RAGE's mandatory install on PS3 is... HUGE

RAGE is full of graphics. So full of graphics, in fact, it can encounter some trouble getting them all off a console game disc fast enough. Nothing major in 360's case, as we already know it will be possible to play the game without installing it to the hard drive, although if you want the best experience, you can optionally install a massive 21/22GB of data to help things along. But according to an interview with Bethesda's Tim Willits, PlayStation 3 will require a mandatory install. And it's pretty big.

How does 8GB sound to you? Sure, it's smaller than the 360 install, but that one's optional. PS3's is mandatory. In order to play RAGE on PS3, you're going to need to free up 8 gigabytes of space on your hard drive. If you've got a 40GB or 60GB PS3, that might be easier said than done. I wouldn't want to have to start deleting games just to play another one, although RAGE is hopefully going to be worth the effort. We'll know soon enough.

Above: This guy just found out he's going to have to delete his download of Super Rub-A-Dub to make room

19 Aug, 2011




  • Kruegmeister - September 27, 2011 7:18 p.m.

    360 is on 3 DVDs so I'm betting its not gonna play off the disc so well... BTW to answer someone's early post. To upgrade the PS3 hard drive backup at least your saves. If you have an external hard drive you can use the Backup/Restore in the System area of the XMB. All you need is a 2.5 inch laptop harddrive which you can get 500 gig probably for $50 or less. If your upgrading your 360... you need a Microsoft Memory card $30 maybe... and a Microsoft 360 branded hard drive (feed Mr Gates... he is so broke...) $99 will get you like a 120 gig... yeah ripoff... why is it only Microsoft is allowed to play Monopoly??? I wanna pass go... I wanna collect $200 dollars (4 years Xbox Live)
  • InfamousJihad - August 20, 2011 10:27 p.m.

    How do you upgrade your hard drive?
  • avantguardian - August 20, 2011 3:02 p.m.

    @jmcgrotty: thanks, i haven't laughed like that in a while. you know, sometimes, people actually mate, and have children. but personally, i let my friend use one because he's disabled and can't afford one for himself. you should get upset though, that makes sense. and attempt to insult people you don't know over the internet. pretentious man-child fanboy #2... p.s. oh yeah , everyone knows feeding the homeless and buying people hdds is the same thing... ... ... ...its called a metaphor, guy. why don't you guys ask mr. towell why he wrote the article in the first place? i',m sure it was so privileged assholes would be able to comment on how they weren't worried about it. justin?
  • jmcgrotty - August 20, 2011 11:50 a.m.

    Edit/note: I suppose that a legit reason to have 2 working Xboxes at the same time could come down to different regions. Still silly, in my opinion, but could be a valid point.
  • jmcgrotty - August 20, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    Time to clean up Odds and Ends... Inkyspot, you said "I'm installing it on the xbox, so 8 gigs is nothing." Just so you know, if you're installing it on the xbox, you need 3 times the space as the PS3 version. I'm not saying this changes anything, but saying that 8gb is nothing because you're putting it on an xbox doesn't make sense. (Only thing I can figure is that you might mean "I am putting it on my xbox, and since I know I need 22gb of space, the 8gb would be nothing." If you meant that, I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry.) TigerSmith2001 said "people are just lazy here." Come on, it's not a gamesradar issue of having lazy readers. EVERYONE deals with lazy people. TheVoid, the first FPS was Maze War, nearly 20 years before Wolfenstein 3D. Wolfie was the prototype for what we now know as the FPS, but it wasn't the first. Beyond that, your history of id and FPS'es did more to prove your opinion flawed and pointed out problems with the industry than anything anyone else said. You point out all of these great technical "advancements" that id brought forward, and in all honesty, with a few exceptions, they are almost all downgrades from the previous titles. And while you won't believe me, I am not just saying that to be a contrarian. I really do feel this way. Mod support in games: Horrible addition that is still an embarrassment today. NEVER should have happened. Quake: legit force in history. You're right, but the continued pushing of more multiplayer made the game a joke. Quake 3: the focus on multiplay literally killed the franchise. The company (and genre) has never recovered. There is a reason that people consider FPS players the "least-common denominator" and a joke to the industry. They support a ridiculous genre and don't mind getting reamed three times a year thinking that some new multiplayer game matters. Ultimately, id shot themselves in the foot and still don't know how to get out of the problem they created. Seriously, if anyone wants to play an online game, stick to MUD's. There is absolutely NO REASON for anyone to 1) not be playing them constantly, 2) think that there is anything better and 3) there is any better option for online play of any type. You want your "mod support"? Be a creator/admin/whatever name you want and create new content. You want FPS? RPG? Action? Puzzle? A MUD does ALL of these things at the same time. But you're a FPS fan, so obviously a MUD is too confusing and too much work for you to be bothered with. *gasp* I have to read!?! *gasp* Why this keyboard? I'm scared and confused! *gasp* Online play with people who aren't total dipwads (Yes, there are exceptions) from all over the world?! HELP! I'm SCARED! Ugh. As you can see, it's a big issue to me. AvantGuardian, you talked about how the size of the install affects more than just one person and people should take that into account with their outrage. Then, you use some silly comparison to feeding malnutritioned people. If you are really such a caring person and don't want to see those people who have small HDD's not get to play, why not buy them a new hard drive. You how you can buy homeless food? Really, your comparison is ridiculous. Beyond that, and this is more directed at everyone I guess... Unless you're breaking an EULA with one and have modded it, why the hell would anyone need 2 working Xbox 360's at the same time? Seriously. And your nitpicking on the drawbacks of the PS3 are really sad. If you really think you can see any inappropriate AA issues (or "jaggies" as you call them), that a Blu-Ray access time is any worse than any other optical medium ever and that the "update/installs" are any sort of hassle, you have serious issues you personally need to deal with. Or, you know, read a book for 20 minutes while the "update/install" is happening God forbid you aren't actually playing a game 100% of the time you are awake. Don't want to actually read? If you're still taking showers, start the "update/install" and take a shower. By the time your shower is done, most of the time, the download will be finished. As for the "shitty ports," that's all old news. Doesn't happen anymore. And even when it did, the ONLY way anyone noticed was using screencaps of games next to each other. No real person playing would notice the difference while playing. AND as for "shitty online," that is the absolutely stupidest thing you could say. I have both PSN and Xbox Live accounts, and for features that matter, they are 100%, absolutely, positively, no-question-about-it the exact same. There is not a SINGLE feature that Xbox Live has that the PSN should have but doesn't. You have every right in the world to decide to not buy a PS4, but to be frank, if those are your reasons, you're an idiot. God, you got me all pissed off now.
  • jackthemenace - August 23, 2011 2:26 a.m.

    Not to, like, ruin your argument or anything, but don't you mean "Lowest Common Denominator"? Least-common would make them rare, and that CERTAINLY isn't what CoD fanboys are.
  • Zodiax - August 20, 2011 8:38 a.m.

    It'll fit real nice on my 500GB HDD.
  • sgtGmast3r - August 20, 2011 3:50 a.m.

    i still have 50 Gb left, whheeeww . .
  • avantguardian - August 20, 2011 3:12 a.m.

    @bladedfalcon: then you are COMPLETELY missing the point. its about making things available to everyone that plopped down hundreds of dollars for their console, thinking that it would have the base functionality to AT LEAST play games without issue or upgrade. not everyone has the same resources. remember, sony's trying to make the ps3 your entertainment hub. they knew 40/60 gig hdds would have to be upgraded. in fact i'm sure they PLANNED on it. this isn't even mentioning the already noticable performance issues in the ps3 version. and anyways, we're talking them not allowing full installs, not partial ones. i also think its funny that, considering i didn't even bother to read any of your comments, that you would take what i say about sony personally (*cough* fanboy *cough*). oh, the irony. and my complaints about the ps3 aren't mere hyperbole, they're VERY REAL issues that every ps3 user has to deal with. well, accept for those who are willing to bury their heads in the sand and ignore them. 360 has plenty of problems, too, particularly with their proprietary add-ons, but everything else about it has caused my ps3 to be strictly for exclusives/collecting dust. there's nothing snobby or childish about lamenting a personal decision involving an expensive purchase. in fact, i would go so far as to say its the OPPOSITE of fanboyism. i have a pc, 360, and ps3; i'm not going to be afraid of being critical. p.s. you shouldn't talk out of your ass about pcs on here. you're just going to get reamed. cheers.
  • BladedFalcon - August 20, 2011 1:54 a.m.

    @avantguardian Um... We're not missing he point at all. And I particularly speaking, don't really care one way or another if I'm required an 8 Gig install. I guess it would be better if the PS3 allowed a partial install, but maybe that would be too much of a hassle to be practical? I am no expert though, so can't really comment on that. However, what, am i supposed to hate on Sony because other users might not be able to play a game without deleting a few files, (or just transfer them to an USB, it's not that big of a deal after all, see?) and i can? How is that making me in any way pretentious? ._. Also, please don't use this small detail to suddenly blurt out hyperboles about what you might not like about your PS3. If you don't like it, fine, you're free to hate on your console. But using taht as a way to lobby insults to others only makes YOU sound snobby and childish. Just saying...
  • BladedFalcon - August 20, 2011 1:42 a.m.

    @tigersmith2001 *laughs* sure thing dude, have fun buying new expensive components for your PC every 6 months and STILL not be able to run it at the very best quality (: I'm perfectly happy having a bit less detailed graphics, pop in. Or overall lower graphic quality and even an 8 Gig install if it means I'll never have to worry about changing my console for at least 4 years and play any game that comes there without a hitch. And it' s also a plus that I need to disc change at all :3
  • avantguardian - August 20, 2011 12:46 a.m.

    @everyone who says "my hdd is huge, so what's the big deal (paraphrased)?" is kind of missing the point imo. its like "if i'm well fed, who cares if others are starving?" an 8 gig MANDATORY install for ONE game is ridiculous, particularly for that less vocal group of ps3 users that have 40/60 gig hdds. hypetrain is right in questioning (if its a matter of performance) sony's refusal to allow full game installs. mine's 120g, and pretty much empty, but again, that's not the point here, and i would still pick this up on 360 even if i have to erase some shit. it saddens me that my ps3 lets me down just as often as it impresses me. as a hardcore ps1/ps2 user, i never expected MS would be getting most of my cash (i have 2 360s, 0 rrod in 5 yrs - its called ventalation). but the shitty ports, shitty online, ridiculously jaggied graphics, stupid updates/installs, slow-ass blu-ray loading, and most recently the pretentious man-child fanboy base have me questioning whether or not i'll even want a ps4.
  • Nano1124 - August 20, 2011 12:03 a.m.

    I only do type of stuff if it makes the game load faster or anything like this.
  • wrayday - August 19, 2011 11:25 p.m.

    I have a 320GB HDD and nothing to put on it. Might have to pick up the PS3 version because my 360 is full.
  • TheVoid - August 19, 2011 11:22 p.m.

    Hey Darkhawk, how about some respect for id? Considering they not only invented the FPS genre, but also (typically) manage to reset the bar pretty high with each major release, it's awfully short sighted of you to write Rage off as "just anohter FPS"/id as a "just another FPS developer". To your "God of Sony Gaming" remark, you should absolutely consider id to be the "Gods of the FPS", so bow accordingly. Cases in point: Wolfenstein 3D broke into wildly new territory (being the first FPS ever - mind blowing for its time) while successor Doom not only raised the bar in terms of graphics and the single player experience, but also introduced remote multiplayer (another mind-blowing first) and full support for the mod community. Quake was the next major release (Doom 2 and the expansions being justified and quality cash-grabs), amping up everything set before it with fully 3D modeled characters and envirnoments and improved multiplayer. Probably the least playable by today's standards, but at the time it was downright unheard of previously. Even Quake 2, while not offering anything tremendously new, still managed to raise the bar with tighter graphics and a greatly improved single player campaign. Then there was Quake 3, which dismayed single players with it's lack of story, but again we have id writing the book on competitive fps multiplay action with Q3's focus on arena matches (which many still consider to be the "standard" even today - just look at Notch's challenge to Bethesda and his "weapon of choice"). And then came Doom 3, which drove just about every PC owner in the world to flock to their nearest hardware dealers and fork over cash for a stronger video card because the graphics were (again, at the time) revolutionary. Most people reference Crysis as the "pc game that most pc gamers couldn't even play" (untrue, btw) but Doom 3 really owned that crown at the time. Even then, there were graphics options included in the game in support of video cards that did not even exist yet (thereby ensuring at least one more playthrough once video cards outfitted with 512+ mbs of ram hit the shelves). Now - you could whimper over id's more recent catalog of less-than-stellar titles including Quake 4, Quake Wars, Wolfenstien, etc, but it should be noted that id never claimed any of those to be technological breakthroughs (as they have repeatedly touted with Rage), not to mention that those projects were farmed out to outside developers, so they are not really pure-bred id offerings anyway. The defense of the clearly under-appreciated id software aside, the whole debate is kind of moot. As the level of graphics in games increases while the hardware in the current gen consoles remains fixed, more and more games are going to require beefier installs to run well to commensate for the console's inability to upgrade processors, GPUs, etc. PC gamers (like myself, which isn't to say I'm not a console gamer as well) are used to having to either tone down the graphics or upgrade our rigs anytime a system-crushing new release comes out (Crysis and Doom3 being the most recent examples that I can think of), but console gamers generally don't have that flexibility. As such I would think the "install to HD" requirement to be a fair enough compromise, considering the alternative is that current gen consoles miss out on Rage altogether (assuming of course that it will be that good, but even if not the graphics bar will be raised and taken into account across most developers, thereby forcing id's competitors to take the same approach). Long story short, this is really the only way for the current gen's aging consoles to keep up with the continual demand for better graphics, so everyone had better start getting used to it (and start freeing up some room on their hard drives, because Rage or not more games are going to need that space). Oh, and by the way, I might be totally wrong about this but I suspect the XB360 version will run like total ass without the 22 gb install, made even more painful by the fact that XB360s do not support HDDs outside of the brand's own ridiculously overpriced line, making it (another) glorious day for PC and PS3 owners with their relatively less steep requirements and more flexible (and significantly cheaper) solutions. I think it is extremely safe to say that as of this news, it has become increasingly obvious that the XB360 has little to no fight left in it's aged-to-the-point-of-wheezing hardware.
  • tigersmith2001 - August 19, 2011 11:05 p.m.

    So guys you dont have enough room in your old PS3. would you of rather had 3 red rings of death. atleast you got your moneys worth from the PS3. AND YOU CAN buy a 500gb Hard drive off new egg and fucking install it. its not even that big of a deal. people are just lazy here.
  • tigersmith2001 - August 19, 2011 10:48 p.m.

    Terrible article. Who cares if its 8gb. This is the digital age. I rather install for 25 min then keep poping in disks for the rest of my damn life. This is why consoles suck. Man up and by Rage for PC
  • inkyspot - August 19, 2011 10:08 p.m.

    I'm installing it on the xbox, so 8 gigs is nothing.
  • crumbdunky - August 19, 2011 8:26 p.m.

    @bladedfalcon-Exactly, if installing helps with load times, FPS and so on why is it reported as such a big deal when there's a mandatory on PS3? I've had games on 360 installed in,. what, five minutes or so and, using Alan Wake as an example, i'd say I ended up on the winning side , time wise and quality wise, over my mate who runs off disc with his 4gig slim. Honestly, I feel if you added up the lengths of his loads they'd out do my install plus loads by a decent length of time over the length of the game as they were(load screens) so much quicker to get through with the game installed. five minutes at the start to cut total loads down from twenty minutes(for example) to ten with the added performance bonus in tear and FPS etc on top(pop in too)-who wouldn';t install who had the room?
  • crumbdunky - August 19, 2011 8:21 p.m.

    Are we really saying this is either news or(just the same as pointless crying about multiple discs for gamers on 360-also no issue)a pain of unthinkable magnitude for PS3 gamers? I'm used to BIG installs on PC for great games, I'm someone who ALWAYS installs EVERY game I can on 360 (my old shape Elite still scratches the odd disc and the less work it does the better)and someone who WISHES you got that option more often on PS3 rather than just this half way house whenever a PC heavy developer comes along unused to optimal use of PS3 hardware. I'm not digging iD there just saying it's no shock a PC dev would use the short cut of an install on PS3 given they don't work on it often. Also, iD have said this ensures there will be NO pop in on PS3 and the console versions will be, like all decent releases these days, near identical as possible. Play on PC if you are that bothered about graphics and have the rig to do it justice(I probably will)or play it on whichever console you like/own/prefer the controller for as it's going top be a good game on all platforms and look good too. If, however, you hate installs I'd just not play it at all as it'll need one to be it's best WHATEVER you play it on and I'm praying for a full install option on 360 top avoid too much disc changing-as apparently, like five minutes for PS3 fans, these kind of things are game breaking!!! FFS. FIND proper news, yes? If I could fully install EVERY game I could to help the hardware and improve how the game runs I'd do it and this install is for those reasons and on 360 it's a multiple disc game so installing there will be the order of the day as it always has been on PC. where's the issue?

Showing 1-20 of 48 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000