How is this game 64 GBs?

[AJ_Radio]

Finally downloaded and installed this monster after using the voucher code that came with the Legacy bundle. It makes no sense why this game is 64 GBs when it is basically a remaster of an old game from 2007. 

 

Is multiplayer accounting for most of the file size? I probably could of done the entire single player campaign without having actually downloaded the entire game but just to be on the safe side I installed the entire thing. 

 

DOOM is large but it has to do with the engine Bethesda is using, plus it's multiplayer accounts for most of it. It's an actual game that's pretty decent. Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered is nearly 64 GBs in size when I initially thought it would only be 37 GBs. 

 

So what's most of the file size going towards?

[snakebit10]

It is more of a remake than a remaster. There are a lot of things added in that wasn't in the original. I watched a video on YouTube that showed stuff that was added in. I'm not sure how much of the GB are for each mode.

[DaivRules]

They must have left the image formats as .bmp and the audio files in .wav. 

[IDiivil]

It could be textures, audio, movies that's not compressed very well, if at all, because they don't care about optimising file sizes in this day and age. These things kind of go by what the current standard in storage media is. So if the game fits on a bluray, it's good enough for the publisher. Sucks for the people who have to download it of course.

 

Look at just about any modern AAA game that has a lot of audio and texture files. They all tend to hover around the 50-60 GB mark, because that's good enough as far as optimisation goes.

 

 

 

 

[DaivRules]

3 minutes ago, IDiivil said:

It could be textures, audio, movies that's not compressed very well, if at all, because they don't care about optimising file sizes in this day and age. These things kind of go by what the current standard in storage media is. So if the game fits on a bluray, it's good enough for the publisher. Sucks for the people who have to download it of course.

 

Look at just about any modern AAA game that has a lot of audio and texture files. They all tend to hover around the 50-60 GB mark, because that's good enough as far as optimisation goes.

 

The less decompression necessary, the less processing necessary. In that way, they would actually be optimizing file access/game performance. Any codec used is going to be a slight hit to performance. It's actually a good thing that they only get it small enough to fit on a DL Bluray.

 

Sucks for downloading, but you only have to download it once! This is from a guy that was on 2 mbps download speed until about 3 years ago. Now I'm at a whopping 15 mbps! It sucks to live in an area with only 5,000+ people per square mile...

[DARKB1KE]

1080p.

[Maxximum]

6 minutes ago, DARKB1KE said:

1080p.

 

That could be one good reason. 

[charlijaen]

1 hour ago, Spaz said:

Finally downloaded and installed this monster after using the voucher code that came with the Legacy bundle. It makes no sense why this game is 64 GBs when it is basically a remaster of an old game from 2007. 

 

Is multiplayer accounting for most of the file size? I probably could of done the entire single player campaign without having actually downloaded the entire game but just to be on the safe side I installed the entire thing. 

 

DOOM is large but it has to do with the engine Bethesda is using, plus it's multiplayer accounts for most of it. It's an actual game that's pretty decent. Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered is nearly 64 GBs in size when I initially thought it would only be 37 GBs. 

 

So what's most of the file size going towards?

 

The content added to multiplayer doubled the original size of the game.

The first version I downloaded was not bigger than 40 GB but after patches it became very big and I deleted it

I only wanted the campaign because after I tried the multiplayer, I realised that it differs a lot from the original gameplay and the micro transactions for virtual stuff ruined the experience.

[AJ_Radio]

1 hour ago, snakebit10 said:

It is more of a remake than a remaster. There are a lot of things added in that wasn't in the original. I watched a video on YouTube that showed stuff that was added in. I'm not sure how much of the GB are for each mode.

 

Remakes are usually a much better effort to make a previously old game more presentable to a modern audience. I dabbled a bit in this remake and it looks pretty solid. Though I will definitely say other games I've played looked just as good that were only half the file size. 

 

Could be multiplayer taking up the bulk of the space but I don't like having to make room and delete other games to accommodate for Call of Duty, especially when data caps and space on my hard drive are an issue.

 

41 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

They must have left the image formats as .bmp and the audio files in .wav. 

 

Wolfenstein the New Order had this problem I think. Still a great game and I definitely recommend, but given it's file size it looks worse than games like Far Cry 4 which takes a lot less space, or Primal. 

 

36 minutes ago, IDiivil said:

It could be textures, audio, movies that's not compressed very well, if at all, because they don't care about optimising file sizes in this day and age. These things kind of go by what the current standard in storage media is. So if the game fits on a bluray, it's good enough for the publisher. Sucks for the people who have to download it of course.

 

Look at just about any modern AAA game that has a lot of audio and texture files. They all tend to hover around the 50-60 GB mark, because that's good enough as far as optimisation goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure that's more up to the higher level employees and executives who want to cut time and costs to ship out a game rather than compress it. Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered does not look like a 65 GB game. It looks good and all but Horizon Zero Dawn looks far better, is longer, and takes up a lot less space.

 

The way things are going we're going to need two Blu-ray Discs to install games, plus a multitude of patches. That's one thing I love about indie titles, even though a fair number of them are either very easy or very difficult. 

 

26 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

The less decompression necessary, the less processing necessary. In that way, they would actually be optimizing file access/game performance. Any codec used is going to be a slight hit to performance. It's actually a good thing that they only get it small enough to fit on a DL Bluray.

 

Sucks for downloading, but you only have to download it once! This is from a guy that was on 2 mbps download speed until about 3 years ago. Now I'm at a whopping 15 mbps! It sucks to live in an area with only 5,000+ people per square mile...

 

I feel you. I'll be moving out next year and the area I'm planning to be in has much better speeds. 

 

Also helps when you don't live far from a city (Portland Oregon). Vancouver is more of a large town than an actual city though.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Spaz

[DaivRules]

8 minutes ago, Spaz said:

I feel you. I'll be moving out next year and the area in planning to be in has much better speeds. 

 

Also helps when you don't live far from a city (Portland Oregon). Vancouver is more of a large town than an actual city.

 

I was being a little sarcastic. 5,000 people per square mile is fairly dense. I live 15 miles North of Detroit. Comcast is just a real POS.

[madbuk]

2 hours ago, DaivRules said:

 

The less decompression necessary, the less processing necessary. In that way, they would actually be optimizing file access/game performance. Any codec used is going to be a slight hit to performance. It's actually a good thing that they only get it small enough to fit on a DL Bluray.

 

Sucks for downloading, but you only have to download it once! This is from a guy that was on 2 mbps download speed until about 3 years ago. Now I'm at a whopping 15 mbps! It sucks to live in an area with only 5,000+ people per square mile...

Do they even need to fit it onto a disc? I thought the disc just acted as a key of sorts to let you download the game, and then you need the disc in the console to play it (to verify you own it) but really you're just playing a game you've downloaded.

Could be wrong though; I just remember people complaining about this when PS4 first launched and people defending it because it'll mean quicker loading/less crashes due to messy discs)

[AJ_Radio]

3 minutes ago, madbuk said:

Do they even need to fit it onto a disc? I thought the disc just acted as a key of sorts to let you download the game, and then you need the disc in the console to play it (to verify you own it) but really you're just playing a game you've downloaded.

Could be wrong though; I just remember people complaining about this when PS4 first launched and people defending it because it'll mean quicker loading/less crashes due to messy discs)

 

The disc as far as I know only lets you play Infinite Warfare (haven't played it). You have to use the voucher to download and play Modern Warfare Remastered.

 

Activision could of done this by having two blu-ray discs rather than a voucher. Plus the price tag they wanted for the Legacy Edition was way too much. But we all know how Activision is so I wasn't in the least surprised.

[DaivRules]

7 minutes ago, madbuk said:

Do they even need to fit it onto a disc? I thought the disc just acted as a key of sorts to let you download the game, and then you need the disc in the console to play it (to verify you own it) but really you're just playing a game you've downloaded.

Could be wrong though; I just remember people complaining about this when PS4 first launched and people defending it because it'll mean quicker loading/less crashes due to messy discs)

 

 For most games, if you cut the Internet connection and pop in a disk, the game will install onto the PS4.  No download is required. 

[Kubanga]

Lol you think that's bad? Black Ops 3 with all patches and dlc is 109 Gigs.

[AJ_Radio]

2 minutes ago, Kubanga said:

Lol you think that's bad? Black Ops 3 with all patches and dlc is 109 Gigs.

 

Well that's essentially 44 more GBs you have to download.

 

Still it's pretty annoying considering that both Horizon Zero Dawn and Witcher 3 have more content, look better presented and yet take up a lot less space.

 

I guess Activision doesn't care about optimization.

[DARKB1KE]

3 hours ago, Spaz said:

I guess Activision doesn't care about optimization.

 

Probably correct assessment.  They care about the profits $$$$$ though

[A-Rebirth]

 

On 6/7/2017 at 9:13 PM, IDiivil said:

It could be textures, audio, movies that's not compressed very well, if at all, because they don't care about optimising file sizes in this day and age. These things kind of go by what the current standard in storage media is. So if the game fits on a bluray, it's good enough for the publisher. Sucks for the people who have to download it of course.

 

Look at just about any modern AAA game that has a lot of audio and texture files. They all tend to hover around the 50-60 GB mark, because that's good enough as far as optimisation goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's a good thing though. As a being audiophile and a movie lover... I have a home theatre for maybe 15 000 $... Not the current value, but the original pricing.  Compression tend to "destroy" the sound and picture quality (if it's "lossy" compression) so in a hi-fi setup or at a big cinema screen it might actually been a better experience with lossless files... I have 100 mbps up and down and I might even upgrade to 250 mpbs in the future... so personally I don't care..

 

When you say, "they don't care about optimising file sizes in this day and age" do you relate to formats in general or just games...? I think you're pretty wrong actually. Pretty common older movie formats i.e. Pro Logic and DTS are lossy formats. MP3 is lossy! You should know how much space RAW-images and original studio files would have occupied if they outputed as much as they could in 8k or something...

 

On 6/8/2017 at 3:44 AM, DARKB1KE said:

 

Probably correct assessment.  They care about the profits $$$$$ though

 

They DO care about the customers too. You can't make anybody happy... Compressing files wouldn't be expensive at all... They're mass-producing the discs... You must be pretty stupid if you think they're compressing the files for each disc. They're just copying the data. And the process would be faster if the data already been compressed. But in this case where the game is only available as a digital download, not a disc... the network traffic (upload capacity) might also cost $ for Sony...

Edited June 20, 2017 by A-Rebirth

[IDiivil]

3 hours ago, A-Rebirth said:

When you say, "they don't care about optimising file sizes in this day and age" do you relate to formats in general or just games...? I think you're pretty wrong actually. Pretty common older movie formats i.e. Pro Logic and DTS are lossy formats. MP3 is lossy! You should know how much space RAW-images and original studio files would have occupied if they outputed as much as they could in 8k or something...

 

What I meant is that compression and optimisation of size of videogames isn't a big deal like it used to be in the early 2000s or before that. Getting things to fit on CDs was a pain back in the day, because you had to add another CD to the production costs every time you went past a certain threshold. In the DVD era you still had to care about compression, although back then most games didn't have as much audio as they do nowadays.The Bluray and downloadable era kind of changed that since on consoles you generally only need to worry about being able to fit the game on a Bluray disc, which isn't really much of a feat due to the storage capacity being so much higher compared to the DVD.

 

For movies it's obviously a bit of a different deal since the information presented in a video file is linear and it doesn't get reused like in games. In a movie you have X number of frames that each require Y amount of bits. You can pretty easily ballpark the amount of data a video file would require based on that. Obviously compression works with video since so many of those consecutive frames share data. Then there's audio on top of that but that's compressed through similar logic.

 

And yes, not having to compress and decompress files is generally a good thing.