Game sizes are getting too big

[moonbogg]

Is it sad that I saw Fallout 4 as 25GB and thought, "Oh, it's not that big! Sweet." Of course, I ran the game and thought, "Where's the 25+GB going here? Looks like shit."

LOL, exactly. Games sizes are inflating like giant, fictional, impossibly large balloons but they deliver nothing to justify the size. It places a burden on the consumer in the form of HUGELY increased storage and internet data requirements.
This all happened pretty suddenly. Very recently a 60gb game would have been considered really insane. But people don't seem to care that it could be fixed if they simply compressed the stupid audio LIKE THEY USED TO DO!? And they stopped compressing stuff why? How much stock do these game publishers hold in the NAND flash industry?
"Quick, buy a bunch of NAND stock and then stop compressing game audio. We gonna make it rain, bitch"

 

[norseamd]

LOL, exactly. Games sizes are inflating like giant, fictional, impossibly large balloons but they deliver nothing to justify the size. It places a burden on the consumer in the form of HUGELY increased storage and internet data requirements.

This all happened pretty suddenly. Very recently a 60gb game would have been considered really insane. But people don't seem to care that it could be fixed if they simply compressed the stupid audio LIKE THEY USED TO DO!? And they stopped compressing stuff why? How much stock do these game publishers hold in the NAND flash industry?

"Quick, buy a bunch of NAND stock and then stop compressing game audio. We gonna make it rain, bitch"

Probably has a lot to do with the new generation of consoles?

Where have you been? Not seen you in off topic or discussion club for like months.

 

[bystander36]

Compression isn't an issue with downloads, as they'll be compressed prior to being sent to you, then expanded. It may be an issue with your hard drive space, but you do have the option when setting up your disk to use automatic compression mode if it is an issue for you. I'm not sure how it impacts performance, but that is an option.

 

[moonbogg]

Probably has a lot to do with the new generation of consoles?

Perhaps. Maybe they just look at what they can stuff on a blue ray and feel the need to fill the thing up and make us download a file of that size.

Where have you been? Not seen you in off topic or discussion club for like months.

I can't believe you would ask me that. No one told you what happened?

 

[norseamd]

I can't believe you would ask me that. No one told you what happened?

No. I more or less rarely check the subforums themselves, and usually just check my subscribed threads instead.

 

[CountZero]

2GB patches because why do a diff update when you can just redownload the entire file?

In the world of digital games it makes a fair amount of sense. Why do diff updates when you can just update the file to the latest one and be done with it? If you gamed a while back and remember patching it went something like this:

The disc had version 1.02 on it, the current version is 1.25. There is a 1.00 to 1.10 patch, a 1.10 patch to 1.22 patch and a 1.22 patch to 1.25. But if you have 1.02 you have to go through 1.02->1.04->1.05->1.10 before you can get on the main update train. Or they could just have a patch that has the latest version of the full file that got modified a dozen times. When bandwidth was a very serious issue this pain made some sense but 2GB is on the order of streaming a movie or couple shows which, while perhaps a pain, is not an unreasonable amount any longer.

 

[Exophase]

Titanfall having 30+GB of wav files for instance.

That's like 94 hours worth of CD-quality WAV audio, did it really have so much?

It could be higher quality but there's really no point in that... not that there's much point in using WAV in the first place...

 

[moonbogg]

No. I more or less rarely check the subforums themselves, and usually just check my subscribed threads instead.

Baha I was just kidding. Nothing happened. I just don't go there anymore. I had plenty of fun, but those adventures have run their course for me.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That's your answer for everything gaming-related just throw more money at the problem. "I don't care about pc vs console I buy both, I buy everything I want yeah!" "I don't care about internet data caps, I pay extra for more!" Look man it's great you have a huge gaming budget or have dedicated a large % of your free income to gaming not everybody's life works like that.

Look dude. We have one ISP worth a crap here and I eat up the cap so I pay for no cap. Simple. It is cheaper to pay the extra $30 for no cap than pay my overages month to month. I don't know why that bugs you so much. What the hell do you care what I spend on gaming or what amount of disposable income I have?

How do you suggest we go about doing that exactly?

For a very large number of us, there is exactly one broadband carrier we can choose from. The big providers have very little incentive to listen to the consumer, but always have incentive to listen to the stockholders.

I predict we will start seeing more data caps rather than less. The cell companies have shown the way to greater profits and broadband providers are starting to follow.

Exactly. Comcast doesn't care if you don't like it, they have a cap in my area now that is enforced and you have to pay one way or the other. Either you pay for no cap or pay the overages you get. The alternative is to use the internet like a phone data plan and that is not an option for me.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The real problem is that he probably does not have no data cap. He pays extra for 'No Data Cap' but the truth is that if he tried to use a lot of data they would cut him off anyway and claim that he is using up more then his fair share of bandwidth. That 'unlimited' is not really unlimited but just a marketing term.

Not true. I used over 1TB last month and they didn't care. It's also known that the ceo of Comcast said they put caps in place as a business decision and not because they have to limit bandwidth usage.

 

[norseamd]

Baha I was just kidding. Nothing happened. I just don't go there anymore. I had plenty of fun, but those adventures have run their course for me.

The multiverse needs another round from you.

 

[futurefields]

Totally missing the point here. I don't care about that. I care about being nickel and dimed to death and people who defend egregious practices in the industry. People tell me if I dont like DLC then dont buy it. The problem then is i am missing the half the game they decided to strip out and sell as dlc which they will continue to do because so many dont care about spending upwards of $100 for a single game.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Missing half the game lol. Tell me how witcher 3 is missing half the game because it has DLC. Same for fallout 4 and I could go on and on.

 

[Sabrewings]

Not true. I used over 1TB last month and they didn't care. It's also known that the ceo of Comcast said they put caps in place as a business decision and not because they have to limit bandwidth usage.

I blow past 1TB every month with Verizon Fios (75/75). Between uploads, Youtube, Netflix, Amazon (video and music), Pandora, and video game downloads plus patching, it goes fast. No published cap and I haven't ever received a "please take it easy" letter.

I can switch to Comcast in an instant, and Verizon knows it. I feel for the guys who live in virtual monopolies. It needs to be fixed and now.

 

[norseamd]

Same for fallout 4 and I could go on and on.

Never such a thing as horse armor then I take it? And the rumor of paid mods being real is ever more ridiculous?

 

[norseamd]

I can switch to Comcast in an instant, and Verizon knows it. I feel for the guys who live in virtual monopolies. It needs to be fixed and now.

Centurylink is trying to market themselves as the internet company competing against the big bad cable companies, so I doubt they are going to implement data caps for now.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Never such a thin as horse armor then I take it? And the rumor of paid mods being real is ever more ridiculous?

That is not half the game. Try to keep up.

When a game has DLC it is not missing half the game.

 

[futurefields]

I don't know why you insist on defending every single nickel and dime tactic the industry does. It's almost like you are a corporate plant. A lot of games are skeletons without their dlc. Look at Fallout 3, New Vegas, Battlefield 3/4, Titanfall, Borderlands, Destiny. Just wait for all the Battlefront DLC that will actually flesh out the game.

 

[norseamd]

When a game has DLC it is not missing half the game.

Right cause games including DLC are now only 75% of what they used to be.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Right cause games including DLC are now only 75% of what they used to be.

You want to think that way but I'd say you're wrong. Games are larger and more expansive than they have ever been outside the occasional Diablo or Baldur's Gate type. They're just offering extras later on that you think you should get for free. That';s not how it works. Instead of one giant expansion pack, companies are offering smaller chunks of optional content for less than before. Did you complain when Neverwinter Nights cost $50 and each expansion pack was $30? If you say no then why do you complain when a game like Witcher 3 is $60 and offers 15 hours of extra story with new quests and all for $10 and more expected to be released later on? The base game is not changed in either scenario.

I don't know why you insist on defending every single nickel and dime tactic the industry does. It's almost like you are a corporate plant. A lot of games are skeletons without their dlc. Look at Fallout 3, New Vegas, Battlefield 3/4, Titanfall, Borderlands, Destiny. Just wait for all the Battlefront DLC that will actually flesh out the game.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas have well over a hundred hours of stuff to do. It's not my fault if you rush through the story in 15 hours and think that's it. I just think you're playing the games wrong. Online games from EA...yeah well it's EA and they pride themselves on selling map packs etc. That's no surprise to me that Battlefront had little content. You're lumping all gaming into the EA/Activision stereotype which is wrong.

 

[Subyman]

I hit into this recently with BF Hardline. 37GB download, 40+ installed. It doesn't look that great and I don't think there are many FMVs, nearly everything has been in-game during the campaign. I'm using a 256GB SSD, but the biggest issue is it taking forever to download.

 

[BSim500]

When a game has DLC it is not missing half the game.

Probably not "half" no, but DLC is planned long in advance and there are certain trivial "features" in many games which might otherwise have been in the base game had the DLC not been planned. That DLC has a very different "design mindset" vs "big expansion packs" of old is nothing new and is an industry practise that's long been widely mocked.

To get back on topic, a lot of it is sheer laziness. No need for uncompressed WAV files (even 1990's games had some form of audio compression), nor is there really any need to install a dozen languages by default for each game when Steam is language aware and offline installers (eg, GOG or retail discs) can easily include a tickbox option. Or keep the same "redist" subfolders containing the 100th identical version of DirectX9, DotNet, vcredist, etc, after the game installation has finished. Devs could do a lot more to optimize PC gaming if they really wanted.

 

[Mondozei]

I don't think game sizes are getting too big.

I think the real problem here is shitty 'Murican internet, which is the elephant in the room. Caps, in particular.

I don't play, actively, more than 6-7 games at a time. The installation size goes from 7 GB to 55 GB, depending on the game. In total we're looking at around 200-250 GB. You don't need to fill even 500 GB.

The only reason you'd need that is if your internet is either A) too slow to re-download a game and/or B) you're on a capped line. If you have either of those, the problem is your internet, not the game sizes.

If you're on uncapped fiber like I am, it's not an issue. But really, you don't need to be on fiber. Most decent cable internet connections today can download large games fairly snappily, provided you're on uncapped internet.

That's what I do. I play a game for a few weeks, uninstall it. Then I get the urge maybe 5-6 weeks later, download it in 7-15 mins, and start playing until I no longer feel the urge to.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I don't think game sizes are getting too big.

I think the real problem here is shitty 'Murican internet, which is the elephant in the room. Caps, in particular.

I don't play, actively, more than 6-7 games at a time. The installation size goes from 7 GB to 55 GB, depending on the game. In total we're looking at around 200-250 GB. You don't need to fill even 500 GB.

The only reason you'd need that is if your internet is either A) too slow to re-download a game and/or B) you're on a capped line. If you have either of those, the problem is your internet, not the game sizes.

If you're on uncapped fiber like I am, it's not an issue. But really, you don't need to be on fiber. Most decent cable internet connections today can download large games fairly snappily, provided you're on uncapped internet.

That's what I do. I play a game for a few weeks, uninstall it. Then I get the urge maybe 5-6 weeks later, download it in 7-15 mins, and start playing until I no longer feel the urge to.

I would love to have fiber but the option Comcast offers here is 2Gbps and around $400 per month. I would also have to setup a 10G-base t network and my current computers would only be able to use half the theoretical bandwidth available. Just not worth it, especially the price they ask. Eventually it will get cheaper I am sure and more widely available. It just seems like the monopolies in the US stifle some of the innovation and push for better speeds to customers.

Though you are right. The game sizes aren't a big deal when HDD space is cheap (maybe not SSD space). The problem is people are starting to get shafted by the ISPs and have data caps put in place that they need to pay attention to.

 

[Sabrewings]

I don't think game sizes are getting too big.

I think the real problem here is shitty 'Murican internet, which is the elephant in the room. Caps, in particular.

I don't play, actively, more than 6-7 games at a time. The installation size goes from 7 GB to 55 GB, depending on the game. In total we're looking at around 200-250 GB. You don't need to fill even 500 GB.

The only reason you'd need that is if your internet is either A) too slow to re-download a game and/or B) you're on a capped line. If you have either of those, the problem is your internet, not the game sizes.

If you're on uncapped fiber like I am, it's not an issue. But really, you don't need to be on fiber. Most decent cable internet connections today can download large games fairly snappily, provided you're on uncapped internet.

That's what I do. I play a game for a few weeks, uninstall it. Then I get the urge maybe 5-6 weeks later, download it in 7-15 mins, and start playing until I no longer feel the urge to.

This, really. I feel for everyone who doesn't have it, and the monopolies of ISPs is another topic entirely for me, but when you do have a good ISP digital distribution is bliss.

Though, I have been thinking of backing up game data anyway before deleting, just because. I have 9TB of available storage in RAID 5 and I'm only using a couple TB. Might as well fill it with something, right? It will make my external backups take longer, though...