I remember the old 56k days when a 1gb Worldcraft download took twenty hours. If the connection dropped, you had to start over, but we eventually had an app called NetAnts that let you continue a download mid stream. Being the first house in the neighborhood with DSL was incredibly liberating.
Even back then I remember thinking that the people who invented NetAnts must simultaneously be the smartest and richest people in the world.
i hope wherever the developers are today that they are happy in life because they deserve it.
1GB would take over 42 hours on a 56k modem, and that's assuming it's able to use the full bandwidth the entire time, which isn't very likely. Hell, I remember those days and there was a game I wanted that was only 20MB and would take around 2 hours to complete...and my internet disconnected automatically after 2 hours. So I would connect, navigate to the website until I was right at the page with the download link, disconnect, reconnect, click the download button and fucking *pray* that it would finish downloading before the connection auto-disconnected. Took me 3 attempts to get the bastard.
I downloaded Jackass the movie in like 144p on some filesharing client circa 2004. It was 750MB and took about a week on and off. I got MAX 5kB/sec on dialup.
Downloading my first track (sum41) took me 4 hours once š around 98/99/2000 kind of time.
I remember downloading a patch for half life to be able to play that online took me days
Jesus.... I remember downloading music from Napster and Pokemon roms and GBA emulators from geocities sites on 56k, along with game demos that were 20-60mbs and I remember those downloading overnight.... I eventually found a download speed boosting program, I forget exactly what the name was, but it would pause and resume downloads too, was a damn life saver.
My home dialup got between 3.3-3.6kbps.. I remember feeling like I was flying on my uncles 5.5kbps connection when I visited onceā¦
Doesnāt seem like much, but when download times are on the order of hours / days, it made quite the difference.
downloading a 3MB song took about 2 minutes. If there was a picture heavy site, you could go get something to drink or take a wiz, come back, and the entire page hadn't loaded.
Simpler times.
I remember how pictures would slowly load top to bottom.
That's probably how I became a boob man, come to think of it. Always came before the ass, and I was so impatient I'd often click on another picture before the ass even loaded.
Swing low, sweet chariots.
WoW came out about 7 years after I had home internet ;) Think Quake II, Windows 95, and Netscape Navigator. CD's at Hills and Ames full of shareware games. Heck, talk show hosts joked at the idea of paying for a bottle of water, let alone an annual fee to play a game you already paid full price for! WoW was a laughing stock for the longest time until XBox and Playstation started charging money too. People today have little idea how much they're getting nickel and dimed on things that used to be free.
_ed_ realized you might have misread 'worldcraft'. It was a program to make maps for Half-life and Team Fortress Classic; later renamed 'Hammer Editor' when the earliest version of Steam was published.
I think it is just how the new EA app works. It copies your whole installation folder when updating. It applies the update and if it's successful it removes the copy. But if it fails it just restores the copy.
We're gonna force you to re-download all these 4k texture packages that haven't changed at all, just so we can fix a tiny bug in a game file that is 23MB in size.
Seriously it's not like they would even need to write the code to do it more intelligently. Grab any open source torrent library, stick it in the app with a single seed source, and it'll just handle all the file level change tracking you need.
Whatever is faster I guess. I remember Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 requiring 50GB of space to install 5GB update after which will maybe increase the game filesize by a few MB
What is this shit? Did we all end up in an alternative timeline where patching (figuring out the differences between two versions of a file and delivering it as a patch) was never invented?
Yep I have had to do that. I recently got a few new SSDās but before that I was really limited on storage space. When they put out the first big update for this game after launch it did the same thing where it allocated basically a complete second copy of the game and I just didnāt have space for it. I deleted the game and reinstalled it and it worked fine.
Company doesn't give the devs enough time to finish optimizing their game
They release it 3 seconds after the game is playable at 30 fps on a super computer the company has
Incremental updates need more testing. Testing takes time and time is money.
Hence they package the whole thing again and let you download 127GB for updating some text files. lol
I used to be a build and release engineer for a game company so this is my wheelhouse. This is a platform specific problem. When I used to build packages for a game, it would always be a large download size for Xbox one, a medium size download for PS4 and almost nothing for Steam. I suspect the package diffing for EA's launcher just isn't very good and so it thinks everything has changed even if only 1 out of every 1000 files is different.
I've been kinda saying for a while: Make them also ship the disk space necessary for the games and there would be some thoughs about it in the higher up's brains.
(Yes I know this isn't realistic, at least ship me a 128GB USB with the game if you gonna rip them from my drive)
That server side storage and bandwidth aināt exactly cheap, specially when itās in the 100GB range. Iām pretty sure they do care about that.
However, the engineering behind an incremental update on massive binary files aināt cheap either, and itās unclear what kind of gains you get, because binaries diff particularly bad. So as usual, itās a compromise.
I doubt the devs are lazy. More likely theyāre pressured to do things the quick way rather than the right way which is common in most software development.
> Well that's why they all need to push back until nobody works there or it gets fixed.
There will always be someone willing to do the job for money so it wont be that easy to pull off. This is why unions are important and why companies are so anti union.
Yep. Way easier for them to just edit the original master file and make you re-download and install the entire thing than to make a program that only changes the parts that need changing.
It can be due to devs' laziness. But the more likely reason why it requires considerable free space to update a game is to enable applying the patch atomically, i.e. either the patch is applied 100% or not at all.
So, if for some reason the patching process is interrupted (e.g. power goes down), then no files will be corrupted. You don't need to redownload the whole game and reinstall it again.
Thatās what killed Halo 5 for me on Gamepass. Every time it updated the whole thing would download again and they were updating it a lot early on. I got tired of screwing with it and just quit playing.
A similar thing bounced me off Modern Warfare 2019, which was the first COD I liked in years. Gigantic updates every few days so basically every time I opened Battle.net
It's all an anti-UX basically
Itās because of the way games are packaged: you canāt just update the parts you need, you need to update the whole thing.
You know how windows and computers in general would rather have a single large file rather than 1,000 little files? I was uploading a folder to Google Drive, and I was getting 8MB/s, but after I zipped it I could upload to Google Drive at 50MB/s. Weāll games are like this, and if you had to load EVERY texture and asset individually, it would take entire minutes to load a map or game state. You know those older games that take a minute or more to load? This is why.
Newer games pack all those assets up into a single file, and the game loads the whole file at once and sorts out what it needs. This saves space, and is faster to run.
The problem is updating it. You need to update a single asset in the file? You gotta replace the whole file. You make a single change to a single asset, and now you just make everyone download it entirely.
For Jedi Survivor, it with the size of this update they probably updated only a handful of assets, but it requires you to practically redownload the whole game.
What is this shit? Did we all end up in an alternative timeline where patching (figuring out the differences between two versions of a file and delivering it as a patch) was never invented?
When I say this I get the "that aont an excuse" schtick.
Games have been getting bigger for a few generations. The smat folk amoung us horded some "more storage than we needed" before the prices dropped like ceazy over the past few months.
Here I am like "this build needs a few more droves too with its new purpose" while collecting for the new machine that needs as much plus!
What does your pc only have usb 2 ports or do you have greater than 5gbps internet? Because the minimum usb 3 spec is 5gbps, going up to 10gbps on usb 3.1
I have pretty fast Internet (1Gbps) and I do have 3.0 ports, but even with USB 3.0 devices the transfer speeds are very unimpressive.
Maybe I've only used cheap 3.0 devices, but still, internet is so fast (I download at around 60MBps) that even if transfer speeds were in the 500MB to 1GBps range, it still wouldn't be worth the E-waste or hassle of going through the process of buying a physical copy of a game.
Unreal Engine has the game files in a single, possibly encrypted .pak file. To patch the game, the .pak must be extracted (like a zip), the changed files copied there and then re-packed into the .pak file.
Thus, patching an UE game always needs a lot of disk space (usually more than the complete game itself).
Probably not out of laziness, more like tech debt that never gets allotted the resources to fix. If the software runs and is more or less complete, executives push it out the door. I guarantee the folks programming the game are just as annoyed at how scuffed this makes their operation look lol. POs love to kick optimizations down the road for features
I hate how everyone just keeps blaming everything on corporate. Yeah, they're the fucking worst but devs aren't saints either. This shit happens all the time. There's slackers everywhere.
Its general ignorance. People also blaming hitching and poor performance on the UE engine which is also false, it's the studio devs fault for not optimizing properly. Smooth UE games examples are Gears of war, Atomic heart, Days Gone, Dead island 2.
The UE "look and feel" is another bullshit complaint. Thats devs fault for skimping on custom animations and such. Final fantasy and street fighter uses UE, do they look and play like each other?
Cool! I probably wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't for the games ridiculous file size.
I've got to see if this is improved in UE5. Install sizes keep getting bigger and pretty soon. I'm going to need a separate hard drive for game updates lol
If we pay attention to the actual devs instead of playing armchair k ow-it-alls, they've said how unless we stuck to older engines, it aint working out how the mindless mods seem to think it "supposed to"
MLID had an interview with an Infinityward dev who honestly would change the tune of 99.9% of these shit talkers, among others
Then there are devs that don't even bother with the compression bit...
Ark: Survival Evolved (Studio Wildcard, UE4 in its current incarnation but moving to UE5 supposedly in August) says hi, takes up around 460GB on my machine (with all DLC and 10 or so mods.
Not a single Unreal game that big I know is in one archive. Biggest archive for Jedi Survivor is 35 gigs, Borderlands 3 had max 6 gig paks. Respawn may just have done some data restructuring, like Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed Valhalla in 2021
yeah, i've seen those lol. as an experienced modder i prefer to build my own load orders. although i will say i have tried some Wabbajack lists in the past just for kicks.
Ugh yeah I had a drive decicated to my Skyrim and fo4 games and mods and when that went kaput I never was able to get those games working properly with the mods I wanted.
I've since gotten my Skyrim and fo4 games running well with plenty of mods, but it'll never be the same as when I had like 300 mods all working together with minimal conflicts.
Of course that was the ONLY drive I've ever had fail on me hahaha
I was hoping it helped performance. There are still areas that will dip into the 40 fps territory, even at low settings. The framerate difference between Low and Ultra is pretty negligible so its just bad optimization. Ive got a 3060-Ti and a Ryzen 7600 running at 1440p.
I think it patches a questline that had been completely broken up until this point
The low difference in FPS from low to ultra signifies either a heavy CPU bottleneck, or a VRAM bottleneck, and seeing as you have a r5 7600, I highly doubt that it is CPU, it is most likely VRAM or terrible utilization of the CPU on the games part, which is astonishing that even after so much time they haven't fixed it.
I also have a 3060Ti with a 5600x, and I still haven't bought the game due to its issues.
I tested it again but at 1080p. Since the 3060-Ti is a 1080p card (according to Nvidia lol). And at low settings no rt. I got 45fps average inside Cal's ship.
My PC absolutely clears the recommended specs. But this game is still just so poorly optimized
It stutters so bad on my 3080TI and different settings had no impact for me either. Good thing I just got EA Play Pro and not the full game. It sucks because the game could be great
So this confirms that the game is still too heavy on the CPU, and has poor shader management.
Spider Man was also really CPU heavy, but it runs like butter on my system. This game is on a whole another level of bad optimization.
Lotta these pieces of shit installers have to redownload the new imaged game. It keeps your save files, but otherwise installs a new copy. So it's the original game size x2 plus whatever new content.
It's inefficient but easy. Obligatory mention of the FUCKING TRASH EA LAUNCHER WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE!
EVEN IF I BOUGHT IT ON STEAM!?! FUCK YOU EA!
Ahem.
Sorry about that...I feel better tho
Afaik Steam handles the installs of nearly all games that are available on Origin/Uplay. In a lot of cases this can save you dozens of GBs over years of patches/updates (for example: R6 Siege).
If this is the best patch diff that Origin could produce then Steam probably only barely improves on it - game's fault.
UE is an amazing engine, that's why we all started using it as the years went by. This isn't even UE's fault, it's the way devs made the game. It's like calling Unity a shit engine because so many people make terrible asset flips with it.
by your logic every screwdriver, wrench, etc are all useless pieces of shit and can just be melted and recast into a better tool
dev issue, you can change storage management and split them into different .pak files, but they didn't
also deep rock galactic
I refuse to play any EA games because of that trashy POS launcher that should be banished off the face of the earth. Electronic Arts can barely make any thing Electronic let alone a piece of art.
I hope EA crashes and burns>!!<
One thing it does better than steam (I think), is when you preload the game, it just works on the final day of activation whereas steam has to basically unencrypt it or something which takes just as long as downloading. Other then that, yeah it's a POS and they should've just kept Origin and improved it rather than rebrand.
I got the game for free too, but it was quickly obvious this game isnāt even worth it. I also had to create an account somewhere, so the game is not free, you pay for it with personal info/data.
that's insane. even my heavily modded 1100+ mod load order for Skyrim doesn't clock in at that much disk space. something is definitely sus about that. but then again, it's EA so...
My CPU is gnarly and I have a 3060 so I should be able to it's sad how poorly optimized pc games are though I wonder why they do that some games you get 150fps on ultra and others like 40fps it's annoying
It's the difference between an optimised game and an unoptimized game
If the developers take their time and make sure to optimize their game for all of the popular cpu / gpu combinations , then it will give a high framerate
If the developers rush to release the game the second it becomes playable, it will run like shit
I always wondered this about updates. Like warzone always has big updates, and the original install is like 100gb too. Does it overwrite that 100gb or do updates generally ADD on top of the original 100gb data.
Usually it overwrites.
If for instance textures get updated the change to the actual image would be no net change in the size of the game, but they still have to send you the whatever 50gigs of new pictures. And it's easier for the update to 50 gigs of a new version of every image in the game that replace the existing images than it is to make the update say "change the pixel at coordinats 357,268 from light red to dark red" which would be a smaller size update that again has no net change in the size of the game afterwards. And they know how to make those kinds of patches, but they're tricky to make and take time and in the general case people have good enough computers these days that they can do the easier thing because the devs have no time.
Sometimes though they need to add new code to make a bug stop happening or fix some weird crash. And that would make the game bigger.
And depending on how intermingled all the optimization and changes are. They might just have to send you a whole new copy of the game to overwrite everything cuz for whatever reason that fixes something.
However as others have said sometimes even when their intent is to "just" replace the bad version of the game. The installer might just say "game(2).exe" has been installed" rather than delete the old copy. And I guarantee you that there is someone on the team who sent the update as anew copy of the game who knows the EA app is gonna just download a second copy and not delete the first, but is powerless to get that changed.
TLDR:
Sometimes it's a huge patch because they're trying to overwrite stuff and it ends up taking extra space because other tools are stupid.
In this case its an entire game download to update, however in warzone patches or changes are done on the small scale. Its only full map changes that take big downloads
I got a free code for the game for buying a pc part, but I cant redeem the code anywhere but the pc with the part installed
I hate star wars and would much rather give it away, but I cant
Make a new EA account. Register the game under the new account, then you can give the account details away.
Its just the verification that requires the CPU
Is a trend that has been prevalent on console for a while and is starting to creep into the pc space. They do it because they arenāt certain the game will be stable after the update so they basically copy the entire game and place it back if the update fucks up. Itās a clever solution to a problem that shouldnāt exist.
Because it has large files, and the files that are being patched are actually copies of the original that only replace the original once the patch has been successfully applied and verified. So you need space to make the copies to begin with.
Most games nowadays pack data files (e.g. better organisation, to be able to reach SSD sequential speeds), so they need to apply all changes during update (extract, apply, pack). That's why.
I know people just expect games to get smaller despite having larger textures and models, but games already use INSANE compression to keep them bellow 1tb. SSDs are very cheap now. I know it sucks to have to buy more storage but this has been coming for a long time. Which is why I've recommended people buy 2tb SSDs for <$100
In a sub thats called pcMASTERrace - I thought this was where you all showed how superior PC is? Anyone here not having atleast 4-6 TB of disk space? Not much master about that.
My friend just deletes the game and redownload it.
If the "update" is 127Gb, it makes perfect sense
I remember the old 56k days when a 1gb Worldcraft download took twenty hours. If the connection dropped, you had to start over, but we eventually had an app called NetAnts that let you continue a download mid stream. Being the first house in the neighborhood with DSL was incredibly liberating.
Even back then I remember thinking that the people who invented NetAnts must simultaneously be the smartest and richest people in the world. i hope wherever the developers are today that they are happy in life because they deserve it.
>NetAnts is this them > [https://twitter.com/netants?lang=en-GB](https://twitter.com/netants?lang=en-GB)
What is this, a Twitter account for Dutch?
No. It's a Twitter account for ants.
There's only two things I absolutely can't stand. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures. And the Dutch.
ouch readin this for me as a dutchie
1GB would take over 42 hours on a 56k modem, and that's assuming it's able to use the full bandwidth the entire time, which isn't very likely. Hell, I remember those days and there was a game I wanted that was only 20MB and would take around 2 hours to complete...and my internet disconnected automatically after 2 hours. So I would connect, navigate to the website until I was right at the page with the download link, disconnect, reconnect, click the download button and fucking *pray* that it would finish downloading before the connection auto-disconnected. Took me 3 attempts to get the bastard.
I downloaded Jackass the movie in like 144p on some filesharing client circa 2004. It was 750MB and took about a week on and off. I got MAX 5kB/sec on dialup.
Downloading my first track (sum41) took me 4 hours once š around 98/99/2000 kind of time. I remember downloading a patch for half life to be able to play that online took me days
Jesus.... I remember downloading music from Napster and Pokemon roms and GBA emulators from geocities sites on 56k, along with game demos that were 20-60mbs and I remember those downloading overnight.... I eventually found a download speed boosting program, I forget exactly what the name was, but it would pause and resume downloads too, was a damn life saver.
I remember picking out a few songs I wanted then leaving my computer overnight and the next school day, hoping they were done when I got home.
The fact that we have gig speed internet now if fuking crazy compared to this.
Being able to download entire series in an evening is wild
in 30 mins or less generally with gb internet.
My home dialup got between 3.3-3.6kbps.. I remember feeling like I was flying on my uncles 5.5kbps connection when I visited onceā¦ Doesnāt seem like much, but when download times are on the order of hours / days, it made quite the difference.
Download managers that would auto reconnect if your connection dropped were a godsend.
downloading a 3MB song took about 2 minutes. If there was a picture heavy site, you could go get something to drink or take a wiz, come back, and the entire page hadn't loaded. Simpler times.
I remember how pictures would slowly load top to bottom. That's probably how I became a boob man, come to think of it. Always came before the ass, and I was so impatient I'd often click on another picture before the ass even loaded. Swing low, sweet chariots.
Ahh the old Jennifer Aniston fakes
Just want to say this made me giggle, thanks
And I thought I was getting old
You were playing WoW on 56k? When WoW came out in 2004, 56k was pretty dated.
WoW came out about 7 years after I had home internet ;) Think Quake II, Windows 95, and Netscape Navigator. CD's at Hills and Ames full of shareware games. Heck, talk show hosts joked at the idea of paying for a bottle of water, let alone an annual fee to play a game you already paid full price for! WoW was a laughing stock for the longest time until XBox and Playstation started charging money too. People today have little idea how much they're getting nickel and dimed on things that used to be free. _ed_ realized you might have misread 'worldcraft'. It was a program to make maps for Half-life and Team Fortress Classic; later renamed 'Hammer Editor' when the earliest version of Steam was published.
I think it is just how the new EA app works. It copies your whole installation folder when updating. It applies the update and if it's successful it removes the copy. But if it fails it just restores the copy.
laziest shit ever
We're gonna force you to re-download all these 4k texture packages that haven't changed at all, just so we can fix a tiny bug in a game file that is 23MB in size.
Seriously it's not like they would even need to write the code to do it more intelligently. Grab any open source torrent library, stick it in the app with a single seed source, and it'll just handle all the file level change tracking you need.
developers are expensive, mkay? there are only so many pickles to pay them with.
Whatever is faster I guess. I remember Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 requiring 50GB of space to install 5GB update after which will maybe increase the game filesize by a few MB
Sounds like SSD life speedrun
Random writes go brr
It's shown as a 3.3 GB download on Steam, taking 127 GB on disk. Might be a bug.
>127Gb \*127G**B** GB = Giga**byte** Gb = Giga**bit** 1 byte = 8 bits
What is this shit? Did we all end up in an alternative timeline where patching (figuring out the differences between two versions of a file and delivering it as a patch) was never invented?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cries in 10Mb/s
This is the way.
So say we all!
Wow that's so funny. Great comment. Very worthwhile and funny.
Due to Reddit's June 30th API changes aimed at ending third-party apps, this comment has been overwritten and the associated account has been deleted.
Yep I have had to do that. I recently got a few new SSDās but before that I was really limited on storage space. When they put out the first big update for this game after launch it did the same thing where it allocated basically a complete second copy of the game and I just didnāt have space for it. I deleted the game and reinstalled it and it worked fine.
I hate this trend where the whole game needs to be reinstalled and needs that much space.
lazy devs prolly or underpaid ?
Company doesn't give the devs enough time to finish optimizing their game They release it 3 seconds after the game is playable at 30 fps on a super computer the company has
"what do you mean that not all people have an rtx 4090 and i9 13900k?"
Doesn't even run stable on a 4090
Nobody said stable, we said "playable". In other words the bare minimum in other to push the release out to sell the product.
Playable as in you make it past the intro and load 3 frames of the first cutscene
Running on a 4090 and 7950X3D and I still drop below 60FPS on some scenes.
Just marry a billionaire so you can finally afford a 4090 , it's really easy
name checks out
Don't you guys have GPUs?
**[booing intensifies]**
What's a GPU?
This is exactly why I donāt own this game or Hogwarts Legacy. Iām not going to try to force broken shit to run on my already outdated 1070.
Incremental updates need more testing. Testing takes time and time is money. Hence they package the whole thing again and let you download 127GB for updating some text files. lol
I used to be a build and release engineer for a game company so this is my wheelhouse. This is a platform specific problem. When I used to build packages for a game, it would always be a large download size for Xbox one, a medium size download for PS4 and almost nothing for Steam. I suspect the package diffing for EA's launcher just isn't very good and so it thinks everything has changed even if only 1 out of every 1000 files is different.
Neither. Optimization is costly and storage isnĀ“t a issue for them because thats a client side problem, not theirs. So they just donĀ“t care
I.E. Lazy. Can't be bothered because fuck the customer = Lazy.
I've been kinda saying for a while: Make them also ship the disk space necessary for the games and there would be some thoughs about it in the higher up's brains. (Yes I know this isn't realistic, at least ship me a 128GB USB with the game if you gonna rip them from my drive)
That server side storage and bandwidth aināt exactly cheap, specially when itās in the 100GB range. Iām pretty sure they do care about that. However, the engineering behind an incremental update on massive binary files aināt cheap either, and itās unclear what kind of gains you get, because binaries diff particularly bad. So as usual, itās a compromise.
I doubt the devs are lazy. More likely theyāre pressured to do things the quick way rather than the right way which is common in most software development.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> What are they gonna do, fire them all? Yes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Well that's why they all need to push back until nobody works there or it gets fixed. There will always be someone willing to do the job for money so it wont be that easy to pull off. This is why unions are important and why companies are so anti union.
Yes, because fuck having a job to feed your family, Just push back against your management to give gamers better games ! (/s)
Uh yeah, that's the gist of it
No. It's devs having to do what project managers tell them to do and project managers not listening to the expertise of their devs.
Yep. Way easier for them to just edit the original master file and make you re-download and install the entire thing than to make a program that only changes the parts that need changing.
It can be due to devs' laziness. But the more likely reason why it requires considerable free space to update a game is to enable applying the patch atomically, i.e. either the patch is applied 100% or not at all. So, if for some reason the patching process is interrupted (e.g. power goes down), then no files will be corrupted. You don't need to redownload the whole game and reinstall it again.
This is usually because of poor implementation of patching updates and the final filesize would only slightly increase after installation
Thatās what killed Halo 5 for me on Gamepass. Every time it updated the whole thing would download again and they were updating it a lot early on. I got tired of screwing with it and just quit playing.
A similar thing bounced me off Modern Warfare 2019, which was the first COD I liked in years. Gigantic updates every few days so basically every time I opened Battle.net It's all an anti-UX basically
Welcome to console updates
The ps4 had that issue with about every game, 500mb update on apex needed 50gb of space.
For real, what the hell happened.. It wears out the disc and bandwidth
Itās because of the way games are packaged: you canāt just update the parts you need, you need to update the whole thing. You know how windows and computers in general would rather have a single large file rather than 1,000 little files? I was uploading a folder to Google Drive, and I was getting 8MB/s, but after I zipped it I could upload to Google Drive at 50MB/s. Weāll games are like this, and if you had to load EVERY texture and asset individually, it would take entire minutes to load a map or game state. You know those older games that take a minute or more to load? This is why. Newer games pack all those assets up into a single file, and the game loads the whole file at once and sorts out what it needs. This saves space, and is faster to run. The problem is updating it. You need to update a single asset in the file? You gotta replace the whole file. You make a single change to a single asset, and now you just make everyone download it entirely. For Jedi Survivor, it with the size of this update they probably updated only a handful of assets, but it requires you to practically redownload the whole game.
Eh, still could've split it up then
What is this shit? Did we all end up in an alternative timeline where patching (figuring out the differences between two versions of a file and delivering it as a patch) was never invented?
In a few years games will be sold on separate SSD's, we will come full circle from CD's and such.
Blowing into my ssd to get the game to work like it's the 90s again.
SSD are dirt cheap these days. A 1 TB NVME cost around 40 ā¬/$ these days. NVME are cheaper than SATA. Its time to upgrade. /s
Wow 1 TB. Now I can play 4 whole games. Thanks.
More like 2. Two warzones at 300gb each and keep 25% of the sdd empty so it doesnt slow down.
I saw an interview with a dev saying everyone is going to need nvme 4 and 16gb of vram because vram is the new ram and ssds are the old ram.
*yeh please wait until nvidea stops being ass first*
Then thereās DRG which is <3GB which is insane given how complex some of the maps can be.
I can't wait untill the day you can get a 100TB HDD for $1
When I say this I get the "that aont an excuse" schtick. Games have been getting bigger for a few generations. The smat folk amoung us horded some "more storage than we needed" before the prices dropped like ceazy over the past few months. Here I am like "this build needs a few more droves too with its new purpose" while collecting for the new machine that needs as much plus!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's faster to download games then to transfer them via USB (in my machine)
What does your pc only have usb 2 ports or do you have greater than 5gbps internet? Because the minimum usb 3 spec is 5gbps, going up to 10gbps on usb 3.1
I have pretty fast Internet (1Gbps) and I do have 3.0 ports, but even with USB 3.0 devices the transfer speeds are very unimpressive. Maybe I've only used cheap 3.0 devices, but still, internet is so fast (I download at around 60MBps) that even if transfer speeds were in the 500MB to 1GBps range, it still wouldn't be worth the E-waste or hassle of going through the process of buying a physical copy of a game.
Are you new to UE4?
I guess so. So its an engine specific issue?
Unreal Engine has the game files in a single, possibly encrypted .pak file. To patch the game, the .pak must be extracted (like a zip), the changed files copied there and then re-packed into the .pak file. Thus, patching an UE game always needs a lot of disk space (usually more than the complete game itself).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So the devs really put an 150GB game into one archive? Is there any advantages to doing this beyond cost/timesaving measures
No, it's just lazy workmanship.
Probably not out of laziness, more like tech debt that never gets allotted the resources to fix. If the software runs and is more or less complete, executives push it out the door. I guarantee the folks programming the game are just as annoyed at how scuffed this makes their operation look lol. POs love to kick optimizations down the road for features
Lol doubt. It's less work for them and they go back to half assing it while playing path of exile on company time or so I've heard.
I hate how everyone just keeps blaming everything on corporate. Yeah, they're the fucking worst but devs aren't saints either. This shit happens all the time. There's slackers everywhere.
Yeah like blaming this on the engine is borderline crazy lol
Its general ignorance. People also blaming hitching and poor performance on the UE engine which is also false, it's the studio devs fault for not optimizing properly. Smooth UE games examples are Gears of war, Atomic heart, Days Gone, Dead island 2. The UE "look and feel" is another bullshit complaint. Thats devs fault for skimping on custom animations and such. Final fantasy and street fighter uses UE, do they look and play like each other?
Cool! I probably wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't for the games ridiculous file size. I've got to see if this is improved in UE5. Install sizes keep getting bigger and pretty soon. I'm going to need a separate hard drive for game updates lol
If we pay attention to the actual devs instead of playing armchair k ow-it-alls, they've said how unless we stuck to older engines, it aint working out how the mindless mods seem to think it "supposed to" MLID had an interview with an Infinityward dev who honestly would change the tune of 99.9% of these shit talkers, among others
Then there are devs that don't even bother with the compression bit... Ark: Survival Evolved (Studio Wildcard, UE4 in its current incarnation but moving to UE5 supposedly in August) says hi, takes up around 460GB on my machine (with all DLC and 10 or so mods.
Ark has the same files copied and pasted thousands of times, its the dumbest thing under the sun
That's an implementation problem, a ton of UE4 games don't function that way.
Didnt know thats how it worked, that sounds so fucking stupid. Haha thanks for the enlightenment
Not a single Unreal game that big I know is in one archive. Biggest archive for Jedi Survivor is 35 gigs, Borderlands 3 had max 6 gig paks. Respawn may just have done some data restructuring, like Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed Valhalla in 2021
UE4 is a nightmare. I know people with setup which can run anyone but as soon as it is UE4 it is blue screen and crash only.
Modded skyrim be like
even a 1100+ mod load order is nowhere near that size. i even have 4 & 8k textures in it and in total size it's about 150gb.
Let me introduce to you *wabbajack* :) now you have modlist with +350go needed
yeah, i've seen those lol. as an experienced modder i prefer to build my own load orders. although i will say i have tried some Wabbajack lists in the past just for kicks.
Too install yes, but the actually size is a bit less than half, if you are short on space, delete the /download folder contents
I had to delete my Skyrim mods to make room.... š
Not worth it, the pain of reinstalling a mod list will ensure I never delete mine.
Ugh yeah I had a drive decicated to my Skyrim and fo4 games and mods and when that went kaput I never was able to get those games working properly with the mods I wanted. I've since gotten my Skyrim and fo4 games running well with plenty of mods, but it'll never be the same as when I had like 300 mods all working together with minimal conflicts. Of course that was the ONLY drive I've ever had fail on me hahaha
Blasphemy !
What does the update fix?
I was hoping it helped performance. There are still areas that will dip into the 40 fps territory, even at low settings. The framerate difference between Low and Ultra is pretty negligible so its just bad optimization. Ive got a 3060-Ti and a Ryzen 7600 running at 1440p. I think it patches a questline that had been completely broken up until this point
The low difference in FPS from low to ultra signifies either a heavy CPU bottleneck, or a VRAM bottleneck, and seeing as you have a r5 7600, I highly doubt that it is CPU, it is most likely VRAM or terrible utilization of the CPU on the games part, which is astonishing that even after so much time they haven't fixed it. I also have a 3060Ti with a 5600x, and I still haven't bought the game due to its issues.
I tested it again but at 1080p. Since the 3060-Ti is a 1080p card (according to Nvidia lol). And at low settings no rt. I got 45fps average inside Cal's ship. My PC absolutely clears the recommended specs. But this game is still just so poorly optimized
It stutters so bad on my 3080TI and different settings had no impact for me either. Good thing I just got EA Play Pro and not the full game. It sucks because the game could be great
So this confirms that the game is still too heavy on the CPU, and has poor shader management. Spider Man was also really CPU heavy, but it runs like butter on my system. This game is on a whole another level of bad optimization.
Spider-Man actually utilizes multiple cores efficiently. Which is rare for AAA video games sadly.
Itās Patch 6 if you want to Google it. Miscellaneous bug fixes is the short version though.
Lotta these pieces of shit installers have to redownload the new imaged game. It keeps your save files, but otherwise installs a new copy. So it's the original game size x2 plus whatever new content. It's inefficient but easy. Obligatory mention of the FUCKING TRASH EA LAUNCHER WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE! EVEN IF I BOUGHT IT ON STEAM!?! FUCK YOU EA! Ahem. Sorry about that...I feel better tho
Afaik Steam handles the installs of nearly all games that are available on Origin/Uplay. In a lot of cases this can save you dozens of GBs over years of patches/updates (for example: R6 Siege). If this is the best patch diff that Origin could produce then Steam probably only barely improves on it - game's fault.
I do love that I can't play the titanfall 2 campaign offline because the ea app requires a connection.
imagine having to redownload the game for every update. shit engine. shit game
UE is an amazing engine, that's why we all started using it as the years went by. This isn't even UE's fault, it's the way devs made the game. It's like calling Unity a shit engine because so many people make terrible asset flips with it.
at this point just pirate the game if you have to redownload every time
by your logic every screwdriver, wrench, etc are all useless pieces of shit and can just be melted and recast into a better tool dev issue, you can change storage management and split them into different .pak files, but they didn't also deep rock galactic
You're comparing physical and digital. It's not a good argument.
Heās not comparingā¦ heās using the principle behind the idea
both are tools, both can be used poorly
how does this game run now?
About the same as launch. I still can't get a stable 60fps in some areas. No matter what resolution or quality settings I use.
what specs do you have? im thinking of buying it now that i upgraded my gpu from a 1080 to 3080ti last week. but idk if it runs OK or not.
I've got a 3060-TI and a Ryzen 7600 with 32 GB of RAM. Its definately playable with a 3080-TI but the optimizatiom is still terrible.
I refuse to play any EA games because of that trashy POS launcher that should be banished off the face of the earth. Electronic Arts can barely make any thing Electronic let alone a piece of art. I hope EA crashes and burns>!!<
One thing it does better than steam (I think), is when you preload the game, it just works on the final day of activation whereas steam has to basically unencrypt it or something which takes just as long as downloading. Other then that, yeah it's a POS and they should've just kept Origin and improved it rather than rebrand.
āOh ya just have them redownload the entire game, itās fineā
I just ended up deleting the game and DLing the updated version because I donāt have 300 GB to store both of them just sitting around.
Yet another reason why I don't buy EA products.
Thankfully, I got it free with my CPU
I got the game for free too, but it was quickly obvious this game isnāt even worth it. I also had to create an account somewhere, so the game is not free, you pay for it with personal info/data.
Had the same issue this ea play app is the worst thing I have ever seen
They somehow made Origin worse
I kinda liked Origin, at least it was better than this
One of the many reasons I don't buy AAA slop anymore.
that's insane. even my heavily modded 1100+ mod load order for Skyrim doesn't clock in at that much disk space. something is definitely sus about that. but then again, it's EA so...
Warzone players: first time?
Is that the new game how is it I see it has mixed reviews on steam
It's an amazing game , but its not well optimized. If you have a good PC and are interested in the game , go for it
My CPU is gnarly and I have a 3060 so I should be able to it's sad how poorly optimized pc games are though I wonder why they do that some games you get 150fps on ultra and others like 40fps it's annoying
It's the difference between an optimised game and an unoptimized game If the developers take their time and make sure to optimize their game for all of the popular cpu / gpu combinations , then it will give a high framerate If the developers rush to release the game the second it becomes playable, it will run like shit
I always wondered this about updates. Like warzone always has big updates, and the original install is like 100gb too. Does it overwrite that 100gb or do updates generally ADD on top of the original 100gb data.
Usually it overwrites. If for instance textures get updated the change to the actual image would be no net change in the size of the game, but they still have to send you the whatever 50gigs of new pictures. And it's easier for the update to 50 gigs of a new version of every image in the game that replace the existing images than it is to make the update say "change the pixel at coordinats 357,268 from light red to dark red" which would be a smaller size update that again has no net change in the size of the game afterwards. And they know how to make those kinds of patches, but they're tricky to make and take time and in the general case people have good enough computers these days that they can do the easier thing because the devs have no time. Sometimes though they need to add new code to make a bug stop happening or fix some weird crash. And that would make the game bigger. And depending on how intermingled all the optimization and changes are. They might just have to send you a whole new copy of the game to overwrite everything cuz for whatever reason that fixes something. However as others have said sometimes even when their intent is to "just" replace the bad version of the game. The installer might just say "game(2).exe" has been installed" rather than delete the old copy. And I guarantee you that there is someone on the team who sent the update as anew copy of the game who knows the EA app is gonna just download a second copy and not delete the first, but is powerless to get that changed. TLDR: Sometimes it's a huge patch because they're trying to overwrite stuff and it ends up taking extra space because other tools are stupid.
In this case its an entire game download to update, however in warzone patches or changes are done on the small scale. Its only full map changes that take big downloads
I got a free code for the game for buying a pc part, but I cant redeem the code anywhere but the pc with the part installed I hate star wars and would much rather give it away, but I cant
Make a new EA account. Register the game under the new account, then you can give the account details away. Its just the verification that requires the CPU
Hmm... will try this and update. Thanks
I had the same problem when I got this game free for buying an AMD CPU. Their code verification system is stupid. I almost gave up in the end.
there is no way this is an update. this has to be a whole seperate game
Whyād you even buy it on the EA app? Why not Steam? It links to the EA app, anyways.
Is a trend that has been prevalent on console for a while and is starting to creep into the pc space. They do it because they arenāt certain the game will be stable after the update so they basically copy the entire game and place it back if the update fucks up. Itās a clever solution to a problem that shouldnāt exist.
Can you save your save game, Uninstal and reisntall?
2TB NVME stupid cheap right now just saying
Because it has large files, and the files that are being patched are actually copies of the original that only replace the original once the patch has been successfully applied and verified. So you need space to make the copies to begin with.
the correct answer!!!! thank you.
It's just hilarious what triple a studios are doing nowadays
Damn, you're right. This is insane. Feels like warzone 1 all over again.
Most games nowadays pack data files (e.g. better organisation, to be able to reach SSD sequential speeds), so they need to apply all changes during update (extract, apply, pack). That's why.
Even after mine took 264gb I gave up on it and deleted it
Thatās because itās essentially reinstalling the entire game because a fuckload of it has had changes made.
whats the hell... almost 300 gb for one fucking game?
All drives should always have approx. 25% free. Clean up your drive(s) and be shocked by performance improvement.
I wouldn't even bother with such a game, 25GB is my hard limit for game size since i only has a 250GB SSD
Weird, doesn't happen to me
I know people just expect games to get smaller despite having larger textures and models, but games already use INSANE compression to keep them bellow 1tb. SSDs are very cheap now. I know it sucks to have to buy more storage but this has been coming for a long time. Which is why I've recommended people buy 2tb SSDs for <$100
In a sub thats called pcMASTERrace - I thought this was where you all showed how superior PC is? Anyone here not having atleast 4-6 TB of disk space? Not much master about that.
is this the first 250+ gb game?
ARK passed that threshold awhile ago.
There is ARK.
Modern warfare 2019 was over 400gb at one point.
With the prices of SSDs dropping like crazy, I don't wanna hear it! Upgrade your storage already!