50 GB ? ok bye

[οk]

have fun dev's, i hope no one buy your game. cya

[Paradise Decay]

L'autre.님이 먼저 게시:

have fun dev's, i hope no one buy your game. cya

lol 50GB = Awesome game!

[Atermi]

I live in a pauper country and still have a stable 100 Mbit/sec unlimited internet.

[TwoBit]

Paradise Decay님이 먼저 게시:

L'autre.님이 먼저 게시:

have fun dev's, i hope no one buy your game. cya

lol 50GB = Awesome game!

Yah i agree, fallout was one of the worst RPGs ever mostly because it was only 500Mb's big, if it had been bigger, and for the xbox 360 then it would be the best RPG of all time.

FALICY DETECTED.

[Eck]

It's so large because of all the pre-rendered movie files you tend to find on a console game because those are by vast majority blu-ray disk based.
In short. It's a half-arsed console port. Further proof? Look at the 60 FPS cap and the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ performance and issues the game has.

[naomha]

Savitr님이 먼저 게시:

I can see his concern though if he is using an SSD for games like I do. Who uses a regular Magnetic HDD for games anymore? A 512 GB SSD goes for roughly $600.00, which is why most people by a smaller capacity SSD for their games.

A 1TB Velociraptor still runs only $150 and it's fast. Not as fast as an SSD but until SSDs blow up in size and come down in price, alot, Velociraptors are still a good HDD. Also, 95% of the gaming population still uses magnetic HDDs. Check the Steam stats alone for proof.

[johnny_m_j]

fyrepony님이 먼저 게시:

50gb?? nothing justifies that kind of memory hog, anyone remember cod:ghost? it was first game to take 50gb and was told to have best graphics ever, turned out they were bluffing and graphics were from 2007, i pity the fools who really think any of todays game's can hog 50gb.

CoD: Ghosts (without DLCs), takes 33.3 GB, fully patched. I seriuosly doubt DLCs are 17+ GB.

I don't mind huge installs, as long as there's a good reason for them being huge. If the reason is programmers uncapable of compressing files, then there might be lots of other stuff wrong too. For me, a reason to wait and see.

[Tig Ol' Bitties]

UnrealEck님이 먼저 게시:

It's so large because of all the pre-rendered movie files you tend to find on a console game because those are by vast majority blu-ray disk based.
In short. It's a half-arsed console port. Further proof? Look at the 60 FPS cap and the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ performance and issues the game has.

...and that's why I'm waiting for the RedBox rental for my PS3. If they're going to pull this nonsense on pc gamers, Redbox gets my $3 and the publishers don't get $60 for the game itself (at least not from me.)

[TwoBit]

naomha님이 먼저 게시:

Savitr님이 먼저 게시:

I can see his concern though if he is using an SSD for games like I do. Who uses a regular Magnetic HDD for games anymore? A 512 GB SSD goes for roughly $600.00, which is why most people by a smaller capacity SSD for their games.

A 1TB Velociraptor still runs only $150 and it's fast. Not as fast as an SSD but until SSDs blow up in size and come down in price, alot, Velociraptors are still a good HDD. Also, 95% of the gaming population still uses magnetic HDDs. Check the Steam stats alone for proof.

Yah, i use a Samsung or something 'hybred' HDD, and its pretty fast.

[‒| Kim |‒]

Blue Shark~Vault Boy /CZE/님이 먼저 게시:

War-Barney님이 먼저 게시:

I think people saying 50GB is fine don't understand how it works.. NORMALLY competent devs will compress a lot of the files to make the download more manageable, games that are longer with better graphics have had a much smaller download.

having a just over 44GB download is a sign that the devs decided to be lazy and not bother to compress anything.. if it had crysis 3 graphics I could understand, but from what I've seen it has average graphics and some horrible low res textures in places, theres no reason for it to be so large.

So much this. Crysis 3 from Origin is 14.2GB btw.

It's sad to see "PC master race" defend obvious laziness from devs and actually sometimes even attack people that dare to look under the surface as to why do we get such size in the first place.

There is just NO benefit to players in terms of graphics or perfornamce - maybe few FPS on lower end CPUs, which makes no sense with i7 as recommended.

You seem bent on turning this into a platform thread. However I'll throw in some interesting points. Half the reason id tech 5 is using the megatexture technology is to get the most out of memory bandwidth and getting the GPU with low memory DDR5 (at this time of writing VRAM). Which platforms rely a lot more on having limited capability with memory bandwith?

Well usually hardware that is 'custom made' and has to be custom designed for. Thus the end-product suffers between the potential in what the product is versus what the product could of been. Also notice how I used that word been as in "could of been".

If we look at this technique from the perspective that resources are no object and we have infinite storage space Megatextures start to look very attractive. It is effectively the ultimate solution in texture streaming and virtual texture memory. Looking to the future, we can soon forget about the needs for 4GB video cards and focus more on a powerhouse GPU with a more respectable 1GB that is still affordable. The ultimate dream machine starts to get a whole lot cheaper when you remove, or reallocate your system requirements. I am not talking about taking a step back from the growth charts but more of a side step instead, a shift in resources.

In addition to limited hard drive speeds we are entering a new age of PCs. Rage is reported to require 22GB on consoles and I'm having trouble envisioning the size of what an "HD" edition would be for PC gamers. There were even rumors early in development that this enormous install was a comprise in quality vs. disk space. It's a little scary to think about it but there are PCs with shrinking resources, opting for integrated video cards, smaller but faster hard drives and even looking to "Cloud" to solve our data storage needs.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BenjaminQuintero/20110822/90055/Things_to_Consider_About_Megatextures.php

As for you can clearly see here, this man has made the observation that it will be riding on the GPU. The only platform that needs low memory and GPU bandwidth is hardware that is ascertainly 3 to 4 years old. This is very good however for people with low-end PC builds, but, not as low as people who have Intel HD 4/5k series internal video cards, who shouldn't really be gaming at all and might as well be playing Minecraft or League of Legends.
He also makes reference to "cloud storage" and there is has been talk in recent years of streaming textures over an internet connection to the gamer's machine. If you have a very small, say, low level PC in the lounge room [sic] then you'd be streaming in the textures over the network.

Stacking more resources on to the GPU clearly indicates that the technology is trynig to off load a lot of the processing work on to the GPU instead of holding a little bit more in graphics card memory or stream the textures over a network protocol. Alternatively only loading the textures it has to load (like on a game disc). If you get what Im hinting I'm talking about a 'lounge room computer with limited resources'.

[cikame]

Using a download calculator, it estimates it will take me about 175 hours for me to download.

[‒| Kim |‒]

To top off my above post. In regards to platforms. The game rental market at the moment for "lounge room game computer platforms" is a very nasty disgrace. It usually involves a lot of frat boys trading in games to brick and mortar stores and the developer gets diminishing returns on their original product. If you buy the game through Steam and own it however it's tried to the CD Key and an account.

http://youtu.be/aKSFPRaJpzA?t=10s
http://youtu.be/xnGsbJaM7GU?t=39s

Now we have a similar thing with Steam and Family sharing but that is a tight trust thing. Versus just returning a game to the store to get a trade-in. I really do suggest my fellow personal computer netizens watch the video listed above about this semi-disgraceful trade-in (resale) practice. Not to be confused, with giving your friend the game so they can try it out and also not to be confused with piracy (the service problem).

As much as trading-in products covers furniture (if you've done it up) and food (if you've made a cake from the raw ingredients). Software is a totally different kettle of fish, when it comes to used product(s).

[Eeyk]

You're a big troll.

[‒| Kim |‒]

Eeyk님이 먼저 게시:

You're a big troll.

Actually I write some very good points, about this modest hobby culture we now call "gaming" and some of the issues tied to it and I try to use words like "platform" which are from a gaming standpoint personal computer /.console neutral. I also try to use words like "interactive entertainment" where appropriate.

[Th3_DUDE]

yup new big games are gonna be alot gigs. can always play wii u

[Trapgat]

Gintoki님이 먼저 게시:

Ruffi님이 먼저 게시:

50 GB? Easy. Just delete your miserable Porn files, ha.

HAH! XD

My opinion in the size is: ABOUT TIME! CAuse im fed up of small 8-10gb games that only lasts 7 hours of storymode.

Funny, this game lasts about 8 hours, unless you agree that the 2nd method counts for another 8, which I don't.