• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Starfield is pretty huge though isn’t it? I dunno, it feels like if any games should take that much storage space, it’s a massive space game.

        • @TheGrandNagus
          link
          31 year ago

          And starfield could easily be way larger. The textures in Starfield aren’t actually that high res (part of why, despite it being a very demanding game, it doesn’t use much VRAM, generally topping out at 8GB)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          The area of space in the game doesn’t cost data like that lol.

          The install size is because of textures and sound files. They don’t know how to compress or optimize files.

        • @TheGrandNagus
          link
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And SSDs are ludicrously cheap now.

          My first SSD was 240GB, for £300. (£1.25/GB)

          I can get a 2TB one now for £64. (£0.032/GB)

          And that’s just comparing the storage, nevermind one being a vastly faster NVME drive that also takes up less space, is more power efficient, and doesn’t have two annoying cables to manage.

          IMO huge file sizes are more of a download speed issue than a storage issue

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        Do you have like solid number of reasonable gigabytes a game can be? How did you arrive to this number exactly?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          You don’t uNdERstAnD, a game must be less than 1GB in size or it’s unOpTiMiZeD.

          But at the same time, man I’m sick of these last gen/old non raytracing cards are holding us back! Where are my rig melting next gen games?!?! Oh wait I have to download 100GB and still turn down settings to High!?!? unOpTiMiZeD!! furiously leaves bad steam review