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

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

Cloudman said:
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Well those games get monthly updates. Characters/Maps/Etc even if they are 2 GB a update it is already 50 GB after 2 years.






Around the Network
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 I am not an expert I just feel their is more going on when a blu ray movie is 50 GB in size (with almost no extra content) but you only use 14 GB to stream it on netflix =p.






Farsala said:
Ljink96 said:

Wow, I didn't even think of that. You ended that discussion right there lol.

Part of the reason Vita failed is it only came with enough data to fit 2 or 3 games then you had to buy a ton of memory cards; which would be exactly the same as buying more HDDs.

I know the issue is not even in the same ballpark, but the Switch suffers from the same problem with its 32GB internal memory.

L.A. Noire doesnt fit on the console, and that is just One Game.



konnichiwa said:

Well I am not an expert I just feel their is more going on when a blu ray movie is 50 GB in size (with almost no extra content) but you only use 14 GB to stream it on netflix =p.

Heavier compression, with many more visible compression artifacts on the Netflix version. Plus Blu-ray uses 5 to 6 mbps for DTS HD-MA 7.1 sound, besides having all other soundtracks on the disk, while Netflix only streams one soundtrack to you at a time and uses at most lossy Dolby digital plus between 0.6 and 1.7 mbps.

4K movies on Netflix use less bandwidth than 1080p movies on blu-ray. In quiet scenes Netflix will resolve better detail in 4K, in heavy action scenes blu-ray stays more consistent in 1080p than Netflix in 4K. Netflix 4K uses a new compression algorithm that is near twice as efficient than blu-ray, yet blu-ray can dial up the bandwidth to 40mbps in action scenes for video alone. Even with the more efficient compression algorithm Netflix 4K can't match that.

The 2K movies you watch in the cinema are compressed as well, but are read from hdd at a max data rate of 250 mbps, 500mbps for HFR3D and no chroma subsampling. (full color info) I don't know the numbers for 4K digital cinema, likely over 1 gbps.

Uncompressed video output only exists in video games, anything else you see has some form of lossy compression.

HD Cable TV (7 mbps mpeg-2) < Netflix (5 mbps h.264 / 18 mbps h.265 4K) < Blu-ray (15 to 40 mbps h.264) < 4K UHD (30 to 80 mbps h.265) <  2K cinema (250 mbps) < 4K cinema (1gbps)



superchunk said:
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.

How many games can you have installed in your Switch?

More importantly, what does Nintendo have to do with the thread?

But of course, Nintendo is soooo much better:



Official Nintendo licenced SD cards:
- 64GB: 99.99 USD
- 128GB: 199.99 USD

That's more than twice the price of non branded cards.
In fact, the officially branded 128GB card sells for 70$ more that a non branded 256GB card [of matching R/W specs] .  




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg-HAbX6gcg

Last edited by Hynad - on 05 November 2017

Around the Network

I am surprised that some of you are surprised.

GTA V is 50GB on PS4 and that is a remastered 360/PS3 game.
What did you expect with better textures, higher resolution, better audio?

Halo 5 and the Halo MCC got bigger and better for years now, so the file size will increase as well.

You can't play in 4k with all the bells and whistles and expect the same file sizes.

Wait for RDR 2 in 4k. Minds will be blown.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Hynad said:
superchunk said:
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.

How many games can you have installed in your Switch?

More importantly, what does Nintendo have to do with the thread?

But of course, Nintendo is soooo much better:



Official Nintendo licenced SD cards:
- 64GB: 99.99 USD
- 128GB: 199.99 USD

That's more than twice the price of non branded cards.
In fact, the officially branded 128GB card sells for 70$ more that a non branded 256GB card [of matching R/W specs] .  




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg-HAbX6gcg

If devs worked like Nintendo then you wouldn't need TBs of storage... when you are buying retail physical games. I don't have to install gigs of data to play any of my first party games. I also got a 128GB card for $35 when I bought my switch. Which I only need to use for third party and digital. I'll never need more than that with Switch.



I don't really mind the big install sizes. I've got the room, and have unlimited data for just such an occasion.

If I were buying a 1X (which I'm not because I can't afford it) I'd be ok spending the extra ~$100 for a 2TB drive, or some black friday deal for a 4TB.

Plus if I'm new to 4k it's a little bit of a psychological thing too. If the game sizes are comparable to the 1080p sizes, I'd be a little worried nothing has changed in terms of visuals.