How does it do any harm to allow Xbox users with large-enough hard drives a chance to, you know, actually utilize some of the 100+ GB of extra space they never even touch? (Mine actually has 175GB free at the moment)
Infinite worlds on console is possible. Allow it, please. No excuses.
How does it do any harm to allow Xbox users with large-enough hard drives a chance to, you know, actually utilize some of the 100+ GB of extra space they never even touch? (Mine actually has 175GB free at the moment)
Infinite worlds on console is possible. Allow it, please. No excuses.
I don't think it has to do with HDD space, but I might be wrong.
I have a feeling it has something to do with Microsoft's nonsensical XBL Arcade platform restrictions. I do definitely remember seeing mention of it being due to limited storage capacity though, which is unreal.
I'm not super tech guy, but it's not about the size of the storage system, it's about the processor and the ram being able to keep up I believe....
Nah, the console or even the PC isn't processing the entire game world at once, just nearby, relevant regions, anything more would be needlessly wasting resources.
I have a feeling it has something to do with Microsoft's nonsensical XBL Arcade platform restrictions. I do definitely remember seeing mention of it being due to limited storage capacity though, which is unreal.
If so, please provide a reliable, current (even this year?), credible source citation for there even being a "nonsensical XBL Arcade platform" file size restriction and it's alleged size. I went looking for one and ONLY found reference to file download size restrictions, which were increased significantly over the last few years and then, more recently lifted; but are still limited to 2GB due to limitations with the system itself. (I cited this source on another thread.)
The issue has never been anyone's hard-drive size. I have many multiple worlds saved and nothing so far has come on to say I can't fill up my hard-drive with numerous Minecraft world files.
Indeed the actual 4J interview at the top of the forums as much as says its unsupportable due to a finite storage space, but it could surely be bigger than it is now.
I'm pretty sure its the ram. I have a bunch of storage as well but this will not happen.
Why not just have the dormant parts of the world recorded as text and graphically built from it when called upon? The size of the text would be negligible and all the data needed to graphically construct the game world from it would already be present in the currently working game world (and thus already active on memory).
In this hypothetical, the only hardware limitation in question is whether the processor can handle it or not. Idk. It just doesn't make sense to me that the Xbox 360 can handle Battlefield 3 but can't handle replacing map data in Minecraft.
In this hypothetical, the only hardware limitation in question is whether the processor can handle it or not. Idk. It just doesn't make sense to me that the Xbox 360 can handle Battlefield 3 but can't handle replacing map data in Minecraft.
That's apples and oranges......The amount of things changeable in bf3 is minute compared to minecraft. you can't completely redesign the maps in battlefield.
That's apples and oranges......The amount of things changeable in bf3 is minute compared to minecraft. you can't completely redesign the maps in battlefield.
That makes sense. (unfortunately)
But doesn't minecraft already load and unload parts of the game world as you move about it? Like, say for instance you're in the north-western corner of the map and you walk to the south-eastern corner. As you traverse the game world, parts of it would no longer be loaded and new parts would be, right?
Having a larger world would have no impact on this.
But doesn't minecraft already load and unload parts of the game world as you move about it? Like, say for instance you're in the north-western corner of the map and you walk to the south-eastern corner. As you traverse the game world, parts of it would no longer be loaded and new parts would be, right?
Having a larger world would have no impact on this.
I think it unrenders, but doesn't fully unload. One indication that this is the case is the fact that any physical changes you make to your world are not saved unless either an autosave has occured or, if you have autosave turned off, you manually save. Even turned on, autosave times can run 120 minutes, which is certainly enough time for a player to make physcial changes to a map in all corners of it. Conversely, if you exit without actually saving before an autosave occurs or before manually saving (if you have autosave turned off), all your changes during that unsaved session disappear completely from the file. I think the system "parks it" somewhere else but in such a manner that it is still utilizing RAM. Whether or not this could be changed and the game still run smoothly, IDK - only the programmers of the game would know for sure.
If so, please provide a reliable, current (even this year?), credible source citation for there even being a "nonsensical XBL Arcade platform" file size restriction and it's alleged size. I went looking for one and ONLY found reference to file download size restrictions, which were increased significantly over the last few years and then, more recently lifted; but are still limited to 2GB due to limitations with the system itself. (I cited this source on another thread.)
The issue has never been anyone's hard-drive size. I have many multiple worlds saved and nothing so far has come on to say I can't fill up my hard-drive with numerous Minecraft world files.
The limits on the XBLA platform have been pushed several times, even dramatically. Games started out restricted to a paltry 50 MB, that quickly went up over 100 MB, and after that to a whopping 2 GB. But even that is an artificial limit. Games on Demand features DVD disc images, up close to 7 GB (and maybe slightly over now with the new disc format), which you download. Likewise, current save-file restrictions (if any?) are also artificial. MS has been on the ball about keeping pace with their platform's potential, and they could easily make more revisions to cater to MC's 3.6+ million users. That presupposes that 4J needs such revisions to go along with their development wishes. Perhaps they have no intention of pushing the limits that far.
I guess I'll just post this every time this comes up....
G4 interview with 4JStudios CTO Paddy Burns
The big problem on the Xbox 360 is memory. It's not that the console is lacking in some way, but it is a seven-year-old piece of hardware that is being made to run a three-year-old PC game. Minecraft may not look very advanced, but it's a really deceptively complex one. Even the Xbox 360 version's smaller maps feature more than 100,000 fully customizable chunks of world for your console to keep track of.
"I think the thing that people tend to overlook is, you can change absolutely everything in a world. So you may start off with a world that seems like a normal computer game map, but you can change everything in there. It's not the same as loading a world from a disc," Burns explained.
"We did have to spend a lot of time trying to optimize our use of memory and to get the data size down so we could get as much as possible in there. I know there are comparisons about the PC version having a much, much bigger world, but it is just a different platform, and it doesn't have the same abilities. The Xbox does have three processors that we've been using to help speed things up, and people are saying that it is very good, because it IS running at 60 frames per second very smoothly. That was a real aim, to get this running as smoothly as possible."
In simple terms, your console is managing the Minecraft game client while it also hosts a server for online play over Xbox Live. Online connectivity is a great strength of the console version over the PC; both offer multiplayer, but it's all streamlined through the Xbox Live framework on the console side. You can just join in if you have a friend playing online, and vice versa.
That said, the possibility of one day seeing larger Minecraft worlds on the Xbox 360 isn't completely out of the question. Even now, 4J is looking ahead to how the game might take shape once the console game is up to date, gameplay features-wise, with the PC.
"One thing that is in discussion at the moment is the possibility of having servers. Similar to the Battlefield 3's 'rent-a-server' [feature]," Burns said. "If we can shift the work off to [an external] server, then I think we can open up quite a bit more. It's definitely something that I want to look at, and it's now something that Microsoft are quite keen to look at as well. So fingers crossed, we might get there."
It basically come down to one simple fact. The Xbox 360 is 7 years old and it just isn't powerful enough to have seemingly infinite worlds like the PC. It's running at 60fps, outputting in 720p, and your Xbox is running both the Client and the Server at all times. Plus supporting drop-in drop-out 4 player split screen and 8 player online multiplayer. It has nothing to do with your Hard Drive. It has everything to do with the Xbox 360's processors and RAM.
The xbox 360 Have 512Mb of ram, keep in mind that only a small part of the ram is usable to developers, as the xbox is running other xexcusable.
Not true. Devs have access to most of the RAM in the system. The catch is that it is shared between code, data and video display. This is good for performance, but does limit how much can go strictly for code and data. But devs still get a heck of a lot more than "a small part of the RAM".
Just make a disk of the game, charge about 30 bucks for it (extra because of the cost of disks, cases, and shipping) and make infinite worlds, sky limit enormous, and basically, just give us the PC version, but on a disk for xbox.
Just make a disk of the game, charge about 30 bucks for it (extra because of the cost of disks, cases, and shipping) and make infinite worlds, sky limit enormous, and basically, just give us the PC version, but on a disk for xbox.
A disk version would not solve the problem. RAM and processing power would still be the issues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How does it do any harm to allow Xbox users with large-enough hard drives a chance to, you know, actually utilize some of the 100+ GB of extra space they never even touch? (Mine actually has 175GB free at the moment)
Infinite worlds on console is possible. Allow it, please. No excuses.
I don't think it has to do with HDD space, but I might be wrong.
Nah, the console or even the PC isn't processing the entire game world at once, just nearby, relevant regions, anything more would be needlessly wasting resources.
If so, please provide a reliable, current (even this year?), credible source citation for there even being a "nonsensical XBL Arcade platform" file size restriction and it's alleged size. I went looking for one and ONLY found reference to file download size restrictions, which were increased significantly over the last few years and then, more recently lifted; but are still limited to 2GB due to limitations with the system itself. (I cited this source on another thread.)
The issue has never been anyone's hard-drive size. I have many multiple worlds saved and nothing so far has come on to say I can't fill up my hard-drive with numerous Minecraft world files.
How might it cause RRoD?
Why not just have the dormant parts of the world recorded as text and graphically built from it when called upon? The size of the text would be negligible and all the data needed to graphically construct the game world from it would already be present in the currently working game world (and thus already active on memory).
In this hypothetical, the only hardware limitation in question is whether the processor can handle it or not. Idk. It just doesn't make sense to me that the Xbox 360 can handle Battlefield 3 but can't handle replacing map data in Minecraft.
That's apples and oranges......The amount of things changeable in bf3 is minute compared to minecraft. you can't completely redesign the maps in battlefield.
That makes sense. (unfortunately)
But doesn't minecraft already load and unload parts of the game world as you move about it? Like, say for instance you're in the north-western corner of the map and you walk to the south-eastern corner. As you traverse the game world, parts of it would no longer be loaded and new parts would be, right?
Having a larger world would have no impact on this.
I think it unrenders, but doesn't fully unload. One indication that this is the case is the fact that any physical changes you make to your world are not saved unless either an autosave has occured or, if you have autosave turned off, you manually save. Even turned on, autosave times can run 120 minutes, which is certainly enough time for a player to make physcial changes to a map in all corners of it. Conversely, if you exit without actually saving before an autosave occurs or before manually saving (if you have autosave turned off), all your changes during that unsaved session disappear completely from the file. I think the system "parks it" somewhere else but in such a manner that it is still utilizing RAM. Whether or not this could be changed and the game still run smoothly, IDK - only the programmers of the game would know for sure.
The limits on the XBLA platform have been pushed several times, even dramatically. Games started out restricted to a paltry 50 MB, that quickly went up over 100 MB, and after that to a whopping 2 GB. But even that is an artificial limit. Games on Demand features DVD disc images, up close to 7 GB (and maybe slightly over now with the new disc format), which you download. Likewise, current save-file restrictions (if any?) are also artificial. MS has been on the ball about keeping pace with their platform's potential, and they could easily make more revisions to cater to MC's 3.6+ million users. That presupposes that 4J needs such revisions to go along with their development wishes. Perhaps they have no intention of pushing the limits that far.
It basically come down to one simple fact. The Xbox 360 is 7 years old and it just isn't powerful enough to have seemingly infinite worlds like the PC. It's running at 60fps, outputting in 720p, and your Xbox is running both the Client and the Server at all times. Plus supporting drop-in drop-out 4 player split screen and 8 player online multiplayer. It has nothing to do with your Hard Drive. It has everything to do with the Xbox 360's processors and RAM.
Not true. Devs have access to most of the RAM in the system. The catch is that it is shared between code, data and video display. This is good for performance, but does limit how much can go strictly for code and data. But devs still get a heck of a lot more than "a small part of the RAM".