Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is coming for your disk space

Adi6293

Posts: 931   +1,309
Me neither but I stick by my statement. The wisest and most economic move is to wait for BF sales, which seem to be the best time for pc hardware sales. I can wait a few months and generally have different pc parts to spend money on but you do you...;)

As a matter of fact I am waiting for BF sales too :) this year I'm planning on expanding my custom loop with extra 360mm rad and a bigger reservoir but since I sold my GPU I can now wait for the sales, I don't just throw money at anyone ? I just wish BF wasn't so rubbish in UK.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 1,102   +1,793
As a matter of fact I am waiting for BF sales too :) this year I'm planning on expanding my custom loop with extra 360mm rad and a bigger reservoir but since I sold my GPU I can now wait for the sales, I don't just throw money at anyone ? I just wish BF wasn't so rubbish in UK.

To be honest I'm not the target audience for COD and I have a 500GB Samsung 860 EVO in my main rig that can handle several games just fine but will be looking for a 1TB drive this BF because these are gravy times for SSD and NvMe flash drives! There is Amazon Prime days coming up as well...
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
If you play more than 4 games you buy 2TB SSD, those are cheap too. If you don't like the prices you can get a HDD, they cost pennies or change hobby ;)

I've seen 2TB Sata 3 SSD for as little as £150 on deals, that might not be cheap but it's definitely affordable for anyone who is buying an mid range and higher PC

You are talking about SATA SSDs, the new consoles are using PCIe 4.0 SSDs, which are almost twice as much per GB. Not to mention if you are on console, there's some extra charged on top of that.

Even without the console tax, this is not remotely cheap: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TN1MNJ4/ref=twister_B08FV59HHS?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Telling people to change hobbies is not a solution, it's what pushes people away from the platform. In the end that's bad for every PC gamer.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,577   +2,916
Lazy developers. Rather than clean up and trash the code and assets not in use, compress them or keep them under control, they have just kept tossing patches and broken rushed DLC on top of the burning dumpster fire that is COD.

I can understand a large world like RDR2 which is impressive technically having a large file size. Lots of high quality unique textures, models, audio. It pushes the consoles like crazy and looks really superb on PC. You can justify 100GB+ on something like that.

COD can't. I bet if they spent a month tidying up the game it would be easy to halve the size of those files stored on disk.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 931   +1,309
You are talking about SATA SSDs, the new consoles are using PCIe 4.0 SSDs, which are almost twice as much per GB. Not to mention if you are on console, there's some extra charged on top of that.

Even without the console tax, this is not remotely cheap: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TN1MNJ4/ref=twister_B08FV59HHS?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Telling people to change hobbies is not a solution, it's what pushes people away from the platform. In the end that's bad for every PC gamer.

Games won't just suddenly require a gen 4 SSD's you know. And I am all for smaller games or even cheaper drivers but some things you need to accept, game like Cod would probably work fine of a HDD so just dump it there ?
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
Games won't just suddenly require a gen 4 SSD's you know. And I am all for smaller games or even cheaper drivers but some things you need to accept, game like Cod would probably work fine of a HDD so just dump it there ?

Both the new consoles do as does RTX IO.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
They are not backwards compatible?

RTX IO and the new consoles are designed entirely around PCIe 4.0.


I'd imagine if you enabled it on PCIe 3.0, it would defeat whatever advantage that's intended.

That said I still have no idea if it'll actually provide anything that would be noticable. Nvidia states it'll reduce CPU overhead but I'm not really sure that's such a big issue. They also state that object pop-in will be reduced but that can be achieved with 3.0 SSDs as well. This might just be a tech where we don't see any benefit until years down the line.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,602   +2,902
game like Cod would probably work fine of a HDD so just dump it there ?
You're getting quite famous for saying this yet you never actually Google to see if that's the case:
Load times near double of SSD:
Framerate drops, pacing issues and pop-in:

The answer isn't always "Just put it on a HDD" because it can actually ruin the experience.

Edit: My bad, I called out the wrong TechSpot member!
 
Last edited:

PEnnn

Posts: 955   +1,246
" Modern Warfare essentially bundles three games: the single-player campaign, the cooperative Special Ops mode, and the online battle royale mode, Warzone."

That's the most stupid decision by a company. Why not give people (I,e PC gamers) the option to select which one they want to download?? Many don't care to waste another 150 GB for say, MP or Warzone, which they never play!

Not to mention the amount of time some people will spend downloading all that extra garbage!
 

gamerk2

Posts: 755   +732
Devs have gotten lazy and stopped using compression

For those interested: The latest PC executable comes in at just 193Mb; the majority of the rest of the HD space is eaten up by texture files.

The problem is 4k textures; you don't want to load a level, decompress every texture (RIP load times), then try and store *every single one* in VRAM for the duration of the level; even GPUs don't have nearly enough memory to pull that off. Hell, even main memory would struggle to pull that off. You need to load/unload textures in realtime as needed, which means they have to be uncompressed on the HD. And that's where your storage space is going to.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 755   +732
" Modern Warfare essentially bundles three games: the single-player campaign, the cooperative Special Ops mode, and the online battle royale mode, Warzone."

That's the most stupid decision by a company. Why not give people (I,e PC gamers) the option to select which one they want to download?? Many don't care to waste another 150 GB for say, MP or Warzone, which they never play!

Not to mention the amount of time some people will spend downloading all that extra garbage!
" Modern Warfare essentially bundles three games: the single-player campaign, the cooperative Special Ops mode, and the online battle royale mode, Warzone."

That's the most stupid decision by a company. Why not give people (I,e PC gamers) the option to select which one they want to download?? Many don't care to waste another 150 GB for say, MP or Warzone, which they never play!

Not to mention the amount of time some people will spend downloading all that extra garbage!

Shared assets; releasing three executables would make it impossible to switch game modes without exiting and restarting, which is obviously a PITA.

And as I just noted, the problem isn't the size of the executable, it's the textures (which are largely shared between modes).
 

candle_86

Posts: 729   +730
Shared assets; releasing three executables would make it impossible to switch game modes without exiting and restarting, which is obviously a PITA.

And as I just noted, the problem isn't the size of the executable, it's the textures (which are largely shared between modes).
They used to do it just fine, look at the older games they had separate executables and worked just fine.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
You're getting quite famous for saying this yet you never actually Google to see if that's the case:
Load times near double of SSD:
Framerate drops, pacing issues and pop-in:

The answer isn't always "Just put it on a HDD" because it can actually ruin the experience.

It's really a shame, I have also noticed that some games experience more stuttering on a HDD than an SSD. GTAV for example will have no difference between a HDD and an SSD (even in loading times) but for no man's sky, an SSD makes a huge difference. There doesn't seem to be a pattern other than which devs decided to put effort into ensuring game assets are streamed properly. If an old open world game as poorly optimized as GTAV with fast moving aircraft can stream in assets on a HDD without issues, most other games should be working perfectly fine on a hard drive.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,963   +4,553
1TB SSD are so cheap now that this shouldn't be an issue to any PC Gamer
It should be an issue to a PC gamer on a budget. Why should anyone spend money on buying more SSDs to compensate for developers incompetence? Take into consideration that if you want to play a $60 game plus you need to buy additional hardware specifically for it then the game practically costs more.

Yet it is an option if an SSD can't be afforded.
Some games stutter on a hard drive. I tried BO4 on and it was literally unplayable on it, I'm guessing it will be the same for MW.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 931   +1,309
You're getting quite famous for saying this yet you never actually Google to see if that's the case:
Load times near double of SSD:
Framerate drops, pacing issues and pop-in:

The answer isn't always "Just put it on a HDD" because it can actually ruin the experience.

This is the first time I said it and I did say probably ;)