Call of Duty Advanced Warfare at 46Gb download size for Xbox One

[Raphael_123]

Its probable languages packs like in titanfall

[Misanthrope]

While I do understand we don't like consoles. C'mon guys. Some of the replies I'm reading are as petty as they get. :l

 

Yeah they're nowhere near as childish as fucking stupid as the kind of crap you get from console players, we're talking about the kind of fucking assholes that start petitions to stop Rockstar from porting GTA V to the PC.

 

In my mind if someone is truly offended they can pack up their stuff and leave LTT, even Linus and Slick join in the fun bashing consoles from time to time just watch a LAN show.

[Aniallation]

Or you could stop putting your games on your SSD. The performance increase in most games is negiable and only counts during the loading screens.

It's an Surface Pro 2.

[Gabriel]

46Gb = 50' Black Cock

 

its a dick measuring contest, whoever makes the "biggest" game automatically wins the award of the best console game. 

The graphics is so shit and they know that they can't do anything about it, all they can do is increase the size of the game LOL.

I will cut off my dick if the actual game is over 12Gb...

 

But hey Sony and Microsoft profit from this as people will need to buy more storage for their consoles.

[Majinferno]

Yeah they're nowhere near as childish as fucking stupid as the kind of crap you get from console players, we're talking about the kind of fucking assholes that start petitions to stop Rockstar from porting GTA V to the PC.

In my mind if someone is truly offended they can pack up their stuff and leave LTT, even Linus and Slick join in the fun bashing consoles from time to time just watch a LAN show.

I get were you're coming from, but your point was initially lost when you said childish. I originally said petty. Yes console gamers are childish and they should be bashed at times. However, im specifically talking about a few of the replies I'm seeing here. Some of them are structured, but some of them are extremely petty. Like it's just people trying to be funny rather than making valid points and it's like seriously, why bother.

Maybe it's just me. I was never the type to target someone else for their shortcomings.

[zacRupnow]

Lazy devs? I don't think so, well actually I do, but I also think they have to be lazy so peasant box makers and peasant publishers can say "This game is so good it takes ridiculous amounts of storage for a game". Unfortunately many peasants believe that crap.

[Victorious Secret]

I get were you're coming from, but your point was initially lost when you said childish. I originally said petty. Yes console gamers are childish and they should be bashed at times. However, im specifically talking about a few of the replies I'm seeing here. Some of them are structured, but some of them are extremely petty. Like it's just people trying to be funny rather than making valid points and it's like seriously, why bother.

Maybe it's just me. I was never the type to target someone else for their shortcomings.

 

Easier to mock people than it is to leave them alone, cause some people get gratification out of insulting others. PC, console; doesn't matter. Fanboys on either side are pathetic. 

 

Normal people who game on either or both? They don't care. They kinda just...game. Like me. But hey, lets not be rational and refuse to play along with the circle jerk that occurs from time to time. 

 

Lets discuss why the hardware is pathetic and why the exclusives are a bad way to foster platform growth. Lets NOT insult the casual gamers who just play the games and don't even know this kind of petty bullshit happens much less take part in it. 

[daemonowner]

Inb4 20Gbs of languages.

[OsamaBinLaggin']

still less then final fantasy 13 for pc

[Captain_Slow]

45.84 GB to be exact..

 

Thanks to a screenshot posted by a redditor we now know that Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is a fairly large file size with whopping 45.84 gigabytes (take that wolfenstein & titan fall) , to keep things in perspective that's almost 10% of the total harddrive space available for XBoxOnefor just one game..

 

(Reddit screenshot below image)

 

But , the said amount is before it reserves space for Xbox One's OS and other functionalities.Everything taken into account with addition of free space for game saves, updates,downloadable titles & so forth,

 

Final tally for the total hard drive space comes to around 362GB hard drive space taken after installation about 14% is expected to be hogged by COD:AW

 

 

 

for those who are having worries this might take up too much space, the support page adds that you can hook up an external storage device to the Xbox One system, so long as it's over 256GB is size and uses USB 3.0

 

(trailer screenshot)

 

The said file size hints that there is going to be uncompresed game cut scenes to make things photo realistic as far as possible , Pretty darn good visual effects so far (note the quality of the game footage image above) ...The game is set to release internationally on November 4, 2014. it was announced on Tuesday that owners of last-gen versions Advanced Warfare would be able to upgrade to current generation for free, But remember only digital copies are valid for this, if you have bought a physical disc you're not qualified for the free upgrade

 

http://www.vg247.com/2014/10/09/call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-xbox-one-digital-file-size-revealed/

 

 

Bonus:

 

 

 

leave a like if you liked this post

& do post your thoughts & rants down beloooow......

 

(oh boy! get ready for #PCMASTERACE  & 'console sucks' posts <_<  )

 

nobody on LTT gives a rat's ass about xbox one.

 

what's the dl for pc?

 

actually, I don't care, not going to buy another COD game untile they fix the lag and hackers.

[Gr0egercesg]

This reminds me of Titanfall

Sorry console peasants, but I hope this game goes the same way.

[bcredeur97]

46 Gb? thats it?? Wow so only ~6 GB..

 

let me tell you thats a HUGE game!

 

its GB not Gb LEARN IT!

[ShadowCaptain]

I think this is partially due to bloat and partially due to them wanting it to be big. The bigger it is the better people might think it is. I would not be surprised if they could bring it down to maybe 20GB if they compressed stuff better (you can make files pretty small while still retaining 95%+ of the quality) and tried to optimize it more.

Perhaps by keeping it uncompressed files can be loaded faster, thus less overheads? perhaps to glean a few % extra performance out of the consoles?

[Misanthrope]

Perhaps by keeping it uncompressed files can be loaded faster, thus less overheads? perhaps to glean a few % extra performance out of the consoles?

 

It doesn't makes sense that a larger file would load faster than a smaller one: The processing power that might be needed is negligible for any modern GPU specially one in the likely listed as minimum required. The only real advantage might be visual fidelity but even that is bullshit: This is likely the same case as Watchdogs where it had massive install size and vram requirements yet the game looked no better than GTA IV for several textures: really fucking ugly and still ran like shit.

 

Like I said this is just 3 parts incompetence and 1 part placebo effect. 

[ShadowCaptain]

It doesn't makes sense that a larger file would load faster than a smaller one: The processing power that might be needed is negligible for any modern GPU specially one in the likely listed as minimum required. The only real advantage might be visual fidelity but even that is bullshit: This is likely the same case as Watchdogs where it had massive install size and vram requirements yet the game looked no better than GTA IV for several textures: really fucking ugly and still ran like shit.

 

Like I said this is just 3 parts incompetence and 1 part placebo effect. 

 

Of course it makes sense, if a file is compressed, it first has be uncompressed before it can be used, therefore each file has to be constantly uncompressed and recompressed by the machine whenever it accesses those files

[Misanthrope]

Of course it makes sense, if a file is compressed, it first has be uncompressed before it can be used, therefore each file has to be constantly uncompressed and recompressed by the machine whenever it accesses those files

 

Like I said the time it takes to decompress is tiny, almost non-existent for a modern GPU. 

[ShadowCaptain]

Like I said the time it takes to decompress is tiny, almost non-existent for a modern GPU. 

 

But this is a PS4/XBOX one.. not a GTX 980 

Even if it adds 5-10% performance is it not worth it? ..... I am merely speculating.. but it MIGHT be a reason

[Misanthrope]

But this is a PS4/XBOX one.. not a GTX 980 

Even if it adds 5-10% performance is it not worth it? ..... I am merely speculating.. but it MIGHT be a reason

 

I'd be surprised if it add 0.05 to 0.10% performance. But even if it's the massive numbers that you're suggesting which they're not, that's not really my fucking problem since I didn't decide to use an ancient GPU chip on those consoles now isn't it? 

 

That's the same argument if I would buy a GTX 970 today and it came with only 2 gb of video ram. Sure I might need uncompressed textures to squeeze an extra 0.05% of performance but the real issue here is that the numbskulls at Nvidia decided to launch a crippled product with enough horse power to handle textures but a puny amount of VRAM, I shouldn't have to have pretty damn large compromises on hdd size to compensate for their short comings.

 

But that's all an academic argument anyway, the difference in performance like I said, it's so small I'd be surprised if it resulted in even 1 extra FPS average.

[79wjd]

I'd be surprised if it add 0.05 to 0.10% performance. But even if it's the massive numbers that you're suggesting which they're not, that's not really my fucking problem since I didn't decide to use an ancient GPU chip on those consoles now isn't it? 

 

That's the same argument if I would buy a GTX 970 today and it came with only 2 gb of video ram. Sure I might need uncompressed textures to squeeze an extra 0.05% of performance but the real issue here is that the numbskulls at Nvidia decided to launch a crippled product with enough horse power to handle textures but a puny amount of VRAM, I shouldn't have to have pretty damn large compromises on hdd size to compensate for their short comings.

 

But that's all an academic argument anyway, the difference in performance like I said, it's so small I'd be surprised if it resulted in even 1 extra FPS average.

The important thing to consider is that optimizing code isn't cost effective. Its expensive (takes quite a bit of time) and has very little benefit. Storage is dirt cheap these days, therefore companies don't both optimizing code. This has been an "issue" for a long time, storage is just so cheap that optimizing code to take up as little space as possible just isn't worth the money. 

[LAwLz]

The important thing to consider is that optimizing code isn't cost effective. Its expensive (takes quite a bit of time) and has very little benefit. Storage is dirt cheap these days, therefore companies don't both optimizing code. This has been an "issue" for a long time, storage is just so cheap that optimizing code to take up as little space as possible just isn't worth the money. 

But the thing is that we are talking about a video file. I seriously doubt the Xbone is so underpowered that it can't play a video file when my Raspberry Pi can do it.

It's completely absurd to suggest that the Xbone is so underpowered that it can't even decode decently compressed video. I wouldn't be surprised if it required more power to play a lossless file than a lossy one at that. I don't feel like checking it out though so I could be wrong.

[79wjd]

But the thing is that we are talking about a video file. I seriously doubt the Xbone is so underpowered that it can't play a video file when my Raspberry Pi can do it.

It's completely absurd to suggest that the Xbone is so underpowered that it can't even decode decently compressed video. I wouldn't be surprised if it required more power to play a lossless file than a lossy one at that. I don't feel like checking it out though so I could be wrong.

Oh, I'm not saying its a performance issue, but rather its not worth the time to get the game into a more compressed form -- storage is cheaper than the amount of labor required to condense a game. 

[LAwLz]

Oh, I'm not saying its a performance issue, but rather its not worth the time to get the game into a more compressed form -- storage is cheaper than the amount of labor required to condense a game. 

Compressing textures, cutscenes and audio is not rocket science.

[Raid]

So? Plenty of large games these days. Even some PS3 games are over 40gb. This isn't notable anymore.

[Victorious Secret]

So? Plenty of large games these days. Even some PS3 games are over 40gb. This isn't notable anymore.

This game size isn't even new news for PC gamers.

It's how things are headed. Bigger everything. Gone are the days of being restricted to DVD sizes. Digital Downloads and 50GB BR discs allow for madness.

I guess this was a "hurr durr consoles suxxors cod wtf" attempt or something. It's barely news. This section used to have some standards about it.

[DildorTheDecent]

Seriously though the Xbox One comes with a 500GB HDD. Ten games later and it's full. Simply unacceptable. Then the consolians try and say that that is the optimization files...