120 GB + games why…

Now that is PURE bullshit. Why should we reserve space for DLC we might or might not purchase in the future. We can make space available in the future if we decide to buy them. I really HATE companies like this who are so freaking smug they will require a purchase to reserve space for future additions.

Originally Posted by Tactician
Interesting, already 175 GB's: "Activision explains why Call of Duty: Modern Warfare needs 175GB of storage :

https://www.pcgamer.com/modern-warfa…-requirements/

"Update: Activision has updated the Modern Warfare system requirements post to explain why it's asking for 175GB of real estate on your hard drive. "175GB is the storage space we recommend players keep available in order to download the post-launch content we’ll be bringing to Modern Warfare. At launch, the initial download will be smaller," the page now says.

Unfortunately, there's no indication as to exactly how much smaller that initial download will be, as the minimum and recommended specs still call for 175GB of drive space."

Does it reserve that space on your HD, so you can't use it, or do they only say that this is what's required? No matter what, it's a strange (sneaky) demand.

pibbur who won't buy that game because of … other reasons.

Kotaku has an article on that matter, too : "PC Game Install Sizes Are Ballooning And I'm Scared" https://kotaku.com/pc-game-install-s…red-1838956525

That Kotaku article is silly and shallow.

No publisher is using the most effective compression methods possible and it's journalists who should find out why is that so.
Is it because HDD capacity is dirt cheap and SSD is affordable for years now? Is it because CPUs can't unpack/decrypt data with an acceptable speed? Is it because everyone and their mother follow Ubisoft's trend where any optimization is of low priority? Or it's something else, dunno.

What I know is that I don't have problems with 100+ hours long singleplayer RPG taking 100+ Gb of space on my SSD.
But I do have problems with idtech engine game sized 50 Gb you finish in one afternoon.

When a 1TB ssd cost $1000 i guess it was an issue but with 10TB hard drives costing $290 and 2TB ssd costing $200 I think we can live with 120GB installs….
-
As for joxer comment - will it leaves out a lot of details - enough to make it worthless.

It's both space AND speed. The USA is finally starting to catch up on internet speeds.

Though I do wonder - would it be possible to use better compression on the PC voice/texture than consoles get? Consoles are typically long on cores but those cores haven't got much speed and I don't think most compression schemes are good with multi-threading.

Hopefully we will start seeing 10TB SSD drives as "standard" in the near term, with a cheap price because it will be the norm, because the way games are expanding these days, we sure are gonna need them!

This is a non issue for me. It’s not like I need to install every game I own. I try to only play 1 game at a time but even if I fail I don’t typically play more than 2-3 at a time.

I have 2, 1TB SSD’s that I keep free for gaming. I have 3-5 games installed at a time ( Skyrim always stays installed due to mods) So realistically games could get to 300GB or so installs before it becomes a problem and by then it should be pretty cheap just to pick up 2, 2TB SSD’s.

The Kotaku article is ridiculous, if you’re going to use your PC like a dumpster, no use in complaining.

Well, I simply don't have the bandwidth to download lots of GBs.
And people in rural areas most like not as well.

But - there is one point nobody mentions (like an elephant in a room) : Do we really need *that* great graphics to have fun ?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Well, I simply don't have the bandwidth to download lots of GBs.
And people in rural areas most like not as well.

But - there is one point nobody mentions (like an elephant in a room) : Do we really need *that* great graphics to have fun ?

Nobody’s mentions it because it’s an irrelevant point. We don’t need video games at all to have fun. I mean, they’re is other stuff to do for fun.

To answer your question more directly though. Yes, In this day and age I personally want nice graphics to look at. It may not be a 100% requirement but it definitely enhances my enjoyment.

If you don’t need it though, there are plenty of games with poor graphics, 16- 8 bit graphics, even text adventure I’m sure you can find.

Might (or might not) take a while. there are some 10tb (or was it 8tb) ssd becoming availble but they are still nearly 2k (micron 9300?) - most of the ultra large ssd (33TB and such) are being mass purchased by google/facebook at sky high prices. Not sure when they we will see cheap consumer drives - guess when production finally exceed facebook/google ability to buy.

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
Hopefully we will start seeing 10TB SSD drives as "standard" in the near term, with a cheap price because it will be the norm, because the way games are expanding these days, we sure are gonna need them!

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
But - there is one point nobody mentions (like an elephant in a room) : Do we really need *that* great graphics to have fun ?

I do not think we need it. I'm perfectly fine with pixel graphics in many games

But, all else being equal, wouldn't a game with high graphical quality be more enjoyable than one with more simple graphics? I'd say yes to that.

The problem is, that there's a trade-off: graphical quality vs. computational effort. Improve one, deteriorate the other. There is no single "best" solution in this case.

On Patrick Stewart and having fun (before he became normal):



Yes we need <insert anything> to have fun. Awsome graphics included.
Life is too short, why waste it on stuff not fun (unless we're paid for it, but that's called job, not fun).
Besides, if graphics wasn't improving, what would be the purpose of technological progression? We might as well return to cavemen age then.

Originally Posted by joxer
We might as well return to cavemen age then.

We can’t. Not enough caves to shelter everybody.

Any game that takes up that much space would have to completely entertain me for months. Or longer.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
But - there is one point nobody mentions (like an elephant in a room) : Do we really need *that* great graphics to have fun ?

We don't need computers to have fun so obviously the answer is "no" - but the question isn't really relevant to the people making the decisions. The question is: will more people pay for our game with nicer graphics? They lose people in rural areas and areas which are still under bandwidth restrictions but eye candy is awesome for marketing.

But if we're going to pretend there's no money flying around… I still want the eye candy. It really does add a lot to my enjoyment! Witcher 3 could have still stuck with the mutant-Aurora engine they cooked up for Witcher 1 and I would have enjoyed the game, but I enjoyed it MUCH more with the awesome graphics.

Originally Posted by Eye
We can’t. Not enough caves to shelter everybody.

Nukes can take care of that. In fact, they work on both sides of the equation! Fewer folks AND more holes!

ESO was 87 GB. I managed to get it via cheesy motel wi-fi (took four days). They say when the next expansion comes out we'll have to download the entire package again. Yay.

Originally Posted by warmonger3
ESO was 87 GB. I managed to get it via cheesy motel wi-fi (took four days). They say when the next expansion comes out we'll have to download the entire package again. Yay.

How do you play the game if you had to reply on motel wifi to download it?

Simple answer really. It's all about compression. Most developers don't compress games as they used to. So audio, videos, and texture sizes have increased dramatically.

Look at the recent JRPG games the audio and videos take up most space.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
How do you play the game if you had to reply on motel wifi to download it?

EOL is one of those game packages that you have to completely download in order to play. My lag really isn't that bad at 300kb/s to play but it's not optimum.
I'm a patient down loader - this Hotel wants $40.00 a wk for faster speed for wi-fi my Roku can't use/logon to meaning they can go get F****d.