By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - There may be some unhappy XBO X owners on Tuesday

konnichiwa said:
SvennoJ said:
Ha, I thought I would be ok for a while after increasing my bandwidth cap to 500GB a month last spring. It sounded like a lot 5 months ago. Yet shared with my streaming kids, I still won't be able to download these kinds of games. Heck a few years ago my cap was still 80GB a month... How did we ever survive.

But honestly it is not so bad for games,  Don't take 4k movies around 100 GB? I remember one of the first 4K movies surpassing 150 GB.

Netflix streams them at around 18 mbps with HDR, that's 7.9 GB per hour or 16GB for a 2 hour movie.
4K UHD discs can hold upto 100GB Not all of that is for the movie as it includes multiple soundtracks and extras.

The first 4K movie was 330GB for a 52 minute movie in 4096x2304 12 bit cineform format.
https://secure.timescapes.org/products/purchase.aspx?&pai=182163&token=F0A2B8
4K UHD is still very lossy compressed compared to that, that file runs at over 800 mbps, compared to max 128 mbps for 4K UHD discs.

It wouldn't be so bad for games if they came on 4K UHD discs, and installed to a 2Tb SSD drive :)



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
konnichiwa said:

But honestly it is not so bad for games,  Don't take 4k movies around 100 GB? I remember one of the first 4K movies surpassing 150 GB.

Netflix streams them at around 18 mbps with HDR, that's 7.9 GB per hour or 16GB for a 2 hour movie.
4K UHD discs can hold upto 100GB Not all of that is for the movie as it includes multiple soundtracks and extras.

The first 4K movie was 330GB for a 52 minute movie in 4096x2304 12 bit cineform format.
https://secure.timescapes.org/products/purchase.aspx?&pai=182163&token=F0A2B8
4K UHD is still very lossy compressed compared to that, that file runs at over 800 mbps, compared to max 128 mbps for 4K UHD discs.

It wouldn't be so bad for games if they came on 4K UHD discs, and installed to a 2Tb SSD drive :)

At some point we may truly get to sound and pixelcount that is already "all we need"



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

god ... this is stupid. This is why Nintendo is better. Just because storage is relatively cheap there is no reason for devs to rape it.



DonFerrari said:
SvennoJ said:

Netflix streams them at around 18 mbps with HDR, that's 7.9 GB per hour or 16GB for a 2 hour movie.
4K UHD discs can hold upto 100GB Not all of that is for the movie as it includes multiple soundtracks and extras.

The first 4K movie was 330GB for a 52 minute movie in 4096x2304 12 bit cineform format.
https://secure.timescapes.org/products/purchase.aspx?&pai=182163&token=F0A2B8
4K UHD is still very lossy compressed compared to that, that file runs at over 800 mbps, compared to max 128 mbps for 4K UHD discs.

It wouldn't be so bad for games if they came on 4K UHD discs, and installed to a 2Tb SSD drive :)

At some point we may truly get to sound and pixelcount that is already "all we need"

The new Pixeljunk VR game Dead Hungry is 545 MB, there's probably smaller than that. Yet a 100GB game must be 200x more fun!
"All we need" is still very far off. Proper full spectrum holographic video is still sci-fi.
Plus we need gigapixel textures like these https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11686296/art-camera-google-cultural-institute :)

It ain't fun until you can zoom in on the dust particles on the walls. (looking at you gts, modelling air vents in the car interiors... you got me, that's what I'm looking at while racing)

On topic, why be unhappy when you actually get to see a real difference. When I got the ps4 pro, try as I might, I couldn't see much difference between between downsampled and normal 1080p on a 1080p projector. At least with the X you should still see some actual benefits on a 1080p screen from improved textures.



SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

At some point we may truly get to sound and pixelcount that is already "all we need"

The new Pixeljunk VR game Dead Hungry is 545 MB, there's probably smaller than that. Yet a 100GB game must be 200x more fun!
"All we need" is still very far off. Proper full spectrum holographic video is still sci-fi.
Plus we need gigapixel textures like these https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11686296/art-camera-google-cultural-institute :)

It ain't fun until you can zoom in on the dust particles on the walls. (looking at you gts, modelling air vents in the car interiors... you got me, that's what I'm looking at while racing)

On topic, why be unhappy when you actually get to see a real difference. When I got the ps4 pro, try as I might, I couldn't see much difference between between downsampled and normal 1080p on a 1080p projector. At least with the X you should still see some actual benefits on a 1080p screen from improved textures.

Sure the size doesn't mean enjoyment. And sure it can always improve... but I was talking about sound quality and pixel+IQ (sure raytracing and even more advanced will take even more)... but for regular people it is quite close already.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network

This whole game is 396KB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pJbMOrZPE



SvennoJ said:
konnichiwa said:

But honestly it is not so bad for games,  Don't take 4k movies around 100 GB? I remember one of the first 4K movies surpassing 150 GB.

Netflix streams them at around 18 mbps with HDR, that's 7.9 GB per hour or 16GB for a 2 hour movie.
4K UHD discs can hold upto 100GB Not all of that is for the movie as it includes multiple soundtracks and extras.

The first 4K movie was 330GB for a 52 minute movie in 4096x2304 12 bit cineform format.
https://secure.timescapes.org/products/purchase.aspx?&pai=182163&token=F0A2B8
4K UHD is still very lossy compressed compared to that, that file runs at over 800 mbps, compared to max 128 mbps for 4K UHD discs.

It wouldn't be so bad for games if they came on 4K UHD discs, and installed to a 2Tb SSD drive :)

Sure I just remember those lists back in the day it is hard to find them like this one for example:


It is all confusing because I see people discussing that some aren't really 4k but are upscale to 4K etc.






Mr Puggsly said:
Cloudman said:
100gb for a game is just utterly ridiculous.

For games Gears 4, Halo 5, Halo:MCC, and Forza titles, I kinda understand it. Those are games with tons of content.

But Quantum Break is a short campaign and no other content. The FMVs aren't even included in that 100GB. While the game looks above average the assets aren't mindblowing. I don't understand why that game is so big.

I never played it, so I wouldn't know. Games that reach sizes like that just seem crazy to me.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

DonFerrari said:
SvennoJ said:

The new Pixeljunk VR game Dead Hungry is 545 MB, there's probably smaller than that. Yet a 100GB game must be 200x more fun!
"All we need" is still very far off. Proper full spectrum holographic video is still sci-fi.
Plus we need gigapixel textures like these https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/17/11686296/art-camera-google-cultural-institute :)

It ain't fun until you can zoom in on the dust particles on the walls. (looking at you gts, modelling air vents in the car interiors... you got me, that's what I'm looking at while racing)

On topic, why be unhappy when you actually get to see a real difference. When I got the ps4 pro, try as I might, I couldn't see much difference between between downsampled and normal 1080p on a 1080p projector. At least with the X you should still see some actual benefits on a 1080p screen from improved textures.

Sure the size doesn't mean enjoyment. And sure it can always improve... but I was talking about sound quality and pixel+IQ (sure raytracing and even more advanced will take even more)... but for regular people it is quite close already.

Actually raytracing will take less. No more need to bake in global illumination which is what's bloating games like AC Unity, Forza and GTS. For sound quality, there's a chance that will be the next bloat as ray casting for physics based sound reflections will probably first need the same pre-bake solution as global illumination is using now.

konnichiwa said:
SvennoJ said:

Netflix streams them at around 18 mbps with HDR, that's 7.9 GB per hour or 16GB for a 2 hour movie.
4K UHD discs can hold upto 100GB Not all of that is for the movie as it includes multiple soundtracks and extras.

The first 4K movie was 330GB for a 52 minute movie in 4096x2304 12 bit cineform format.
https://secure.timescapes.org/products/purchase.aspx?&pai=182163&token=F0A2B8
4K UHD is still very lossy compressed compared to that, that file runs at over 800 mbps, compared to max 128 mbps for 4K UHD discs.

It wouldn't be so bad for games if they came on 4K UHD discs, and installed to a 2Tb SSD drive :)

Sure I just remember those lists back in the day it is hard to find them like this one for example:


It is all confusing because I see people discussing that some aren't really 4k but are upscale to 4K etc.

Whether the source is upscaled or not doesn't really matter.
Consider this, uncompressed 8 bit 1080p24 video runs at 1139 Mbps, compressed down to avg 25 Mbps on blu-ray, 2.2%
Uncompressed 10 bit 2160p24 video (4K UHD) runs at 5695 Mbps, compressed to avg 50 Mbps on 4K UHD, 0.9%

Both blu-ray and 4K UHD half the bandwidth before compression with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, discarding 75% of the color information (only the color of 1 out of every 4 pixels is stored). So even if the source was upscaled to 4K, you still get 4x the color info compared to blu-ray, plus 4x the range with 10 bit per color. Both can't resolve fine detail in action scenes with that high compression factor.

Video games give you full fat 10 bit uncompressed output at 60fps which is 14,238 Mbps, or 13.9 Gbps. So sure, higher quality assets and bigger file sizes for games aren't so strange. Comparing graphic fidelity of video games through you tube videos, that is kinda pointless nowadays.



SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

Sure the size doesn't mean enjoyment. And sure it can always improve... but I was talking about sound quality and pixel+IQ (sure raytracing and even more advanced will take even more)... but for regular people it is quite close already.

Actually raytracing will take less. No more need to bake in global illumination which is what's bloating games like AC Unity, Forza and GTS. For sound quality, there's a chance that will be the next bloat as ray casting for physics based sound reflections will probably first need the same pre-bake solution as global illumination is using now.

konnichiwa said:

Sure I just remember those lists back in the day it is hard to find them like this one for example:


It is all confusing because I see people discussing that some aren't really 4k but are upscale to 4K etc.

Whether the source is upscaled or not doesn't really matter.
Consider this, uncompressed 8 bit 1080p24 video runs at 1139 Mbps, compressed down to avg 25 Mbps on blu-ray, 2.2%
Uncompressed 10 bit 2160p24 video (4K UHD) runs at 5695 Mbps, compressed to avg 50 Mbps on 4K UHD, 0.9%

Both blu-ray and 4K UHD half the bandwidth before compression with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, discarding 75% of the color information (only the color of 1 out of every 4 pixels is stored). So even if the source was upscaled to 4K, you still get 4x the color info compared to blu-ray, plus 4x the range with 10 bit per color. Both can't resolve fine detail in action scenes with that high compression factor.

Video games give you full fat 10 bit uncompressed output at 60fps which is 14,238 Mbps, or 13.9 Gbps. So sure, higher quality assets and bigger file sizes for games aren't so strange. Comparing graphic fidelity of video games through you tube videos, that is kinda pointless nowadays.

Well PS5 may have it, but PS6 sure will have something like this or above.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."