jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2019, 02:36:Large game sizes have been a thing for a while.
Unless you game on a laptop, which a lot of people do.
Simon Says wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 21:40:
I'm glad not to live in a shitty country that doesn't even value its own citizens lives and health. *winks* Priorities you know?
Icewind wrote on Oct 12, 2019, 00:29:
The writer must not be getting paid much by Kotaku, because I recently grabbed a 4TB drive for $90 and have been using that. I have a 2TB from before, which combined gives me more than enough for games. I have about 20-30 PC games already installed through various launchers and only have half of that space taken up.
Don't know why they're complaining. This has always been the case. I remember Daggerfall coming out in the fall of 1996 and my 1.2GB hard drive was gobbled up by the game's optimal 400MB install.
Buy another drive, they're cheap.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 21:16:
Don't live in a shitty country.
Simon Says wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 19:32:
Sorry, but data caps, globally ( when considered in % of users on all platforms ), are the norm, not the exception.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 17:22:
Very few places do have data caps.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 16:14:
Storage is cheap, but data caps are not. Also, how much have you invested in your setup? Sounds like several thousand just in hardware, not including labor.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 15:57:Storage is cheap, but data caps are not. Also, how much have you invested in your setup? Sounds like several thousand just in hardware, not including labor.
Oh! Is this where we get to brag about our storage density? It is?! AWESOME!
So, on this box, I have 6 SSDs. One 256GB for boot, one 512GB for /home, 4 960GB drives in RAID0 mounted to /games.
Now, that's clearly solely for local storage. I have two 40TB arrays. Array 1 is for media storage, system backups, VM hosting, and the like. That does a nightly backup to Array 2 (hence the identical sizes) plus hourly delta changes. Everything in the house is Cat6, short runs, and connects via a 10GBe backbone. The two servers and my desktop all have 10Gbe NICs in them. Mrs. B and the other denizens of the house connect via either 1Gbe or wifi.
I also have a 120TB array sitting at a colo facility that both Array 1 and Array 2 back up to over a gigabit uplink (which actually sees 900Mb+/- upstream nearly constantly) in mirrored pair backups.
If I ever run out of space on the RAID0 array, I could always redirect my Steam folder to live on Array 1. Then I could throw another 10Gbe NIC in the system and use multipath I/O so I'd equal about the same transfer rate as a S3 connection.
I am in no way concerned about how big games are getting. Storage is cheap.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 15:57:And that's the deal, games will never be small again.
I am in no way concerned about how big games are getting.
chickenboo wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 12:10:I was pretty shocked at the size when I read it on Blues a couple days ago.D-Rock wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 12:00:RedEye9 wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 11:43:
Games are not going to get smaller.
news at 11
I didn't read the article. The headline was enough to turn me away. It's idiotic.
Of course games are going to get bigger. Storage will also grow in size at a similar rate. What is there to be 'scared' of?!?
I'm so tired of crappy journalism -- but I guess it's just Kotaku being Kotaku...
It's not only that, it's lazy journalism. "Oh look Reddit is complaining about RDR2's file size, sounds like a quick n easy
articleclickbate for me!"
jdreyer wrote on Oct 11, 2019, 14:25:
I dunno, 8 gb of RAM has been the standard for the past decade. Yet AAA games were a quarter of the size back then that they are today. I think there's a lot of unnecessary bloat going on.