solidus12
Member
Deep down, Xbox is the true market leader, and Phil Spencer will get his Nobel prize because when everyone plays, we all win.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
141.6 GB for Marvel's Avengers on PS5!? I thought PS5 was supposed to make file sizes smaller.
- Thread starter LegendOfKage
- Start date
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
It's about the same minus updates
140GB
https://www.gamesradar.com/biggest-xbox-series-x-install-sizes/
Last edited:
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
So you mean it's a general issue? - not just the PS5, but an SSD issue?compare...
VS
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Large files for asset duplication.compare...
VS
There have been plenty of examples where PS5 versions of games are 30% smaller on average even with the larger assets. Little to no duplication and Kraken/Oodle combination if coded for it.
Kraken Vs ZLIB: 29% Smaller Game Sizes Losslessly, 297% Faster Decompression on PS5
Kraken VS ZLIB: According to the official graph by RAD Game Tools, Kraken has 29% higher compression ratio over ZLIB (used in PS4 and other platforms), and does it 3-5x faster (doesn't really concern us as gamers, only good for devs). Both Kraken and ZLIB are lossless compressions, meaning data...
Last edited:
GermanZepp
Member
i'm downloading Horizon FW trial in PS5 and is around 110GB
Calling 911 Melts Beams
Banned
more giggy bites more better
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I don't know about this game..
But even with superior compression.. if we go a direction of taking advantage of massively increased data pipelines, that are 100x's greater than last gen.. but we increase compression by.. well.. 2-3x's max...
We will end up with bigger games.
(although this game might just not be optimized well... still, don't expect this "smaller on PS5" thing to last, other than "smaller compared to PC/Xbox"... they'll still be bigger than last gen's games eventually)
But even with superior compression.. if we go a direction of taking advantage of massively increased data pipelines, that are 100x's greater than last gen.. but we increase compression by.. well.. 2-3x's max...
We will end up with bigger games.
(although this game might just not be optimized well... still, don't expect this "smaller on PS5" thing to last, other than "smaller compared to PC/Xbox"... they'll still be bigger than last gen's games eventually)
Last edited:
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
SSD prices are low right now, so rather upgrade than to have Sony dictate the price
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
I say that it is going to be a problem that is going to present itself in the long term.
And as far as I understand there is no 4TB SSD.
How are they going to solve the situation, if later they are going to double the size of the video games 4 or 5 years after their launch?
I also understand that there is no way to put an external hard drive or SSD with USB as it was done on PS4.
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
Are you trolling? There's many 4TB Gen4 NVME's on the market and yes you can mount them to the PS5 by yourself.
You can also use 12TB USB HDD for storage.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
I doubt this game is super optimized for PS5.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
Amazon.com: SABRENT 8TB Rocket 4 Plus NVMe 4.0 Gen4 PCIe M.2 Internal SSD Extreme Performance Solid State Drive R/W 7100/6600MB/s (SB-RKT4P-8TB) : Sports & Outdoors
Amazon.com: SABRENT 8TB Rocket 4 Plus NVMe 4.0 Gen4 PCIe M.2 Internal SSD Extreme Performance Solid State Drive R/W 7100/6600MB/s (SB-RKT4P-8TB) : Sports & Outdoors
www.amazon.com
You can even get a 8TB if you got the money.
itsjustJEFF
Member
141GB! Jesus H... WTF is in this game lol
IDK about you guys, but I sometimes get turned off by gigantic file sizes... and I don't know why lol maybe I feel that way when I'm confused as to why the file is so large
IDK about you guys, but I sometimes get turned off by gigantic file sizes... and I don't know why lol maybe I feel that way when I'm confused as to why the file is so large
You are welcome. 1tb ($109.99), 2tb ($229.99) and 4tb ($649.99).
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09RMHC8L8/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Last edited:
A lot of games like this and call of duty struggle to take advantage of reusing assets across maps because theyre cross gen and the way they're developed is for each level to be a totally self contained package - this let's them push out new packages without affecting others but also it means teams on the dev side can work without caring what anyone else is doing.
There are tools in some dev studios to integrate packages better and recognize reused assets, an integration stage once things are approved, but if you're developing for cross gen you won't do that as you can't control where the data is stored on the disk for streaming. You'll just let each level or map be a self contained 8gb package even if it's using 5gb of assets duplicated in other packages so that it can stream off an old platter style hdd.
Fully taking advantage of how the PS5 can make file sizes smaller requires a little bit of a restructure of the art pipeline. Nobody is doing that today unless they're working on a big exclusive.
In addition to all this, the PS5 has arguably the better hardware compression - so even without fully designing around it we already see some smaller file sizes. Why not with avengers? Who knows honestly. Maybe they're refusing to adjust their pipeline at all to take advantage of it?
There are tools in some dev studios to integrate packages better and recognize reused assets, an integration stage once things are approved, but if you're developing for cross gen you won't do that as you can't control where the data is stored on the disk for streaming. You'll just let each level or map be a self contained 8gb package even if it's using 5gb of assets duplicated in other packages so that it can stream off an old platter style hdd.
Fully taking advantage of how the PS5 can make file sizes smaller requires a little bit of a restructure of the art pipeline. Nobody is doing that today unless they're working on a big exclusive.
In addition to all this, the PS5 has arguably the better hardware compression - so even without fully designing around it we already see some smaller file sizes. Why not with avengers? Who knows honestly. Maybe they're refusing to adjust their pipeline at all to take advantage of it?
Last edited:
Microsoft really want you to purchase one of their memory expansion units, so there is little interest in bumping up the console storage.
I wish games could detect the presence of an HDD and install the slower stuff there, things like background audio and cutscene don't require the speed of an SSD, heck even leave it on the BluRay drive and save some space.
The OG Xbox had a good setup, where games could cache critical files to the HDD and leave the other files on the DVD Drive, and all this was done transparent to the user. The 360 could do this also, but since the HDD was optional it was seldom used outside of a few exclusive titles. If the Series consoles followed this design and have the games stored on say a 3TB HDD, and use the SSD as a temporary drive. When the SSD runs out of space, the console OS automatically deletes the oldest game that hasn't been played in a while, which the user can always transfer back to the SSD when they do want to play.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
The answer is simple OP: Covid.
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
I hate being forced to install huge amounts of data when using the disc version. I bought the disc-enabled PS5 but of course no one actually develops responsibly to keep data on the disc anymore. Frankly I'd much prefer cartridges like on the Switch, so that you have speed plus off-console storage, but only Nintendo seems to take cartridges seriously anymore
Games of Today
Member
Just install a 2TB SSD like I did. Not that hard.
Shadowstar39
Member
I don't understand why some games use so much storage.
I loaded up TES4, Gothic 3 and Risen on Steam deck,
tes4 / gothic 3 -4.6gb
Risen 2.35gb.
These games are all 1080p optimized. So you double that for 4k and it is still under 10gb where are these games getting 100gb + of storage needs? I can somewhat understand GTA5 and Red dead, but cod, or this, nah..
I acually would like it if they would detect your screen size and only give you assets you need. A 1080p screen doesn't need 4k+ textures.
I bought a 1tb ssd , and 5gb hdd to solve this issue on ps5. SSD runs only ps5 games and hdd runs ps4 library.
I loaded up TES4, Gothic 3 and Risen on Steam deck,
tes4 / gothic 3 -4.6gb
Risen 2.35gb.
These games are all 1080p optimized. So you double that for 4k and it is still under 10gb where are these games getting 100gb + of storage needs? I can somewhat understand GTA5 and Red dead, but cod, or this, nah..
I acually would like it if they would detect your screen size and only give you assets you need. A 1080p screen doesn't need 4k+ textures.
I bought a 1tb ssd , and 5gb hdd to solve this issue on ps5. SSD runs only ps5 games and hdd runs ps4 library.
I don't think you realize a 4K texture is 4096 x 4096 and a 2k texture is 2048 x 2048. With values for RGB that's about 50 MB vs 12.5 MB. Couple that with the different material layers and so on, higher resolution sound files, higher quality models, etc... of course it's bigger lol. It's not just "double", it's more like quadruple or more. Some games even use higher resolution than 4K assets.
I just downloaded a 4K Quixel MegaScan asset and it's 118MB alone. The 8K one is 424 MB. This is without compression and all that, but you get the idea.
Last edited:
Morrie’s wig shop
Banned
Wait, are you telling me Jim Ryan’s number 1 fan doesn’t possess this knowledge…..
blu ray disks are too slow to stream data off, this hasnt been a thing since DVD's.
it's not a question of developing responsibly, it's down to the seek times of finding random snippets of data across a 50gb disk. it's physics. cant and will never happen again on a console aimed at the AAA market.
the only way for modern AAA games to use 'cartridges' would be for each to come packaged with a 100gb m.2 SSD. even major releases would be limited to 100k runs because of global manufacturing capability and it would cost an absolute shitload.
Nintendo get away with it because their games are 5gb and dont have much data to load at all, so they dont need to be stored on a fast medium. SD cards are easy and cheap to manufacture. If you'd like to see how well this would work for other games, pick this up - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KXQX3S3/?tag=neogaf0e-20 , mount it as a PC drive, and try installing a 90gb AAA game to it.
an SD card gets you 25mb/s
A platter hard drive gets you 100-200mb/s.
A blu ray gets you up to 100mb/s, but it sucks shit at randomly seeking (ie: the player turned around, quickly load these assets instead) and is best used when all the data is stored/accessed in order (installing, or playing back a movie)
the ps5 is at 5,500mb/s, and no game is released yet which actually takes full advantage of that.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
For what it's worth, many of these numbers are incorrect. Switch cartridges have always had capacity up to 32GB (not 5), and their read speed hasn't been objectively measured on the hardware but speed tests tend to put load times for cartridges roughly on par with installing the same games to a 100MB/s microSD ("an SD card gets you 25mb/s" what? You can't even use on that outdated and slow on the Switch, it's unsupported). Nintendo officially recommends using SD cards that are closer to 100mb/s so it's generally assumed that's close to what games expect from the cartridge.
In any case, there are some tradeoffs that could be taken with the disc, but developers just don't have the incentive since we've normalized downloaded games (which I have many moral objections to, including ability to later play these same game on systems offline; they're killing the ability to archive games physically, which you have 100% on platforms like Nintendo--fetch an old game from the attic and instantly play on the hardware even without any internet or surviving servers). For instance, Titanfall had something like 40GB of uncompressed audio alone, and other games have massive pre-rendered cutscenes but dump all this on the local drive when the disc could handle it.
There are always trade-offs in tech, but for me the wrong things are being incentivized. I absolutely would prefer the industry cutting back on absurd 4k textures and instead optimizing games better, given the enormous costs to storage and to the ability to truly have physical games at all.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Develop responsibly, lol. Do you know how incredibly slow it is to stream data off a Blu-ray disc? This is not a developer choice, the PS5 can't play games straight from the disc, installation is mandatory for everything. It was for PS4 too, the difference being that now PS5 games have to run from the SSD (while PS4 games can run from an external HDD if you have one).
And Switch cartridges aren't very fast either. Faster than a BD drive probably, but not by that much. Because they aren't actually cartridges like in the old days, they are pretty slow flash memory cards.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
Develop responsibly would mean:
- prioritize game size & storage optimization as a first-tier concern; never release a game taking up 100GB when it could have been 40GB with some forethought
- raising the game size by massive amounts (50GB or more increase) for niche things like 4k-ready textures is a waste; anything which ships purely to appease a few technophiles with enormous tv sets is a waste, let them use a PC if they want exact customization to their overpriced equipment
- ensure that the entire, fully-playable game is actually contained on the disc at launch and doesn't require any day0 patch or update; this is basic responsibility, and devs who can't even ship a fully self-contained game at launch aren't to be taken serously. Patches later are fine, but in no way should they be required.
- everything that can remain on the disc should remain on the disc. If all my games on PS5 actually did this and left all the high fidelity soundtracks and all cutscenes etc on the disc to stream as needed, installing only the necessary parts to the drive, I could probably fit twice the games in the same space, and not have to uninstall / reinstall all the time if I have a normal backlog. But no one cares because these platforms have given up on that kind of space optimization.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
You said: "no one actually develops responsibly to keep data on the disc anymore". That's not a thing they can choose to do even if they want to, it's not possible.
Soundtracks aren't that much data (a full CD, 80 minutes, is 700MB), and cutscenes are mostly real-time these days. So there isn't that much stuff you COULD stream from the disc even if the consoles allowed it. It's far too slow for pretty much anything used to render the game in any modern game engine. The only exception would be simple indie games, but those don't get released on disc anyway.
Last edited:
chromhound
Member
At ACTIVISION they think the bigger the game gets, the better it is.
Depends, if it's just the English dialog then it might be ok, but when you include dialog for multiple languages the install size boats considerably. Then again the console's OS should help manage that when the game is installed, provided the developer took the time to implement it.
Also PS4/XBO games started to use lossless audio (FLAC-like) instead of compressed audio due to the low IPC and decompression overhead of the respective consoles CPU. I'm not sure if the 9th generation consoles are the same in terms of audio, but that would increase the file size for audio alone. In contrast the 360 and PS3 use WMA and ATRAC respectively which are compressed audio formats.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
I still don't believe this is accurate; of course we typically don't know exactly how much each part of the game's data is taking up, but many reports of specific games mention much larger payloads than that of just uncompressed audio files (again, Titanfall was confirmed to have 40GB of audio alone). First, the quality is going to be higher than CD, and second there can often be 20+, 30+ or more hours of total recorded voiceovers and music in media rich games when you add up everything used. It's very likely that you'd shave off tens-of-GBs if using the disc to stream all of that, not just a CD's worth of data. But no one even tries or prioritizes it, they just dump everything in.
Limitations are good for developers anyway. I would enforce a max install size for the console (maybe 50GB), and you'd definitely see developers meeting that mark and making the right adjustments. With no incentive, it's guaranteed that we'll have trash like COD take up 150 GB for nothing.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
They don't try it because they literally cannot do it. The consoles don't support it.
But sure, in theory that could save some SSD space I suppose.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Series x is also 145 gb
that made a big difference to the minimum spec they were able to target. they were aiming for 60fps on low end 2-core processors. devoting resources to uncompressing audio would have forced 30fps or a higher minimum spec.
From what I remember at the time, on release people were very, very impressed at the performance of the game and how well it scaled. that's how they did it.
it's again why new consoles have dedicated decompression hardware in them. every single thing in them was designed to solve a problem someone has already had.
If no game takes advantage of 5500 mb/s then why are the load times not zero?
lol
what are you even trying to say
edit: ah, i think i have parsed how you read it. you thought i meant 'no game even needs as much as 5500mb/s yet' - and what i meant is, no game has been fully designed top to bottom around having 5500mb/s available. right now the design philosophy is 'we make games how we used to but can cut loading times down'
It genuinely changes the way games can be created, but entire development pipelines need to shift to take advantage of it.
Last edited:
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Really? it was only 70gb when it first came out for PS5 
XSX was over 100gb, so god knows what it is now.
But they definitely didn't add a more then a full game worth of content so it looks like they're not compressing anything and letting the user pay the price like COD does.
And people will say "but, but, but the textures and maps need all that space!"
No there are games with bigger and more levels with better quality & variety of textures and more characters models that are more detailed with hours of dialogue, music etc.
And they're are 20% of the size those games are.
There is no excuse other then not giving a shit because they need to push it out the gate on time.
XSX was over 100gb, so god knows what it is now.
But they definitely didn't add a more then a full game worth of content so it looks like they're not compressing anything and letting the user pay the price like COD does.
And people will say "but, but, but the textures and maps need all that space!"
No there are games with bigger and more levels with better quality & variety of textures and more characters models that are more detailed with hours of dialogue, music etc.
And they're are 20% of the size those games are.
There is no excuse other then not giving a shit because they need to push it out the gate on time.
Last edited:
KXVXII9X
Member
It really does...
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Im fan of Gravity Rush Kat
