the file size..

[uni790]

The steam store page says the game needs 50GB of free space, that can't really be the case can it?

Anyone able to take a quick look at their install folder and check? lol

I'd have to do some uninstalling to play it just for the weekend if it actually needs that insane amount of space, and I'm not doing that, lol.

[Mixolydian]

It's 44 gigs. FYI you can start the installation of anything on Steam just to see the file-size, then decide to cancel if you want. It'll show you the accurate size.

[uni790]

Originally posted by Vigil:

It's 44 gigs. FYI you can start the installation of anything on Steam just to see the file-size, then decide to cancel if you want. It'll show you the accurate size.

Never thought of that, but wow 44? some devs need to learn what file compression is.. lol

Ah-well, I might still give it a try, but that's a lot of uninstalling just to play one game for the weekend.

[Ylion]

download size is round 15gb, size is 43gb
get used to it if you want to play modern games.
i have a game with a 220gb folder(ARK, extreme examle)
hdd´s cost nothing atm, ssd´s are cheap af, maybe look around

[uni790]

Originally posted by Ylion:

download size is round 15gb, size is 43gb
get used to it if you want to play modern games.
i have a game with a 220gb folder(ARK, extreme examle:gorge:)
hdd´s cost nothing atm, ssd´s are cheap af, maybe look around

Or, devs can learn what file compression is..... 220 is beyond insane, especially for something like Ark. The game isn't big enough to warrant that kind of filesize, lol.

Just as an example, Dragon Quest XI (an absoulutely massive game (the demo on the switch has 9-10 hours of content)) advertises just 32 GB of file space (on steam's page), like I said, some devs just need to learn what file compression is.. lol.

[Bludshed]

A download size of 14gb with an installation folder of 44gb sounds like good compression to me.

[Gralzeim]

Higher resolution textures, higher resolution cutscenes, higher quality sound effects, music, and dialog, all those soak up space pretty quickly.

"Compression" isn't a magic solution, and has significant downsides. And considering how common larger hard drives are now, why should devs have to compromise on the game's quality just for the handful of folks who can't be bothered to free up a little space?

It's just a price of progress. It's no different from games requiring more RAM than they used to, or a faster video card, etc.

[Ylion]

Originally posted by uni790:

Originally posted by Ylion:

download size is round 15gb, size is 43gb
get used to it if you want to play modern games.
i have a game with a 220gb folder(ARK, extreme examle)
hdd´s cost nothing atm, ssd´s are cheap af, maybe look around

Or, devs can learn what file compression is..... 220 is beyond insane, especially for something like Ark. The game isn't big enough to warrant that kind of filesize, lol.

Just as an example, Dragon Quest XI (an absoulutely massive game (the demo on the switch has 9-10 hours of content)) advertises just 32 GB of file space (on steam's page), like I said, some devs just need to learn what file compression is.. lol.

of course you are right, and i took ark because it is an extreme(i think even has some redundant files)
but that doesn´t change what i said. and with cheap storage and growing overall filesizes,
most devs focus on other things.
they won´t start making their games worse so some dudes can save 25 bucks

[Ylion]

i own stellaris, and it looks way worse. like way, way worse.
you know these screenshots? it looks like that, with a capable pc.
there are other things they can fix, but hell this game seems optimised like the emperor,
i had ~30fps with my r7 260x at 1440p.
5 year old gpu with 30fps at1440p?
and it looks great? must be the omnissiah

[Mattlock]

Originally posted by uni790:

Originally posted by Ylion:

of course you are right, and i took ark because it is an extreme(i think even has some redundant files:cozyspaceengineersa:)
but that doesn´t change what i said. and with cheap storage and growing overall filesizes,
most devs focus on other things.
they won´t start making their games worse so some dudes can save 25 bucks

Honestly after playing it I don't understand it even further, as there are so few ship models, and the backgrounds are little more then JPEGs, the battlefields aren't even a 3D spaces, there's nothing there that warrents the file size that it has, Stellaris has more models, more weapons, better graphics, and it's a much smaller file. I can't see the voice lines taking up all that much space, and most of their movies are rendered in game, and not a seprate CGI, they're a non-issue. The movies that are rendered seprately are 2D with only minor animations.

But at least I did try it, even if it'll need serious improvements before it's worth the file space, or price tag. That's what free weekends are for though :)

Unrelated to the post though, whoever decided that a space "fleet" should only consist of 3-4 ships at max, is an idiot, and should really look towards Stellaris, or Sins of a solar Empire before making another game.

First point, as a loose rule, if you want to compress more content into a smaller filespace, you need more CPU power to apply the algorithms that compress/decompress data in a reasonable time. CPU is more expensive than filespace, currently games are balanced to allow for this by not using much compression and just going with large file footprints.

Second point, on fleet sizes, is that this game is an adaptation of WH40k tabletop game. It's not a grand strategy game like Sins or Stellaris. The ships are fewer, rendered in far greater detail and higher fidelity, with a greater demand of direct control of abilities. They aren't the same genre of game beyond sharing a space theme.