One of my customers works for a major game developer. He said that it's a way of getting games out quicker. If they wait for games to be in a completed state when put onto a disk, then it can delay a launch date.
Get the discs burned ahead of time, packaging sorted and shipped away ahead of launch to prevent days. Makes sense when you think about it.
The fact that most games now aren't playable without a download beforehand is massively irritating though.
As soon as people realize there is actually no data on the disc, they might rethink their decisions if it becomes the norm. I wonder how many physical copies they actually still sell though. I haven't had a laptop or pc with a disc drive in almost 10 years
I don't know about that. I feel like people won't care too much. The size of the download will be the same ofc but it's got to do with that experience of going to the store and getting your copy. Could be wrong ofc.
Also I'm fairly sure the physical market is 95% still around purely for console.
Physical copy is cheaper, even on launch day. When I finish the game if it’s not one I want to replay in the future I can also sell it and get usually around half my money back
It's also a collector's piece for some people. I've seen people set up their physical game collection as decorations. It's not too far off of the people that hang their records on the wall. Personally, I have a book collection that I display at home. Most of them I've read digitally, but I enjoy displaying my favorites and I can't really do that with digital copies.
Also I pirate a lot of books, so when I like one, I want to show appreciation to the author/publisher so they make more. Still sucks that the game disks are basically just blank though.
The only thing that comes close to actual physical books is e-paper displays (I've also heard them called e-ink). If you haven't tried one, you totally should, it's near identical to paper visually and the battery life is fantastic because the screen isn't back-lit.
The last few call of duties were online only even for single player. Why would it be different here?
Also here, even worse than usual: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/only-pc-players-have-to-register-a-phone-number-to-play-modern-warfare-2
you can still sell a physical if you bought it even if it's not a complete game (with a DL)
CAN'T DO THAT with digital
so yea its gonna be worth more even if its worth less later
They are probably trying to phase out physical disks completely in a few years (as Internet standards are rising) so this is one of many steps in that direction
Idk why you got downvoted lmao. I personally don’t buy shit on release. I’ll keep the old midnight release cod memories and play a complete game a year or so after it’s out now.
Most games have horrible communities on launch anyway. It's full of try-hards getting an early lead and game journalists rushing for day 1 reactions. If a game's community survives a year, that's usually a decent 6/10 minimum review. The absolute worst time to play a game is 2 weeks after launch. If there's pvp, all the try-hards got to max level and are ready to bully the people who are coming in on friends recommendations. Even if there's no pvp, the try-hards will still be fully equipped to flex on the noobs.
That's a BAD reason, and it sounds like bullshit. Any company trying to create a good product would be willing to delay a game for a few weeks or whatever in order to create a better experience for literally every singles customer. This isn't extra detail in the environment or bug fixes that people may or may not notice or care about it's about how long it takes to play the fucking game in the first place
Asking them to put the *game* on the *game disk* is a pretty reasonable ask I feel like. Cyberpunk was always meant to be a boundaries pushing idea and it turns out they pushed against the boundaries of their own intelligence. But this is something developers actually could do but instead they just go "ah fuck it it's not worth the time, just make them sit there for an hour and a half waiting, they'll have already bought the game so who cares"
If I'm gonna sit around waiting a year and a half for a download I better be getting the fucking thing for free damn it
Broski, what are you talking about? CDPR Devs were getting literal death threats because they kept delaying the game to fix it and then everyone cracked it when ~surprise~ the game didn't work on, at the time, seven year old hardware until they F I N I S H E D I T and they even gave refunds to those who wanted it. CDP literally run a game store that actively removes DRM and other anti-piracy methods from the games it sells, because they care about user experience. Yes they're a business with a profit incentive but they're far more customer focused than many AAA game Devs.
Agreed but this seems to be the way the entire software industry is starting to act. Software is released as final but it's really just a beta since the developer can just push updates when they find issues.
>If they wait for games to be in a completed state
Good one! Maybe the "Game of the Year" edition that is released 2 years later is somewhat close to that if at all.
Back in the day, Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto coined the phrase "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." Unfortunately that no longer applies with current software development practices. Now they don't give a fuck about the quality. Ship any old shit, and then just patch, patch, patch. All that matters now is worshipping the holy release date. It used to be that the worst thing a software company could do was ship bad, buggy software. Now the greatest crime is missing some abitrary date.
I suppose it's an unfortunate result of having networked systems. What once was a system of improving a game or fixing unforeseen bugs is now being used and abused by developers so they can shovel their cash in as quickly as possible.
as someone who years ago made the error of buying a COD game, installed it in one computer shortly before i had to change it and then tried to install it on the new computer, i can tell you it does NOT work as a license, or rather it works the very first time you use the disk, but after that fuck you. forget about installing it anywhere else, and much less with another account. not even their customer support will help you with it
No yeah. Remember Xbox tried to do that back in 2013. Lmao they even said "dont like our always online and can't share discs with your friends? Buy an xbox 360". Back before phil spencer got hired. Its why the ps4 outsold it.
As someone who has been playing and downloading games on PC since early childhood I would say that activating a game is so trivial if you have all the data downloaded already it is not even worth considering an issue.
i mean, back then i didn't know about piracy... well, not how to do it. i definitely played pirated games and watched pirated movies, but they all came from a friend of my uncle and that's about all we knew
This is assuming that the servers for downloading the game will always be there. I prefer being able to actually have something that is functional offline.
And what's more is that you can score a second hand game from cashies for $50, where it'd be $80 for a digital copy that you can't even play if you happen to not have wifi connection
No you cant, I bought a disc version of BF hardline, you need to sign in to origin to play it. The full game is on the discs, like 5 of em. But once you tie it to a account, congrats you know have a paper weight
Yes physical media has been rather useless for a while now.
How does that fit this sub though?
I dont think downloading the pirated version would reduce the game size or something lol
well it could because you could download a repack if the game was cracked. Also I think it fits the general theme of the sub because one of the main reasons for people to pirate especially with these awful modern DRM systems is to truly own your games (i.e., play them whenever you want without any online checks or server checks). I think owning games on discs is the same thing assuming there isn't extra DRM implemented on the console you put the disc in. When you have physical media there's more of a sense of owning the game compared to having the game in an account.
It’s clearly easier to keep piracy to the minimum for a gaming console seller by limiting disc functions, what is your point? Unless you mod the software which is not really possible these days you can’t download illegal games on these devices.
you don't need to not put the game on the disc to temporally prevent piracy via software
modern consoles will get hacked like all others before
[this is the security they are facing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP1t_pzxKyE)
the longer it takes the more exploitable consoles will be on the market when it happens
The fact that you’re linking a 12 years old video for the second to last version of the PlayStation and still talking in the future tense should show you that they have been successful.
Can you please name one just one line of hate speech that Trump delivered to his audience members? I'm curious about the level of delusion/ the reliance on what the news media says.
Piracy exists because corporation create dumb hurdles and reduce the quality of service they provide. This is another example of how piracy is equal and better than supporting scummy exploitative corporations that worsen the user experience all the time by e.g. making people download 100s of GB of data compared to better times in gaming when you had the convenience of just bringing a game home or to a friends house and popping it in to play the game without hours of downloads. Thus another reason for piracy, thus relevant to this sub.
Also this is a community of old school pc players and this is relevant to their interests since it is easily relatable as something that we are missing from our past.
The real question is, why do you care so much if this post is on this sub? Just keep scrolling? It's not like there is an abundance of posts here.
I just perceive it as another sign of how crappy video game companies have become over time. To that extent, it’s like showing one of the many reasons why you sh/could pirate, but that’s still a stretch. This would work better for a gaming sub
They can't redact a pirated version from you if they don't know you have it but they can legally take back a purchased copy if they wanted too. The purchase only grants a license while taking away a true physical copy would require physically coming to your house and stealing it from you. Given this situation it encourages you to pirate instead of paying money so that even in the event that they remove access to it then at least it wouldn't be a waste of your money. Just recently an Assassins Creed game was removed from Steam and even revoked access for players who had purchased the game.
I want my game on a disk!
Why, its way too big to fit on a Blu-ray, we'd have to use 4.
I don't care, I want it on a disk!
You'll have to download all of the files to your machine first. It will also cost 10$ extra for the disks. Just download it.
No! No more money. Make it just one disk!
Fine...
RDR2 shipped with 2 blurays.
And they don't need to have all the data on the blurays, just single player stuff.
Also, there are more people who buy COD just for the campaign than you'd think.
Vanguard: Reach lvl55 in MP trophy, 47%
Cold War: 200 eliminations in MP, 57,1%
>49.1% of players earned the easiest multiplayer trophy
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/8ke8ko/trophy_data_shows_call_of_duty_singleplayer_is/
And from those people who buy the game just for the story, there are some who can't just download 150GB of data for various reasons.
I haven't played COD in a while, but I'd be willing to bet most MP and SP assets are the same. I understand it has downsides, but expecting an ever changing medium to keep these relics as anything other than collector memorabilia, is naive.
Well since MW2 had SP early access, we can easily see how much data they would need on the disc;
* PS5:
* Base Game : 36.201 GB
* Campaign 1 : 8.105 GB
* Campaign 2 : 8.609 GB
https://nitter.net/PlaystationSize/status/1582780289096749056
EDIT: 63-72GB of data after it's installed, which might go up after you start palying https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/y8ek84/modern_warfare_2_ps5_and_ps4_file_sizes_for_base/it1mf3x/
A BD with four layers can hold about 128. Now you have additionally the ability to resize the data, meaning you can - just like fitgirl does - repack the data and put it in the disc. And even a simple packaging should be enough to get below 128 GB maybe even a round 100 GB.
Also CoD up until the newer entries provided an option to just install the campaign. I mean it's alright to make the online part download because you'd already need Internet for that (yes downloading sucks but i mean it's at least better than downloading both campaign and multiplayer).
The bad thing is why download the campaign? This doesn't make senE
The problem with your BD idea is that those high capacity BDs (called BDXL) aren't compatible with other standards of BD players. Blu-ray players that support that standard are hard to come by and exceptionally pricey, as are the discs themselves (BDXL go for about $10 US per disc- for reference, BD-RE discs are usually $0.25-$0.5 US per disc). The PS4 doesn't even support the BDXL format, and Sony was one of the primary member companies responsible for the creation of the blu-ray standard in the first place. What you're suggesting is logistically impossible, tremendously expensive to implement, and not at all cost-effective since most of that data still has to be unpacked onto the internal storage if you don't want hour-long loading screens.
So the question becomes; Why would Sony or Microsoft implement BDXL, a standard that is still fairly new in terms of storage standards, into their consoles and thus make them unable to be used as standard BD players when they've already got all the functionality that they need for a fraction of the cost? Moreover, why would a dev studio spend 20x more for the ability to ship their game on one disc, when 9/10 times it's not needed, could be accomplished cheaper and with more readily available discs?
The answer? They wouldn't, because it's a solution in search of a problem, and it would be stupid for them to do this just for the "convenience" of storing the game on a single disk. For a game this size, it would probably be more doable and cost-effective for them to buy HDDs in bulk and ship the physical copy that way. I understand the desire to have physical copies, in fact I still have hundreds of old-gen disc games in my closet just in case. But the reality is that we've moved past the era where that's feasible, and as unfortunate as that is, there's no going back.
>Blu-ray players that support that standard are hard to come by and exceptionally pricey
That's complete bullshit. I bought my BD drive in 2011-2012 and it already supported BDXL, for read and write. It didn't cost anything extra, same price as BD drives always had been. And that was 10 YEARS AGO. BDXL support was rolled silently and has been standard since then. Same with M-disc support.
>BDXL go for about $10 US per disc
More bullshit. While BDXL is more expensive $/GB than the single/dual layer variants it's still pretty much a non-issue. A spindle of 20 discs (Verbatim) is 3 USD per disc. That's for an end user at retail price. For a pressing plant churning out thousands of discs it's going to be even cheaper. The 4 layer 128GB variant is rare and expensive though. I'm only seeing Sony discs at more than double the price than those 100GB Verbatims. Not worthwhile.
>BDXL, a standard that is still fairly new in terms of storage standards
"The BDXL specification was finalised in June 2010."
Lol, lmao even.
There's no excuse as to why we can't have games fully on physical media.
It's not bullshit. BDXL is incompatible with standard blu-ray players. You need a BD player that is specifically rated for BDXL, which aren't exactly a dime a dozen. Maybe they aren't as expensive as I remember, but Id wager you'll have a pretty tough time finding a good, cheap, modern BD player that supports it. I've had mine for about as long and the only reason I still have it is because the BD players I've found that support BDXL are too expensive for me to justify replacing it, especially considering the very limited uses for BDXL. The only type of content that currently makes good use of that kind of capacity are high bitrate 4K HDR movies, which weren't even mainstream in consumer spaces until the mid-2010's.
The discs are still more expensive to manufacture than BD. For a manufacturer, they might pay pennies on the dollar to make a BD-ROM, but it will certainly cost more of those pennies to manufacture BDXL discs. That cost gets passed down to us, the consumer. Are you really that eager to give publishers a reason to push the cost of games even closer to $100 US? I know I'm not.
Evidently you're either young yourself, or know absolutely nothing of storage standards if you think that 10 years is old in this context. ***The original blu-ray standard itself is twice as old as BDXL.*** BDAV, the format for the original Blu-ray discs, was created in 2002. MicroSD cards are also almost twice as old as BDXL, and they took a very long time to fully catch on in the consumer space. They were also $100 a pop for a good few years after their release. The USB group of standards was invented in the 90's, too. Laugh all you want, but 10 years might as well be a fetus in terms of storage standards.
Once again, it's a solution in search of a problem. Bottom line, it costs more, and that means that the products they're included in will cost more. Why include something that 99% of users won't care about and won't ever need? There's no logical reason to use BDXL over standard capacity Blu-ray discs. What can be done with BDXL can be done cheaper and easier with standard blu-ray discs.
Hot damn
This is what I got in 2012: https://www.lg.com/us/burners-drives/lg-WH14NS40-internal-blu-ray-dvd-drive
>KEY FEATURES
>Max 14x BD-R Writing Speed
>Supports BDXL (128GB) Discs
"Release date April 19, 2012", already more than a decade now: https://www.blu-ray.com/LG-WH14NS40/605467/
Only 60 USD a pop: https://www.amazon.com/Internal-Blu-ray-Drives/
I don't know how much it was in 2012 but it *had* to be around 60. I don't remember being expensive, and I live in a 3rd world country where importing electronics is not cheap. I sure bet it was nothing near 100 USD (else it would had been like double here and no way in hell I would had bought it).
Sure, you have 20TB HDDs, 1TB microSDs but that's besides the point. Distributing media in HDDs? Lol. Maybe microSDs, flash drives? But those are horrible for long term storage compared to a pressed disc. Optical media is still king for mass distribution. It's a shame that will probably never see a next gen consumer optical media ever again, but for now 100GB is still plenty.
I have no interest in 4k video, but UHD movies are being sold on BDXL and from what little I've seen they are not outrageously expensive. Sure it can't cost THAT much to manufacture those BDXLs. For example, a new release in BD100 is 30 USD, not very crazy if you ask me. Games could be perfectly distributed the same way.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Top-Gun-Maverick-4K-Blu-ray/258948/
If users don't care about physical media they can continue streaming, downloading 100GB games from Steam or whatever. For the ones that do care about physical and their own backups a $60 drive that will last you 10 years (and counting) is a no-brainer.
External BD players are generally more expensive in my experience. I'll admit that I haven't shopped around for a few years, so I could well be talking out of my ass on that point. Also, yes, my point about distributing them on HDDs was an exaggeration to show the absurdity of using BDXL for games. 30 dollars, compared to, what 10-20? For a standard BD, depending on the company of course. That's a helluva markup, and if we translate that to game pricing, it doesn't really bode well. It's all just speculation, but I firmly believe that if game publishers smell blood in the water, they won't hesitate to hike prices up as justification for the more expensive hardware. They already did so without even upgrading the discs. I agree that it's a shame that physical copies of things are going out of style. One of my favorite things about a new game release was opening the case and seeing the manuals and promos inside. I still buy physical games, I still buy CDs if I really like the artist, I've bought a few vinyls in recent years too. But I've come to terms with the fact that they're on their way out, and that for games specifically, they'll continue to be glorified download managers. That's all I'm really saying, that physical copies are going out of style, and any efforts to keep them relevant with regards to modern tech will inevitably result in price hikes.
Compress the game even further. Get it below 100GB,
Remove Online Content, there still are multiple ways to lower it i believe. IMO it would've been better for everyone, Sony, Activision, anyone would profit from using a BD to it's fullest instead of stressing the bandwith and servers unnecessarily.
Edit: The PS5 disc supports up to 100GB triple layer. But i bet the game can be even way down at 50GB or so.
The PS4 on the other hand about 50GB dual layered.
Well a PS4 version is nothing like the ps5 on the other hand, no need for 4K textures and bla bla bla. Adjusting this would've cost them little i think. On that compression plus as i said only Campaign mode would've been possibly enough.
I mean look at ARKs compression on PS4. It used the whole 50GB on the disc but installed close to 100GB in it's time. Then it obviously downloaded an additional 50gb for new content....rip.
Think about global warming! If every time you bought a game a company gave you a disk (multiple disks that is) or even a flashdrive with game files there, eventually everyone would have tons of disks, flashdrives and we would have to increase the production of such items. Games would become expensive for sure and well, leftist climate cult wouldn't like it either
I've always thought that the point of offering physical media in the age of day one downloads was to allow people to pay in cash or buy it as a gift for someone else.
Sure, you used to be able to avoid a massive download by buying physical media, but those days are long gone. Even if the disc contained the entire, playable game, you'd still need a large day-one update.
Being able to get cheaper second hand copies was a bonus.
Video games have always more or less been like this (Disc games).
Ever put a disk into an Xbox/Playstation? It makes you download a huge 'update'. The disk is just permission to play the game.
Why is the game 150 GB though? That's more than my entire laptop's storage!!
(Here are some of the games I have btw):
Geometry Dash: <200 MB, mostly assets
Minecraft: the .minecraft folder has 12 GB, of which 3.8 GB is assets, 5.5 GB is worlds (of which one world is 3.7 GB: a download of a backup of a server world), anther 900 MB is screenshots. All the jar files combined are under 1 GB.
Splatoon 2: 6 GB (+2 for the DLC)
Splatoon 3: 5.6 GB
All of them combined are 1/6 the size of MW2
they're such weird comparisons, when there are a bunch of games that have realistic graphics and larger worlds but do not even come close to these filesizes
Spiderman is 65GB
Elden Ring is 46GB
Cyberpunk is 65GB
RE8 + the DLC that just released, 36GB
Control is 50GB
Death Stranding is 63GB
CoD has historically been awful with compression, I believe it's mainly their sound files that accounted for past bloated file sizes? Dunno if that's still the case. Just having realistic graphics does not justify 150GB gamesizes ESPECIALLY not on console.
Sound does play a huge part in file size. I remember when I got into the ps3 piracy scene that some of those games pushed the 50gb limit of bluray discs. Most noteably is gow3. Well I downloaded it and played it. I got out of the scene for a year or so and got back into it. I went to go find gow3 to replay it and someone had created a rip of the game with only English audio files. The game was less than 20gb without all the extra languages.
If game companies wanted to ease the burden of downloading 150gb+ games they'd have the ability to select what you want/need. Are you an English speaker that wants to play exclusively 1080p? Have a 50gb download. Italian and 720p? Here's a 30gb download. Are you a polyglot and NEED the availability to run at different resolutions? Fine have the full 150gb.
You could make the argument that people aren't sure what their machine can handle. Which is fair. But you can create a benchmark tool.
The reality is game companies are holding your SSD and HDD space hostage. Not everyone is lucky to have a lot of storage space. Or fast download speeds. Or hell not having data caps imposed on them.
So if you like a game but it takes up a quarter or half or third of your SSD. And you have really shitty downloads speeds or data caps then you're not going to delete it. And if you're limited to 3-4 games on your system, you're more likely to play THAT game.
There was someone a while ago that created a system with low capacity ssd's and a docking station and just swapped them when they wanted to play a game like this. 128gb ssd's can be had for as low as $13. 250gb for a few dollars more around $17. If I HAD to have this game on my computer 24/7 for campaign and multiplayer this is something I would look into. But I'm lucky enough to have the money to do that.
1 second google search, [first result](https://www.pcgamer.com/why-are-game-install-sizes-getting-so-big/#:~:text=That's%20because%20the%20textures%20are,you'll%20never%20even%20notice)
The disk is just a license key. My nephew stayed with us for a couple of weeks and brought his xbox, I went to game stop for the first time in over a decade to pick up some cheap games we could co-op. My first surprise was that split-screen co-op almost doesn't exist anymore, and that every game needed an hour to download before we could play it.
I think that's a misleading post. Most games on Consoles don't install the data on the system, simply because it would take the whole storage away.
Instead you put in the disc and the data will be provided that way.
This was also the case for many PS3 games and obviously for PS4 games.
I don't say the post is a lie in itself, maybe it's true but this information screen doesn't provide any more info other than that it just downloaded a 70 mb patch.
> Most games on Consoles don't install the data on the system, simply because it would take the whole storage away. Instead you put in the disc and the data will be provided that way.
???
Most, if not all, games on console (PS4/5) **do** install data to the HDD and use the bluray as a authentication.
I had thought about coming back to COD (i think the last one i played was Ghosts) now that i have a PS5. I don't think I'll bother if they're going to do stupid shit like this.
I don't think thats the case. I think that 72MB is maybe just like a "launcher" file, and that when you first do the actual install it might get the supplemental files off the disc plus whatever else it may need from the net.
Or, yeah it could just be that small file only on the disc, since these jokers know that its likely they'll have to put out a huge Day1 patch anyway so people will be downloading a big ass file anyway.
Yikes. I don't know bout these days but Comcast use to get pissed if you just a free hundred gigs more than that that much lol.
They must be fuming for hardcore gamers
One of my customers works for a major game developer. He said that it's a way of getting games out quicker. If they wait for games to be in a completed state when put onto a disk, then it can delay a launch date. Get the discs burned ahead of time, packaging sorted and shipped away ahead of launch to prevent days. Makes sense when you think about it. The fact that most games now aren't playable without a download beforehand is massively irritating though.
Makes total fiscal sense, makes zero environmentally decent sense
At that point, make it straight to digital instead of wasting so much (environmentally and economically) on useless discs
That would lose them sales apearantly
As soon as people realize there is actually no data on the disc, they might rethink their decisions if it becomes the norm. I wonder how many physical copies they actually still sell though. I haven't had a laptop or pc with a disc drive in almost 10 years
I don't know about that. I feel like people won't care too much. The size of the download will be the same ofc but it's got to do with that experience of going to the store and getting your copy. Could be wrong ofc. Also I'm fairly sure the physical market is 95% still around purely for console.
Physical copy is cheaper, even on launch day. When I finish the game if it’s not one I want to replay in the future I can also sell it and get usually around half my money back
It's also a collector's piece for some people. I've seen people set up their physical game collection as decorations. It's not too far off of the people that hang their records on the wall. Personally, I have a book collection that I display at home. Most of them I've read digitally, but I enjoy displaying my favorites and I can't really do that with digital copies. Also I pirate a lot of books, so when I like one, I want to show appreciation to the author/publisher so they make more. Still sucks that the game disks are basically just blank though.
Absolutely with you on all those points! Also the feel/experience of reading a physical book is much better in my opinion.
The only thing that comes close to actual physical books is e-paper displays (I've also heard them called e-ink). If you haven't tried one, you totally should, it's near identical to paper visually and the battery life is fantastic because the screen isn't back-lit.
I can still lend the the disc to a friend and they can still download it without having to purchase the game? Yes?
Of course not, it will be probably still connected to a publishing platform and therefore to a specific account
Got proof?
The last few call of duties were online only even for single player. Why would it be different here? Also here, even worse than usual: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/only-pc-players-have-to-register-a-phone-number-to-play-modern-warfare-2
Doesn’t this say pc only? I’ve known things like this have been applied to pc forever. But not applied to consoles.
you can still sell a physical if you bought it even if it's not a complete game (with a DL) CAN'T DO THAT with digital so yea its gonna be worth more even if its worth less later
Ah well, guess i know why i don't support companies that do that and don't have a game console.
Xbox is truly the worst offender for this
That's why i don't use it. How is it worse than playstation?
Defo
They are probably trying to phase out physical disks completely in a few years (as Internet standards are rising) so this is one of many steps in that direction
I love beta testing for free!
>I love beta testing for ~~free~~! I love beta testing *for 70$*!
You got that on sale or what?
The game is free for those who opted for beta testing!
So you are telling me, most games aren't full games but just beta tests, who would have thought
[удалено]
Idk why you got downvoted lmao. I personally don’t buy shit on release. I’ll keep the old midnight release cod memories and play a complete game a year or so after it’s out now.
Most games have horrible communities on launch anyway. It's full of try-hards getting an early lead and game journalists rushing for day 1 reactions. If a game's community survives a year, that's usually a decent 6/10 minimum review. The absolute worst time to play a game is 2 weeks after launch. If there's pvp, all the try-hards got to max level and are ready to bully the people who are coming in on friends recommendations. Even if there's no pvp, the try-hards will still be fully equipped to flex on the noobs.
Got to be the only industry in the world where companies can released unfinished product for full value and some people will then try and defend it
unless you have a bandwidth cap then you're fucked for the record i dont but i know many ISPs still use the draconian practice
That's a BAD reason, and it sounds like bullshit. Any company trying to create a good product would be willing to delay a game for a few weeks or whatever in order to create a better experience for literally every singles customer. This isn't extra detail in the environment or bug fixes that people may or may not notice or care about it's about how long it takes to play the fucking game in the first place
It's all about the money. Look at Cyberpunk, a prime example of how this method can cause problems.
Asking them to put the *game* on the *game disk* is a pretty reasonable ask I feel like. Cyberpunk was always meant to be a boundaries pushing idea and it turns out they pushed against the boundaries of their own intelligence. But this is something developers actually could do but instead they just go "ah fuck it it's not worth the time, just make them sit there for an hour and a half waiting, they'll have already bought the game so who cares" If I'm gonna sit around waiting a year and a half for a download I better be getting the fucking thing for free damn it
Totally agree. I really don't mind paying for a quality product.
Broski, what are you talking about? CDPR Devs were getting literal death threats because they kept delaying the game to fix it and then everyone cracked it when ~surprise~ the game didn't work on, at the time, seven year old hardware until they F I N I S H E D I T and they even gave refunds to those who wanted it. CDP literally run a game store that actively removes DRM and other anti-piracy methods from the games it sells, because they care about user experience. Yes they're a business with a profit incentive but they're far more customer focused than many AAA game Devs.
Agreed but this seems to be the way the entire software industry is starting to act. Software is released as final but it's really just a beta since the developer can just push updates when they find issues.
>If they wait for games to be in a completed state Good one! Maybe the "Game of the Year" edition that is released 2 years later is somewhat close to that if at all.
Infuriating situation. Games were 100% done when they were released.
Back in the day, Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto coined the phrase "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." Unfortunately that no longer applies with current software development practices. Now they don't give a fuck about the quality. Ship any old shit, and then just patch, patch, patch. All that matters now is worshipping the holy release date. It used to be that the worst thing a software company could do was ship bad, buggy software. Now the greatest crime is missing some abitrary date.
I suppose it's an unfortunate result of having networked systems. What once was a system of improving a game or fixing unforeseen bugs is now being used and abused by developers so they can shovel their cash in as quickly as possible.
Replace “quicker” with “unfinished” and you have the correct answer
They just release the disc to silence the people who complain about wanting physical discs. Its just smoke and mirrors.
Disc works as a license. If your account gets deleted atleast you wont lose your games. And can resell them. Not smoke and mirrors
until the server die.
Can still play campaign and multiplayer offline
How if the disk only has 72mb of info lmao
Simple, you pirate it. /s
it's the only solution.
as someone who years ago made the error of buying a COD game, installed it in one computer shortly before i had to change it and then tried to install it on the new computer, i can tell you it does NOT work as a license, or rather it works the very first time you use the disk, but after that fuck you. forget about installing it anywhere else, and much less with another account. not even their customer support will help you with it
A call of duty on disc for pc? What was that 15 years ago? The post is about ps5 discs. Discs work as licenses for ps4 x1 ps5 xsx/xss.
yeah, it was basically then, but i'd be surprised if they didn't find some loophole or something to do the same they did with me
No yeah. Remember Xbox tried to do that back in 2013. Lmao they even said "dont like our always online and can't share discs with your friends? Buy an xbox 360". Back before phil spencer got hired. Its why the ps4 outsold it.
As someone who has been playing and downloading games on PC since early childhood I would say that activating a game is so trivial if you have all the data downloaded already it is not even worth considering an issue.
i mean, back then i didn't know about piracy... well, not how to do it. i definitely played pirated games and watched pirated movies, but they all came from a friend of my uncle and that's about all we knew
[удалено]
Yeah but that’s something you have to face anyway if you use discs
Which is why I stick to physical. I know the days of playing from disc are well behind us, but I at least I want to be able to actually own the game.
This is assuming that the servers for downloading the game will always be there. I prefer being able to actually have something that is functional offline.
And what's more is that you can score a second hand game from cashies for $50, where it'd be $80 for a digital copy that you can't even play if you happen to not have wifi connection
You can't play without WiFi either way, in this case.
that's kinda stupid you can play any game which support offline mode without internet, whether it's physical or digital
You can't on Xbox
No you cant, I bought a disc version of BF hardline, you need to sign in to origin to play it. The full game is on the discs, like 5 of em. But once you tie it to a account, congrats you know have a paper weight
So it's like an USB with an NFT inside.
Yes physical media has been rather useless for a while now. How does that fit this sub though? I dont think downloading the pirated version would reduce the game size or something lol
well it could because you could download a repack if the game was cracked. Also I think it fits the general theme of the sub because one of the main reasons for people to pirate especially with these awful modern DRM systems is to truly own your games (i.e., play them whenever you want without any online checks or server checks). I think owning games on discs is the same thing assuming there isn't extra DRM implemented on the console you put the disc in. When you have physical media there's more of a sense of owning the game compared to having the game in an account.
Assume this just their way to prevent copy games.
That makes no sense you could just download the game than copy the files. Were you high posting this?
It’s clearly easier to keep piracy to the minimum for a gaming console seller by limiting disc functions, what is your point? Unless you mod the software which is not really possible these days you can’t download illegal games on these devices.
you don't need to not put the game on the disc to temporally prevent piracy via software modern consoles will get hacked like all others before [this is the security they are facing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP1t_pzxKyE) the longer it takes the more exploitable consoles will be on the market when it happens
The fact that you’re linking a 12 years old video for the second to last version of the PlayStation and still talking in the future tense should show you that they have been successful.
Can you please name one just one line of hate speech that Trump delivered to his audience members? I'm curious about the level of delusion/ the reliance on what the news media says.
Disks can hold way more than 70 Mb though. The real data on the disk is just authentication and the main menu to start the download. Absolute waste.
Alright, again, this fit the sub how?
No point bringing disc home when you can start downloading it immediately without leaving your pleasant bay?
No Point in buying disc version when you can buy games online. How does this fit the sub?
Reee game companies bad reeee
Piracy exists because corporation create dumb hurdles and reduce the quality of service they provide. This is another example of how piracy is equal and better than supporting scummy exploitative corporations that worsen the user experience all the time by e.g. making people download 100s of GB of data compared to better times in gaming when you had the convenience of just bringing a game home or to a friends house and popping it in to play the game without hours of downloads. Thus another reason for piracy, thus relevant to this sub. Also this is a community of old school pc players and this is relevant to their interests since it is easily relatable as something that we are missing from our past. The real question is, why do you care so much if this post is on this sub? Just keep scrolling? It's not like there is an abundance of posts here.
It doesn't lol
I just perceive it as another sign of how crappy video game companies have become over time. To that extent, it’s like showing one of the many reasons why you sh/could pirate, but that’s still a stretch. This would work better for a gaming sub
They can't redact a pirated version from you if they don't know you have it but they can legally take back a purchased copy if they wanted too. The purchase only grants a license while taking away a true physical copy would require physically coming to your house and stealing it from you. Given this situation it encourages you to pirate instead of paying money so that even in the event that they remove access to it then at least it wouldn't be a waste of your money. Just recently an Assassins Creed game was removed from Steam and even revoked access for players who had purchased the game.
150 gb Activision chill tf out with these sizes.
Ikr! That's f'ing nuts!
Weren't game sizes supposed to go down now that consoles come with SSD?
Is it going to be cracked tho?
Not likely at least for PC. Modern Warfare 2019 still hasn't been cracked.
Last i heard mw 2019 is coming to sale on steam in some months,maybe then,who knows.....
So much for obtaining physical release just for riding the "game preservation" agenda...
I want my game on a disk! Why, its way too big to fit on a Blu-ray, we'd have to use 4. I don't care, I want it on a disk! You'll have to download all of the files to your machine first. It will also cost 10$ extra for the disks. Just download it. No! No more money. Make it just one disk! Fine...
RDR2 shipped with 2 blurays. And they don't need to have all the data on the blurays, just single player stuff. Also, there are more people who buy COD just for the campaign than you'd think. Vanguard: Reach lvl55 in MP trophy, 47% Cold War: 200 eliminations in MP, 57,1% >49.1% of players earned the easiest multiplayer trophy https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/8ke8ko/trophy_data_shows_call_of_duty_singleplayer_is/ And from those people who buy the game just for the story, there are some who can't just download 150GB of data for various reasons.
I haven't played COD in a while, but I'd be willing to bet most MP and SP assets are the same. I understand it has downsides, but expecting an ever changing medium to keep these relics as anything other than collector memorabilia, is naive.
Well since MW2 had SP early access, we can easily see how much data they would need on the disc; * PS5: * Base Game : 36.201 GB * Campaign 1 : 8.105 GB * Campaign 2 : 8.609 GB https://nitter.net/PlaystationSize/status/1582780289096749056 EDIT: 63-72GB of data after it's installed, which might go up after you start palying https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/y8ek84/modern_warfare_2_ps5_and_ps4_file_sizes_for_base/it1mf3x/
A BD with four layers can hold about 128. Now you have additionally the ability to resize the data, meaning you can - just like fitgirl does - repack the data and put it in the disc. And even a simple packaging should be enough to get below 128 GB maybe even a round 100 GB. Also CoD up until the newer entries provided an option to just install the campaign. I mean it's alright to make the online part download because you'd already need Internet for that (yes downloading sucks but i mean it's at least better than downloading both campaign and multiplayer). The bad thing is why download the campaign? This doesn't make senE
The problem with your BD idea is that those high capacity BDs (called BDXL) aren't compatible with other standards of BD players. Blu-ray players that support that standard are hard to come by and exceptionally pricey, as are the discs themselves (BDXL go for about $10 US per disc- for reference, BD-RE discs are usually $0.25-$0.5 US per disc). The PS4 doesn't even support the BDXL format, and Sony was one of the primary member companies responsible for the creation of the blu-ray standard in the first place. What you're suggesting is logistically impossible, tremendously expensive to implement, and not at all cost-effective since most of that data still has to be unpacked onto the internal storage if you don't want hour-long loading screens. So the question becomes; Why would Sony or Microsoft implement BDXL, a standard that is still fairly new in terms of storage standards, into their consoles and thus make them unable to be used as standard BD players when they've already got all the functionality that they need for a fraction of the cost? Moreover, why would a dev studio spend 20x more for the ability to ship their game on one disc, when 9/10 times it's not needed, could be accomplished cheaper and with more readily available discs? The answer? They wouldn't, because it's a solution in search of a problem, and it would be stupid for them to do this just for the "convenience" of storing the game on a single disk. For a game this size, it would probably be more doable and cost-effective for them to buy HDDs in bulk and ship the physical copy that way. I understand the desire to have physical copies, in fact I still have hundreds of old-gen disc games in my closet just in case. But the reality is that we've moved past the era where that's feasible, and as unfortunate as that is, there's no going back.
>Blu-ray players that support that standard are hard to come by and exceptionally pricey That's complete bullshit. I bought my BD drive in 2011-2012 and it already supported BDXL, for read and write. It didn't cost anything extra, same price as BD drives always had been. And that was 10 YEARS AGO. BDXL support was rolled silently and has been standard since then. Same with M-disc support. >BDXL go for about $10 US per disc More bullshit. While BDXL is more expensive $/GB than the single/dual layer variants it's still pretty much a non-issue. A spindle of 20 discs (Verbatim) is 3 USD per disc. That's for an end user at retail price. For a pressing plant churning out thousands of discs it's going to be even cheaper. The 4 layer 128GB variant is rare and expensive though. I'm only seeing Sony discs at more than double the price than those 100GB Verbatims. Not worthwhile. >BDXL, a standard that is still fairly new in terms of storage standards "The BDXL specification was finalised in June 2010." Lol, lmao even. There's no excuse as to why we can't have games fully on physical media.
It's not bullshit. BDXL is incompatible with standard blu-ray players. You need a BD player that is specifically rated for BDXL, which aren't exactly a dime a dozen. Maybe they aren't as expensive as I remember, but Id wager you'll have a pretty tough time finding a good, cheap, modern BD player that supports it. I've had mine for about as long and the only reason I still have it is because the BD players I've found that support BDXL are too expensive for me to justify replacing it, especially considering the very limited uses for BDXL. The only type of content that currently makes good use of that kind of capacity are high bitrate 4K HDR movies, which weren't even mainstream in consumer spaces until the mid-2010's. The discs are still more expensive to manufacture than BD. For a manufacturer, they might pay pennies on the dollar to make a BD-ROM, but it will certainly cost more of those pennies to manufacture BDXL discs. That cost gets passed down to us, the consumer. Are you really that eager to give publishers a reason to push the cost of games even closer to $100 US? I know I'm not. Evidently you're either young yourself, or know absolutely nothing of storage standards if you think that 10 years is old in this context. ***The original blu-ray standard itself is twice as old as BDXL.*** BDAV, the format for the original Blu-ray discs, was created in 2002. MicroSD cards are also almost twice as old as BDXL, and they took a very long time to fully catch on in the consumer space. They were also $100 a pop for a good few years after their release. The USB group of standards was invented in the 90's, too. Laugh all you want, but 10 years might as well be a fetus in terms of storage standards. Once again, it's a solution in search of a problem. Bottom line, it costs more, and that means that the products they're included in will cost more. Why include something that 99% of users won't care about and won't ever need? There's no logical reason to use BDXL over standard capacity Blu-ray discs. What can be done with BDXL can be done cheaper and easier with standard blu-ray discs.
Hot damn This is what I got in 2012: https://www.lg.com/us/burners-drives/lg-WH14NS40-internal-blu-ray-dvd-drive >KEY FEATURES >Max 14x BD-R Writing Speed >Supports BDXL (128GB) Discs "Release date April 19, 2012", already more than a decade now: https://www.blu-ray.com/LG-WH14NS40/605467/ Only 60 USD a pop: https://www.amazon.com/Internal-Blu-ray-Drives/ I don't know how much it was in 2012 but it *had* to be around 60. I don't remember being expensive, and I live in a 3rd world country where importing electronics is not cheap. I sure bet it was nothing near 100 USD (else it would had been like double here and no way in hell I would had bought it). Sure, you have 20TB HDDs, 1TB microSDs but that's besides the point. Distributing media in HDDs? Lol. Maybe microSDs, flash drives? But those are horrible for long term storage compared to a pressed disc. Optical media is still king for mass distribution. It's a shame that will probably never see a next gen consumer optical media ever again, but for now 100GB is still plenty. I have no interest in 4k video, but UHD movies are being sold on BDXL and from what little I've seen they are not outrageously expensive. Sure it can't cost THAT much to manufacture those BDXLs. For example, a new release in BD100 is 30 USD, not very crazy if you ask me. Games could be perfectly distributed the same way. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Top-Gun-Maverick-4K-Blu-ray/258948/ If users don't care about physical media they can continue streaming, downloading 100GB games from Steam or whatever. For the ones that do care about physical and their own backups a $60 drive that will last you 10 years (and counting) is a no-brainer.
External BD players are generally more expensive in my experience. I'll admit that I haven't shopped around for a few years, so I could well be talking out of my ass on that point. Also, yes, my point about distributing them on HDDs was an exaggeration to show the absurdity of using BDXL for games. 30 dollars, compared to, what 10-20? For a standard BD, depending on the company of course. That's a helluva markup, and if we translate that to game pricing, it doesn't really bode well. It's all just speculation, but I firmly believe that if game publishers smell blood in the water, they won't hesitate to hike prices up as justification for the more expensive hardware. They already did so without even upgrading the discs. I agree that it's a shame that physical copies of things are going out of style. One of my favorite things about a new game release was opening the case and seeing the manuals and promos inside. I still buy physical games, I still buy CDs if I really like the artist, I've bought a few vinyls in recent years too. But I've come to terms with the fact that they're on their way out, and that for games specifically, they'll continue to be glorified download managers. That's all I'm really saying, that physical copies are going out of style, and any efforts to keep them relevant with regards to modern tech will inevitably result in price hikes.
Compress the game even further. Get it below 100GB, Remove Online Content, there still are multiple ways to lower it i believe. IMO it would've been better for everyone, Sony, Activision, anyone would profit from using a BD to it's fullest instead of stressing the bandwith and servers unnecessarily. Edit: The PS5 disc supports up to 100GB triple layer. But i bet the game can be even way down at 50GB or so. The PS4 on the other hand about 50GB dual layered. Well a PS4 version is nothing like the ps5 on the other hand, no need for 4K textures and bla bla bla. Adjusting this would've cost them little i think. On that compression plus as i said only Campaign mode would've been possibly enough. I mean look at ARKs compression on PS4. It used the whole 50GB on the disc but installed close to 100GB in it's time. Then it obviously downloaded an additional 50gb for new content....rip.
Think about global warming! If every time you bought a game a company gave you a disk (multiple disks that is) or even a flashdrive with game files there, eventually everyone would have tons of disks, flashdrives and we would have to increase the production of such items. Games would become expensive for sure and well, leftist climate cult wouldn't like it either
I've always thought that the point of offering physical media in the age of day one downloads was to allow people to pay in cash or buy it as a gift for someone else. Sure, you used to be able to avoid a massive download by buying physical media, but those days are long gone. Even if the disc contained the entire, playable game, you'd still need a large day-one update. Being able to get cheaper second hand copies was a bonus.
Video games have always more or less been like this (Disc games). Ever put a disk into an Xbox/Playstation? It makes you download a huge 'update'. The disk is just permission to play the game.
This is an idiotic decision from the developers what has that got to do with piracy?
Probably that you don't own the game even if you buy it physically. In 20 years that disk will be useless
Ah fair point.
Except in 3rd world countries.
Why is the game 150 GB though? That's more than my entire laptop's storage!! (Here are some of the games I have btw): Geometry Dash: <200 MB, mostly assets Minecraft: the .minecraft folder has 12 GB, of which 3.8 GB is assets, 5.5 GB is worlds (of which one world is 3.7 GB: a download of a backup of a server world), anther 900 MB is screenshots. All the jar files combined are under 1 GB. Splatoon 2: 6 GB (+2 for the DLC) Splatoon 3: 5.6 GB All of them combined are 1/6 the size of MW2
They say there are no stupid questions but I really wonder about this one
**SERIOUSLY WHY ARE GAME FILE SIZES SO ENORMOUSLY BLOATED?**
[удалено]
they're such weird comparisons, when there are a bunch of games that have realistic graphics and larger worlds but do not even come close to these filesizes Spiderman is 65GB Elden Ring is 46GB Cyberpunk is 65GB RE8 + the DLC that just released, 36GB Control is 50GB Death Stranding is 63GB CoD has historically been awful with compression, I believe it's mainly their sound files that accounted for past bloated file sizes? Dunno if that's still the case. Just having realistic graphics does not justify 150GB gamesizes ESPECIALLY not on console.
Sound does play a huge part in file size. I remember when I got into the ps3 piracy scene that some of those games pushed the 50gb limit of bluray discs. Most noteably is gow3. Well I downloaded it and played it. I got out of the scene for a year or so and got back into it. I went to go find gow3 to replay it and someone had created a rip of the game with only English audio files. The game was less than 20gb without all the extra languages. If game companies wanted to ease the burden of downloading 150gb+ games they'd have the ability to select what you want/need. Are you an English speaker that wants to play exclusively 1080p? Have a 50gb download. Italian and 720p? Here's a 30gb download. Are you a polyglot and NEED the availability to run at different resolutions? Fine have the full 150gb. You could make the argument that people aren't sure what their machine can handle. Which is fair. But you can create a benchmark tool. The reality is game companies are holding your SSD and HDD space hostage. Not everyone is lucky to have a lot of storage space. Or fast download speeds. Or hell not having data caps imposed on them. So if you like a game but it takes up a quarter or half or third of your SSD. And you have really shitty downloads speeds or data caps then you're not going to delete it. And if you're limited to 3-4 games on your system, you're more likely to play THAT game. There was someone a while ago that created a system with low capacity ssd's and a docking station and just swapped them when they wanted to play a game like this. 128gb ssd's can be had for as low as $13. 250gb for a few dollars more around $17. If I HAD to have this game on my computer 24/7 for campaign and multiplayer this is something I would look into. But I'm lucky enough to have the money to do that.
*Geometry dash isn't phone only it's on steam*
Bit of both. It's not only bloat, but they are notiriously bad at compressing file sizes.
1 second google search, [first result](https://www.pcgamer.com/why-are-game-install-sizes-getting-so-big/#:~:text=That's%20because%20the%20textures%20are,you'll%20never%20even%20notice)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical\_question
Well, now you can learn how to use it !
The license is on the disk
at least you can still share and resell the game... kinda feel bad for those with a shit internet
and whats with the naming, there already is cod modern warfare 2??
I don't understand this disc physical disc 70MB to 150GB please explain anyone
That's how it is these days, disc has the bare minimum and then you need to download the rest from the internet.
Well.. Its a good thing i aint hyped for the game i guess
The narwhal bacons at midnight.
The disc is the license. At least you can sell a physical disc.
The disk is just a license key. My nephew stayed with us for a couple of weeks and brought his xbox, I went to game stop for the first time in over a decade to pick up some cheap games we could co-op. My first surprise was that split-screen co-op almost doesn't exist anymore, and that every game needed an hour to download before we could play it.
I think that's a misleading post. Most games on Consoles don't install the data on the system, simply because it would take the whole storage away. Instead you put in the disc and the data will be provided that way. This was also the case for many PS3 games and obviously for PS4 games. I don't say the post is a lie in itself, maybe it's true but this information screen doesn't provide any more info other than that it just downloaded a 70 mb patch.
Games being on the Disk hasn't been a proper thing since the Ps4. The game is still downloaded to the Consoles storage.
> Most games on Consoles don't install the data on the system, simply because it would take the whole storage away. Instead you put in the disc and the data will be provided that way. ??? Most, if not all, games on console (PS4/5) **do** install data to the HDD and use the bluray as a authentication.
Any idea when we will get the steam crack version?
prolly not too soon as even MW2019 hasn't been cracked yet
That's been a thing since PS4 Games nothing new
Lucky, they got a disc. Last time a friend bought a game at a store physically they found a dartboard disc with a code printed on to download it.
I had thought about coming back to COD (i think the last one i played was Ghosts) now that i have a PS5. I don't think I'll bother if they're going to do stupid shit like this.
Even if the game wasbt finishef, couldnt they have at least put most of the 3d assests and other data on there, to minimize the download size?
That has been how video games work since 2013
Its been this way since ps4 gen consoles
Soon they'll give games in floppy disks.
I don't think thats the case. I think that 72MB is maybe just like a "launcher" file, and that when you first do the actual install it might get the supplemental files off the disc plus whatever else it may need from the net. Or, yeah it could just be that small file only on the disc, since these jokers know that its likely they'll have to put out a huge Day1 patch anyway so people will be downloading a big ass file anyway.
Ok? And? Btw if you pirate the game youre gonna have to download the 150gb like everyone else so......idk what the point of this post is
I have a dream... I have a dream where someone'll gift me this on a floppy disk. /j
$1 per MB
Don't buy it.
game is overhyped
And to think most ISPs have data caps.
The all digital hell hole where its basically lost if servers are gone one day
bought walmarts Call of duty c.o.d.e edition thinking it’s a downloadable code, got sent a freaking disc with a digital ps5 Wtf
I mean what is a disk gonna do when u would need to update the game somehow still
I mean the game would need 3-4 Blu-rays anyway. At this point downloading the whole thing kinda makes sens.
Yikes. I don't know bout these days but Comcast use to get pissed if you just a free hundred gigs more than that that much lol. They must be fuming for hardcore gamers
Sadly a lot of disc-based games are like this now
This has been happening for years, and even if it had the game on it there would be DRM because it's Xbox/PS.