this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45586 readers
1446 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pharmacokinetics@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I FUCKING LOVE DEEP ROCK GALACTIC!

FOR SUCH A SMALL PRICE AND ONLY 5GB OF SPACE REQUIRED YOU GET INSANE AMOUNTS OF CONTENT AND FUN!

[–] AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

is it still worth getting into? it seems like something I'd like but I've never played it before and don't have crazy amounts of time like I used to. should I still give it a go?

[–] VeryBald@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Absolutely! I think you can have fun with it, no matter how much time you invest. It feels like the main focus of the game is just the player to have fun.

[–] Daxtron2@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't get why modern AAA refuses to compress / distribute lower storage requirement assets.

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's hard and it particularly slows down the asset production process which is already a disproportionately slow and expensive part of development. Way easier to let the artists go apeshit exporting everything at 8k and a billion polygons because storage is cheap in a production environment.

Compression could help in theory, but then you'd have to decompress assets on the fly which takes a significant amount of processing power. The industry is trying to reduce the latency of getting assets into memory, compression would be moving the other way from that.

If you're conspiratorially minded then you might also conclude that it's to prevent people from having another major live service game installed on base model consoles, making you more likely to keep playing the one you've already installed. A kind of walled garden effect.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why decompress on the fly? For a lot of things the crazy high-res textures aren't needed or appreciated while playing. I downloaded some newer FTP Quake title. It had 30 fucking GB for like a dozen maps or so. It is a god damn arena shooter. You are way to busy jumping around, making fast paced shots and so on, to ever appreciate that the texture is still detailed, when you are pressing your virtual face against ist. And it takes so much more ressources because the texture needs to be loaded in the VRAM and then scaled down anyways because you aren't pressing your face against it.

[–] emberwit@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Enough reviewers giving the ratings that influence sales of a game claim to care.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Games which needs a NASA computer and a half Google server to play it with more than 15 FPS are not necesarly better as some 15 years old games for Win XP, they only have somewhat better graphics.

Remembering old Games, like Black Messiah or Tomb Rider from 2013, which work at >30-50 FPS with a few Gigs HD and less than 4 Gigs RAM, apart of having very good graphics.

New games often also are badly optimized, needing way more min sys specs as needed for the quality they offer.

Someone remember the game kkrieger? A short 3D FPS in a single file with only 96 KB, that is art. It can still be downloaded (abandonware, Windows)

[–] emberwit@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

kkrieger ironically is solely optimized for hdd storage space and quite inefficient regarding other specs, as all the resources not included readily in those 96KB have to be generated in real time by your computer instead of coming shipped with the game as usual.

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it's the only game your console will have with the shitass packing they do

[–] MTLion3@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s getting 100% intentional. I find it ironic when CoD used to be known for being a fairly storage conscious game and now it’s this monstrosity we see before us. Glorified $70 DLC that takes up MORE space than the game it was made for

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why delete unused code and assets or optimize anything when your player base built their personality around your game? They will buy a 3rd SSD at the same time they buy the same game for the 4th time.

[–] Contend6248@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

What do you mean unused code, there are 3 complete unused games in there.

Download >100Gb = 5 maps, obviously

[–] Frozzie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I can't believe you. I don't want to believe you. A +400GB game, come on. Seriously.

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On console: Mw2 150gb warzone2 115gb Mw2s "cod hq" for launching games 50gb (the only mandatory one) Mw3 seems to be about 190 looking at articles. (For campaign, zombies and warzone)

They're starting to obfuscate where each thing comes from now with the Cod HQ Launcher to play off the size of the games. As well as let you delete components like zombies and campaign to "save space" that they hoarded.

[–] Contend6248@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your consile is a whole CoD machine now, only by accident, not that someone intended to do so

[–] ColdWater@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Better hardware make gamedevs more lazy, remember when they managed to squeeze a game with 3d+music into a CD? (Lego island) now 100+GB for a below average and unfinished game, back then if you have mid even low end PC you can still enjoy most if not all the games (1990-2009) ever released now devs just know everyone have high end PC to play their 10 minutes games before you got board and play solitaire instead

[–] notepass@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Tho shit has changed since then. The quality of audio and video has increased. Especially on the visual side this takes a lot more storage. More polygons and more pixels equal larger size.

Also, if I remember correctly, data is often stored in multiple places to make it more efficient to read it from BluRay or HDDs.

Tho, with SSDs now in everything, the second thing will probably die out.