Allow developers to offer games with multiple install size options

[salgado18]

This means a game can be downloaded and installed with a size chosen by the user. For example, a game lets you install it using 100GB, 60GB or 30GB, by reducing assets quality acordinly.

To give context: games are getting larger every year, but large SSDs are still expensive and libraries are vast. To install a game with 100+ GB, the user usually has to remove something else. Also, many users are below the recommended settings, with some of them barely reaching the minimum, and these users will choose lower settings to run the game.

Most games already have options to use lowered texture resolutions, for example. These use up less RAM and VRAM space, but the higher ones are still on the disk, without use. Same thing for FMVs, sounds/music/speech, etc.

This option could work like this: the developer creates the base game bundle, and a few other asset bundles with different qualities of stuff in each. Then the user, when installing the game, chooses which asset quality and size he wants, and the Steam client downloads the base game and the chosen asset bundle. When the game runs, it asks the Steam installation (or checks the files itself) which bundles are available, and use them accordingly.

As a last context: in the 90s, some CD games gave us the choice between installing only the bare minimum (with everything being read from CD at load time, but install sizes could be as little as 10 MB), everything (copy the entire CD content to the drive, taking up around 600 MB) or an in-between option (around 150MB, movies and music stayed on CD). It's an example of values, but this was a time where HDs had around 4 GB of space total (maybe less), so it was a very nice option.

I believe Steam is in the perfect position to do this, by offering developers the tools to set it up, and giving users the power of choosing how much disk space and internet bandwidth to spend.

[Mad Scientist]

Developers are free to make their own systems which can do this, thus, they are very much able to and free to do so at their own will.

However, not many Developers are doing this, but it certainly wont stop them from doing so if they wish, especially since they can make their own Launcher which can install based upon the users options.

Note that depending on the number of assets etc, you wont exactly have a choice in regard to the size itself unless theres low to high quality versions of assets.

SSDs have become extremely affordable for 500GB-1TB NVMEs and even standard SSDs, HDDs for 4-6TB are also extremely affordable as well. If you're having issues with VRAM and RAM usage with most games you play, you likely need better hardware.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di salgado18:

This means a game can be downloaded and installed with a size chosen by the user. For example, a game lets you install it using 100GB, 60GB or 30GB, by reducing assets quality acordinly.

Already do able. But the way things work is that it doesn't matter much Devs aren't going to waste time creating umpteen different variations of the same wall texture. They will generally creat one high res texture and just scale it down in engine.

This is why when you change wuality settings you generally don't have to reload the entire game.

Devs are free to do this. Most don't . Thos that do put the hd packs as free dlc or the workshop.

[Cathulhu]

Already possible through free DLCs.
Games like Monster Hunter World, Skyrim or Final Fantasy XV do that.
Up to the devs to use the tools available.

[Crazy Tiger]

Technically developers already can do so, via free DLCs. Some developers even do so, they offer texture packs for high-res or 4K or so. Plus they could use their own launcher and provide it there.

There are already ways to do it and while one could certainly say that Valve could create a different system for it within Steam, I don't think the absence of that is what's stopping game devs from doing this. Personally I think they much rather have everything packaged together in their own file management structure as it is, as that's easier for them to manage.

[Pscht]

Messaggio originale di Mad Electric Scientist:

SSDs have become extremely affordable for 500GB-1TB NVMEs and even standard SSDs, HDDs for 4-6TB are also extremely affordable as well. If you're having issues with VRAM and RAM usage with most games you play, you likely need better hardware.

The bigger problem is crappy internet. Downloading a single game for seven hours is no fun.

[salgado18]

1. SSDs are more affordable, but still too small for big games. And installing big games in HDDs is a bad idea, the experience will be very bad.

2. So you are suggesting either:

a- dozens of devs develop separate in-house solutions to do the same thing? Not everyone has a launcher, creating downloadable stuff is hard, things have to be hosted etc., and Steam already does all that.

b- devs use a system of extra content to deliver options to the player? I mean, do users even understand they can skip DLCs because their system can't handle it, or it will use more space? DLCs are meant for gameplay stuff, it would need users to be tech-savvy to understand that.

I mean, Steam is ready to do such thing, their side of the equation is very simple. Also, developers downgrade textures in-engine because that's the easy way to do, but creating routines to pack lower-res textures is also easy.

I really believe this could be useful for many people, and won't be bad for developers (who can still not use the system and do as they always have). Valve should consider it, at least.

[Pscht]

Messaggio originale di salgado18:

1. SSDs are more affordable, but still too small for big games.

No idea what games you play that a 2 TB SSD is too small.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Pscht:

Messaggio originale di salgado18:

1. SSDs are more affordable, but still too small for big games.

No idea what games you play that a 2 TB SSD is too small.

SSDs still lose to HDD in terms of $/Gb
Also many people don't uninstall games affter they install them, combine that with the size of some steam libraries and you can very easily have a space problem.

[Pscht]

If you never uninstall anything, making games smaller doesn't help. It only slightly delays the problem.

[GrayDolf]

Messaggio originale di Eiswolfin:

Messaggio originale di salgado18:

b- devs use a system of extra content to deliver options to the player? I mean, do users even understand they can skip DLCs because their system can't handle it, or it will use more space? DLCs are meant for gameplay stuff, it would need users to be tech-savvy to understand that.

Your suggestion relies on people being tech savy as well to understanding that the space difference is related to texture resolution, they are going to need to know what texture resolution even is, and what kind of affect it would have on their PCs.

So your suggestion really isn't any different than the current solution which is simply have DLCs for higher resolution texture packs.

Then explain those words into a language they can understand.

(Hell, we should go back to InstallShield's "Express/Standard/Custom Installation" feature.)

[salgado18]

Messaggio originale di GrayDolf:

Messaggio originale di Eiswolfin:

(Hell, we should go back to InstallShield's "Express/Standard/Custom Installation" feature.)

That's precisely the point of the suggestion :)
In a world of "small" SSDs, limited internet and big games, I think it's a great feature.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di salgado18:

That's precisely the point of the suggestion :)
In a world of "small" SSDs, limited internet and big games, I think it's a great feature.

yeah... but that really doesn't solve the problem as...
devs generally don't do textures and vids at multiple fidlities... they do it at one that they will either downscale or upscale to meet display requirements.

Why? because that is actually more effecient in terms of time, and space usage.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

First, while SSDs have been getting a little cheaper, HDDs still offer a ton more value per unit money. I'd much rather use them for storage.

Still though, Valve could do better by offering a more built-in way to handle optional components. DLCs are separate downloads, and generally listed as separate purchaseable items. They're not seen as a core part of the game.

Install options are instead part of the core installation -- just options within a core installation.