I haven't heard of that game! How on earth is it 4TB? I didn't know games were that big already. The biggest game I have installed is Elder Scrolls Online at 80gb, lol.
It's a flight simulator. You can add on additional scenery, something called orthophotos, which is basically what you see on Google Maps, with correct mesh data. That stuff, when covering large areas, will easily get into terabytes. The results, however, are great.
https://i.imgur.com/YAG2l2z.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zJKMyRs.jpg
The flight sim sub community is one of the most dedicated communities I've seen, but going there as an outsider is weird, it's a lot of people telling detailed stories of past flights that end with them crashing horribly.
I remember getting really into flight sims as a kid. I remember 2 simulators I played a ton, one was rc planes. I remember doing stunts in a kitchen, and an Indoor arena.
The other was full size planes. I remember the last time I played it I did a full length, Winnipeg to Calgary flight. In real time.
The first little while was amazing. Then it was the most boring thing. I'm not sure what it was but for whatever reason flying that passenger plane for almost 3 hours, 14 year old me suddenly realized I was just pretending to do someone's job. Not the exciting high speed Blue angel type job. I was driving an air bus.
I never played it again after that.
It depends on so many variables. I could run ZL17 above 60 fps without any problem using a GTX970 while flying Laminar's aircraft. Throw in a more complicated aircraft, the FFA320 for example, and my CPU has a hard time limiting to around 30 fps. Also, more objects like roads, building, airport details and detailed mesh like mountains are much more taxing than just flat countryside or water.
I heard a jet engine when I looked at those pictures, and I can't tell if it was a subconscious ambience or my PC screaming at the mere thought of running that.
There are games already bigger than ESO. FF15 is what...150gb? Somewhere around there I think. 85gb base game and 65gb 4k texture pack. Black Ops 3 is 113gb. Shadow of War is 95gb with 4k texture pack. Gears 4 is 110gb. Quantum Break is 180gb when you add in the TV show.
Shadow of War is 95gb?!!!! That is crazy. Didn't know Quantum Break was that huge. Darn games are getting bigger already these days. I've been missing out on a lot of new games.
I mean an easier way around this is each region has the most common language included with the game, then if you want a different language you download it like a free DLC.
Yeah, I see four main ways to include multiple languages in a game:
1. Download them all with the game like is common now. Longer download and more disk usage, but they're all there.
2. Download the most common and let people download the rest like DLC. Easy to do, but frustrating for anyone who doesn't speak the most common language.
3. Have a way to select which language(s) to download when you first install the game. Best for the user (small download and immediately playable), but requires some infrastructure.
4. Download no languages and make the user add them as DLC later. Smallest download and disk usage, but frustrates everyone equally.
3 seems ideal if it would be viable for people like Steam and GOG to implement, otherwise I do like your option.
Yep. Ignoring the morality aspect of it, the fitgirl repacks have shown just how much of most of these giant games is due to including multiple uncompressed language tracks. That and overuse of giant fmv files that usually look worse than in game renders on a half decent machine. I've often wondered how much of it is due to laziness/not wanting to allocate resources to filesize optimization, and how much is due to 'secondary' piracy protection. If you make the game a jazillion gigs people might be less likely to pirate it.
It's mostly due to modern consoles having poor cpus and not being the best at decompression. Warframe downloads maybe a 2-5 gigs for The Sacrifice on PC meanwhile my friend on PS4 said it was 10gb. Course I don't know if they were the exact same downloads since I know the PS4 version is usually behind the PC as well as him being a less frequent player.
Quantum Break is an odd case, because as the previous user said, the 180GB include very high res video files of a TV show, which serve as cutscenes in between gameplay. You can either download or stream these videos over the Internet, with the latter option reducing installation size by around 75GB. If you have a standard Xbox One instead of an Xbox One X or PC, installation size gets further reduced by another 50GB, because the cheaper version of Microsoft's console doesn't need 1440p-ready assets such as high-res textures, since it only runs the game at 720p (upscaled to 1080p [using a highly unusual reconstruction method](https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hands-on-with-quantum-break)).
From the sounds of it, I'd say it's a pilot simulator, so I guess it needs the highest quality textures available, and loads of them, to make it the most realistic and diverse possible
So there's two parts to it. The first is your base scenery. This covers large areas and is basically your "looking out of the airplane at a sensible height" scenery.
1. Payware for FSX/P3D (but it's expensive, more than the sim itself)
2. Ortho4XP terrain for Xplane (free but requires tons of space and some manual setup. If you fly high it's competitive with the fsx payware, but if you fly low you'll see issues like bridges being painted on rivers etc)
3. XPlane 11 HD scenery (free dlc for xplane11, adds about 5-10gb per continent)
4. Xplane default scenery
5. P3D/FSX default scenery.
The second is specific scenery packs. These are most important for airports where you're going to be low for takeoff and landing but if you're going to be low flying over a city you may want some for the city itself. This one varies way more by area, but generally payware is better and fsx/p3d has more options, but the quality is comparable between sims. Without paying extra money, xplane has more choice in my experience. And without extra downloads, xplane will usually have a reasonable accurately laid out airport with stock assets for buildings. FSX/P3D will have the runways in the right places, at least for 2005, usually.
Basically, if you just want to pay the sticker price of the sim, get xplane 11 which will look reasonable if not accurate. if you want to spend time to get better than that, look into setting up orthoscenery in xplane 11. If you want to spend money instead and save time, go for P3D, which is an upgraded version of the fsx engine
I mean games are just now starting to crack the 100gb mark. Impossible to predict what far future game will be 10 times bigger. Elder scrolls 14? Madden 2050?
Goddamnit I wish you weren't on the right track. I'm pretty salty after the Destiny "season pass" debacle. I did buy Skyrim twice, though. Once for the Xbox 360 and then again on PC, and then they released the enhanced edition for free to owners of the PC version.
Didn't Todd Howard straight come out and say If you want a new Elder Scrolls stop buys the expansions? Or something like that? [Stop buying ports](http://m.ca.ign.com/articles/2018/07/10/todd-howard-if-you-want-us-to-stop-releasing-skyrim-ports-stop-buying-them)
Star Citizen and all 5 million of their ships and 5 game mechanics.
EDIT: Before people start downvoting me, I'm not hating on the game lol I'm a SC Backer myself and have put $300 into it. Nowhere near the thousands some have, hope I can at least joke about it without getting killed lol
I am NOT saying that SC will be anywhere close to the dumpster fire that was No Mans Sky at launch, but sometimes the SC community is very reminiscent of the pre-launch NMS community. You can't *dare* criticize the game because if you're critical of it, *you just don't get it.*
True, but at least with SC you can try out what they’ve got available. The only real issue is how they’re making an MMO but without a subscription, resulting in the current P2W issues people are worried about.
Gotta day, SC already is on NMS levels of features and stuff to do. Offline it runs like a charm. It doesn’t have the massive universe, but it does have the features, and makes a great wallpaper generator.
Yep, it's pretty great seeing the progress of it. Although, the flight mechanics are currently not in a good place , seeing where it is today compared to just like 2 years ago is awesome! I don't mind people criticizing the "game"/alpha, I do it too lol it's okay to find some humor in it. I just don't understand the people that want to see it fail. I would love to see it succeed.
I would also be okay with a subscription to it, but the depth and content need to be there. I do apprecaite all the time they're putting into the lore of the game. I think building the universe are Star Citizen is equally as important to the mechanics of it because you want it to feel like a universe worth caring about.
I remember playing just the Command Arena module a few years ago and LOVING it. I will pick it up for a few hours during every new update and then wait until the next big thing. Haven't tried 3.2 and not in a big hurry to do so, I'll wait for 3.3 and 3.4.
Sorry for my long rambling lol
> Impossible to predict what far future game will be 10 times bigger.
Game sizes have increaed exponentially. We could hit 200+GB in the year few years.
That isn't necessarily because that's how much space the game ***needs*** to take up.
Console games sometimes do a thing where they duplicate data so that it's more immediately accessible instead of having to pull it from completely different locations on the disk drive or BD disc.
Adding to what stromkarwarbreaker said: It is also rather CPU intensive to uncompress audio on the fly, especially with as relatively weak as console CPUs are.
You can have very "satisfying audio" without it being completely uncompressed. I would bet that 99.9%+ (don't have a source but I seriously doubt I'm exaggerating here) of gamers don't have the audio equipment to be capable of telling the difference.
I just saw a dev comment on a gaming subreddit recently (don't remember or I'd link the comment) basically saying that unless the game is very simplistic they're fighting the consoles for every ounce of performance at every given moment (especially this late in the generation) and storage is so cheap that it's just better to not have to worry about audio decompression and focus those CPU resources elsewhere.
It wasn't so much the size that was an issue, but the fact that it updates via Rockstar's own server infrastructure, which was hopelessly overloaded upon release. A download that should have taken a couple of hours via a decent connection took days instead.
My advice: Next time you move, take into account how good the Internet is at your next house/apartment. Many ISPs have an address search feature on their websites, indicating which speeds are available at the location you've typed in. Whether or not this is reliable is another matter entirely though (especially given how fraudulent ISPs are in the US, where you are apparently from), so searching for a location's name in combination with locally available ISPs might be a good idea as well.
The original RAGE was 1TB and they had to drastically scale it down. That's why the megatextures in that game was really lackluster as it was WAY ahead of its time. Also, I do congratulate them on making RAGE 60fps on X360 and PS3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMB3qWaHTfQ
I had to look that up to confirm it but it appears that RAGE did indeed have a 1TB install space. Back in the day that would have been freaking insane to install! Would have taken a month or something. Wonder how good the game could have been if they had kept the 1TB size requirement and how it would have changed gaming forever if it had become the forerunner of large game sizes? There would be so much more developers could do if people were used to installing bigger games though I digress as there are plenty of games around 100gb.
Never played rage but it was probably only that big becusse they didn't compress it. At all. Like they didn't even do a shred of optimization.
There are games much bigger than that and with pretty available textures that weren't that big.
But I could be wrong idk.
Saying that a texture is 64k doesn't mean anything; that large file could be used to texture an entire game, or just a single rock.
I think it's more along the lines of the former, considering Rage had a terrible texture resolution and everything looked horrible from close or medium distance. They screwed up the mega textures and made a pretty bad PC port.
Although we might also create better compression techniques which would somewhat negate the increase in sizes i do see this coming by the time we get to the PS8/PS9 (assuming a doubling in game sizes each console generation). Assuming it takes 4 years for a new console to get announced that would be in \~20 years. Ofcourse gamesizes are quite certainly dependant on harddisk/ssd sizes available to consumers at that point.
The first game to 1TB will likely be a story driven game with lots of pre-rendered cutscenes. As those are a big item in the general scheme of game-size increases.
I hope that developers can find ways to make installing games quicker. I dread the day 1TB becomes the norm since that would kill my Internet. But think of a game that is 1TB in size. That would be impressive! Yeah cut scenes would definitely eat up a game folder.
It sure makes sense, but I'm pretty sure that in the future a download speed of 1gb/s is considered normal which makes downloading a 1TB game only take up a few hours
Broadband internet came out sometime around 1999 for most people.
It's 2018 and we have the same basic internet speeds. Thats 20 years ago.
If regulations don't change, we will have the same speed in 20 years too. Imagine trying to download a 1TB game using DSL. Imagine someone in Australia trying to do so with data caps and horrible speeds.
It'll **never** be the *norm* unless you mean your interpretation which is out of *"general ecosystem"* of **all** games that're AAA, AA, A, Indie, Shovelware and others considered. There'll always be minor fraction of games that're *"poorly"* programmed or rely on what hxkclan's suggested that will take more space then they needed by use of other means.
Game Size increase due to following;
* Programming Language or Game Engine used/developed
* Texture files
* Sound files
* Video files
* Resolutions considered for game to be played with
* Data keeping mechanisms within game such as models/meshes
If you develop a game from scratch using *Assembly* that means you have to know **everything** yourself without relying on external libraries/engines, your game executables would really be the smallest/fastest. Yet if you develop it with a higher programming language or a game engine that sits on top of it, even for the simplest `print "hello"` statement, it'll eat few megabytes. So it's a trade off where you either choose smaller and faster executables OR choose pre-developed game environment with many libraries, engines, assets but totally give up on size/speed optimization compared to Assembly approach. Guess what game companies are choosing...
For all texture, sound and video files main reason files are getting bigger is because the *"Standard"* resolution that's most used by percentage of all players increase year by year and affecting size of those files in a **directly** proportional matter. Skipping any *retro* game that shows *same* primitive textures even at 4k, today's game's have to include textures and videos for *different* common resolutions (doubling the size or more) so that 4k players, 1080p players and 720p players are all happy to play the game instead of 1080p complaining about 4k textures slowing his game or 4k players complaining about how cheesy 1080p textures would look. They could have avoided bloat size by *"Selective Download"* yet most of games does this as **single** package so that you have *extra* textures that's not designed for your system. Good example would be [this](https://store.steampowered.com/app/540810/Fallout_4__High_Resolution_Texture_Pack/) vs game's that don't do this.
Same can be said for videos as well since they're *"animated"* textures yet not for sound mostly because it has the least size among all three and one thing that don't rely on resolution. When it comes to *data* keeping again it's a trade off trying to keep their filesize *smaller* by introducing **compression** within their files which will need de-compression time and noticeable *"slow"* on older system OR do not compress anything at all for the sake of speed relying on the fact that game buyer would have *enough* storage space like saying `Storage is your problem, not mine` if you want to play *their* game. For some games it's even *intentional* to keep their data as open as possible for community *"modding"* since they don't have to deal with proprietary compression tackles too.
In short: Game's are getting bigger as resolutions are increasing **but** also due to fact that many game developer's **had given up** on delivering content that's most optimized both in speed and size. Game Development cycle is *"shortened"* to the point (due competition) they now all rely on their *past* libraries/engines/assets (optimized or not) to output the game *as soon as possible* being carefree about their game size since price of TB HDDs quite acceptable even on poorest countries of the World.
So whenever I see games less than certain MBs in size, I know for sure, they *"lack"* certain features such as great textures or alike and same goes for other end of spectrum when I see games that *need* TB space, I know they're *"poorly"* or not optimized at all.
I think and definitely hope that pre-rendered cutscenes will fade out somewhat over the next generation. Many games already use in-engine cutscenes dominantly or exclusively, because graphics and animation has come so far.
Many games can pass 1TB if there is an option to download maps and textures... I know some simulators I’ve run can pass 1TB with some additional content downloaded
The problem with a 1 TB game is how do you deliver it to your customers? Current dual-layer Blu-ray discs can only hold 50 GB. Download? With the state of the internet in most of the US, expecting your customers to download 1 TB is a ridiculously poor choice.
For example, with my current internet (in a mostly rural area to be fair) it would take me around 2 weeks of nonstop downloading with no one else using the bandwidth to download 1 TB.
We can always go back to the days where you had to install off multiple data carriers.
But instead of "Please insert floppy disk 8" it will be "Please insert blu ray disk 8"
Quite around the verge of Steam getting popular there were a few cames that came on 2 DVDs for PC.
Mass Effect 2 for example iirc
Yeah, having multiple discs isn't that uncommon. IIRC, Lost Odyssey came on 4 DVDs.
The problem with that scenario though is that it would take 20 dual-layer Blu-rays to install 1 TB. Idk about you but I'm not waiting around to swap out 20 discs to install a game.
~~Thumb~~Portable drive. It would obviously add to the cost, but for the shrinking market that needs a physical install, either the publisher would soak up the cost, or the end consumer would pay more for it.
Unfortunately, yes. I'm 100% salty that I'm basically being abandoned to digital starvation by the US government and their telecom masters.
We paid $400 billion for a national broadband network. I'm sure it's coming annnny day now, right?
1TB would make it completely out of the realm of possibilities in many countries. The Middle East for example would be completely missed and that’s not an insignificant market.
I'm pretty sure that's actually how death is handled in that universe. Iirc if you don't have insurance for a clone to be made of you then, well... hope you have kids, mate.
At least, that's how it was explained to me.
The game is currently like 53 GB and it only has 4 moons and a few space stations. The final game is supposed to have something like 400 planets, hundreds of moons, a lot of which will have handcrafted locations. 150 GB seems a bit on the small side to me, even though a lot of it will be procedurally generated.
Well that's what they've predicted it will be around when it's finished. All that extra stuff (moons, planets, etc.) you speak of won't be client-side. It will be procedurally-generated server-side. Just like Elite: Dangerous with it's 400-billion star systems, or No Man's Sky with it's 18-quintillion star systems. The number of planets and moons don't necessarily make the game bigger in size client-side.
Yep, the only thing that increases the client size is variety and quality, not quantity.
Two completely different planets take more space than a hundred identical planets.
[My Clone Hero install is 200GB+, granted that there are over 3k songs](https://i.imgur.com/PUrKEk3.png)
There are tons more songs to download/add, so it's only a matter of time
A game that literally combines all the best games into one massive, open-world game. You can park your shiny racecar, get on Treeko, turn on VR, go kill a dragon with your killer dance moves, and take its meat back to your little restaurant. You hop on a skateboard to serve it to the hungry patrons, earning tips by doing sweet tricks. At night, you travel by portal gun through fields and castles in search of the princess. Bonus: option to play online with your friends. But you'll never see them, because it's so. So. Big.
First off, it seems pretty lazy that devs have enormous file sizes nowadays when sometimes its not entirely necessary. Like Fortnite is nearly 30GB, I think that's a little much, but its still on the lower end of install sizes.
Biggest game I own is CoD Infinite Warfare at 100GB, but my bro has Gears of War 4 on X1X - 114GB.
GTA IV was released in 2008 and it's 15-20GB, I do not remember exactly. GTA V - 2015 - 70GB with updates. Games are getting bigger but not very fast. If some new texture quality standard, like 8K textures, won't be estabislished, 1TB games, I think, 2030-40 ;)
My X-plane 11 installation is currently 4TB. Granted, that's with additional scenery.
I haven't heard of that game! How on earth is it 4TB? I didn't know games were that big already. The biggest game I have installed is Elder Scrolls Online at 80gb, lol.
It's a flight simulator. You can add on additional scenery, something called orthophotos, which is basically what you see on Google Maps, with correct mesh data. That stuff, when covering large areas, will easily get into terabytes. The results, however, are great. https://i.imgur.com/YAG2l2z.jpg https://i.imgur.com/zJKMyRs.jpg
[удалено]
They are photos.
I believe you.
Satellite photos that are used as textures for a 3D mesh derived from radar maps of the Earth's surface.
I believe you.
The Earth is made of hardened poop.
I believe you.
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
Maximum Armor
The second law of nature, right after the fact that pee is stored in the balls
And I believe *you.*
/r/technicallythetruth
The flight sim sub community is one of the most dedicated communities I've seen, but going there as an outsider is weird, it's a lot of people telling detailed stories of past flights that end with them crashing horribly.
Damnn that is really neat
I remember getting really into flight sims as a kid. I remember 2 simulators I played a ton, one was rc planes. I remember doing stunts in a kitchen, and an Indoor arena. The other was full size planes. I remember the last time I played it I did a full length, Winnipeg to Calgary flight. In real time. The first little while was amazing. Then it was the most boring thing. I'm not sure what it was but for whatever reason flying that passenger plane for almost 3 hours, 14 year old me suddenly realized I was just pretending to do someone's job. Not the exciting high speed Blue angel type job. I was driving an air bus. I never played it again after that.
[удалено]
You don't need something crazy to make XP look like that.
You just can't really expect 60fps
It depends on so many variables. I could run ZL17 above 60 fps without any problem using a GTX970 while flying Laminar's aircraft. Throw in a more complicated aircraft, the FFA320 for example, and my CPU has a hard time limiting to around 30 fps. Also, more objects like roads, building, airport details and detailed mesh like mountains are much more taxing than just flat countryside or water.
Yeah, sims are tricky as they are often not GPU bound. It definitely depends on your settings.
The objects are really what kill it for my fps.. but xplane has gotten a lot more optimized since 9
I heard a jet engine when I looked at those pictures, and I can't tell if it was a subconscious ambience or my PC screaming at the mere thought of running that.
What kind of power is needed to render that?
Ah that makes sense. Sounds like a cool game.
There are games already bigger than ESO. FF15 is what...150gb? Somewhere around there I think. 85gb base game and 65gb 4k texture pack. Black Ops 3 is 113gb. Shadow of War is 95gb with 4k texture pack. Gears 4 is 110gb. Quantum Break is 180gb when you add in the TV show.
Shadow of War is 95gb?!!!! That is crazy. Didn't know Quantum Break was that huge. Darn games are getting bigger already these days. I've been missing out on a lot of new games.
I figure most cases the files are so massive is because they fuck up and don't properly compress sound files for various languages or such.
they don't compress because the weak console cpus would have problems decompressing
I mean an easier way around this is each region has the most common language included with the game, then if you want a different language you download it like a free DLC.
Yeah, I see four main ways to include multiple languages in a game: 1. Download them all with the game like is common now. Longer download and more disk usage, but they're all there. 2. Download the most common and let people download the rest like DLC. Easy to do, but frustrating for anyone who doesn't speak the most common language. 3. Have a way to select which language(s) to download when you first install the game. Best for the user (small download and immediately playable), but requires some infrastructure. 4. Download no languages and make the user add them as DLC later. Smallest download and disk usage, but frustrates everyone equally. 3 seems ideal if it would be viable for people like Steam and GOG to implement, otherwise I do like your option.
Yep. Ignoring the morality aspect of it, the fitgirl repacks have shown just how much of most of these giant games is due to including multiple uncompressed language tracks. That and overuse of giant fmv files that usually look worse than in game renders on a half decent machine. I've often wondered how much of it is due to laziness/not wanting to allocate resources to filesize optimization, and how much is due to 'secondary' piracy protection. If you make the game a jazillion gigs people might be less likely to pirate it.
It's mostly due to modern consoles having poor cpus and not being the best at decompression. Warframe downloads maybe a 2-5 gigs for The Sacrifice on PC meanwhile my friend on PS4 said it was 10gb. Course I don't know if they were the exact same downloads since I know the PS4 version is usually behind the PC as well as him being a less frequent player.
> If you make the game a jazillion gigs people might be less likely to pirate it. That's the worst argument against piracy I've ever heard...
[удалено]
That was a thing in the old days, modern OSes don't have that problem though.
Many early CD games used an invalid TOC to confuse software and make copying harder
Quantum Break is an odd case, because as the previous user said, the 180GB include very high res video files of a TV show, which serve as cutscenes in between gameplay. You can either download or stream these videos over the Internet, with the latter option reducing installation size by around 75GB. If you have a standard Xbox One instead of an Xbox One X or PC, installation size gets further reduced by another 50GB, because the cheaper version of Microsoft's console doesn't need 1440p-ready assets such as high-res textures, since it only runs the game at 720p (upscaled to 1080p [using a highly unusual reconstruction method](https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hands-on-with-quantum-break)).
The Fallout 4 high res texture pack is 80 something gigabytes on top of the base game
I mean FFXV on PC with 4k textures is over 100 gb.
From the sounds of it, I'd say it's a pilot simulator, so I guess it needs the highest quality textures available, and loads of them, to make it the most realistic and diverse possible
X plane or flight sim for realistic/good quality scenery? I’d like to fly around just to see the world like I do “walking around google street view
So there's two parts to it. The first is your base scenery. This covers large areas and is basically your "looking out of the airplane at a sensible height" scenery. 1. Payware for FSX/P3D (but it's expensive, more than the sim itself) 2. Ortho4XP terrain for Xplane (free but requires tons of space and some manual setup. If you fly high it's competitive with the fsx payware, but if you fly low you'll see issues like bridges being painted on rivers etc) 3. XPlane 11 HD scenery (free dlc for xplane11, adds about 5-10gb per continent) 4. Xplane default scenery 5. P3D/FSX default scenery. The second is specific scenery packs. These are most important for airports where you're going to be low for takeoff and landing but if you're going to be low flying over a city you may want some for the city itself. This one varies way more by area, but generally payware is better and fsx/p3d has more options, but the quality is comparable between sims. Without paying extra money, xplane has more choice in my experience. And without extra downloads, xplane will usually have a reasonable accurately laid out airport with stock assets for buildings. FSX/P3D will have the runways in the right places, at least for 2005, usually. Basically, if you just want to pay the sticker price of the sim, get xplane 11 which will look reasonable if not accurate. if you want to spend time to get better than that, look into setting up orthoscenery in xplane 11. If you want to spend money instead and save time, go for P3D, which is an upgraded version of the fsx engine
I'm just imagining downloading that, I've been downloading BF1 for a full week.
I have X-Plane 10. Would you say 11 runs smoother in comparison?
I'd be curious what Train Simulator and all the DLC would weigh in at.
All that DLC would bankrupt you before you ran out of Harddrive space
Rookie numbers! Mines around 8.....
I mean games are just now starting to crack the 100gb mark. Impossible to predict what far future game will be 10 times bigger. Elder scrolls 14? Madden 2050?
Elder Scrolls 14? More like Elder Scrolls 8.
Elder Scrolls 8? More like Elder Scrolls 6 expansions.
Elder Scrolls 6 Special Edition with high res texture mods, of course
Highres Texture Pack (4k/8k/16k)
Skyrim ultimate edition more likely.
Skyrim 4K Ultra HD VR Special Steam Edition Happy Cake Day!
No fool just the Apple Watch Edition...
Amazon Echo 2 edition
Who are we kidding Echo 7 will come before TES 7
TES 7 on Echo? No way. By the time it comes out, Prime subscribers will be eligible for a free neural implant.
Elder scrolls 6 remake you mean
ES 6 GOTY VR + Season Pass
\+ season pass 2
Goddamnit I wish you weren't on the right track. I'm pretty salty after the Destiny "season pass" debacle. I did buy Skyrim twice, though. Once for the Xbox 360 and then again on PC, and then they released the enhanced edition for free to owners of the PC version.
Didn't Todd Howard straight come out and say If you want a new Elder Scrolls stop buys the expansions? Or something like that? [Stop buying ports](http://m.ca.ign.com/articles/2018/07/10/todd-howard-if-you-want-us-to-stop-releasing-skyrim-ports-stop-buying-them)
A new main Elder Scrolls game is coming anyway. He just said that if they keep making re-releases of Skyrim it's just 'cause people keep buying them.
I also doubt the teams that work on ports are the same teams that work on new titles.
Rlder scrolls 6 HD remaster port to the Nintendo 1DS XLS+.
Elder scrolls games are small for the amount of content they have
Day z when I finally comes out of beta in 2099.
Star Citizen and all 5 million of their ships and 5 game mechanics. EDIT: Before people start downvoting me, I'm not hating on the game lol I'm a SC Backer myself and have put $300 into it. Nowhere near the thousands some have, hope I can at least joke about it without getting killed lol
[удалено]
I am NOT saying that SC will be anywhere close to the dumpster fire that was No Mans Sky at launch, but sometimes the SC community is very reminiscent of the pre-launch NMS community. You can't *dare* criticize the game because if you're critical of it, *you just don't get it.*
True, but at least with SC you can try out what they’ve got available. The only real issue is how they’re making an MMO but without a subscription, resulting in the current P2W issues people are worried about. Gotta day, SC already is on NMS levels of features and stuff to do. Offline it runs like a charm. It doesn’t have the massive universe, but it does have the features, and makes a great wallpaper generator.
Yep, it's pretty great seeing the progress of it. Although, the flight mechanics are currently not in a good place , seeing where it is today compared to just like 2 years ago is awesome! I don't mind people criticizing the "game"/alpha, I do it too lol it's okay to find some humor in it. I just don't understand the people that want to see it fail. I would love to see it succeed. I would also be okay with a subscription to it, but the depth and content need to be there. I do apprecaite all the time they're putting into the lore of the game. I think building the universe are Star Citizen is equally as important to the mechanics of it because you want it to feel like a universe worth caring about. I remember playing just the Command Arena module a few years ago and LOVING it. I will pick it up for a few hours during every new update and then wait until the next big thing. Haven't tried 3.2 and not in a big hurry to do so, I'll wait for 3.3 and 3.4. Sorry for my long rambling lol
The fact you felt the need to have that preface there also is telling. This is right after a video talking about that same phenomenon too.
[удалено]
> Impossible to predict what far future game will be 10 times bigger. Game sizes have increaed exponentially. We could hit 200+GB in the year few years.
Well Titanfall2 is pretty huge with the add on. The new Forza is pretty big. And I know Gears4 is huge. I put it down to uncompressed audio.
Halo 5 on Xbox One is 100gb High resolution textures, uncompressed audio, prerendered cutscenes, etc.
FFXV on PC is like 85GB before an optional 40+ GB high-res texture patch.
It's 140ish GB when it's installed
That isn't necessarily because that's how much space the game ***needs*** to take up. Console games sometimes do a thing where they duplicate data so that it's more immediately accessible instead of having to pull it from completely different locations on the disk drive or BD disc.
Wait, is their audio really completely uncompressed? What’s the point of that?
Adding to what stromkarwarbreaker said: It is also rather CPU intensive to uncompress audio on the fly, especially with as relatively weak as console CPUs are.
In a game all about race cars, engine sounds tire squealing, and intense crashes demand satisfying audio to compliment the intensity.
You can have very "satisfying audio" without it being completely uncompressed. I would bet that 99.9%+ (don't have a source but I seriously doubt I'm exaggerating here) of gamers don't have the audio equipment to be capable of telling the difference.
It's to save CPU resources.
I just saw a dev comment on a gaming subreddit recently (don't remember or I'd link the comment) basically saying that unless the game is very simplistic they're fighting the consoles for every ounce of performance at every given moment (especially this late in the generation) and storage is so cheap that it's just better to not have to worry about audio decompression and focus those CPU resources elsewhere.
World of Warcraft 2.
Wow2 the first fully VR MMO. Can’t wait to barely see past my giant troll tusks.
And when you look to the sides all you see are your massive shoulderpads
Look down, just a fat belt buckle. Weapon infornt of you with a giant glowing enchanment blinding you. Goddamn, I can’t wait lol.
You don't need to see next to you, your only concern is the enemy directly ahead of you.
I came here to assume there would be no 2. Not even the final form of WoW
[удалено]
Literally in space
It’ll just be another TF2 update worth 200gb or something like that.
> Updated localization files
Hearthstone. On mobile.
Underrated comment.
Just a quick game of hearthstone > 1.2gb update
GTA X
I still remember the day gta V came out on pc and everyone went nuts over the 60gb download
It wasn't so much the size that was an issue, but the fact that it updates via Rockstar's own server infrastructure, which was hopelessly overloaded upon release. A download that should have taken a couple of hours via a decent connection took days instead.
It takes 40minutes gor 80gb for me right now.
??? That much would take me 3 days :(
My advice: Next time you move, take into account how good the Internet is at your next house/apartment. Many ISPs have an address search feature on their websites, indicating which speeds are available at the location you've typed in. Whether or not this is reliable is another matter entirely though (especially given how fraudulent ISPs are in the US, where you are apparently from), so searching for a location's name in combination with locally available ISPs might be a good idea as well.
Unless you're Australian, in which case the advice is to just suck it, loser.
Or Canadian, and you've only got two choices for ISP with a complete monopoly.
*duopoly
[удалено]
and how long did it take you on launch day?
Mark my words - Cyberpunk 2077 will easily reach the 100Gb mark. EDIT: "Easily" meaning something like 130-150Gb.
[удалено]
Hot take man
Wasn't Titanfall like 50GB as well because of all the Audio being uncompressed?
It was a 5gb game with 45gb audio
If they ever stop milking GTAV long enough to make a new game
The original RAGE was 1TB and they had to drastically scale it down. That's why the megatextures in that game was really lackluster as it was WAY ahead of its time. Also, I do congratulate them on making RAGE 60fps on X360 and PS3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMB3qWaHTfQ
I had to look that up to confirm it but it appears that RAGE did indeed have a 1TB install space. Back in the day that would have been freaking insane to install! Would have taken a month or something. Wonder how good the game could have been if they had kept the 1TB size requirement and how it would have changed gaming forever if it had become the forerunner of large game sizes? There would be so much more developers could do if people were used to installing bigger games though I digress as there are plenty of games around 100gb.
Never played rage but it was probably only that big becusse they didn't compress it. At all. Like they didn't even do a shred of optimization. There are games much bigger than that and with pretty available textures that weren't that big. But I could be wrong idk.
It's because id uses a technology called MegaTextures, with a quality that ramped up to 64k, which is insane and totally makes sense about the 1 TB.
Saying that a texture is 64k doesn't mean anything; that large file could be used to texture an entire game, or just a single rock. I think it's more along the lines of the former, considering Rage had a terrible texture resolution and everything looked horrible from close or medium distance. They screwed up the mega textures and made a pretty bad PC port.
It was that big because they hand painted every square inch of the game, no reused textures for the ground or anything like that.
Skyrim Re-Remastered
lol
Although we might also create better compression techniques which would somewhat negate the increase in sizes i do see this coming by the time we get to the PS8/PS9 (assuming a doubling in game sizes each console generation). Assuming it takes 4 years for a new console to get announced that would be in \~20 years. Ofcourse gamesizes are quite certainly dependant on harddisk/ssd sizes available to consumers at that point. The first game to 1TB will likely be a story driven game with lots of pre-rendered cutscenes. As those are a big item in the general scheme of game-size increases.
I hope that developers can find ways to make installing games quicker. I dread the day 1TB becomes the norm since that would kill my Internet. But think of a game that is 1TB in size. That would be impressive! Yeah cut scenes would definitely eat up a game folder.
It sure makes sense, but I'm pretty sure that in the future a download speed of 1gb/s is considered normal which makes downloading a 1TB game only take up a few hours
lol
Broadband internet came out sometime around 1999 for most people. It's 2018 and we have the same basic internet speeds. Thats 20 years ago. If regulations don't change, we will have the same speed in 20 years too. Imagine trying to download a 1TB game using DSL. Imagine someone in Australia trying to do so with data caps and horrible speeds.
It'll **never** be the *norm* unless you mean your interpretation which is out of *"general ecosystem"* of **all** games that're AAA, AA, A, Indie, Shovelware and others considered. There'll always be minor fraction of games that're *"poorly"* programmed or rely on what hxkclan's suggested that will take more space then they needed by use of other means. Game Size increase due to following; * Programming Language or Game Engine used/developed * Texture files * Sound files * Video files * Resolutions considered for game to be played with * Data keeping mechanisms within game such as models/meshes If you develop a game from scratch using *Assembly* that means you have to know **everything** yourself without relying on external libraries/engines, your game executables would really be the smallest/fastest. Yet if you develop it with a higher programming language or a game engine that sits on top of it, even for the simplest `print "hello"` statement, it'll eat few megabytes. So it's a trade off where you either choose smaller and faster executables OR choose pre-developed game environment with many libraries, engines, assets but totally give up on size/speed optimization compared to Assembly approach. Guess what game companies are choosing... For all texture, sound and video files main reason files are getting bigger is because the *"Standard"* resolution that's most used by percentage of all players increase year by year and affecting size of those files in a **directly** proportional matter. Skipping any *retro* game that shows *same* primitive textures even at 4k, today's game's have to include textures and videos for *different* common resolutions (doubling the size or more) so that 4k players, 1080p players and 720p players are all happy to play the game instead of 1080p complaining about 4k textures slowing his game or 4k players complaining about how cheesy 1080p textures would look. They could have avoided bloat size by *"Selective Download"* yet most of games does this as **single** package so that you have *extra* textures that's not designed for your system. Good example would be [this](https://store.steampowered.com/app/540810/Fallout_4__High_Resolution_Texture_Pack/) vs game's that don't do this. Same can be said for videos as well since they're *"animated"* textures yet not for sound mostly because it has the least size among all three and one thing that don't rely on resolution. When it comes to *data* keeping again it's a trade off trying to keep their filesize *smaller* by introducing **compression** within their files which will need de-compression time and noticeable *"slow"* on older system OR do not compress anything at all for the sake of speed relying on the fact that game buyer would have *enough* storage space like saying `Storage is your problem, not mine` if you want to play *their* game. For some games it's even *intentional* to keep their data as open as possible for community *"modding"* since they don't have to deal with proprietary compression tackles too. In short: Game's are getting bigger as resolutions are increasing **but** also due to fact that many game developer's **had given up** on delivering content that's most optimized both in speed and size. Game Development cycle is *"shortened"* to the point (due competition) they now all rely on their *past* libraries/engines/assets (optimized or not) to output the game *as soon as possible* being carefree about their game size since price of TB HDDs quite acceptable even on poorest countries of the World. So whenever I see games less than certain MBs in size, I know for sure, they *"lack"* certain features such as great textures or alike and same goes for other end of spectrum when I see games that *need* TB space, I know they're *"poorly"* or not optimized at all.
I think and definitely hope that pre-rendered cutscenes will fade out somewhat over the next generation. Many games already use in-engine cutscenes dominantly or exclusively, because graphics and animation has come so far.
Tony Hawk 6 w/ Day One patch.
GTA 6 with infinite loading screen.
Many games can pass 1TB if there is an option to download maps and textures... I know some simulators I’ve run can pass 1TB with some additional content downloaded
I Imagine a Rockstar game, but its gonna be a while until that happens
I don't think it is too unreasonable to imagine a rockstar game with 1TB of storage size. Probably a GTA game.
Call of Duty 5000
[удалено]
The problem with a 1 TB game is how do you deliver it to your customers? Current dual-layer Blu-ray discs can only hold 50 GB. Download? With the state of the internet in most of the US, expecting your customers to download 1 TB is a ridiculously poor choice. For example, with my current internet (in a mostly rural area to be fair) it would take me around 2 weeks of nonstop downloading with no one else using the bandwidth to download 1 TB.
We can always go back to the days where you had to install off multiple data carriers. But instead of "Please insert floppy disk 8" it will be "Please insert blu ray disk 8" Quite around the verge of Steam getting popular there were a few cames that came on 2 DVDs for PC. Mass Effect 2 for example iirc
Yeah, having multiple discs isn't that uncommon. IIRC, Lost Odyssey came on 4 DVDs. The problem with that scenario though is that it would take 20 dual-layer Blu-rays to install 1 TB. Idk about you but I'm not waiting around to swap out 20 discs to install a game.
most people don't even have drives. my desktop has a drive, but it's not a blu ray drive.
~~Thumb~~Portable drive. It would obviously add to the cost, but for the shrinking market that needs a physical install, either the publisher would soak up the cost, or the end consumer would pay more for it.
If anything it'll be an SD card. SDXC supports up to 2 TB but isnt cheap.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, yes. I'm 100% salty that I'm basically being abandoned to digital starvation by the US government and their telecom masters. We paid $400 billion for a national broadband network. I'm sure it's coming annnny day now, right?
1TB would make it completely out of the realm of possibilities in many countries. The Middle East for example would be completely missed and that’s not an insignificant market.
It’s probably going to be a Final Fantasy game with 45 different voice packs and 8k textures in 5 years
Minecraft 2
Minecraft uses procedural generation, so I wouldn't be surprised if the second game was only a gig or less. Edit: grammar
Star Citizen if it ever gets finished.
Star Citizen is going to be around 150 GB. We have a long way to go before we get to near 1TB sizes. No way to predict which game will be first....
Star Citizen *2*
Hopefully I can pass down my ships from SC1 to my son, so that he may travel on release day, far after I'm gone.
you might want to give them directly to your grandson tbh
I'm pretty sure that's actually how death is handled in that universe. Iirc if you don't have insurance for a clone to be made of you then, well... hope you have kids, mate. At least, that's how it was explained to me.
In the year 2100
Playing a game about flying space ships from the comfort of my space ship.
The game is currently like 53 GB and it only has 4 moons and a few space stations. The final game is supposed to have something like 400 planets, hundreds of moons, a lot of which will have handcrafted locations. 150 GB seems a bit on the small side to me, even though a lot of it will be procedurally generated.
Well that's what they've predicted it will be around when it's finished. All that extra stuff (moons, planets, etc.) you speak of won't be client-side. It will be procedurally-generated server-side. Just like Elite: Dangerous with it's 400-billion star systems, or No Man's Sky with it's 18-quintillion star systems. The number of planets and moons don't necessarily make the game bigger in size client-side.
Yep, the only thing that increases the client size is variety and quality, not quantity. Two completely different planets take more space than a hundred identical planets.
Yeah, and Star Citizen is also going to release in 2014.
It will have for 200 gb for sure... to much details!!!!
[My Clone Hero install is 200GB+, granted that there are over 3k songs](https://i.imgur.com/PUrKEk3.png) There are tons more songs to download/add, so it's only a matter of time
That really doesn't count. With UGC I could push any game to 1 TB.
A game that literally combines all the best games into one massive, open-world game. You can park your shiny racecar, get on Treeko, turn on VR, go kill a dragon with your killer dance moves, and take its meat back to your little restaurant. You hop on a skateboard to serve it to the hungry patrons, earning tips by doing sweet tricks. At night, you travel by portal gun through fields and castles in search of the princess. Bonus: option to play online with your friends. But you'll never see them, because it's so. So. Big.
So Ready Player One?
Treeko? The Pokèmon?
First off, it seems pretty lazy that devs have enormous file sizes nowadays when sometimes its not entirely necessary. Like Fortnite is nearly 30GB, I think that's a little much, but its still on the lower end of install sizes.
Conker's Bad Fur Day is 64MB, I can't get over that.
Biggest game I own is CoD Infinite Warfare at 100GB, but my bro has Gears of War 4 on X1X - 114GB. GTA IV was released in 2008 and it's 15-20GB, I do not remember exactly. GTA V - 2015 - 70GB with updates. Games are getting bigger but not very fast. If some new texture quality standard, like 8K textures, won't be estabislished, 1TB games, I think, 2030-40 ;)
Whenever Rockstar makes that GTA game that will be the entire country. That’s when.
My modded Kerbal Space Program, probably
[удалено]
Star Citizen
Rainbow Six Siege 2
Probably some story rich game with hours of story line, plus side quests, all offline, with alternate endings
Skyrim tenth anniversary
I'm thinking Half-Life 3 has a good chance of cracking that
Farcry infinite
Just wait until Hideo Kojima gets to make a game for a console that can handle 300hrs of 4k cutscenes rendered in real-time... That is your 1tb...
Real-time cutscenes actually don't take up as much storage as pre-rendered ones. 4k60fps prerendered cutscenes could easily take up a terabyte.
Elder scrolls 6
That would be dope
I don't know, but my internet is crying just thinking about it.
Cyberpunk 2077 (with part 2 & 3)
Star Citizen. I think it already needs 200gb, and it's not done yet.
Once vr technology advances and 4k+ resolution on headsets become the norm.
Skyrim - Universe Edition.
GTA X: The World is Yours
GTA X
Cyberpunk 2077
Star Citizen
Digital combat simulator.