You must log in or # to comment.
I remember reading that this is because studios don’t compress game assets any more. I’d gladly trade a few seconds load time for reasonable disk usage.
If the game takes up half of my entire SSD, it better have so much content and gameplay to make it fucking worth it.
Call of Duty isn’t such a game.
Me still working my way through the first playthrough of elden ring
(I gave up for like a year cuz i’m dumb and didn’t pay attention to which weapons and specs were best to upgrade)
Just find a weapon you like and then build your character around it. First time through these games, I usually just find the biggest bonker and put everything into STR.
That’s pretty much what I did this time, but I did also pay attention to the weapon I picked (bloodhound fang) and what attributes scaled well with it (strength, but more so dex). I’m also looking up videos for most of the bosses so I can get familiar with their attacks before losing all my runes 😅 I’ll probably be using the fextra chat to find help on the final demigods, too lol
If I ever install a 300GB game, call my doctor because I’m comatose
Alright! See you in a feel years buddy
There is a point when the game just adds graphics and not content. Current triple A games are going that way, the problem is I just play indie games so I really doubt an indie team has enough time to add that much detail to their game
This is one of the reasons why i also sitck more to indie and old titles instead of AAA, it’s at a point that we have games launching all the time but only 2 or maybe 3 every year are actually good
I remember hearing that games being hundreds of gigabytes was a few years away probably close to 2018, i’m still waiting
Honestly, i still can see it becoming a thing in a decade, we already have a good amount of 100GB+ games here and there, and as storage becomes cheaper, the less we will care about a feel hundred gigabytes, i remember when having a 8GB usb stick was more storage than you could dream of
When I was a kid, the first PC game I played was Civilization 1 and it came with 4 floppy discs, so less then 10 MB. Some years later it seemed crazy to me that most games come on a CD-ROM disk and require 650 MB of space. Now I am playing games that ask for 100 GB and it seems fine to me.
It wouldn’t surprise me if 10 years from now 300GB would be the norm
The only 300 GB game I’ll play is modded skyrim with unnecessarily large retexture mods.
Honestly haven’t been paying attention to the AAA scene, I always dread when a friend wants me to try a 60~100 GB game. So like wtf happened? When the hell did we break 200 GB and even 300 GB? No way in hell am I getting a game that big.
Balatro is less than 75mb and I’ve played it more than most games this year
And it runs so well. I have a old PC, still has ddrm3, and it boots up slowly I like to open all the programs I commonly use before it boots up fully by double clicking the desktop icons and then it takes a couple minutes for all the programs to open. And I did this with balatro and it opened not 3 seconds after clicking. And it ran beautifully on my still booting up pc. I was surprised
Animal Well:
I remember an article where someone asked the developer, Billy Basso, why the PS5 version of the game was over double the file size, and he said it’s probably because the banner image that displays for the game was probably a bigger file than the game itself.
Here I am enjoying my little DRG at under 4gb lmao sure I have to move stuff around every time I want to go back to rdr2 or doom eternal or whatever, but DRG has earned its HD space forever IMHO.
On the one hand I think it’s kinda just the natural progression of things. The reason we haven’t been feeling the need for huge storage is because hard drives underwent a huge boom that rapidly outpaced our memory needs. Like even 10 years ago, 1TB was pretty much the standard, and kinda still is. We also used to have optical disks that most of the game data would just live on.
On the other hand, there is no reason for a remake of a PS2 game to take up 70 gigs.
10 years ago, that’s around when I splurged and got a 250gb SSD. (still have it in my desktop to this day). it was in 2024 that I got a 2tb m.2 ssd.
I have no idea what your world is, but 1tb was not “standard” 10 years ago. not to mentio laptops.
I’m talking more so about HDDs, which were still very prevalent back then. SDDs wouldn’t hit similar size to price for a few more years.
I had a mid-range laptop back then that was at least 500+ gigs with a HDD. And when I got my desktop, which was a hand-me-down 2012 dell inspiron from my grandmother, it had a 2TB HDD.
These days SSDs are fast and cheap, so the 1TB standard not really changing a ton has more to do with the switch from HDDs to SSDs.
I could be misremembering a few things here, so feel free to correct me.
I hate what? What’s the funi?
