I Simply Do Not Have Room On My PC For Starfield
Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.
Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.
I legitimately hope you're trolling.
Nah, you can find people complaining about games being too big in cycles going all the way back to the beginning of retail PC gaming. I remember Screen Savers built their "Ultimate Gaming PC" in like 1998 with a few gigabytes of storage, and they said something like, "I know that seems like a lot, but games these days can be hundreds of megabytes, so we want to be able to just fit them all". Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield are both large games. Not every game is that big, nor are these games necessarily doing something wrong by being that big.
SSD prices finally started dropping rapidly, and HDDs are even cheaper, for games like Sea of Stars or 30XX that don't need read speed performance, both of which have options to extend laptop storage space like the author's use case.
The sentiment isn't wrong. Space is cheap now. Had Star field come out when SSDs were having GPU-like pricing I'd be more outraged, but prices are falling and having multi-terabyte systems shouldn't be an issue. Way cheaper than GPUs that can play the game, that's for sure.
Look at moneybags over here throwing around cash instead of just making space
I've got a better idea. You want to make your game stupidly large? Ok fine, sell me a physical copy pre-installed on a fast USB stick. Job done.
Read speeds from a USB stick are incomparably slower than most hard drives. The USB 3.0 specification has a theoretical maximum transfer rate of 5Gb/sec (~600MB/s). By comparison, my PCIe 4.0 NVMe (I believe most laptops these days come with NVMe storage? Could be wrong) has a read performance, reported by CrystalDiskMark, of 7.3GB/s (that's a big B, not a little b, and looking at 1MiB sequential 1 thread 8 queues). In other words, my hard drive's measured performance is 12x faster than the theoretical maximum throughput of a USB drive. This also doesn't take into account things like DirectStorage, which some games have started to adopt.
I think realistically games should consider separating the higher quality assets from the low quality assets intended for lower performance systems, and make them separate downloads. HD assets could be a free "DLC" on Steam, for example.
That would work only in the console (or Apple) world where you can control who and how can access the data. Otherwise someone will stick it to an USB 1.1 hub connected to the USB 2.0 port for the mouse and then complain "the game is unbearably slow!!!!"
Plus I don't think anyone would want to pay $150 for a game (no, you can't use a $10 USB drive for this)
It’s a touch trickier to upgrade a laptop, which the writer is talking about.
I'd be inclined to agree but I'm frankly somewhat at a loss from this articles perspective. Why a 256gb boot drive in 2023? I'm only assuming, based on the math. If it were 512GB I'd assume they'd be able to shuffle off more data. If it's important files you need to access, store them on an external HDD? If they're a gamer and they know space is an issue, a SSD enclosure is not much more added cost to a 1TB drive and it solves the issue...
Like I said, I understand the intent about game sizes. But people playing BG3 or Starfield on their laptop are going to have other issues on top of storage, since most laptops have a pretty linear upgrade path. If you have the 256gb model the rest of the hardware probably reflects that pricepoint. Like @bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com said, at a certain point the idea of a game coming preloaded on a USB drive makes sense, but until then the ease for general use of an SSD enclosure makes more sense.
They are a game reviewer, it's kinda embarrassing that they don't hve a decent setup to playtest the games they review.
Most laptops come with an empty SATA or NVME drive.
I'm kind of sad about how large games have become and how little goes into optimizing that since "space is cheap"; though it seems people don't really care about the bandwidth (environmental) cost of downloading that now that everything has gone digital (not that I'm saying physical doesn't have waste).
I just kind of wish there were alternates, maybe high-res (free) DLC packs or audio localization packs which I feel like were done in the past but never really became a thing. I find myself sticking to indie games that are only hundreds of MBs instead.
I don't think the article provides any conclusions besides beat games faster to delete them to clear space.
how little goes into optimizing that since “space is cheap”
More and more developers seem to assume everyone else can afford what they consider to be cheap, and feel entitled to gobble up all the resources on other people's systems as if they aren't needed for anything else.
And speaking of environmental costs, there's also the pollution and e-waste generated by constantly pushing people to upgrade their hardware instead of optimizing the software.
As a developer myself, I find it embarrassing and sad.
More and more developers seem to assume everyone else can afford what they consider to be cheap, and feel entitled to gobble up all the resources on other people’s systems as if they aren’t needed for anything else.
It's adding insult to injury when most of these games are now also launching at $70-80 these days, too.
I'm fully behind the idea that you should be able to opt for not downloading the biggest texture files and 3D assets, if you're gonna play at low settings, anyway.
But it's worth noting that "optimizing" the file sizes of high-fidelity games isn't really possible. You can't compress textures or 3D assets the same way you might an RGB image. Game textures contain a lot more layers than just color, in modern games they can contain material, depth and specularity maps, just to name a few. And that's before considering any accompanying bre-baked lighting data that entire levels may come with, which trades in the need to real-time render stuff for doing it in advance and storing how something is supposed to look, and shipping it alongside the game.
None of this can be easily compressed. It has to be retained losslessly, or you risk rendering artefacts.
Also, most game distribution services will send you an AGGRESSIVELY compressed (as in packed as a whole, using great amounts of CPU to pack it smaller without data loss) format, which your PC/console unpacks as it downloads. They too have every reason to save bandwidth.
But even then, you seldom see data savings of more than 10-30%. There just aren't that many corners to cut.
I’m not a game dev, but from my modding experience it depends on the game.
MOST of the games that have these insane file sizes actually do it to cut down on processing and on load time and reduce pop-in. If a texture or level doesn’t need any decompression, it loads faster. So entirely depends on the asset. So a lot of games do still compress textures. That’s why there’s a discrepancy between the data downloaded in steam and the actual runtime storage requirement.
The 3D models themselves are usually lower space. As is dialog and audio. Though all of those will be mildly compressed probably.
Texture block compression exists, and some of the available algorithms have fairly little impact on rendered visuals.
As you noted, asset scaling also exists in various forms, from mip mapping to audio codecs to alternate asset packs. Imagery intended for 4k and 8k displays is wasteful for people gaming in 1080p, let alone 720p.
The techniques required to cut down on bloat are well known. Some games just aren't using them, or aren't using them effectively. There's definitely room for improvement here.
Space might be cheap, but SSDs are too small for the slot they take up that could've had a much bigger HDD, and now graphics cards are so big there's physically less room for disks and cables too.
I don't want all SSDs to have room for all the games and nothing else.
I’d love to play through the Mass Effect remastered collection on my steam deck but it’s ridiculous that it makes you download all 3 games (100+ GB). On the other hand, Halo MCC is actually good about this and lets you download only the games you want to play at the moment
Even through toy have to download them, doesn't mean you have to keep them. After download ING you can go to the install action path and the delete the other two games you don't want.
Even old games like CSGO are large in size now.. 4K as a free DLC is a good idea!
Whom ever wrote this article is a massive idiot.
Seems like the common vibe in "gaming" articles lately. Low hanging fruit Clickbait slathered in ads and autoplaying videos.
Firefox has a setting to disable autoplaying of videos (default setting is to autoplay muted for some reason). It's in Settings > Site Permissions > Autoplay.
My man is trying to install both games on a PlayStation One memory card
Look at this guy trying to play 2 games.
Shit, I know someone who had to purchase an extra SSD just to dedicate it to Call of Duty.
They’re also playing the games on their laptop for some reason, which is certainly an interesting choice for two of the biggest games of the year.
They might not actually have a choice about playing on a laptop if they normally play on a PS5. Baldur’s Gate isn’t out on PS5 yet and Starfield is Xbox/PC exclusive.
Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.
Damn dude. You only have ~200GB of storage space? Upgrade your HDD/SSD, for real. I don't even review games for a living and I have 2.5TB. I can definitely fit both games. And then some.
This artificial battle of the VASTLY DIFFERENT STYLE RPGs is fucking bizarre and just a made up issue to get clicks, I swear to Christ.
That's a silly excuse. At roughly $20 / TB, a 150gb game shouldn't be an issue
Where do you get your hard drives? Cheapest 1tb SSD I can get is $65, and the cheapest 1tb nvme drive is $80.
It does depend on the device though. A desktop PC can easily be upgraded with a new drive, but a laptop it may not be as easy, or in some cases, not possible at all. Could always use an external drive, but those are usually more expensive and quite inconvenient if you move the laptop around.
If you're paying $20/TB, you're probably getting ripped off with some counterfeit garbage from a no-name Chinese Amazon seller that's not even close to the advertised capacity. I wouldn't put anything on one of those drives that I have any intention of keeping for longer than a week at that price.
They might be talking about Hard Drive, which often goes on sale at 200$ for 10TB or 160$ for 8TB (and so on). SSDs are obviously more expensive.
Idk about this price I call shenanigans. I just bought an m.2 drive 2tb for $80 and that was a DEAL for me.
So here's some perspective from a poor grad student's life:
After getting the m.2 and an m.2 housing to do the transfer that left me broke for some time considering I only make $10/hr + (shitty commission) and bills/food are insane.
What I really need to upgrade now is my processor, but again doing something like this really is a luxury. Are all my bills paid? Have I spent a good amount on food recently? Like right now I need an oil change and some new tires so that's yet another month AT LEAST of putting off the upgrade.
Before I was putting it off bc I had to move to go back to school and I hadn't found a job yet in the new location.
Before that I was putting it off to save up for the process of moving and buying out of my old lease after a crazy roommate disagreement (I always have roommates bc I can't afford to live by myself).
Before that I had to help a friend get out of an abusive relationship and support them for a while, while they got back on their feet.
Before that my other friend blew up my car's engine and I had to blow every cent of my savings on a new car.
And while it's true that I could've probably tightened my belt a few times or cut out an unnecessary luxury here or there to get the upgrades I wanted the bottom line is: priority.
The REAL bottom line is: buying games is expensive all by itself and frankly I'd rather come home crack open a beer and try to forget that I'm selling every hour of my life to my capitalist overlords than I would have a few extra fps. I'd rather cut myself some slack/some time to study by eating out for a night than be able to hold a bunch of these mega giant ass games on my drive.
I'd MUCH rather gaming companies take care of THEIR workers and give them reasonable time frames to finish games and optimize them than I would have a brand new triple A title come out glitchy as fuck just in time for whatever holiday season they think my poor ass will be able to afford it (spoiler that season is steam summer sale bc I'll be damned if I buy 99% of games full price.)
tl;dr gaming may be one of my getaways from life but I'd rather game companies prioritize giving their workers time to optimize and complete games. I'd rather me prioritize the small day to day luxuries that get me by in life than prioritize having a baller computer to play those glitchy unfinished unoptimized new titles.
This resonates so much with me. I was hoping to upgrade my GPU this summer, and... yeah, that hasn't happened. But new release games are almost always a mess for the price paid, and there's an awful lot of indie games that run perfectly on my computer as it is right now. I don't think people like us are the target demographic of AAA studios.
like i usually hate the whole, "buy a 2tb ssd, its only like $60" line. like to a lot of people that isn't something you can just drop casually for a video game (especially on top of the price of the game itself!) but I don't really think thats the perspective this writer is coming from.
Same. Those comments are coming from a place of privilege.
A lot of people in a first world country can't afford splurges like that anymore. In third world countries it's even worse. Because of import fees, scarcity, and price gauging, a $60 SSD can easily become $100+. In some countries that's over half of the average monthly income
Counterpoint: If not having room for a $70 game because there's a $60 game already on there (which also isn't normally a problem for him because his main gaming system is his $500 gaming console) is an issue, then the article is already being written from a position of privilege.
Yup. And with regional pricing, the discrepancy between a game's price and hardware price is even greater.
For example, BG3 is around 15 dollars in Argentina, but a 2TB SSD is around 130 dollars.
Sounds like you need to finish BG3 before starting Starfield.
No space? Lol, clearly you’ve never played ARK Survival Evolved
isnt that only 400 something GB?
Content behind an anti-blocker wall. How much space does this game take?
PC is about 130 GB I believe.
My preload is currently sitting at 117GB according to Windows's move programs list
Get an external SSD if you can't open the laptop, Modern laptops will have a fast usb c port available (I use mine for VR).
They also talk about playing ToTK on the laptop too...
"Will Tears of the Kingdom take up the space they otherwise would have occupied?"
I know you can emulate but this writer wtf
There was talk about making "steam deck optimized" versions of games that would ditch high resolution assets as they would be pointless on a 720p display. Nothing seems to have materialized.
That said, there are reasons why games are taking more and more space. Game assets cannot be compressed the same way image files intended for humans can. They have to be stored losslessly, or there WILL be rendering artefacts. And a material or texture in a game is composed of a lot more layers than just an RGB image (normal maps, specular maps, material maps, depth maps). And modern game-engines can pre-bake a lot of things that otherwise would have to be rendered in real-time. That pre-baked render data has to be stored, preferably in high resolution to avoid aliasing, and shipped along with all the other game files.
Games aren't ballooning in size for no reason. Stuff like pre-baking essentially trades storage for the ability to get the same looks for less processing. More data layers in textures and materials allows rendering to take shortcuts in how the appearance of a surface is calculated, etc. etc. etc.
But none of this would prevent the option to not download these resource files for ALL detail levels. If you're not gonna run a game on ultra textures, you don't need those files sitting on your drive.
Yea, some kind of custom install would be good. Can't be hard to program a dialogue before download that'll select the right assets to install, saving both disk space and bandwidth.
Honestly I'm much more worried about bullshit fucking Xfinity bandwidth caps than drive space.
I mean, I can kind of understand why giant RPGS like BG3 and Starfield need to be so large, but it just feels like every game nowadays is going to eat up a huge chunk of your storage no matter what it is. With both console and PC games moving to SSD as the standard storage medium, I'm hoping that developers will actually figure out how to optimize for storage space, but I'm not holding my breath.
Starfield heavily leans on procedural generation. It would be many times bigger if it didn't. BG3 has something like 170 hours of recorded dialogue. Cutting down means getting of features.
So no, there is no room for optimization here. These games are just going to be that big, period. People just need to accept that they will have to get giant SSDs in the future.
There is most definitely room for improvement. Small example: a lot of games' downloads nowadays contain all the voicelines in every language in high quality audio files. Pretty much nobody will ever play a game in multiple different languages.
Another one: games come with 4k-textures now. Only a small fraction of players actually use a 4k display. Those textures eat up a lot of space and most players dont get anything out of them.
I mean 2TB SSDs are cheap now. Let’s be conservative and say your OS and programs take up 500GB. Are people really playing 10+ games simultaneously? I don’t get why people in here are so worked up. I would love for my entire library to fit on my computer locally; would I actually take advantage? Probably not. Just uninstall whatever you haven’t played in awhile. I highly doubt the ONLY game the OOP has installed is BG3.
Baldurs gate 3 is the vetter game anyway soo.. ¯(ツ)_/¯ my personal plan is to jump on starfield much later when the bugs are fixed and the modding community is matured a little
You dropped these:
\
I remember when GTA 5 hit PC in 2015 and was around 90 gigs. Seems like we've finally hit the point where most AAA games are around its size. How time flies...
Yeah I remember that too. Doom 2016 was like 70 gbs and there were gaming news articles about it. Now 70 is on the low end for AAA.
I recall it boggling my mind that GTAIV was 15GB (two dual layer DVDs basically) now I have copies of movies that large kicking around on my NAS.
Idc about the size of games because I just download them when I need. 1gigabit down gang.
You still have until the 6th, better get off Lemmy and play ;D
An SSD upgrade to 2TB or something would cost less than the game does these days. Or if they're on an extreme budget they can probably find a basic 500GB or 1TB SSD for $10-15 used somewhere.
Games really need a solution similar to Android.
Have a lower res screen? Only need to download 1080p assets and textures.
Have a 4k screen? Good luck to your SSD.
