They must add Infinite Worlds like Mojang did on PC and PE.
Because in the future, there'll be updates that will make the world size currently on Xbox One and PS4 too small (let alone X360 and PS3 world size)
1.7.2 (The Update That Changed The World), that update alone adds like 7-8 new biomes with all It's variations (21 overall)
1.8 (Bountiful Update), that will add several new generated structures including Ocean Monuments and Underground terrains
So, all I'm saying is that wouldn't be feasible unless they add PC world size, save file size limits? How does an Iphone handle it then with It's really small SD Card? If that's really is the problem, then why not display a warning when choosing the 'Infinite Size' option when creating a new world, 'Might take lots of HDD space'. DONE!
Atleast add them to Xbox One or PS4, look at a game called No Man's Sky on PS4, It generates an Infinite amount of space (like Billions and billions of randomly generated planets), all randomly generated (like Minecraft, even bigger than Minecraft on PC). Maybe 4J would Infinite Worlds with Realms? Dedicated servers or things like that? 4J Studios must figure out a way to add it, at least on current gen systems if they couldn't on last gen systems. What are your thoughts guys? Agree? Or Disagree?
We want Infinite Worlds, It's what keeping Minecraft interesting on PC and PE, explore endlessly, It gives that feeling of real exploration, not knowing what'll come next, but on consoles, you know the world size is going to end. It sucks, my friends are playing on PC and they're saying It's alot better when you have almost endless world size.
Wait, are you serious?? XONE/PS4 can't handle Infinite Worlds? I'm saying a smartphone can handle them. Maybe when they release Realms dedicated servers, do you think so? Minecraft sucks on consoles, even on Xbox One and PS4, I'm really disappointed when I bought the Xbox One version, It's the same game, that's why some people dislike the console versions, they really are boring, and 4J Studios don't even consider about giving us news and updates about what's next, still 8 players online, limited mobs cap like last gen, still limited world size, still in 1.6 not even in 1.7.2, no skin editor, no mods.
I have a PC that can run Minecraft but I don't like it on PC like my friends do,that sucks, that really REALLY SUCKS!
Atleast add Infinite Worlds in a future update on XONE version atleast, 4jsteve, please reply!
I agree with OndAngel... as much as people would like to see it happen, it's just not going to.
People think they really need infinite worlds because they've geared their thinking towards having everything in one world from playing on the PC. Playing on the Xbox and other consoles just requires a slightly different mindset. There is already an infinite variety of different worlds is already at your fingertips. Just start another world and build it up on a different theme than your other ones. Yes, you won't get every block in every world upon creation... but you can go into creative mode and introduce whatever blocks you need.
If you want to stay in survival mode only, then just survive using whatever "limited" resources that particular world has and do without whatever it doesn't... it actually makes survival more like SURVIVAL should be... where getting anything isn't guaranteed and sometimes you just have to do without as best you can. (It's one reason why my favorite survival game is a survival island one on the Xbox 360 - resources are very limited (usually no chickens or animals of any kind) and there are no guarantees that you'll even be able to enchant (if the island world doesn't have sugarcanes). One island world I really enjoyed didn't even have a single tree - yeah, I eventually ran out of wood (just found in mineshafts), but it was fun to see how far I could get into the game without a growing wood source anywhere on the map.
^^^^^ So instead of agreeing with my points, you just said that 'It's not going to happen', and went on saying that It's more challenging to survive and things like that, why not just push 4J Studios to add it by sending them tweets and other stuff, just like when people wanted Manual Crafting, they got them by pushing 4J to add them, Skins Editor, I've heard that they're testing on them right now, that means they're working on it, then why not Infinite Worlds? That means you agree with mediocrity, I still can't believe how the Pocket Edition have Infinite Worlds and not Xbox One or PS4.
Why not just add it in a future update, and when people want to create new 'infinite' worlds, just display a warning when someone wants to choose it by saying 'Might take lots of HDD Space, use it at your own risk'.
I'm telling ya, the world size on XONE and PS4 are going to get too small in the future updates, you'll say that I'm right at the end.
That will be a win-win situation for people that want limited and unlimited worlds, Am I right??
Look at it this way; a computer with the specs of an Xbox 360 (about 512mb RAM, 3-core 3.2GHz processor, and I believe a 500MHz GPU), I doubt it'd run Minecraft at all
Well, my computer has a 2.2 GHz dual-core CPU (i.e. 4.4 total vs 9.6 for the XBox 360; of course, that isn't a good comparison), a 400 MHz GPU, and 3 GB of 400 MHz DDR (the Xbox uses 700 MHz GDDR3) RAM (1 GB max for Java due to a 32 bit OS, the game itself only uses 200-300 though) and runs 1.6.4 at around 80-100 FPS (without Optifine) on Normal (8 chunk) render distance - and can even push 600 FPS with Optifine (I presume the CE is more optimized than the PC) on minimum settings:
(note that the system requirements have since been increased, despite claims of optimizations, hence why I still play on 1.6.4, among other reasons)
Also, as for world size, based on one of my worlds each chunk takes up only 5 KB of disk space; 154 MB for 31,523 chunks; and a 864x864 world is only 2,916 chunks or about 14.5 MB (assuming they use the same or similar chunk format and compression) - this suggests that something else, such as storage limits, is limiting the world size but that should be determined by the amount of storage available, not the lowest common denominator (anything from 64 MB to 320 GB according to Wikipedia).
^^^^^ So instead of agreeing with my points, you just said that 'It's not going to happen', and went on saying that It's more challenging to survive and things like that, why not just push 4J Studios to add it by sending them tweets and other stuff, just like when people wanted Manual Crafting, they got them by pushing 4J to add them, Skins Editor, I've heard that they're testing on them right now, that means they're working on it, then why not Infinite Worlds? That means you agree with mediocrity, I still can't believe how the Pocket Edition have Infinite Worlds and not Xbox One or PS4.
Why not just add it in a future update, and when people want to create new 'infinite' worlds, just display a warning when someone wants to choose it by saying 'Might take lots of HDD Space, use it at your own risk'.
I'm telling ya, the world size on XONE and PS4 are going to get too small in the future updates, you'll say that I'm right at the end.
That will be a win-win situation for people that want limited and unlimited worlds, Am I right??
A) Your post replying to OndAngel had not appeared yet when I was writing mine... so don't give me flack about not addressing points you made, OK. I shouldn't have to retype all the points that OndAngel made... I think my saying I agreed with him/her should be clear enough.
B ) It's not going to happen because Mojang, Microsoft and 4J agreed a LOOOONNNG time ago to program the Xbox 360 edition so that the chunks load in a particular way that is different than either the PC edition and the PE editions load chunks. So, without reprogramming the entire game to load the chunks differently, the Xbox 360 and even the Xbox One CANNOT load infinite worlds. Will they make such a costly change for the Xbox 360 and PS3? No way... it's not economic for them to do so because not enough NEW sales of the game would result from the change to make it economic (the Xbox 360 and PS3 are well on their way to being totally obsolete). People who are just getting free updates now are not pouring new money into this game at all. Would it be worth it to the company economically to reprogram the Xbox One and PS4 editions... I also doubt it, mostly because they were well aware of the demand for "infinite" worlds when they decided to program the Xbox One edition for just a larger world. However, they could decide to change it... it's their business choice, not mine. Personally, I think they would lose money on it... since the compulsive complainers about this still wouldn't be buying the game (again)... so not enough new sales would be generated from it to make it pay. Why should I be in favor of Mojang, Microsoft and 4J making a profit?... Well, if the company goes bankrupt trying to cater to a bunch of players who wouldn't spend more on the game anyways, no one would get updates after that, period.
So yeah, my point is that the consoles have been given lemons; might as well MAKE LEMONADE! There are ways to enjoy playing on the Xbox 360 in a small world, you just have to open your mind... but if you want to spend eternity being miserable over the lack of "infinite" space on a single world instead of just clicking a button or two to load a different world, then go for it. Will I complain if they do bring it in... no... because I'm happy either way!
Programming the game so that it would load old worlds the old way and new worlds the new way would likely really up the amount of space the GAME itself takes on the hard drive. Remember, the program itself takes up space, not just the worlds that people create... People have an option of how much space they devote to new Minecraft worlds (you can create as many as you like until your hard drive is full); but everyone who plays the game regardless of the size of their hard drive, has to essentially download the update to play the game (at least to play it online with others). If you increase the amount of space the game takes up by a whole bunch... then people without large hard drives would lose out completely. Also, Xbox Live already does a major choke and puke (i.e. slooooow download times) whenever a Minecraft update comes out... what do you think would happen if the update sizes get a whole lot larger?
Damn, I'm impressed. I know it's possible to run most games even if you don't meet minimum requirements, but I didn't realise it could run so well.
FWIW, I was on here for the system specs. Not sure if that's changed much since 1.6.4, although I'm not sure what version PC is on at the moment either. Haven't played it since 1.6 PC came out.
Here's a link to an archived copy of the system requirements as of July 6, 2013 (1.6 was released on July 1, 2013); the current requirements were last updated in December 2013, just before they started working on 1.8 (released in September 2014; they more recently updated the recommended Java version to Java 8 but otherwise didn't change anything else):
Aside from memory, which is still the same as today (2 GB minimum, 4 GB recommended; I've never had any issues though; e.g. disk swapping/low memory/etc with around 2 GB used total while playing, leaving 1 GB free), and CPU speed (though they only list the Athlon 64, not the dual-core X2; Minecraft is often cited as being a single-threaded program but it actually runs two main threads for the server and client, so having a dual-core or better CPU benefits (this is also supported by the observation that versions older than 1.3.1 have significantly more lag spikes; 1.3.1 is when singleplayer went to a client-server model). I also suspect that the 3.2 GHz of the Xbox's CPU is not equivalent to desktop PC CPUs).
Also, my computer definitely does not run current PC versions that well - let's just say that even on minimum settings the server can't keep up and I get 10-20 FPS (minus significant lag spikes) in the latest snapshots. This is largely due to code rewrites which are supposed to improve performance but only certain (newer? I've seen reports of performance issues with rather new hardware as well) hardware has benefited (I've seen people with arguably worse computers run the game better in 1.8 than in older versions, including 1.6.4).
Anyway, the claim that they would need to completely recode the game so it can unload unneeded chunks from memory (why keep every chunk loaded? If this is an issue of e.g. disk IO you don't need much if compression is used; on the PC a render distance of 10 loads 441 chunks or about 2.2 MB of on-disk data and only some chunks will be loading/unloading as you move around; in my experience chunk loading is CPU-bound, hence why 1.8 multithreaded chunk loading) doesn't fly - it should be trivial to unload chunks more than a certain distance from the player, if they do in fact use chunks and don't treat the world as one huge block of terrain (which would have major issues).
Here's a link to an archived copy of the system requirements as of July 6, 2013 (1.6 was released on July 1, 2013); the current requirements were last updated in December 2013, just before they started working on 1.8 (released in September 2014; they more recently updated the recommended Java version to Java 8 but otherwise didn't change anything else):
Aside from memory, which is still the same as today (2 GB minimum, 4 GB recommended; I've never had any issues though; e.g. disk swapping/low memory/etc with around 2 GB used total while playing, leaving 1 GB free), and CPU speed (though they only list the Athlon 64, not the dual-core X2; Minecraft is often cited as being a single-threaded program but it actually runs two main threads for the server and client, so having a dual-core or better CPU benefits (this is also supported by the observation that versions older than 1.3.1 have significantly more lag spikes; 1.3.1 is when singleplayer went to a client-server model). I also suspect that the 3.2 GHz of the Xbox's CPU is not equivalent to desktop PC CPUs).
Also, my computer definitely does not run current PC versions that well - let's just say that even on minimum settings the server can't keep up and I get 10-20 FPS (minus significant lag spikes) in the latest snapshots. This is largely due to code rewrites which are supposed to improve performance but only certain (newer? I've seen reports of performance issues with rather new hardware as well) hardware has benefited (I've seen people with arguably worse computers run the game better in 1.8 than in older versions, including 1.6.4).
Anyway, the claim that they would need to completely recode the game so it can unload unneeded chunks from memory (why keep every chunk loaded? If this is an issue of e.g. disk IO you don't need much if compression is used; on the PC a render distance of 10 loads 441 chunks or about 2.2 MB of on-disk data and only some chunks will be loading/unloading as you move around; in my experience chunk loading is CPU-bound, hence why 1.8 multithreaded chunk loading) doesn't fly - it should be trivial to unload chunks more than a certain distance from the player, if they do in fact use chunks and don't treat the world as one huge block of terrain (which would have major issues).
As I understand it the chunks load on the Xbox as players enter areas but do not unload as they leave areas and this is what supports drop in/drop out multiplayer both online (without the use of a full-time server just a host Xbox) and in local offline splitscreen mode (a feature neither the PC or PE editions has to deal with).
Ok People, If they implement Realms or Dedicated Servers, do you guys think we'll FINALLY have Infinite Worlds like on PC and PE?? I hope they do this solution! Please 4jsteve, reply!!
Ok People, If they implement Realms or Dedicated Servers, do you guys think we'll FINALLY have Infinite Worlds like on PC and PE?? I hope they do this solution! Please 4jsteve, reply!!
I still don't think they'll do it. At this point, they are very unlikely to drop splitscreen to incorporate the sort of chunk loading that supports the infinite worlds.
I could see the OP's mentality after his 2nd post. He wasn't here to learn anything, or to have any kind of a civil discussion. He wanted to impose his mindset, and when that went nowhere, he had a little tantrum.
It wasn't a waste though, for me anyway. It hadn't occurred to me about the difference in chunk loading. It makes perfect sense. If all chunks need to stay loaded, there is no way to make so-called "infinite" worlds. No way at all.
4JSteve have said it a million times that It's not a split-screen issue, maybe it can be done by off loading calculations to the cloud, am I right?? Isn't Minecraft Realms coming? So, here's hoping that It'll fix the problem and finally add 'Infinite' worlds.
Sorry If I used any profanity, really sorry guys, I was angry of something else that time.
4JSteve have said it a million times that It's not a split-screen issue, maybe it can be done by off loading calculations to the cloud, am I right?? Isn't Minecraft Realms coming? So, here's hoping that It'll fix the problem and finally add 'Infinite' worlds.
Sorry If I used any profanity, really sorry guys, I was angry of something else that time.
Can you post a link to where 4JSteve said it? Thanks.
Have you about an indie game calledUCraft is a game coming to Wii U (or already released, I don't know) that will have Infinite Worlds, considering that the Wii U only has 8GB to 32GB of HDD, and 1GB of RAM and a generation behind XONE/PS4 in terms of horsepower. Go Google it!
I remember that now thanks and stand corrected. Still doesn't make sense to me then why the only devices that do have infinite worlds are the ones that don't have splitscreen; but it is what it is. I still don't think 4J will implement infinite worlds on the Xbox 360 but if they prove me wrong someday and don't forfeit splitscreen in the process, I certainly wouldn't complain... as I said, I'm happy with the way it is now, but would adapt to the change if they made it... just not going to hold my breath being miserable waiting for it. It still sounds like a whole lot of other things would have to change before you'll be happy... so why not invest in playing on the PC instead. People should play where they're happiest (IMO).
^^^^^ I think you are right 100%, I'll just figure out how to play it on PC, here's hoping that It'll have Infinite Worlds (If they figured out a way to do it) when TU30 comes out on Xbox One. It'll be FUN!
UpUp_Away95, sorry If I used profanity, REALLY SORRY! I was wrong.
Have you about an indie game calledUCraft is a game coming to Wii U (or already released, I don't know) that will have Infinite Worlds, considering that the Wii U only has 8GB to 32GB of HDD, and 1GB of RAM and a generation behind XONE/PS4 in terms of horsepower. Go Google it!
Apples aren't oranges. If you want to play UCraft, play it... it's a different game than Minecraft... and that's your cue to tell me all the differences that make you want to play Minecraft... they're different games.
The size of the map on the consoles is due to file size limitations. Current gen versions of MC have larger worlds not because they can handle more data but because MS/Sony have allowed for larger save files than last gen consoles.
Its that simple. There's nothing nefarious going on. It's not because of "laziness" or anything. It's simply due to file size allocation limits.
From the wiki:
While the map is infinite, the number of blocks the player may walk
on is limited. The map contains a world border at +/- 30,000,000 x/z.
The world border is an animated wall of blue stripes. As you get near
it, the edges of your screen turn red, and you can not go past it. There
is nothing past 16 blocks after the wall, just emptiness.
Because of these limitations the maximum blocks that can be generated
in a world is approximately 921,600,000,000,000,000. This means that a
filled world with no entities or tile entities would be
3,686,400,000,000,000,000 bits (409.27261579781770706 Petabytes) in
block data alone due to the fact that each standard block is assigned 4
bits of information. The total area of this is about 8 times the surface
of the Earth.
If you really want "infinite" worlds, the developer can probably make it happen (forget file limits for the sake of the argument)... but your world wouldn't fit on the HDD, so what would be the point?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They must add Infinite Worlds like Mojang did on PC and PE.
Because in the future, there'll be updates that will make the world size currently on Xbox One and PS4 too small (let alone X360 and PS3 world size)
1.7.2 (The Update That Changed The World), that update alone adds like 7-8 new biomes with all It's variations (21 overall)
1.8 (Bountiful Update), that will add several new generated structures including Ocean Monuments and Underground terrains
So, all I'm saying is that wouldn't be feasible unless they add PC world size, save file size limits? How does an Iphone handle it then with It's really small SD Card? If that's really is the problem, then why not display a warning when choosing the 'Infinite Size' option when creating a new world, 'Might take lots of HDD space'. DONE!
Atleast add them to Xbox One or PS4, look at a game called No Man's Sky on PS4, It generates an Infinite amount of space (like Billions and billions of randomly generated planets), all randomly generated (like Minecraft, even bigger than Minecraft on PC). Maybe 4J would Infinite Worlds with Realms? Dedicated servers or things like that? 4J Studios must figure out a way to add it, at least on current gen systems if they couldn't on last gen systems. What are your thoughts guys? Agree? Or Disagree?
We want Infinite Worlds, It's what keeping Minecraft interesting on PC and PE, explore endlessly, It gives that feeling of real exploration, not knowing what'll come next, but on consoles, you know the world size is going to end. It sucks, my friends are playing on PC and they're saying It's alot better when you have almost endless world size.
Wait, are you serious?? XONE/PS4 can't handle Infinite Worlds? I'm saying a smartphone can handle them. Maybe when they release Realms dedicated servers, do you think so? Minecraft sucks on consoles, even on Xbox One and PS4, I'm really disappointed when I bought the Xbox One version, It's the same game, that's why some people dislike the console versions, they really are boring, and 4J Studios don't even consider about giving us news and updates about what's next, still 8 players online, limited mobs cap like last gen, still limited world size, still in 1.6 not even in 1.7.2, no skin editor, no mods.
I have a PC that can run Minecraft but I don't like it on PC like my friends do,that sucks, that really REALLY SUCKS!
Atleast add Infinite Worlds in a future update on XONE version atleast, 4jsteve, please reply!
I agree with OndAngel... as much as people would like to see it happen, it's just not going to.
People think they really need infinite worlds because they've geared their thinking towards having everything in one world from playing on the PC. Playing on the Xbox and other consoles just requires a slightly different mindset. There is already an infinite variety of different worlds is already at your fingertips. Just start another world and build it up on a different theme than your other ones. Yes, you won't get every block in every world upon creation... but you can go into creative mode and introduce whatever blocks you need.
If you want to stay in survival mode only, then just survive using whatever "limited" resources that particular world has and do without whatever it doesn't... it actually makes survival more like SURVIVAL should be... where getting anything isn't guaranteed and sometimes you just have to do without as best you can. (It's one reason why my favorite survival game is a survival island one on the Xbox 360 - resources are very limited (usually no chickens or animals of any kind) and there are no guarantees that you'll even be able to enchant (if the island world doesn't have sugarcanes). One island world I really enjoyed didn't even have a single tree - yeah, I eventually ran out of wood (just found in mineshafts), but it was fun to see how far I could get into the game without a growing wood source anywhere on the map.
^^^^^ So instead of agreeing with my points, you just said that 'It's not going to happen', and went on saying that It's more challenging to survive and things like that, why not just push 4J Studios to add it by sending them tweets and other stuff, just like when people wanted Manual Crafting, they got them by pushing 4J to add them, Skins Editor, I've heard that they're testing on them right now, that means they're working on it, then why not Infinite Worlds? That means you agree with mediocrity, I still can't believe how the Pocket Edition have Infinite Worlds and not Xbox One or PS4.
Why not just add it in a future update, and when people want to create new 'infinite' worlds, just display a warning when someone wants to choose it by saying 'Might take lots of HDD Space, use it at your own risk'.
I'm telling ya, the world size on XONE and PS4 are going to get too small in the future updates, you'll say that I'm right at the end.
That will be a win-win situation for people that want limited and unlimited worlds, Am I right??
Well, my computer has a 2.2 GHz dual-core CPU (i.e. 4.4 total vs 9.6 for the XBox 360; of course, that isn't a good comparison), a 400 MHz GPU, and 3 GB of 400 MHz DDR (the Xbox uses 700 MHz GDDR3) RAM (1 GB max for Java due to a 32 bit OS, the game itself only uses 200-300 though) and runs 1.6.4 at around 80-100 FPS (without Optifine) on Normal (8 chunk) render distance - and can even push 600 FPS with Optifine (I presume the CE is more optimized than the PC) on minimum settings:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/discussion/168748-how-many-fps-do-you-guys-get-when-you-play?comment=615
(note that the system requirements have since been increased, despite claims of optimizations, hence why I still play on 1.6.4, among other reasons)
Also, as for world size, based on one of my worlds each chunk takes up only 5 KB of disk space; 154 MB for 31,523 chunks; and a 864x864 world is only 2,916 chunks or about 14.5 MB (assuming they use the same or similar chunk format and compression) - this suggests that something else, such as storage limits, is limiting the world size but that should be determined by the amount of storage available, not the lowest common denominator (anything from 64 MB to 320 GB according to Wikipedia).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
A) Your post replying to OndAngel had not appeared yet when I was writing mine... so don't give me flack about not addressing points you made, OK. I shouldn't have to retype all the points that OndAngel made... I think my saying I agreed with him/her should be clear enough.
B ) It's not going to happen because Mojang, Microsoft and 4J agreed a LOOOONNNG time ago to program the Xbox 360 edition so that the chunks load in a particular way that is different than either the PC edition and the PE editions load chunks. So, without reprogramming the entire game to load the chunks differently, the Xbox 360 and even the Xbox One CANNOT load infinite worlds. Will they make such a costly change for the Xbox 360 and PS3? No way... it's not economic for them to do so because not enough NEW sales of the game would result from the change to make it economic (the Xbox 360 and PS3 are well on their way to being totally obsolete). People who are just getting free updates now are not pouring new money into this game at all. Would it be worth it to the company economically to reprogram the Xbox One and PS4 editions... I also doubt it, mostly because they were well aware of the demand for "infinite" worlds when they decided to program the Xbox One edition for just a larger world. However, they could decide to change it... it's their business choice, not mine. Personally, I think they would lose money on it... since the compulsive complainers about this still wouldn't be buying the game (again)... so not enough new sales would be generated from it to make it pay. Why should I be in favor of Mojang, Microsoft and 4J making a profit?... Well, if the company goes bankrupt trying to cater to a bunch of players who wouldn't spend more on the game anyways, no one would get updates after that, period.
So yeah, my point is that the consoles have been given lemons; might as well MAKE LEMONADE! There are ways to enjoy playing on the Xbox 360 in a small world, you just have to open your mind... but if you want to spend eternity being miserable over the lack of "infinite" space on a single world instead of just clicking a button or two to load a different world, then go for it. Will I complain if they do bring it in... no... because I'm happy either way!
Programming the game so that it would load old worlds the old way and new worlds the new way would likely really up the amount of space the GAME itself takes on the hard drive. Remember, the program itself takes up space, not just the worlds that people create... People have an option of how much space they devote to new Minecraft worlds (you can create as many as you like until your hard drive is full); but everyone who plays the game regardless of the size of their hard drive, has to essentially download the update to play the game (at least to play it online with others). If you increase the amount of space the game takes up by a whole bunch... then people without large hard drives would lose out completely. Also, Xbox Live already does a major choke and puke (i.e. slooooow download times) whenever a Minecraft update comes out... what do you think would happen if the update sizes get a whole lot larger?
Here's a link to an archived copy of the system requirements as of July 6, 2013 (1.6 was released on July 1, 2013); the current requirements were last updated in December 2013, just before they started working on 1.8 (released in September 2014; they more recently updated the recommended Java version to Java 8 but otherwise didn't change anything else):
https://web.archive.org/web/20130819173020/http://help.mojang.com/customer/portal/articles/325948-minecraft-system-requirements
Aside from memory, which is still the same as today (2 GB minimum, 4 GB recommended; I've never had any issues though; e.g. disk swapping/low memory/etc with around 2 GB used total while playing, leaving 1 GB free), and CPU speed (though they only list the Athlon 64, not the dual-core X2; Minecraft is often cited as being a single-threaded program but it actually runs two main threads for the server and client, so having a dual-core or better CPU benefits (this is also supported by the observation that versions older than 1.3.1 have significantly more lag spikes; 1.3.1 is when singleplayer went to a client-server model). I also suspect that the 3.2 GHz of the Xbox's CPU is not equivalent to desktop PC CPUs).
Also, my computer definitely does not run current PC versions that well - let's just say that even on minimum settings the server can't keep up and I get 10-20 FPS (minus significant lag spikes) in the latest snapshots. This is largely due to code rewrites which are supposed to improve performance but only certain (newer? I've seen reports of performance issues with rather new hardware as well) hardware has benefited (I've seen people with arguably worse computers run the game better in 1.8 than in older versions, including 1.6.4).
Anyway, the claim that they would need to completely recode the game so it can unload unneeded chunks from memory (why keep every chunk loaded? If this is an issue of e.g. disk IO you don't need much if compression is used; on the PC a render distance of 10 loads 441 chunks or about 2.2 MB of on-disk data and only some chunks will be loading/unloading as you move around; in my experience chunk loading is CPU-bound, hence why 1.8 multithreaded chunk loading) doesn't fly - it should be trivial to unload chunks more than a certain distance from the player, if they do in fact use chunks and don't treat the world as one huge block of terrain (which would have major issues).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
As I understand it the chunks load on the Xbox as players enter areas but do not unload as they leave areas and this is what supports drop in/drop out multiplayer both online (without the use of a full-time server just a host Xbox) and in local offline splitscreen mode (a feature neither the PC or PE editions has to deal with).
Ok People, If they implement Realms or Dedicated Servers, do you guys think we'll FINALLY have Infinite Worlds like on PC and PE?? I hope they do this solution! Please 4jsteve, reply!!
I still don't think they'll do it. At this point, they are very unlikely to drop splitscreen to incorporate the sort of chunk loading that supports the infinite worlds.
I could see the OP's mentality after his 2nd post. He wasn't here to learn anything, or to have any kind of a civil discussion. He wanted to impose his mindset, and when that went nowhere, he had a little tantrum.
It wasn't a waste though, for me anyway. It hadn't occurred to me about the difference in chunk loading. It makes perfect sense. If all chunks need to stay loaded, there is no way to make so-called "infinite" worlds. No way at all.
4JSteve have said it a million times that It's not a split-screen issue, maybe it can be done by off loading calculations to the cloud, am I right?? Isn't Minecraft Realms coming? So, here's hoping that It'll fix the problem and finally add 'Infinite' worlds.
Sorry If I used any profanity, really sorry guys, I was angry of something else that time.
Can you post a link to where 4JSteve said it? Thanks.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-xbox-360-edition/mcx360-discussion/2010216-splitscreen-or-larger-worlds-edited
And you said it too in that thread
Have you about an indie game calledUCraft is a game coming to Wii U (or already released, I don't know) that will have Infinite Worlds, considering that the Wii U only has 8GB to 32GB of HDD, and 1GB of RAM and a generation behind XONE/PS4 in terms of horsepower. Go Google it!
I remember that now thanks and stand corrected. Still doesn't make sense to me then why the only devices that do have infinite worlds are the ones that don't have splitscreen; but it is what it is. I still don't think 4J will implement infinite worlds on the Xbox 360 but if they prove me wrong someday and don't forfeit splitscreen in the process, I certainly wouldn't complain... as I said, I'm happy with the way it is now, but would adapt to the change if they made it... just not going to hold my breath being miserable waiting for it. It still sounds like a whole lot of other things would have to change before you'll be happy... so why not invest in playing on the PC instead. People should play where they're happiest (IMO).
^^^^^ I think you are right 100%, I'll just figure out how to play it on PC, here's hoping that It'll have Infinite Worlds (If they figured out a way to do it) when TU30 comes out on Xbox One. It'll be FUN!
UpUp_Away95, sorry If I used profanity, REALLY SORRY! I was wrong.
Apples aren't oranges. If you want to play UCraft, play it... it's a different game than Minecraft... and that's your cue to tell me all the differences that make you want to play Minecraft... they're different games.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-xbox-360-edition/mcx360-discussion/2503224-map-limit-question#c3
I had asked basically the same, just expanding world size and the replies were why 4J cant or wont likely be doing so for the 360
Perpetually negative
Its that simple. There's nothing nefarious going on. It's not because of "laziness" or anything. It's simply due to file size allocation limits.
From the wiki:
If you really want "infinite" worlds, the developer can probably make it happen (forget file limits for the sake of the argument)... but your world wouldn't fit on the HDD, so what would be the point?