Games forcing multiple languages instead of only installing the system (or selected) language is another major issue, and a huge problem on Steam. God forbid one includes dozens pre-rendered cutscenes, in multiple resolutions, for every single language the game supports. I've been able to remove 20GB worth of needless crap like this from a number of games. Devs should be mindful of this, but nope, it's often an oversight. If we were still using HDDs (that are now over 20TB), things would be fine.. but we're using SSDs, many people still have old 512GB ones, but even modern NVME 2TB are fairly expensive comparatively, and if every game is taking 100GB, well, you can't even install 20 games.. and that's a pretty low number for a gamer.
everything is moving to laptops and portable now rather then the desktop setups - which is why the push for ssd. i suspect there's a push to not have blowout specs for desktops as they have ot suffer so laptops look better. That, and windows is garbage, they run linix on their own servers, lol, and i swapped to mac and a steam deck, mac for work with 256 gb hdd and 8 gigs total ram, and the steam deck, as you know, isn't powerful, and with crap specs, i do far more then windows could - hell, i can run 8b llm on my macbook with speeds faster then my r9 6900hx with a 3070 ti windows machine could ever do, with lower power, temp and just improvements all around *shrug* it's just the way things are headed, unless something revives desktops
Yeah this is true localization packs aren't really a thing anymore like it used to be most games just ship with all languages. Around 360/PS3 and early Xbox One/PS4 generation it was a lot more common to see localization as free DLC for games. And as games grow in size the amount that needs to be localized grows as well. I'm currently adding localizations to my mobile game and because it's quite small in scope each language only takes up a few Mbs but I'm still considering a download system additional to the main install.
I don't care about the storage requirements so much, I have 23TB of SSD, (11 Sata and 12 NVME) in my PC so I have enough for all this stuff, but my problem is I live in Australia, so it takes me a week to download a 100gb game. SSDs are so cheap now, like the 4TB Lexar drives are so good for the price, it feels like you're stealing from them.
This is Exactly the Correct answer. If a game has 6 languages it installs all 6 at 6x the space requirement then it should or downloads all 6 languages for no reason whatsoever. IF youve ever seen a repack youd realize the same game can take up 1/6th the space and you would instantly wonder why everyone is not repacking with specialized language packs.... so lame.
@@mttrashcan-bg1ro What HBA are you using? (since no consumer motherboard has more than 10 SATA slots, especially newer ones, grr...) What PCI-E card are you running to adapt all the NVME drives? Do you have a random visual stutter in games you can't explain? Lasts about ~300ms. What about other performance issues, especially I/O?
the problem isn't that the system requirements are too high, it's that we don't get the same improvement as we used to. a game from 2005 looked leaps and bounds better than one from 2000. but the game from 2024 doesn't look that much better than one from 2019. system requirements have increased exponentially, but there was only minor improvements in graphics.
Now that we have upscaling, engine developers got sloppy and just said the upscalers can fix it. Now we've got dithering on shadows and other crap because the expectation is you will run DLSS/FSR and fix it.
@@Flyon86easy. Don’t buy NVIDIA if you are ok without raytracing and just wanna play games. I went from a RTX4070Ti to a RX6900XT. It saved me some money and I also got a performance increase (because of the 4GB increased VRAM)
yeah, i didnt honestly think these two would have such terrible takes about gaming, kind of concerning honestly. They don't even address the reason why a lot of these games are unnecessarily big(meshes and uncompressed or poorly compressed textures and unnecessarily detailed models). they talk about nostalgia and hating when in fact literally 90% of the games from 5 to 10 years ago are still better than the stuff we get today, like bro called cod4 unplayable, when it still offers more content than some of the more recent cods. The vram thing was another issue I had, yes games are only going to get bigger which will require more vram to store said data,but what about using smart rendering techniques instead of having to use dlss or spend a fortune on a new GPU, and then they had the audacity to show one of the most unoptimized games in the last decade for their vram topic, shit is too funny.
This for sure since they have all of these games have insanely detailed textures now but not that many actually have the hardware to actually run them so it's just wasted storage for most gamers.
Dev's can be quite lazy. examples, duplicate copies of textures. multiple language FMVs/audio instead of just the copy for the install language. This is probably the most common one. unused textures from development that isnt cleaned on release. debug files not removed on release.
The worst thing is when there's an update that is several Gb in size but the release notes don't mention anything to do with graphics. I think this might be to do with how the game's files are grouped, with dialogue text files being in the same folder structure as textures for example. Billy Basso who made Animal Well fit into about 35 Mb could earn a fortune training game devs how to keep file sizes low! Seriously though, there probably is a lot to be learned from how he achieved that.
The biggest thing I notice while playing the witcher 3 in 2024 is the character models and dialogue. If this game could have an update to Alan wake 2 level of character detail it would blow everyone's mind. My wife and I play the witcher 3 together regularly. It is a great game to bounce idea off of each other and work together. Great couples experience.
@@christophermullins7163 Well, we will get that with the next Witcher game, whenever that will be. I assume it will be Unreal 5, I think CDPR said Cyberpunk was their last RedEngine game, but idk, but they meant the Cyberpunk sequel will be the first UE5 game they make.
It's not just about texture size, it's also about the density of the meshes, ex: past CoD weapons had about 35k triangles budget, now, the weapons in CoD can exceed far 140k triangles, that is a massive increase in mesh density which does need more space, and that's just for weapons, the same applies for everything else, buildings, more detailed scenes, cars etc.
mesh is nothing in compare to textures I just open a random cliff from unreal megascans at medium quality - 3000 polygons, the mesh weighs 170 KB and has 50 MB of textures (in 2k) and in maximum quality there are 999999 polygons, they weigh 9 MB and 615 MB of textures(8k) and cliff still has only a few textures; for creatures or close objects like guns number of textures can be many times higher so they increased the size of the weapon from like 0.3mb to like 1mb... how many meshes there are in the game? a couple thousand, so its a couple gigs difference
@@jermygod Like i said "it's not just about texture size", fun fact: cod still uses the same resolution of past CoD for textures for a ton of the meshes in the game, however, the amount of maps needed has increased drastically due to the increased ennviroment details
does it matter? It's a waste of time and resources. A game needs to be good enough not as unreasonable as possible. Modders are going to do a far better job down the road than any game studio can ever hope to.
People's perception of what size of a game should be is based on combinations of things such as gameplay, fearures, mechanics, graphics and current prize of storage. Cs used require only 15gb, why does it need 45 now even though its practically the same game. It looks good, but doesn't look anything ground breaking. Same with cod, valorant, apex and many other mp games. Plus a 2tb ssd costs half the price of the GPU i am using here which is rx 7600. It's not a surprise when people complain about large games especially talking price into consideration.
Games have always been this way its just that disk space isn't keeping up. In the past hdds did grow with the size increase of games but since the advent of solid state disks we seem to be stuck in the low terabytes for years now.
Part of the reasons is the M.2 SSD aren't as scalable as manufacturers thought it would be. Also higher gen SSDs also generate heat limiting the performance. You can see the effect of that in the server space where they've transitioned away from M.2 and instead use the EDSFF formfactor.
Large games are just going to be an ongoing thing. In 1995 I got a 750 MB HDD and people were like "Whoa dude! You'll never fill that thing up!" . I thought the same thing...I was definitely delusional for sure!
i think the problem people see is there are substantial system requirement increase for the same level of performance, some of the example we can see is some early access games which shift from UE4 to UE5 (Satisfactory for example), shifting the gaming engine, drastically uses more resources but no vistal or game performce improvement. this makes the "recent" UE5 looks bad. also when you compare game visuals between generations (last of us pt1 vs Division2) the system requirement is drastically different but the visual looks almost the same when looking at online streaming (the assets looks not that different from a streamer's eye)
Yeah a lot of the games I've seen running on UE5, like Immortals of Aveum, don't really look that much better than UE4 games but have a lot higher system requirements. I realize a lot of that comes down to RT/Lumin/global illumination, but it's like they're pushing all these taxing features while GPU's haven't improved that much in the last 3-4 years aside from the premium high end ones like the 4080-4090 that a minority of users actually buy.
The issue isn’t about storage space or the cost of the storage but rather the time it takes to download the game completely. In Asian countries, it takes a whole day to do it due to internet speed isn’t the same as in Western countries
IMO most games need cpu optimization. Im not a developer but from what i understand its difficult to spread workloads across mulitple cores. So i think some developer can figure out a way to optimize cpus we could see a substantial uplift in terms of performance. I think gpus are strong enough since now they can last a solid 5 years+ but really after 5 years i think an upgrade would be worth it. With intel and amd having 8+ cpu cores it would be awesome to use those extra cores to do some extra cool things. I personally would like to see better physics in games, like way destructable environments and rag doll physics, better animation for walking running. Fear is an oldie that shook my world with the destruction and half life 2 as well as some of the older battlefield games.
The problem with the growing storage requirements is also that storage spaces have stopped outgrowing them due to the shift from HDD to SSD. It's something that is very visible with laptops, as their size drives are more "standardized" than on Desktop, and often not upgradeable. Only now on laptops are 1TB SSDs becoming the norm when we were at 500GB Hard drives a dozen years ago or so already - but back then the average AAA game needed less than 20GB of storage. As such, with people with 500GB SSDs for instance, there ain't much space left anymore after installing 1 or 2 AAA games and having Windows on that same drive.
A game like BG3 I don't care about it being 150gb because it has tons and tons of dialog and areas, is 120h long, and has a lot of visual variety. Meanwhile COD just has a short campaign and multiplayer maps yet somehow needs all that space.
COD is known to use uncompressed audio. Like 80% of the game size is uncompressed audio. They just don't optimize their game enough so they can use compressed audio like every other game. But uncompressing takes a little bit of performance so they use this.
plus 3D NAND has reached commodity status. we lived through the maturation process where costs dropped year after year. now it's like oil, wheat, copper--subject to price fixing, currency fluctuations, geopolitics
We are very different ppl. I have 1.5tb of m.2 and that seems plenty for a while. I do not buy new AAA games tho. I like simulators and a couple older games like the Witcher etc.
@@andrewmtgx I had 10tb of hard drive space but I disconnected them.(Still physically installed) I only use them as redundant drives for old pictures, videos and files. No need to run them everyday when I just want them to last forever. I used to use them for torrent downloads but I have so much space on the 1tb SSD that I just use that and then delete it once I watch or install it or whatever. It is crazy how some people have hundreds of games installed. I have maybe 5 to 10 available at any point and have a hard time choosing what to play lmao
I couldn't disagree more with the later part, my most memorable game experiences in the last years have been decades old games. Many modern games don't even look that interesting outside of the technical aspect.
I do like how some old games now still hold up for example the division and Arkham knight, at least from a visual perspective. These games are 9 years old and look great as well as running great in comparison to newer games. I find that the lower pre-sets are riddled with lighting artifacts in newer games probably due to aiming for the most realistic lighting with raytracing which will probably make a lot of the newer games age well but suffer for mid or low end users today.
A lot of games from the ps4 era (and even late xbox 360 era) hold up remarkably well visually. I played Rise of the Tomb Raider a few months ago from 2016 and it looks as good as some games from 2024.
for me, it's more about the data caps set by ISPs. 1000gb a month means once everyone in my house downloads COD, there's nothing left for the month. And knowing internet providers, they absolutely screw you for any overages; ask me how I know. I can wait for a game to download, but when I have to wait 3 weeks until my cap resets so I can download a 150gb game, that's when it becomes a problem. These games are not designed for real people to play them. they're designed for managers and shareholders.
As an OG CoD player since the first game. I do find their more modern iterations unplayable. I played CoD1 alongside the UO expansion day in day out for almost 3 years non-stop if not longer. Also, the community back then was pretty awesome. These days its a completely different beast. Havent purchased a CoD game since MW2(2009) and my boycott of Activision (in general) came into force a good good few years after that. Early games were good then they started getting too greedy and I didnt want to support that kind of company.
Pretty much agree across the board. Although I think there are benefits to developers having constraints in terms of storage and system performance. It forces them to innovate, come up with new tools or ideas and cut content that honestly isn’t all that important in most cases. Developers can very easily become their own worst enemies and I think CODs download size is a good indicator of that.
Well BD-R XL which is a triple layer Blu-ray recordable disc and fairly common these days has a max capacity of 100GB. So games could easily be put on to a Blu-ray disc plus some extra 20/30 GB content that needs to be downloaded/updated after installation in order to play the game. 😉 Also using a standard 1080P video for cut-scenes and the system local language rather than multiple resolutions or language packs on the game would be very helpful in terms of reducing the size; considering the fact that we have good upscaling solutions for playback of the cut-scene videos.
This. Twice the perceived quality for twice the size? Sure, sign me up! However, 30% perceived quality for five times the size? No. Check out .kkrieger, a first-person shooter from 2004, 96 KILObytes. Sure, that's an extreme case, but still - there's no way I'm accepting i.e. Call of Duty at 250GB is over 2.5 MILLION times better than that.
Speaking of COD what do we make of on demand texture streaming in relation to overall performance when internet connectivity is a factor? This was something that was optional, but now is being required
Optimization is important and shouldn’t be overlooked, the focus should be on how can you get the same or better quality while using less resources. 100GB should be the upper limit for games.
This is just a rehashed argument spanning literal decades at this point. Even during the 2D Display Adapter days of the mid-90s, there were *strongly opinionated* people refusing you would ever need to add the expansion VRAM modules to a GPU. If money is tight today and you want to enjoy SSD gaming speeds, I'd recommend getting a used HDD, (you can find 14+ TB for 100USD easily online). Run a low level format on it, and install a ton of games to it on your PC. When you want to play them, you can move them onto your SSD via Steam within the Settings->Storage interface. When you're done playing a game for awhile, you can archive it slowly back to the HDD for later retrieval. Note that every time you move a game back onto the SSD this has to re-write the data, which will wear out your SSD faster. But if you're trying to be frugal this is a simple way to easily fit a vast library onto a local storage source. If you have a house of Steam gamers, I recommend looking into building a Steam cache.
The bigger the game on your SDD, the less space you have for other. Therefore you're more likely to play already installed games. Nestling bird kicking its sibling out of the nest kind of thing...
yes newest AAA games do need more space for high quality textures, large maps and great sounding audio quality but what i dont get is that COD using 250 to 300 gigs and doesnt even look that good at all that is just poor management on the devs side.
Another bottleneck to large files is the Internet Bandwidth. Heck, I can easily find another 1 or 2 TB drive for £40 or whatever but it takes 8 hours to update to a new version of ETS2. My ADSL really does need to be replaced by Fibre, when it's available here.
A big portion is also PS5/XBOX compatibility. Games are cross-platform compatible. Console platforms require rigorous test of performance/bugs. EVERYTHING MOVES so that these games run 60fps on 4K television screens for your PlayStation... File Size is secondary to all... They need to be able to sell on Console Platforms.
The size of Wukong is kinda weird because I'm in chapter 3 and some places have PS2 era textures here and there. And none of the textures are insanely high res anyway, the game uses moderate amounts of VRAM. Plague Tale Requiem is obviously a smaller game in scope but textures are much more impressive with high vram usage yet it's still under 60 GB
It's the trend with UE5 engine in general where they can mask low textures with intense lighting effect, that's why most ue5 titles don't need huge vram if you don't enable RT.
Adding console storage can be pricey, but I do have 2tb on my PS5. Then on my gaming PC I have 3tb SSD and 30TB HDD. It's pretty cheap to get large capacity drives for PC, a 6tb HDD can be had for as little as $60 if going refurbished or white label. Very few games require SSD and I never notice much difference, but the few games that do benefit like Horizon Forbidden West, or Starfield, etc. I keep them on SSD
More and more games are requiring SSD's since it's the console standard now. If you want a big HDD for a bunch of pre-2020 games that's workable, but I don't think it's good for current year games.
@@Flyon86 True, for games that "requires SSD" there is usually performance benefit, but even for many new AAA games it still doesn't affect performance, only saves a few seconds on loading times. This is true for new games like Resident Evil 4, Dead Island 2, Yakuza Infinite Wealth. For indie games, hard drive doesn't matter at all, many games are barely 1gb in size. SDD matters more for games that are open world games and visually intensive with large detailed environments. They have to load new chunk data in real-time so speed matters. Horizon Forbidden West, Starfield, Atomic Heart, Elden Ring, etc., are better on SSD. I honestly don't think there are more than a couple dozen games that perform better on SSD besides loading times. At least most gamers have an SSD boot disk with enough space for 1-2 AAA games that require SSD
@@EhurtAfy For older games SSD still helps with loading times from what I've seen, unless it's a really light 2d game or something. Sometimes it's really significant like with Skyrim or Fallout 4. The boot ssd with storage hdd seems more like something people were doing 6-7 years ago when ssd was still really expensive. Anyways more and more games like Starfield just flat out won't work on a hdd these days.
You can have all of that high-quality, with less space usage! That is what compression was invented for! If most AAA dev's, also add a intelligent priority of asset quality placement, like not wasting a 4k texture on a small cup that takes less than 0.001% of the screen and as such low player attention, things would be better? Thou most AAA developers don't even do that manually they lean on virtual texturing and streaming that are automatic things that many times just do a bad job at prioritizing well what should or not get the most texture budget. If modern developers, cared as much as older developer cared, for optimization and saving space, modern games, even with 4k cutscenes, quality audio and big worlds, would still be less than 100GB, I would bet my life on that. There's people capable of creating entire complex demos/intros with music, video, animations, 3D models, etc, within 64 kilobytes... that is less than half a megabyte!! The fact is that today the mentality among most developers is "hard drive space is cheap" ( what is totally a lie imo, HDD space is still very expensive for many people, including me...) so they don't even try hard to save space. Most here probably think they tried their absolute best, to make their games smaller in size but just couldn't, but the reality is, many AAA dev's, just didn't care that much, mostly because most users don't complaint, so they get the message that is ok to not keep caring about space and not caring, saves time, effort and money. In the same vein, we are now on the stage of "RAM is cheap", so most developers don't care at all, about optimizing RAM usage, (some not even know how to do it anymore...) is a total waste outhere.
They should have option to install the only language we use in-game instead including all locale in the folder also including 4k textures option to select to install for those who only play on 1080p full HD. It such a waste of that much space.
Large games are understandable. But storage capacity growth has slowed significantly. 4TB SSDs are still quite expensive, especially good ones. 2TB are tolerable. 1 TB just isn't enough for many these days.
@@Deathscythe91 Same for me but you also have to keep in mind most people probably don't have anything even close to gigabit speeds so for them huge downloads can take much longer than it does for people like us.
@@Deathscythe91 yes and? Not everyone has fiber internet in their country, devs could at least try to compress their games but they dont because Theres no incentive. Its like me saving pictures in .bmp instead of .jpg, simply because of lazyness.
@@evilleader1991 dont need fiber internet for that just basic cable , reason there is less compression going on these days is because of you will get trash audio quality things take way longer to load , you cant make games as complex as you can now because a lot of things just dont work good with compressed files , it takes time to process the unpacking and if games get more complex there is more unpacking to be done , so you need more powerfull pc parts but thats when you complain the games require too much power at a certain point you either need to up your internet or your pc its called progression , you either keep up or get left behind
@@Deathscythe91 nah, there is a tool for Windows that allow you to compress games with barely any perf impact. So your argument about perf being of concern is BS.
100GB is too much. On a 1TB SSD there are only so many games I can fit. Also keep laptops in mind. And yeah, download speeds and some people even have capped internet. At a certain point the size of the game is a deterrent because I can't be bothered to spend so much time downloading
I wouldn't be surprised if there will be Battlefield RussUkr at 1TB because it's a reasonable size if you want to include all events that happened between 2022 to 2024
yes the gaming scene is advancing but you'll be lying to yourself if you say some of the dev are not lazy add upscaling in the mix yeah they're not even gonna bother
Heh, yeah it's kinda funny - 8K textures hidden by TAA or upscaling. Back in the day devs squeezed everything out of those megabytes - mirror a character model along the spine so they could reuse same texture for both halves, etc.
Why do players often think that texture resolution is somewhat tied to screen resolution? I mean, Yes, in higher resolution You will see higher texture resolution. But "4k" texture, is not only for "4k" display, its only coincidence they they are named similar.
Old man rant: I tell you, the less hardware you had available, the smarter you had to be with optimisation and compression. I suspect kid programmers don't dig efficiency.
Game files are bigger because there's more data. Every last detail in thee characters and environments contributes to that overall number, and at a certain point, you can't compress it too much, without being able to decompress it. There's limits to it. Game files will only get bigger over time. The good news at least is storage capacity is also getting bigger, faster, and cheaper.
Sometimes developers are just lacy, like Rocket Racing needing to have Fortnite downloaded to run. Some games do not clean up updates, for example ARK could free up 25GB if uninstalled and reinstalled.
cod been using same engine since day one , nothing really has much changed accept the game mechanics and bags of money in microtransactions ,it does depend what engine you are using.
Because game developers are too lazy to compress their games. We literally have games that look like 2015 graphics yet needs an RTX 4090 to run at 60 FPS 4K maxed out.
Ah the good old days... half a dozen floppys and you could hear the bits being read. Most old games don't hold up well, so it's best to keep the rose colored shades on and not revisit them. Some games did age well though, but that's a matter of opinion.
@@gasracing5000 well I was thinking arcade slot video games. But these days we can get all the old games on a single sd card and have it run easily on a mobile phone or tablet or a batocera build or a lemuroid, or EmuVR for those seeking real nostalgia.
@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo The purists demand original hardware on crts when playing vintage. Personally... I'm lazy and just buy them on steam, then never play them.
Everyone wants to know why but doesn't think about a store in a game that games didn't have before.... Selling outfits for 20$ an outfit 😂 and those outfits take space even if you don't own the outfits and skins, I'm sure it's in the game files. Also modern warfare 3 used A.I. to make a 15$ outfit 😂 I mean it didn't require much to make it but 15$? Damn😂 I should make a call of duty game and make a.i. outfits for 15$ and make a lot of money. Just put in what it needs to make in a prompt and boom 15$. Boycott that BS or continue playing shit a duty idc
I think back in the day it took me two days to get RDR2 up and running on my rig, also had to buy a bigger NVMe...then found I didnt like the game! Yay!
after 2020 its start to be time of lazy game developers which have tons of garbage as RT gimmick and similar garbage but games still looks like games from decade ago while in same time you need PC for well over 1000$ to play it on 60+ fps ultra even at 1080-1440p
Call of duty has literally been using the same doom 3 engine, since the original cod 4. Activision has zero excuse to demand 300+ gb of storage when they can't be bothered to even develop a campaign anymore, let alone one worth playing.
A cynic would say games pushing boundries is a conspiracy to sell more hardware. Faster CPU, Better GPU. Bigger SSD/HDs. In their position they usually have high end platforms so that's the environment they write for. They want the best competitive games that out-do whatever else is on the market. For scale, I'm 55 and my dad was a programmer in the 1960s. I literally did my first data entry on a punch card one day visiting his mainframe. My first home computer, Sinclair ZX81 had 1K memory and my second ZX Spectrum had 48K. And not a total retro-gamer, I still occationally can have just as much fun on a 48K game. Hell, I even play Chess and that's about 2,000 years old.
"Game Developers" well most of 'em can't write code for shit let alone optimize there work on multible platforms. So what they do is dump horrible garbage and call it a PC part. the monkey king game looks nice but the gameplay is rather underwhelming. Callistro protocol is a great example that game just plain sucks in each and every gameplay aspect. It's a giant heap of shit painted really nice.
Games these days are definitely more 'terchnically' impressive, and fair enough they need more storage space, and to be honest the price of SSD/NVME drives now is so good that I don't think it's a massive issue. I remember when the original Quake came out and it took up something like 50MB of drive space at a time when a lot of people had maybe 100-200MB hard drives. I even ran Quake off a parallel port Zip drive, yeah, it took ages to load but it worked....
For those of us in rural areas, downloading 100GB can be a huge issue. Happy playing 2019 and earlier games for now.
Same here. And it's going to curb some sales.
I take a good game over a pretty looking one every day.
@@DJDocsVideos Gameplay FTW.
Yeah. As a German, I know exactly what you mean :D
Games forcing multiple languages instead of only installing the system (or selected) language is another major issue, and a huge problem on Steam.
God forbid one includes dozens pre-rendered cutscenes, in multiple resolutions, for every single language the game supports. I've been able to remove 20GB worth of needless crap like this from a number of games. Devs should be mindful of this, but nope, it's often an oversight.
If we were still using HDDs (that are now over 20TB), things would be fine.. but we're using SSDs, many people still have old 512GB ones, but even modern NVME 2TB are fairly expensive comparatively, and if every game is taking 100GB, well, you can't even install 20 games.. and that's a pretty low number for a gamer.
everything is moving to laptops and portable now rather then the desktop setups - which is why the push for ssd. i suspect there's a push to not have blowout specs for desktops as they have ot suffer so laptops look better.
That, and windows is garbage, they run linix on their own servers, lol, and i swapped to mac and a steam deck, mac for work with 256 gb hdd and 8 gigs total ram, and the steam deck, as you know, isn't powerful, and with crap specs, i do far more then windows could - hell, i can run 8b llm on my macbook with speeds faster then my r9 6900hx with a 3070 ti windows machine could ever do, with lower power, temp and just improvements all around *shrug*
it's just the way things are headed, unless something revives desktops
Yeah this is true localization packs aren't really a thing anymore like it used to be most games just ship with all languages. Around 360/PS3 and early Xbox One/PS4 generation it was a lot more common to see localization as free DLC for games. And as games grow in size the amount that needs to be localized grows as well.
I'm currently adding localizations to my mobile game and because it's quite small in scope each language only takes up a few Mbs but I'm still considering a download system additional to the main install.
I don't care about the storage requirements so much, I have 23TB of SSD, (11 Sata and 12 NVME) in my PC so I have enough for all this stuff, but my problem is I live in Australia, so it takes me a week to download a 100gb game. SSDs are so cheap now, like the 4TB Lexar drives are so good for the price, it feels like you're stealing from them.
This is Exactly the Correct answer. If a game has 6 languages it installs all 6 at 6x the space requirement then it should or downloads all 6 languages for no reason whatsoever. IF youve ever seen a repack youd realize the same game can take up 1/6th the space and you would instantly wonder why everyone is not repacking with specialized language packs.... so lame.
@@mttrashcan-bg1ro What HBA are you using? (since no consumer motherboard has more than 10 SATA slots, especially newer ones, grr...)
What PCI-E card are you running to adapt all the NVME drives?
Do you have a random visual stutter in games you can't explain? Lasts about ~300ms.
What about other performance issues, especially I/O?
the problem isn't that the system requirements are too high, it's that we don't get the same improvement as we used to. a game from 2005 looked leaps and bounds better than one from 2000. but the game from 2024 doesn't look that much better than one from 2019. system requirements have increased exponentially, but there was only minor improvements in graphics.
Now that we have upscaling, engine developers got sloppy and just said the upscalers can fix it. Now we've got dithering on shadows and other crap because the expectation is you will run DLSS/FSR and fix it.
Yeah, you need 200 gb of storage and a 4070ti to run a game that only looks marginally better (or worse even sometimes) than a game from 2018.
@@Flyon86easy. Don’t buy NVIDIA if you are ok without raytracing and just wanna play games.
I went from a RTX4070Ti to a RX6900XT. It saved me some money and I also got a performance increase (because of the 4GB increased VRAM)
yeah, i didnt honestly think these two would have such terrible takes about gaming, kind of concerning honestly. They don't even address the reason why a lot of these games are unnecessarily big(meshes and uncompressed or poorly compressed textures and unnecessarily detailed models). they talk about nostalgia and hating when in fact literally 90% of the games from 5 to 10 years ago are still better than the stuff we get today, like bro called cod4 unplayable, when it still offers more content than some of the more recent cods. The vram thing was another issue I had, yes games are only going to get bigger which will require more vram to store said data,but what about using smart rendering techniques instead of having to use dlss or spend a fortune on a new GPU, and then they had the audacity to show one of the most unoptimized games in the last decade for their vram topic, shit is too funny.
@@K.R.98 I have an amd gpu too actually, I just used 4070ti as an example since I think that's what Star Wars outlaws recommends to get 60fps.
I wish games would go back to having separate HD Texture downloads
this is what they should do. It would help with the shit VRAM nvidia gives out.
This for sure since they have all of these games have insanely detailed textures now but not that many actually have the hardware to actually run them so it's just wasted storage for most gamers.
HD is 720p. So that'd be really weak and low res. We have quad uhd and even 16x uhd 16k tv that was made.. soo..
@@xpodx HD means any resolution higher than Standard Definition, FHD, QHD, UHD are all High Definition
@ArturTheFOE hd is 720p. Fhd is 1080p I don't think that's how you think of it. So 16k Is hd? Ha
In CoD like 80% of the space is uncompressed audio because they don't bother optimizing their games.
Dev's can be quite lazy.
examples,
duplicate copies of textures.
multiple language FMVs/audio instead of just the copy for the install language. This is probably the most common one.
unused textures from development that isnt cleaned on release.
debug files not removed on release.
When a 120gb Black myth wukong is breaking records. Suffice to say devs are gonna continue making large ass games.
Rdr2 was larger 5 years ago.
I can almost bet that gta 6 will close to half a terabyte
@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br RDR2 is 119gb.
BG3 is 142gb and FH5(with all dlcs) is 172gb
Iirc, Ark 430GB ish... with all dlc included
@@cathy_fur whoa 😂 what
@@chillnspace777 That's why dinosaurs IRL became extinct, the planet was running out of storage space so the dinos were uninstalled from existence.
The worst thing is when there's an update that is several Gb in size but the release notes don't mention anything to do with graphics. I think this might be to do with how the game's files are grouped, with dialogue text files being in the same folder structure as textures for example. Billy Basso who made Animal Well fit into about 35 Mb could earn a fortune training game devs how to keep file sizes low! Seriously though, there probably is a lot to be learned from how he achieved that.
When I started gaming, games were on audio cassette.
Get out of here. You aren't welcome in 2024. 😂😂
Welcome to the club! 1980s gamers FTW.
@@christophermullins7163 You will be old one day too, kid.
@@David_Crayford I started as a child on cartridges. First Nintendo was the best. When I got the PS1 it broke my brain lol
I heard a dev once hint " what other games are you going to play or take your attention away if you can't fit any other games on your storage".
Witcher 3 non next gen still holds up damn well. Maybe not the trees but a lot of the stuff does.
The biggest thing I notice while playing the witcher 3 in 2024 is the character models and dialogue. If this game could have an update to Alan wake 2 level of character detail it would blow everyone's mind. My wife and I play the witcher 3 together regularly. It is a great game to bounce idea off of each other and work together. Great couples experience.
@@christophermullins7163 Well, we will get that with the next Witcher game, whenever that will be. I assume it will be Unreal 5, I think CDPR said Cyberpunk was their last RedEngine game, but idk, but they meant the Cyberpunk sequel will be the first UE5 game they make.
Also crysis 3
It's not just about texture size, it's also about the density of the meshes, ex: past CoD weapons had about 35k triangles budget, now, the weapons in CoD can exceed far 140k triangles, that is a massive increase in mesh density which does need more space, and that's just for weapons, the same applies for everything else, buildings, more detailed scenes, cars etc.
mesh is nothing in compare to textures
I just open a random cliff from unreal megascans
at medium quality - 3000 polygons, the mesh weighs 170 KB and has 50 MB of textures (in 2k)
and in maximum quality there are 999999 polygons, they weigh 9 MB and 615 MB of textures(8k)
and cliff still has only a few textures; for creatures or close objects like guns number of textures can be many times higher
so they increased the size of the weapon from like 0.3mb to like 1mb... how many meshes there are in the game? a couple thousand, so its a couple gigs difference
@@jermygod Like i said "it's not just about texture size", fun fact: cod still uses the same resolution of past CoD for textures for a ton of the meshes in the game, however, the amount of maps needed has increased drastically due to the increased ennviroment details
does it matter? It's a waste of time and resources. A game needs to be good enough not as unreasonable as possible. Modders are going to do a far better job down the road than any game studio can ever hope to.
40GB should be a standard. SSDs are not cheap
People's perception of what size of a game should be is based on combinations of things such as gameplay, fearures, mechanics, graphics and current prize of storage.
Cs used require only 15gb, why does it need 45 now even though its practically the same game. It looks good, but doesn't look anything ground breaking.
Same with cod, valorant, apex and many other mp games.
Plus a 2tb ssd costs half the price of the GPU i am using here which is rx 7600.
It's not a surprise when people complain about large games especially talking price into consideration.
COD MW3 or 'Call of Duty HQ' takes 250GB, uninstalled yesterday.
Games have always been this way its just that disk space isn't keeping up. In the past hdds did grow with the size increase of games but since the advent of solid state disks we seem to be stuck in the low terabytes for years now.
Yeah ssd speed is great it's not like storage increased dramatically for them over 5 years like hdd's used to.
Part of the reasons is the M.2 SSD aren't as scalable as manufacturers thought it would be. Also higher gen SSDs also generate heat limiting the performance. You can see the effect of that in the server space where they've transitioned away from M.2 and instead use the EDSFF formfactor.
Textures have outpaced my eyes...but then, I'm an old man.
Maybe you are just too old to fall for The Emperor's New Clothes... I know I am.
@@DJDocsVideos lol! Yeah, probably.
Large games are just going to be an ongoing thing. In 1995 I got a 750 MB HDD and people were like "Whoa dude! You'll never fill that thing up!" . I thought the same thing...I was definitely delusional for sure!
the problem is when you download a 140gb game with all the 4k textures and it looks worse than HL2 from '04 (that takes up like 4gb)
i think the problem people see is there are substantial system requirement increase for the same level of performance, some of the example we can see is some early access games which shift from UE4 to UE5 (Satisfactory for example), shifting the gaming engine, drastically uses more resources but no vistal or game performce improvement. this makes the "recent" UE5 looks bad.
also when you compare game visuals between generations (last of us pt1 vs Division2) the system requirement is drastically different but the visual looks almost the same when looking at online streaming (the assets looks not that different from a streamer's eye)
Yeah a lot of the games I've seen running on UE5, like Immortals of Aveum, don't really look that much better than UE4 games but have a lot higher system requirements. I realize a lot of that comes down to RT/Lumin/global illumination, but it's like they're pushing all these taxing features while GPU's haven't improved that much in the last 3-4 years aside from the premium high end ones like the 4080-4090 that a minority of users actually buy.
@@Flyon86 yep, increasing requirements with no virtually benefits to the game
The issue isn’t about storage space or the cost of the storage but rather the time it takes to download the game completely. In Asian countries, it takes a whole day to do it due to internet speed isn’t the same as in Western countries
More rural areas in the US often are stuck with slower download times too. Taking a whole day to download a game isn't fun.
IMO most games need cpu optimization. Im not a developer but from what i understand its difficult to spread workloads across mulitple cores. So i think some developer can figure out a way to optimize cpus we could see a substantial uplift in terms of performance. I think gpus are strong enough since now they can last a solid 5 years+ but really after 5 years i think an upgrade would be worth it. With intel and amd having 8+ cpu cores it would be awesome to use those extra cores to do some extra cool things. I personally would like to see better physics in games, like way destructable environments and rag doll physics, better animation for walking running. Fear is an oldie that shook my world with the destruction and half life 2 as well as some of the older battlefield games.
they are obsessed with using strange engines and apis instead of what works best
Cod 4 intro straight up nostalgia 😩
The problem with the growing storage requirements is also that storage spaces have stopped outgrowing them due to the shift from HDD to SSD. It's something that is very visible with laptops, as their size drives are more "standardized" than on Desktop, and often not upgradeable. Only now on laptops are 1TB SSDs becoming the norm when we were at 500GB Hard drives a dozen years ago or so already - but back then the average AAA game needed less than 20GB of storage.
As such, with people with 500GB SSDs for instance, there ain't much space left anymore after installing 1 or 2 AAA games and having Windows on that same drive.
Witcher 3 case same felt for me in ac4 black flag
Wait COD take up 500gb? the heck they used all those storage for? Pre rendered Cutscenes? 4k movies/audio? that's just absurd..
It’s required to accommodate all the cheats.
Basic things tbh
A game like BG3 I don't care about it being 150gb because it has tons and tons of dialog and areas, is 120h long, and has a lot of visual variety. Meanwhile COD just has a short campaign and multiplayer maps yet somehow needs all that space.
COD is known to use uncompressed audio. Like 80% of the game size is uncompressed audio. They just don't optimize their game enough so they can use compressed audio like every other game. But uncompressing takes a little bit of performance so they use this.
plus 3D NAND has reached commodity status. we lived through the maturation process where costs dropped year after year. now it's like oil, wheat, copper--subject to price fixing, currency fluctuations, geopolitics
i remember how i used 5 discs to install world of warcraft😎
BO6 being 400+ gb is INSANE. That game could easily be half that size
Just an FYI, what they’re saying does not apply to Ubisoft games. They do look and play worse than their older game titles.
I have almost 10tb of m2 storage and 30tb of HDD storage doesn't seem like enough
We are very different ppl. I have 1.5tb of m.2 and that seems plenty for a while. I do not buy new AAA games tho. I like simulators and a couple older games like the Witcher etc.
haha yeah my pc has like 10tb+ (8tb of thag in a 8tb wd blue)
It's all full almodt
@@andrewmtgx I had 10tb of hard drive space but I disconnected them.(Still physically installed) I only use them as redundant drives for old pictures, videos and files. No need to run them everyday when I just want them to last forever. I used to use them for torrent downloads but I have so much space on the 1tb SSD that I just use that and then delete it once I watch or install it or whatever. It is crazy how some people have hundreds of games installed. I have maybe 5 to 10 available at any point and have a hard time choosing what to play lmao
I couldn't disagree more with the later part, my most memorable game experiences in the last years have been decades old games.
Many modern games don't even look that interesting outside of the technical aspect.
I do like how some old games now still hold up for example the division and Arkham knight, at least from a visual perspective. These games are 9 years old and look great as well as running great in comparison to newer games. I find that the lower pre-sets are riddled with lighting artifacts in newer games probably due to aiming for the most realistic lighting with raytracing which will probably make a lot of the newer games age well but suffer for mid or low end users today.
A lot of games from the ps4 era (and even late xbox 360 era) hold up remarkably well visually. I played Rise of the Tomb Raider a few months ago from 2016 and it looks as good as some games from 2024.
Crisis 1 from 2007 still looks good and that game is almost old enough to vote.
for me, it's more about the data caps set by ISPs. 1000gb a month means once everyone in my house downloads COD, there's nothing left for the month. And knowing internet providers, they absolutely screw you for any overages; ask me how I know.
I can wait for a game to download, but when I have to wait 3 weeks until my cap resets so I can download a 150gb game, that's when it becomes a problem. These games are not designed for real people to play them. they're designed for managers and shareholders.
Aah someone talking of it
As an OG CoD player since the first game. I do find their more modern iterations unplayable.
I played CoD1 alongside the UO expansion day in day out for almost 3 years non-stop if not longer. Also, the community back then was pretty awesome. These days its a completely different beast.
Havent purchased a CoD game since MW2(2009) and my boycott of Activision (in general) came into force a good good few years after that. Early games were good then they started getting too greedy and I didnt want to support that kind of company.
Pretty much agree across the board.
Although I think there are benefits to developers having constraints in terms of storage and system performance.
It forces them to innovate, come up with new tools or ideas and cut content that honestly isn’t all that important in most cases.
Developers can very easily become their own worst enemies and I think CODs download size is a good indicator of that.
Gaming peaked at UT GOTY edition with a voodoo GPU
Well BD-R XL which is a triple layer Blu-ray recordable disc and fairly common these days has a max capacity of 100GB. So games could easily be put on to a Blu-ray disc plus some extra 20/30 GB content that needs to be downloaded/updated after installation in order to play the game. 😉 Also using a standard 1080P video for cut-scenes and the system local language rather than multiple resolutions or language packs on the game would be very helpful in terms of reducing the size; considering the fact that we have good upscaling solutions for playback of the cut-scene videos.
The return in quality for the amount of storage used is become verrry small
This. Twice the perceived quality for twice the size? Sure, sign me up! However, 30% perceived quality for five times the size? No.
Check out .kkrieger, a first-person shooter from 2004, 96 KILObytes. Sure, that's an extreme case, but still - there's no way I'm accepting i.e. Call of Duty at 250GB is over 2.5 MILLION times better than that.
Speaking of COD what do we make of on demand texture streaming in relation to overall performance when internet connectivity is a factor? This was something that was optional, but now is being required
Optimization is important and shouldn’t be overlooked, the focus should be on how can you get the same or better quality while using less resources. 100GB should be the upper limit for games.
Gameplay and performance > graphics
Storage back then was DVD based then pushed upon hard drive.
There is no objective way to determine if games are getting better.
This is just a rehashed argument spanning literal decades at this point. Even during the 2D Display Adapter days of the mid-90s, there were *strongly opinionated* people refusing you would ever need to add the expansion VRAM modules to a GPU.
If money is tight today and you want to enjoy SSD gaming speeds, I'd recommend getting a used HDD, (you can find 14+ TB for 100USD easily online). Run a low level format on it, and install a ton of games to it on your PC. When you want to play them, you can move them onto your SSD via Steam within the Settings->Storage interface.
When you're done playing a game for awhile, you can archive it slowly back to the HDD for later retrieval. Note that every time you move a game back onto the SSD this has to re-write the data, which will wear out your SSD faster. But if you're trying to be frugal this is a simple way to easily fit a vast library onto a local storage source. If you have a house of Steam gamers, I recommend looking into building a Steam cache.
8GB of vram is for 1080p .
2160p requires 16GB
The bigger the game on your SDD, the less space you have for other. Therefore you're more likely to play already installed games.
Nestling bird kicking its sibling out of the nest kind of thing...
I miss Mario & Contra days. No need to worry about storage. Just plug and play.
Wasn't there an issue with Cod having audio in wave files?
yes newest AAA games do need more space for high quality textures, large maps and great sounding audio quality but what i dont get is that COD using 250 to 300 gigs and doesnt even look that good at all that is just poor management on the devs side.
ARK: Survival Evolved is 291 GB.
The original installed size of Valheim was ~725 MB.
Another bottleneck to large files is the Internet Bandwidth. Heck, I can easily find another 1 or 2 TB drive for £40 or whatever but it takes 8 hours to update to a new version of ETS2. My ADSL really does need to be replaced by Fibre, when it's available here.
Make it compulsory what all games have to be done in Assembler only, no more sloppy coding.
A big portion is also PS5/XBOX compatibility. Games are cross-platform compatible. Console platforms require rigorous test of performance/bugs.
EVERYTHING MOVES so that these games run 60fps on 4K television screens for your PlayStation... File Size is secondary to all... They need to be able to sell on Console Platforms.
The point is how much could developers reduce games' size they work on while they can.
100GB.. that is before they add in all the microtransaction stuff that has more textures, sounds and etc.
The size of Wukong is kinda weird because I'm in chapter 3 and some places have PS2 era textures here and there. And none of the textures are insanely high res anyway, the game uses moderate amounts of VRAM. Plague Tale Requiem is obviously a smaller game in scope but textures are much more impressive with high vram usage yet it's still under 60 GB
It's the trend with UE5 engine in general where they can mask low textures with intense lighting effect, that's why most ue5 titles don't need huge vram if you don't enable RT.
COD4 is still great, and gets pretty populated on sunday's
How much storage do you think the universe simulation uses?
Adding console storage can be pricey, but I do have 2tb on my PS5. Then on my gaming PC I have 3tb SSD and 30TB HDD. It's pretty cheap to get large capacity drives for PC, a 6tb HDD can be had for as little as $60 if going refurbished or white label. Very few games require SSD and I never notice much difference, but the few games that do benefit like Horizon Forbidden West, or Starfield, etc. I keep them on SSD
More and more games are requiring SSD's since it's the console standard now. If you want a big HDD for a bunch of pre-2020 games that's workable, but I don't think it's good for current year games.
@@Flyon86 True, for games that "requires SSD" there is usually performance benefit, but even for many new AAA games it still doesn't affect performance, only saves a few seconds on loading times. This is true for new games like Resident Evil 4, Dead Island 2, Yakuza Infinite Wealth. For indie games, hard drive doesn't matter at all, many games are barely 1gb in size.
SDD matters more for games that are open world games and visually intensive with large detailed environments. They have to load new chunk data in real-time so speed matters. Horizon Forbidden West, Starfield, Atomic Heart, Elden Ring, etc., are better on SSD. I honestly don't think there are more than a couple dozen games that perform better on SSD besides loading times. At least most gamers have an SSD boot disk with enough space for 1-2 AAA games that require SSD
@@EhurtAfy For older games SSD still helps with loading times from what I've seen, unless it's a really light 2d game or something. Sometimes it's really significant like with Skyrim or Fallout 4. The boot ssd with storage hdd seems more like something people were doing 6-7 years ago when ssd was still really expensive. Anyways more and more games like Starfield just flat out won't work on a hdd these days.
Simple. They give us a choice. Same number of files. We choose which size textures to install.
You can have all of that high-quality, with less space usage! That is what compression was invented for!
If most AAA dev's, also add a intelligent priority of asset quality placement, like not wasting a 4k texture on a small cup that takes less than 0.001% of the screen and as such low player attention, things would be better? Thou most AAA developers don't even do that manually they lean on virtual texturing and streaming that are automatic things that many times just do a bad job at prioritizing well what should or not get the most texture budget.
If modern developers, cared as much as older developer cared, for optimization and saving space, modern games, even with 4k cutscenes, quality audio and big worlds, would still be less than 100GB, I would bet my life on that.
There's people capable of creating entire complex demos/intros with music, video, animations, 3D models, etc, within 64 kilobytes... that is less than half a megabyte!!
The fact is that today the mentality among most developers is "hard drive space is cheap" ( what is totally a lie imo, HDD space is still very expensive for many people, including me...) so they don't even try hard to save space.
Most here probably think they tried their absolute best, to make their games smaller in size but just couldn't, but the reality is, many AAA dev's, just didn't care that much, mostly because most users don't complaint, so they get the message that is ok to not keep caring about space and not caring, saves time, effort and money.
In the same vein, we are now on the stage of "RAM is cheap", so most developers don't care at all, about optimizing RAM usage, (some not even know how to do it anymore...) is a total waste outhere.
They should have option to install the only language we use in-game instead including all locale in the folder also including 4k textures option to select to install for those who only play on 1080p full HD. It such a waste of that much space.
Large games are understandable. But storage capacity growth has slowed significantly. 4TB SSDs are still quite expensive, especially good ones. 2TB are tolerable. 1 TB just isn't enough for many these days.
Fit Girl would have some opinions about that.
For GPU´s is not the a qustionen why games need more VRAM, its more a Question why ther have only 8 GB VRM on models like the RTX4080 12GB and below.
I hear your words.
But I am going to buy Gabriel Knight and play it again, despite having played witcher 3.
Just avoid the sequel, CDs were new and the developers figured they should use the space for videos with actual actors.
Its about downloading, who enjoys 50gb patches regularly and the devs do not care space which is problematic
thats a internet speed issue
i got 1 gigabit internet , and its not even close to the fastest available , and 50gb is like 7 minutes
@@Deathscythe91 Same for me but you also have to keep in mind most people probably don't have anything even close to gigabit speeds so for them huge downloads can take much longer than it does for people like us.
@@Deathscythe91 yes and? Not everyone has fiber internet in their country, devs could at least try to compress their games but they dont because Theres no incentive. Its like me saving pictures in .bmp instead of .jpg, simply because of lazyness.
@@evilleader1991 dont need fiber internet for that just basic cable , reason there is less compression going on these days is because of you will get trash audio quality
things take way longer to load , you cant make games as complex as you can now because a lot of things just dont work good with compressed files , it takes time to process the unpacking and if games get more complex there is more unpacking to be done , so you need more powerfull pc parts but thats when you complain the games require too much power
at a certain point you either need to up your internet or your pc
its called progression , you either keep up or get left behind
@@Deathscythe91 nah, there is a tool for Windows that allow you to compress games with barely any perf impact. So your argument about perf being of concern is BS.
100GB is too much. On a 1TB SSD there are only so many games I can fit. Also keep laptops in mind. And yeah, download speeds and some people even have capped internet. At a certain point the size of the game is a deterrent because I can't be bothered to spend so much time downloading
I wouldn't be surprised if there will be Battlefield RussUkr at 1TB because it's a reasonable size if you want to include all events that happened between 2022 to 2024
yes the gaming scene is advancing but you'll be lying to yourself if you say some of the dev are not lazy
add upscaling in the mix yeah they're not even gonna bother
Heh, yeah it's kinda funny - 8K textures hidden by TAA or upscaling. Back in the day devs squeezed everything out of those megabytes - mirror a character model along the spine so they could reuse same texture for both halves, etc.
Why do players often think that texture resolution is somewhat tied to screen resolution? I mean, Yes, in higher resolution You will see higher texture resolution. But "4k" texture, is not only for "4k" display, its only coincidence they they are named similar.
Old man rant: I tell you, the less hardware you had available, the smarter you had to be with optimisation and compression. I suspect kid programmers don't dig efficiency.
Maybe it's time to upgrade my 120GB Seagate HDD.
I think Cod4 graphics still hold up lmao
Gamers need more 8TB and 16TB SSD options.
gta 6 abt to be 599gb or some shit
I saw someone joking that the retail version will come on its own dedicated ssd
@@Flyon86 aww hell nahh
I don't understand the texture streaming (downloading) in the CoD games. Why no option to download everything and not stream anything while gaming?
Game files are bigger because there's more data. Every last detail in thee characters and environments contributes to that overall number, and at a certain point, you can't compress it too much, without being able to decompress it. There's limits to it. Game files will only get bigger over time. The good news at least is storage capacity is also getting bigger, faster, and cheaper.
New games are expected to get bigger/better & storage space shouldn’t be an issue. SSD’s are cheap now 🤷🏻♂️
Try DCS "Digital combat simulator" on for size. I'm currently at 456GB for its install. Can go way higher however.
Sometimes developers are just lacy, like Rocket Racing needing to have Fortnite downloaded to run.
Some games do not clean up updates, for example ARK could free up 25GB if uninstalled and reinstalled.
there's a reason on why all cod games run great even on low end lol
Yeah, Even Elden ring has higher fidelity than TW3(2015), Hell even SF does.
cod been using same engine since day one , nothing really has much changed accept the game mechanics and bags of money in microtransactions ,it does depend what engine you are using.
Cod4 still holds up
My desktop have 4TB SSD
Because game developers are too lazy to compress their games. We literally have games that look like 2015 graphics yet needs an RTX 4090 to run at 60 FPS 4K maxed out.
Because developers are horrible at optimization. Tons of badly written code and engine that is horribly sloppy.
Ah the good old days... half a dozen floppys and you could hear the bits being read.
Most old games don't hold up well, so it's best to keep the rose colored shades on and not revisit them.
Some games did age well though, but that's a matter of opinion.
But you could buy 100 games and not worry about having to put a screw to you console.
@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo
- I'm old.
= How old are you?
- So old 100 games didn't exsist when I started gaming.
🤔🤥🤫
@@gasracing5000 well I was thinking arcade slot video games.
But these days we can get all the old games on a single sd card and have it run easily on a mobile phone or tablet or a batocera build or a lemuroid, or EmuVR for those seeking real nostalgia.
@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo
The purists demand original hardware on crts when playing vintage.
Personally... I'm lazy and just buy them on steam, then never play them.
Dude complains about a game taking up 100GB.
Ark Survival Evolved + Expansions has entered the chat. Coming in at over 500GB.
Everyone wants to know why but doesn't think about a store in a game that games didn't have before.... Selling outfits for 20$ an outfit 😂 and those outfits take space even if you don't own the outfits and skins, I'm sure it's in the game files. Also modern warfare 3 used A.I. to make a 15$ outfit 😂 I mean it didn't require much to make it but 15$? Damn😂 I should make a call of duty game and make a.i. outfits for 15$ and make a lot of money. Just put in what it needs to make in a prompt and boom 15$. Boycott that BS or continue playing shit a duty idc
I think back in the day it took me two days to get RDR2 up and running on my rig, also had to buy a bigger NVMe...then found I didnt like the game! Yay!
after 2020 its start to be time of lazy game developers which have tons of garbage as RT gimmick and similar garbage but games still looks like games from decade ago while in same time you need PC for well over 1000$ to play it on 60+ fps ultra even at 1080-1440p
Call of duty has literally been using the same doom 3 engine, since the original cod 4. Activision has zero excuse to demand 300+ gb of storage when they can't be bothered to even develop a campaign anymore, let alone one worth playing.
Yeah!! Tell em!! It should be only 1mb and look like wire frames and play like pong!! Tell em gud!
A cynic would say games pushing boundries is a conspiracy to sell more hardware. Faster CPU, Better GPU. Bigger SSD/HDs. In their position they usually have high end platforms so that's the environment they write for. They want the best competitive games that out-do whatever else is on the market. For scale, I'm 55 and my dad was a programmer in the 1960s. I literally did my first data entry on a punch card one day visiting his mainframe. My first home computer, Sinclair ZX81 had 1K memory and my second ZX Spectrum had 48K. And not a total retro-gamer, I still occationally can have just as much fun on a 48K game. Hell, I even play Chess and that's about 2,000 years old.
"Game Developers" well most of 'em can't write code for shit let alone optimize there work on multible platforms. So what they do is dump horrible garbage and call it a PC part. the monkey king game looks nice but the gameplay is rather underwhelming. Callistro protocol is a great example that game just plain sucks in each and every gameplay aspect. It's a giant heap of shit painted really nice.
what happened to amd saying they had a sollution to make it smaller wasnt there news about that
Games these days are definitely more 'terchnically' impressive, and fair enough they need more storage space, and to be honest the price of SSD/NVME drives now is so good that I don't think it's a massive issue. I remember when the original Quake came out and it took up something like 50MB of drive space at a time when a lot of people had maybe 100-200MB hard drives. I even ran Quake off a parallel port Zip drive, yeah, it took ages to load but it worked....