Assuming the X1 edition will match the PS4 edition in features, then we can expect "infinite" worlds. Owen Hill, the CWO at Mojang AB, was quoted as saying as much on the PlayStation blog recently.
Now he could be mistaken but I took this as meaning the X1 edition will have "infinite" worlds as well. And I have infinite in quotes because we all know it's not truly infinite...
That's what seeds are for. I've seen seeds for the Pc version that had all of those things within looking distance of one another. Same would be true of the console versions with bigger worlds. People will finds seeds with exactly what you're looking for.
Some are demanding it because one, 4J has said that it will have larger worlds and two, with the specs of the Xbox One there really isn't a reason that it couldn't have the seemingly "infinite" worlds of the PC version. The only feasable reasons is that 4J just doesn't know how to make it happen or that they (Microsoft, Mojang, or 4J) decide to make it smaller on purpose.
Xbox One Specs
8GB DDR3 RAM
32MB eSRAM
8 Core AMD custom CPU
500 GB Hard Drive (with external HDD support on the way)
I'd be cool with a world anywhere between 5,000 x 5,000 to 15,000 x 15,000. The latter being the largest server I ever played on when playing the PC version. It was immense and more than enough to hold 200 people without ever really seeing another player.
This sounds reasonable to me... and probably very doable on the Xbox One without changing any of the current chunk loading mechanics.
I do think they are capable enough to change the chunk loading and unloading to match the PC... but they don't really want to at this stage of the project due to time and, as a result, salary costs for the programmers. They want to be able to keep as much of the programming for the 4 consoles the "same" as possible, so that they don't wind up doing it one way for one console, another way for a second, and a third way for another, and a fourth way for yet another. Regardless of what the Xbox One can do, the X360 is as limited as it was the day they made the decision to handle the chunks the way they did.
If they do go with the "infinite" (i.e. rolling load and unload) method for the PS4, they will probably go the same way for the Xbox One. As I said, I think then the "price" we'll pay for that is the ceasing of updates for the X360 (and PS3)... which really wouldn't bother me too much either since the game has already managed to be update farther along than I ever thought it could when I first bought it.
I'd be cool with a world anywhere between 5,000 x 5,000 to 15,000 x 15,000. The latter being the largest server I ever played on when playing the PC version. It was immense and more than enough to hold 200 people without ever really seeing another player.
Current world size (including 5 chunk inaccessible border) is 1024x1024. 5x that in length and width under the current game mechanics would likely require about 25x the computational resources, where as 15x in length and width would likely require about 225x the computational resources. Estimating that the XB1 has 16x the available RAM as the XB360, a world size that large seems unlikely to me.
They would have to go back to paging/caching architecture that the Java Version uses instead of continuing to try to load the whole world at once to achieve maps in those sizes (IMO).
No, you're right. Infinite worlds are not larger worlds than what we have. They'll probably be about the same or smaller.
I don't know why people have this 'safety net' mentality. They want every biome, every mineral, every asset within arms reach. Minecraft is all about freedom. Period. And the best part is the freedom to fail. I know, freedom is scary to some. No pre-planned objectives. No arbitrary boss to fight. You're on your own. As far as villages go, I was in the same position in my PC world. I couldn't find one to save my life. But you know what I did? I made one using infected villagers and now the population is over 120. What ever you want to do, you can do it! This is Minecraft.
This entire post made almost no sense to me.
Were you really trying to say that on new gen hardware, that is leaps ahead of their predecessors, will have just as small if not smaller worlds for their versions of Minecraft? You also preach about freedom yet at the same time bash those that want more freedom by wanting a larger world.
Were you really trying to say that on new gen hardware, that is leaps ahead of their predecessors, will have just as small if not smaller worlds for their versions of Minecraft? You also preach about freedom yet at the same time bash those that want more freedom by wanting a larger world.
No, buddy. Sarcasm. I'm making point to the OP that a larger world wouldn't hurt those that are used to or just want smaller worlds.
No, buddy. Sarcasm. I'm making point to the OP that a larger world wouldn't hurt those that are used to or just want smaller worlds.
Thank god. Sadly I've seen people dead serious about exactly what you were saying hence why I thought you were serious. Also, sarcasm doesn't really translate all that well through text unless it is extremely dramatized.
Why does everyone think I don't want larger worlds? I absolutely do! It's just that 30,000,000x30,000,000 seems insane to me! I said earlier that I would be satisfied with 10,000x10,000 or more. I just want a world size where I can explore and build in a realistic amount of time. I'll be playing the Xbox One version alone since I don't have friends that have one. I would love to play with a group of people and build cities and villages around the world. Then I guess I would be ok with infinite worlds.
Current world size (including 5 chunk inaccessible border) is 1024x1024. 5x that in length and width under the current game mechanics would likely require about 25x the computational resources, where as 15x in length and width would likely require about 225x the computational resources. Estimating that the XB1 has 16x the available RAM as the XB360, a world size that large seems unlikely to me. They would have to go back to paging/caching architecture that the Java Version uses instead of continuing to try to load the whole world at once to achieve maps in those sizes (IMO).
I think that 1024X 1024 should be our world size on the XBox 360 and then just add a invisable bedrock border.
Why does everyone think I don't want larger worlds? I absolutely do! It's just that 30,000,000x30,000,000 seems insane to me! I said earlier that I would be satisfied with 10,000x10,000 or more. I just want a world size where I can explore and build in a realistic amount of time. I'll be playing the Xbox One version alone since I don't have friends that have one. I would love to play with a group of people and build cities and villages around the world. Then I guess I would be ok with infinite worlds.
Say an update comes out right? You don't want to start a new world but there is new generation (like witch huts). With an infinite world you could explore and find one since the area was loaded in that update and you don't have to restart your world.
Say an update comes out right? You don't want to start a new world but there is new generation (like witch huts). With an infinite world you could explore and find one since the area was loaded in that update and you don't have to restart your world.
... but you could go into creative mode, get whatever new blocks you need and build a hut yourself. Then put the world back into survival and continue to play it in survival. You don't ever have to restart a new world since the game developers put in creative mode to give you another option. However, the people who insist they need "infinite" worlds consistently decline taking this option while, at the same time, telling people who don't like "infinite" chunk loading that they just can stay close in to their base and just not use the larger world. It IS really just two groups on opposite sides of the fence being STUBBORN and UNREASONABLE. Neither "reason" is more valid or invalid than the other because they aren't really a reason at all... just an excuse to continue the argument.
The game is what it is on the X360. It loads the chunks the way it does. The decision to do it that way was made over 3 years ago now. It was made because the developer programming the game (who knows their stuff) felt that the game ran better overall on the X360 system doing it that way. They knew they were in for a struggle to squeeze the game onto a system that had 1/4 the RAM and processing capabilities as the minimum system requirements for the same game on the PC. As a result of their decision, they have been able to update us well pass the official PC release 1.0 with a game that does do local splitscreen mode (something the PC version doesn't have to do). IMO, they made a good choice... and it is water under the bridge.
The X1 certainly has the added processing power to handle the different chunk loading and unloading. No question, they could change it now to do things exactly like the PC. IF, however, they change it on the X1, it means that they would have a lot of different programming to do on each generation of system for each and every update. Which means that they will probably be more inclined to stop updating the X360 edition... since not many new sales of the game would be ongoing on that system anyway. Ceasing to update the X360 is, IMO, most likely the "price" of changing the chunk loading mechanics on the X1 to accommodate "infinite" worlds.
As Mustache Guy has stated somewhere, Microsoft clearly plans to stop supporting the Xbox 360 within 3 years... and Microsoft's history is that they usually phase out old systems much more quickly than that. So, it's inevitable that they will stop updating the X360 within that time frame anyways.
So, it boils down to just another choice the company has to make... and nomatter which way they go, some people will like it and some people won't... two groups of people on opposite sides of the fence...............
Say an update comes out right? You don't want to start a new world but there is new generation (like witch huts). With an infinite world you could explore and find one since the area was loaded in that update and you don't have to restart your world.
I always start a new world anyway! I would never go further out just to find something that could be right near the spawn of a new world! What a great idea, let me go searching forever to find these new things just to get myself permanently lost! That is the reason I started this thread in the first place! I could have better terrain, better building opportunities, and better sources of materials in a new world as well. Before you tell me I can just pack up and search forever in my current world to find those things, I would never do that either! Why would I stick with a world that has grown stale and boring?
How about this? Say an update comes out that adds new biomes. Why would anyone enjoy searching forever to find them when they can just start a new world and spawn in one with the others surrounding it?
That's what seeds are for. I've seen seeds for the Pc version that had all of those things within looking distance of one another. Same would be true of the console versions with bigger worlds. People will finds seeds with exactly what you're looking for.
Where's the fun in knowing exactly what to expect?
You start a new world. That's great and it's your choice. If you go out and get permanently lost then that is also your choice. More and bigger only adds and enhances. If you don't want to go searching forever you don't have to. You can start a new world. I actually don't understand why you created this post, honestly. Are you seriously and honestly asking why people want PC size worlds or are you just trying to say how dumb it would be to have such worlds?
You start a new world. That's great and it's your choice. If you go out and get permanently lost then that is also your choice. More and bigger only adds and enhances. If you don't want to go searching forever you don't have to. You can start a new world. I actually don't understand why you created this post, honestly. Are you seriously and honestly asking why people want PC size worlds or are you just trying to say how dumb it would be to have such worlds?
There's where we disagree... stuffing more and bigger onto an old, very limited, nearly obsolete system could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So, let's hope they don't try to keep updating the 360 version beyond that system's limitations or, because Live does "force" us to update and we can't effectively undo an update once we accept it, we may find ourselves stuck with a truly unplayable game on the 360. Letting the X1 version jump ahead of the X360 version is, IMO, the "right" thing to do; but there will naturally be people upset if the updating stops short of whatever "stuff" on the PC they personally really want. If they haven't been able to let go of the "infinite" world idea on the 360 by now... were in for a lot of useless arguing here on the forums for a long, long time to come.
Are you seriously and honestly asking why people want PC size worlds or are you just trying to say how dumb it would be to have such worlds?
I just want to figure out why people want insanely massive worlds since it makes absolutely no sense to me. Everyone seems to want to force the idea of infinite worlds on everyone else. Pretty much all I see is people saying "The Xbox One version better have infinite worlds or I'm not buying it!" So far no one has given me a good answer.
There are also people demanding that the Xbox One version has mods but that's an entirely different argument.
There's where we disagree... stuffing more and bigger onto an old, very limited, nearly obsolete system could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So, let's hope they don't try to keep updating the 360 version beyond that system's limitations or, because Live does "force" us to update and we can't effectively undo an update once we accept it, we may find ourselves stuck with a truly unplayable game on the 360. Letting the X1 version jump ahead of the X360 version is, IMO, the "right" thing to do; but there will naturally be people upset if the updating stops short of whatever "stuff" on the PC they personally really want. If they haven't been able to let go of the "infinite" world idea on the 360 by now... were in for a lot of useless arguing here on the forums for a long, long time to come.
Yes but remember, all this talk about what could be added is only about the One edition. One of the moderators had said that there was no need for an Xbox One section yet so we've just been talking about it in here. But you are right, I don't want 4J to try and push the 360 any further. I'm simply saying that with the One edition, more is better.
Honestly, I didn't like updates 1.7 or the upcoming 1.8. They look so different from what I'm used to BUT... having said that, that is the direction of Minecraft and I embrace it. Just because there are horses doesn't mean I need to ride one or even look at one. Trading is going to change big time but that's OK. It's not what I was used to. My point is that more was added to the game but it really didn't affect me in a negative way. Would I ever explore the entire map of a PC size world on the One edition? No way! You could say I don't need it but it's the knowledge that it is there if I want it.
Yes but remember, all this talk about what could be added is only about the One edition. One of the moderators had said that there was no need for an Xbox One section yet so we've just been talking about it in here. But you are right, I don't want 4J to try and push the 360 any further. I'm simply saying that with the One edition, more is better.
Honestly, I didn't like updates 1.7 or the upcoming 1.8. They look so different from what I'm used to BUT... having said that, that is the direction of Minecraft and I embrace it. Just because there are horses doesn't mean I need to ride one or even look at one. Trading is going to change big time but that's OK. It's not what I was used to. My point is that more was added to the game but it really didn't affect me in a negative way. Would I ever explore the entire map of a PC size world on the One edition? No way! You could say I don't need it but it's the knowledge that it is there if I want it.
The one thing I would like to see added is an option to backtrack on an update to their previous version within Live if a person doesn't like what they see after updating. Probably won't see anything like that for the 360 either, though.
I just want to figure out why people want insanely massive worlds since it makes absolutely no sense to me. Everyone seems to want to force the idea of infinite worlds on everyone else. Pretty much all I see is people saying "The Xbox One version better have infinite worlds or I'm not buying it!" So far no one has given me a good answer.
There are also people demanding that the Xbox One version has mods but that's an entirely different argument.
"Forcing" an infinite world on you... what does that take away from you? We want you to be able to have more.... what does that take away? You said earlier that if 4J didn't tell you something about next gen you weren't going to buy it or stop playing all together.
Maybe it's a psychological thing. Being able to explore the entire map gives you a sense of completion and an infinite world would never give you that because you'd never be able to see it all, in a reasonable time frame. I get that.
There are literally thousands of rules and other restrictions in MC. Why some people decide to focus obsessively about the world size restriction is beyond me.
If they haven't been able to let go of the "infinite" world idea on the 360 by now... were in for a lot of useless arguing here on the forums for a long, long time to come.
Absolutely.
A bunch of us are fine with the 360 world size as it is.
A bunch more wouldn't mind if it were simply enlarged, liked doubled. That would probably satisfy 98% of us.
But there's that vocal 2%of 'infinite world' people that will never, ever be happy unless they have an 'infinite world' (on the 360 no less)- and they'll be glad to tell you why it's 'needed'. (Never mind that virtually every other game they play they're 'restricted' because those games don't have infinite worlds either.) For some reason they believe that because it's "minecraft", it must have infinite worlds.
I agree with UpUp when it comes to the 360 (and ps3). But I'll make it even simpler:
What part of "No" don't you understand?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014/04/16/minecraft-playstation-3-edition-coming-to-retail-may-16th/#comment-971193
Now he could be mistaken but I took this as meaning the X1 edition will have "infinite" worlds as well. And I have infinite in quotes because we all know it's not truly infinite...
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/3746989361/terrain-generation-part-1
This sounds reasonable to me... and probably very doable on the Xbox One without changing any of the current chunk loading mechanics.
I do think they are capable enough to change the chunk loading and unloading to match the PC... but they don't really want to at this stage of the project due to time and, as a result, salary costs for the programmers. They want to be able to keep as much of the programming for the 4 consoles the "same" as possible, so that they don't wind up doing it one way for one console, another way for a second, and a third way for another, and a fourth way for yet another. Regardless of what the Xbox One can do, the X360 is as limited as it was the day they made the decision to handle the chunks the way they did.
If they do go with the "infinite" (i.e. rolling load and unload) method for the PS4, they will probably go the same way for the Xbox One. As I said, I think then the "price" we'll pay for that is the ceasing of updates for the X360 (and PS3)... which really wouldn't bother me too much either since the game has already managed to be update farther along than I ever thought it could when I first bought it.
Current world size (including 5 chunk inaccessible border) is 1024x1024. 5x that in length and width under the current game mechanics would likely require about 25x the computational resources, where as 15x in length and width would likely require about 225x the computational resources. Estimating that the XB1 has 16x the available RAM as the XB360, a world size that large seems unlikely to me.
They would have to go back to paging/caching architecture that the Java Version uses instead of continuing to try to load the whole world at once to achieve maps in those sizes (IMO).
Were you really trying to say that on new gen hardware, that is leaps ahead of their predecessors, will have just as small if not smaller worlds for their versions of Minecraft? You also preach about freedom yet at the same time bash those that want more freedom by wanting a larger world.
I was talking about the playable world space.
No, buddy. Sarcasm. I'm making point to the OP that a larger world wouldn't hurt those that are used to or just want smaller worlds.
I think that 1024X 1024 should be our world size on the XBox 360 and then just add a invisable bedrock border.
Well i don't think that'll happen
... but you could go into creative mode, get whatever new blocks you need and build a hut yourself. Then put the world back into survival and continue to play it in survival. You don't ever have to restart a new world since the game developers put in creative mode to give you another option. However, the people who insist they need "infinite" worlds consistently decline taking this option while, at the same time, telling people who don't like "infinite" chunk loading that they just can stay close in to their base and just not use the larger world. It IS really just two groups on opposite sides of the fence being STUBBORN and UNREASONABLE. Neither "reason" is more valid or invalid than the other because they aren't really a reason at all... just an excuse to continue the argument.
The game is what it is on the X360. It loads the chunks the way it does. The decision to do it that way was made over 3 years ago now. It was made because the developer programming the game (who knows their stuff) felt that the game ran better overall on the X360 system doing it that way. They knew they were in for a struggle to squeeze the game onto a system that had 1/4 the RAM and processing capabilities as the minimum system requirements for the same game on the PC. As a result of their decision, they have been able to update us well pass the official PC release 1.0 with a game that does do local splitscreen mode (something the PC version doesn't have to do). IMO, they made a good choice... and it is water under the bridge.
The X1 certainly has the added processing power to handle the different chunk loading and unloading. No question, they could change it now to do things exactly like the PC. IF, however, they change it on the X1, it means that they would have a lot of different programming to do on each generation of system for each and every update. Which means that they will probably be more inclined to stop updating the X360 edition... since not many new sales of the game would be ongoing on that system anyway. Ceasing to update the X360 is, IMO, most likely the "price" of changing the chunk loading mechanics on the X1 to accommodate "infinite" worlds.
As Mustache Guy has stated somewhere, Microsoft clearly plans to stop supporting the Xbox 360 within 3 years... and Microsoft's history is that they usually phase out old systems much more quickly than that. So, it's inevitable that they will stop updating the X360 within that time frame anyways.
So, it boils down to just another choice the company has to make... and nomatter which way they go, some people will like it and some people won't... two groups of people on opposite sides of the fence...............
I always start a new world anyway! I would never go further out just to find something that could be right near the spawn of a new world! What a great idea, let me go searching forever to find these new things just to get myself permanently lost! That is the reason I started this thread in the first place! I could have better terrain, better building opportunities, and better sources of materials in a new world as well. Before you tell me I can just pack up and search forever in my current world to find those things, I would never do that either! Why would I stick with a world that has grown stale and boring?
How about this? Say an update comes out that adds new biomes. Why would anyone enjoy searching forever to find them when they can just start a new world and spawn in one with the others surrounding it?
Where's the fun in knowing exactly what to expect?
There's where we disagree... stuffing more and bigger onto an old, very limited, nearly obsolete system could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So, let's hope they don't try to keep updating the 360 version beyond that system's limitations or, because Live does "force" us to update and we can't effectively undo an update once we accept it, we may find ourselves stuck with a truly unplayable game on the 360. Letting the X1 version jump ahead of the X360 version is, IMO, the "right" thing to do; but there will naturally be people upset if the updating stops short of whatever "stuff" on the PC they personally really want. If they haven't been able to let go of the "infinite" world idea on the 360 by now... were in for a lot of useless arguing here on the forums for a long, long time to come.
I just want to figure out why people want insanely massive worlds since it makes absolutely no sense to me. Everyone seems to want to force the idea of infinite worlds on everyone else. Pretty much all I see is people saying "The Xbox One version better have infinite worlds or I'm not buying it!" So far no one has given me a good answer.
There are also people demanding that the Xbox One version has mods but that's an entirely different argument.
Yes but remember, all this talk about what could be added is only about the One edition. One of the moderators had said that there was no need for an Xbox One section yet so we've just been talking about it in here. But you are right, I don't want 4J to try and push the 360 any further. I'm simply saying that with the One edition, more is better.
Honestly, I didn't like updates 1.7 or the upcoming 1.8. They look so different from what I'm used to BUT... having said that, that is the direction of Minecraft and I embrace it. Just because there are horses doesn't mean I need to ride one or even look at one. Trading is going to change big time but that's OK. It's not what I was used to. My point is that more was added to the game but it really didn't affect me in a negative way. Would I ever explore the entire map of a PC size world on the One edition? No way! You could say I don't need it but it's the knowledge that it is there if I want it.
The one thing I would like to see added is an option to backtrack on an update to their previous version within Live if a person doesn't like what they see after updating. Probably won't see anything like that for the 360 either, though.
"Forcing" an infinite world on you... what does that take away from you? We want you to be able to have more.... what does that take away? You said earlier that if 4J didn't tell you something about next gen you weren't going to buy it or stop playing all together.
Maybe it's a psychological thing. Being able to explore the entire map gives you a sense of completion and an infinite world would never give you that because you'd never be able to see it all, in a reasonable time frame. I get that.
Absolutely.
A bunch of us are fine with the 360 world size as it is.
A bunch more wouldn't mind if it were simply enlarged, liked doubled. That would probably satisfy 98% of us.
But there's that vocal 2%of 'infinite world' people that will never, ever be happy unless they have an 'infinite world' (on the 360 no less)- and they'll be glad to tell you why it's 'needed'. (Never mind that virtually every other game they play they're 'restricted' because those games don't have infinite worlds either.) For some reason they believe that because it's "minecraft", it must have infinite worlds.
I agree with UpUp when it comes to the 360 (and ps3). But I'll make it even simpler:
What part of "No" don't you understand?