Lots up new updates and fixes.
I was planning to buy Sea of Thieves last week, but my friend bought it first and warned me about the size.
It looks really fun, but not 100GB fun.
Also, if the dev kit really costs 100GB of space, I predict further wins for the indie retro game makers.
(Edit: The Dev kit costing 100GB seems to be a misquote by the article. Sea of Thieves release notes blame kit updates for the overall size, but not for all of it. https://www.seaofthieves.com/release-notes)
Fun fact: 100GB is enough space to store every single video game ever made until around mid 1995.
Systems before the N64 don’t really meaningfully use up any of your 100GB. The entirety of everything ever published for the Atari takes less space, combined, than a three page Word document.
The N64 library is the earliest game system to take up a meaningful portion of your 100GB, with every published game combined adding up to almost 32GB.
The 1995 date is because the PlayStation One finally released, with a huge launch catalog, and some games that take up to 3GB each, adding enough storage to the whole world’s gaming library to finally push through the 100GB.
While I agree that 100gb is big this is such a weird take. I’m no game making expert but you’re comparing games that used low bitrate audio (no voice over for the most part) had 2D sprites, and 3D characters with 300 polys max to games that use HD textures, have high poly detailed characters, use high bitrate audio (most games have thousands of lines of dialogue) and pre rendered cutscenes that are usually even higher quality than the games graphics. There is just so much more than there use to be and such higher quality. It’s like saying pamphlets are better than books because I can shove more of them in my bag.
A lot of games for early consoles and PCs also had to optimise and squeeze the last few kilobytes out of the space that was available to them in distribution - which forced some devs to compromise on quality and others became extremely crafty and made completely novel approaches for data compression at the time. This may be just my personal opinion but i feel like games that pushed the envelope, furthered mechanics and technology beyond what everybody else was doing and therefore needed smart devs with good ideas to actually pull it off… just were more fun to play. Today studios can throw assets like you described uncompressed on a server and call it a day, less consideration, faster development turnover, better for the publishers but probably not as polished of a game. Not saying that only uber-brainiacs who can code in 10 different assembly dialects should make games but rather that more bigger, more polys, more resolution, more everything is not always better.
Pamphlets are indeed better imo if they convey the same information as a 500 page book that describes everything in excruciating detail 🙃
Pamphlets are indeed better imo if they convey the same information as a 500 page book that describes everything in excruciating detail 🙃
I guess you’ve got me there. I do prefer straight to the point if it’s just giving me factiy information. But for a story like In a game I feel the “book” would still be my choice. The details is what makes it good (for most games).
you’re comparing games that used low bitrate audio
It is a weird take. It’s a rant meant to amuse.
I’m not actually mad that any game in 2024 takes up 100GB.
I am kinda mad, if it’s true, that the development kit takes up 100GB. That’s insane to use up 100GB before adding a single piece of the actual game.
I also am a little cranky that a game about cartoon pirates is asking for 100GB.
I’ve heard it’s an amazing game about cartoon pirates. But still…100GB for cartoon pirates. I’ve never thought to myself “this cartoon game about pirates isn’t realistic enough”, or “gee, I hope this cartoon game about pirates has full video voice acted cut-scenes.”
I’m willing to accept that I’m wrong about this, but I won’t find out until I pick up a bigger SD card and don’t mind the storage cost so much. (Which I’m not, at this moment, planning to bother doing for this cartoon game about pirates.)
Fair enough, and I do see where you’re coming from. The game itself is pretty fun, but it is rather large.
Cinematic movies/cut-scenes, that’s what takes up a lot of space on a bunch of games starting from the ps1 on.
My Microsoft Flight Simulator install is currently sitting at 800GB between official content and third party planes and scenery.
That’s pretty cool. Flight simulator’s are trying to simulate the whole planet. Even I can’t get mad at that game for being big.
I really don’t get this complaint. Don’t most hard drives start at 500gb-1gb? I keep lots of games on mine and 4 are 100gb+
Forget it, he’s rolling… https://youtu.be/q7vtWB4owdE?si=TKx3npX0WRNg6yWs
Not every player of PC games is playing on a PC, anymore. A gamer on the original Steam deck base model starts with 64GB storage, and has to buy SD cards to get more.
https://www.makeuseof.com/steam-deck-model-comparison/
100GB for one game, in 2024, generally means some other game is getting removed to make space.
In my case, Sea of Thieves is asking for $40.00 and for me to remove the entire Halo Anniversary Collection. I don’t mind the $40.00, but the surprise need for 100GB is why I didn’t pull the trigger on the purchase.
At some point, I’ll buy yet another larger SD card, and maybe take a another look.
But 100GB is a big ask by a game about cartoon pirates.
