Poll: Are games getting too big in file size?
- Thread starter pejhmon
- Start date
My hard drive is 500 gb and I've almost filled half of it just with games in just short of a year. The problem with external hard drives is that they have to be run out of a USB slot, meaning that the accessing of data is slower than that of an internal one which, if your computer can only just run a game, may cause the lag you just don't want.gmaverick019 said:
You see I have the other side of the coin, unlimited quotas with a shitty speed since I live in the countryside and have to get my internet through an antenna. In short, my average download speed is 30 kb/s (ranges from anything between 1.6 mb/s to 1 byte/s). I have basically left my computer on non-stop for the last 2 weeks just trying to download that pack and I still have about 7 more games to goLawlessSquirrel said:
Exactly, best example of this being in effect is the fact that Left 4 Dead 2 has more content, better graphics and an extra campaign compared to Left 4 Dead but almost 1gb less space required and lower computer requirements and that puts it under the 5gb bracket.migo said:
Most of the comments here are about what I expected: Storage space is at its lowest price point ever (you can get a 1TB drive on NewEgg for $75-- or just a little more than the cost of a game). It's also not like it's hard to implement: AFAIK, every OS commonly available will automatically recognize a drive once you pop it in your case, cable it up, and boot it. So, like 15 minutes of your time.
And consider, BluRay DVDs offer 25gb (single layer) and 50gb (dual layer) of storage for games and movies on the PS3.
So absolutely not.
In regards to those arguing that 'bigger is not necessarily better' and 'too many things are bloatware', while those thoughts certainly are valid, the truth is, design philosophy is irrelevant: That isn't the question he was asking. But on that subject, if you're going to argue about whether or not games and computer programs should be leaner and meaner, I'm not going to disagree with you, except I don't see why they should be forced to be that way. I enjoy low-impact (requirements-wise) games, and yes, you could try to assert that it results in a higher focus on gameplay, but I also enjoy CryTek games and the high-gloss stuff too. Might that result in a game that has amazing graphics, but isn't as fun? Sure, but I wouldn't blame the technology for that! I'd blame the project lead who decided to spend more time on graphics.
And consider, BluRay DVDs offer 25gb (single layer) and 50gb (dual layer) of storage for games and movies on the PS3.
So absolutely not.
In regards to those arguing that 'bigger is not necessarily better' and 'too many things are bloatware', while those thoughts certainly are valid, the truth is, design philosophy is irrelevant: That isn't the question he was asking. But on that subject, if you're going to argue about whether or not games and computer programs should be leaner and meaner, I'm not going to disagree with you, except I don't see why they should be forced to be that way. I enjoy low-impact (requirements-wise) games, and yes, you could try to assert that it results in a higher focus on gameplay, but I also enjoy CryTek games and the high-gloss stuff too. Might that result in a game that has amazing graphics, but isn't as fun? Sure, but I wouldn't blame the technology for that! I'd blame the project lead who decided to spend more time on graphics.
No. Larger size = more content. If a new game is under 6GB, I instantly go "meh".
I'll be extremely happy if Mass Effect 3 is 20+ GB.
I'll be extremely happy if Mass Effect 3 is 20+ GB.
How about, a 1TB dive for $60-$80? Unless you're talking about USB external, which tends to rip you off a little from the get-go, as buyers of externals tend to be desperate for space.Wolfram01 said:
I wish developers would not limit their games to certain size limits. Most PC gamers tend to get pretty pissed off, because they will limit broad, expansive games due to console limitations, and not bother with a more complex PC version.
I would seriously buy a 50GB game or higher. No problems with that. So long as it's a good game. Think, Morrowind or Oblivion with no "size constraints" illusion.
To those people who claim the current sizes are already too big, and that they can't even play 2 year old games on the lowest settings.... well, no offense, but stop your whining. That says to me that you have a vastly old computer, with virtually no money or effort into upgrading it. Might I suggest you just switch to a console, and deal with what you can get there.
After I get done modding games like Oblivion, and Fallout 3, and I've added all the bells and whistles I want, including increased resolution texture packs and weapon kits or NPC/Monster additions ranging in the hundreds to thousands of additions. After-the-fact, my installation folder is likely to be over 20-30GB. Which is almost how it should have been in the first place.
They aren't too big. Graphics, sounds, videos, it all takes space on hard drive. Every single model, in high detail game these days consists usually of face texture, body texture, hand texture, eye texture, mouth inside texture and sometimes feet texture. Each of those textures, usually saved in .dds format also has several sub textures (maps) responsible for additional visual effects. Reflect maps, shine maps, bump maps, it all piles together increasing the size and the more powerful our hardware gets the more detailed, and thus higher resolution the files become. Compare a 512x512 image file to 1024x1024 and you already have quite a difference even before drawing anything. Quality -> size.
Then you have engine and its functions, shaders, all the complicated processes that you don't usually realize during game play. The more advanced the game systems are, the more space the libraries will take.
And in the end there is content itself.
Back in the old days of long forgotten CD-ROM there already were some adventure games taking up to 7 CDs, FFVIII was on 4 CDs. Same time drive space is dirty cheap compared to those times, you can now buy a 1 TB HDD for near to nothing. Price change between 320 GB and 500 GB HDDs is so minimal its not even worth getting the 320GB one anymore.
Then you have engine and its functions, shaders, all the complicated processes that you don't usually realize during game play. The more advanced the game systems are, the more space the libraries will take.
And in the end there is content itself.
Back in the old days of long forgotten CD-ROM there already were some adventure games taking up to 7 CDs, FFVIII was on 4 CDs. Same time drive space is dirty cheap compared to those times, you can now buy a 1 TB HDD for near to nothing. Price change between 320 GB and 500 GB HDDs is so minimal its not even worth getting the 320GB one anymore.
No, because game sizes are generally rising at the same rate has the memory cost falls. a 1 TB drive costs about the same has two games and can hold about 100 or so.
That's true, if you want faster RPM drives and so on, it will give you more performance at the expense of capacity, and your wallet.
I'd personally devote that money to a better video card, processor, or faster RAM and so on. Depends on what games you're playing, and what resources you need.
I'd personally devote that money to a better video card, processor, or faster RAM and so on. Depends on what games you're playing, and what resources you need.
I don't mind how big a game is, so long as it's good, but extra big size doesn't always mean good. One of my favorite games, Mount&Blade, is only 842 MB.
