• Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meanwhile, Deep Rock Galactic: solid mechanics, good community, worth so many hours of fun, no microtransactions, no FOMO for their season rewards, and stylized low poly graphics that make every cave gorgeous to look at: 3gb and only $30

    • wia@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand what happened with this game…

      My bothers and I played it quite early on and it was fine. We didn’t stick with it or anything. Just another spot to play together. No one was talking about it or anything.

      Then like a year later everyone is going nuts about it. We see it pop-up everywhere.

      • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        For me I got into it because I wanted a game that bridged mine and a friend’s interests. I like mining things and she likes shooting things. So I’m driller main she’s gunner main and it works great. I’ve stuck with it and been so excited for it because the devs are phenomenal. They work with the community, don’t try and screw us every chance they get, the game is just fun and the devs seem like they have fun too. It is so refreshing having a game that isn’t hot garbage. I also actually really like multiplayer sometimes but almost always that means dealing with hordes of super toxic players. That just doesn’t happen with DRG almost everyone is so friendly and most people who see me doing absolute nonsense join in on it instead of telling me to play better. I tell everyone about DRG because of how rare it is to find a game with good devs and good multiplayer.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      With reading the article:

      • console discs have 60 GB of space, might as well export your assets at a quality which fills it

      Your sight-unseen summary is far too detailed in comparison.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus downloadability. If you don’t plan to play a game for a while, you can delete it and free up space, and have the ability to download it later.

        Plus, expandable storage. If a player wants more space, I think that everything out there today is expandable, even consoles, without replacing existing storage. If, say, 10% of the player base wants to keep a larger library downloaded than their console’s internal storage can handle, and the base console doesn’t have enough space, they can just throw another USB drive on the system.

        I guess maybe for portable devices, it could be obnoxious to carry the storage around.

          • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            If by nuts you mean, a very modest low single digit terabyte range. Which, according to the game sizes cited in the article could only hold around 6-10 games per terabyte. Given the way games tend to disappear from online sources over time, that doesn’t seem like enough space to me to really keep all those digital purchases. I guess if most of them will become abandonware eventually anyway when the companies shut down their servers, it hardly matters.

            • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, that’s nuts. I used to be very happy to have less than one and a half megs on something wider than a deck of cards. Now you’re talking about terabytes on something the size of a pinky fingernail. I could store a half dozen in a pocket in my wallet without noticing them. That’s a lot of storage.

              For the record, only 6-10 games is also about 5-10 games more than I could store on one of those floppies, and if it was one it was an old game. It’d be akin to putting Halo: CE (not remastered or anything, original) on a micro SD.

              So, yeah, storage is plentiful and readily available.

              • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I remember. My favorite DOS game was Scorched Earth, which fit on a high density 1.44MB floppy disk. But that was the point of the article. Space used to be at a premium and a terabyte used to feel like more space than I’d ever need. Now a terabyte is only just enough for portable devices because the cost of extra capacity was increasing so fast and development of space saving tech seemed like a waste of time, but that trend of increasing capacity and decreasing cost has significantly plateaued (as shown by the graph in the article).

    • PepeLivesMatter@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Gamers: “we want photorealistic 3D graphics in 4K resolution!”

      Also gamers: “why do games take up so much space these days?”

    • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t it funny how Nvidia wants you to use upscaling so badly for Raytracing to perform as well as they market it to, but then Raytracing itself needs more VRAM to run properly in the first place?

      Nothing about their products makes any technical sense anymore, it really is just one giant middle finger at this point

  • arc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Online services like games consoles and the likes of Steam / Epic should really allow games to be bundled such that users can choose to only install the “recommended” content rather than everything - the textures for their display & graphics card and multimedia and other assets for their region & localization. If a game is level based they could even grab it the first time it is used, rather than all up front. I bet in a lot of cases it would shave 30% off the download size.

    Another source of bloat would be duplicate content - a hold over from hard disks where the cost of seeking an asset meant game data files would hold duplicates of assets wherever they were needed to load-in which increases bloat. In the days of SSDs, that should no longer be necessary but I bet a lot of games still do it anyway. Publishers just need to decide if they’re going to support HDDs or not and if the answer is not, then stop bloating games for no reason.