Analyst: PS3 caused GTA IV delay

[Supernautus]

the intent is presumably for all premium owners to get an elite Hard Drive, a 120 gig hard drive, trust me, it's definitely worth buying, especially if you can find it cheaper somewhere got mine for £65 from ebay, will probably be at least double that in pounds when it is actually released over here. Game saves take up pretty little in terms of space, and I can't see the episodic content filling more than a gigabyte for example (each download) the 20 gig drive is pretty pointless, because about 3 gig is already filled when you buy it. and it fills fast.

[b4rtsimps0n]

the intent is presumably for all premium owners to get an elite Hard Drive, a 120 gig hard drive, trust me, it's definitely worth buying, especially if you can find it cheaper somewhere got mine for £65 from ebay, will probably be at least double that in pounds when it is actually released over here. Game saves take up pretty little in terms of space, and I can't see the episodic content filling more than a gigabyte for example (each download) the 20 gig drive is pretty pointless, because about 3 gig is already filled when you buy it. and it fills fast.

yeah that 3 or 4 gig that's already taken is for games to load there sh*t to that's the reason why rockstar would want that every 360 has a hdd.

but 20 gig is good enough for me for now..i only download demo's and trailers, not much content for games. so i'll rather wait until the hdd is really becoming full with stuff i don't want to delete

 

[Slamman]

Just a note, though I don't subscribe to Sony theory from an obvious Xbox 360 fan and user, too biased.... I checked around several stores this week in Minnesota (where the Mpls bridge collapsed this past week, and where I reside!) Nintendo's Wii and PS3 systems were all sold out except for about three Sonys, most 60GB store models were gone, but there was hope still. Wii was all gone, obviously indemand with no GTA, very odd hahaha

AND, plenty and even more 360s on store shelves, not one short! There was the evening news reporting the $50 price drop this week, only word on gaming I saw on recent news coverage. Our local free paper, City Pages covered the people putting out Game Informer, I had no idea it was a local pub, very interesting find!!

[b4rtsimps0n]

Just a note, though I don't subscribe to Sony theory from an obvious Xbox 360 fan and user, too biased.... I checked around several stores this week in Minnesota (where the Mpls bridge collapsed this past week, and where I reside!) Nintendo's Wii and PS3 systems were all sold out except for about three Sonys, most 60GB store models were gone, but there was hope still. Wii was all gone, obviously indemand with no GTA, very odd hahaha

AND, plenty and even more 360s on store shelves, not one short! There was the evening news reporting the $50 price drop this week, only word on gaming I saw on recent news coverage. Our local free paper, City Pages covered the people putting out Game Informer, I had no idea it was a local pub, very interesting find!!

yeah of course there are more 360's on the shelves, the console has been out like a year longer. but in total the 360 has sold the most units, and ps3 the least, so i don't see what point you're trying to make here.

and yeah in the US all the 360 console packs dropped/drops in price. but not all $50 though. the core pack has dropped to 279 i believe.

[Pokahontas.]

Well, the delay gives them time to make more trailers.

[Toni Antonio Cipriani]

Maybe it's not because of the Playstation 3, but more of the Multiplayer? Mayber the Multiplayer isn't finished yet. Look at all the demos. Are there any Multiplayer demos shown yet? No!

[vettefan88]

Maybe it's not because of the Playstation 3, but more of the Multiplayer? Mayber the Multiplayer isn't finished yet. Look at all the demos. Are there any Multiplayer demos shown yet? No!

I don't think multiplayer would take an additional 5-6 months to work on.

I think a delay like that definitely results from a problem completely unexpected. like, for example, not anticipating just how difficult programming for a said console would be.

 

also, with the whole hdd thing, since the game is probably capable of running on a core unit, then instead of makign the hdd a requirement, they could just have a "hdd mode" where people with the hdd can utilize it for enhanced, faster, gameplay, and people currently without the hdd can still play the game.

[Supernautus]

maybe it should say that you'l need a HDD to play and download the exclusive content, because there's no memory card big enough to store it anyway.

[MajorMinor81]

That just give me more time to save up

 

LONG LIVE THE PS3!

[b4rtsimps0n]

 

maybe it should say that you'l need a HDD to play and download the exclusive content, because there's no memory card big enough to store it anyway.

every game that has downloadable content just says 'downloadable content' on the back, not that you need a hdd for it..but you almost always have to have a hdd for it, unless it's just a few cars or something.

and the whole problem of not having a hdd that's talked about everywhere isn't about the dlc.

[Supernautus]

then there's no reason to need one, no game yet on any console has installed part of the game onto the hard drive, they just haven't and have never needed it, perhaps they feel they need to now, but if that's the case and it was possible to install games from the disc to your console, there would be a piracy/modding issue there, and regardless of whether you like modding or not, it is technically illegal, that's why I find it fairly difficult to think they need the hard drive. I know they said the lack of a hard drive on the core systems was a problem, but if it is, it's a small problem, anyone who bought a core and couldn't get a hard drive (even as a birthday or christmas present) seems pretty dumb to me. And the amount of core systems out there can't be close to the amount without, especially as they have stopped producing core systems.

[b4rtsimps0n]

then there's no reason to need one, no game yet on any console has installed part of the game onto the hard drive, they just haven't and have never needed it, perhaps they feel they need to now, but if that's the case and it was possible to install games from the disc to your console, there would be a piracy/modding issue there, and regardless of whether you like modding or not, it is technically illegal, that's why I find it fairly difficult to think they need the hard drive. I know they said the lack of a hard drive on the core systems was a problem, but if it is, it's a small problem, anyone who bought a core and couldn't get a hard drive (even as a birthday or christmas present) seems pretty dumb to me. And the amount of core systems out there can't be close to the amount without, especially as they have stopped producing core systems.

omg if you don't know what it's about please don't post.

the hdd is 20 gb, but only 16 gb is available for you. the other 4 gb is used for backwardscompatability AND is used as space for games to directly unpack their data to while playing, instead of doing it constantly on the fly without a hdd. that's a big benefit if games are designed to use the hdd.

i believe that i also read that because of all xbox 1's had a hdd, the loading times were better on it than on a ps2. (way better, i have a ps2 and the same games on my brother's xbox load way faster)

[soleil]

 

then there's no reason to need one, no game yet on any console has installed part of the game onto the hard drive, they just haven't and have never needed it, perhaps they feel they need to now, but if that's the case and it was possible to install games from the disc to your console, there would be a piracy/modding issue there, and regardless of whether you like modding or not, it is technically illegal, that's why I find it fairly difficult to think they need the hard drive.  I know they said the lack of a hard drive on the core systems was a problem, but if it is, it's a small problem, anyone who bought a core and couldn't get a hard drive (even as a birthday or christmas present) seems pretty dumb to me.  And the amount of core systems out there can't be close to the amount without, especially as they have stopped producing core systems.

The bottom line is that game magazines quote people (like Houser) who say that they want the HDD because it would reduce loading times and make the game run smoother. Despite your not wanting to believe that, the people in charge of these decisions want it. You may not agree with their logic, but that's not really important. What is important is that this desire to use the HDD COULD be a reason for the delay, since it has been mentioned as a concern. It's not confirmed as the reason, of course. But to say that it's not an issue to the game makers and they "don't need it" is simply ignoring what the game makers themselves say.

[Supernautus]

Ok, games run smoothly enough as they are now in the majority of cases (as in big titles). Yes I realise that running games from a system using a hard drive can make things run slightly faster, and this...

 

" omg if you don't know what it's about please don't post.

the hdd is 20 gb, but only 16 gb is available for you. the other 4 gb is used for backwardscompatability AND is used as space for games to directly unpack their data to while playing, instead of doing it constantly on the fly without a hdd. that's a big benefit if games are designed to use the hdd."

 

is not required, I shall post if I feel like it, and thanks for the feeling that you need to patronise me by replying with something which was not related to my previous post in any way, unpacking data temporarily during the running of the games, if totally necessary would mean it meant you won't be able to run games on the system using a memory unit, last time I checked nobody running a 360 without a hard drive was unable to play games to the same standard as those with. The hard drive in the 360 is basically only there to save your games and download content to, I have the 120 gig hard drive anyway, so try more like, well 103 gig left for now.

 

I didn't say I didn't believe that, what I meant was, why is this the only case we've heard of games manufacturers claiming this, no other games have the problem of requiring a hard drive, and from future games over the next six months at least none of those will "require" the hard drive. What I was saying was that the claims that "A Lot" of games coming out soon will require a hard drive, is in fact, not true.

[soleil]

So just because games in the past never required it, you don't think a developer would want to start making the game so it requires a HDD in the future if his publisher will let him? If requiring a HDD allows for the game to be made in such a way where it runs smoother, why wouldn't a developer do that?

[Supernautus]

I'm not arguing that point, I'm saying that no manufacturer so far aside from rockstar has even said anything related to that, so why is it only an issue they've brought up, whether manufacturers choose to do so in the future or not is something completely different, what I'm saying is why has so far only one developer stated this if unpacking things to the hard drive is something that developers in general want.

[Brutuz]

Ahh, I come into the GTAIV section of the forum for the first time in ages, and already I see more fanboys than Windows PCs....

 

On Topic: Yea, so what if PS3 caused it? that just means taht they'll have extra time for the 360 people to work out the bugs, and then put it into the PS3 version, so less bugs, More Dev time, and overall, the extra wait is worth it, and anyway, Since when has R* stayed to a first release date?

[Slamman]

This is fanboy flame inducing... However, as Sony transitions to 80GB to do more, obviously. I have even higher hopes that all this hub-bub over Gigabyte sizes actually amounts to something tangible. I have a number of PC HDDs, the only ones I've maxed out are 10 or under so far. Even a 20GB drive actually offers a fair amount of data space. There are still many compression methods, many devised for the older gen, but with HD content, the space is still on par, as the article posted here on sound design for GTA had pointed out, with the advancements, there is still the fight to utilize all algorithms they can find to sqeeze the content in and have it stream up effortlessly upon gameplay.

[soleil]

I'm not arguing that point, I'm saying that no manufacturer so far aside from rockstar has even said anything related to that, so why is it only an issue they've brought up, whether manufacturers choose to do so in the future or not is something completely different, what I'm saying is why has so far only one developer stated this if unpacking things to the hard drive is something that developers in general want.

What difference does it make if they say it or not? There is no question in anyone's mind that unpacking it to the HDD is a big plus in reducing the loading times. No one feels the need to say it. Rockstar just happened to be asked, so they answered. The fact that there are games coming out for the 360 that will have a "Hard Drive required" label on it speaks for itself. Other companies are DOING IT, whether they bother saying it or not.

[Hayden Stasven]

I'm not going to read all seven pages to check if someone's already said this but just gonna say what I've been told. A friend of mine was talking to me on WLM, and according to Gamespot (he's an insider) they've got the PS3 version fully coded and ready for release next month. It's the Xbox 360 version that's taking so long to code.

 

Originally they were gonna release the PS3 & 360 versions in October, and the PC version in Jan or Feb, but now they're gonna release them all simultaneously it in about 6 months.

[tommy vs. claude]

I'm not going to read all seven pages to check if someone's already said this but just gonna say what I've been told. A friend of mine was talking to me on WLM, and according to Gamespot (he's an insider) they've got the PS3 version fully coded and ready for release next month. It's the Xbox 360 version that's taking so long to code.

 

Originally they were gonna release the PS3 & 360 versions in October, and the PC version in Jan or Feb, but now they're gonna release them all simultaneously it in about 6 months.

it was both consoles fault!

[Hayden Stasven]

I'm not going to read all seven pages to check if someone's already said this but just gonna say what I've been told. A friend of mine was talking to me on WLM, and according to Gamespot (he's an insider) they've got the PS3 version fully coded and ready for release next month. It's the Xbox 360 version that's taking so long to code.

 

Originally they were gonna release the PS3 & 360 versions in October, and the PC version in Jan or Feb, but now they're gonna release them all simultaneously it in about 6 months.

it was both consoles fault!

Okay, so you have some kinda of proof or reason to back this up?

[tommy vs. claude]

hmm.... R*, you can ask any sane person on this forum for it, i only listen to the sane people one here

[WolfenVic]

Okay, so you have some kinda of proof or reason to back this up?

It was in fact both consoles fault. All sane people know that. It's just the dreamers who say it was one or the others or a whole other systesms fault. I mean get on the train. The 360 is the most done and the PS3 is not far behind according to Rockstar's damage control.

[FelipeVinhao]

While there are no official news, topics like "it was <put your friend's console here> fault" are only a bunch of rumours like the Bigfoot and the Leatherface were in GTASA.

 

The only official news about game development said that PS3 was only 2 weeks behind Xbox 360. 2 weeks, not 3-4 months. If it was really PS3 fault, it'd be delayed for November, not next year.

[MMFF]

Umm, I'm not gonna read through eight pages, so if this has been said already, shoot me. It is not the PS3s fault. It is not the 360s fault. It is Rockstars fault. They set a date that they could not make, so it is their own fault.

[TaKKtiX]

^^^^

I agree,Though i think the development for the ps3 lead to the delay,Rockstar is the ones to blame,They should of covered all their bases and made sure that they could do it in time before giving us a release date that wasnt plausible

[Snake Without a Tongue]

Assuming R* was telling the truth when they said PS3 was just a few weeks behind, and recalling that the demo shown at E3 had no cars or people in it, and combining this with the taxing expectations of next gen graphics and no load times...

 

I don't think R* had the goods. I think the PR wing was cut off from the development wing and there simply wasn't a game yet. So... I'm ready to stop bashing the PS3 until further notice.

[FelipeVinhao]

Umm, I'm not gonna read through eight pages, so if this has been said already, shoot me. It is not the PS3s fault. It is not the 360s fault. It is Rockstars fault. They set a date that they could not make, so it is their own fault.

I wouldn't call it "fault", once shít happens. But I also think the problem was on Rockstar's hands.

[mattsgames]

Its the wiis fault!!!