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
But yes its extremly large.
Ark simply isnt going to get smaller.
And to be honest... 160g with ALL 6 dlc?... thats realy not even bad.
Most of us don't have a robust computer
What you're saying is games should be smaller because you cant get a bigger drive.
The only way to do that is to remove content. The size is due to all the assets in the game which is also one of its strong points. Its a large world with a lot of different flora and fauna and people like that.
Its also not likely that a PC that can run this game will have small hard drives. If you can afford the system to run this game then you can afford a 2TB drive.
But that would be work for they won't earn more money.
The number of polygons in the models is not the reason the game is the size it is. Its all the different models and the associated assets. They are not even very high poly models to start with.
Textures sure but audio taking a lot of space? nah.
WC isn't a quality seeking company, so i'll just dare to say they could optimise a lot.
I just bought one an hour ago
Gameplay demanded it, unfortunately
"It's your damn fault for not investing in better hardwares"
No it is not