This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

People complaining about hard drive space and ram. (wall of text)

#31Zorlac(Topic Creator)Posted 6/6/2014 5:13:20 PM
Fade2black001 posted...
There is usually no justification on why the games are as big as they are nowadays. They do not need to be this big at all. They simply are cause the consoles have the space to hold and say meh whatever and don't even bother compressing the files. Its an act of pure laziness on the devs themselves.

So you think cause HDD space is so cheap that it makes it alright for the devs to be lazy and just have big ass game sizes just for the hell of it? I don't think so. Also RAM is at an all time high now. Especially from what it was 2 years ago.


No, I don't think it's an excuse for them to be lazy, but I do understand that file sizes will increase as time goes on. Things move forward, not backwards normally.
---
https://www.youtube.com/user/Zorlac0666 Please subscribe!!
Xbox live Zorlac0666 Xfire-Zorlac666. Steam-Zorlac666 3DS 1075-1487-9342
#32MarikhenPosted 6/6/2014 5:25:25 PM
PhilOnDez posted...
While that is true there's also the flipside that if you have compressed textures and CPU power to spare (which is the case in most multiplats, especially Titanfall) then you'll be better off because the textures will be read/loaded faster with no time lost on decompression. Textures that load on the fly would be the ones that would benefit/be hurt most by the compression, depending on the user's system.


Honestly, how much "CPU power to spare" you have is somewhat irrelevant, at least to me. Take the MMO Rift for example. Sure, Gamebryo games already start on three crutches and a powered wheelchair in terms of performance, but it does demonstrate very well a situation where a game allocates X amount of CPU resources, doesn't vary from that amount as an average, and is painfully affected by anything that reduces the CPU resources available to graphics-related requirements. Just adding the networking requirements for handling having 20 players nearby can drop your frame rate from 60-80 FPS to 20-40 FPS.

Now I'll freely grant that not all games are like that. In point of fact Aion routinely raises CPU resource usage as high as 60% or so when in a major hub and Rage routinely ran at 60% CPU utilization. Furthermore games like Crysis would vary from 25% to 35% and Metro 2033 from 32% or so to almost 45% CPU utilization. This is, mind you, on a hex-core CPU. Rift, on the other hand, stays almost constantly at 30%*1.

/shrugs. As an AMD user using a Phenom II 1090t I've definitely got resources to spare, but from everything I've seen games that will actually utilize them properly are very few and very far in between. To date Aion, Rage, and Metro 2033 are the only games I can distinctly recall as having used 40%, a minimum three cores, or more of my CPU's output. It might be a bit different for Intel CPU users given the architectural differences, in fact it might be a part, even a significant part, of the performance difference(s) between the two manufacturers, but for me "resources to spare" simply means "resources unused" in 99.99% of the games out there.

*1. That's less than two full cores' output, 33%, in fact. Of course the game's CPU utilization is screwy in other ways so I'm not sure how much to base on that really. If you run the game on three cores it doesn't utilize enough CPU output to max out two cores, but if you limit it to two cores you see a minimum of a 10-15% drop in frame rate compared to it running on three cores. It's one of the things about the client that just flat out irks me as I simply don't understand how a game can honestly be in a situation where it can't fully utilize two cores yet limiting it two just two cores negatively impacts performance.
---
Logic is the antithesis of faith, else why is it that faith defies logic while logic denies faith?
#33Fade2black001Posted 6/6/2014 5:27:24 PM
Zorlac posted...
Fade2black001 posted...
There is usually no justification on why the games are as big as they are nowadays. They do not need to be this big at all. They simply are cause the consoles have the space to hold and say meh whatever and don't even bother compressing the files. Its an act of pure laziness on the devs themselves.

So you think cause HDD space is so cheap that it makes it alright for the devs to be lazy and just have big ass game sizes just for the hell of it? I don't think so. Also RAM is at an all time high now. Especially from what it was 2 years ago.


No, I don't think it's an excuse for them to be lazy, but I do understand that file sizes will increase as time goes on. Things move forward, not backwards normally.


There is no justification over the games being so big as they are except for the console can hold that kind of space.. Once again Console gaming is ruining gaming for the PC users. I believe this is sole the reason as to why games are as big as they are. One of the main reasons at least. I listed the others in my previous post..

Games like Wolfenstein can easily be 15GB smaller than what it really is.
---
We're Americans! We don't quit just because we're wrong.
We just keep doing the wrong thing until it turns out right.
#34Orestes417Posted 6/6/2014 5:38:03 PM
What kills me is things like Titanfall, which had like what? 30 GB of audio? Could we not have done lower def audio and offered the uncompressed versions for people who wanted them instead of wasting that much bandwidth?
---
Some roads you shouldn't go down because maps used to say there'd be dragons there. Now they don't, but that don't mean the dragons aren't there.
#35kobalobasileusPosted 6/6/2014 5:44:44 PM
The complaint about game size isn't just about HDD space. The bigger factor is having to download all of that data first. Many people have crappy, slow Internet as their only choice, and almost everyone has a stupid data cap nowadays.

As for RAM... I can't say I've heard this complaint, but it seems stupid that the PC version of a multi-platform game would need more RAM than the console version(s).
#36TalesOfGodPosted 6/6/2014 5:55:07 PM
AlleRacing posted...
This topic seems to miss the point. Games such as Ghosts or Titanfall are not taking up 40+ GB of space because their content actually requires that much space, they simply take up that much space because they can. For that massive space requirement, what exactly are those games offering? It certainly isn't high texture resolution and model detail.

That hard drive space is affordable is inconsequential. These games are taking up way more space than they need to, and there's no justification for it.

As far as the RAM requirements go, most of the larger ones are pretty artificial. Dead Rising doesn't do anything particularly more intensive than other games before it. and Ghosts' requirement is literally just an artificial restriction that can actually be bypassed. The game itself requires less than 2 GB to run at max. In addition to that, RAM actually is at a premium right now. 16 GB will cost around $160.

Also, of course a 7 year old pre-built has a lot of RAM. That's all most pre-builts have.
#37TalesOfGodPosted 6/6/2014 5:58:06 PM
Zorlac posted...
Fade2black001 posted...
There is usually no justification on why the games are as big as they are nowadays. They do not need to be this big at all. They simply are cause the consoles have the space to hold and say meh whatever and don't even bother compressing the files. Its an act of pure laziness on the devs themselves.

So you think cause HDD space is so cheap that it makes it alright for the devs to be lazy and just have big ass game sizes just for the hell of it? I don't think so. Also RAM is at an all time high now. Especially from what it was 2 years ago.


No, I don't think it's an excuse for them to be lazy, but I do understand that file sizes will increase as time goes on. Things move forward, not backwards normally.


When you're dealing with files, they grow smaller, not bigger with time.
After all, that is the entire point of compression but it's starting to become blatantly obvious that they are becoming pretty ****ing lazy if they can't even bother to do that.

The majority of people who make their own projects tend to compression it as they know that it will be easier on their fans which will make provide more benefits for themselves in time.

At the rate that we are going, we are moving backwards, not forwards.
#38Fade2black001Posted 6/6/2014 6:02:30 PM
TalesOfGod posted...
Zorlac posted...
Fade2black001 posted...
There is usually no justification on why the games are as big as they are nowadays. They do not need to be this big at all. They simply are cause the consoles have the space to hold and say meh whatever and don't even bother compressing the files. Its an act of pure laziness on the devs themselves.

So you think cause HDD space is so cheap that it makes it alright for the devs to be lazy and just have big ass game sizes just for the hell of it? I don't think so. Also RAM is at an all time high now. Especially from what it was 2 years ago.


No, I don't think it's an excuse for them to be lazy, but I do understand that file sizes will increase as time goes on. Things move forward, not backwards normally.


When you're dealing with files, they grow smaller, not bigger with time.
After all, that is the entire point of compression but it's starting to become blatantly obvious that they are becoming pretty ****ing lazy if they can't even bother to do that.

The majority of people who make their own projects tend to compression it as they know that it will be easier on their fans which will make provide more benefits for themselves in time.

At the rate that we are going, we are moving backwards, not forwards.


Thank you
---
We're Americans! We don't quit just because we're wrong.
We just keep doing the wrong thing until it turns out right.
#39PhilOnDezPosted 6/6/2014 6:15:15 PM(edited)
Marikhen posted...
Honestly, how much "CPU power to spare" you have is somewhat irrelevant, at least to me. Take the MMO Rift for example. Sure, Gamebryo games already start on three crutches and a powered wheelchair in terms of performance, but it does demonstrate very well a situation where a game allocates X amount of CPU resources, doesn't vary from that amount as an average, and is painfully affected by anything that reduces the CPU resources available to graphics-related requirements. Just adding the networking requirements for handling having 20 players nearby can drop your frame rate from 60-80 FPS to 20-40 FPS.

Now I'll freely grant that not all games are like that. In point of fact Aion routinely raises CPU resource usage as high as 60% or so when in a major hub and Rage routinely ran at 60% CPU utilization. Furthermore games like Crysis would vary from 25% to 35% and Metro 2033 from 32% or so to almost 45% CPU utilization. This is, mind you, on a hex-core CPU. Rift, on the other hand, stays almost constantly at 30%*1.

/shrugs. As an AMD user using a Phenom II 1090t I've definitely got resources to spare, but from everything I've seen games that will actually utilize them properly are very few and very far in between. To date Aion, Rage, and Metro 2033 are the only games I can distinctly recall as having used 40%, a minimum three cores, or more of my CPU's output. It might be a bit different for Intel CPU users given the architectural differences, in fact it might be a part, even a significant part, of the performance difference(s) between the two manufacturers, but for me "resources to spare" simply means "resources unused" in 99.99% of the games out there.

*1. That's less than two full cores' output, 33%, in fact. Of course the game's CPU utilization is screwy in other ways so I'm not sure how much to base on that really. If you run the game on three cores it doesn't utilize enough CPU output to max out two cores, but if you limit it to two cores you see a minimum of a 10-15% drop in frame rate compared to it running on three cores. It's one of the things about the client that just flat out irks me as I simply don't understand how a game can honestly be in a situation where it can't fully utilize two cores yet limiting it two just two cores negatively impacts performance.


A big part of that is that it's really hard to make objects/characters being handled on one thread interact with one on another thread. That's why most MMOs and RTS games are so single-thread dependent. When it comes to something like compressing/decompressing sound/textures though, it's easy to give that its own thread and just forget about it, or even to break it into multiple threads, not that it would be a good idea to do that as little as it would be used in most situations.

Watch_Dogs would be a prime example of a game that would have benefitted from highly compressed textures as disk bandwidth is the limiting factor in framerate while driving. As badly as they overshot the CPU requirements they could have come a lot closer to actually utilizing what they recommended and improved performance to boot.

Titanfall's size could have been drastically reduced with compressed audio as well. Over half of the game's size is uncompressed audio and the game only runs on two threads. A third thread for audio decompression wouldn't have hurt even a low end machine (that was capable of playing it in the first place) and could have saved 15-20 gigs of space with lossless compression.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#40Combo MasterPosted 6/6/2014 6:19:54 PM
I don't like downloading huge games if they are just an fps game so sue me TC and i will keep ******** about it. Give me your phone number and I will call you right now and complain
---
Combo Master