nkarafo
Member
So the new Stalker game is nearly 150GB.
And it's not the only game that reaches or exceeds this number.
This again reminded me of when developers used to have some constraints to think about, before digital stores. Remember optimizing, compressing, making smarter use of recourses?
I have this feeling, without knowing anything else, most modern games could be much smaller in size and still be the same quality if devs didn't have unlimited storage to play with.
You know who doesn't have unlimited storage? The consumer.
So my question is, does STALKER need to be than large? If not, do the publishers/developers even have an incentive to optimize/keep their code as tight as possible? Like, do they have to pay more for storing more in the cloud and how more is that? What's the cost for selling a 50GB game vs a 150GB one? Or a 5GB one? Or even a 500GB one?
It just feels like another aspect of the digital age that mostly benefits the developers/publishers and made things more annoying/expensive/less convenient for consumers. Because the size of modern games grows at a much faster rate than the advancements of storage technology. Yes SSDs replaced HDDs because they are faster, but they are not bigger. The standards of usable sizes per user haven't changed much the last 10 years. The only thing that changed is the speed.
The prices also haven't been any better either. In fact, they used to be lower at some points in the past. So games get bigger and more bloated but storage prices and sizes haven't improved for the longest time. I wonder, does that reflect the storage prices devs have to pay to keep their downloadable code?
I'm also calling it: Storage won't become any better in the near future and games/patches will continue to grow in unoptimized manner so we won't have enough space to handle more than a handful of games at the time. And publishers will use that as another selling point to make their dream (streaming only) a reality more easily. You don't need any storage when the games only exist in the cloud, pretty cool right?
And it's not the only game that reaches or exceeds this number.
This again reminded me of when developers used to have some constraints to think about, before digital stores. Remember optimizing, compressing, making smarter use of recourses?
I have this feeling, without knowing anything else, most modern games could be much smaller in size and still be the same quality if devs didn't have unlimited storage to play with.
You know who doesn't have unlimited storage? The consumer.
So my question is, does STALKER need to be than large? If not, do the publishers/developers even have an incentive to optimize/keep their code as tight as possible? Like, do they have to pay more for storing more in the cloud and how more is that? What's the cost for selling a 50GB game vs a 150GB one? Or a 5GB one? Or even a 500GB one?
It just feels like another aspect of the digital age that mostly benefits the developers/publishers and made things more annoying/expensive/less convenient for consumers. Because the size of modern games grows at a much faster rate than the advancements of storage technology. Yes SSDs replaced HDDs because they are faster, but they are not bigger. The standards of usable sizes per user haven't changed much the last 10 years. The only thing that changed is the speed.
The prices also haven't been any better either. In fact, they used to be lower at some points in the past. So games get bigger and more bloated but storage prices and sizes haven't improved for the longest time. I wonder, does that reflect the storage prices devs have to pay to keep their downloadable code?
I'm also calling it: Storage won't become any better in the near future and games/patches will continue to grow in unoptimized manner so we won't have enough space to handle more than a handful of games at the time. And publishers will use that as another selling point to make their dream (streaming only) a reality more easily. You don't need any storage when the games only exist in the cloud, pretty cool right?
Last edited:
