You thought RDR2 needed space? - Call of Duty storage requirements

[dizmo]

I must be the only one that doesn't really care that it takes up that much space. Games have been increasing in size for years. Surprise, bitches.

I imagine it'd have something to do with 4k files, or something like that. But I'm not going to assume like the rest of you armchair engineers

It is what it is. I'll still be installing it.

But the rest of you just love having something to bitch and moan about.

 

17 hours ago, Twilight said:

a 2500K or a 1600X? what?

 

also R9 390 or RX580? am I the only one noticing this?

This surprises you why? CoD games have always been pretty easy to run. Lowers the barrier of entry.

4 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

SSD has gotten cheaper, but with games getting ridiculous in size, a HDD is still a better option. More GB per dollar. But the thing is majority of them large HDD are 5,400RPM. At lest they're not as slow compared to 7,200RPM drives.

I'd say performance is more important than saving a little money. All depends on the user though. 1TB has always been more than enough for me, with games getting to this size, I'll just spend the extra $100 on getting another one. Not really a huge investment.

4 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

? That's confusingly worded, 7200rpm drives are much faster than 5400rpm ones. And SSDs up to 2TB aren't badly priced at all, it's just the larger ones that are hella expensive. Some of the 4TB ones don't have a bad $/GB compared to other SSDs though, but ofc they still can't compete with HDDs. I'd say the massive performance increase is often worth it though. 

Eh, if you're in a higher capacity, which I'd assume people are buying since SSDs in lower capacities are so cheap there's no reason not to, it really doesn't make a huge difference.

[Shreyas1]

This ruled out the game for a lot of my friends. At that point, guess I won't be getting it either.   
Ah well, at least I enjoyed the beta 

[kingmustard]

You don’t actually need 175GB of free space for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare at launch

Stop panicking, children.

[Jito463]

On 10/10/2019 at 2:16 AM, floofer said:

its R2D2 thank you 

 

On 10/10/2019 at 7:15 AM, paddy-stone said:

I actually read that as R2D2

Same here.

[Brainless906]

On 10/10/2019 at 4:06 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

i remember R6S with the ultra optional graphics being pretty huge too.

 

Either way this is crazy, did they bloat the files or something?...

R6 siege is 102gb with HD texture pack installed and about 61gb without.

[DeScruff]

On 10/10/2019 at 9:25 PM, dizmo said:

This surprises you why? CoD games have always been pretty easy to run. Lowers the barrier of entry.

I'd say performance is more important than saving a little money. All depends on the user though. 1TB has always been more than enough for me, with games getting to this size, I'll just spend the extra $100 on getting another one. Not really a huge investment.

Eh, if you're in a higher capacity, which I'd assume people are buying since SSDs in lower capacities are so cheap there's no reason not to, it really doesn't make a huge difference.

Surprises them because there is quite a bit of difference between a 2500K and a 1600X. The two aren't directly comparable at all.
If I recall the 1600X compares in single core performance to a 4690K... on top of the fact that  the 1600X is a 6c/12t chip compared to a 4c/4t chip.

Also next console generation is coming up. Sony has been pushing how the PS5 uses an SSD - SATA or NVMe who knows, but I doubt its gonna be more then 1TB. Not gonna be able to keep a lot of games installed if this keeps up. Seems like game file sizes are growing faster then SSD sizes, and lets be honest, aren't looking that much more pretty.
Guess I'm glad these big AAA games never appealed to me.

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, Sypran said:

Surprises them because there is quite a bit of difference between a 2500K and a 1600X. The two aren't directly comparable at all.
If I recall the 1600X compares in single core performance to a 4690K... on top of the fact that  the 1600X is a 6c/12t chip compared to a 4c/4t chip.

Also next console generation is coming up. Sony has been pushing how the PS5 uses an SSD - SATA or NVMe who knows, but I doubt its gonna be more then 1TB. Not gonna be able to keep a lot of games installed if this keeps up. Seems like game file sizes are growing faster then SSD sizes, and lets be honest, aren't looking that much more pretty.
Guess I'm glad these big AAA games never appealed to me.

There really isn't though, and yes, they are absolutely directly comparable as they offer similar performance. Most games don't require more than 4 cores, they simply add to the performance on the high end.

 

You can still install probably 6 or 7 games on an SSD. That's still pretty good. I don't think a lot of people are playing more than that at a single time, and if you are, you can simply buy an external hard drive to boost that capacity. They certainly are looking better; I guess you've never tried a game with ray tracing.

 

[Sauron]

On 10/10/2019 at 10:06 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

Either way this is crazy, did they bloat the files or something?...

Yes, they always do this. They can't be arsed to compress the assets. CoD looks like absolute trash every time and yet it always occupies your entire drive for no reason. I can think of quite a few games that look a lot better, have a lot more content and yet take up less space, RDR2 included.

[AngryBeaver]

Ark Survival evolved can easily eat up over 250GB of space.

[Zodiark1593]

On 10/10/2019 at 8:27 AM, Zando Bob said:

Good lord... still cheaper than an actual plane or jet though I guess?

Perhaps Steam should offer a hard drive delivery option. You put in the order with the games you want on it, and Valve sends the drive with said games over. Then the client just needs to activate and decrypt the game data for install.

[Zando_]

16 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Perhaps Steam should offer a hard drive delivery option. You put in the order with the games you want on it, and Valve sends the drive with said games over. Then the client just needs to activate and decrypt the game data for install.

I haven't seen a single game on Steam nearing 2TB in size... 

For smaller games, although it'd be more convenient for people with slow connections, it'd be a massive headache for Steam. They drive a much, much higher volume of sales than the sim companies (pretty sure the community for games needing 2TB of textures is much smaller than Steam's) so they'd basically have to have a whole division purely to load games on HDDs and ship them out, then deal with ones that messed up during shipping or any of the other customer support things that would be needed, that'd introduce more to troubleshoot because people are idiots and half of them wouldn't know how to install the HDD anyways (they just got it because their buddy said they didn't need to download all the files), yada yada. A bigass migraine for a company like Steam to do. 

[jagdtigger]

52 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Ark Survival evolved can easily eat up over 250GB of space.

For me its eating up ~150GB, but the loading time is infuriating:

(4670k@4.5GHz, game is on SSD)

[JZStudios]

On 10/10/2019 at 8:23 AM, Harry Voyager said:

So, apparently, if you order the Mega Earth Scenery for the lower 48 States, they highly recommend you select the "delivery by hard drive" shipping method. Apparently all that scenery is about 2TB when compressed. They will even refund you $120 off the shipping if you mail them the hard drive back...

 

https://www.megasceneryearth.com/new-version-3-0/usa-regional-bundles/usa-lower-48/

 

Yes, this is a real thing. Flightsimmers are a slightly crazy bunch... 

The new MS flight sim is supposedly using 2 petabytes. If I could just have a hard drive with that on it shipped to me, that'd be cool. I have no idea how much 2 petabytes of storage would cost though.

 

On 10/10/2019 at 11:19 AM, Tristerin said:

Also Im not surprised, is there an industry expectation that games should not be so heavy in storage size?  WoW Classic was able to be released at 5gb...to me that made sense dealing with the lack of...stuff from 19 years ago being able to compress to a file that size.  But this is a fairly new game so why the surprise?  (I am asking in all seriousness)

What the hell is COD packing (Presumably a single player campaign with a few multiplayer maps) that makes it so god damn large?

For comparison;

The Witcher 3 with expansion packs: 50gb

Forza Horizon 4: 62.92gb. Open world, highly detailed, over 450 highly detailed cars, and "4k ready" with textures and assets.

RDR2: 150gb Open world, highly detailed assets in environment and characters.

Black Ops 3 PC: 80gb Includes large Battle Royale map.

GTAV ~70gb.

[JZStudios]

On 10/10/2019 at 3:43 PM, kingmustard said:

I presume high-quality FMVs will take up a chunk of the space.

Unless they are completely uncompressed or at MGS4 level cutscene length, that doesn't add up. You can comfortably compress an hours worth of 1080p footage to ~5gb with no real issues.

[kingmustard]

Just now, JZStudios said:

Unless they are completely uncompressed or at MGS4 level cutscene length, that doesn't add up. You can comfortably compress an hours worth of 1080p footage to ~5gb with no real issues.

Not at the quality the PS4 has on it's Blu-ray Disc versions.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

I haven't seen a single game on Steam nearing 2TB in size... 

For smaller games, although it'd be more convenient for people with slow connections, it'd be a massive headache for Steam. They drive a much, much higher volume of sales than the sim companies (pretty sure the community for games needing 2TB of textures is much smaller than Steam's) so they'd basically have to have a whole division purely to load games on HDDs and ship them out, then deal with ones that messed up during shipping or any of the other customer support things that would be needed, that'd introduce more to troubleshoot because people are idiots and half of them wouldn't know how to install the HDD anyways (they just got it because their buddy said they didn't need to download all the files), yada yada. A bigass migraine for a company like Steam to do. 

It's also a major headache to use an intermediary computer to download a game to, and move to my desktop and hope Steam activates the game instead of munching down my cell phone data cap trying to download the game anew. GoG is infinitely more friendly to gamers without proper internet. 

 

Naturally though, I wouldn't expect Valve to do hard drive deliveries for free. If it made the process easy, I'd happily pay a $15-$20 fee to get a large portion of my library (some of my favorite single player games are here) transferred over and installed in one go. The fee would have to be high enough to deter people that already have solid connections though, to reduce the volume.

[TempestCatto]

That's nothing compared to my homework folder.

[jagdtigger]

16 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

and hope Steam activates the game instead of munching down my cell phone data cap trying to download the game anew

Well it worked like a charm across reinstalls.... But if you want to make it sure just do a backup on the intermediary then restore from that on your gaming pc.

Edited October 12, 2019 by jagdtigger

[Zodiark1593]

13 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well it worked like a charm across reinstalls.... But if you want to make it sure just do a backup on the intermediary then restore from that on your gaming pc.

Wonder if Steam had improved a bit in the past couple years. Getting a backup to work without additional downloads was far from a guarantee. Not saying I can't get it to work, I've several games I installed this way. It's quite the hassle though.

 

My biggest issue with Steam however is that if a game requires an update, I can't launch it at all until the update (often multiple GBs) is installed, and can occur if I install something else. A few installed games on my PC fell victim to this.

 

I don't really use Steam anymore as a result, even though some games I really want are only available there (not counting consoles).

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

It's also a major headache to use an intermediary computer to download a game to, and move to my desktop and hope Steam activates the game instead of munching down my cell phone data cap trying to download the game anew. GoG is infinitely more friendly to gamers without proper internet. 

 

Naturally though, I wouldn't expect Valve to do hard drive deliveries for free. If it made the process easy, I'd happily pay a $15-$20 fee to get a large portion of my library (some of my favorite single player games are here) transferred over and installed in one go. The fee would have to be high enough to deter people that already have solid connections though, to reduce the volume.

Because if you can't pay for better internet or live in a low-rent zone where you have no choice, you should be fined to download things you paid for. I wish games would just go back to having a physical medium so you can install from disc or a thumb drive or something.

 

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Wonder if Steam had improved a bit in the past couple years. Getting a backup to work without additional downloads was far from a guarantee. Not saying I can't get it to work, I've several games I installed this way. It's quite the hassle though.

 

My biggest issue with Steam however is that if a game requires an update, I can't launch it at all until the update (often multiple GBs) is installed, and can occur if I install something else. A few installed games on my PC fell victim to this.

 

I don't really use Steam anymore as a result, even though some games I really want are only available there (not counting consoles).

I just moved Destiny 2 to my primary SSD for better load times, but forgot to do it through Steam and had to fuck around to try and get Steam to recognize where I moved it to, and then it had to do a full file scan of all 70gb.

Unlike GOG games where I can move it and it just works.

[jagdtigger]

21 hours ago, Caroline said:

And exactly how many times they'll release the same game?

As long as sheep's keep buying it they are going to keep on milking them.

Edited October 13, 2019 by jagdtigger
darn typo

[Zodiark1593]

37 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Because if you can't pay for better internet or live in a low-rent zone where you have no choice, you should be fined to download things you paid for. I wish games would just go back to having a physical medium so you can install from disc or a thumb drive or something.

 

I just moved Destiny 2 to my primary SSD for better load times, but forgot to do it through Steam and had to fuck around to try and get Steam to recognize where I moved it to, and then it had to do a full file scan of all 70gb.

Unlike GOG games where I can move it and it just works.

 With Steam, it isn't as though I don't know what I'm in for when choosing to buy from there. It's precisely why I "vote with my wallet" and don't buy from there anymore. The lack of selection elsewhere is a pretty big drawback though as my favorite jRPGs happen to be on Steam. 

 

A game console probably provides the best experience for gamers with poor/no internet, and a Nintendo Switch is quite appealing, though tbh video games aren't high enough on my priority list to drop $200-$300 on a device that only really does games. And with infrequent sales and often high prices, the price climbs up quite quickly. For perspective, I recently purchased Witcher 3 GOTY edition from GoG for $15. Not many things on console offer this sort of value for the dollar unless you go back to PS3.

 

On a side note, the PS3 is absolutely brilliant from a value/$ perspective. Great games are available cheaply, visuals of later games hold up quite well, and the scratch resistance of Blu Ray means used copies aren't a total crap shoot. The last point was a huge thorn when I used to buy PS2 games.

[Yeroh]

This is the first time I'm remotely interested in a Call of Duty title and then they're coming up with such ridiculous numbers for their storage requirements. I honestly wouldn't mind if Germany would finally do something about the terrible network infrastructure over here. Having 16 Mbits was okay back in 2009, but ten years later, I have to buffer 4K content to watch it and it takes me literal days to download games that don't come with any sort of CD.

[sandvich64]

they should have an option of what resolution textures to download

[Jito463]

On 10/12/2019 at 2:45 PM, JZStudios said:

I just moved Destiny 2 to my primary SSD for better load times, but forgot to do it through Steam

I never use Steam to move my games from one library location to another (didn't even realize you could do it that way).  I just move the game directory and the ACF file over to the new location, launch Steam and it picks it right up.