7 months that take up 5GB each.

Never mind all the giant patches and shit I keep having to download and install. And the savegame files that are out of control huge (my Ratchet save is over 100MB IIRC). and 7GB or so isntantly eaten up when you format your HDD for PS3. I doubt a 20GB owner could even fit 3 games on it.

Fair enough, but then that is the budget version, and subsequently the budget experience.

And what's this about Home? Is the application massive or something? Honest question, I'm not following Home at all.

[duckman2000]

Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works

We're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.

But if the game doesn't fucking work without the cache, then asking for it to be optional is idiotic. You don't know jack shit about how the game is designed, so why the blind request for something that may not be possible without drastically changing the game, and by doing so perhaps threaten the vision that the developer has for the game? There's nothing dysfunctional about releasing a game with a mandatory install on a system that supports it. You may not like that it takes up space, but that doesn't make it a wrong.

[pilonv1]

I have on my 40gb drive just TWO installs - Everybodys Golf World Tour and GT5. I've also got some music a bunch of demo's (Haze, MLB 08, Siren, Battle Fantasia), the Metal Gear Online beta and some PSN games (SSHD, PixelJunk Monsters, Warhawk Omega Pack) and I'm well under 15gb. If you added in DMC4 and MGS4 I'd be looking at almost no space.

[AdmiralViscen]

The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
 

What's the difference between console and PC, really? Both Microsoft and Sony have gone straight for offering budget gaming PCs (complete with giving developers the luxury of releasing unfinished games knowing that it can be finished with a few patches distributed across the network), so unless you're a Wiiner, don't gripe too loud about having to deal with PC traditions. So you have to delete a few game caches, which would be exactly how it'd work on a PC. Big deal. If you have a 60GB machine, then you should have ample storage for game caches. That is, unless you filled the HDD with music, photos or video, but then you wouldn't have done that since you don't want the whole PC in a box situation anyway.

But then this whole situation is mostly annoying because it's so god damned pathetic; the majority of people "concerned" with this are not only bent console jockeys (I want simplicity, waah waah), but shitsifting Xtards at that. Of course, the arguments would be reversed if the situation was reversed. It's getting to be too fucking predictable, and that includes my own involvement.

No dude, there are actual 20GB owners who are fucked by this. And dcharlie makes a good point about Home. I personally like to pop in games off and on over the course of years, and I like not having to delete shit and then wait 10 minutes for an install. And if you're going to be doing this sort of Home interface it becomes even dumber.

Even 40 and 60GB owners will eventually be fucked if we keep getting 4 games every 7 months that take up 5GB each.

Never mind all the giant patches and shit I keep having to download and install. And the savegame files that are out of control huge (my Ratchet save is over 100MB IIRC). and 7GB or so isntantly eaten up when you format your HDD for PS3. I doubt a 20GB owner could even fit 3 games on it.

Fair enough, but then that is the budget version, and subsequently the budget experience.

And what's this about Home? Is the application massive or something? Honest question, I'm not following Home at all.

If you buy all the hot titles this year you're already at 20GB full, even a 40GB or 60GB person will balk. 7GB for PS3 system files, 100MB savegames, 800MB Warhawk (with Wipeout and SOCOM on the way), patches and firmwares that keep getting larger, DLC, demos, trailers, wallpapers. It will not be difficult for a 60GB person to get fucked in 2 years if they actually play PS3 as their primary console.

6 months of owning a 20GB and buying most games on 360 got me 7GB remaining. That's a nice chunk on 360 but it evaporates if you buy ANY games that require installs. ANY.

And Home si supposed to let you jump in and out of your sfotware with friends, doesn't work so well if the game is longer than a month old and you need to go install. GTA4 is the perfect example of a game that can't have an install - you're going to be popping that on and off for a while especially if you like online.

I have on my 40gb drive just TWO installs - Everybodys Golf World Tour and GT5. I've also got some music a bunch of demo's (Haze, MLB 08, Siren, Battle Fantasia), the Metal Gear Online beta and some PSN games (SSHD, PixelJunk Monsters, Warhawk Omega Pack) and I'm well under 15gb. If you added in DMC4 and MGS4 I'd be looking at almost no space.

And GTA, instantly fucked.

You get more out of 13GB on 360 than 40GB (aka 33GB) on PS3.

I have Halo, Gears map packs (all of them), 20 XBLA games, 5 XBLA demos, probably 8-9 full game demos, savegames, and a bunch of other smaller DLC packs and shit like Crackdown. I have a nice solid 2GB left, I might have to delete a demo from 6 months ago if I want to download the next 2 demos that come out. And when I put PGR3 in for the first time in over a year it booted instantaneously. There was a game update that took 5 seconds, the same thing would be a 10 minute ordeal on PS3.

Having 2GB on PS3 is suicide these days. 

[Raban]

Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works

We're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.

But if the game doesn't fucking work without the cache, then asking for it to be optional is idiotic. You don't know jack shit about how the game is designed, so why the blind request for something that may not be possible without drastically changing the game, and by doing so perhaps threaten the vision that the developer has for the game? There's nothing dysfunctional about releasing a game with a mandatory install on a system that supports it. You may not like that it takes up space, but that doesn't make it a wrong.

That's the whole FUCKING point I'm trying to make, jack!

It shouldn't need the FUCKING HDD for FUCK'S sake!

It's a FUCKING console FUCKING game MOTHERFUCKER. It should have been designed from the FUCKING get-go to not need the FUCKING HDD you dumb BITCH.

Is it too much to ask to let me put the FUCKING disc in the FUCKING tray and FUCKING play it right FUCKING then!? I FUCKING guess so, according to Duckman's FUCKED up FUCKING explanation for things that I can't FUCKING understand, according to Doctor FUCKING DuckFUCKER.

[duckman2000]

Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works

We're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.

But if the game doesn't fucking work without the cache, then asking for it to be optional is idiotic. You don't know jack shit about how the game is designed, so why the blind request for something that may not be possible without drastically changing the game, and by doing so perhaps threaten the vision that the developer has for the game? There's nothing dysfunctional about releasing a game with a mandatory install on a system that supports it. You may not like that it takes up space, but that doesn't make it a wrong.

That's the whole FUCKING point I'm trying to make, jack!

It shouldn't need the FUCKING HDD for FUCK'S sake!

It's a FUCKING console FUCKING game MOTHERFUCKER. It should have been designed from the FUCKING get-go to not need the FUCKING HDD you dumb BITCH.

Is it too much to ask to let me put the FUCKING disc in the FUCKING tray and FUCKING play it right FUCKING then!? I FUCKING guess so, according to Duckman's FUCKED up FUCKING explanation for things that I can't FUCKING understand, according to Doctor FUCKING DuckFUCKER.

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved? Don't like the HDD? Stick with Wii. The PS3 has a HDD, and developers use it. Some use it well, others just use it. The HDD gives us the benefit of storing media and games, but it comes with the downside of being used to facilitate the release of incomplete or buggy games. An install file, however, does not fall in that bracket. Whether it's there to cover up flaws in other parts of the console's design or not, it's not poor usage of an HDD.

[AdmiralViscen]

It's not crazy to think someone is going to be dabbling in Warhawk, GT5, HSG, and MGS4 at the same time. 40GB is instantly out of over half their space.

If you don't want the "budget experience" you need to go 100+GB or just not be that into gaming (and forget about putting music on it)

[Raban]

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved? Don't like the HDD? Stick with Wii. The PS3 has a HDD, and developers use it. Some use it well, others just use it. The HDD gives us the benefit of storing media and games, but it comes with the downside of being used to facilitate the release of incomplete or buggy games. An install file, however, does not fall in that bracket. Whether it's there to cover up flaws in other parts of the console's design or not, it's not poor usage of an HDD.

Why the fuck do you make it sound like HDDs are necessary for next-gen games? 360 has an HDD, let's count how many games use it for a cache >1GB:

~

That's right! None! Fuck you!

[AdmiralViscen]

Honestly, aside from Wifi you'd have to be a Goddamn idiot to buy anything but a 20GB. At least I don't shed a tear when I throw a 20GB drive in the garbage.

[duckman2000]

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?

by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?

But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.

Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.

[Raban]

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?

by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?

But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.

Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.

It's not premature. My main complaint isn't if the mandatory install is going to be worthwhile or not, that's the part you give a shit about, and I don't give a shit about you. What my main complaint is that HDD installations exist period, and just like paying 60 dollars for games, or online patching, HDD installations are going to become standard when we let games like MGS4 fly by without so much as a blink.

[AdmiralViscen]

How did HDD installs help the "vision of the developer" in the install-games that are out? Why do GTA4 and LP run worse despite this? Is HSG impossible on 360? What great vision was finally realized on PS3 in DMC4?

How can it be premature when HDDs are already rapidly filling up and no game to this point has done shit to be worth it, and MGS4 is already less than the graphical showcase it was expected to be? MGS4 has to prove that it was worth it, we don't have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[Raban]

How did HDD installs help the "vision of the developer" in the install-games that are out? Why do GTA4 and LP run worse despite this? Is HSG impossible on 360? What great vision was finally realized on PS3 in DMC4?

The vision that Capcom wants gamers to learn Sanskrit. Bitches love Sanskrit.

[Van Cruncheon]

i can tell you how mgs4 uses the cache file -- to fucking CACHE FILES because the blu-ray drive is so goddamn slow on the edges. that's the point of a cache! if there's gonna be heavy-duty streaming, then the cache is an easy solution to the problem of drive sluggishness. mgs4 may be many things, but technically accomplished ain't one of them, and if the game TRULY requires a blu-ray disc to hold its content, then there ain't gonna be any room for file mirroring to help with stream seeks.

[Raban]

i can tell you how mgs4 uses the cache file -- to fucking CACHE FILES because the blu-ray drive is so goddamn slow on the edges. that's the point of a cache! if there's gonna be heavy-duty streaming, then the cache is an easy solution to that problem.

Too bad where that would normally help, PS3 takes a fuckload of time to read off its HDD, causing longer load times and snags during streaming. YAY!

[duckman2000]

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?

by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?

But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.

Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.

It's not premature. My main complaint isn't if the mandatory install is going to be worthwhile or not, that's the part you give a shit about, and I don't give a shit about you. What my main complaint is that HDD installations exist period, and just like paying 60 dollars for games, or online patching, HDD installations are going to become standard when we let games like MGS4 fly by without so much as a blink.

But if they can't build the game and have it run on the PS3 without this install cache, then griping about it is idiotic. You could wish that they would release it on the 360, but then it'd be compromised or a hassle to deal with due to the limited disc space. And it is premature, as you do not fucking know what it affects or why it is specifically needed for this specific game. Does it have to track complex, persistent data through levels? That'd be one good reason to use the cache. I don't know if it does anything of the sort, or if it's really just covering for another weakness in the system it's developed for. But until I do know, I'm not going to gripe about it being a horrible waste of space and the wrong thing to do.

How did HDD installs help the "vision of the developer" in the install-games that are out? Why do GTA4 and LP run worse despite this? Is HSG impossible on 360? What great vision was finally realized on PS3 in DMC4?

How can it be premature when HDDs are already rapidly filling up and no game to this point has done shit to be worth it, and MGS4 is already less than the graphical showcase it was expected to be? MGS4 has to prove that it was worth it, we don't have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Or you could choose to not bitch about it until you actually know if its worth bitching about. As I've said, I don't see the benefits of this in DMC4, not one worth the space it takes up at least. And this could be, as our very reasonable friend Prole suggests, be a matter of covering for other weaknesses. But even in that case, it's hardly any point to griping about it, as it'd then still be a necessity.

[AdmiralViscen]

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?

by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?

But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.

Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.

It's not premature. My main complaint isn't if the mandatory install is going to be worthwhile or not, that's the part you give a shit about, and I don't give a shit about you. What my main complaint is that HDD installations exist period, and just like paying 60 dollars for games, or online patching, HDD installations are going to become standard when we let games like MGS4 fly by without so much as a blink.

But if they can't build the game and have it run on the PS3 without this install cache, then griping about it is idiotic. You could wish that they would release it on the 360, but then it'd be compromised or a hassle to deal with due to the limited disc space. And it is premature, as you do not fucking know what it affects or why it is specifically needed for this specific game. Does it have to track complex, persistent data through levels? That'd be one good reason to use the cache. I don't know if it does anything of the sort, or if it's really just covering for another weakness in the system it's developed for. But until I do know, I'm not going to gripe about it being a horrible waste of space and the wrong thing to do.

You're right, PS3 sucks.

And I'm still waiting for actual proof that limited disc space is damaging my gaming. I haven't played a 360 game that felt gimped and I haven't played a BLU RAY (TM) game that feels like it's doing anything different from 360. You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.

Maybe MGS4 is in fact an open world MMORPG that remembers every snapped blade of grass you step on,  but I'm not going to cover my eyes and ears waiting for that reality to be revealed to me.

And if PS3 is so weak that games can't fucking function without 5GB installs then all PS3s should have 100GB hard drives, since they're apparently so cheap to all the Sony fanboys.

[duckman2000]

You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.

Except of course for the fact that no one here actually has the source of so much grief installed on their PS3 at this point. So really, saying "maybe-some day" echoes hollow when you consider that all this bitching is over something that is, right now, an unknown.

[AdmiralViscen]

We have a large pool of other games causing problems. You're not going to succeed in convincing me that I didn't have to go buy a 160GB hard drive for $70 (to pop into my MSRP $500 'budget console), stop trying.

There are higher odds that this will be the 12th game to have no discernible benefit from caching than that its doing something magical that no dev has described behind it's just-good graphics.

[pilonv1]

And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved? Don't like the HDD? Stick with Wii. The PS3 has a HDD, and developers use it. Some use it well, others just use it. The HDD gives us the benefit of storing media and games, but it comes with the downside of being used to facilitate the release of incomplete or buggy games. An install file, however, does not fall in that bracket. Whether it's there to cover up flaws in other parts of the console's design or not, it's not poor usage of an HDD.

Why the fuck do you make it sound like HDDs are necessary for next-gen games? 360 has an HDD, let's count how many games use it for a cache >1GB:

~

That's right! None! Fuck you!

Actually I think Football Manager requires the HDD. And FFXI, but both of those are extreme cases.

[brawndolicious]

firstly, MGS sucks and it's common knowledge that it's only liked by elitist complete losers who love homoerotic jappy-wacky nerd humor so who cares if they abuse themselves with 20 minute install screens or hentai or whatever?

However, it is stupid to call the 20 GB PS3 a budget version.  it was more expensive than any console sold by the competition.  It's one thing to allow all games to do that temporary cache thing that you can do on 360's with hard drives, but it's obvious that Sony did not design the PS3 hard drive to do something like a 5 GB install.

[demi]

Doesn't Oblivion use the HDD -optionally- as a cache to help with loading? Pretty sure I read some developer comments about it.

[duckman2000]

firstly, MGS sucks and it's common knowledge that it's only liked by elitist complete losers who love homoerotic jappy-wacky nerd humor so who cares if they abuse themselves with 20 minute install screens or hentai or whatever?

However, it is stupid to call the 20 GB PS3 a budget version.  it was more expensive than any console sold by the competition.  It's one thing to allow all games to do that temporary cache thing that you can do on 360's with hard drives, but it's obvious that Sony did not design the PS3 hard drive to do something like a 5 GB install.

Well, it's still the budget version of the PS3. That the PS3 in itself was horrendously overpriced is a different matter.

[pilonv1]

Doesn't Oblivion use the HDD -optionally- as a cache to help with loading? Pretty sure I read some developer comments about it.

yep, it even has to be cleared every now and then

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/10531/Oblivion-Fragmented-Cache-Data-Fix/

Oblivion uses the Xbox 360 hard drive extensively to cache (copy and reuse) game data. This is done to optimize all loading the game does.

[Trent Dole]

All in favor of changing duckman's name and avatar to Shane Bettenhausen say "aye".

[Cormacaroni]

You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.

Except of course for the fact that no one here actually has the source of so much grief installed on their PS3 at this point. So really, saying "maybe-some day" echoes hollow when you consider that all this bitching is over something that is, right now, an unknown.

Yes, none of us know how it will be used.

But what scenario is better than what people are speculating on? At the end of the day you have:
1) a pain-in-the-ass install process (that you might have to repeat several times if you go back to the game)
2) a significant chunk of HDD space gone

None of those are particularly awful (what good is HDD space if you don't use it??) so i'm personally not that incensed. But I can't imagine any upside that might become obvious once the game is out in the wild. Enlighten us!

[Cormacaroni]

But if they can't build the game and have it run on the PS3 without this install cache, then griping about it is idiotic. You could wish that they would release it on the 360, but then it'd be compromised or a hassle to deal with due to the limited disc space.

oh come on, that's a huge leap.

There's several games that are cross platform that need mandatory installs on the PS3 that happen to be WORSE than their X360 counterparts. How can you take that and the infer that the X360 versions of games would be compromised or a hassle to deal with?

I'll go one further - i'll not die of shock if the 4 gig install is the entire game, with the BR simply providing media play back for cut scenes. The install cache will have nothing to do with the media played back, and that's the only area i'd expect the X360 to be compromised. The size of the game and the quality of the game itself wouldn't be touched.

Hell, need more space? compress the sound and video and stick it on two disks.

Or forget about the movies entirely and release a massively-improve game amirite

(although with a DVD-9, you'd still have enough space for a 2hr HD movie with any modern codec even after the supposed 4.6gb cache)

[duckman2000]

You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.

Except of course for the fact that no one here actually has the source of so much grief installed on their PS3 at this point. So really, saying "maybe-some day" echoes hollow when you consider that all this bitching is over something that is, right now, an unknown.

Yes, none of us know how it will be used.

But what scenario is better than what people are speculating on? At the end of the day you have:
1) a pain-in-the-ass install process (that you might have to repeat several times if you go back to the game)
2) a significant chunk of HDD space gone

None of those are particularly awful (what good is HDD space if you don't use it??) so i'm personally not that incensed. But I can't imagine any upside that might become obvious once the game is out in the wild. Enlighten us!

See, I don't know. So I'm not going to treat it like a DMC4 situation when quite a few capable developers have managed to avoid falling in that hole. This is developed specifically for the PS3, and it's my understanding that Kojima Productions is comprised of quite a few clever people. Naughty Dog managed to do pretty awesome things with only a brief cache install that felt more like an extra long load screen, which resulted in a complete streamlined and good looking game with no freaking load screens anyway. Is Naughty Dog really that much more accomplished than Kojima Productions? If they are not, it's hard to buy that the company wouldn't do something useful with the cache install. So yeah, guesswork, but it's about brilliant of a base as assuming right off the bat that it will be a useless install simply because 3rd party cross platform games have done less than amazing things with that HDD.

On that note, I'm defending fucking Kojima Productions, the developer of a franchise that I really, really do not like. Which is insane. God damn it.

[Raban]

duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except

"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"

Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.

[duckman2000]

duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except

"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"

Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.

Except there is no "bullshit" about that. You went into some knee-jerk panic there, and it makes absolutely no fucking sense to do so right now. Unless the company is a lot less competent than I've been lead to believe. But then some of you guys are claiming that the game itself looks to be below par in most ways, so whatever. What a riot.

[Raban]

duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except

"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"

Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.

Except there is no "bullshit" about that. You went into some knee-jerk panic there, and it makes absolutely no fucking sense to do so right now. Unless the company is a lot less competent than I've been lead to believe. But then some of you guys are claiming that the game itself looks to be below par in most ways, so whatever. What a riot.

It doesn't make sense for you to repeat the same shit over and over again like your brain is overheated from all the semen you keep snorting every time you suck six dicks stacked like bricks in a row.

[duckman2000]

duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except

"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"

Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.

Except there is no "bullshit" about that. You went into some knee-jerk panic there, and it makes absolutely no fucking sense to do so right now. Unless the company is a lot less competent than I've been lead to believe. But then some of you guys are claiming that the game itself looks to be below par in most ways, so whatever. What a riot.

It doesn't make sense for you to repeat the same shit over and over again like your brain is overheated from all the semen you keep snorting every time you suck six dicks stacked like bricks in a row.

So basically, you've got nothing? I suppose that's the EB version of that.

[duckman2000]

No, the hopefuls among us might, but the reasonable response to it is probably to save the griping for when it's obvious that it's actually something worth griping about. HDD caching doesn't have to be a generally useless thing, even if other developers have used it for less than amazing things. I don't know exactly how MGS4 is designed, but you guys may know more. What have the previews said about things like load times between areas, and persistent features? And yeah, I am dragging Naughty Dog in to this as the design of its game seems to argue against that for example Blu Ray here creates an even for very good developers insurmountable obstacle that requires a good deal of caching to make up for its weakness. And if there isn't an issue that is insurmountable to quality developers, why would it be assumed that Kojima Productions' usage of the HDD would be on the level of cross platform games?