Capcom on DMC4 installation: What's the big deal?
Kramer continues, "Wah! Have you ever played a PC game? At least we aren't making you shuffle multiple discs into a ROM drive, or continuously click 'Yes!' on a series of endless Windows dialog boxes." Wah, indeed! We agree completely with Kramer on this -- a twenty minute long installation sequence is not a big deal. It cuts down on load times, making it load faster than the 360 version despite the slower drive speed. Without the install, players would be complaining about lengthy load times. Which is better? That's a hypothetical question because we already know and, clearly, so does Capcom.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
dancingtosirens @ Feb 5th 2008 1:35PM
I agree.
This is not a big deal, and people are blowing it way out of proportion.
I will be picking my copy up today and enjoying every minute of it
Schoolimangooli @ Feb 5th 2008 3:48PM
Every minute of the installation?
Noesmano @ Feb 5th 2008 1:37PM
I know right!
I don't get why people are complaining about the install time, i mean, seriously, you've waited for the game to come out, is an extra twenty really such a big deal?
Install times don't bother me in the least, because they are totally beneficial.
emaxximus @ Feb 5th 2008 4:09PM
I agree.
Also I think its funny to hear the XBox people try to make jabs about the 20 minute install, when at least 1/3 of them have had to wait WEEKS for their broken consoles to be replaced. haha
Autobon @ Feb 5th 2008 5:52PM
ya, and you would be saying the same crap about 360 if they had some gay install thing too. Stop speaking from both sides of your mouth
adolson @ Feb 5th 2008 1:46PM
It doesn't affect me, since I'm not buying the game (at least not yet, I have other plans for my cash). However, if every game had a 5GB install, I'd have at most 8 games playable on my PS3... I am not really happy about that. Yes, I can upgrade my drive, but should I have to? I don't have to upgrade my Wii to play more than 8 games, and I don't know or care about 360, and I certainly don't care about PC either - that's why I have consoles in the first place.
5GB here or there isn't a big deal, but it should have been optional at least, for people who don't have the space, or don't mind load times. Unreal Tournament 3 made it optional, so I don't see why it has to be forced... But in the end, I don't care. Look at the back of the case, it should state the requirements right on there, right? Like Assassin's Creed does, and probably every game.
Lilinka @ Feb 5th 2008 6:01PM
Erm, it is optional, there's a yes/no prompt that pops up asking if you want to do the install... admittedly, the way it's worded makes it sound like you absolutely must install, but you don't -have- to.
Organic_Shadow @ Feb 5th 2008 1:47PM
My only complaint is that while yes, the installs help load times etc. etc., this is one of the reasons I got a console instead of a PC(I have one but don't use it for gaming really). So that I wouldn't have to sit through installs and use up hard drive space.
It's not that big of a deal, but it DOES seem that the size of these install files are getting bigger and bigger. This is currently the heavy weight champ at 5gb right? Compared to Oblivion's silver medal with 4.5gb or so. Let's hope they don't get any bigger. It would be a pain to have to regularly go in and delete some of them just to make sure there is enough space for new games or whatever.
cycopl @ Feb 5th 2008 2:52PM
Uhh... what's the hard drive there for if you don't want to use it? Maybe I've become numb to the whole installation business because I've reinstalled WoW+Burning Crusade (nine discs I think) multiple times on my PC and laptop, not to mention the massive patches that take hours to download on top of that.
People say "I play consoles so I can just pop the game in and play it!", but consoles are becoming more and more like PC's every day. I mean, they have hard drives, ethernet/wifi adapters, USB ports for mouse/keyboard/etc, media card readers. Games are becoming larger and more demanding, and reading directly off of optical media isn't really going to cut it anymore. It's not like you have to install the game every time you play, anyway.
Schoolimangooli @ Feb 5th 2008 3:52PM
what about the people who have 20g or 40g ps3s?
if every game had an installation of 5gs then how many games can one play at a time.
They would have to uninstall content to play a new game but to go back to it they have to do another 20min installation.
cycopl @ Feb 5th 2008 6:24PM
If hard drive space is that much of a problem, you can buy an aftermarket 80g HDD for the same price as a PS3 game... You can also buy a 320g HDD for the same price as Xbox 360's proprietary 120g HDD.
Popfrogs @ Feb 6th 2008 12:42AM
@cycopl: I don't remember ever being prompted on _where_ to install game data. Can it be moved to an external drive or does it go on the system drive?
cycopl @ Feb 6th 2008 8:27AM
I'm no expert on this subject since I haven't replaced my HDD in the PS3... but I've researched it a little bit just in case I want to do it. You need to use the system backup utility to back up stuff that you want to keep, I'm pretty sure you can stick in a USB flash drive and copy your game saves and stuff to that, and possibly an external USB hard drive. Then, you just remove the entire HDD unit from the PS3 and replace it with any 2.5" laptop drive of your choice. I think the HDD's that come with PS3 are 5400rpm, so you may want to replace it with an HDD of the same speed since faster drives exert more heat when used. It will probably be a while before I actually replace the HDD though, since I have a 60g PS3 and am never using more than 10-15g at a time.
Solace @ Feb 5th 2008 1:54PM
Seriously, it's a one time deal, and it's not like you're playing so many games at one time that you need the install for all of them stored on your HDD every time.
You know who's blowing it out of proportion? Xbots and people that'd never buy it any ways who like to complain because they think it makes them sound cool.
Roto13 @ Feb 5th 2008 1:56PM
It's not even mandatory. Play the game when you want, then start the installation when you're going to go have dinner or go to bed or something where you won't be using your PS3. Boom. Problem solved. Anyone who complains about that is just looking for a reason.
jg274105 @ Feb 5th 2008 2:14PM
The install is not optional, that what the big deal is for most people. If it was optional nobody would have a problem with it... until they realized the load times are longer and get upset about that.
I personally don't have a problem with the install, its a one time install and cuts the load times down by more than half. The only people that should have a gripe are 20GB users, which can still easily be remedied with a HDD upgrade or deleting old game data you don't play anymore, or atleast not at the moment..
Jove @ Feb 5th 2008 1:59PM
hipocrasy from bullshit journalist that still think its cool too attack sony for nonsence like this... stupid. keep on stealing each others headlines dumbasses! theres nothing wrong with the game!
Xoonaka @ Feb 5th 2008 1:59PM
It'd be nice if it were at least optional. Load Times or Install... for a quick DMC fix three years down the road, I'd take the load time.
Lars @ Feb 5th 2008 2:06PM
I feel sorry for people with a 20 gig drive, and I'm glad I threw a 250 in mine.
But yeah, no biggie on the install. Originally PC games did that and then you didn't have to ever put the disc in the drive to play. Then they realized people just aren't honest and will pass around one disc to all their friends...
a.j. @ Feb 5th 2008 2:07PM
I just got into it over @ Joystiq with a few 360 fanbot geniuses about this. People need to go outside and go for a walk or something. I'd gladly do a 20 minute install if it means saving a few seconds during the game. For every second that passes, loading right before a boss fight or after something awesome happens, that's a second where I lose the immersion I have in what I'm doing.
TinyTim121 @ Feb 5th 2008 2:15PM
I'm 50-50 on the subject. Luckily it won't affect me as i have a 250gb in my PS3. But if i left the 60gb (Or worse, owned a 20gb PS3) then this would definatly make me think twice about buying it.
20 minute install time dosen't bother me one ounce. But 5GB is a lot of memory for 20gb/40gb owners. Infact if i remember right, 60gb took up 5gb for the OS and a further 20gb for BC.
I think they should have made the 5GB optional. If i owned a 20gb or 40gb system, i probably would have given this a rent, finsihed it, then deleted the install.
TheEnd187 @ Feb 6th 2008 7:26PM
Wrong it only uses 5Gb for the OS, after reformatting the Drive, or buying the 60Gb Ps3 new it leaves you 55Gb.
I don't mind that it takes 20 minutes to install, but they need to fire that guy coming out with stupid responses like that, we had enough of this nightmare PR last year. Also the ONLY actual thing that bothers me is that it doesn't "eliminate" the loading times which i believe we were told.
TinyTim121 @ Feb 7th 2008 6:12PM
Yeah, that no loading times would have been immence!
Fiddlesworth @ Feb 5th 2008 2:18PM
@adolson
Why would you have 8 games (that NEED installation) installed at once?
Crazy logic, it really is like people are looking for an excuse to be offended.
Fiddlesworth @ Feb 5th 2008 2:18PM
@adolson
Why would you have 8 games (that NEED installation) installed at once?
Crazy logic, it really is like people are looking for an excuse to be offended.
Fiddlesworth @ Feb 5th 2008 2:21PM
@adolson
Why would you have 8 games (that NEED installation) installed at once?
Crazy logic, it really is like people are looking for an excuse to be offended.
adolson @ Feb 5th 2008 2:31PM
Uh, it's not unheard of. Why would I NEED to install games on a console anyhow? Read my whole post, I clearly said it isn't THAT big a deal, but it is kinda stupid to not be at least optional. If you think that having options is a bad idea, then there's something wrong with you.
James @ Feb 5th 2008 4:27PM
OK, so I don't *need* 8 games installed at once (or in my case, 4...), but when it takes 20-30 minutes to *do* the installation... you do the math. Look at it this way: if I had a 5-minute install for a game, I might pull an old one off the shelf, throw it in, and hit the john before I play. If it's a half hour, I'm going to leave the game on the shelf and go play something else (probably on my 360 =-).
Anyway, I'm leaning towards buying the 360 version, partly because of this -- I barely have 5 gigs (on my 20GB model) free as it is, and I like having that scratch space available so I can e.g. download shows from my MythTV box in case there's a network problem while I'm watching them.
adolson @ Feb 5th 2008 2:29PM
So, it is optional, like Unreal Tournament 3?
adolson @ Feb 5th 2008 2:36PM
That should have been a reply to Roto13, but for whatever reason, it didn't work right.
drdre74 @ Feb 5th 2008 2:33PM
I would rather get the download done and over with and not have to wait once I start to play the game. Capcom is damned either way they go. "jUST GET OVER IT" its not the end of the world.
grognard66 @ Feb 5th 2008 2:57PM
The installation size is a legitimate gripe. I have over 50 games for my 360 (and traded in double that) and if each of those games had 5 Gig installs this would pose a serious problem for any standard console HD in existing SKU's (for PS3 or 360). It's true that Microsoft requiring developers have their games run without a HD (although they can utilize it if it's detected) has its own set of headaches, but I think we're seeing the slow speed of the Blu-Ray combined with the limited accessible RAM come back to haunt PS3 developers who are given the choice between long and frequent load times or eating up a huge chunk of HD. I'll buy a multiplatform game for the console which doesn't require a 5 gig install every time because of the large number of games I purchase.
davivman @ Feb 5th 2008 3:30PM
You have over 50 Xbox 360 games!?! AND you've traded in twice that many? So you are saying that you have owned over 150 games on a system that has been out for 2 years. That's like buying a new game every 4 days. Are you a real person? Is your job "full time video game player"? I seriously hope you are exaggerating because otherwise you should probably come out of your little video game cave and enjoy some fresh air.
emaxximus @ Feb 5th 2008 3:31PM
One would think that if you spend $3,000 to $9,000 on games alone ($20-$60 per game) it would be a drop in the bucket to buy a bigger hard drive
TBDave @ Feb 5th 2008 3:13PM
I don't care about the install time. I wouldn't care if it took an entire hour. But I really don't like the 5GB requirement. I'd be ok with 1GB, but 5GB makes this game a huge drivehog. If I owned a 360, I would consider buying that version instead.
I really hope this doesn't become the new standard. I don't want to get to the point where I have to deleted stuff on my HD just to play a new game.
deaftly @ Feb 5th 2008 4:48PM
My 40 gig ps3 is already starting to get a tad low on space. im not a fan of this game installation bullshit
Vincent @ Feb 5th 2008 3:56PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Capcom worked a little harder couldn't they have made this game "loading-free" without the need of a 5gb install, like Uncharted?
deaftly @ Feb 5th 2008 4:29PM
You guys forgot to mention that with the HDD install the ps3 version loads at the same speed as the 360 version in general. Hate when that happens huh?
emaxximus @ Feb 5th 2008 4:38PM
Do you even read the article befor you comment?
"It cuts down on load times, making it load faster than the 360 version despite the slower drive speed."
deaftly @ Feb 5th 2008 5:23PM
We're a good few hours into both versions and the load times on the PS3 version are a few seconds shorter than the 360 cousin at best. They're definitely no way near "Super Nintendo speed".
Perhaps you should read the actual article that ps3fanboy is linking to, perhaps ps3fanboy should read it also.
parkd @ Feb 5th 2008 7:54PM
What link??? Both links up there don't talk about anything you're talking about...
parkd @ Feb 5th 2008 7:57PM
Oh, found it. Did they go through the whole game? I doubt it.
grognard66 @ Feb 5th 2008 4:37PM
Actually Davivman, I just checked my profile on xbox.com and the number is 160 games. You can verify this too - my gamertag is "El Cid". Pretty neat how an online community and features can work so you can verify these things on at least one system, isn't it? So yes, I'm a real person and I've really bought that many games as everyone in my family enjoys video games (we have multiple systems - not all of the games are for me to play personally).
For the record, I'm admittedly anal about tracking my games (its my biggest hobby) and have spent over $3K per year on games for many years now. This is not a financial issue for me rather than a philosophical one. There is no reason a CONSOLE game should require 5 gig installs. The 20 minute initial install is not a problem, it's the arrogance of assuming customers should be happy to delete other content or buy another HD just to play your game.
davivman @ Feb 6th 2008 10:30AM
I don't think there is anything arrogant about assuming that 99.9% of consumers don't own 160 games and intend to play most of them over a short period of time. I'm not going to make fun of your hobby, since I'm sure we all enjoy gaming (even though I do think indulging that much time or energy into anything probably isn't healthy). I don't understand why deleting old game data is such a big deal for you. It's not like you have to delete the save data and accomplishments which probably only take up a couple of megs. If you get the hankering to play the game once a year take 20 minutes and reinstall it once a year. If the game is a favorite of yours and you want to play it more often, leave it on your HD. For most people this is a non issue. For you and the 3 other people in this country with hundreds of games, sorry to inconvenience you, but tough cookies.
mccomber @ Feb 5th 2008 4:42PM
This does seem a little crazy when you have games like Burnout and Uncharted that stream off the disc, and bring us worlds every bit as detailed (and larger) then what I've seen from DMC4. No, it's not a big deal but it seems like a silly problem to have at all, and if I was an owner of a 20gb with several PSN titles or a few videos saved, this would be a legitimate concern. 5gb seems like a ridiculous amount of data to save just to cut down on load times.
Dark-Dx @ Feb 5th 2008 4:52PM
So.. is it mandatory or not????
kentuckyfried @ Feb 5th 2008 5:22PM
20 minutes is hardly worth complaining about.
yah, it comes out today! I don't know if I'm going to pick it up immediately since COD4 consumes all my free gaming time, not to mention the backlog of other titles I haven't even touched (Ratchet and Clank, Folklore, etc).
naruto007 @ Feb 5th 2008 7:16PM
i bet are some hardcore 360 fanboys that are creating all this fuzz.
not saying all 360 fans are dumb but like there are some ps3 blind fans there for 360 too.
Zeus the God @ Feb 5th 2008 7:38PM
the devs will get better anybody notice uncharted not having dl anything but ran smoothly. devs will get better.
kerbero9 @ Feb 5th 2008 9:46PM
So let me get this straight...
Capcom can't fit Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix into the 150MB XBLA limit, but yet they can fit DMC4 onto DVD9 with acceptable loading, but yet they can't fit DMC4 onto a 25GB Blu-Ray disc without having to cache 5GB onto the hard disk first to have acceptable loading...
What is going on over there?
My head hurts reading this ....