Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare Requires 130 GB of Disk Space

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Bindal:
Isn't Black Ops 3 sitting at around 40GB total, with all DLCs?
Why the hell is this more than double on its own, TRIPLE with MW1R?

Probably audio files. You can complain about cod a lot but they include full audio for a lot of languages. I think most of the last few cod games space was taken up by audio. Its even worse now that multi maps have characters call out audio messages.

Worgen:

Bindal:
Isn't Black Ops 3 sitting at around 40GB total, with all DLCs?
Why the hell is this more than double on its own, TRIPLE with MW1R?

Probably audio files. You can complain about cod a lot but they include full audio for a lot of languages. I think most of the last few cod games space was taken up by audio. Its even worse now that multi maps have characters call out audio messages.

Audio files were the reason that Titanfall's size was 48GB. They made up 73% of its disk usage!

https://www.vg247.com/2014/03/11/titanfall-pcs-48gb-install-size-explained-by-respawn/:
Speaking with Eurogamer, Respawn?s lead engineer Richard Baker explained that 35GB of that total install size is to do with uncompressed audio.

Anyone care to guess how many days it will take to install this behemoth onto either consoles or the p.c. or how long it would take to load at start/between areas?
Or why Activision thinks a game this size would work on the consoles?

Avnger:

And the winner of the most pretentious post award goes to you!

First, glad to see your first response is an insult. Very classy.

Second, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretentious. Me thinks you'll need to find a different pejorative. "Pretentious" makes no sense in this context. Like....at all.[1]

Those who buy the game on consoles have to install too. The default storage for a PS4 is only 500GB, and it's impossible to use multiple at the same time. Upgrading requires replacing the thing and transferring data.

Right, which is an inherent problem of the consoles, and not something I'm being "pretentious" about when I point out how absurd it is.

Me pointing out the low price per gigabyte of disc space isn't a slight against the users. It was squarely pointed at the companies that overcharge for that space. (see: Microsoft, Sony, etc)

Also, try $8.12 for storage for just this game on a compatible drive for the PS4. That's the price for 7.5% of the cheapest 2TB 2.5mm SATA 2 5400rpm drive on Amazon.

You clearly can do some math and did some limited searching of online retailer prices for hard drives, but you don't seem to fully understand what my previous post entailed. The price per gigabyte is based on the baseline storage capacity and does not take into account retailer price inflation, added cost from the inclusion of extra features on the drive (like disc read/write speeds, cache, etc).

Here are some of the sources I used -
http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-cost-of-hard-drive-storage/
https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/internal-hard-drive/

So while it's good to see that you can use Amazon.com to find hard drives, you're just demonstrably wrong about your price.

Some people don't live in a world where tossing another $124 (for that drive) is an easy thing to do at the drop of a hat.

And did I say that should be the case? No, I didn't. I only said 130 gigs is a 'drop in the bucket' when it comes to disc space today, both in terms of capacity and cost. Again, it's not my fault the consoles are technologically neutered. If someone chose to play on one of those consoles[2] then that person must accept the console's limitations.

The cost of space means nothing for developers not doing part of their job.

That's incredibly presumptive of you. How do you know they haven't done 'part of their job'?

When your game takes up more than a fifth of the total storage capacity that comes baked into a basic PS4, you're doing something wrong.

Again, that's very presumptive. The game features what effectively amounts to five games. Three, if we're being picky. (we'll go with 3 from here on out). And that means that there is three games worth of content in there, which puts each at just over 40 gigs. Each of those 40 gigs includes all of the core content on the game, estimates for early patches, updates, and DLC, it includes standard, HD, and 4K textures, compressed and uncompressed audio, some of which will included numerous languages, etc.

Put simply, it all adds up.

But let's not forget what was actually said in Activision's post on the matter.
"The estimated storage space required for Call of Duty®: Infinite Warfare and Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare Remastered (Legacy, Digital Deluxe, or Legacy Pro) is a combined 130 GB. This is a high-end estimate."

So the games may, in fact, not take up 130 gigs.

Besides, of all the people complaining about the space requirements around here, who among them were actually considering buying the game beforehand? Given how much energy this community expends hating on the series, I assume very few. Which would mean we have a bunch of people complaining about a game they had no interest in to begin with.

Fantastic. I love this community.

[1] Seriously? Pretentious? That's just a baffling use of the term here. Holy shit.
[2] And for the record, I currently own a PS4. In fact, from as far back as I can remember, I have owned at least two consoles from every generation of consoles. So...inb4 'PC elitist'.

Vigormortis:
Wow. Not only late to the game but also attempting to stir up a shit-storm over nothing. Great job. At least you're consistent.

Why is this surprising? Those 130 gigs comprise the campaign, the multiplayer, the Zombies mode, the campaign for the MW remaster, and the multiplayer for the MW remaster. All of which require standard and 4k texture resolutions, compressed and uncompressed audio, various language support, etc. That's a LOT of content, especially the 4k textures for what essentially amounts to five games.

Fuck's sake, people. Welcome to 2016. It's a wondrous place where cell phones are 'smart', cars drive themselves, and disc space costs somewhere between a whopping $0.019 per gigabyte and a mind-blowing $0.03 per gigabyte.

K.ur:
So, how expensive is this in storeage? Current dollar per GB for HDD and SSD.

See above. (minus the snark)

Basically, less than $2.

While the amount of space involved is very easy to explain, given the sheer breadth of content the CoD games provide, one also cannot deny that that is an absolutely incredible amount of space for a game, pre-any DLC that'll come out.

Storage may be cheap, but many ISPs like to throw around caps or bandwidth limitations making downloading the game a challenge - heck, in the US, Comcast is actually trying to introduce datacaps in a bunch of cities right now.

So the amount isn't all that unreasonable, but holy crap that's still quite a lot of data

Areloch:

While the amount of space involved is very easy to explain, given the sheer breadth of content the CoD games provide, one also cannot deny that that is an absolutely incredible amount of space for a game, pre-any DLC that'll come out.

Storage may be cheap, but many ISPs like to throw around caps or bandwidth limitations making downloading the game a challenge - heck, in the US, Comcast is actually trying to introduce datacaps in a bunch of cities right now.

So the amount isn't all that unreasonable, but holy crap that's still quite a lot of data

I'm not denying any of that. One hundred thirty gigs (if the full download is that amount at launch) is a lot of data, but it's not really all that surprising or unheard of in this day and age.

So sure, it could be a turnoff for those who may have otherwise considered buying the game. A turnoff I can appreciate. But to be as flabbergasted and appalled as so many seem to be just seems like an overreaction.

Vigormortis:

Areloch:

While the amount of space involved is very easy to explain, given the sheer breadth of content the CoD games provide, one also cannot deny that that is an absolutely incredible amount of space for a game, pre-any DLC that'll come out.

Storage may be cheap, but many ISPs like to throw around caps or bandwidth limitations making downloading the game a challenge - heck, in the US, Comcast is actually trying to introduce datacaps in a bunch of cities right now.

So the amount isn't all that unreasonable, but holy crap that's still quite a lot of data

I'm not denying any of that. One hundred thirty gigs (if the full download is that amount at launch) is a lot of data, but it's not really all that surprising or unheard of in this day and age.

So sure, it could be a turnoff for those who may have otherwise considered buying the game. A turnoff I can appreciate. But to be as flabbergasted and appalled as so many seem to be just seems like an overreaction.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here