Square Enix: Next Gen Games Won’t Fit On One Blu-Ray Disc

One of the technical advantages PlayStation 3 had over Xbox 360 is its support for Blu-ray discs that can hold 50GB of data, but it seems that even this won’t be enough for next gen games.

Until now game designers used to create a high quality version of their game assets (items) to be used in FMVs and such, then drive a lower quality version from them for use in realtime game rendering. However, when Yoshihisa Hashimoto, the chief technical officer at Square Enix and his team ran out of time while developing their Luminous Engine E3 tech demo, they noticed that the next gen CPU and GPU are capable of rendering the high quality assets in real time.

As a result, the tech demo looked as impressive as a modern CGI movie but at the expense of its size.

"That's what we're expecting to do," he said. "For the backgrounds used in this - the mountains, the houses - we are using exactly the same assets as are used in the Visual Works CG version," Hashimoto explained. "Of course, it's too massive of a data to use in a game as-is, but I think the look and feel will probably remain. If we had time, we could've compressed the data even smaller. We didn't have time to do that, so we just used the same master data - but it can definitely be reduced."

When asked if the 50GB of storage space available on Blu-ray discs would be sufficient for such games, the technical director was not very confident they would. "Yeah, that could be a challenge. There's a possibility that just one Blu-ray may not be sufficient," he said. "We have to really consider the mechanism of compressing the data carefully."

You can watch the Luminous Engine E3 Tech Demo here.

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

space

I can just amagin have to get the largest hardrives you can afford, fill up your sata ports also fill up your pcix with sata3 cards fill them up with the largest harddrive you can afford get all the games you can offord and the is not enough space for you movies music gameisos how do you know with the most amount of hardive space dedecated for game and were they able to afford it let alone the games..sure im certain the cpu and the sli setup can run them all two haha.. You're a pimp. Pimps don't commit suicide.

If these 'next gen' games won

If these 'next gen' games won't fit on a single Blu-Ray then i guess it'll back to good old cartridges then.

Perhaps by then SSD's will be so cheap that we'll be buying games on them that allow the simplicity of plug 'n' play.

Interesting

Console architecture is far different than a personal computers architecture, that's why Console on PC emulation is extremely buggy, and doesn't work well. I do find this interesting to one day see full CG gaming, would make several games depth pretty damn entertaining. I am though a bit surprised they didn't consider the BDXL 100/125GB Triple Layer Blu-rays when they were talking about capacity (its been around for about 2 years now).

"that's why Console on PC

"that's why Console on PC emulation is extremely buggy" - Nope, if its buggy you can blame the emulator devs. What you should have said is "that's why we need emulators to run console games on pcs", otherwise people could realize you have no idea what emulators are and why they are needed ;)

but unfortunately videogames

but unfortunately videogames are not interactive movies.. they want to fool us into thinking that a better graphic means a better game, but it's not like this. we need a game that is enjoyable, stop with this next gen bullshit, i need to have fun!

I don't belive this

Well interesting reading, but this is totally bull s*hit =) I mean PC games are much smaller like about 5 - 15 gig and the graphic is much much much better compare to the consoles, and already today computers are much more powerful that next generation of consoles gonna be, so we should not believe everything we read =)

Cheers, Johann =)

Not true. If next gen

Not true. If next gen consoles come out and they are comparable component wise to a mid-range game pc, then the consoles will smoke Pc's in graphics for a couple of years. Consoles don't have a operating system or driver restictions holding them back. Look at the hardware in the XBOX 360, could a Pc with the same components even run one of those game at the lowest settings? Dont think so. Its a cycle that repeats it self, nothing new.

wrong

Total BS with the OS and driver restrictions comment, Both the PS3 and 360 use a modified OpenGL and Direct x 9 API, and there's no point to compare console OS with Pc OS when Pc's have 32x the amount of memory for system use, also next xbox will mostly likely have a low tier AMD gpu ie 6670 7670 etc, so how is that type of hardware going to out do Pc hardware that's already 12x faster. Also all you need to do is look at Crysis 2 running on an old ATI x1950 with equal settings and performance as the 360.

Consoles dont have different

Consoles dont have different specs (comparing same brand/model consoles of course), so an x360 will have the same CPU/GPU for both the original white version and for the black elite version. That allows microsoft to strip down and optimize both windows and directx for the consoles hardware making them much faster than their PC counterparts (which must be compatible with a hoard of different cards/components). Thats why when the current gen consoles were released they beat PC graphics even if the PCs had similar/better specs, of course that only lasts for a year or two, then PCs take the crown again. Besides you cant run crysis 2 with equal settings, you don't seem to realize how different the console and pc versions are.

What's with the fanboys

What's with the fanboys writing these articles?

It doesn't state anywhere that next gen games won't run on bray, he stated that there is a possibility. It was just the demo that took up a lot of space, mainly because they left almost everything uncompressed.

shit

craptastic way of twisting the facts in the headline while the citation the article uses says the exact opposite... who writes this shit?

Add new comment