Why does Titanfall require 50GB of space?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Now I know EA is famous for their inability to keep things efficient (Origin being much larger then Steam while having less features being a perfect example), but seriously, 50GB of free space for Titanfall? Is that a record? I can't remember ever getting a game that reached the 35GB mark, and apart from Total War the only ones to pass the 25GB mark I know of where MMOs or multiplayer oriented games which had been out for years with much more content then a few maps and textures.

So for my tech savvy fellow escapists, can someone explain to me what the hell happened?

I was just wondering about this myself. I got my code from GMG, which was a pleasant surprise in itself, allowing me to preload the game as if I had bought it on Origin. Then I hit preload and it tells me 49.99GB required. Ouch. What? The beta, which should have realistically contained most of the assets, or at least all of the shared assets, was ~10GB...

I've taken a look at the destination folder and it seems we're getting the loose files right away, so we'll be able to tell what's taking all this space once it's done downloading.

In the meantime, there are only two things it could be:
-Ridiculously uncompressed textures or
-Ridiculously uncompressed videos/sound assets.

Since there's no single-player, I'm going to guess it's the textures.

P.S: I don't think it actually downloads the whole 50GB though...
See, my bandwidth is 15mbps, nominally, but I mostly get 17. That equals 2.1 MB/s as pretty much the absolute maximum I can ever get and that's mostly what Origin is downloading at. Except it's been a few times now, since I started this preload and while I've been writing this, that Origin tells me it's transferring 4 to 6 MB/s for minutes at a time. Now that's 32 to 48 mbps; there is no way my ISP is just letting me have that today when it's never happened before, so it's definitely Origin unpacking data and counting it as transferred.

HOLY F*CK.

Fifty gigabytes? That's not even funny. Origin takes damn near an ice age to download files, I shudder to think how long it would take to download 50GB of data...probably a week or more. I seriously hope that isn't some sort of disk-locked content.

Isn't it one of those things where it tells you it needs more space than it does.(like 90% of pc game recommended requirements) That said welcome to actual HD textures lol games take up actual space when you don't compress everything to hell. IE max payne 15gb for 360 vs 35+ for pc.

Barbas:

HOLY F*CK.

Fifty gigabytes? That's not even funny. Origin takes damn near an ice age to download files, I shudder to think how long it would take to download 50GB of data...probably a week or more. I seriously hope that isn't some sort of disk-locked content.

I can confirm now that it definitely does not download 50GBs.

I started it barely 90 minutes ago and it's already 39GB/78% done. For the record, and as I said in my other post, I only have a 15mbps connection, so either I'm magically stealing bandwidth or Origin is downloading compressed files and unpacking them on the fly.

You can see here that my real network use is staying at 17.6 mbps (2.2MB/s) while my HDD is getting much more and Origin is processing yet more.

It's weird that they'd do it like this, but then again I've seen this sort of thing with updates to Valve's games on Steam (400MB update, total downloaded: 100MB)
The fact that Titanfall is built on Valve's Source engine is no coincidence here I think...

Mr.Tea:
It's weird that they'd do it like this, but then again I've seen this sort of thing with updates to Valve's games on Steam (400MB update, total downloaded: 100MB)

It's likely because you are getting archived data, so the transfer does not measure the actual data you will get on the disk. Also, I don't know if they account for how exactly the data occupies the disk[1] but what also could happen is some resources get generated post download thus you may need to download, say, X amount of data but that then expands to 5 times X.

All in all, it's not really that weird that the download and the actual disk requirements differ. Not to mention that often times I've seen games not actually need as much space as they initially claimed.

[1] you will notice that usually files will have two sizes listed - one "normal" and one "actual" - it is because of how drives store data. For certain files you will get a noticeable discrepancy between the two, however most of the time they should be pretty close.

If anyone cares, I found out what it is...

Yes, you're reading that right: That is 34 Gigabytes of audio files.

Why so much? Well let's see. We got English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Traditional Chinese.

(Right-click and open the image in a new tab if you want to be able to read)

DoPo:

Mr.Tea:
It's weird that they'd do it like this, but then again I've seen this sort of thing with updates to Valve's games on Steam (400MB update, total downloaded: 100MB)

It's likely because you are getting archived data, so the transfer does not measure the actual data you will get on the disk.

I know, I did say "Origin is downloading compressed files and unpacking them on the fly".

What I meant is weird is how they're choosing to (not) tell you about it. In a download interface, what you really care about is... the download. How much and how fast you're downloading, not disk use.

Also "size" vs. "size on disk" is just the difference between actual file size and the number of allocation units used.

This is going to be one of the few occasions where I am going to buy the retail version of the game. Works out cheaper than buying from Origin too.

I think this is why I feel myself pulling away from PC gaming. The push for digital and huge amounts of data in an age where people still have caps along with other issues.

Get_A_Grip_:
This is going to be one of the few occasions where I am going to buy the retail version of the game. Works out cheaper than buying from Origin too.

curious, where are you getting it and for how cheap? A friend of mine was asking where to get it for cheapest and I recommended a website for him for 47 bucks but if it's cheaper elsewhere I'd like to tell him.

That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

lacktheknack:
That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

The problem isn't downloads getting bigger (that's almost inevitable). The problem is ISP's that still think it's acceptable to give people download caps when how much you download has no actual impact on the ISP's cost. Download caps are a scam.

well, 39 Gb for audio?

the hell? did Respawn forget about compressed files?

with that, if it is around 50 Gb, then you got 10 possibly from the beta that will probably be reused. so you got potentially another 1 Gb for the additional maps and weapons.

Something doesn't seem right, and even though I'm one of the Titanfall haters that hate it because it's cool [because that's what we get lumped into it seems] I really hope that all the maps and weapons dont actually fall in that rough 1 GB of data.

Cause that tells me there wont be as many weapons and the maps could feel same-ish.

and for any online only shooter, you need a lot of weapons.

Vivi22:

lacktheknack:
That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

The problem isn't downloads getting bigger (that's almost inevitable). The problem is ISP's that still think it's acceptable to give people download caps when how much you download has no actual impact on the ISP's cost. Download caps are a scam.

And yet here I am.

It's all well and good to say that I'm being scammed, but at the end of the day, I refuse to buy Titanfall if it's that large, and it really didn't have to be (there's no way a beta will be 10 GB and the full thing will be 5 times that size).

lacktheknack:
That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

The problem is not the size of the download, the problem is you live in an internet third world country :)

Edit. But to add, EA is still at fault here, audio language packs not being optional for digital download is an idiotic practice and a total waste of bandwidth.

Dead Century:
I think this is why I feel myself pulling away from PC gaming. The push for digital and huge amounts of data in an age where people still have caps along with other issues.

Isn't it just as bad on consoles, though? They seem to be pushing for us to move to a digital distribution only environment.

Shouldn't it just download the audio for the region/country and not the entire damn set of language packs?

KarmaTheAlligator:

Dead Century:
I think this is why I feel myself pulling away from PC gaming. The push for digital and huge amounts of data in an age where people still have caps along with other issues.

Isn't it just as bad on consoles, though? They seem to be pushing for us to move to a digital distribution only environment.

Nah not really. You're correct, there is a push, but nowhere near what PC does. As an example, say I pick up Fallout New Vegas for PS3, I can pop that sucker in, ignore updates, and carry on. If I pick it up for PC, I'm waiting on a mandatory update on Steam, after a disc installation just to play a single-player game.

Consoles are still very retail and disc orientated.

That said, digital content on PC goes on sale far more often and at greater discounted prices than consoles.

You can visibly see it when you walk into an electronics store and go to look at the PC section, it's shuffled off in the corner, with a meager selection of titles, while the console games sit out front in large displays behind glass and so on.

Unfortunately I think most games are going to be this size now, for two disk games near the end of the last generation could take up to 20 gigabytes to download. I remember with Call of Duty Ghosts there were comments about how it took 40 gigabytes of hard disk space.

If it is because of multiple languages someone needs to be told about optional content.

Dead Century:

Nah not really. You're correct, there is a push, but nowhere near what PC does. As an example, say I pick up Fallout New Vegas for PS3, I can pop that sucker in, ignore updates, and carry on. If I pick it up for PC, I'm waiting on a mandatory update on Steam, after a disc installation just to play a single-player game.

I'm fairly sure this is not true, updates for single player games start automatically but are optional. For multiplayer you have to have the game up to date though, obviously.

Dead Century:

KarmaTheAlligator:

Dead Century:
I think this is why I feel myself pulling away from PC gaming. The push for digital and huge amounts of data in an age where people still have caps along with other issues.

Isn't it just as bad on consoles, though? They seem to be pushing for us to move to a digital distribution only environment.

Nah not really. You're correct, there is a push, but nowhere near what PC does. As an example, say I pick up Fallout New Vegas for PS3, I can pop that sucker in, ignore updates, and carry on. If I pick it up for PC, I'm waiting on a mandatory update on Steam, after a disc installation just to play a single-player game.

Consoles are still very retail and disc orientated.

That said, digital content on PC goes on sale far more often and at greater discounted prices than consoles.

I meant when it comes to digital downloads, but I suppose it does also happen to physical copies. Then again, ignoring updates usually mean you have a buggy game, and there aren't as many on consoles as there are on PC, so it wouldn't be that long of a wait. And I'm not sure how it works for the PS4 and the Xbone now, since I heard you need to wait for updates and such.

And you know why is this even a thing? Because Origin doesn't have a bloody language change feature that Steam had for years. ELECTRONIC ARTS: CHALLENGE EVERYTHING (inluding common sense).

Zac Jovanovic:

Dead Century:

Nah not really. You're correct, there is a push, but nowhere near what PC does. As an example, say I pick up Fallout New Vegas for PS3, I can pop that sucker in, ignore updates, and carry on. If I pick it up for PC, I'm waiting on a mandatory update on Steam, after a disc installation just to play a single-player game.

I'm fairly sure this is not true, updates for single player games start automatically but are optional. For multiplayer you have to have the game up to date though, obviously.

No, it is. Go pick up a retail steam game. You must patch in order to play. Updates are only optional after that.

KarmaTheAlligator:

Dead Century:

KarmaTheAlligator:

Isn't it just as bad on consoles, though? They seem to be pushing for us to move to a digital distribution only environment.

Nah not really. You're correct, there is a push, but nowhere near what PC does. As an example, say I pick up Fallout New Vegas for PS3, I can pop that sucker in, ignore updates, and carry on. If I pick it up for PC, I'm waiting on a mandatory update on Steam, after a disc installation just to play a single-player game.

Consoles are still very retail and disc orientated.

That said, digital content on PC goes on sale far more often and at greater discounted prices than consoles.

I meant when it comes to digital downloads, but I suppose it does also happen to physical copies. Then again, ignoring updates usually mean you have a buggy game, and there aren't as many on consoles as there are on PC, so it wouldn't be that long of a wait. And I'm not sure how it works for the PS4 and the Xbone now, since I heard you need to wait for updates and such.

Oh yeah, the updates usually don't take that long. As for full-on digital downloads, you might as well get a disc if you can, unless it's a digital-only release. Not much different than PC. Except selection for PC retail is pretty bad most places. Retailers know that digital does better for that platform. So they focus on consoles.

Mr.Tea:
-snip

Goddammit, I freaking hate it when they do that.
Wasting my time and space on stuff I don't and can't use.

It's quite insane when developers don't bother to compress their files.

I have quite decent download speed, but regardless of that it takes a while to download 50GB so I decided to get the physical version instead with only installing + a patch being required to play the game.

lacktheknack:
That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

Well if you buy the physical copy I don't think the patch that will need to be downloaded will take that much.

It seems that is your only option.

captcha: And that's the way it is...unfortunately yes captcha.

Origin should give you the choice to select the languages you actually want instead of just downloading them all. In Steam it seems to be that way, at least. When I change the language of a game it often have to download the language files for that language.
It means if I want to switch I might have to wait a little but just downloading all of them just front-loads all of the waiting into the initial download, making the complete download time much longer than actually needed.

@ the people saying stuff like "get better internet": This is BS. You simply can't expect everyone on the planet to have the same access to internet connection someone in major American cities has. Data caps and slower speeds are the norm in many countries.
Of course service providers should improve their data plans and infrastructure but this doesn't change anything about the fact that it shouldn't download unnecessary files in the first place.

I'm on a reasonably fast and uncapped connection myself but I wouldn't want to wait twice as long for my download just because EA thinks everyone needs to have all the language packs.

Vivi22:

lacktheknack:
That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

The problem isn't downloads getting bigger (that's almost inevitable). The problem is ISP's that still think it's acceptable to give people download caps when how much you download has no actual impact on the ISP's cost. Download caps are a scam.

Actually that's a consummate untruth. Bandwidth does cost money and even bought in bulk wholesale it still has a cost to the ISP. There is little to no cost of intra-network communications, but on the Internet and in particular, when data travels trans-atlantic (or trans-any body of water), it costs even more.

I loathe caps with a passion and actually pay quite a lot for my ISPs top (ie. fastest and uncapped) service compared to many other available offerings. But the business model is to buy bandwidth at wholesale prices from people who own the various interlinks, and resell that to many people at retail prices. There are, I'm sure, plenty of statistics for "average" usage and that is used to calculate the best "package" deal for the majority of customers, trading speed, download limit and cost against each other. If a customer uses more than the "fair" (a word whose definition is debatable) allocation, it does cost the ISP more money since they didn't budget it into the cost of that package.

To say how much one downloads has no impact on an ISP's cost is patently untrue. Bandwidth is not free; it's a limited resource with many people competing for it. The only way it would be "free" is for a person to build their own fibre-links to whichever servers they wish to access.

KingsGambit:

Vivi22:

lacktheknack:
That's my entire month's cap.

If this is digital distribution of the future, I don't want it anymore...

The problem isn't downloads getting bigger (that's almost inevitable). The problem is ISP's that still think it's acceptable to give people download caps when how much you download has no actual impact on the ISP's cost. Download caps are a scam.

Actually that's a consummate untruth. Bandwidth does cost money and even bought in bulk wholesale it still has a cost to the ISP. There is little to no cost of intra-network communications, but on the Internet and in particular, when data travels trans-atlantic (or trans-any body of water), it costs even more.

I loathe caps with a passion and actually pay quite a lot for my ISPs top (ie. fastest and uncapped) service compared to many other available offerings. But the business model is to buy bandwidth at wholesale prices from people who own the various interlinks, and resell that to many people at retail prices. There are, I'm sure, plenty of statistics for "average" usage and that is used to calculate the best "package" deal for the majority of customers, trading speed, download limit and cost against each other. If a customer uses more than the "fair" (a word whose definition is debatable) allocation, it does cost the ISP more money since they didn't budget it into the cost of that package.

To say how much one downloads has no impact on an ISP's cost is patently untrue. Bandwidth is not free; it's a limited resource with many people competing for it. The only way it would be "free" is for a person to build their own fibre-links to whichever servers they wish to access.

While there are some exceptions (Australia gets boned here) the majority of tier 1 fiber remains completely unused.

could be a typo or it might not be a 50gb install , it might just need that much space while installing, during the phase it ha the compressed and uncompressed files all at once.

I have absolutely no idea why this is the case, maybe it's a "keep this much available for dlc" requirement, you know, just in case they make 20 map packs.
I imagine it doesn't have much in the way of pre rendered video, there's voice acting but there's no single player so the script isn't going to be huge, the textures arn't that high res... i literally have no fudging idea.

We already know 50gb download / 34gb audio files is obviously completely wrong. It's far smaller than that.
Can someone please let the download+install finish, then right-click properties on your Titanfall folder and tell us the actual size?? That would be great.

Aaron Sylvester:
We already know 50gb download / 34gb audio files is obviously completely wrong. It's far smaller than that.
Can someone please let the download+install finish, then right-click properties on your Titanfall folder and tell us the actual size?? That would be great.

It's not wrong because that's exactly what I did... How did you think I came up with those figures? The screenshots in my earlier posts are from my desktop.

The one thing you're right about is that it doesn't download 50GB, but that is really its final size.

Here's the audio extract window again, which clearly says that 34,917MB (or 34GB) of audio is being extracted:

And here's the folder properties:

image

I thought PS4 installation sizes were bad. Damn son! I hope the day one patch isn't huge! (I'm buying retail edition)

Disregarding bandwidth usage, I have a 500 Gb hard drive which for gaming PCs is about the smallest you're going to bother with these days. Compare to the 1.5 Mb usage of the 8Mb PS2 memory card for some games (i.e. Jak II, GT4) and 50 Gb isn't too terrifying.
Still, 170% of my monthly bandwidth cap, 46 hour download time assuming a consistent connection here, which it won't be.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked