Expect 100 GB Install Size, 6 GB Patches For Star Citizen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Nimcha:
This thread mostly serves to make me realize there are still people with data-caps. I feel for you, bros :(

I also have a cap, 2 TB cap but a cap none the less... Never gone above 450 GB though...

100GB with 6GB Patches? Well, there goes the very last piece of interest I potentially could have had in that game.

Thats one insane size for that game. What is it that even takes that much space in it? Is it the textures? Music? Is it full of voice acting? Cinematics?

Regardless of what it is, the more I hear about Star Citizen, the more I wonder how in the heck it'll ever manage to deliver on all the built up hype 'n promises.

Well Chris Robert's middle name is ambition. And whilst the cynics fold their arms in their stalwart hope it'll fail, he and the rest of his team are actually getting on with it.

100gb might be a little hard to explain to the billpayers,. mind.

Eh. I'm not surprised, given the absurd level of detail the ships in that game have.

It doesn't bother me. 100 gb is a lot, and that would tax my 1gb main drive a little, but... Whatever.
Besides which I have unlimited internet.

Sure 100 gigs is a big download, but I'm sure I've had worse. the MMO I sometimes play routinely seems to shove 3+ gb patches my way too. So...

This kind of stuff is why I try and avoid capped internet plans like the plague though.
It's not even that I would necessarily ever hit my cap, just the stress of knowing I have one, and whether or not I might exceed it at some point that puts me off...

Thats just incase ! I don't know how it can possibly be that big. If its crazy high res textures and stuff thats going to contribute to it but still 100GB is crazy.

Not a problem for my internet , in the civilised world we don't all have low limits :P mainly a US thing i think ( a few UK ones have it but not many).

Usually get between 15 -19 MB/s on steam so it should be fine :P

Fun fact: They recently introduced a new system to simulate the first two (out of five) damage states on ships without changing the meshes, so they could cut down on the memory cost.

RSI Comm Link
Two other areas we wanted to improve on were the time it takes our artist to create the numerous damage states for each part of the ship, and the hefty memory cost these meshes come with, which could prove to be a problem as we scale up the game. The reason the damage states are so labour intensive is that each ship has over ten main parts, and each of these requires five damage states to represent the different levels of damage, then each of these requires up to five simplified meshes that we use when they're further from the camera to save performance. This equates to over 200 meshes per ship!

Me55enger:
Well Chris Robert's middle name is ambition. And whilst the cynics fold their arms in their stalwart hope it'll fail, he and the rest of his team are actually getting on with it.

100gb might be a little hard to explain to the billpayers,. mind.

Being cynical doesn't mean you want the game to fail. It just means people are being realistic in their idea of what a game developer is. They're a business and they want to make money. Making huge promises is nothing new with game devs and it doesn't usually end well. Just because people aren't jumping on the hype train, it doesn't mean they want the game to fail. I'd love for the game to succeed. If it delivers on most of what it promises, it'll probably be one of my favourite games of all time. I just don't expect that to happen.

Call me pessimistic if you want, but I've never had buyer's remorse when it comes to any video game I've purchased. Not saying you have, but it does seem to happen quite a bit in this industry.

They are being cynical if the complain about how this game won't deliver on it's promises AND how this game will take too much HDD space that will obviously be used on delivering on said promises.

Zontar:
But seriously, who is going to download that in an age where the majority of us still have caps? I know I'm not even considering it now (I was before) and I have a 250GB cap, about as high as they get.

Move to Europe, our internet isn't stuck in 2005.

I don't see what the fuss is.

Titanfall is 48GB(!)
Battlefield 4 is about 60GB with expansions.
Advanced Warfare is 45GB for the base game.
So two to two and a half times the size of a middling FPS doesn't sound bad to me.
Multi GB patches and DLC are already the norm, it says more about ISPs than the game that this is a problem for anyone in the western world.

That's kind of an issue. I'm not heavily invested in the whole Elite vs SC argument, but I will say that this is pretty much the reason that E:D is always online (besides the fact that it's an MMO anyway) because 400 billion systems is a lot of data, so it can be downloaded as needed. At least I think that's how it works, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The other reason I prefer E:D is because it exists. Star citizen to me is seeming almost Molyneux-esque in what it promises, and I'd be surprised if even half of that comes to fruition. Don't get me wrong. If SC turns out to be all they say, I'd happily spend up many pounds and hundreds of GB of space for it, but I doubt it will.

This is why I keep up to date on updates but sometimes this shit can become corrupted then a new download and installation is needed. Downloading the game in its entirety at the moment is a ten to twelve hour procedure on my five megabit connection. At least I do not have to worry about data-caps.

Pinkamena:
And what is the problem? Storage space is cheap, and the people who want to play this game will probably have the internet speeds required for it.

Except the ones who don't. As other people have pointed out, a great many people still are forced into internet connections that have monthly caps on usage (most of the time said caps are even below 100 GB), and even people who aren't capped can have terrible speeds (like myself; it would literally take me the better part of a full week to download this, assuming I was getting full speeds the entire time).

Being the fault of the ISPs doesn't make it any less relevant a thing to consider. Good for the people who won't have any issues with this, but a lot of people still will.

Ferisar:

Scars Unseen:
Reading the comments in this thread reminds me of why I don't want to go back to the States. My first thought upon reading that was "that might take an hour or two to download. Maybe I'll watch a movie while I wait."

I don't get it living IN the States. Like, no, my down speed isn't amazing, but leaving it on overnight...

Either way, I don't get the surprise. WoW uses low-poly everything and is upward of 30 Gigs in size. This is a Space Sim that has actual fidelity in its art assets. Really not something that came from left field. It's impressive more than anything else.

WoW is also just over a decade old, with four expansion packs. And yet they've managed to keep the game from ballooning much beyond 30 GB over all of that time, despite it getting consistently larger and receiving improved assets.

fix-the-spade:

I don't see what the fuss is.

Titanfall is 48GB(!)
Battlefield 4 is about 60GB with expansions.
Advanced Warfare is 45GB for the base game.
So two to two and a half times the size of a middling FPS doesn't sound bad to me.
Multi GB patches and DLC are already the norm, it says more about ISPs than the game that this is a problem for anyone in the western world.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think those install sizes are ridiculously overblown as well, especially considering the amount of actual content each game contains. And multi-GB patches are extremely obnoxious, because it means that when I get the feeling to play something that needs to update before I'm allowed to play, I have to spend hours waiting and by the time it's finished I probably won't feel like playing it anymore.

Cool, on my 600kb/s download speed that will only take me around....

2 days.

oh.

Ah well, i'm an Elite guy anyway :D

shrekfan246:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think those install sizes are ridiculously overblown as well, especially considering the amount of actual content each game contains.

I agree, but it's a symptom of the demand for HD-everything. If we all agreed to play on 2005-7 era graphics forever install sizes would drop dramatically, but graphics are still the main selling tool of new games, so we're stuck with it.

Me55enger:
Well Chris Robert's middle name is ambition. And whilst the cynics fold their arms in their stalwart hope it'll fail, he and the rest of his team are actually getting on with it.

100gb might be a little hard to explain to the billpayers,. mind.

Actually, I am optimistically waiting for this game to fail. This game has the opulent bloated budgets of the AAA industry added with the over-ambition and lack of restraints of indie development. It exemplifies the worst mentalities of the the industry and having it succeed would do more harm than it would do good in the long run.

People who are complaining about the download size are missing an important factor- You can pause the download. If you really want to play, let it take something like 20 gigs over a month to first install, and when it has to patch, do so manually at the end of the month if you have the data, or the start if you don't. It's inefficient, but better than blowing 100gb in one friggen' go.

Okay, Chris. I get it. I'll buy a new harddrive for your game.

Just don't hurt my computer! D:

Coruptin:
[quote="Me55enger" post="7.872209.21877192"]Well Chris Robert's middle name is ambition. And whilst the cynics fold their arms in their stalwart hope it'll fail, he and the rest of his team are actually getting on with it.

100gb might be a little hard to explain to the billpayers,. mind.

Actually, I am optimistically waiting for this game to fail. This game has the opulent bloated budgets of the AAA industry added with the over-ambition and lack of restraints of indie development. It exemplifies the worst mentalities of the the industry and having it succeed would do more harm than it would do good in the long run.[/quote

The two mentalities cancel each other out. If you're over-budgeting, be over-ambitious. When you have one and not the other, that's where problems happen. I'm all for AAA getting kicked into higher ambition.

I still can't play Star Citizen in the foreseeable future, but if it succeeds, I'm OK with that.

I remember when I played on my 286 @12 Mhz, Wing Commander took roughly 25% of my incredibly expensive 20MB hard drive.
Wing Commander II the next year took about half of the "new and improved" 40MB drive of my 386 @40Mhz.

1 TB drives are dirt cheap compared to people's average income today - I don't see how the size is going to be a problem.

What concerns me the most is how the hell are they going to handle the massive amount of data required to synchronise the status of the multi-crew ships, their systems, subsystems, and all the PC/NPC on board. I'm afraid this will significantly limit the maximum amount of ships in the same instance.

So a new game is coming along that will require lots of folks to upgrade their hardware to play? Nothing new--been happening in the gaming world for decades. Folks complaining about the size of downloads remind me of the modem/isdn days when broadband was just getting rolled out.

But the vision of the developers isn't to create a game that runs of all the hardware Best Buy has sold over the last decade. Star Citizen is meant to push all hardware to its current limits. Folks are running liquid cooled, 16GB rigs with dual 290's and the like. Star Citizen won't be for everyone--but I suspect those able to afford to play will have a great time.

On a side note--if you are having bandwidth or data cap problems--why not take a page from the old modem days? Nothing says you can only have one broadband account. Multi-hone your broadband with a second cable account or maybe think about DSL or even rooting and tethering your cellphone.

Zontar:
Looks like this won't be the Eve killer after all (not that the mechanics of the game ever made that a possibility anyway).

But seriously, who is going to download that in an age where the majority of us still have caps? I know I'm not even considering it now (I was before) and I have a 250GB cap, about as high as they get.

No, that is the US. I have never even heard of data caps, ever.

RedDeadFred:
That would take me a day to download... It's doable, and I don't have to worry about a cap, but why is it so big? I get that the game has amazing graphics, but isn't a fairly sizable portion of the game just space?

If the game turns out to be amazing (I'm doubtful) I will certainly pick it up, but it really sucks for the people who have to deal with download limits. It just seems like a bit of a middle finger to what could very well be a large portion of their backers. But hey, they've already got their money so that doesn't really matter.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but I tend to assume the worst about pretty much every game developer.

On the contrary, I see this as them doing exactly what they should be doing for their backers: making the best game possible. This is supposed to be a PC game for PC gamers, no fucking compromises, and if people actually backed the project in the expectation they'd be able to play something running on a heavily modified version of the Crysis Engine on the decrepit fucking Difference Engine they use to play WoW, well, a fool and his money are soon parted as they say.

SC will have multiple large landing locations on planets, all of which you can set down on and walk around in FPS mode, the same for space stations, not to mention the various PoI locations where you can go EVA and explore in zero-G. Some of the larger ships are as large as an FPS level, and all the multiplayer ships plus a few of the singleplayer ones have an interior that you can move around in while flying in space. Not to mention all the "maps" for the ingame VR simulator modes that let you just play pew-pew in FPS/your ship.

SC is two or three big modern games rolled into one, why is it a shock to people that it needs two or three big games' worth of assets?

lacktheknack:

The two mentalities cancel each other out. If you're over-budgeting, be over-ambitious. When you have one and not the other, that's where problems happen. I'm all for AAA getting kicked into higher ambition.

I still can't play Star Citizen in the foreseeable future, but if it succeeds, I'm OK with that.

And here, we already see the damage this game is doing.

Over-ambition is reigned in by a frugal budget and release schedule. It forces people to come up with creative solutions instead of say...

RSI Comm Link
Two other areas we wanted to improve on were the time it takes our artist to create the numerous damage states for each part of the ship, and the hefty memory cost these meshes come with, which could prove to be a problem as we scale up the game. The reason the damage states are so labour intensive is that each ship has over ten main parts, and each of these requires five damage states to represent the different levels of damage, then each of these requires up to five simplified meshes that we use when they're further from the camera to save performance. This equates to over 200 meshes per ship!

this, this is an overtly indulgent budget feeding off of ambition. It's a "let's throw money at our problems!" mentality.

732GB free of 1.81TB....and nearly 28 hour DL time at optimal speed for my connection. Hmm, think I'll still get it but I only recently bought my current HD. I may get a dedicated SSD just for this as well.

Coruptin:

lacktheknack:

The two mentalities cancel each other out. If you're over-budgeting, be over-ambitious. When you have one and not the other, that's where problems happen. I'm all for AAA getting kicked into higher ambition.

I still can't play Star Citizen in the foreseeable future, but if it succeeds, I'm OK with that.

And here, we already see the damage this game is doing.

Over-ambition is reigned in by a frugal budget and release schedule. It forces people to come up with creative solutions instead of say...

RSI Comm Link
Two other areas we wanted to improve on were the time it takes our artist to create the numerous damage states for each part of the ship, and the hefty memory cost these meshes come with, which could prove to be a problem as we scale up the game. The reason the damage states are so labour intensive is that each ship has over ten main parts, and each of these requires five damage states to represent the different levels of damage, then each of these requires up to five simplified meshes that we use when they're further from the camera to save performance. This equates to over 200 meshes per ship!

this, this is an overtly indulgent budget feeding off of ambition. It's a "let's throw money at our problems!" mentality.

You have no use for a gaming version of Caligula?

Awww. I was enjoying the ride.

Ark of the Covetor:

RedDeadFred:
That would take me a day to download... It's doable, and I don't have to worry about a cap, but why is it so big? I get that the game has amazing graphics, but isn't a fairly sizable portion of the game just space?

If the game turns out to be amazing (I'm doubtful) I will certainly pick it up, but it really sucks for the people who have to deal with download limits. It just seems like a bit of a middle finger to what could very well be a large portion of their backers. But hey, they've already got their money so that doesn't really matter.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but I tend to assume the worst about pretty much every game developer.

On the contrary, I see this as them doing exactly what they should be doing for their backers: making the best game possible. This is supposed to be a PC game for PC gamers, no fucking compromises, and if people actually backed the project in the expectation they'd be able to play something running on a heavily modified version of the Crysis Engine on the decrepit fucking Difference Engine they use to play WoW, well, a fool and his money are soon parted as they say.

SC will have multiple large landing locations on planets, all of which you can set down on and walk around in FPS mode, the same for space stations, not to mention the various PoI locations where you can go EVA and explore in zero-G. Some of the larger ships are as large as an FPS level, and all the multiplayer ships plus a few of the singleplayer ones have an interior that you can move around in while flying in space. Not to mention all the "maps" for the ingame VR simulator modes that let you just play pew-pew in FPS/your ship.

SC is two or three big modern games rolled into one, why is it a shock to people that it needs two or three big games' worth of assets?

Maybe, but I'll wait until the finished product to decide if it really ends up being that big. There are plenty of huge games out that aren't even a third of this game's size, so yes, I am skeptical. If it does end up being that huge and delivers on all of the things you just mentioned, I will absolutely get the game. Believe me, I want it to be great, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Zontar:
Looks like this won't be the Eve killer after all (not that the mechanics of the game ever made that a possibility anyway).

But seriously, who is going to download that in an age where the majority of us still have caps? I know I'm not even considering it now (I was before) and I have a 250GB cap, about as high as they get.

I know that data caps are common in Canada and the US, but I'm not sure if it's a global problem. In my country (Israel) data caps only exist for mobile web. Maybe some people from other countries can comment and say if it's common in their countries.

Wow there is so much hating in this thread...Star Citizen is very much on track for completion and has released content modules at most a few weeks late. It's got a 300 person team and tens of millions in funding, as well as an already dedicated player base.

I would be with you if there was any indication that something was wrong...but they've been really on-point with their releases and are so open with their development process that many times they crowd-source solutions to many of the problems that they've faced in terms of the sheer scale of the project.

I don't get what there is to be so blindly pessimistic about. You can be skeptical and hold your money until you see the finished product (a perfectly valid option), which won't launch till 2016, but nothing about SC's development yells "trainwreck".

Install size is not the same as download size, with proper compression the download could be smaller than a third of that, so y'all can stop freaking out about your download caps.

Anyway, hopefully this ends up more fun than Elite: Dangerous, that game bored me out of my skull after 2 hours.

Haha, read about this on a Norwegian site and they were all like "Oh yeah bring it on! The bigger the better!"
Come here and it's all like "Oh fuck that shit"

It's still not coming out for a while so things can change a lot until then, one could hope anyways.

ambitiousmould:
I'm not heavily invested in the whole Elite vs SC argument, but I will say that this is pretty much the reason that E:D is always online (besides the fact that it's an MMO anyway) because 400 billion systems is a lot of data, so it can be downloaded as needed. At least I think that's how it works, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The always online has nothing to do with it. In fact always online can be disadvantageous because you wont even be able to play the SP mode (remember Diablo's error 37) if you lose your internet connection or the servers go down.
The only problem of a 100gb size and big updates is that it can be a deterrent to people with crappy internet connections, slow speeds, data caps and how to give a physical copy to those who asked for one.

Perhaps they could have two separate downloads, one for the people with huge caps and awesome PCs, and then a "middle" range DL which is a bit more conservative, like say Elite level detail.

I get unlimited internet access at great speeds trough the magic of fiber-optic cable, and at very low prices. I'm not concerned about the size, but I admit I didn't consider how big it might get. Still 400-500 GB of space on my 1TB game drive though, so that should be fine.

Sucks for everyone that backed and have terrible download speeds and/or limits on how much data they can download. I imagine most people buying a game of this type has 100GB of space to spare though.

loa:

Something somewhere went horribly wrong.

I believe it was the moment when the project was split up between no less than six different development studios.

I mean, for fuck's sake, even Call of Duty isn't spread as thin.

Fieldy409:
Everytime I hear about Star Citizen I feel like im watching a trainwreck slowly happen.

This is how I've felt going on a year now. I'm almost fearful of the ramifications of the game turning out poorly. There's going to be a lot of anger, a lot of animosity, a lot of serious questions raised, and a lot of doubt thrown towards the dev(s) and Kickstarter projects that just "got too big".

I just get this feeling like the whole project is going to go down in history as "that moment the gaming community banded together to massively fund an ambitious, indie project, and it all crumbled like a house of cards." I really hope that isn't the case. I really, really do.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

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