i call complete bull on this list. COD: Ghosts is a bit over 24 GB on PC, so unless they think it will have 50% more content on Xbox:ON version they can forget it. unless their storage method is actaulyl THAT badly optimized, which would mean the studio was taken over by crazy monkeys and it probably wont work anyway.
FizzyIzze said:
If memory serves me correctly, I believe the bulk of data that was taken up on Blu-ray discs was not so much for 1080p video, but rather high-fidelity, uncompressed sound. I wonder if that's the reason for these huge install sizes.
while sound in games have been rusing in size taken, especialyl since when you have to put 100 hours of soundtrack and voiceovers you do need a lot of space, it is not that huge. AC3, which is a lossless audio that retains CD quality audio would take up to 1 GB in a 2 hour movie, so thats 1/25th of single layer Blur-Ray size. In fact, The more comrpessed you go the more sound takes in relation as you can only compress sound so much till it becomes too bad to be worth it (Remmeber MP3 64 kb, yeah), but you can lower video resolution, compress it, vary its bitrate to not refresh parts of frames that aren't moving (like a long dialogue will ahve a lot of background thats not moving - dont need no data there, just code "Repeat", actually that is the method projectors used to handle huge video streams before HDMI was invented, since in slides you only need to change ever so often, so you can jut send command to "dont change anything" instead of sending whole new frame).
so the higher quality you go the less audiotrack will take, and audio while you can blow it up with huge bitrates and frequencies, the result will only be that 99.9% speakers cant do that anyway and those that do - most humans cant even hear that. so thats pointless. you can however increase video quality, less compression (the DVD MPEG is really terrible sometimes, i still love dvds though), higher resolution, higher framerate, higher bitrate, and thing is, people will actually be able to tell the difference much more easily.
Tenmar said:
Okay call me crazy, but WHAT THE HADES is with the massive difference in file sizes from the console to the PC games? I never get those huge install files when I install games but my god. I mean even the source engine itself is still the largest file for video games because it is just that damn bulky. But at least it supports like what 5 games?
The hades are in that these nubmers are wrong. just like the minimum requirements are often wrong. remmeber those require 8 GB of space when the game actually takes 3 games? that stuff.
As for whats actually in the game - high resolution textures are HUGE size wise and so is good quality audio. especially of the game has like 100 hours of variuos voice overs background music ect.
Vie said:
I suspect the huge installs have something to do with the games originally expecting the disc to not be present during game play.
That is to say, this is a legacy of Microsoft's attempt at DRM - these games with massive installs were designed to run off the hard drive.
On PC you dont need the disc to play either, and yet it takes at least 50% less space.
Baldr said:
It really has nothing to do with how much a cartridge can hold because the technology is there. It the cost per storage. A blu-ray roughly around 4 cents per gigabyte vs a cartridge about 10x that at 35-40 cents per gigabyte.
Blueray, 4 cents per gygabite? best case scenario, duallayer br at 50 gb, thats 2 dollars for a disc. an empty single layer (25 gb) blueray disc at store costs 5-7 dollars. thats 24 cents per gigabite.
Saltyk said:
How much was that? I'm toying with the idea, but don't have a lot of free money to spend right now. Wondering how easy replacing it will be, though.
I bought a 2 TB external drive this spring from a local importer. It cost me bellow 200 dollars, and so far it has worked flawlessly.
Arawn said:
I know it says 500GB, but most HDD take a portion of that space for themselves. So maybe 475-485ish? Xbox One's storage isn't removable, but I thought they allow external storage. OR am I thinking something else?
technically, HDDs structure does take portion of itself for themselves. however that portion is in megabites. tens of megabytes. you wont see the loss. the difference you see is because of the counting differences. manufacturers count 1000 MB = 1 GB (and so on). Microsoft, sony, and pretty much everyone else counts 1024 MB = 1 GB. and same goes for MB to KB, KB to B and so on, so in the end your left with something like 480.000 MB = 470 GB, and thus you see 30 GB missing. Strnagely enough, USB Stick manufacturers are the only electronics i know that manufacture stuff counting in 1024 format and thus you wont see missing stuff.
SirDeadly said:
That's 19 games for about 341GB, it will most likely take me a few years to get 19 games and by the time I get anywhere near the 500GB I will be able to delete some of the stored games. This really doesn't seem like it is that much of an issue unless you're super rich and can afford to buy $100 games every month or so.
lets say in 6 years there will be a bunch of games for 20 dollars each (used probably) that you can easily fill the HDD with much cheaper. problem starts.
