Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
125gb could probably be chopped down to 60gb if they knew how to compress audio, model and texture files properly.
I know this since there's much better looking games that exist and they are between 50gb and 75gb usually.
i wouldent count on a patch, as i think both Virtuios (UE5 Content) and Bethseda (Original Engine, and have never used UE5 in their TES,FO Games, or Starfield.) have to do it as a group effort.
Starfield takes alot of space too, but i can see that as its a completely new game, on a new engine they are basically demoing on it.
Red Dead Redemption 2 = 150 gb
ARK: Survival Evolved = 329,87 gb ?!
ssd's are so cheap these days that it doesn't matter.
im not upgrading for just one game, if its an across the board upgrade that helps several games work better, and the in game question is just a bonus, ill do it, its more economically effecient then.
some gamers arnt made out of complete money.
Really?
im not sure if hes said anything specific about this one, but it seems more of an effort to recoup Starfield's Dev Costs.
my advice to OP, Avoid Bethseda altogether, theyve lost their talent, and creative magic that made them what they are, they now just care about pleasing their MS Overlords, Suits and Shareholders.
Just another way for them earn more money and force people to spend more money over times.
its when the people dont have the money for such luxury priorities, and have to stick with kitchen table, and essential ones, that the gaming market tends to suffer.
my big problem right now. is i havent found any game, in terms of enjoyment, that ive bought in the past... say 4 years, that was completely worth my money, although i dont gauge in hours of enjoyment. i gauge in replayability, and how much i even want to return to said game.
one of my playstation games has actually kept me through 3 generations of consoles. and im still playing it. (Diablo 3/Ultimate Evil, PS3/4/5 as a Grandfathered game from the PS4 Libary.)
when i put close to 800 hours into something i paid $50 dollars for, and can say im still playing it, on a regular basis, thats when i say, its worth it, 10 fold.
You guys just casually asserting that they could easily COMPRESS the files a lot smaller have no idea what you are talking about.
I only have a very passing understanding.
There are many factors that go into the total texture size. Textures have many channels now, unlike years ago, that have to do with specularity, normals etc to determine how light interacts.
The NUMBER of textures has also massively increased. Then there's space for the pre-baking.
Said above:
"I know this since there's much better looking games that exist and they are between 50gb and 75gb usually."
You don't know this, because you don't have access to the files.
The idea that people think it's that easy is a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You learned a little something about game engines and think what you're saying makes sense when it really doesn't.
Bold of you to assume they know anything about game engines.