Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The achilles heel of console hardware. The loading times.
I think it's interesting, specs of consoles were always compared to PC, and the latest consoles do have comparable specs to PC.
But no one mentions the fact that console still use DISCS, and still have a slow HDD instead of an SSD.
On PC people have SSD now, and the whole game simply gets installed on the HDD, we no longer load from disc. Consoles don't. They still load data from disc during gameplay and the data that is installed, loads from a rather slow HDD.
The game bloodborne is ranked as the highest PS4 game so far. Quite a violent game and not my taste, but regardless, it got a 92%.
If you look at the user score, only 88%, a bit lower already.
If you look at the Amazon scores, there are a considerable amount of 1 stars for such a game. Yesterday it had only 4 stars, instead of 4.5.
Almost all complaints have to do with the slow loading times, combined with the amount of deaths in the game.
In fact, many of the negative reviews have nothing to do with the game itself, but are based on the perception that the game takes much too long to load.
It shows the achilles heel of consoles.
Comments
And these loading times are how long?
Are we talking 5 min, 10, 20 minutes? Or even les then a few minutes?
I love Bloodborne but the loading times are beyond a joke, I'm pretty damn sure this will be patched and made a lot quicker .
The real question is how the hell was such a massively hyped game released with such an obvious flaw .
Lets not forget though you can also put an SSD in your PS4 which will improve these times.
How fast does the pc version load?
Around 40 seconds on average. In other games people accepted this..somewhat (Ihave seen complaints in other games too however).
But in Bloodborne, where the player dies a lot, this problem is magnified, since each time the player dies, the player is hit with another load screen.
Some people timed how much they were loading, some were loading 2/3th of the time they were playing.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I believe this might not work as well. As far as I can tell, PS4 is SATA 2.0.
SATA 2.0 is still a very slow standard compared to SATA 3.0 on PC.
SATA 2.0 is not an adequately fast bus for SSD.
However, Sony has never been 100% clear on this, the official specs are SATA 2.0, but maybe the next version of the PS4 console will fully support SATA 3.0.
I remember reading the PS4 specs and I found it extremely weird it said SATA 2.0, but everyone was very busy comparing the GPU and CPU. A SATA 3.0 chipset would have not cost them that much more Ithink.
I read some reports of ppl swapping the HDD for an SSD.
In the game, loading times went from around 40 seconds to around 31.
It's better, but probably a PS4 with SATA 3.0 would be much faster.
if an SSD with SATA 2 makes it faster than the default HDD on the PS4 then it is a worthy improvement IMO. You shouldnt compare it to the PC. The PC will always be superior hardware wise. I would not spend $1k+ to build a beast PC if my $400 bucks console had better hardware. So yeah, they dont compare at all. Unfortunatelly, Sony/MS refuse to accept that and keep pushing their nonsense of making them more PC-like.
Of course they could have gotten SATA 3 if they wanted it. AMD had been selling SATA 3 chipsets long before the PS4. But if it would have cost an extra $1 to get SATA 3, then skipping it is an easy, obvious call.
SATA 2 does cap you at 300 MB/s. But what you need to realize is, that's blazing fast. If you get real-world performance of 100 MB/s transfers to or from a drive, that's very fast and there's rarely any reason to care about getting something faster than that. The problem is that when you have to load a lot of small things, a hard drive may struggle to get 1 MB/s, as it spends most of its time seeking to the location of the next file to load. An SSD can get you into the tens of MB/s in such harsh workloads, and that's why SSDs are so great. Peak performance in sequential workloads rarely matters.
What benefit can't you gain from 300mb/sec faster write speed? Personally i'd junk that HDD in a heartbeat to improve to SATA 2 SSD.
Yes you can, but that won't change much. It will slash load times by 30-50% at average.
Because majority of systems will be fitted with HDDs and game will be designed around that.
For real breakthrough you'll need something better than flash that is used by current SSDs.
You will need a tech that will be both very fast and cheap enough to replace HDDs and warrant whole diffrent hardware and software architectures. (from OS schedulers to in-game solutions).
and that's not flash, not even with 3D stacking and other improvements.
This is an issue with the game you have picked I don't play on a console/PC but one of my flat mates plays a lot on PS4 and loading times are definitely very short for a lot of the more demanding games.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
I don't play console games anymore,i quit playing them way back around 1995,that is a long time.IMO they have been inferior to PC gaming ever since that date.
I never even thought about load times as even PC's were slow to load and install games back in the day.I worry much more about game designs.A perfect example is games that when you die you have to keep repeating the same procedure over and over and over with the exact same mobs and the same combat,unreal boring and yes Bloodthorne is one of those very poor designed games.If your going to make me wait for loading and repeating content at least keep it randomizing so i don't get bored like watching paint dry.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Instead of playing better people cry about the loading times, quite tragic...
Has nothing to do with that. Bloodborne is a hard game, you're going to die in it, a lot. No matter who you are.
Each monster basically swings at you, and you need to learn to step back and sidestep on every swing, it takes time to learn, since you need to learn the moves of monsters.
Everyone who plays Bloodborne or Dark Souls, (they're from the same creators), will die in the game, a lot. It's just how the game was made.
That obviously compounds the loading problem.
Sounds more like a problem with Bloodborne than the PS4.
Load times are to be expected on a console, but for most games it isnt an issue people even care about. On a game where you may die 20 times an hour and stare at a 40 second load screen every time you die I can see the complaint.
You actually won't die a lot if you play carefully (esp in Bloodborne, jesus the healing is op in that game), the games are not hard, you are just not an unstoppable juggernaut of doom like the majority of games these days.
I plan to do a no deaths run in Bloodborne as I have done in all the previous souls games. It isn't even some monumental achievement, winning a round in most roguelikes is far more difficult.
I thought the half life 2 loading times were more annoying back when that was a new game.
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
Disk drives are cheaper and have more capacity. Thats why you see them on console.
Obviously if money is no object you can build something that performs better.
But that is not the point of consoles is it OP?
Another, lets bash consoles, PC elitist post.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I recently beat Bloodborne, it was mediocre at best. Thought DS was way better. The story was laughable (don't get me started on the endings!), fps at times horrid. I enjoyed the variety of being a caster from before. Also, yes the load times were horrid. I saw 40 seconds mentioned. At times I had load times up to 2 minutes! I don't remember DS being that long, and that was ps3 lol.
When I went to do a trade in at best buy, the guy let me just pick out a new game instead, so got FF type 0 hd. Didn't plan on getting yet, but with a direct trade, I went for it. Can trade that in when I'm done and get same money back, so basically got for free lol. The load times on that are like 2 seconds lol. (Not saying FF is better, haven't played enough, just that the loads times are drastically different, and that I got it for free basically hehe.)
Bloodborne is just poorly optimized and has less going for it than previous titles. I think if Bloodborne was the first game released back on the ps3 with the way it plays now, it probably would have gotten low 70s and not spawned a successful franchise. The score should be even lower on this system after the other games created, but it is not, although it is steadily dropping as more people play and progress through the game. Most of the reviews were probably done in the first hour, omg this is awesome! Play a little more and it is like wtf is with this game. I'm sure some people love it, but if they played the previous games, I don't see how they can.
edit: tldr:
Not the system, but more so Bloodborne is just extremely poorly optimized in many aspects and plenty of other games have much better load times, fps, utilize the hardware better. Oh and Bloodborne sucks compared to previous titles in series.
Solidstate drive is the biggest thing that makes a difference to a computer's performance. I would rather have a shit CPU and a shit GPU but not having an SSD is just horrible.
SSD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RAM > CPU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GPU.
COnsoles would greatly benefit from SSD but then again loading times are not bad as they are at the moment. Bloodborne is probably just a horribly optimised game.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
In the course of doing your no death runs, how many deaths did you have while training to completely master the game?
Exactly
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
^ Exactly times 2