this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
117 points (92.1% liked)
Games
31805 readers
1207 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
According to a friend who had the displeasure of looking at the file size, he claims it's 170GB when all is said and done... Stupid ~~Sony~~ square refusing to let steam preload...
170 GB is insane. Publishers should really get punished for making larger than average deliveries. Most of that size usage usually comes from poor optimization.
They're typically optimizing for fidelity and performance ahead of install size. Multiple LODs can balloon an install size quite quickly, but they'll give you better bang for your buck in other areas, and storage space is a concern that dissipates more in time, as you upgrade to newer machines.
I have seen this theory floated a few times. The problem is that reading uncompressed files from disk can often be slower than reading less data and decompressing it on the fly efficiently. Would be interesting to see actual studies of this for common game data.
It was faster to load the higher resolution data back in the early 2010s on HDDs, so I don't imagine it got any better for using compression now that we're on SSDs.
What’s Sony got to do with this? It’s entirely developed and published by Square.
Yeah true, I had Sony on the brain from a previous comment in this thread lol