[QUOTE=ThePanther;46911293]50GB? They must have some BIG models![/QUOTE]
or alot of uncompressed sound files, which wouldn't surprise me at all.
"AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400"
Never thought I would see THAT on a systems requirements page again.
I find it weird 4K listed as a feature.
[QUOTE=Sivics;46911616]I find it weird 4K listed as a feature.[/QUOTE]
Is it not a feature?
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;46911521]or alot of uncompressed sound files, which wouldn't surprise me at all.[/QUOTE]
Could be textures, too. The bottom line is that at least half of this will be one big folder filled with uncompressed [I]something[/I].
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;46911653]Is it not a feature?[/QUOTE]
Well yes but I expect it from any game though. It's just a resolution option.
[QUOTE=Sivics;46911693]Well yes but I expect it from any game though. It's just a resolution option.[/QUOTE]
What it actually means is that the UI and menus and such are properly scaled to support it.
I wish I was into these kind of games; cause that looks really, really pretty
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;46911521]or alot of uncompressed sound files, which wouldn't surprise me at all.[/QUOTE]
16 characters and 5 main monster sound files; plus all the environment and wildlife and tech stuff, not that much of a stretch.
Other requirements include $70 USD plus taxes of disposable income for what will surely be a fun but short game.
Ahaha I wouldn't pay 60 for this shit. LOL I mean it was fun but nah 60 is too much for that.
My best understanding of all these games suddenly being between 40-50 GB is that it is a result of relative ps4/xbone portability. Those systems have weak CPUs, and relatively large amounts of memory and disc storage. It is actually faster for devs to work with uncompressed data (audio and texture) and dump it straight into ram than to deal with using CPU time to uncompress the data. As a result, that method carries over to the PC version. Realistically no reason for most of these games to be more than 15-20 GB if they were using a lossless image compression and a high quality compressed audio. Just feels really uncalled for, especially bad for people with restrictive DL caps.
50GB for a game..., these larger games are really becoming a hassle as storage isn't getting cheaper faster than these games are getting larger.
Very impressed with how they've managed to optimize it for such low requirements. Shame about the size, though, it feels like a standard. I remember when UT3 (16 GB) was devastating, but now literally every game coming out is 40GB+.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;46917284]50GB for a game..., these larger games are really becoming a hassle as storage isn't getting cheaper faster than these games are getting larger.[/QUOTE]
We haven't really seen anything peak 50GB, which seems like it's going to be the limit for this generation of games. A 2TB HDD, which will fetch for ~$80, can easily hold the games I actively play.
What really gets me is that I download most of my games, and my ISP caps me at 250GB/month.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;46917284]50GB for a game..., these larger games are really becoming a hassle as storage isn't getting cheaper faster than these games are getting larger.[/QUOTE]
I am still rolling with a 250gb hard drive....
[QUOTE=Boilrig;46917284]50GB for a game..., these larger games are really becoming a hassle as storage isn't getting cheaper faster than these games are getting larger.[/QUOTE]
Especially for unjustified reasons. My pc can handle decompressing audio on the run, can I please have 20GB game?
[QUOTE=Cmx;46917448]I am still rolling with a 250gb hard drive....[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's about time you got an upgrade in storage
[QUOTE=nintenman1;46915515]My best understanding of all these games suddenly being between 40-50 GB is that it is a result of relative ps4/xbone portability. Those systems have weak CPUs, and relatively large amounts of memory and disc storage. It is actually faster for devs to work with uncompressed data (audio and texture) and dump it straight into ram than to deal with using CPU time to uncompress the data. As a result, that method carries over to the PC version. Realistically no reason for most of these games to be more than 15-20 GB if they were using a lossless image compression and a high quality compressed audio. Just feels really uncalled for, especially bad for people with restrictive DL caps.[/QUOTE]
Except a processor newer than anything from 2004 could easily run compressed audio without any performance issues at all. You know, considering sound cards have been irrelevant as a performance concern for well over a decade and last gen consoles were using compressed sound files no issues.
The real reason is developer laziness. It's simply easier to just throw shit on a disc without compressing it for storage reasons if you don't need to due to your discs being 50+GB in storage and internal hard drives being at least 500GB on consoles. Bonus points: it makes your game look more "next gen" on the back of the box when it takes up so much space ("Woh this game's graphics must be INSANE!!!").
Developers are actually going to have to start compressing shit again if they want to get truly next-gen looking games to fit on the discs so lets hope they've not forgotten how to do that.
Can we stop doing this whole, "uncompressed audio" thing? Times have changed, textures are huge, models are huge. new gens ram's is 16 times as big, and textures have scaled accordingly.
Out of Wolfsteins 50gb system requirement less then 4.24gb is spend on audio.
Out of Shadow of morders 40gb system requirement less then 1gb is spend on audio.
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;46911521]or alot of uncompressed sound files, which wouldn't surprise me at all.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=nintenman1;46915515]My best understanding of all these games suddenly being between 40-50 GB is that it is a result of relative ps4/xbone portability. Those systems have weak CPUs, and relatively large amounts of memory and disc storage. It is actually faster for devs to work with uncompressed data (audio and texture) and dump it straight into ram than to deal with using CPU time to uncompress the data. As a result, that method carries over to the PC version. Realistically no reason for most of these games to be more than 15-20 GB if they were using a lossless image compression and a high quality compressed audio. Just feels really uncalled for, especially bad for people with restrictive DL caps.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KorJax;46934111]Except a processor newer than anything from 2004 could easily run compressed audio without any performance issues at all. You know, considering sound cards have been irrelevant as a performance concern for well over a decade and last gen consoles were using compressed sound files no issues.
The real reason is developer laziness. It's simply easier to just throw shit on a disc without compressing it for storage reasons if you don't need to due to your discs being 50+GB in storage and internal hard drives being at least 500GB on consoles. Bonus points: it makes your game look more "next gen" on the back of the box when it takes up so much space ("Woh this game's graphics must be INSANE!!!").
Developers are actually going to have to start compressing shit again if they want to get truly next-gen looking games to fit on the discs so lets hope they've not forgotten how to do that.[/QUOTE]
except compression and packaging is an automatic part of CE3's asset import process so lol @ you all
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;46911661]Could be textures, too. The bottom line is that at least half of this will be one big folder filled with uncompressed [I]something[/I].[/QUOTE]
In fact it is textures, you guys would be surprised how small 3d models acutally are in filesize.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.