What size of a PC game you are comfortable with?
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
I stopped buying new games when physical discs went the way of the Dodo. I have plenty of older games that would keep me entertained till I die (I think I won't even get to finish most of them), so I don't have a direct stake in this discussion.
Just wanted to say it amazes me when I read here how big games have gotten. I still sometimes get surprised at Word documents that wouldn't fit on a floppy anymore. And I remember running Civ 2 from an external Zip disc because I didn't have the space on my HDD ( the game came on a single CD). It was a bitch waiting for the advisors to load from what was essentially a 100MB floppy connected through a parallel port. But I digress. The point is, anything that wouldn't fit on a DVD is absolutely unfathomable for me, and you people are talking about 100GB+ games here...
-
still using 2016 budget GPU (1050Ti).
Check out the Intel b580, your 2019 hardware should support rebar. (An bios update might be required). It's a phenomenal upgrade for around
$250USBut I feel you on the bandwidth issue. I've had to give up on some games that frequently update.
wrote last edited by [email protected]your 2019 hardware should support rebar
Arc seems to take issue with low bandwidth even with rebar on (I suspect an architecture/pipeline issue), both because PCIe3.0 and older CPUs (less IPC/frequency?).
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
My issue is more because of bandwidth than storage, anything over 20gb means I'm not downloading it at home unless I super super super want to play the game, because at 20gb that's probably an all day long download and will fuck my net for the day
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
40-50GB is enough for a 1080P game.
If you want 2/4K textures, add a free DLC to the store page like Fallout 4 did.
-
I stopped buying new games when physical discs went the way of the Dodo. I have plenty of older games that would keep me entertained till I die (I think I won't even get to finish most of them), so I don't have a direct stake in this discussion.
Just wanted to say it amazes me when I read here how big games have gotten. I still sometimes get surprised at Word documents that wouldn't fit on a floppy anymore. And I remember running Civ 2 from an external Zip disc because I didn't have the space on my HDD ( the game came on a single CD). It was a bitch waiting for the advisors to load from what was essentially a 100MB floppy connected through a parallel port. But I digress. The point is, anything that wouldn't fit on a DVD is absolutely unfathomable for me, and you people are talking about 100GB+ games here...
What games do you like.?
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
I see a game more than a 1.5 gigs, I start having second thoughts. I only play indie games, though.
-
What games do you like.?
Anything that doesn't require hand-eye coordination. This is not due to age; I just always sucked at that. So, turn-based strategies (Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Panzer General) and RPGs with turn-based combat (Might and Magic, Wizardry, SSI Gold and Silver Box games), or the combination of both genres (UFO: Enemy Unknown, Jagged Alliance). Come think of, none of those should require a lot of HDD space anyway.
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
I can take a huge pc game, deep and hard into my hard drive.
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
30gb or maybe 40gb tops
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
10GB max otherwise I'm not going to keep it installed
-
My understanding is that the vast majority of space is dedicated to high resolution textures. I don't have a 4k monitor and I don't need ultra high fidelity textures. Why can't they just be an additional download rather than a required part?
I think 50gb is a fairly reasonable max size for most games.
This is true. Almost all time it’s the textures and the sound files. Even more, time to time devs choose not to compress them as decompression could be a performance bottleneck. Deep Rock Galactic is good example for that, the game is 4 gb because there’s no textures in it except UI brushes. All 3D models of the game uses very clever Vertex Coloring techniques instead.
You might be right with it could be optional, but I’m guessing it will be a deployment hell since Steam’s (only platform that matters) underlying mechanisms doesn’t directly support it, and when it’s done with workarounds it becomes a convoluted process for end users - especially when you consider most users will download the full pack anyway.
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
About a year ago I got a high-speed (so-called "gaming") hard drive on sale for about 100 USD. It has 8TB, so I kinda stopped uninstalling games or worrying about file sizes.
I don't really play any games that have more than 80GB file size anyway, but I imagine at around 90-100 is when I'd start being reluctant to download.
As for what I prefer, I feel like smaller file sizes usually yield better games on average. If I find a game that has 100MB download, I'm already lookin like this:
I'm pretty happy with anything up to 10GB. If the original Dark Souls (my favorite game) is 8GB, surely that's within an order of magnitude of the maximum file size a game can reasonably be, for me at least. -
My issue is more because of bandwidth than storage, anything over 20gb means I'm not downloading it at home unless I super super super want to play the game, because at 20gb that's probably an all day long download and will fuck my net for the day
Honestly, this is one of the best arguments for repackers. Why use a 20GB download when a repacker can fit it into 10 or 15GB instead?
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
wrote last edited by [email protected]1 GB is very good, 10 GB is good, 30 GB is okay, 60 GB is very big.
Warranted or usefulness depends on the game.
I would prefer titles like battlefield offering downloading or dropping only singleplayer and multiplayer.
Guild Wars 1 offered streaming on demand, or predownloading all data. It was possible back then, and would be possible today.
-
1 GB is very good, 10 GB is good, 30 GB is okay, 60 GB is very big.
Warranted or usefulness depends on the game.
I would prefer titles like battlefield offering downloading or dropping only singleplayer and multiplayer.
Guild Wars 1 offered streaming on demand, or predownloading all data. It was possible back then, and would be possible today.
For me on guild wars 1 I just downloaded the thing. Didn’t realize it could be streamed.
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
I think it would all really depend on what the game was capable of. Think of something like guild wars 2 which takes 70 gigs.
If they made all of the NPC’s in that game, be interactive, and somehow added in AI for its dialogue. I don’t like AI talking, but if there were chats that you could do with random NPC‘s. I’d happily double that size for hard drive space.
No, the NPC‘s had voice actors, not AI speech, but actual voice actors human beings who recorded dialogue. And I could actually have a conversation ‘s. Quadruple the space if you wanted to.
-
In years prior there were a lot of games and a shifting understanding of what hardware they can require. While gfx needs changed rapidly, hard drive space requirements went up steadily, predictably. As most of us have long abandoned physical media sales and use digital downloads instead, this number has stopped to be defined by the medium's capacity.
Before and now we had outliers like MMORPGs and movie-like games requiring more estate, while other games like Deep Rock Galactic needing just 4GBs, but there always was some number of gigabytes you as a consumer thought a new game would take.
Where's that sweet spot now for you?
For me, it's 60GB, or a 40-80GB range. Something less or more than that causes questions and assumptions. I have a lot of space, but I'd probably decline if some game would exceed 2x of my norm or 120GB of storage.
I went to install Knights of the Old Republic last night, it's on sale for $3.00 on steam. Misclicked on Star Wars: The Old Republic, and had a moment of shock when the install size was over 50 gig. Then I realized my error. 3 gigs is much more understandable.
Maybe I should do a let's play. I've never played the game and have managed to avoid most spoilers.....
-
your 2019 hardware should support rebar
Arc seems to take issue with low bandwidth even with rebar on (I suspect an architecture/pipeline issue), both because PCIe3.0 and older CPUs (less IPC/frequency?).
Oh interesting, I'll need to look into that more.
I'd expect that it's much better than a 1050. And still probably best in slot at that price point. (For new hardware)
Perhaps a used 1080ti would be better but I doubt a system with a 1050 has the power supply for that.
-
Anything that doesn't require hand-eye coordination. This is not due to age; I just always sucked at that. So, turn-based strategies (Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Panzer General) and RPGs with turn-based combat (Might and Magic, Wizardry, SSI Gold and Silver Box games), or the combination of both genres (UFO: Enemy Unknown, Jagged Alliance). Come think of, none of those should require a lot of HDD space anyway.
Very cool! I missed the boat on HoMM3 but there is a new game out called Songs of Silence that is a similar vibe and I love it.
-
This is true. Almost all time it’s the textures and the sound files. Even more, time to time devs choose not to compress them as decompression could be a performance bottleneck. Deep Rock Galactic is good example for that, the game is 4 gb because there’s no textures in it except UI brushes. All 3D models of the game uses very clever Vertex Coloring techniques instead.
You might be right with it could be optional, but I’m guessing it will be a deployment hell since Steam’s (only platform that matters) underlying mechanisms doesn’t directly support it, and when it’s done with workarounds it becomes a convoluted process for end users - especially when you consider most users will download the full pack anyway.
I feel like the deployment shouldn't be too difficult. I have the game Street Fighter 6 on steam, and there is an option in the steam menu for whether to download single player content or not. If you disable it, you can save about 20gb, and of course it is enabled by default. I feel like the exact same process could be used for the high end texture packs. Most users would just download everything by default, but if you are someone who cares about your disk space, you could just easily disable it. It would just be on the devs to implement it.
