The PC version of Final Fantasy XV will reportedly take up 170GB of drive space (updated)

[Scshadow]

All those textures and the lack of a real game to go with it. This game made me mad because I'm a big FF fan. But until SE gives up the mantra that textures make everything better, I'm not interested in FF. Shallow game, with a shallow storyline. I beat it 100%. The post-game dungeon everyone hates is the best level for me, the rest was garbage.

 

[DaveBG]

WTF? Devs forgot about compression. This is silly! Gears size was outrageous too.

So you would prefer compressed junk instead of quality game? Not me. I could not care less for the space usage. I have 10+TB drives and it is not expensive to buy more. If you are a real gamer size of the game is the only spec you do not care about. In fact I find myself refusing to look at games that are below 50GB of size nowadays.

It's like this guy doesn't realize that games have been employing texture compression with zero visual fidelity lose for a long time now. They could cut that game size in half with a lossless method alone.

If it is lossless compression I am OK with it, but I am sure you not the first to think about that if it was truly lossless or if it is not already done...

 

[Magnums94]

WTF? Devs forgot about compression. This is silly! Gears size was outrageous too.

So you would prefer compressed junk instead of quality game? Not me. I could not care less for the space usage. I have 10+TB drives and it is not expensive to buy more. If you are a real gamer size of the game is the only spec you do not care about. In fact I find myself refusing to look at games that are below 50GB of size nowadays.

So you basically play only like 5 % from all available games? Nice story mate.

 

[amghwk]

There's nothing complex about current games that take up the space. It's all the f***ing graphics. Gone are the days when games are about gameplay, and not graphics.

AI programming codes won't take even a fraction of those f-g space.

 

[amghwk]

A "quality graphics game" does not equate quality gaming.

 

[msroadkill612]

Whatever, but I think we can assume some serious data shifting between mobo/system resources via the taxed & maxed pcie bus & cpu. Clearly, only a fraction of the game can reside in gpu cache space.

Which is what vegaS killer feature of dedicated nvme on the separate Fabric bus is all about.

"Jul 30, 2017 - The Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses 16GB of High-Bandwidth Cache based on the ... The massive high-speed memory of the Radeon Pro SSG combined with the ..."

www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/radeon-pro-wx-9100-2017jul30.aspx

(we can deduce they are using 4x nvmeS in raid 0 from the claimed bandwidth (also that they are 500GB panasonic 960 pro ssds - what else? )).

Tho activated only on expensive vega ssd pro atm, nvme ports is supposed to be a standard vega feature/spec.

I would love to activate it on the cheap on lesser vega models (256GB samsung oem ssdS are pretty cheap and fast).

So to be clear, vast amounts of gpu data can swap in and out of gpu ram, independently of the pci bus, and 8GB can be made to seem like 16-24GB (amd claim) of gpu cache by hbcc intelligently pooling other HB resources like this and system memory.

This, and memory multiplying HBCC goodies, make me think vega is far more future proof than a bit of superficial Nvidia gaming muscle atm in the present gaming ecosystem.

 

[DaveBG]

So you basically play only like 5 % from all available games? Nice story mate.

LOOL this is the biggest troll post ever. If you claim you or anyone can play more than 5% of all available games you would need to stay wake for 30 hours per day. Nice lie mate. When you lie at least check if it is possible.

 

[Magnums94]

LOOL this is the biggest troll post ever. If you claim you or anyone can play more than 5% of all available games you would need to stay wake for 30 hours per day. Nice lie mate. When you lie at least check if it is possible.

Well, first of all, I suppose I could have written that more clearly and easier to understand, I guess you misunderstood what I meant to say.

What I was saying was that I believe that nowadays ( at this moment ) games that surpass 50 GB of disk space are around 5%. Which means, in other words - 95% of games are under 50 GB. Obviously that will change in the future, but this was my idea and thought from previous post. If you took that as a troll attempt then sorry, but you were wrong.

 

[commanderasus]

Too many cartoon like teenage fantasies are being called video games these days. Takes you what seems like days to get to the menu and ACTUALLY play the game. Game development people don't forget about the older crowd who got you to where you are today for without us, you would still be making pacman like games.