A large part of the success of Minecraft on the XBox is also it's appeal to families... some with very young children who find it easier to manipulate the controller than a keyboard and mouse. Forfeiting splitscreen, as suggested by some above, would not increase the size of the world even enough to be significant and much of the game's appeal for families would be lost in the process. Without splitscreen, those families would have to purchase 4 computers to do what they can now do with just 1 XBox and 4 controllers. The proposal to increase world size by eliminating splitscreen is a "lose-lose" one for those reasons.
Your suggestion of linked map files has also been discussed to death, and 4J have said that those won't work with Minecraft on the XBox either (Ref: Minecon 2102).
Rehashing these old ideas doesn't bring anyone any closer to actually resolving the problem... it just creates an environment of constant complaining about the situation. After 8 months of hearing the complaints, 4J KNOW the problem; and I'm sure that they are still looking for a way to bring larger worlds to us. However, accept that they have seriously looked into all of the suggestions that have been offered up so far and discounted them for various reasons.
In the interim, for those people who absolutely cannot live without "infinite" Minecraft worlds, please do yourself a favor (and us) and enjoy the game while playing it in ON THE PC. I'm OK enjoying MCXBLA with a world that is a "limited" size; and from several of the comments above, many others here are OK with it as well. It's not crime to enjoy it on either system with whatever limitations each of those systems may or may not have.
To be honest I don't buy most of 4J/Mojang's excuses. They're quite content with how well the 360 version of Minecraft has sold, and don't see any real problem with the small worlds, but they don't want to appear dismissive so they pay the issue lip service. The fact is that insisting on 60 fps and split-screen multiplayer murder the chance for bigger worlds, and implementing options to turn those features off during world creation would require work they just don't see as commercially necessary. It really is that simple.
To be honest I don't buy most of 4J/Mojang's excuses. They're quite content with how well the 360 version of Minecraft has sold, and don't see any real problem with the small worlds, but they don't want to appear dismissive so they pay the issue lip service. The fact is that insisting on 60 fps and split-screen multiplayer murder the chance for bigger worlds, and implementing options to turn those features off during world creation would require work they just don't see as commercially necessary. It really is that simple.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Requesting the elimination of splitscreen, I think, is really selfish on the part of people who are merely used to having infinite PC worlds. They are essentially saying to families that play together on the XBox "Eff you, I want my infinite resources and the ability to just walk to a new portion of the map to start a new project. You can go out and buy 4 computers and 4 copies of the game instead." I would be really disappointed if 4J agreed to kill splitscreen just to cater to those demands.
Then there's the issue of how much larger people actually want the world to be. Let's face it, we're not talking about adding 64 chunks (16 blocks) onto one edge of the map. Adding a little bit of size to the world isn't going to stop the griping over this. The people who want larger worlds are demanding that a lot of RAM be free up for that feature. What 4J have said, whether you believe them or not, is that even eliminating splitscreen would make "little or no difference." If you read between those lines, they aren't saying it wouldn't free up some RAM, they are saying it wouldn't free up enough RAM to enlarge the world enough to pacify anyone.
As for 60 fps, It's true, many games run at 30 or 40. Whether or not this is adequate depends a lot on the genre of the game and the perception of what is adequate has been constantly changing. People expect games to run at higher framerates than they did back in the days of Pacman. Minecraft is also a little unique in that it isn't a sandbox with some PVP elements. It doesn't fit neatly into one genre. So, deciding what would be the minimum acceptable fps is a much more difficult judgment to make.
Games sacrifice top end fps in order to make the game appear to run without lag spikes. Those games run slower overall, but most people just don't notice that. What they notice are the moments there are high demands on the processor when the graphics lag. Whether or not lowering the base max fps to, say, 40 would stop the overloads on the processor (due to rain, lightning, mobs, lava, water, etc. kicking in), I don't know. 4J, though, should know and probably do. What I see are an awful lot of lag complaints here on the forums already and wonder how much worse that would be if they began to forfeit fps just to enlarge the worlds.
Really, is being able to cart an inventory around of a maximum of 32 different items from world to world vs. just collecting those items again or having the privilege of walking for eons to explore "new" terrain that you could explore by just starting a new map worth forfeiting a great money-saving feature like splitscreen or lagging the entire game into oblivion? I personally don't think it is and I think the people who just won't give a little to stop demanding an "infinite" world are, quite frankly, being very unreeasonable and completely self-centered. Sure, you don't have infinite resources on one world and you can't explore one world until Steve's feet fall off... but you can create as many new maps as your hard drive will hold... and more... on the cloud, on an expansion HDD, and on USB.
There are also some advantages to NOT having an extremely large world. (eg. you don't have to wall people in to play Hunger Games).
Put another way:
* Do I take the word of the Developers, who actually built and wrote the game, knows it (and the xbox) inside and out, and does the actual programming on it for a living 8 hrs/day?
* Or do I listen to someone who has… well, who hasn't actually done anything…. except think the Developers are "just making excuses"?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Requesting the elimination of splitscreen, I think, is really selfish on the part of people who are merely used to having infinite PC worlds. They are essentially saying to families that play together on the XBox "Eff you, I want my infinite resources and the ability to just walk to a new portion of the map to start a new project. You can go out and buy 4 computers and 4 copies of the game instead." I would be really disappointed if 4J agreed to kill splitscreen just to cater to those demands.
Err...when I said "implementing options to turn those off during world creation" how did you get "Eff you, I want my infinite resources and the ability to just walk to a new portion of the map to start a new project. You can go out and buy 4 computers and 4 copies of the game instead."? I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about giving players additional options, not taking any away.
Put another way:
* Do I take the word of the Developers, who actually built and wrote the game, knows it (and the xbox) inside and out, and does the actual programming on it for a living 8 hrs/day?
* Or do I listen to someone who has… well, who hasn't actually done anything…. except think the Developers are "just making excuses"?
Hummm.
Thinks, or Knows?
Duh!
It's totally your choice to believe the company line coming out of any game developer. Just keep in mind that they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain image. Just think about it. The 360 version of Minecraft has sold like 6 million copies (or so), and of the people who've bought it only a very small percentage are bothered by the tiny 862x862 worlds. As a company Mojang/4J could go out of their way to make that small percentage of people happier by creating a non-split-screen 30 fps mode (30 fps is what Halo plays at so it would be fine for Minecraft) with larger worlds (not necessarily infinite--2000x2000 would be a huge improvement), but that would take time and money they could spend elsewhere. So in the end it's easier to perpetually say "we're looking into it" while denying that split-screen and framerate have anything to do with the matter (though anyone who knows anything about computers knows that's nonsense--computers have finite resources and insisting on a high framerate/multiple displays is always going to affect other aspects of the game). Because in the end they want to dismiss the issue without appearing to be dismissive.
"implementing those options" will not let them increase the world size worth squat- if at all.
Sigh.
We're beating a dead horse here people...
You seriously think reducing the framerate and the maximum number of rendered perspectives from 4 to 1 wouldn't free up resources that could be dedicated towards bigger worlds? That completely goes against the fundamentals of how computers work.
i think the map should be as big as you want it to be, for example when you load the game you should be able to decide to expand the map, have it tell you how much memory it would take and what lag it might cause for online games, and let YOU DECIDE
The world isn't infinite ever even in pc minecraft there is a block limit in minecraft but it would take me at least 60 billion hours to reach
30trillion in one direction is a long way to go but this just to make a point that a world can only seem infinite they are never in actually infinite even the universe has a limit
While, I don't necessarily have a "problem" with the world size, it would be nice if they were bigger merely for the fact that if the world was close to PC size, I would be able to stay in the same world and go to a distant location in the world to start a new build instead of starting an entirely new one. Also it would make it so that I could experience new biomes after update instead of starting a new world, if I fully uncovered all of my current smaller one.
World size is fine, what I want is the Mipmaps removed, there not needed. (Tested with my Jtag) the game looks better & runs as far as I can tell at the same FPS, so not sure why they were added :-/ as there doesn't seem to be a performance drop.
Or at least they could change the filtering between the mimaps to make it less prominent.
Too lazy to click the link? This is the math the Redditor came up with.
1024 x 1024 = 1,048,576 <-- Number of surface blocks. 1 chunk = 16x16 = 256 1,048,576 / 256 = 4096 chunks Average of about 3 diamonds per chunk, so 4096 x 3 = 12,288.
I am going to have to say that I do believe the map size is adequate...
HOWEVER, that math is incorrect, I believe.
There are that many chunks, and there are ~that many blocks, but that many diamonds?
I don't think so.
The reason being is that even though there may be an average of around 3 diamonds per chunk or whatever, that is below a certain level of 16.
A more accurate amount of diamonds, in my estimation, is
1048576 * 16 = 16777216
16777216 / (16^2) = 65536
65536 / (256/3)? ( or 1/85 ) = ~771 diamonds.
I think.
I am merely disappointed with the size of the world because I love exploring and finding new and cool areas. I am limited in the xbox edition and cannot do that, i have to start a new map. My second reason why i dont like the map size is that i cannot get new features in my map.
According to every connoisseur of computers and gaming consoles xbox wouldnt be able to support a larger world because of RAM (xbox memory storage has nothing to do with decreased worlds). A good PC with 4gb (4096 mb) of RAM can support 30,0000,0000 x 30,000,000 (30million by 30million) sized worlds. Xbox RAM is 512mb, basically 8 times worse than the PC. 30,000,000 divided by 8 equals 3,750,000. But that wont happen, xbox's technology is 8 years old and you gotta make room for FPS, old processors, etc... With that being said, lets divide 3.75 million by 1 thousand. You get 3,750. According to everyone, xbox technology is 8,000 times worse than the PC's. That is a load of bs. The first computer sold publicly was not even 8,000 times worse than ones today. They could easily expand the map 4-fold. I know 4GB RAM PCs can once in a blue moon get that "minecraft has run out of memory" screen, but come on.... lets be real
We can still only have 8 people on a map at any given time.. Maybe if the players allowed on a map increased we would need a map increase as well. But for now, I believe the worlds are the perfect size.
Don't forget, we're not talking about "512mb" of ram free for worlds. The game itself takes up 150mb, and the sound files alone take up 50 mb… then there's the OS, etc. There's precious little ram left over for worlds. I'm sure they made it as big as they could. Considering that they're already "using all of it", any upgrades have to come from optimization of the existing code. For instance, would you give up all the coming upgrades (the End, enderdragon, spawn eggs, etc.), not to mention the ones we already have like potions, etc., just so it would free up enough memory that you could have "infinite" worlds?
So we're talking priories here people.
Would you rather have all your goodies in the current size world, or just the basic MC with no goodies in a larger world?
Well, you can't have it all. I think you infinite-world people would be severely outvoted. There's only so much room in the glass.
Aahh. Ok i understand a little better. But i dont know how a game like Castleminer Z has infinite worlds, granted it doesnt have as many features, but not THAT many less features than minecraft, surely. I'm just sayin i think its possible to double the world at least, cause the only thing that will prob take up more ram is the generation of the end and the enderdragon. I dont think the little spawn eggs or different colored wooden planks will add too much. But if i'm wrong, then i'd totally take the new features over the larger world size.
Sure Castleminer, Fortresscraft, Block Story, Block World, and some others have "infinite" worlds.
MC360 would also… if it didn't have as many features.
But they aren't MC, and (thank goodness) MC isn't them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To be honest I don't buy most of 4J/Mojang's excuses. They're quite content with how well the 360 version of Minecraft has sold, and don't see any real problem with the small worlds, but they don't want to appear dismissive so they pay the issue lip service. The fact is that insisting on 60 fps and split-screen multiplayer murder the chance for bigger worlds, and implementing options to turn those features off during world creation would require work they just don't see as commercially necessary. It really is that simple.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Requesting the elimination of splitscreen, I think, is really selfish on the part of people who are merely used to having infinite PC worlds. They are essentially saying to families that play together on the XBox "Eff you, I want my infinite resources and the ability to just walk to a new portion of the map to start a new project. You can go out and buy 4 computers and 4 copies of the game instead." I would be really disappointed if 4J agreed to kill splitscreen just to cater to those demands.
Then there's the issue of how much larger people actually want the world to be. Let's face it, we're not talking about adding 64 chunks (16 blocks) onto one edge of the map. Adding a little bit of size to the world isn't going to stop the griping over this. The people who want larger worlds are demanding that a lot of RAM be free up for that feature. What 4J have said, whether you believe them or not, is that even eliminating splitscreen would make "little or no difference." If you read between those lines, they aren't saying it wouldn't free up some RAM, they are saying it wouldn't free up enough RAM to enlarge the world enough to pacify anyone.
As for 60 fps, It's true, many games run at 30 or 40. Whether or not this is adequate depends a lot on the genre of the game and the perception of what is adequate has been constantly changing. People expect games to run at higher framerates than they did back in the days of Pacman. Minecraft is also a little unique in that it isn't a sandbox with some PVP elements. It doesn't fit neatly into one genre. So, deciding what would be the minimum acceptable fps is a much more difficult judgment to make.
Games sacrifice top end fps in order to make the game appear to run without lag spikes. Those games run slower overall, but most people just don't notice that. What they notice are the moments there are high demands on the processor when the graphics lag. Whether or not lowering the base max fps to, say, 40 would stop the overloads on the processor (due to rain, lightning, mobs, lava, water, etc. kicking in), I don't know. 4J, though, should know and probably do. What I see are an awful lot of lag complaints here on the forums already and wonder how much worse that would be if they began to forfeit fps just to enlarge the worlds.
Really, is being able to cart an inventory around of a maximum of 32 different items from world to world vs. just collecting those items again or having the privilege of walking for eons to explore "new" terrain that you could explore by just starting a new map worth forfeiting a great money-saving feature like splitscreen or lagging the entire game into oblivion? I personally don't think it is and I think the people who just won't give a little to stop demanding an "infinite" world are, quite frankly, being very unreeasonable and completely self-centered. Sure, you don't have infinite resources on one world and you can't explore one world until Steve's feet fall off... but you can create as many new maps as your hard drive will hold... and more... on the cloud, on an expansion HDD, and on USB.
There are also some advantages to NOT having an extremely large world. (eg. you don't have to wall people in to play Hunger Games).
Put another way:
* Do I take the word of the Developers, who actually built and wrote the game, knows it (and the xbox) inside and out, and does the actual programming on it for a living 8 hrs/day?
* Or do I listen to someone who has… well, who hasn't actually done anything…. except think the Developers are "just making excuses"?
Hummm.
Thinks, or Knows?
Duh!
Err...when I said "implementing options to turn those off during world creation" how did you get "Eff you, I want my infinite resources and the ability to just walk to a new portion of the map to start a new project. You can go out and buy 4 computers and 4 copies of the game instead."? I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about giving players additional options, not taking any away.
Sigh.
We're beating a dead horse here people...
It's totally your choice to believe the company line coming out of any game developer. Just keep in mind that they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain image. Just think about it. The 360 version of Minecraft has sold like 6 million copies (or so), and of the people who've bought it only a very small percentage are bothered by the tiny 862x862 worlds. As a company Mojang/4J could go out of their way to make that small percentage of people happier by creating a non-split-screen 30 fps mode (30 fps is what Halo plays at so it would be fine for Minecraft) with larger worlds (not necessarily infinite--2000x2000 would be a huge improvement), but that would take time and money they could spend elsewhere. So in the end it's easier to perpetually say "we're looking into it" while denying that split-screen and framerate have anything to do with the matter (though anyone who knows anything about computers knows that's nonsense--computers have finite resources and insisting on a high framerate/multiple displays is always going to affect other aspects of the game). Because in the end they want to dismiss the issue without appearing to be dismissive.
You seriously think reducing the framerate and the maximum number of rendered perspectives from 4 to 1 wouldn't free up resources that could be dedicated towards bigger worlds? That completely goes against the fundamentals of how computers work.
30trillion in one direction is a long way to go but this just to make a point that a world can only seem infinite they are never in actually infinite even the universe has a limit
Or at least they could change the filtering between the mimaps to make it less prominent.
I am going to have to say that I do believe the map size is adequate...
HOWEVER, that math is incorrect, I believe.
There are that many chunks, and there are ~that many blocks, but that many diamonds?
I don't think so.
The reason being is that even though there may be an average of around 3 diamonds per chunk or whatever, that is below a certain level of 16.
A more accurate amount of diamonds, in my estimation, is
1048576 * 16 = 16777216
16777216 / (16^2) = 65536
65536 / (256/3)? ( or 1/85 ) = ~771 diamonds.
I think.
So we're talking priories here people.
Would you rather have all your goodies in the current size world, or just the basic MC with no goodies in a larger world?
Well, you can't have it all. I think you infinite-world people would be severely outvoted. There's only so much room in the glass.
Sure Castleminer, Fortresscraft, Block Story, Block World, and some others have "infinite" worlds.
MC360 would also… if it didn't have as many features.
But they aren't MC, and (thank goodness) MC isn't them.