What size of a PC game you are comfortable with?
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I doubt a system with a 1050 has the power supply for that
Remember that was an outlier for the build. PSU is 650w silver. Though it's currently nice to not need a GPU power cable.
I'm mostly happy with 1050Ti performance level for what I do. Probably will just stick with it unless I could get used AMD (for better time on Linux), like an 8GiB Polaris card for a moderate uplift. Probably not considering I don't know anyone and don't feel like buying used online.
-
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.
40-70 GBs is the sweet spot for me. My Wi-Fi can download it within a day usually and I can fit a bunch of them onto my 1 TB SSD
-
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.
.kkrieger is damn cool, it is a full 3D FPS that only takes up less than 100 kilobytes.
The game was released in the demoscene back in 2004.
I have played it, it is damn impressive feom a technical point of view, but it isn't very fun as a game. Visually it is stunning when you consider the size and the tech at the time, it looks quite atmospheric with bloom and impressive textures.
Nostalgia Nerd made a video about it:
-
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.
-
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 hope at one point, big game devs optimize their game sizes. If I'm correct, a big chunk of modern game sizes (this big ones) are 4k textures and similar items that 90% of people dont need, why haven't these been deparated from the core game as free DLC?
Anything bigger than 50gb makes me quite upset.
-
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.
Internet speeds are kind of irrelevant to me. I can download and install Helldivers 2 in the space of 15 minutes. So speed is irrelevant. Space, also kind of irrelevant but not nearly as much. Most of my space is dominated by memes, I wonder why. However, nonetheless, 20 gigs. It pisses me off when I see anything that goes above 50 or 70, and I don't know if that's just from playing on console for years or what, but it drives me absolutely fucking insane.
-
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 you've never played an indie game. 60 gb? That's like 50 game installs right there.
-
I see you've never played an indie game. 60 gb? That's like 50 game installs right there.
Some of my favs I consider indie went well over that 60GB mark. If you agree on swedes from FatShark being indie, I can explain their funny fuckery, probably in a separate post.
-
For me on guild wars 1 I just downloaded the thing. Didn’t realize it could be streamed.
To predownload everything, you had to run it with a
-imagelaunch parameter. So if you "just downloaded the thing", you probably used the normal streaming approach of it downloading stuff on demand.
