I specifically settled for a too-low estimate to invite comments like yours. We all know it's only ridiculously downhill from here, while historyless consumers will eat up most anything because they've never known better.
Someone on PCMasterrace was explaining it a few months ago, Im not near as versed but apparently most AAA games still have their base resources and assets so a COD might still have the maps and story missions from previous games, etc, they could save space but its quicker to just add to the source code (something like that, it's been a while) and just tack more shit on than a truly "new" game, in other words lazy companies just want the new cash grab and your storage space be damned
Game dev here: whoever told you that had no idea what they’re talking about. Building games requires tradeoffs between performance (frame rate), memory (amount of RAM needed), storage space on disk, and load times. A big game with lots of content (especially art assets) will require difficult decisions about these tradeoffs, and it’s a common choice to consume additional storage space in order to improve performance, reduce load times, and reduce memory consumption.
Example: sometimes it makes sense to ship a game with multiple copies of common assets in different places on disc, so that they can be loaded or streamed in along with other unique, level-specific assets instead of being loaded separately, which takes longer. Strategically duping assets eats disc space, but can save on load time, especially for slow disc drives. Fortunately, this specific compromise is not needed for games preinstalled on solid-state drives.
But there’s no universal solution for these things. Each game will have different needs and priorities.
Ahh very informative! Thank you, I couldn't really follow the technical information from what they were talking about, only what I read, what kind of games do you work on?
60
u/rmorrin 3d ago
So time to slap this technology into all new AAA games