![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Game file sizes are on the rise with no sign of stopping."
Nah, that sounds like yet another dumbfuck AAA modern video game industry problem to me. The games I've been playing lately, even recently released stuff, have been anywhere from maybe 20-40GB at the very most to, more typically, around 2-5GB, with a lot of them being only a few hundred MB, and they skew more to the lower end of that range than the higher, overall.
(EDIT)
Some outliers to the above that I've played: Red Dead Redemption 2 clocks in, Steam says, at 119.45GB. Grand Theft Auto V is 108.53GB, according to Steam. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is 78.49GB. Horizon: Zero Dawn at 72.21GB. All of these are games that I have played, to varying extents, though none that I have actually completed. None of these games are currently installed on my computer. (I have had some increasing desire to retry RDR2 and KC:D at some point, though, I will admit, and probably sooner than later.)
Borderlands 3, plus all its myriad DLC, which I bought for a grand total of a little over $21 back in February and which I have not yet even bothered to try to install (because I still have yet to finish a full playthrough of Borderlands 2, so why would I play 3), weighs in at 138.26GB, or so says Steam. I might have something that would take up more space than that, but if I do, I can't think what it would be off hand, and I don't feel like going through my entire Steam library just to look.
(/EDIT)
Sure, if one is playing nothing but the latest multi-million dollar "blockbusters" or whatever, then maybe they're getting that big, but I don't play that shit anymore. Maybe, in like five years or so, when those games are finally in an actual working state (and with their Denuvo infections cured) and also are reduced in price to something that is reasonable rather than the absurd $70-$100+ range they release at these days, then I might have to deal with 100GB games or whatever, if I start to care about them at all. *shrug*
I won't be using 92GB for fucking Diablo 4, now or five years from now, that's for damn sure. Nor do I play any of those "never delete" multiplayer-only games, so that's a complete non-factor for me.
Shit like this always reminds me of ye olden days of 1995 when I was in high school and Mechwarrior 2 came out. When you installed that game, the "Full-Blown Installation" option was a "whopping 100MB!!!" When all you had was a 850MB hard drive, as I did back then, that was nothing to scoff at, but it still wasn't all that big of a deal. I do recall not being able to fully install Baldur's Gate II on that drive, though. My next smallest HD was 2GB, then 30GB, then 80GB, and then (on my current computer) two separate 640GB drives. Right now, that same computer that I initially put together in 2010 has two 1TB SSDs in it. Soo... even if I did care about the AAA modern video game industry at all, I'd be sweating 100GB installs now about the same as I was sweating 100MB installs in 1995.
Nah, that sounds like yet another dumbfuck AAA modern video game industry problem to me. The games I've been playing lately, even recently released stuff, have been anywhere from maybe 20-40GB at the very most to, more typically, around 2-5GB, with a lot of them being only a few hundred MB, and they skew more to the lower end of that range than the higher, overall.
(EDIT)
Some outliers to the above that I've played: Red Dead Redemption 2 clocks in, Steam says, at 119.45GB. Grand Theft Auto V is 108.53GB, according to Steam. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is 78.49GB. Horizon: Zero Dawn at 72.21GB. All of these are games that I have played, to varying extents, though none that I have actually completed. None of these games are currently installed on my computer. (I have had some increasing desire to retry RDR2 and KC:D at some point, though, I will admit, and probably sooner than later.)
Borderlands 3, plus all its myriad DLC, which I bought for a grand total of a little over $21 back in February and which I have not yet even bothered to try to install (because I still have yet to finish a full playthrough of Borderlands 2, so why would I play 3), weighs in at 138.26GB, or so says Steam. I might have something that would take up more space than that, but if I do, I can't think what it would be off hand, and I don't feel like going through my entire Steam library just to look.
(/EDIT)
Sure, if one is playing nothing but the latest multi-million dollar "blockbusters" or whatever, then maybe they're getting that big, but I don't play that shit anymore. Maybe, in like five years or so, when those games are finally in an actual working state (and with their Denuvo infections cured) and also are reduced in price to something that is reasonable rather than the absurd $70-$100+ range they release at these days, then I might have to deal with 100GB games or whatever, if I start to care about them at all. *shrug*
I won't be using 92GB for fucking Diablo 4, now or five years from now, that's for damn sure. Nor do I play any of those "never delete" multiplayer-only games, so that's a complete non-factor for me.
Shit like this always reminds me of ye olden days of 1995 when I was in high school and Mechwarrior 2 came out. When you installed that game, the "Full-Blown Installation" option was a "whopping 100MB!!!" When all you had was a 850MB hard drive, as I did back then, that was nothing to scoff at, but it still wasn't all that big of a deal. I do recall not being able to fully install Baldur's Gate II on that drive, though. My next smallest HD was 2GB, then 30GB, then 80GB, and then (on my current computer) two separate 640GB drives. Right now, that same computer that I initially put together in 2010 has two 1TB SSDs in it. Soo... even if I did care about the AAA modern video game industry at all, I'd be sweating 100GB installs now about the same as I was sweating 100MB installs in 1995.
