The ram does not need to be used where the world is not loaded. Skyrim doesn't load the entire world into ram, only what is needed at that time is loaded. Minecraft 360 could possibly do the same, load only the parts of the world that the user can see or could potentially see. Like if the user is in 1 chunk, load the surrounding chunks. I can only guess the problem would be with how much Minecraft is allowed to occupy the hdd. I have worlds in the pc version the expand to 10 gb of hdd space and I would assume Microsoft would like to limit the size allowed for game data by permitting only a certain amount to each game. Though I could be wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If it already has been done then it can be done again" or
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
I think 60 fps is way more than a "tolerable" fps; most 360 games run about 30 fps. Also the game was completely redone in C++ which is less resource hogging than java, and the computer version only uses about 200mb of ram in the first place. So why can't they make the world infinite? Either they lack the talent or out of laziness, more than likely because of the later.
Actually virtually all games on the 360 run at 60 FPS, as is the standard with all current gen consoles(there may be a few that may not for one reason or another).
Anyways, everyone is neglecting one very important difference between the Xbox version, and the PC version, besides memory: The Xbox has to function as both server and client for Minecraft. That will eat up a lot of memory to do so in multiplayer mode, never mind the fact that it was stated in the Eurogamer interview that memory was the limiting factor for world size. Xbox already suffers from frame rate lag during times of heavy rendering. Now it may be possible to increase(and possibly necessary at a later time depending on how some of the later updates are implemented), but at this time map size is what it is, and nothing can be done regarding the matter at this time.
Because a bigger map makes the game have less fps. Microsoft would not want to sell a game at 10 fps. To make the game have more fps they had to decrease something. The most obvious choice would be to decrease the map size since there isn't much else to decrease. If they tinkered with the game a bit, they might be able to increase the world size, but I wouldn't have my hopes up.
Current consoles suck. They haven't released any new ones yet because of the cost. They are just dragging it out because they know they won't make much return on selling people consoles. Stuff like Kinect and leeching from publishers/games studios is where it's at. In the end what this means is games suffer and look rubbish compared to their PC counterparts. Also developers like Crytek and EA are moaning about current resources on consoles... They need to get a move on and release something soon.
Next gen consoles are coming soon, in fact I heard that Microsoft was thinking of going with the cell phone model, and people would "rent" thier systems with something like a 2 year contract. This would allow for systems to be "sold" for next to nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If it already has been done then it can be done again" or
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
Because a bigger map makes the game have less fps. Microsoft would not want to sell a game at 10 fps. To make the game have more fps they had to decrease something. The most obvious choice would be to decrease the map size since there isn't much else to decrease. If they tinkered with the game a bit, they might be able to increase the world size, but I wouldn't have my hopes up.
An infinite world would use as much resources as a 1000x1000 world. It only loads the chunks you are close to, in the infinite world the chunks generate as you get closer to them.
Higher definition textures would cause more of a problem than a larger world. The game only loads the world around you in few hundred block radius. Seeing how the current textures are, there's room for improvement, but hi def textures might cause a lag issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
Current consoles suck. They haven't released any new ones yet because of the cost. They are just dragging it out because they know they won't make much return on selling people consoles. Stuff like Kinect and leeching from publishers/games studios is where it's at. In the end what this means is games suffer and look rubbish compared to their PC counterparts. Also developers like Crytek and EA are moaning about current resources on consoles... They need to get a move on and release something soon.
I never said they had the greatest graphical quality. To the contrary, graphical quality is often sacrificed to maintain acceptable frame speed(4J did this with Minecraft as well, sacrificing anti-aliasing, to help maintain 60 fps) The problem with all current-gen consoles is the vast underestimation of future performance requirements. Since this is for a 360 game we are talking about we shall use that as the first example.
Microsoft intended the 360 to be a 10 year console. In 2005, the specs for the Xbox were pretty high end(well maybe not the ram, especially since that 512 MB is shared between the system and video). In terms of raw processor power, the 360 is not too terribly far behind, especially with the unified XCGPU architecture present in the slim models(something I wouldn't be surprised to see in the next iteration simply because of the fact that it is easier to cool, takes up less space, and is more efficient in terms of power consumption), given that the CPU is a the 3.2 GHz tri-core that was only surpassed within the last couple of years by newer quad core CPUs(for the average consumer), the main limiting factor is with its rendering capacity. It still has plenty of raw processing power, especially with architecture of the CPU but the overall lack of memory, compounded by the fact that there is no dedicated VRAM is a major problem, certainly one that I am not denying here.
Now for the PS3, slightly different specs, an 8 core CPU, operating at the same clock rate. 7 in use, one in back up, and a little more efficient in terms of processing that what is in the 360. Less ram 256 MB, which was rather poor even then, but it had the advantage of separate vram, at 224MB(though billed at 256), and a slightly more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360.
Now both consoles, again, very powerful in terms of sheer raw processing power, a testament to IBM's ability in developing CPUs in general. However that is where their power ends, the graphical side of the matter sucks tremendously at this point in time, an especially glaring shortfall for Microsoft given the level of endurance they expected out of the 360. They are both more than capable of processing the information, but in terms of "making it look purdy" their age is showing. Now for someone like me, who remembers playing Nintendo when it first came out, that matter does not bother me much. To the contrary, I tend to complain about quality of gameplay being sacrificed to enhance the gloss of the graphics.
Cost has very little to do with the matter mind you. At least not for MS, because this was pre-planned since the release of the 360. Sony on the other hand, given their over the past few years, along with still having a big black eye from last year, that may have been a problem until last year's E3 when Nintendo debut their new console. Now, whether or not the rumors are true about Microsoft's, or Sony's development of a new console, I do not know. If Microsoft have similar intentions with this new one, I imagine they are going to boost the specs to be a little more than what they think would be good enough.
And JoshT, you are still neglecting the fact that the memory for the Xbox 360 is unified memory, it is used for everything, everything you see on screen, and everything going on behind the scenes. If it were 512 megs of ram, with separate vram, you might have a point, but everything has to be done out of that unified pool of ram. Even if everything is rendered in chunks, the information used to render the chunks are also stored in the RAM. You cannot store that much information in RAM to be able to build an infinite world. Not without sacrificing somewhere else. Then there is the fact that the Xbox does not have an independent server to assist in rendering for online play, which also taxes the performance of the Xboxs involved. Recommended(meaning to run the game at an optimal 60FPS with some bells and whistles) ram for Minecraft is at least 1GB, and 128-256 of video ram. Xbox falls short of that considerably.
This is fun, isn't it..... pretending we know more than the developers that actually created the game?
We don't know jack.
The world size is what it is for a reason. The only reason I've heard is what I stated: to keep the frame rate up during 4-player.
Maybe they'll increase it some in the future, maybe they just can't and we'll have to deal with it.
Whatever. It's "above my pay grade".
Battlefield 3 on the xbox has super huge maps and uses about 10 gigs of data with all of the updates, that can only mean that minecraft is really really really advanced past battlefield 3 and that's why the worlds are so limited
You figure, they have to be able to run 4 player split screen at 60 fps. That's essentially running 4 copies of minecraft at full speed, at one time, on one system..
Of course things are going to be limited. Not to mention they're probably planning for updates which is going to add even more stuff threatening to slow the game down.
Next gen consoles are coming soon, in fact I heard that Microsoft was thinking of going with the cell phone model, and people would "rent" thier systems with something like a 2 year contract. This would allow for systems to be "sold" for next to nothing.
That's already being done with the Xbox 360. It probably wont be done with the next Micrsoft console.
You figure, they have to be able to run 4 player split screen at 60 fps. That's essentially running 4 copies of minecraft at full speed, at one time, on one system..
Of course things are going to be limited. Not to mention they're probably planning for updates which is going to add even more stuff threatening to slow the game down.
4 player split screen doesnt equate to 4 copys of Minecraft running. All it really means is that its rendering the image 4 times which is very easy considering the low resolution of the game. The world is still only rendered once and on top of that only the close chunks of the world are rendered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If it already has been done then it can be done again" or
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
That's already being done with the Xbox 360. It probably wont be done with the next Micrsoft console.
The 360 has a subscription for the online service. I was saying the console itself would have a subscription, so you cant even play offline games without paying monthly. The console itself would basically be free or relitively cheap. Think about your cell phone, it works as long as you pay for the service, once you stop paying or cancel the service its as good as a brick. If you pay something like $30 a month for your console, and only play for 2 years, you spend $720 overall for your new console. Most people are willing to pay $30 a month over $720 in 1 sum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If it already has been done then it can be done again" or
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
The 360 has a subscription for the online service. I was saying the console itself would have a subscription, so you cant even play offline games without paying monthly. The console itself would basically be free or relitively cheap. Think about your cell phone, it works as long as you pay for the service, once you stop paying or cancel the service its as good as a brick. If you pay something like $30 a month for your console, and only play for 2 years, you spend $720 overall for your new console. Most people are willing to pay $30 a month over $720 in 1 sum.
They are doing that. You can buy a new Slim Xbox 360, with a Kinect, for only 99$. You then have to pay $15 a month, for which you get Xbox Live Gold. It's like layaway for an Xbox directly from Microsoft. It's all on GameInformer's website.
The 360 has a subscription for the online service. I was saying the console itself would have a subscription, so you cant even play offline games without paying monthly. The console itself would basically be free or relitively cheap. Think about your cell phone, it works as long as you pay for the service, once you stop paying or cancel the service its as good as a brick. If you pay something like $30 a month for your console, and only play for 2 years, you spend $720 overall for your new console. Most people are willing to pay $30 a month over $720 in 1 sum.
I don't think that would happen, I wouldn't be surprised if they put measures in to prevent used games from being played(with the ever growing use of digital content delivery used games will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs). Nevermind the fact that the lease to own model ends up with you paying more than the outright cost of the console, plus a two year live subscription($459 vs $429, granted not that much but still, the price difference could also afford one a copy of Minecraft). I don't know about the rest of you, but if they offered to do something like that with all models of their consoles, I would not so politely offer to insert said new console into their posterior orifice by way of my foot, cause you know they would yank the crank of the end user in that case.
Why is this game so technically demanding as some of you are saying when the file size is only 113MB?
The game is technically demanding because it has to render millions of individual blocks, do AI for mobs, render flowing water and lava, and on top of all of that, it has to keep track of every change the player makes to the world.
The game may not be graphically demanding, but because of what the game is, it is intensely CPU and Memory demanding.
I believe he's talking about the height/depth of the map.
Also, someone mentioned a new Nintendo console being released? I hope it isn't like the wii, & I also hope we see new Zelda games
Its called the Wii U, its basically an upgraded version of the Wii(its compatible with all of the Wii controllers) it also comes with a tablet controller as well, its being billed as more powerful than the both the PS3, and the 360, however some developers are disputing that fact currently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
Anyways, everyone is neglecting one very important difference between the Xbox version, and the PC version, besides memory: The Xbox has to function as both server and client for Minecraft. That will eat up a lot of memory to do so in multiplayer mode, never mind the fact that it was stated in the Eurogamer interview that memory was the limiting factor for world size. Xbox already suffers from frame rate lag during times of heavy rendering. Now it may be possible to increase(and possibly necessary at a later time depending on how some of the later updates are implemented), but at this time map size is what it is, and nothing can be done regarding the matter at this time.
Also, here is an awesome suggestion I had: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1745550-biome-effects/
Next gen consoles are coming soon, in fact I heard that Microsoft was thinking of going with the cell phone model, and people would "rent" thier systems with something like a 2 year contract. This would allow for systems to be "sold" for next to nothing.
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
An infinite world would use as much resources as a 1000x1000 world. It only loads the chunks you are close to, in the infinite world the chunks generate as you get closer to them.
Microsoft intended the 360 to be a 10 year console. In 2005, the specs for the Xbox were pretty high end(well maybe not the ram, especially since that 512 MB is shared between the system and video). In terms of raw processor power, the 360 is not too terribly far behind, especially with the unified XCGPU architecture present in the slim models(something I wouldn't be surprised to see in the next iteration simply because of the fact that it is easier to cool, takes up less space, and is more efficient in terms of power consumption), given that the CPU is a the 3.2 GHz tri-core that was only surpassed within the last couple of years by newer quad core CPUs(for the average consumer), the main limiting factor is with its rendering capacity. It still has plenty of raw processing power, especially with architecture of the CPU but the overall lack of memory, compounded by the fact that there is no dedicated VRAM is a major problem, certainly one that I am not denying here.
Now for the PS3, slightly different specs, an 8 core CPU, operating at the same clock rate. 7 in use, one in back up, and a little more efficient in terms of processing that what is in the 360. Less ram 256 MB, which was rather poor even then, but it had the advantage of separate vram, at 224MB(though billed at 256), and a slightly more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360.
Now both consoles, again, very powerful in terms of sheer raw processing power, a testament to IBM's ability in developing CPUs in general. However that is where their power ends, the graphical side of the matter sucks tremendously at this point in time, an especially glaring shortfall for Microsoft given the level of endurance they expected out of the 360. They are both more than capable of processing the information, but in terms of "making it look purdy" their age is showing. Now for someone like me, who remembers playing Nintendo when it first came out, that matter does not bother me much. To the contrary, I tend to complain about quality of gameplay being sacrificed to enhance the gloss of the graphics.
Cost has very little to do with the matter mind you. At least not for MS, because this was pre-planned since the release of the 360. Sony on the other hand, given their over the past few years, along with still having a big black eye from last year, that may have been a problem until last year's E3 when Nintendo debut their new console. Now, whether or not the rumors are true about Microsoft's, or Sony's development of a new console, I do not know. If Microsoft have similar intentions with this new one, I imagine they are going to boost the specs to be a little more than what they think would be good enough.
And JoshT, you are still neglecting the fact that the memory for the Xbox 360 is unified memory, it is used for everything, everything you see on screen, and everything going on behind the scenes. If it were 512 megs of ram, with separate vram, you might have a point, but everything has to be done out of that unified pool of ram. Even if everything is rendered in chunks, the information used to render the chunks are also stored in the RAM. You cannot store that much information in RAM to be able to build an infinite world. Not without sacrificing somewhere else. Then there is the fact that the Xbox does not have an independent server to assist in rendering for online play, which also taxes the performance of the Xboxs involved. Recommended(meaning to run the game at an optimal 60FPS with some bells and whistles) ram for Minecraft is at least 1GB, and 128-256 of video ram. Xbox falls short of that considerably.
We don't know jack.
The world size is what it is for a reason. The only reason I've heard is what I stated: to keep the frame rate up during 4-player.
Maybe they'll increase it some in the future, maybe they just can't and we'll have to deal with it.
Whatever. It's "above my pay grade".
Or it's a clunky ass, inefficient resource hog..
Of course things are going to be limited. Not to mention they're probably planning for updates which is going to add even more stuff threatening to slow the game down.
4 player split screen doesnt equate to 4 copys of Minecraft running. All it really means is that its rendering the image 4 times which is very easy considering the low resolution of the game. The world is still only rendered once and on top of that only the close chunks of the world are rendered.
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
The 360 has a subscription for the online service. I was saying the console itself would have a subscription, so you cant even play offline games without paying monthly. The console itself would basically be free or relitively cheap. Think about your cell phone, it works as long as you pay for the service, once you stop paying or cancel the service its as good as a brick. If you pay something like $30 a month for your console, and only play for 2 years, you spend $720 overall for your new console. Most people are willing to pay $30 a month over $720 in 1 sum.
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
http://www.gameinfor...n-xbox-360.aspx
The game may not be graphically demanding, but because of what the game is, it is intensely CPU and Memory demanding.
Its called the Wii U, its basically an upgraded version of the Wii(its compatible with all of the Wii controllers) it also comes with a tablet controller as well, its being billed as more powerful than the both the PS3, and the 360, however some developers are disputing that fact currently.