PS3 News: FFXIII-2 File Sizes A Lot Smaller Than FFXIII File Sizes - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

FFXIII-2 File Sizes A Lot Smaller Than FFXIII File Sizes

Perhaps those who are interested in pursuing video game creation and programming will offer a reasonable explanation.

According to a poster in the NeoGAF forums, the file sizes for Final Fantasy XIII-2 are significantly smaller than FFXIII, and this goes for both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game.

Apparently, FFXIII-2 comes in at 14.446 GB on the PS3 and 7.8 GB on the 360; in direct comparison, FFXIII weighed in at a whopping 37.6 GB on the PS3 (on a dual-layered Blu-Ray disc), and the game was 18.3 GB in size on the 360 (with three DVDs needed). So, it seems Square Enix got better at...something. We're not designers so we don't have an explanation, although we imagine it's probably simple; we'll let the more technically minded community members at PSXE explain the drastic difference.

And don't think the game is smaller for some reason; the game will last 40 hours and supposedly contains enough content to push that play time over 100 hours. No, this is all about compression and stuff like that...and I'm clueless. ;) By the way, FFXIII-2 launches today in Japan.

Related Game(s): Final Fantasy XIII-2

Tags: final fantasy xiii 2, ffxiii-2, final fantasy xiii-2 file sizes

12/15/2011 10:26:17 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (21 posts)

DrRockso87
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 10:50:20 AM
Reply

Square explained in an interview that they're now using more real-time cutscenes instead of CGI cutscenes so they don't need as much data storage as before.

As for why the 360 version is only 7.8gb while the PS3 version is 14.45gb, I haven't a clue.

Last edited by DrRockso87 on 12/15/2011 10:50:41 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 10:56:27 AM

there has always been a difference in videogame sizes between microsoft and playstation formats. As far as I know the 360 is the king of decompressing.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 3:24:13 PM

Cesar,

The 360 may be a lot of things, but the kind of decompression it is not. If anything, the PS3 can far, far outperform the 360 in a decompression, compression, encryption or decryption race since it's CPU does have more math grunt.

The truth of this is far more likely due to the size of the texture data and the relative capabilities of the game engine on either platform. If the game is based on the same game engine as FFXIII, the 360 version runs at a resolution approaching 576p, while the PS3 version runs at 720p. That alone is in the region of a 30% increase in the amount of visual data to run at the target resolution. FFXIII ran cutscenes in 1090p on the PS3, if this new one switches to that higher mode for cutscenes, even though rendered in game, there is additional data required for the resolution.

Either way, I'd bet that the 360 version has less graphical detail and that is reflected is the different file sizes.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 5:30:26 PM

most likely because with the ps3 and bluray, they can afford to leave the filesize as big as they want. if they did that with xbox and dvd, they'll need to pay extra fees the bigger their game is. therefore they're trying to minimize the amount of space the final product any way they can to avoid extra charges.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 10:54:35 AM
Reply

if videogames are anything like video file sizes, there is no freakin way you can compress something by half without compromising something...anyway, come on Ben how long have you been reviewing videogames? you should at least have a clue as to how this works. No disrespect, I'm sure you're the kind of guy that likes doing research.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:23:28 AM

Video games are nothing like video file sizes. Pre-rendered video files are. :)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:22:04 AM
Reply

My guess is that there is just lesser of the stuff that takes a tremendeous amount of data space: Video files.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:33:49 AM

I'm still confused as to why the 360 is compressed by half. Even stretching it back out again at the end would have some sort of effect at that large of a compression, wouldn't it?

(I don't actually know. It's not hypothetical)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:39:20 AM

Compressed textures perhaps?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:45:46 AM

Yeah, it is strange.
Maybe Xbox use a better video codec? What codec you use can make an enormous difference, and Microsofts WMV makes a pretty darn good result (and tiny file sizes). I'd guess that's what the xbox use?
I have no idea what video codecs the ps3 support though. I'll have to Google that one. :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 3:25:12 PM

If the graphics engine is the same as for FFXIII the 360 version runs at a considerably lower resolution than the PS3 version .

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:41:09 AM
Reply

It's because of compression. There are two kinds: loseless and losy compression.

In loseless the compresion algorithm compresses the media without a loss in quality and the compresiĆ³n ratio is usually around half the original size. This seems to be the kind used in the 360: 18.3GB x 2 = 36.6GB (PS3 version 37.6GB. The 1GB missing could be the added sound formats the PS3 version supports).

In losy compression the assests get a quality hit in order to get a much smaller size.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:50:37 AM

It's not that easy, Ignitus.

Remember, even lossless codecs can offer compression. Ref FLAC and APE and those audio formats. They are lossless compression codecs. All data compression codecs are (obviously) lossless, ref ZIP, RAR, etc.
Same goes with the video codecs: There is no 1:1 relation between quality and file size. The different codecs offer different advantages. And some are just plain outdated and should no longet be used. :)

You are on to something though. There is a pattern here. My best guess is that the Xbox support a more effective codec than the ps3.

Last edited by Beamboom on 12/15/2011 11:55:43 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 11:53:37 AM

Could be but the almost perfect 2 to 1 ratio seems to be the case here.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 12:05:04 PM

Yeah the pattern is apparent, I'll give you that. :)
But there's nothing particularly strange in itself that one codec is 50% as effective as another. Maybe Sony went for a lesser cpu-demanding video codec (there usually is a relation between compression effectiveness and cpu load) since they got all that space on the blu-rays anyway. It could be just that simple an explanation... I dunno.



Last edited by Beamboom on 12/15/2011 12:08:40 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 12:44:45 PM

It's still compression. CODEC stands for COmpression/DECompression.

And by the compression ratio in the first game it seems it was loseless compresion that was used in the 360 version.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 1:10:46 PM

You mix terms a bit here, buddy. "Compression ratio" and "lossless" are two different things. A video can be encoded in a lossless format. But no game use a lossless format afaik - there is no reason to do that unless you are a professional broadcaster.
For example, the movies on DVD you watch on your TV are stored in a lossy format (mpeg-2).


Last edited by Beamboom on 12/15/2011 1:16:14 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 3:29:27 PM

It's not a difference in compression algorithm. for one set of files to be fully 50% of the size of another, it's not simply a different compression algorithm. That kind of difference reflects something far more fundamental, either one is compressed and the other is not, or one contains more information than the other and both are compressed.

There was some talk in the past about devs putting game assets on BluRay in uncompressed forms because the space is there. So that is one possible explanation. Differences in the target resolutions of the game engine on each platform may be part of the answer. But if it were as simple as one using a more effective algorithm, you wouldnt see more than a few % difference in compression rates.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Akuma07
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 6:19:10 PM

More than likely improved their compression algorithm.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, December 16, 2011 @ 4:48:38 AM

Highlander, you can't possibly have ever experimented with saving video projects in different formats if you imagine the difference is just a few percent between the different formats. You should - and be prepared for a surprise!

If you own a camcorder, go transfer a snippet to your pc right now and try rendering it in a variety of different formats using at least a semi-pro editor. You will be shocked at the file size differences. It will be *much* more than a few percent.

Then play the clips in your different formats. You will discover there is no apparent relation between quality and file size - just a ridiculous difference in file sizes.
The difference between the various codecs are enormous - and includes more than just compression (a simple example is subtitling support). And I've noticed that the Microsoft codec (wmv) is creating amazingly small files compared to video quality. The mpeg-4 format is also remarkably good when it comes to size vs quality.

In fact, the older codecs are typically producing fugly looking pictures and much larger file sizes than newer codecs, *especially* on heavy compression - they are simply not built for it.
To claim that these differences can't possibly be only from algorithms is just plain wrong. Try it and see for yourself!


Last edited by Beamboom on 12/16/2011 6:55:06 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

StevieRV
Thursday, December 15, 2011 @ 4:38:46 PM
Reply

didnt i read somewhere the devs put these buffers in to fill the disc which helps decrease the loading times? this was a while ago though, so im not sure, just an idea

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

If you don't have a PS4 yet, why?
Not enough games I want.
I don't have the money right now.
I'm happy with other platforms.
I just plain don't want it.

Previous Poll Results