BRocknRolla
Member
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you just not like the simple, colorful designs? There are a few examples I can think of with blurry textures, like Torb, but most characters aren't like that at all.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Holy...80 gigs??"
- Thread starter Barack Lesnar
- Start date
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you just not like the simple, colorful designs? There are a few examples I can think of with blurry textures, like Torb, but most characters aren't like that at all.
exmachina64
Banned
Oh, I agree; I'm just glad that Comcast isn't completely sticking its head in the sand over gigabit.
Moon_frogger
Member
Op cant be serious. Is he? I really can't tell!
CertifiedFP
Member
When I see a size of over 25GB, the only thing I think is "Oh boy, fucking pre-rendered cutscenes everywhere."
It's especially baffling with games like Final Fantasy 13, which have a ton of pre-rendered cutscenes at ingame graphics quality. Like... WHY?
It's especially baffling with games like Final Fantasy 13, which have a ton of pre-rendered cutscenes at ingame graphics quality. Like... WHY?
I don't understand.
You can pick a different drive, but you say that's not enough to avoid installing to your SSD.
Why?
dr_rus
Member
Because in the magical world of PC users should be able to pick not drive but a specific folder. They should also be able to name that folder to their liking.
I'm not arguing that flexibility like this is or is not important.
I'm asking how you reached this conclusion: "This means that I'll have to install it on my SSD"
Because you most certainly do not need to install to your SSD.
Sword Of Doom
Member
But you said that would mean you would HAVE TO install it on your SSD which is not true.
I agree not having the choice of choosing the exact folder is shitty but you don't have to install on your SSD which is what you're saying
Big file sizes is an issue when places like America still use data caps as 80GB can be quite a lot for some people. Then there is also the issue of speed and what not.
Personally they can be 100GB for all I care, and pre-load would be nice.
As for the quality, it means nothing. Compressed, not compressed and so on.
Could be 50GB of uncompressed audio in there for all we know :3
Personally they can be 100GB for all I care, and pre-load would be nice.
As for the quality, it means nothing. Compressed, not compressed and so on.
Could be 50GB of uncompressed audio in there for all we know :3
dead souls
Member
Yep. Huge patches and game sizes finally made me give up on ever playing many of the types of AAA games I would've played last gen. I was just playing them out of inertia most of the time, so I'm not really missing anything.
Wasn't the initial download like 18 gigs and then it unpacked? Why can't more games do that?
And I remember them saying Titanfall uses uncompressed textures so computers with weaker CPUs don't have to do the extra work of uncompressing them during gameplay.
hobblygobbly
Member
Games tend to have some unnecessarily uncompressed assets like audio (and some textures which should be compressed appropriately even for perf. reasons) but the biggest factor for such sizes is bad asset management which comes as a result of bad team project management and communication. There is a lot of bloated assets such as duplicated textures, models (including completely unused assets) that exist through the project's lifetime that they just build and ship together. You can dig into a lot of game's files (just like they are doing with NMS) and discover these sort of issues.
Filthy Casual
Member
No I do not like more gigs, I already have to keep deleting games off my PS4, 1TB hard drives should become the standard.
hemo memo
Gold Member
Damn, I remember that pain. AT&T had a monopoly in my neighborhood until about a year ago and these were the speeds I was getting:
Now Charter came to my neighborhood to breed competition and here are my current speeds:
Let me join.
RichiRamjag
Member
First thing I thought.
poodaddy
Member
Yeah I second this. Smaller game files just show that the devs know how to compress properly. Bigger data size for a game does not mean better on any level, in fact that may very well be one of the weirdest things I've ever read. Would you be super excited if you found out that a car you want only gets 3 miles to the gallon?
Gamezone
Gold Member
They'll probably make you download 30 GB of them. This multiple discs thing needs to happen.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
When I saw the Gears 4 50 to 80 gigs requirement i started drooling. I love it!!! Something about installing a game that requires 50+ gigs of space makes me feel like I'm really getting my money's worth.
Is this a subliminal psychological sort of thing? The more gigs the better. HDDs are so big now anyway so what's 80 gigs really? It sucks for those in AU and other bandwidth capped countries but here in 'Murica...MOAR GIGS! Who agrees?
Bandwidth caps?
Yeah, unlimited 100mb cable up in here mate.
IronicSonic
Member
Model 2's games use, like 4MB? They are still GOAT
You can't be satisfied without it!
You can't be satisfied without it!
dr_rus
Member
Since I can't install it into the folder I'd like to install it in I will have to install it in the default location in Program Files on drive C: Which is my SSD. I refuse to install anything in MS created/named folders in roots of my other drives. Don't see what you don't get.
My internet speed here in Ohio:
its a good thing that 93% of the US don't have this problem.
I live in a 3rd world country and didn't get broad band till the middle of the 360 era, yet there are places in the US that have speeds less than my phone data package?
Wow...
Caayn
Member
So you complain that you can't install it because your SSD isn't large enough. While you can install it on a different drive if you want to but you ignore that option completely because you can't name the folder it's installed in?
I get that you want the option to choose your own install folder, I want it as well, but the way your bringing it is confusing and unnecessarily obtuse.
100% agreed with OP.
To be frank, I can't see myself ever spending $60 on any game that's less than 60GB. If I'm paying you $60 then I expect 60GB or more. No compromises, no compressesises. Alberto Ayynstein published a great paper that explains the theory of dollar to filesize. The conclusion was essentially $1 = 1GB. With that in mind, why would a studio ever want to employ efficient formats, bitrate, compression, and rendering techniques that makes their game take up less gigabytes? Why spend more development time and pay for more middleware licenses? What benefits are there in doing that?
Furthermore -- and this is not a criticism at The Koala Mission -- but any game that ships without a day one patch isn't a game worth my money. I'm sorry if you think there should be standards and quality and shit, but that's not what the kids are into these days. And I would know what the kids are into because I've got a lot of kid in me. I'm sorry if your studio wanted to do an archaic and outdated and and and and and and and an old way of shipping games, but to me, a large day one patch signifies that you get modern development. You get the kids. We live in different times, so an avoidable devaluation of the gaming experience is awesome. Day one patches tell me that you understand that a game is never done. Always be patching. A game is a snowflake; it is a unique and delicate product that shatters all that has come before it and all that is around it. A game should, in my opinion, only be reviewed after thirty or seventy nine patches, whichever works best for the publisher. That's the way the crunchy on the outside but soft in the middle chocolate chip cookie that is gaming crumbles. A game is an evolving product -- it's like... it's like your grandmother. Just think about it. There was a time when your grandmother probably thought "Horses are so fucking dope bruh". But then what happened? Ford came through and cars happened. Grandma went from horses to motor vehicles. Did your grandfather think "Wow, Mildred Flappers is into cars now, I'm out"? No. Your grandfather stuck with your grandmother. And that's why you're here today. You wouldn't be here without your grandmother evolving with time, so by that logic, games won't exist in the future if they don't have a large filesize and large day one patches. Nevermind the fact that a game is not a horse. A game should be a 60 to 900 GB file, and it should have sixty two day one patches. That's the future -- delaying the consumption time between a purchase and gameplay by practices that only benefit the bottomline of a business.
I've never believed and been a fan of the whole "There are people in parts of the world who love console gaming but are being turned off on it with each passing day because the practices and products that are being released by developers and or publishers are horrifically anti-efficient, anti-consumer, and anti-jump-the-fuck-in-and-just-play". To me, anyone who thinks that should just move to Anaheim. Anaheim has Disney and fast internet. Who would want to live anywhere other than Anaheim? What value is there in living in a different part of the world, and why should a company from Seattle or Tokyo be aware of the regional differences that exist among their userbase and thus make as much effort as possible to ensure the best gameplay and interactivity experience for their regionally diverse userbase? I'm sorry if you think that multi-billion dollar corporations have the capacity to hire an extra guy or two to look at a game before release and say "This ocean of digital shit is unplayable so we can't release it like this". I'm sorry but you just don't understand how hiring and paying someone in pineapple pizza and Mountain Dew Baja Blast works. Do you realize that by having to pay someone to ensure the consumer doesn't have a shitacular experience you are, in effect, engaging in an outdated practice of quality assurance? How do you not realize that by having people in your company to "look out" for the consumer you are being pro-consumer; a terrible and outdated practice in today's fast evolving and exciting world of marketing mistruths, misdirections, and Twitter misfires? Why not just work on a game, work on the day one patch, go to the gym and hit on that cute girl in the fantasstic Under Armour running tights, work on the deliberately misleading advertising and promotional campaign, and then cash as many checks as possible? That's how you do business -- you fuck over as many people as possible and then act dumb when people go "Hey wait a minute you guys say you're pro-consumer but everything your business is doing is the very definition of anti-consumer because it doesn't benefit me as a consumer of your product". And don't lie to yourself and say "Movies and apps and music and podcasts and TV shows and books are all available in a digital format yet the creators of those bits of entertainment are able to ship a complete product that isn't a broken and unplayable mess of half-truths and exorbitant file sizes". A game is interactive. Have you even SEEN Titanfall 2? I thought so. Games are way more complex than any other form of entertainment and everything else and as such should never be criticized for being distributed in a horribly inefficient manner, failing to work, and failing to deliver on pro-consumer practices.
Again, games are like snowflakes. Just open your mouth, stick your tongue out, and wait for it.
To be frank, I can't see myself ever spending $60 on any game that's less than 60GB. If I'm paying you $60 then I expect 60GB or more. No compromises, no compressesises. Alberto Ayynstein published a great paper that explains the theory of dollar to filesize. The conclusion was essentially $1 = 1GB. With that in mind, why would a studio ever want to employ efficient formats, bitrate, compression, and rendering techniques that makes their game take up less gigabytes? Why spend more development time and pay for more middleware licenses? What benefits are there in doing that?
Furthermore -- and this is not a criticism at The Koala Mission -- but any game that ships without a day one patch isn't a game worth my money. I'm sorry if you think there should be standards and quality and shit, but that's not what the kids are into these days. And I would know what the kids are into because I've got a lot of kid in me. I'm sorry if your studio wanted to do an archaic and outdated and and and and and and and an old way of shipping games, but to me, a large day one patch signifies that you get modern development. You get the kids. We live in different times, so an avoidable devaluation of the gaming experience is awesome. Day one patches tell me that you understand that a game is never done. Always be patching. A game is a snowflake; it is a unique and delicate product that shatters all that has come before it and all that is around it. A game should, in my opinion, only be reviewed after thirty or seventy nine patches, whichever works best for the publisher. That's the way the crunchy on the outside but soft in the middle chocolate chip cookie that is gaming crumbles. A game is an evolving product -- it's like... it's like your grandmother. Just think about it. There was a time when your grandmother probably thought "Horses are so fucking dope bruh". But then what happened? Ford came through and cars happened. Grandma went from horses to motor vehicles. Did your grandfather think "Wow, Mildred Flappers is into cars now, I'm out"? No. Your grandfather stuck with your grandmother. And that's why you're here today. You wouldn't be here without your grandmother evolving with time, so by that logic, games won't exist in the future if they don't have a large filesize and large day one patches. Nevermind the fact that a game is not a horse. A game should be a 60 to 900 GB file, and it should have sixty two day one patches. That's the future -- delaying the consumption time between a purchase and gameplay by practices that only benefit the bottomline of a business.
I've never believed and been a fan of the whole "There are people in parts of the world who love console gaming but are being turned off on it with each passing day because the practices and products that are being released by developers and or publishers are horrifically anti-efficient, anti-consumer, and anti-jump-the-fuck-in-and-just-play". To me, anyone who thinks that should just move to Anaheim. Anaheim has Disney and fast internet. Who would want to live anywhere other than Anaheim? What value is there in living in a different part of the world, and why should a company from Seattle or Tokyo be aware of the regional differences that exist among their userbase and thus make as much effort as possible to ensure the best gameplay and interactivity experience for their regionally diverse userbase? I'm sorry if you think that multi-billion dollar corporations have the capacity to hire an extra guy or two to look at a game before release and say "This ocean of digital shit is unplayable so we can't release it like this". I'm sorry but you just don't understand how hiring and paying someone in pineapple pizza and Mountain Dew Baja Blast works. Do you realize that by having to pay someone to ensure the consumer doesn't have a shitacular experience you are, in effect, engaging in an outdated practice of quality assurance? How do you not realize that by having people in your company to "look out" for the consumer you are being pro-consumer; a terrible and outdated practice in today's fast evolving and exciting world of marketing mistruths, misdirections, and Twitter misfires? Why not just work on a game, work on the day one patch, go to the gym and hit on that cute girl in the fantasstic Under Armour running tights, work on the deliberately misleading advertising and promotional campaign, and then cash as many checks as possible? That's how you do business -- you fuck over as many people as possible and then act dumb when people go "Hey wait a minute you guys say you're pro-consumer but everything your business is doing is the very definition of anti-consumer because it doesn't benefit me as a consumer of your product". And don't lie to yourself and say "Movies and apps and music and podcasts and TV shows and books are all available in a digital format yet the creators of those bits of entertainment are able to ship a complete product that isn't a broken and unplayable mess of half-truths and exorbitant file sizes". A game is interactive. Have you even SEEN Titanfall 2? I thought so. Games are way more complex than any other form of entertainment and everything else and as such should never be criticized for being distributed in a horribly inefficient manner, failing to work, and failing to deliver on pro-consumer practices.
Again, games are like snowflakes. Just open your mouth, stick your tongue out, and wait for it.
dr_rus
Member
Correct.
I'm just saying you should distinguish "can't" from "won't".
Because you most assuredly can do exactly what you say you can't do. You're just mad you can't do it in the exact way you want to do it.
dr_rus
Member
I can't choose a folder I'd like to use and I can't even name the folder which MS is creating for me when I install something from WinStore to a different drive than C:. Thus I can't use this function as I don't feel like letting MS name the folders on my drives and choose where they'll be in such cases.
It's 2016 and we're on PC. An ability to choose a folder for program installation and name it the way you see fit shouldn't be considered a "feature" by any means. The lack of such ability should be considered a grave oversight though in this day and age.
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
As someone who stills buys physical games on consoles I have to say that these game sizes are ridiculously big and the lack of foresight to allow current gen consoles to be compatible with BDXL Discs bothers me.
With a 50GB limit (actually less than that) on a Dual Layered Blu-Ray Disc we reached the point way too early in the generation where some games can't be played at all anymore because the rest of the game has to be downloaded and actual GoTY/Complete Editions outright don't have DLC on the Disc anymore and that too has to be downloaded from the Store through the use of a code. I got to say I'm really glad I have no data caps here in Chicago.
With a 50GB limit (actually less than that) on a Dual Layered Blu-Ray Disc we reached the point way too early in the generation where some games can't be played at all anymore because the rest of the game has to be downloaded and actual GoTY/Complete Editions outright don't have DLC on the Disc anymore and that too has to be downloaded from the Store through the use of a code. I got to say I'm really glad I have no data caps here in Chicago.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
My internet speed here in Ohio:
That's far from the norm though; even in your area. Frontier is only available to 3% of Columbus. There are much better services in Columbus Ohio that cover 99% of the area.
ShipTheCheese
Member
What the fuck am I reading.
EDIT: Like, honestly I can't tell if this is sarcasm, drunken madness, or something else.
Grim Patron
Member
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Good golly Ms Molly! Gonna need a 4TB drive
This. If anything it makes me think worse of the game as it makes me question if the Inengine graphics don't look good enough to be used in place of pre rendered cutscenes. It also makes me worry about the level of effort that has gone into optimising the game, and how long the loading screens will be
Gai Murakumo
Member
Sometimes when games are 50 gigs or more it is either uncompressed audio or not optimizing good enough. That is not always the case however.
FarFromAnyGame
Banned
So now not only the game's length but also the file size that makes it worth the price? This is sad.
Edit:
Ps. Titanfall was 48gb of uncompressed audio!
File size doesn't Mena anything!
Edit:
Ps. Titanfall was 48gb of uncompressed audio!
File size doesn't Mena anything!
Huge Succeeded
Banned
I mean, Just Cause 2 wasn't ugly, but Just Cause 3 looks waaaay better, and I'm saying that as someone who's intimately familiar with the maxed PC version of JC2.
CyberPunked
Member
Huge Succeeded
Banned
It's not always about 'inengine graphics not looking good enough'. You can do things in a prerendered cutscene that aren't so simple to run in-engine.
And I dunno why so many people correlate large filesize with poor optimization, either.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
What does this even mean? Games are played on large, high definition TVs these days. Compression can be very noticeable. And at any rate you're operating under the assumption that this filesize is a direct result of the inclusion of uncompressed pre-rendered cutscenes, when that's neither confirmed nor so likely that it's a safe assumption. I mean, DOOM on PC is over 60 gigs.
Lol, so games that just inefficiency pre-render cutscenes (like this game)
DOOM. Is it all those pre-rendered cutscenes? lol.
From what I've seen, Gears 4 looks like it's got lots of unique assets and locales, and I'm just describing the single-player - there's still the entire multiplayer suite to consider as well.