211–220 of 267 posts
Games will be as large as they can be until it starts causing people not to buy the game. Before that point, no one will care. And as someone who just got 1.5Gbps internet installed, my tolerance for file size is continually increasing.
Your tolerance for file size is increasing but what about your SSD/HDD tolerance for file size ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blizzard us a bad example. Their games take incredible amounts of time to start. I think they dont play their own games and nobody gives a shit. The launcher is bugged and downloads either empty or 137mb patches (maybe bad CRC at some server? Different CRCs at some?). Every time. Starcraft remastered was bugged at some point and couldnt be played for a week. If you statt Heroes of the storm, it takes few minutes to d…
Your experience is not my experience at all. Blizzard is the gold standard for me in starting games faster than any other launcher. In fact they are the only one I’ve seen that lets you play the game part way into the download. No other dev seems to have this technology. I waited hours to play Witcher 3, Cuberpunk, Assassins Creed Odyssey. With WoW I was playing within minutes.
If you include download time, even that doesn't hold up to your claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your experience is not my experience at all. Blizzard is the gold standard for me in starting games faster than any other launcher. In fact they are the only one I’ve seen that lets you play the game part way into the download. No other dev seems to have this technology. I waited hours to play Witcher 3, Cuberpunk, Assassins Creed Odyssey. With WoW I was playing within minutes.
You waited hours... to play those games? From double clicking the icon to launch? I find that extremely hard to believe. If you include download time, even that doesn't hold up to your claim.
This is not an uncommon internet download speed even today (let alone 5 years ago when it launched) according to the steam download stats (it varies by country, check australia for example, US is a little over 100 average): https://store.steampowered.com/stats/content/
Even at 100Mb, 45GB is 1 hour. Witcher 3 looks to be about 30GB but Cyberpunk is apparently 70-100GB.
Do the math next time :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and if it weren't for the RTX graphics cards setting the precedent, there would probably be more research into making things prettier without having to "brute force" things. Not really. A lot of this research included making rudimentary versions of RTGI that could run on hardware of that age(see SVOGI). Of course you can bake everything and make amazing looking levels, that are completely static. But that doesn't w…
I'd rather have more RAM in the GPU and give up the ray tracing hardware. The real problem in the industry is that GPUs are not getting cheaper. It cost about $250 for an 6GB NVidia 1060 in 2016, and it costs about $250 for a basic NVidia card today that can do slightly better. Meanwhile, people are buying $100 WalMart laptops and trying to play games on them.
There’s still a gap between integrated and 250$ cards, but that’s mostly filled by used last generation cards.
Richg42 is great & his pieces are fun to read. I do think in this case he misses a bit of the point, goes too far: > They are designed for fast loading and streaming off SSD's. Who cares about saving off a few hundred ms (or a second) when it takes hours or days to download the product onto the SSD? Most games will have only one two or three downloads over the user's lifetime, and it'll never be instant, will always…
Are there any statistics on that? Because I have deleted and redownloaded games a whole bunch of times because you can't fit more than two or three games on a single SSD anymore.
I've played large games off of hard drives because I simply didn't want to delete 240GB of other files off of my main drive. The game experience was clearly much worse than the developers intended, but their space demands are unreasonable. Especially considering I'm only playing at 1080p!
Give me a 1080p installer that shaves off 75% of the texture size and you'll win more than a few milliseconds because the stupid thing can actually fit on my drive and doesn't need to come off the internet again.
The Moore's Law is Dead podcast recently did a podcast with an Infinity Ward award-winning effects artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmfHxJT1I3I . The crazy thing he mentioned is that if there was zero compression, the latest COD games genuinely had over 1 terabyte of uncompressed assets.
>The crazy thing he mentioned is that if there was zero compression, the latest COD games genuinely had over 1 terabyte of uncompressed assets. I think what this shows is there should be smart delivery of assets. Before installing perhaps you should be able to choose your graphical fidelity and only download assets related to that fidelity level and below. This makes manifest building and delivery more complicated, a…
The Diablo 4 beta had this option, drastically reducing the download size if you didn't need 4K
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your experience is not my experience at all. Blizzard is the gold standard for me in starting games faster than any other launcher. In fact they are the only one I’ve seen that lets you play the game part way into the download. No other dev seems to have this technology. I waited hours to play Witcher 3, Cuberpunk, Assassins Creed Odyssey. With WoW I was playing within minutes.
You waited hours... to play those games? From double clicking the icon to launch? I find that extremely hard to believe. If you include download time, even that doesn't hold up to your claim.
250gB? No problem with 1gb/S to 3gb/s fiber to the home. At least here in Ottawa, Canada Fiber to the home is prevalent and affordable. But I understand where fiber isn’t available these are large downloads.