this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
644 points (99.1% liked)
RetroGaming
24442 readers
687 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is as much of a valid complaint now as it was back then.
There is absolutely no excuse for games now to be over 100GB in storage space. Unless you have the longest game ever that span across like 1 and a half "normal" game lengths. The biggest games now should be 60GB or less. So many developers refuse to compress things that could be compressed with zero noticeable loss in quality except for maybe a camera being really close to an object with an 8k display resolution.
At the absolute worst, do what games used to do for like 6 months before not caring: make the game for 1080p players, compression and all, then offer a free DLC with all the uncompressed stuff. At least make the storage feast optional.
even 60GB is absurd, tons of games get by just fine with like 10GB while having no lack of content and graphics.
Nah, I understand a AAA game being up to 60GB. Sometimes the amount of content really is that big. Elden Ring, for example. Its a big game with a lot of content, and its pretty close to 60GB I think. And yes, Morrowind has explorable space probably equally as big as Elden Ring for just 1GB. But compared to Elden Ring, Morrowind is like an empty barren wasteland. Maybe Elden Ring's landmass data could have reduced filesize if it used prodecurally generated mesh if it doesn't already, but in the end I think 60GB and under is fine.
While indie games can easily fit under 10GB because they are tiny or 2D, I get why bigger AAA games can't.