Live data from Hacker News

Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

richg42.blogspot.com

181–190 of 267 posts

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The uncompressed audio was on purpose to manage CPU usage, you can find quotes explaining this in interviews. https://www.escapistmagazine.com/titanfall-dev-explains-the-... I can attest that MP3 and OGG decompression (the two audio codecs that would have likely been used at the time) are both pretty slow. It adds up.

What a bunch of absolute horse shit. MP3 isn't slow. I was playing MP3s on a 100 Mhz 486 DX4 in 1996. Certainly a system in 2014 can handle decompressing MP3s on the fly. Even if you didn't want to do it on the fly during game play, they easily could have been decompressed at load time and it would have taken only a couple seconds. It's not like ENTIRE 35 GB of audio needed to be loaded all at once, nobody had that R…

Let me tell you a story about playing The Settlers IV on a 233Mhz 64MB RAM Voodo 3 2000. This game was cool in that it had two audio features: a soundtrack on the CD itself, played using the CD drive's DAC [^1], and you could also drop MP3 files into a folder where the game would play those instead. It was common practice to use a NoCD crack when playing online, because the CD check took long enough you could time out of the lobby, and if you forgot the CD you got booted. That meant most online gamers had MP3 files, and no CD.

The minimum requirements to play this game were a 200MHz CPU w/ MMX and 64MB RAM - I was pretty close to this baseline. So anyway, I discovered that the game played at much better FPS (like 30 instead of 5) if you turned the music off - but only when playing MP3 - CD Audio had no hit. Now perhaps the game used a sub-par audio codec, but that single MP3 decode stream was enough to make the game unplayable.

Anyway that's not to say that I would expect MP3 decoding to be a problem in 2014, in fact you can likely play audio with no noticable increase on CPU usage, but when you have multi-stream audio (think voices, background music, sound effects from various channels - guns, explosions, etc.) I can see it starting to add up - especially when the CPU is already constrained for the graphics, game logic and perhaps of course everyone's favourite anti-piracy/anti-cheat logic.

[^1] For younger readers, yes, CD Drives used to come with built-in DACs and a special cable you could hook directly into the audio card, allowing you to listen to CD Audio on PC for "basically" free in terms of CPU cycles.

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#182
post #79
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The .kkreiger devs really showed how far you can go to reduce download size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya_MUKc343U It is dated, but looks pretty good by 2004 standards.

While I'm all for reducing download sizes, perhaps lekktor[1] is a bridge too far. [1]: https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/metaprogramming-for...

Sure. Focus on the procedural textures and see where that gets you.

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all we know it actually worked that way. Steam definitely decompresses game assets at install time. The people complaining about game sizes aren't looking at the depot files you download when installing the game, they're looking at their HDD (which is fair!) My guess is Valve doesn't offer a 'decompress your ogg files to wav at install time' feature though.

Titanfall did work this way on the EA launcher. There was a tool that it'd run on first launch to decompress the compressed audio files.

But why.

Even when you do want lossless assets, as long as you compress in reasonable chunks there is no downside.

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#185
post #84

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 ?

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#186

Rich is a compression expert who wrote a good post, and there are some good comments in this thread already, but a few key summary points to help people understand the tradeoffs here: * Steam, Itch, etc all compress game files before sending them to you over the network for an install. The amount of stuff you download is usually much less than what gets stored on disk. There are still games with unusually massive upd…

Not sure why this isn't top post. Also not sure why the author of the post wasn't clear in a lot of these trade offs.

It is either the author is missing the point, or am I missing something?

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#188
post #12

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…

> 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.

War Thunder does this - in the game launcher you can choose whether you want the highest resolution textures and most detailed models or not. You can even get a minimal client without vehicle interiors as well (only 3rd person camera available).

It makes a lot of sense to me, to the point where it's surprising that all games aren't embracing this approach. I mean, I don't have a lot of storage, nor good hardware - why should I be forced to download high detail assets that I'll never even see because instead all of the models will be at lower LODs and all the textures will be of a lower resolution.

It feels like the game engine developers don't really care about bundling assets by fidelity and each game acts like it just owns your entire disk.

That's precisely why I don't really play AAA titles anymore and mostly go for pixel graphics and indie titles. There are actually surprisingly few well optimized games out there.

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#189
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree - OP even links to this[1] PC gamer article which calls out Hitman 3 as having a much smaller size compared to Hitman 2 (and Hitman 3 includes all of Hitman 2 ). How did they do it? Compression[2]. [1] https://www.pcgamer.com/biggest-game-install-sizes/ [2] https://www.pcgamer.com/how-hitman-3s-devs-shrank-the-entire...

There was more to it than just compression. Hitman 2 allowed the player to install/uninstall each level individually, and the way that was implemented meant that each level had its own copy of every asset it contained. Hitman 3 removed that option and simply shipped every level in one unified package, with assets used in multiple levels only stored once.

Hitman 2 had 6-8? locations. They could have pretty easily packed the assets into a hundred files based on use and made each level install a different subset.

Re: Faster LZ is not the answer to 150-250 GB video game downloads

#190
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blizzard sorted the high res textures and some of the raids last so that you could start playing the game halfway through the download. Another problem is chunking the data properly so that incremental updates are not hugs.

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.

Post reply on HN