Christ you people will bitch about anything. You all just want to be pissed off.
Bro all I’ve seen you doing is bitch about everyone bitching about everything.
Yes. Bitching about your bitching. It’s gone full circle.
You stick around though, and continue to bitch. I don’t know which is worse, tbh. You are aware of the bitching that takes place here and yet you continue to return…and bitch. So my take is that you like to bitch but you’re getting bitchy because other peeps are gathering on your once-private province of bitchery. There was a ton of bitching happening before you came here, and there will be tons of bitching happening after you leave. Cry into the void all you want, you just look like a bitch though
Or maybe I don’t want to spend over 100$ for an SSD that can store more than 7 games, or leave my computer on for 24 hours to download the fucking thing.
$60 my man. 2TB. Less than a controller. You’ll survive.
I’d prefer they spend time optimizing CPU, GPU, RAM usage instead of storage size.
In third world, internet is expensive, so shit like this would cause alot of people to have to download it over more than a month
Actually internet is cheaper in third world than first world. But PC hardware is expensive.
Obviously depends on the country but in general Internet is the worst, there’s a reason the piracy scene is so big in India, although maybe it’s just because the servers will be further on average.
These are rarely mutually exclusive. Rather the opposite, as these textures and whatnot need to be pumped through RAM and VRAM via the CPU.
I remember when even having a 160gb hard drive was unthinkable.
My buddy’s first HDD for his Amiga held 20mb. It was the size of a toaster, and cost something like $400. Now, a chip the size of my fingernail can hold a terabyte, and costs less than that HDD. I know it’s slowed down a lot, but I really wonder where we’ll be in another forty years.
My first computer was a Coleco/ADAM with a tape drive.
My first “IBM Compatible” computer was a 286 with a 40 MB hard drive. It also had a CD-ROM which at the time was this whole huge futuristic thing. We had an entire encyclopedia on a CD! They could hold hundreds of megabytes! More storage than I could ever need!
I have a camera drone with a 128 gigabyte micro SD card in it. The card is smaller than my fingernail. I freely admit that having that much storage on something so small just doesn’t add up in my brain. I know its possible, it works, I’m just someone who grew up dealing with megabytes being something that took up a lot of physical space and now something a few orders of magnitude larger could get lost in my pocket.
I remember watching ZDTV/TechTV in the 90s and Leo Laporte referring to an 8GB drive as “an entire universe in there”.
The first computer I ever used didn’t have a hard drive (Macintosh 128k). The first hand me down computer I had in my room was a 286 with a 500mb HDD.
I vaguely remember that one evening my father drilled into me that if I get a dialogue box with the text [Disk Read Error, (Abort) (Retry) (Initialize)?] That Initialize was never the correct option. Apparently I deleted one of his projects by mistake. I was 5 or 6 at the time
I think my first harddrive was smaller than that, and we had to compress it to get double the space. However, everything ran 4x slower.
Americans like BIG
MORE!
“Japanese game dev has been here”
“How can you tell?”
“30fps cap”
“Is Bethesda a Japanese word?”
I mean I can understand how textures add up but 161 gigs for a basketball game seems like a lot of unoptimized stuff going on
The majority of the space on modern games is taken up by high definition audio. Those thousands of commentator lines add up to dozens of gigs alone.
So they’re likely not optimizing by not using Opus.
Idk if NBA games have a lot of cut scenes but those are sometimes the culprit; Separate rendered videos in every language that the game supports.
Madden is only like 50 gigs I think
Do they not even use compression anymore? I’ve been wondering since Steam came out if I was downloading compressed game files or wasting bandwidth every time. They used to try to conserve storage, compressing everything to fit on one or two discs (or floppy disks before that)
No it’s fine, I’ll just buy another external hard drive
Image Transcription:
A version of the White Man Has Been Here meme showing a Robert Griffing painting of two Native American trackers examining footprints in the snow. One is standing and the other squatting, both are holding rifles. The squatting tracker is saying “western game dev has been here.”
His standing companion asks “How can you tell?”
The first tracker replies, “161 GB for a basketball game”.
The footprints in the snow have been replaced by a screen shot of an X/Twitter notification by Saved You A Click Video Games replying to a post by GameSpot reading “NBA 2K24 File Size Revealed, And It’s Even Bigger Than Starfield - Report dlvr.it/Svvggh2” accompanied by an image of a basketball player for the Lakers team. The Saved You A Click Video Games’ response reads “It’s 161GB on Xbox Series X|S.”
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜 We have a community! If you wish for us to transcribe something, want to help improve ease of use here on Lemmy, or just want to hang out with us, join us at [email protected]!]
Y’all wanted 4K Next Gen Gwaphix well that shits gonna cost you some storage space lol
Sucks but whatever. Been happening since the beginning.
Cyberpunk is like 70GB
And Starfield is more than twice that. It’s ridiculous.
There’s no reason for it.Starfield is pretty huge though isn’t it? I dunno, it feels like if any games should take that much storage space, it’s a massive space game.
The area of space in the game doesn’t cost data like that lol.
The install size is because of textures and sound files. They don’t know how to compress or optimize files.
And starfield could easily be way larger. The textures in Starfield aren’t actually that high res (part of why, despite it being a very demanding game, it doesn’t use much VRAM, generally topping out at 8GB)
well space is mostly empty/sSo is the entirety of starfield tbh
deleted
And SSDs are ludicrously cheap now.
My first SSD was 240GB, for £300. (£1.25/GB)
I can get a 2TB one now for £64. (£0.032/GB)
And that’s just comparing the storage, nevermind one being a vastly faster NVME drive that also takes up less space, is more power efficient, and doesn’t have two annoying cables to manage.
IMO huge file sizes are more of a download speed issue than a storage issue
deleted
Sometimes my internet goes down to 100Mbit/s and I have to fiddle with my switch to get it back to gigabit.
Life is a nightmarish hellscape.
Do you have like solid number of reasonable gigabytes a game can be? How did you arrive to this number exactly?
You don’t uNdERstAnD, a game must be less than 1GB in size or it’s unOpTiMiZeD.
But at the same time, man I’m sick of these last gen/old non raytracing cards are holding us back! Where are my rig melting next gen games?!?! Oh wait I have to download 100GB and still turn down settings to High!?!? unOpTiMiZeD!! furiously leaves bad steam review
And that size was outrageous just 5 years ago.
deleted
I think the solution to game size (aside from optimization) is breaking up the game into optional downloads. Things like, 4k textures, high poly models, multiplayer, singleplayer etc.
This would be a great feature. However some of that has shared resources. SP and MP probably use 85% same stuff. Have seen UHD Textures as a separate download in some games.
I would be happy with optional localization files
i want good graphics
NO FILLING THE HARDDRIVE, only good graphics😡😡
Jesus christ what a braindead thread this is. Evil devs just filling your games with bytes just to piss you off right
Unless you render every basketballer nuts in 4k quality, there is no fucking way a basketball game adds up to 100+ gigs
Something that i liked very much on some games was choosing the assets you want to download, you want to play on low, no need to download ultra high res textures.
The thing is, using less resources is always an optimization cost for the company. If the user will just get better hardware, there’s not much incentive for spending on that. Unless the company aims for devices with lower hardware like switch, deck or mobile.
Two things:
I’d say around 98% of players don’t want to choose between texture sizes. Plug and play is by far the most convenient, especially on these sports games. Seriously, think of someone who legit plays nba games, do they really care?
Second of all, graphical fidelity is the only thing keeping these games afloat. There is not much untapped innovation when it comes to sports games. They HAVE to make graphics better per gen to justify 80$ pricetag or whatever these games go for.
Compression is a thing. But software developers offload their laziness on their users.
From the games I’ve seen, all of them have used compressed textures. It’s the industry norm my dude. I don’t think I have ever seen an uncompressed dds in the wild
You are confusing compressed textures and compressed files. Texture compression is used to give older hardware a chance to render anything by reducing quality of texture which is stored on the GPU. Yes, it has been industry norm since forever, also, not what we are talking about here.
Textures are files. Wth are you talking about, have the game run from winrar?
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? There are archives optimized for game asset storage. But even then, yes, there are actually games which do this. Whole of Quake and Doom series (older versions anyway) used zip archives. Source engine also stores its assets in archive. Pretty much every major engine supports one form or another of asset packaging with or without compression. No one saves PNGs and WAVs anymore.
Yea you mean archives, another one of the industry norms? Wouldn’t necessarily call them compressions as the size difference is sometimes insignificant, but I seem to be missing your entire point, what is it? What are game devs doing wrong?
Lack of compression. Hence huge game sizes. Lack of optimization as well.
Compression, rendering and other algorithms that use the processing power of the console rather than then entire ssd storage. This 161gb is so incredibly lazy
It would mean slower loading perhaps but there’s a balance to be struck there. Besides, game being fun has nothing to do with game being high fidelity or huge hard disk space.
Not just slower loading. Less available performance in game.
Every time it needs to load a texture it’s uncompressing it on the fly…. That’s going to take away from CPU and RAM (both the compressed and uncompressed versions will be in RAM).
I don’t know how much power you think it takes to load and render textures on a model, but I can assure you that as long as you are not running on a potatoe programmed by monkeys slamming a football into a keyboard, it will not significantly impact performance once loaded.
It’s not going to be less performance in the game. Once uploaded to GPU texture is ready to be used. Just the loading part would be slower.
That’s only true if the GPU can fit all of the textures for the whole game in its VRAM, and doesn’t need to store anything else.
What do you think the chances of that are?
It’s not a chance based thing. But sure, sometimes keeping texture in memory is fine.
It is loading them dynamically in the background constantly. If those textures are compressed, it’s doing work to load the compressed version into memory, CPU is reading it out of memory, decompressing it and putting it back in memory, then moving it to the GPU.
It will take 1.5x (assuming 50% reduction in the compressed copy, probably would be worse) the RAM plus the CPU overhead depending on compression algorithm.
That is happening while you’re playing.
Unless at load it is decompressing and storing the decompressed textures on your disk, in which case you need 1.5x (or more) of the original storage to play the game and compressing them in the first place is worse if the thing you’re optimizing for is game size on disk (which is what this thread is complaining about).
I agree with this. I think the real problem is that people have been complaining about this for years and Sony and Microsoft still do nothing about even tho they sell consoles meant for gaming. At least add transparent compression to the filesystem. Have more storage for games right off the bat instead of selling 500GB models and calling it a day.
Sure, but that’s not the devs problem. They cant fix consoles
this is why I game on pc
Unless the campaign is simulating the entire industry up from the fuckin 40’s then there isn’t any reason for this game to rival COD in storage
There is one simple reason: the bigger the game, the fewer other games you can install. So why spend time optimising size on disk, if it will just cut into the live service profits of your game?
Honestly, I’d not considered this angle before, but I would not be surprised at all if a product manager at Activision has had this thought.
I don’t think that’s a reason they use. If anything, I’d expect live servicr games to benefit from the game being smaller, because they want players to not uninstall it when they’re feeling finished.
But “why bother” certainly is. There’s not that many players who will not buy your game just because it’s big. Most games are focused on the initial sale. Optimizing for size is expensive. Why spend thousands of dollars of expensive software dev time while making the game more complex to test for something that won’t affect many sales? Especially compared to fixing bugs or adding more noticeable features. Software dev is always a matter of tradeoffs. Unless you’re making something like a mars probe, there will always be bugs. Always always always. How many people will complain about a bug (which unexpectedly turned out to be game breaking in some niche case you didn’t think about)?
I don’t think that’s a reason they use. If anything, I’d expect live servicr games to benefit from the game being smaller, because they want players to not uninstall it when they’re feeling finished.
The smaller the game, the more likely you are to uninstall when you’re done, because it’s easier to re-install (and you don’t need to free up lots of space). Large size means you’ll keep it installed so you don’t miss the next content drop. Keeping it installed means you’re more likely to play, because you have less choice.
It’s a combination of sunk cost and FOMO.
It cuts both ways. If you’re low on disk space, you can uninstall 10 small games or just one large game.
Though personally, I’ve been happy after I threw in a larger SATA SSD and now I can move installs from my faster NVME drives to the slower one when I want more fast space. I generally ignore the games smaller than 5gb when trying to find more space.
If you glitch outside of the stadium, you can actually load in GTA and Cyberpunk 2077 depending on which direction you go.
Instructions unclear, glitched my dick into the backrooms.
Just keep glitching, you’ve got potential.
Now i’m QPU misaligned…
Mario 64 File Select plays
There is no reason for cod to be that large either
Less people have the opportunity to pirate it with the fuckhuge download and install
The biggest obstacle to piracy isn’t drm. It’s ridiculous system requirements.
Diablo 2 lod installed: 3 gb Diablo 2 resuracted 25 gb
Is 4k images consuming that much more space?
No, but raw audio and high res 3d models are
3d models consist of images right? Coordinates for the image does not take up much?
It depends how they store the models, if they’re using normal mapping (which they probably are) they will need to store the following in a file: Position (x,y,z) normal (x,y,z) texturecoordinates (u,v) tangent (x,y,z) bitangent (x,y,z). For each vertex, assuming that they’re using a custom binary format and 32-bit (4 byte) floats, 56 bytes per vertex. The Sponza model which is commonly used for testing has around 1.9 million vertices: in our hypothetical format at least, 106.4MB for the vertices. But we also have to store the indices which are a optimisation to prevent the repetition on common vertices. Sponza has 3.9 million triangles, 3 32-bit integers per triangle gets us an additional 46.8 MB. So using that naeive format which should be extremely fast to load and alot of models, 3D model data is no insignificant contributor to file size.
Yes but also more polygons for more detailed models. Which… is more space but it can’t be that much lol idk tho
That’s nothing compare from ark
The uncompressed sizes make for a much faster install. Repackers like FitGirl compress the duck out of the game files to make the download smaller but it takes ages to install the games afterwards.
