Potential Bloat: Is this game going to be too big

[Mybrokenenglish]

I worry about the file size. I like the fact that the game seems like it's going to be HUGE in terms of the world size and the amount of content inside. I'm just worried about the file size, like if my hard drive can even take that much space, and I don't really know 100% for sure the amount of space the game will need. I'm also worried about when it comes time to download the game. I hope there is the option to predownload parts of the offline backup installers a day or two or three in advance so that I don't have to download for several hours when the game is already released. Another thing I'm worried about is when the DLC for Cyberpunk finally comes out. Can my hard drive take the full game + all DLC content? I am very very worried about that. But we will see I suppose I will try to do my best somehow.

I really truly hope CDProjektRed will optimize Cyberpunk2077 well enough that this wont be too huge of a problem for most people.

You'll need something between 60 an 100gb free for the game, as all recent AAA games.

 

[fridgeband]

You'll need something between 60 an 100gb free for the game, as all recent AAA games.

I guess so... Hmm... If It's gonna be 2077gb...

 

[Metropolice]

If nothing helps, use an external backup (or additional internal) hard drive to move things around and make some space.

With all the mugshots, video evidence vacation photos and other titles without additional space I would've long drowned or be subject to rigid management of limited data available at a time.

I think having the amount of space left to install the game should be the least of worries for people

 

[Codecypher]

If it's around 100 GB I will install it on my SSD for the best performance.
If it's more then regular HDD will do.

 

[satyrsangre]

If it's more then regular HDD will do.

i m severely doubtful tht a "HDD will do." it may run, sure. but i think there will be a magnificently stark difference in performance between an SSD and a HDD. there are differences in performance in the new Marvel's Avengers game run on HDDs and SSDs which...i think games are reaching the point where solid state will be the only way to reliably play large AAA games. too much info to sift through on a HDD. draw distances, textures, travel. tht info's gotta be there immediately on these next-gen cusp games

 

[Syware]

The install size might be 100gb but the file size might go down to around 80gb to 90gb. Probably, it will exceed 100gb with all the patches, DLCs, and expansions.

 

[fridgeband]

The install size might be 100gb but the file size might go down to around 80gb to 90gb. Probably, it will exceed 100gb with all the patches, DLCs, and expansions.

I mean that's possible that everything combined may eventually = 100gb, MAYBE.... but I don't understand what you mean install size = 100gb and then it goes down. How would this be? I am confused. Sorry.

 

[Syware]

I mean that's possible that everything combined may eventually = 100gb, MAYBE.... but I don't understand what you mean install size = 100gb and then it goes down. How would this be? I am confused. Sorry.

Maybe, I didn't word it correctly. For example, When I brought RDR 2 I needed 150gb of free space because I brought the digital version. The final size was at 99gb.

 

[parasite_avi]

I mean that's possible that everything combined may eventually = 100gb, MAYBE.... but I don't understand what you mean install size = 100gb and then it goes down. How would this be? I am confused. Sorry.

Ever downloaded an archive? .7zip, .rar, .gz, etc? Same thing - the game is downloaded via something similar and then unarchives, unpacks itself onto your storage devices and gets rid of the files that are unnecessary anymore.

 

[KeldornOfLatria]

Returning to the original topic: Maybe we should stop talking about "too big" games when they are (real) RPGs (not just skill trees in action-adventures).
I get that GTA, Assassin's Creed etc. get too big and I avoid them. But if we don't compare digital RPGs to other digital games but digital RPGs to Pen&Paper-RPGs, would you even be able to say that a Pen&Paper-RPG is "too big"?
No. It's as big as you need it to be.

I think through a culture of achievements, "100%-ing" a game and completionism in general, we've started thinking about games like they are a competition. "If I don't 100% it, I'm not as good as other gamers." or "I don't get my money's worth."

A game is supposed to be fun. And if it's fun for you to see all outcomes and dialogue choices, well, play through CP2077 3-4 times. I'll play it 2 times at least, too.

But I think CP2077 will set a new standard in diversity of choices and consequences. That is the main quality about the Witcher games (for me at least) and I expect CDPR to take this to the next level in CP2077. So, the game isn't "too big" for content's sake, it's a complex net of player-driven narratives, and no playthrough will be like your first, where you get to experience it for the first time. So enjoy THAT. Just do what is fun to you, and the game will be all the better for it.

Modern games should be as much fun as YOU make them – and CP2077 will be a masterclass in that, I'm sure.

 

[parasite_avi]

Returning to the original topic: Maybe we should stop talking about "too big" games when they are (real) RPGs (not just skill trees in action-adventures).
I get that GTA, Assassin's Creed etc. get too big and I avoid them. But if we don't compare digital RPGs to other digital games but digital RPGs to Pen&Paper-RPGs, would you even be able to say that a Pen&Paper-RPG is "too big"?
No. It's as big as you need it to be.

I think through a culture of achievements, "100%-ing" a game and completionism in general, we've started thinking about games like they are a competition. "If I don't 100% it, I'm not as good as other gamers." or "I don't get my money's worth."

A game is supposed to be fun. And if it's fun for you to see all outcomes and dialogue choices, well, play through CP2077 3-4 times. I'll play it 2 times at least, too.

But I think CP2077 will set a new standard in diversity of choices and consequences. That is the main quality about the Witcher games (for me at least) and I expect CDPR to take this to the next level in CP2077. So, the game isn't "too big" for content's sake, it's a complex net of player-driven narratives, and no playthrough will be like your first, where you get to experience it for the first time. So enjoy THAT. Just do what is fun to you, and the game will be all the better for it.

Modern games should be as much fun as YOU make them – and CP2077 will be a masterclass in that, I'm sure.

I've grown to measure a game's worth by amount of fun hours I put into it, the more, the better. 100%-ing the game is something I do either when I know it is relatively easy to reach (over a period of time) or, again, fun or entertaining for me. I don't really get it why people keep hunting for things, this is the grind that kills any good in things we enjoy in my opinion.

I guess that's what I'm going to like about Cyberpunk 2077. I'm not a big RPG fan nor I understand much about the genre, so I guess it'll be my first major investment into a game of that genre. Really wonder how hard-boiled fans will receive it, though, but I know for sure I'm going to run around for at least three playthroughs to try and taste the different flavors game has to offer.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But if we don't compare digital RPGs to other digital games but digital RPGs to Pen&Paper-RPGs, would you even be able to say that a Pen&Paper-RPG is "too big"?

You could, if the game gets too repetitive through content bloat. That's true with PnP RPG's as well.

But aside from that, I think a good RPG doesn't put all its eggs in either combat or storytelling baskets, but also allows the player(s) to interact with the world through their characterbuilds in various ways. And That's an aspect that's missing in almost all cRPG's of recent years, Cyberpunk 2077 included. They are just too focused on bringing the player flashy combat and super-dramatic and cinematic storylines, that the smaller, but not less significant (as a group) things get forgotten and neglected.

From that point of view, CP2077 will definitely not be bloated. It is likely that it's even a bit scarce contentwise.

 

[fridgeband]

Ever downloaded an archive? .7zip, .rar, .gz, etc? Same thing - the game is downloaded via something similar and then unarchives, unpacks itself onto your storage devices and gets rid of the files that are unnecessary anymore.

That's not how zip files work. Zip files and other similar compressed formats usually start off as a large file which becomes compressed to then fit into a smaller space (temporarily) but then when you unzip it, this (to the best of my knowledge) does not magically delete the files inside the zip (unless your computer is somehow set up to do this automatically, which would be very bad considering that you've now lost your zip, and can't get it back)
Basically this is how I notice that it usually goes (100% fake example):
1. download zip
2. zip file takes up a certain amount of space
3. extract the file/unzip it
4. now the zip file (and all of it's space it took up) still exists, but now there also exist the extracted files next to it, and all of their space as well. (This means that the files can only possibly take more space whilst being utilized)
But normally, I notice that zip type files remain unharmed by the unzipping process, and can be extracted a theoretically infinite number of times.

Sure, I could delete the zip, but the extracted files alone are no longer compressed because they have been extracted already (or else they wouldn't be able to be utilized) since the uncompressed (full normal size) files exist, their space is greater than their compressed form, therefor the space they take up is greater. This is why I'm confused by what you said, because it makes it seem like the file size somehow goes down at any step in this entire process just because a person unzipped a file or something... which makes no sense. The whole point of zipping files in the first place seems to be to make them take up less space, but then they must be unzipped to be used. unzipping them only restores them to their original large uncompressed file size.

The install size might be 100gb but the file size might go down to around 80gb to 90gb. Probably, it will exceed 100gb with all the patches, DLCs, and expansions.

When I install files, I have never seen the filesize go down somehow. I'm pretty sure you're getting it backwards, or I've just been thrown into another dimension lol.

 

[dragonslayerxxx]

My fear is that trying to bring so much things to the table may reduce quality of final product. RTX, multiplayer, 2 big expansions-those are words which shouldn't be taken lightly. So far they showed they can produce expansions like they should be. If they can pull this off they will be the best gaming company not in recent times but in history.

 

[parasite_avi]

Sure, I could delete the zip, but the extracted files alone are no longer compressed because they have been extracted already (or else they wouldn't be able to be utilized) since the uncompressed (full normal size) files exist, their space is greater than their compressed form, therefor the space they take up is greater. This is why I'm confused by what you said, because it makes it seem like the file size somehow goes down at any step in this entire process just because a person unzipped a file or something... which makes no sense.

Well I certainly was oversimplifying things as I am not much of a developer of any kind - I am speaking from my own observations and speculations. Probably should have indicated that earlier as to not to confuse anyone, pardon, guys!

Paraphrasing what I said in my previous first. I know nothing, guys, I'm just a guy with a keyboard and some enthusiasm for computers and programming.

I imagine some games being installed in a manner that gets some archives onto your storage device and proceeds to extract them. That possibly includes arranging the files on the storage device in a suitable and sensible manner, as in, if the installer works with HDD, it makes sense that it tries to put the entire game at the end of the HDD to avoid any possible fragmentation. For instance, sometimes when I download a big game via Steam, it keeps telling me it is working on some files after the indicated GBs have already been download; again, to me seems as if it is either arranging the files in the best order possible, deleting the installation files, or both.

I am not saying that you, as the end user, have much of a control over any archives, installation applications or files that modern launchers probably use to get you get the game. If there are any archives or something similar, it is most likely automated as to get everything done as neatly as possible (hopefully) and then get the extra stuff out of the user's system. Think about moving to a new place - the boxes we use to store out stuff are either kept in one special space (to occupy as little space as possible or, at least, not get in the way) or thrown away entirely (at least some of them).

ACCORDING TO GOOGLE (or, more specifically, Quora):
Steam, for instance, merely reserves some space on your storage device before it installs the game. It creates all the files, names them and only after that fills them up with some data, basically installing and downloading games simultaneously. The final step here is installing dependencies like DirectX, Microsoft.NET, etc.

TL;DR: The Internet says I'm wrong and, at least in case with Steam, digital distribution platforms don't bother with getting some archives and other crap onto your storage devices - the game is installed and downloaded onto your system, into its own files. The application seems to simply pre-allocate some space for whatever reason (possibly file arrangement or making sure there's enough space for various dependencies).

 

[fridgeband]

Well I certainly was oversimplifying things as I am not much of a developer of any kind - I am speaking from my own observations and speculations. Probably should have indicated that earlier as to not to confuse anyone, pardon, guys!

Paraphrasing what I said in my previous first. I know nothing, guys, I'm just a guy with a keyboard and some enthusiasm for computers and programming.

I imagine some games being installed in a manner that gets some archives onto your storage device and proceeds to extract them. That possibly includes arranging the files on the storage device in a suitable and sensible manner, as in, if the installer works with HDD, it makes sense that it tries to put the entire game at the end of the HDD to avoid any possible fragmentation. For instance, sometimes when I download a big game via Steam, it keeps telling me it is working on some files after the indicated GBs have already been download; again, to me seems as if it is either arranging the files in the best order possible, deleting the installation files, or both.

I am not saying that you, as the end user, have much of a control over any archives, installation applications or files that modern launchers probably use to get you get the game. If there are any archives or something similar, it is most likely automated as to get everything done as neatly as possible (hopefully) and then get the extra stuff out of the user's system. Think about moving to a new place - the boxes we use to store out stuff are either kept in one special space (to occupy as little space as possible or, at least, not get in the way) or thrown away entirely (at least some of them).

ACCORDING TO GOOGLE (or, more specifically, Quora):
Steam, for instance, merely reserves some space on your storage device before it installs the game. It creates all the files, names them and only after that fills them up with some data, basically installing and downloading games simultaneously. The final step here is installing dependencies like DirectX, Microsoft.NET, etc.

TL;DR: The Internet says I'm wrong and, at least in case with Steam, digital distribution platforms don't bother with getting some archives and other crap onto your storage devices - the game is installed and downloaded onto your system, into its own files. The application seems to simply pre-allocate some space for whatever reason (possibly file arrangement or making sure there's enough space for various dependencies).

Well hey thanks for the clarification, and also this news. I took a long break from video games a few years back before I went from PC, to console, took a huge break, then went back to PC again. I remember steam being... well, the way that steam is....
but based on what you're describing, I'm just like "whoa" because when I went back to PC I stuck with gog.com and that's it, I stayed away from everything else. I am shocked at the level of control and the depth of that control that steam seems to have over the installation process and the users computer files and hard drive (if that's all correct information). To be fair, I wouldn't doubt it at all if you were somehow correct in what you previously said, considering the highly unusual way that steam appears to handle game installs. You might actually be right in that case in some really interesting kind of way that I did not expect, since I have been "living under a rock" when it comes to steam. So hey, I thank you because I learned something.

Just for example: when It comes to gog.com, I just download what appear to be normal uncompressed offline backup installer files, and then I press install and that's it. I could backup on an external drive (if I needed to, in case I were to lose my files somehow) so that I can have more space on my computer. It's short, easy, and simple. I wouldn't have it any other way. Just saying, not trying to do anything other than just simply saying, I suppose for comparison and education purposes or something.

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2020

Maybe, I didn't word it correctly. For example, When I brought RDR 2 I needed 150gb of free space because I brought the digital version. The final size was at 99gb.

But how is this possible? That's a massive difference in GB space needed. How do you need 150, and then it goes down to 99? How?

 

[parasite_avi]

Well hey thanks for the clarification, and also this news. I took a long break from video games a few years back before I went from PC, to console, took a huge break, then went back to PC again. I remember steam being... well, the way that steam is....
but based on what you're describing, I'm just like "whoa" because when I went back to PC I stuck with gog.com and that's it, I stayed away from everything else. I am shocked at the level of control and the depth of that control that steam seems to have over the installation process and the users computer files and hard drive (if that's all correct information). To be fair, I wouldn't doubt it at all if you were somehow correct in what you previously said, considering the highly unusual way that steam appears to handle game installs. You might actually be right in that case in some really interesting kind of way that I did not expect, since I have been "living under a rock" when it comes to steam. So hey, I thank you because I learned something.

Just for example: when It comes to gog.com, I just download what appear to be normal uncompressed offline backup installer files, and then I press install and that's it. I could backup on an external drive (if I needed to, in case I were to lose my files somehow) so that I can have more space on my computer. It's short, easy, and simple. I wouldn't have it any other way. Just saying, not trying to do anything other than just simply saying, I suppose for comparison and education purposes or something.

Glad I could help!

I guess the way Steam does things is a little more consistent, as in, it does arrange the space (plus little extra) to make sure it all goes nice and smooth first time. Super happy to have that over whatever I was dealing with as a kid with all those CD and DVD installations, to be honest.

Frankly, the control Steam has is very limited. Not much more than your internet browser has for sure. Where do you suppose all the data like password, preferences, themes and logins, etc is stored? A lot of that is local storage, which is a folder somewhere in your hidden system folder (if you're using Windows and Chrome, they usually just install stuff and don't ask you as to where you want it all to be). Or, say, your messenger apps and all.

The thing is, the very joy and success and advance of the computer and Internet technologies we have today is partially achieved via that not-so-obvious cooperation between you, the end user, and the company, which includes developers who build apps and websites (which are, in a lot of cases, are web apps!) that use your storage device to a certain degree (usually to enhance your experience by making stuff load faster or, again, remember various settings). After all, with gamers and users getting all peeky and curious, a company that went through all the effort before having a chance to be legally allowed to do its business, having trusted connection to their website, paid lawyers and licences - that company must be financially and legally prepared to manipulate the user's device outside the company's services scope. The Internet and fraud have been around for a while now and people know better than risking it with some sketchy programming.

Arguably, though, there a retreat, which is GNU/Linux, but despite what the enthusiasts say, it does take effort and time to get used to and to set it up once you go beyond the most popular distributions (like Ubuntu and Mint). On the other hand, getting safe and secure is easier with it on the score that malware for GNU/Linux is either sparse or completely harmless. Not sure why, but I remember hearing some theories (possibly jokes) about hackers using GNU/Linux themselves, which kinda gives them some sense of solidarity or whatever. Besides, with Windows being so vulnerable and well-known to virtually any hacker in the world, why on Earth would one bother with investing time and effort into hacking GNU/Linux users? I mean, most of them have already made a choice to switch to an alternative that has security and privacy as one of its major standpoints, which makes me think that at least some of such users make better decisions regarding their files and data and keep sensitive and important data either more safely, or even off their operating system.

 

[Big_Bad_Beetleborg]

I kinda like RDR2, the size worked for me, as for big open worlds CDPR made one of the best in The Witcher 3, so I ain’t worried.

 

[satyrsangre]

I think through a culture of achievements, "100%-ing" a game and completionism in general, we've started thinking about games like they are a competition. "If I don't 100% it, I'm not as good as other gamers." or "I don't get my money's worth."

i think CDPR senses this, which is why the narrative has such varying narrative consequences. the fact that 'side' quests can essentially end the game 'early' and eliminate 'main' quests makes things like 'completion' worthless to me. the story is what the story is to you and no one else. it's your decisions & yours only. i think there will be a sense of intimacy with individual playthroughs that not many games really have a history with (only games i can really think of that have gotten close to what im talking abt are crusader kings, civ, fallout, elder scrolls, & baldur's gate)

i mean c'mon: you can trigger a non-ending. you can basically accidentally fail the 'main' mission and not realise it. tht's the weirdest game over i've ever heard of and more games should do it.

 

[Alfa1561]

I cant say I worry about the game being bloated at all. It appears like there's plenty to do, and the more the better. As long as you can go about the game as you please and do it your way, e.g. rush main quest, explore for days on end etc, then I'll be content. I dont think it can be "too big" in that regard. I'll always welcome more content, more to explore, more to do.

I also have no idea how you could dislike RDR2 for its attention to detail. Its incredibly detailed without making that a drag on quests and the story. You can power through that if you want, but you can also take the time to explore and enjoy the immersive, detailed open world. It's one of my favourite games to date. Hell, I remember coming across the coal train at Annesburg coal mine and watching it fill with coal, amazed at the detail, and then getting even more impressed as it would proceed all the way to the cargo stop at St Denis. Little detail like that makes a game these days.

From what i heard and saw, world is pretty dead on current version of the game, some journalists mention that every location is prepared for a some quest, so if you haven't this quest, this location will be empty, maybe with some generic NPC/world stuff. Of course, this doesn't apply to activities marked on the map.

Where have you heard this? I've not see it at all

My fear is that trying to bring so much things to the table may reduce quality of final product. RTX, multiplayer, 2 big expansions-those are words which shouldn't be taken lightly. So far they showed they can produce expansions like they should be. If they can pull this off they will be the best gaming company not in recent times but in history.

I wouldn't worry about multiplayer affecting anything. They said not to expect it until around 2022, so I dont think there's any focus on it right now to hurt the development of the main game