• Jamie@jamie.moe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know storage is cheap, but nearly half a terabyte? I’m already giving any game the side eye if it takes more than 50G of space on a disk, let alone nearly 10x that.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        By leaving translations and so on out, but they can’t change unoptimized and duplicated but only once used assets in every map.

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can choose to compress files on storage. If on linux. Or use tools like ConpactGUI to compress in windows 10/11.(not recommended to compress live service titles)

          Part of the reason for the bulk of course is prerendered video and voice assets, especially if it has multiple voice options. Also non standardization of os level compression means you cannot send those conpressed files for users as not all users could use them if compressed using the methods mentioned above.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great, let me just whip out my computer science degree to figure out how the fuck to even do that.

        • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t need a computer science degree to downloaded and install a pirated repacked game.

    • spacesweedkid27 @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      storage is cheap

      My guy, if you talk about slow ass HDDs then yes, but games have become so large that you have to have a SSD at least to have enough read speed for reasonable loading time for shaders, textures, etc.

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anything >2TB becomes very expensive very quick
          Add PCIe 4/5, M.2 form factor, non-2280 length (like SteamDeck) and extra features (if you need them) and they quickly begin zo add up to a point where it’s not feasible to buy it beyond having enough budget to not worry about that fact.
          And afaik you’d need PCIe 4.0 M.2 storage to being able to use DirectStorage

          • Micromot@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was only talking about normal m.2 ssds for pc, console is something different. There aren’t many extra features you meed for gaming. Storage is very cheap right now in comparison to what it used to be but it still isn’t cheap enough for game studios to pull this shit

            • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              SSDs sure became cheap and I agree that the game devs are pulling some heavy bs with that stuff. My rig is all flash based (+ an HDD that is for nvidia shadow play so it doesnt write my flash to death for nothing useful. I won’t count that).
              But shopping for a PCIe 4.0 M.2 4TB 2280 is very expensive when you compare it to a 4TB HDD or even good desktop 8TB 7200 RPM CMR drive.

              Usually my backlog is used enough for me to justify not spending the money on >2TB (anything equal or below 2TB is dirt cheap) TLC drives.

              Small addition:
              4 TB Crucial P3+: 216€
              Sabrent Rocket 4TB Q4 M.2: 280€ Samsung SATA 8TB 870 Evo (QLC): 344€
              8TB 7200RPM SATA drives (Geizhals link to how I searched): Anything between 145-250€
              (Heavily depending on others factors like cache but still cheaper if you have the patience to wait).
              8TB 2280 M.2 SSDs: Starting at 780€.

              Yes the costs are coming down and 5 years ago you would probably be ballin to even think about 8TB in flash as a consumer. In another 5 years SSDs may become so cheap per TB that only € per TB would make a HDD feasible until you start to put SSDs in a 3.5" enclosure and arent constrained by the 2.5" form factor. The cost quickly gets out of hand at some point for a consumer just for having to wait 20 seconds to one minute.

              Hope I made my stance clear: It’s cheap. Until it isn’t (for a consumer)

              • Micromot@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Indeed but the drop in prices for what I considered the normal sizes gives me a little bit of hope for the bigger drives, I would really love a 4/8tb drive so I don’t have to worry about storage again but that will have to wait some time

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Each main cod is 150gb now

      Downloaded dmz for some friends on pc it’s 68 so consoles probably see 75-80 if not more

      This is BEFORE the fact that On console, each game demands its own space to unpack the entire thing when it tries to update. So on PS5 not only is the game 150gb, but you need 150 free space to update meaning the game is functionally a “ghost” 300gb (I uninstalled cold war over this shit, I don’t have time or room on a console for that fucking nonsense)

    • Send_me_nude_girls@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’d think, thanks to removing HDDs, we’d no longer need file duplicates (because physics) and games get smaller again. But then you get unoptimized 4k textures and huge language packs for the 10000 hours of cutscenes, which you all have to always download. sigh

    • spudwart@spudwart.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you meant “half a terabyte”, but given its obviously just an oversight I’m probably just nitpicking.

  • Pharmacokinetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I FUCKING LOVE DEEP ROCK GALACTIC!

    FOR SUCH A SMALL PRICE AND ONLY 5GB OF SPACE REQUIRED YOU GET INSANE AMOUNTS OF CONTENT AND FUN!

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Khassaki: HI EVERYBODY!!!

      Judge-Mental: try pressing the the Caps Lock key

      Khassaki: O THANKS!!! ITS SO MUCH EASIER TO WRITE NOW!!!

      Judge-Mental: fuck me

    • AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      is it still worth getting into? it seems like something I’d like but I’ve never played it before and don’t have crazy amounts of time like I used to. should I still give it a go?

      • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I played for a while and it’s fun. Definitely worth the price, and IMO it’s an easy game to drop for a while and come back to a month later. Helps prevent burning out. If you’re the kind of player that needs to 100% everything in a week or two you might find it grueling; there’s a ton of progression to do.

        It’s nice that you can just go on a single mission and it only takes ~1/2 hour, so there’s hundreds (thousands?) Of hours of content, but it’s all broken into small enough chunks that most people could probably fit it into their schedule.

      • VeryBald@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely! I think you can have fun with it, no matter how much time you invest. It feels like the main focus of the game is just the player to have fun.

      • Dettweiler@lemmyonline.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve been playing solo all weekend. Still lots of fun. I want friends to play with, but it’s absolutely enjoyable solo.

  • Frozzie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, I can’t believe you. I don’t want to believe you. A +400GB game, come on. Seriously.

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      On console: Mw2 150gb warzone2 115gb Mw2s “cod hq” for launching games 50gb (the only mandatory one) Mw3 seems to be about 190 looking at articles. (For campaign, zombies and warzone)

      They’re starting to obfuscate where each thing comes from now with the Cod HQ Launcher to play off the size of the games. As well as let you delete components like zombies and campaign to “save space” that they hoarded.

      • moody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be fair to Ark, it has 9 massive maps, and with the exception of the main one, you can install only the ones you want to play on.

        • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          massive maps

          Data points in the range of Gigabytes (uncompressed), the rest is unoptimized textures and models, duplications and other bullshit. Bet you could get 10 or so fps more, if they invested a few days for optimzations.

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          IIRC ark stores each model. If the island has 1000 trees, it stores the model of each of them, instead of having 1 model and copy-pasting it. Neither CoD not ark care a single bit for their storage needs.

  • Daxtron2@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t get why modern AAA refuses to compress / distribute lower storage requirement assets.

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s hard and it particularly slows down the asset production process which is already a disproportionately slow and expensive part of development. Way easier to let the artists go apeshit exporting everything at 8k and a billion polygons because storage is cheap in a production environment.

      Compression could help in theory, but then you’d have to decompress assets on the fly which takes a significant amount of processing power. The industry is trying to reduce the latency of getting assets into memory, compression would be moving the other way from that.

      If you’re conspiratorially minded then you might also conclude that it’s to prevent people from having another major live service game installed on base model consoles, making you more likely to keep playing the one you’ve already installed. A kind of walled garden effect.

      • Daxtron2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean I get that decompression can be expensive, but there’s nothing stopping them from having a base version of the game with smaller lower quality assets and allowing players that want to download the huge assets do so with a free dlc. Many games have done this in the past.

          • Daxtron2@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah that’s what I was trying to say, couldn’t think of a specific example of the top of my head tho lol

        • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing except the work of creating lower quality assets and splitting off the HD stuff into a separate download. Totally doable and I’d love to see it, but I doubt studios will commit the man hours unless they can be convinced that it will really make the game sell better.

      • Why decompress on the fly? For a lot of things the crazy high-res textures aren’t needed or appreciated while playing. I downloaded some newer FTP Quake title. It had 30 fucking GB for like a dozen maps or so. It is a god damn arena shooter. You are way to busy jumping around, making fast paced shots and so on, to ever appreciate that the texture is still detailed, when you are pressing your virtual face against ist. And it takes so much more ressources because the texture needs to be loaded in the VRAM and then scaled down anyways because you aren’t pressing your face against it.

        • emberwit@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Enough reviewers giving the ratings that influence sales of a game claim to care.

    • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Requires effort. Also I’m thoroughly convinced hardware and software companies do it on purpose.

      It’s like the whole wearing Nike as your sponsor, the devs are paid to make it badly optimized so customers are encouraged to buy new tech.

  • JayJay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meanwhile, I’m playing an indie game that’s less than a gig and enjoying it. But I’m not much for fps games.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Planet crafter needs, with one big map, 3GB disk space and loads from menu in 1 second. Just for comparison.

  • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Better hardware make gamedevs more lazy, remember when they managed to squeeze a game with 3d+music into a CD? (Lego island) now 100+GB for a below average and unfinished game, back then if you have mid even low end PC you can still enjoy most if not all the games (1990-2009) ever released now devs just know everyone have high end PC to play their 10 minutes games before you got board and play solitaire instead

    • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      remember when they managed to squeeze a game with 3d+music into a CD? (Lego island)

      Back then a CD had about as much storage as your entire hard drive. Also, lego island isn’t really a AAA game. A AAA game from 1997 would be something like final fantasy 7, which came on two whole CDs. Drive capacity hit a boom around the 2000s and 2010s, and only recently have AAA games been catching up.

      People always want to blame this shit on game developers being lazy, and they’re not wrong that a lot of AAA games are bug ridden messes designed to please shareholders. But games are getting more and more complex, and these developers are being forced to work under strict time constraints.

      That doesn’t mean there isn’t room to improve. Maybe offering different download options depending on your storage needs should become a common practice (iirc some games used to do that back when internet bandwidth was limited).

      • pascal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Final fantasy 7 was 3 CD on PlayStation and 4 CD-ROMs for the windows version.

        I know, I was there.

          • pascal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I remember that, the Linux installer was included on the CDROM, it was very unusual for that time!

            • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, it was one of the few games that actually shipped with Linux binaries. Also after like 8 months, they released a huge update with some 10 new maps, new characters and a new game mode as a free download instead of calling it a “DLC” and charging money for it. Back when games were actually made to be played instead of being a marketing platform.

    • notepass@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tho shit has changed since then. The quality of audio and video has increased. Especially on the visual side this takes a lot more storage. More polygons and more pixels equal larger size.

      Also, if I remember correctly, data is often stored in multiple places to make it more efficient to read it from BluRay or HDDs.

      Tho, with SSDs now in everything, the second thing will probably die out.

        • GreenMario@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can only optimize 4K textures so much that they drop right back to “FHD” or sub HD quality. 4K is big.

      • DroneRights [it/its]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tho shit has changed since then. The quality of audio and video has increased

        That’s a bad thing and we can and should go back.

      • Perfide@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is already the case. Even the fastest blu-ray is like 40x slower than the internal SSDs on the PS5 and the XSeX/XSeS, and the largest capacity is only 100GB which isn’t even a single Call of Duty.

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Games which needs a NASA computer and a half Google server to play it with more than 15 FPS are not necesarly better as some 15 years old games for Win XP, they only have somewhat better graphics.

    Remembering old Games, like Black Messiah or Tomb Rider from 2013, which work at >30-50 FPS with a few Gigs HD and less than 4 Gigs RAM, apart of having very good graphics.

    New games often also are badly optimized, needing way more min sys specs as needed for the quality they offer.

    Someone remember the game kkrieger? A short 3D FPS in a single file with only 96 KB, that is art. It can still be downloaded (abandonware, Windows)

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      War Thunder coming in being an 11 years old game and still needing a NASA computer to run with graphics that look like the PS2 era.

      • EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be fair Old games that have had a shit ton of updates usually get bogged down overtime Especially if they weren’t expecting anything large scale

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That what I mean. Companies often do not even bother to optimize the games, in order to sell them as quickly as possible. “Works? Ok, let’s start next, our CEO’s Ferrari needs a repair.”

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Problem is companies don’t care about making their games efficient, they care about keeping production costs down

      As long as it’s efficient enough to run on medium settings on the average consumer’s machine they won’t put any more resources towards improving it

      Optimising them requires expensive developer time that probably won’t affect their sales proportionally (realistically do most people really not buy games just because they can’t run them on max settings?) And they’ve already got the eye candy for their trailers that consumers can technically achieve so they don’t bother

    • emberwit@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      kkrieger ironically is solely optimized for hdd storage space and quite inefficient regarding other specs, as all the resources not included readily in those 96KB have to be generated in real time by your computer instead of coming shipped with the game as usual.

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, but just like in this game, procedural generation is used in many other games. even currently. The art is to find a balance between space savings and system performance. This is not the problem, because too many times they overdo it, both one and the other, often using prefabricated models to complete it with new characters, environments and plots, which look more and more similar even though they are different. companies. Nice graphics but zero originality and linear plot. Optimize it? Why, when it works in their company computer? Fuck the user, if you want to play, buy a bigger PC, period.

  • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    I swear ark survival evolved is a fucking zip bomb. There is no way that game is 350gb and has been for years. I had to install it on a second drive.

    • snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I looked at some of the files in that game and experienced severe pain. Did you know the audio log objects take up like 7gb because the assets are copied in their entirety for each notebook page. So instead of sharing textures for the parts of the notebook each page has its own complete book material in unnecessary resolution. Also pretty sure the audio could be squished down more. Anyway that’s just one small part of it. The maps are insanely big in terms of disk size.

    • LucidLethargy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Studio Wildcard later identified SDE Inc. as its parent company. SDE Inc. has been described as an affiliate of Snail Games USA, the American branch of the Chinese video game company Snail Games.

      Can’t blame Western developers on this one.

    • MTLion3@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s getting 100% intentional. I find it ironic when CoD used to be known for being a fairly storage conscious game and now it’s this monstrosity we see before us. Glorified $70 DLC that takes up MORE space than the game it was made for

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why delete unused code and assets or optimize anything when your player base built their personality around your game? They will buy a 3rd SSD at the same time they buy the same game for the 4th time.

        • Contend6248@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you mean unused code, there are 3 complete unused games in there.

          Download >100Gb = 5 maps, obviously

          • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Of course, everyone knows you start development of a new game from the code base of the previous, but you aren’t allowed to change or delete any of the old code, you need to copy paste the functions and append a version number. It’s called version control.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        CoD players won’t play another games because there’s not enough storage left to install another games? Sounds like what Activision would do.