Next Gen console game size/storage


Garrett

Advanced Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,255
Location
Workington, Cumbria, UK
This recent Eurogamer has been a concern of mine for a while now.. one of the first things I do with my PC games is try & find a way of reducing the file size.. 500Gb may sound like a reasonable size, but when you start looking at the average game size of  these early PS4/XBOX ONE games it doesn't bode well as far as the size of the game file size is concerned as they become larger/more sophisticated, especially when you factor in all the digital content.

What do you guys think..?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
500gb is not even enough for a big PC indie game collection fed by gog/humblebundle/indieroyale/thefreebundle,

how could it be enough for this graphic and effect based console stuff?

It's an insult and I am happy, that it does not concern me.

Why do people still buy video game consoles, that are only PCs with expensive games with lots of DRM and an easy to use menu?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PS4 you can just shove a larger standard laptop sized harddrive.
 
Wait... why does a game need dozens of GB on the hard drive? Are these patches or something?
 
Wait... why does a game need dozens of GB on the hard drive? Are these patches or something?
PS+ will give away around 3 free games every few weeks, so hard drive fills up quick. 

But, today's games mostly have next to no re-playablity, I usually just play them once then uninstall. 
 
This recent Eurogamer has been a concern of mine for a while now.. one of the first things I do with PC games is try & find a way of reducing the file size.. 500Gb may sound like a reasonable size, but when you start looking at the average game size of  these early PS4/XBOX ONE games it doesn't bode well as far as the size of the game file size is concerned as they become larger/more sophisticated, especially when you factor in all the digital content.

What do you guys think..?
 The consoles (especially the xbone) are already expensive, including a bigger harddrive would raise the costs significantly (especially as we are talking about 2,5" harddrives), while the "win" would be minimal for the manufacturer. 500GB will be suffice for most of the userbase => how many games do you really play "in parallel" ?

If I understood it correctly, both consoles (or at least the xbone) do autonomous disk management, meaning that they delete unused games after a certain time. But also employ a more "intelligent" installation/download strategy, to reduce waiting times: games usually just need a small,basic block of data to be downloaded in order to start them, after that the download/installation queue is ordered depending on what the game needs next to let you progress.

For everythings else (films, musik, photos, etc.) at least on the xbox, MS strategy is to bind its customer to its cloud services anyway (skydrive). Sony at least gives you the option to put bigger drives in.

And also, don't forget, MS likes to squeeze as much money out of the hardware sales as possible, so expect some "special editions" with a bigger harddrive in six months or so. Looking at the xbox360, thats were I would really get angry at MS, selling harddisk space for two or three times the price of the retail market, and giving a lousy excuse, of especially selected drives that guarantee a certain level of simultaneously read/write throughput.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you guys think..?
That's it's finally time to come back to the PC as a main gaming platform at home. And not just for the HDD space, but for everything else as well, there's just no reason to go to the consoles, they are already extremely weak in terms of specs, and it will only get worse from there since they don't even have an edge against the PC to start with. Steam can count on having more users down the road, too.  
 
That's it's finally time to come back to the PC as a main gaming platform at home. And not just for the HDD space, but for everything else as well, there's just no reason to go to the consoles, they are already extremely weak in terms of specs, and it will only get worse from there since they don't even have an edge against the PC to start with. Steam can count on having more users down the road, too.
I'd even try that "steam joypad"! I don't know if it's good for platform games, but it seems to be great for games using mouse + keyboard as main controls.The computer I'm planning building (instead of buying a console) will cost about 600€ (so 100€ more than the XBone). It'll have a large and slow HDD (1.5To) for games & datas, a small and fast SDD for the OS (probably 125Go), average CPU & graphic card (I'll probably go with AMD for both as they're cheap and still powerful enough for the games I want to play), 16Go RAM and I'll probably re-use my old reserator1v2 watercooling as I want it as silent as possible.

I already own a lot of PC games (many from humble bundles, so available on Steam, a few bought during Steam sales. Many from original discs, many from GoG, …) so I already own an awfully large collection of games ready to be played on it (from monkey island, …, neverwinter nights, …, Bastion, …, batman arkham asylum/city, to the latest game I bought : Shadowrun Returns)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I already own a lot of PC games (many from humble bundles, so available on Steam, a few bought during Steam sales. Many from original discs, many from GoG, …) so I already own an awfully large collection of games ready to be played on it (from monkey island, …, neverwinter nights, …, Bastion, …, batman arkham asylum/city, to the latest game I bought : Shadowrun Returns)
Yeah, That's still the killer argument of the PC: even if you buy a new one, you can still play all the old games you had before. You never start from scratch. Seriously, the console model of gaming is so retarded, it was only justified by strong exclusives, but in the last generation the exclusives were so weak it was just lame to own a console. 

Even MGS5 is apparently being made for PC as well, so that's another reason not to get a console. I wouldnt be surprised if Square make more and more of their games on PC as well after Dragon Quest X was released recently for Windows. 

And if everyone is interested in 4k gaming in the next couple of years (OR virtual games like the Occulus rift), you won't have a shot at it unless you have a PC-class hardware. Even the PS4/Xboxone already struggle like hell to run 1080p games at 60 fps, they just made the cheapest shit possible with this generation and it ain't going to cut it in the mid term. 
 
Not only the number, but also the variety of games for PC is far superior, due to the fact, that the collection is stretched over decades

and there always were LOTS of games for PC, that producers deemed to be too complex/intelligent for console gamers

(hardcore RPGs, most strategy games and business simulation games, etc...).

Now that action RPGs and Beat'em'Ups are slowly coming back to PC where they originally came from,

there is no good reason for buying a console and they are just third class PCs nowadays anyway, because you even have to install stuff,

people would have laughed about that back then in SNES-times.

BTW: Playing Fallout 3 without modifications sucks and all these nice HD-hacks for old sprite based games are PC exclusive too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that producers deemed to be too complex/intelligent for console gamers.
 

The problem is that recent PC games are often ported from console games, and therefore "dumbed down", with objects blinking just to make things too obvious and shit like that. I really hope to see PC exclusive games again, and more and more, not the other way around. 
 
The problem is that recent PC games are often ported from console games, and therefore "dumbed down", with objects blinking just to make things too obvious and shit like that. I really hope to see PC exclusive games again, and more and more, not the other way around. 
Yes, most people got aware of this problem with the fourth part of the Elder Scrolls (Oblivion) and the fact, that Fallout 3 from the start was designed to suit console gamers too.

If you look at the development of the Legacy of Kain series, you see a strong form of dumbing down. The degression in gameplay and freedom runs parallel with the progression in graphics

from part 1 (Blood Omen) to part 5 (Defiance), although I really enjoyed part 3 (Soul Reaver 2).

Don't get me wrong, I really like casual gaming, but it shouldn't be nearly everything of the stuff that is available, especcially on PC.

PS: Phenomena like Counterstrike (including the fanmade Pod-bot which I used a lot in LAN with my brother)

were something impossible on consoles too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1.5Gb for "Angry Birds"?

wwf-wtf-bear-presentation-questions.jpg
 
Call it installation or call it caching, but the bottom line is that you will have to save large chunks of PlayStation 4 games to the system's hard drive. It's not an option. It'smandatory on Sony's next-gen system....The disc installation is required on PS4 because the console is not designed to read games off of discs. It's not a PlayStation issue. It's a physics issue. The machine may have a Blu-Ray drive that's about three times faster than the PS3 and sixteen times as much memory, but it's still more expedient for the PS4 to read data from its own hard drive. Cerny said his team had heard too many complaints from current-gen developers about having to wait to load in new levels of games. Putting the data on the readily-accessible hard drive alleviates that. 
The next gen systems are going to work like pc's. They are pc's after all.
 
Apparently the Xbox One doesn't even treat your HD as permanent storage either - gone are 'memory management' functions, and it performs a kind of housekeeping on your HD space by deleting any DLC and game installs you haven't played lately/much - the theory being that you can re-download them if you decide to play them again. Gently marching you into their cloud storage.
 
That's not such a brilliant idea if your internet has download caps
 
Back
Top