Ben-DutkaDid you know that people play Call of Duty on the PS3 enough to wear out the Blu-Ray lens?
Apparently, they do. And that's why Treyarch is including an optional texture install for the PlayStation 3 version of the upcoming blockbuster, Call of Duty: Black Ops II .
Game director David Vonderhaar confirmed as much in the official CoD forums , where he says installing the textures to the HDD doesn't give the PS3 version "any significant performance gains;" it's merely for the sake of Blu-Ray lens longevity. Here's the post:
"Black Ops 2 has an option to 'Install Textures to HDD.'
When we explained to PS3 folks that installing to the HDD wouldn't neccessarily give us any significant performance gains, they explained back that the issue is they play so much it puts constant stress on the Blu-ray drive and wears them out."
Vonderhaar added that this only takes up a "non-trivial amount of HDD space" and reminds everyone that it is indeed an option. They still pre-cache as they did in the first Black Ops . It's an interesting point because we haven't heard this from designers in the past…maybe CoD is just so damn addicting that people will play it for unhealthy amounts of time. Wouldn't any game wear out the Blu-Ray lens if played long enough?
Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Black Ops II
People do that and then they blame the hardware when it falls apart, stupid. You gotta baby your stuff these days.
The 360 has a feature to install any game, completely, onto its hard drive. I think PS3 should have that feature also. It makes the system way more quiter and cooler. Actually, my 360 runs way cooler/quiter than my ps3 slim due to the fact that I install all the games on its HDD. My PS3 on the other hand, gets hot pretty quickly. So, that's one feature where Sony should follow MS' idea.
PS3 has had it, it just depends on the developer to actually use it if I'm not mistaken. And if memory serves correctly MS didn't have that Idea in the beginning of the xbox, Sony had it since launch and later MS added it to the xbox.
It doesn't matter if it was Sony's idea at first, because it's MS who implemented it perfectly. Let the user decide if he wants to use his HDD space for better running of his console. That should be an OS feature(like on 360), not something dependant on the devs.
I'm not disagreeing, but saying it was MS's Idea is incorrect, that's all I'm saying.
No that wouldn't work.
First of all could you imagine having to install a 15-50 gig game ?
Second of all, some game take advantage of being able to get data from the hard drive and the disk. So if they made all games suddenly installable, it would cause problems.
Microsofts achieved this by not letting developers force people to have to install games. Which might help some consumers but does limit developers somewhat.
(seems the xbox reached its limit since halo 4 will require an install (as multiple sources of data can improve games), but that might have more to do with disks being filled)
So far the only game I have that does that is Soul Calibur IV. Do you guys know any other games? And yeah I think that is a cool feature because I have a ton of space.
You better have a massive hard drive, son.
No offense to you but that's complete nonsense. Installing the game completely to the HDD vs a partial install as done on the PS3 doesn't make your 360 run cooler than your PS3. The only thing that can make that happen is if your 360 is one of the newer models and your PS3 is not so new. The vast majority of the heat produced in either console comes from the PSU and CPU/GPU – not the optical drive.
@Highlander, my 360 is the Jasper model(the last non-slim model), and my PS3 is the 320 GB move bundle. And having a disc spin everytime DOES create more heat. That's simple physics, and is a generally accepted fact.
I doubt it would create more heat than a 5600RPM hard drive spinning like mad all game. Quieter, yes. Cooler, no.
Also, PS3 games hold a ton more data than 360 games. Heck, GT5 alone offers an option to download like 10GB of info to ASSIST in faster load times! Your HDD would fill up so fast with just 360GB. Especially if you were a PS+ member with all that content. I have a 500GB HDD I put into my system, and it's getting close to the 400GB mark. lol Looking at my collection on my wall, I wouldn't have even a quarter of them on my PS3 for a hard install. heh… probably not even 10% of them!
Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/24/2012 9:11:12 AM
Much of the heat in a console is coming from the silicon components processing and handling memory. I say, not a single 360 or like-system failed due to the heat produced by an optical drive. I'd argue that the heat produced by the HDD (hard DISK drive) rivals that of an optical drive. While HDD's may LOOK like little rectangle boxes, there's a disc platter inside that spins, spins FAST.
The key benefit of installing 360 games to the HDD is to cut down on noisy drive seeking and also a general boost to load times(usually) and data streaming.
I wont doubt that to some degree ambient console temperature drops by a small margin, seeing that the 360 hdd is located discrete from the other internal components and placed on the top end of the system via enclosure. I gander, that is one of the last concerns I'd have to change if wanting to make a significant difference in ambient heat related issues.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 9/24/2012 11:24:48 AM
PS3 HDD's are 5600 Rotations Per Minute, right? (Correct me if wrong please. I'd like to be sure. :p)
I don't think any disk player spins that many times in one minute.
@Iwillbetheone
Simple physics is the the law of conservation of energy – you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in. That's an immutable law of physics.
You stated "Actually, my 360 runs way cooler/quiter than my ps3 slim due to the fact that I install all the games on its HDD."
Here's the deal, the Jasper chipset 360 uses 150 watts and has that in an external power brick. Powersupplies are typically no more than about 75% efficient, so 25% of the energy they are rated to draw is given off as heat. The heat produced by the PSU is external to the 360, 38 watts or so is radiated by the PSU, leaving about 112 watts sent to the 360 the majority of which eventually becomes heat and is removed via the HSF, so your 360 is radiating a little over 100 watts (minus any energy used to generate sound – motor noise from fans, DVD and HDD; or light from system LEDs).
The PS3 slim on the other hand uses between 250 and 200 watts – depending on the model. Let's slit the difference and call it 230 watts. The PS3's power supply is inside the casing of the PS3. So regardless of it's efficiency all the heat generated is going to come out the exhaust vents of the PS3. Assuming 75% efficiency, the PSU is pushing out about 60 watts of heat and delivering nearly 170 watts to the mother board. Regardless of how it's created, that PS3 will push the majority of that 170 watts out the exhaust vents too, so the PS3 is going to be putting out more than twice the heat from the main unit as the 360 simply because it a) uses more power (230 watts vs 150 watts) and b) is a single integrated unit so all 230 watts are in the main unit unlike that 360.
In other words my friend, whether or not you install the game to the HDD on the 360 or the PS3 that PS3 will be putting out more heat than the 360. It has nothing to do with where your game is installed.
The HDD in the PS3 is 5400 RPM, you can safely install a 7200 rpm drive as long as the total power consumption is not greater than the original. In other words (and remembering the conservation of energy) a drive that uses 3 watts when writing and 2 watts when reading and 0.5 watts when idle will produce identical amounts of heat whether it runs at 5400 rpm, 7200 rpm or 10,000 rpm.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/24/2012 1:13:09 PM
720gb HDD Seagate which replaced the 320gb hitachigst that came with the system. It is now a backup/junk external HDD. I thought about getting 1 TB, but that seem like over kill and some fear mongering scared me away from it. I also thought about getting a faster rpm or a SSD, but same thing as before.
It should be enough =/. Anyways, next gen I'm suspecting HUGER HDD with faster rpm or SSD going to be in our ps4/xbox720 on launch. I think sony just testing it out with this new super slim. Heck, maybe even bigger clouds.
I for one, am glad that sony didn't do it they way microsoft did.
Hmmm, I play so long that I think I had better start praying to a higher power….
The God Of KratosBluRay
Haha. 😛 Praise Kratos!!
Um….this doesn't 'save' the blue Ray lens, it stops the BluRay drive from scanning it's little heart out back and forth to re-load the textures used.
He says it saves the bluray's drive in the quotes, I think ben must've misinterpreted them.
Probably inferring the laser. The early blue laser have shorter lives than the newer ones. Still in the 20-30,000 hour range, but even with that a significant number of lasers will fade and fail earlier since the lifetime numbers are always 'mean' numbers.
Of course after 5-6 years a well used PS3 has undergone 1000s of power cycles as well, which has aged the thermal compound on the HSF. Even the best thermal compounds start to degrade depending on age and how many thermal cycles they have handled. An infrequently used system that's well maintained will last longer, but a workhorse PS3 that's on for hours every day…well…
That's utterly illogical…
this story made me laugh out loud. apparently call of duty kids systems do. I was on another site yesterday there was somebody over there b**ching about his lens on his Ps3 beening burned out 3 times in the last 6 months. I told he probably plays call of duty all the time and the kid admit he did. and you know what else? the kid brought his system used from gamestop. Smh kids
lol, used… that is not a guarantee of any kind. lol
Used, from GameStop….says it all really.
A thumb of rule I always go by is never buy any electronics used, especially consoles.
Really? As I've been growing up, buying a system new meant I really couldn't get it at all.
Only console I ever bought new was my ps3 slim( not er ), and even then, it was only to have a system at a friends house (and he paid for like 1/4 of it)
My ps3 ate 2 copies of BF BC2 and 2 copies of BF3. So now I go all digital until I get a new ps3. Hell, maybe it is a conspiracy to force everyone to go all digital download. Sony wouldnt do that now … would it?
Let's be clear, it's for the longevity of the BD drive, not the lens. CoD games spin that drive something fierce every time it loads in the next mp map, which is every 10 minutes at LEAST, whereas you can spend an hour hanging out in Dragonsreach in Skyrim, and the drive stays idle.
Thing is, will installing texture maps to a hdd avoid the problem? I have my doubts. They should have opted for a full install.
I and many others have been pushing for this install feature on the COD forums since MW2. I personally talked to David Vonderhaar about this option at Call of Duty XP last Sept. I'm very happy that finally we will get at least a partial install for Black Ops 2. MW3 for example has put hundreds of hours of needless wear and tear on my BR drive when it could have been running from the Hard Drive. The Textures are the bulk of the reads done before a map loads from what I understand.
This is a great option and proof Treyarch are listening to the community.