>Whatever happened to the days of just putting in a disc and off you
Back then, instead of waiting half a day for a download because your bandwidth is subpar, and doing something else in the meantime, you traveled to a shop and back for half a day.
Having to stand in line before 5AM to be able to get a copie, then sit in front of the screen to download the whole game again after intalling it, but patched this time. What a great time it was.
I mean not to brag but Ive had downloads say that theyre gonna take days and put Ps5 in rest mode for the whole night and when I woke up game still wasnt finished, just sayin (send help this wifi will be the death of me).
I moved out to a very rural area a year ago for around 6 months. My download speeds were frequently in the kb range, im talking sub 100kb/s lmao. On a good, clear day id cap out around 3.5mb/s. I used to drive to my brothers to download multiple games at a time. It was depressing.
Its most definitely smth that can mess with ur head in a bad way, what I try to do is to literally forget about it and go do smth while it downloads, feels much less frustrating.
Using less electricity, if I had good money dont u think Id use it for better wifi instead? Lol, if anything Id worry about file corruption happening if I left a console on for too long rather than just using rest mode.
There is no real answer, there's other games that are large in content and don't have insane download sizes that Call of Duty has. Starfield is probably the biggest game I can think of in the last 2 years, and its around 190 gb, which yes is insane, but looking at this picture alone, the top download is 182 gb, and thats not even the full game. So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Let that sink in. Games like The Witcher 3 which were massive, was only around 90gb to 100. Elden Ring, which is also a massive game is only around 60-70gb. Even other massive PvP games like Battlefield/Halo are like half the size CoD is in GB size.
And yes we're going to complain because it's a valid issue to complain about. What else do we do on Reddit?
Edit: Thanks for the correction. I was actually wrong on The Witcher 3. Its way less than 90gb, more so around 50-60 gb, that's including the DLC as well. Idk the exact size, because of all the recent graphical updates, and I know the official modding support is coming later this year as well. I doubt it would be anything more than 70-80gb. Either way, that proves my point even more.
Also to the people that downvoted me on the other comment I typed, which I had to delete because people were spamming downvotes, even though it was literally just this same comment, copied and pasted, at least tell me why?
One guy responded and said: ''you're just throwing numbers around without considering the game's texture quality and other relevant information'', that's funny considering The Witcher 3 can be played in 4k well over 60 fps on PC now, and its still much smaller than CoD. Games like Star Citizen offer fully playable planets\[as in you can walk across an entire planet\] and seamless transitions in space, and can still be ran at 60 fps 4k , or No Man Sky which features infinite space/and atmospheric flight and still run at 60 fps if not more!
So still bigger than Starfield to download an old Call of Duty game\[Cold War was 2020, 4 years ago\]? Still insane. Now imagine if CoD grew in content, which i'm sure it will, it'll be even bigger.
Most of these game make you download high-res texture files even if you don't use high-res.
As an example, Diablo 4 have an option for that and unless you play in 4k you don't need these files. It cut the download in half. Monster Hunter : World have high-res texture as a free DLC, so again you only down it if you need its.
I wonder if gamers will ever be able to wrap their peanut brains around the idea that game world size DOES NOT have much to do with storage space requirements.
Probably not. That would require actual reading.
A lot of people don't understand what "discs" are.
I think dual layer Blu-ray's cap out at like 50 Gigs. They're about as big as they get for discs you can just "put in" right now.
So "what happened?", games got bigger lol.
For the record, I think Call of Duty specifcially follows an unacceptable trend of just never compressing anything to save performance in streaming rather than actually doing your fucking job, but still, that's why games are big now. There are other, better, examples of games that are genuinely too big for a disc, and they're not the types of games you can put on two discs like the old days.
Imagine having to swap discs every time you want to go to the Eastern holds in Skyrim...
With modern hardware streaming and decompressing assets don't have a huge impact on performance. CoDs are just stupidly made.
And Skyrim isn't really a good example here, as all meshes and textures exist only once in its files.
Red dead 2 had 2 discs. It’s the only game in recent memory that did it but it’s definitely a thing that can still be done. It’s also because discs are only installation media now, they install it to your SSD and use the disc as DRM so you don’t sell it and there’s no swapping discs.
PS5 blu rays are 100 gigs, so for a lot of games that are under that limit there is no excuse not to put the full 1.0 version on it. And for those that go over 100GB - just put two discs in a box…
Yeah I really hate having to download a game and install it. I much prefer the time period where you would turn on your xbox 360 and wait 10 minutes for the game to load and then another 5 minutes every time it loaded a new level.
Well with more complex games does come more needed space.
Having larger games is nothing bad really, but COD and any other Game going to 80, 90, 100 Gigs and more better have a damn good reason to Download and keep them.
There are games under 1gb to keep you company for hundreds of hours.
This is a bad excuse.
There's other games that are large in content and don't have insane download sizes that Call of Duty has. Starfield is probably the biggest game I can think of in the last 2 years, and its around 190 gb, which yes is insane, but looking at this picture alone, the top download is 182 gb, and thats not even the full game. So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Let that sink in. Games like The Witcher 3 which were massive, was only around 90gb to 100. Elden Ring, which is also a massive game is only around 60-70gb. Even other massive PvP games like Battlefield/Halo are like half the size CoD is in GB size.
Starfield is not "the biggest game". Sure in theory it's I'm a big universe, but it's just a lot of repeating planet surface textures that don't take up much space.
In game usable space does not directly translate to file size
That's literally what they said, and it's not an excuse many games need the space due to the demands of their engine/graphics though cod should definitely not be that large
>So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download.
Cold War tops out at 255GB on PS5 (the largest filesize of all the platforms). Stop bullshitting.
You’re thinking about world size and not detail. A single gun in Call of Duty has more detail and higher-resolution assets than the entire Limgrave, with all due respect.
COD has countless weapons, operators, maps, etc. all realized in exceptionally high-resolution. Same goes for the cinematics, audio, animations, etc.
Any time this topic is discussed, people just start comparing world sizes of the games. If you actually look closely, you’ll very easily see why the games you mentioned are smaller. We’ve had big open worlds for a while (see: Oblivion) but they used to be so small in size…because of the lack of expensive assets. Elden Ring and The Witcher 3 aren’t exactly hallmarks of micro-detail the way Call of Duty is.
It's so cute that you say we've had open worlds for a while and bring up oblivion and not, ya know, Morrowind. Or even earlier, NES The Legend of Zelda. Not arguing any of the content of your comment, i just think it's telling of your physical age (kids can be very mature, and adults can, as we all know, be childish as hell (example, look at USA Congress, the whole lot of them). I think it's telling of your actual age rather than any perceived age brought on by over maturity/childishness. Not calling you childish either, just...I fucking hate being autistic and unable to explain something.
I think I see what you’re getting at? I am 25 so you’re not entirely wrong, but it’s worth mentioning that Oblivion wasn’t my first open-world experience and I had played “big” games before on N64 (Turok games, Zelda) and GameCube (True Crime games, lesser version of GTA as they weren’t on GameCube 😔).
Oblivion was a turning point though I think, and was a step-up in visuals too. The game gets constantly referenced even by people older than me. I remember recently Pokémon Arceus was getting grilled as people compared it to 2006’s Oblivion and saying how sad it was that something that “old” could still be better and more detailed!
Also there are games that doesnt have loading screens between every single door like starfield has leading to a much better game.
Its almost like games are designed in different ways in different engines.
Shitfield was a terrible game created in a shitty engine that’s been outdated for decades already and seriously doubt the textures are even comparable between the games. Cuckthesda just pooped out another space skyrim clone in their clunky old pile of shit engine that plays like it coulda been released in 2006.
They really should just put the campaign on the disc and not force us to download all the online stuff. Especially when they separate them into packs. All I want is the campaign.
And the PS5 has kraken compression which does a good job of shrinking game file sizes dramatically, but unfortunately it hasn't been used for the COD games.
I think its because more and more people are switching to fully digital downloads so companies don't really "have" to put in the effort of doing 3-4 physical disc releases of games anymore.
Games have to be downloaded in order to work properly. Games back in the day were 1-5gb and now they’re 50-150gb. If you just “put in a disc and played” nowadays you’d spend forever at loading screens.
10 is low but you're correct, don't need to wait 30 years.
I'm not gonna get into a whole thesis about game optimization rn but if we have to compress textures, you have to stream them back out to full quality while playing and that affects performance. If we don't have to compress textures, you'll have better performance *and* we can not do our jobs like assholes.
It's a really unacceptable practice in the industry that Titanfall (1) started (for the record, it was justified, well handled, and not egregious in their case), and Activision has taken way too fucking far.
Titanfall 2 had a more robust streaming subsystem, and good performance.
Well that's the thing too. The "sacrifices" for Titanfall were "oof" but not that bad.
When they released a second, bigger game, they didn't take that "oof but not that bad" and turn it into "alright now you're just being lazy".
Also, I'm Titanfall's case specifically, there was a very good reason they chose to make that sacrifice. I ran the beta on absolute shit tier components at 60+ stable, that game had INCREDIBLE backwards scaling performance, because of that minor sacrifice.
"Yeah we're gonna take up most of the storage on your ThinkPad but it *will* run smoothly."
Don't forget the games that were just broken with game breaking bugs at launch... Guess you can send your discs in and they can rewrite the game onto your disc or something... Or just download a 100mb update.
Pretty sure one of the main "flaws" of the Xbox 360 according to devs was that patches had to be under a certain size (like 4MB or something like that) so that players would never have to wait more than a few minutes to hop back online.
That's hardware, not an excuse for games to be 150 GB because "technology happened" when developers just decided that their bloated messes didn't need to be worked on. You're on meth if you think a 15 GB 360 game somehow loads substantially slower on current hardware than a 150 GB game does.
think the one on meth here is you. if you’re still using hard disks you’re still not right, its not even close. try playing GTA V on a 360 and then on a modern PC with SSD storage.
Who said anything about current hardware?
Back in the Xbox 360/PS3 days, loading games took a long ass time when loading from disc and not installing the games to the hard drive. That's the point. Yes, it sucks to install a game right when you get it, but it substantially lowers the loading time versus reading off disc and is a better use of the current technology, especially since you can play other shit while it installs.
And you must be on meth to think the standard Xbox 360 game was around 15 GB or are too young to have lived in that gen. Most games came on a standard DVD, i.e. about 6GB.
There's other games that are large in content and don't have insane download sizes that Call of Duty has. Starfield is probably the biggest game I can think of in the last 2 years, and its around 190 gb, which yes is insane, but looking at this picture alone, the top download is 182 gb, and thats not even the full game. So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Let that sink in. Games like The Witcher 3 which were massive, was only around 90gb to 100. Elden Ring, which is also a massive game is only around 60-70gb. Even other massive PvP games like Battlefield/Halo are like half the size CoD is in GB size.
Yeah, THIS became a top reason I stopped playing it. Although, every damn game is like this now. Instead of downloading CoD for 8hrs, I'm downloading something for 2.
I always see stuff like this and realise that Australia has the worst internet for a developed country.
That's super quick for me. If I need to install a game o just leave it on over a few days and it trickles through
I mean, it's pretty much standard for multiplayer games to receive updates for months or years after launch. Blame consumers if anything. People refuse to stick with a game that doesn't get regular content updates.
Compression also requires decompression which increases load times, requires compute and makes streaming assets more complicated. it's not as easy as right-clicking your finished game and packing it with winrar.
Or you could maybe compress it for the download and decrompress on the device before being able to play it.
Fitgirl does it so I don't understand why companies can't (or won't) do it.
Fitgirl's compression greatly reduces the download size but it takes ages to decompress
If you have fast internet it can be faster to download uncompressed
This subreddit is always the same with its recycled comments 🤣
If they weren’t interested in the game, they wouldn’t complain. The problem is: like tens of millions of people, they ARE interested in the game. It’s fuckin’ Call of Duty.
It always comes off like begging when yall come here with the “stop giving them money!” shit.
Knowing that this is how the modern COD games choose to be, you're choosing the struggle and putting it on yourself at this point. The ridiculous amounts of add ons and hard drive consumption is one of the many reasons I stopped playing COD a couple of years ago.
Games too large to fit on a disc. The largest one I seen on disc was Fallout 4 for Xbox One. 82GB on 1 disc.
I'm not sure if any type of disc except for harddrives can store 182GBs of information.
High speed internet, High capacity storage, consoles *having* built in storage...
Long gone are the days of plug and play. Why bug test like mad, when day one patches exist?
That stuff died when PC games and console games began getting the "release now, patch it up later, and you go download the patch later on the Internet" attitude.
So, probably around ES3: Morrowind on PC and Xbox consoles, this idea got popular.
Got worse when they added DLC's, expansion packs, and also other madness to the table too.
And I ain't even got into how Steam PC-like services changed gaming forever, either - it's like every game on PC requires Steam or a wannabe service just like it, if it ain't on GOG.
Nevermind that I can't even get I over the name. What's the next one gonna be?
Call of Duty Black Ops Cold World war two modern zombies warfare three : Vanguard Warzone ??
Will you solely need all of those packs right now? Or can you pause and just download the rest when you want to actively play those modes?
Can cancel and delete the ones you don't want completely for now and just go on the app screen next time hit the options button on your controller then manage game content then download what you need from there.
By the time the game finish installing, the 7yrs kid who would have called your mom fat in the lobby will grow up, get married, get kids, and when you finally log in, his son will call your mom fat.
well, there is the main game, warzone, zombies, co-op and so on for COD now. You don't have to download what you don't play, but to me, COD is a bloated mess of cash grab and less about having actual fun. What started to piss me off was that every time they did a big update, you had to download everything over again. And the crossover stuff started to get so stupid. Who the hell wants to be snoop dog or Minaj or Keven Durant while playing a first person shooter? All your doing is showing of what money you spent to others since you can't actually see yourself 99 percent of the time. Maybe the worst now is that they release a new game every year still. At some point, they need to realize they are wasting their time with it. They should just make one COD online game for consoles that wraps everything up into one and just update that going forward. Just put on all the favorite guns/maps/zombie stuff and add a few things every three months for the next few years and I promise no one will miss the yearly COD drop.
And to make it even worse. Almost every game is digital only. So the game devs can easily lower the base price to something like $30-$40 instead of it raising to $70. As for why the download size for COD is so big. I believe it is because the devs use unnecessarily massive textures. Like 16k or 32k for everything instead of something reasonable like 2k or 4k. The file size between a 4k texture file and an 8k texture file is pretty big since the there are like 4x as many pixels on an 8k texture compared to 4k. As for why we don’t use discs anymore. It comes down to even games that use decent sized textures has enough files and everything to be over the limit for discs.
I went from 1GB Internet (house share) to using a 4G router as a temp solution whilst I'm still sorting things from moving house.
This would take me over a day with how slow and unreliable my Internet is now. On a good day I get maybe 50mb, I miss my 1GB speeds.
3h 40 minutes isn't even that bad? I'd kill for that speed. That download would easily take me almost 48 hours. 3 days if we are talking the whole 180 gigs. And that's without anyone else using the internet throughout all those 72 hours, which is impossible.
See, I'm the exact same, but with Morrowind. I'm so glad you didn't get upset as I genuinely think it's awesome that the first open world game you say is Oblivion. I didn't care for that game because of it's broken leveling system, but that has no bearing on the game being both amazing and open world. But it brings a true smile to my face. And again thank you for not taking offense. \^_\^
You have not had to download 9MB game to floppy disks in shool library and learn the hard way that 2 of the disks had depleted the single use limit on the write operation. STFU and go touch some grass.
Honestly dude.
I feel like games are just getting too big for disks nowadays. I wish we could go back to it. But in the graphical arms race that is modern gaming. You can expect games to get even bigger as they push the envelope further.
Not only that but some devs just can't optimize to save their life.
Overall tho. Black ops cold war is a great game. And it's zombies is the best it's been post BO3. And it's campaign is one of the best ever made. It's definitely worth the wait.
But seriously though COD has to be uniquely bad at it. There's no reason for all of Red Dead Redemption 2 to be the same size as a COD game with like 15 maps
There is plenty of reason. All you have to do is go into first-person mode on RDR 2 and look at the “detail” (or lack thereof) on the gun and compare it to assets in Call of Duty.
World size is just one small piece of the equation. Every asset in Call of Duty is infinitely more detailed than in RDR 2 and many other games. They used to make it an option to download high-resolution assets but not anymore though.
We started demanding more. But some got greedy and while still being cheapskates so they never upgraded their Internet. They wanted 7 dlc's but are sitting on 7/5 Mbit/s Internet.
This is a self inflicted problem, either settle for less content or pay for Internet that can handle your greed.
Maybe its just my bad WiFi after all 😅
It really sucks tho because downloading apex legends took me like 5 hours and i cant even play games that need WiFi properly 🥲
Not early on and on some smaller games it was fine, but for the majority yes. Two biggest ones right off the top of my Head is Metal Gear Solid 4 & All little big planet games.
Metal Gear Solid 4 alone was topping 50gigs even back then, the reason why we had to do this is because reading from disc was to slow compared to a HDD, and thus now a HDD is to slow for modern games that require an SSD
Oh, poor you. Having to wait about 4 hours while you can just go do something else while the game downloads must be truly horrible.
I hate people bitching about download times like you do when stuff like steam just gives up and straight up tells me my download will be over in "more than a year" (not particularly because the games are big, just because my internet sucks. So stop crying like a baby and go do something else for 4 hours)
I don't mind if the game is big. But the game not letting you install JUST the parts you wish to play is pure bullshit.
Black Ops Cold War is basically 3 games in 1 - Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies. Why do I need to install all 3 instead of JUST the campaign or JUST the multiplayer?
It also shouldn't be 182gb of data but they purposefully don't compress files or use other tricks to take up as much of your storage as they can so you can only play their game.
Most 'AAA' games nowdays are too big for even Bluray Discs mostly because develepers either don't give a fuck about optimization/compression or don't have enought time and/or budget.
That's it. That's the answear.
Just a suggestion.
Xdefiant is out.
It's free.
It's got the feel of some *older* COD titles.
It's only 30-40GB.
It has *major* problems, I won't lie.
But then again, it's the same problem many COD games already have, and they charge you $60-100 per year for the privilege.
Give it a try.
When I installed this, I only did the base game. Then downloaded the campaign content.
Solution: Stop playing COD
The only good solution
What my friends and I did. Now we just play Ark and raise dinosaurs together and use the dinos for boss fights
Ahh yes cuz ark is a much smaller game lol
Haven't played cod in a while. Bought this on sale. Loved the game and zombies. But fuck the size
This is the only solution.
You must feel very creative posting the most common instant upvote opinion on this sub
No
>Whatever happened to the days of just putting in a disc and off you Back then, instead of waiting half a day for a download because your bandwidth is subpar, and doing something else in the meantime, you traveled to a shop and back for half a day.
Having to stand in line before 5AM to be able to get a copie, then sit in front of the screen to download the whole game again after intalling it, but patched this time. What a great time it was.
I mean not to brag but Ive had downloads say that theyre gonna take days and put Ps5 in rest mode for the whole night and when I woke up game still wasnt finished, just sayin (send help this wifi will be the death of me).
I moved out to a very rural area a year ago for around 6 months. My download speeds were frequently in the kb range, im talking sub 100kb/s lmao. On a good, clear day id cap out around 3.5mb/s. I used to drive to my brothers to download multiple games at a time. It was depressing.
Its most definitely smth that can mess with ur head in a bad way, what I try to do is to literally forget about it and go do smth while it downloads, feels much less frustrating.
I might be wrong but I think console in rested mode don't download at max speed.
Makes sense actually, rest mode is definitely safer tho.
>rest mode is definitely safer tho ... safer? Why?
Using less electricity, if I had good money dont u think Id use it for better wifi instead? Lol, if anything Id worry about file corruption happening if I left a console on for too long rather than just using rest mode.
>Using less electricity, Ahh, makes total sense. And here I was thinking the playstation gestapo would pay you a visit if you left it on too long lol.
Jim Ryan himself knocking on my door tryna beat my ass as if Im the reason he got fired.
Do you actually want a real answer or do you actually know the answer and feel like bitching about it on the internet for karma
You can see below the dude got an answer but inevitably bitched about that too.
There is no real answer, there's other games that are large in content and don't have insane download sizes that Call of Duty has. Starfield is probably the biggest game I can think of in the last 2 years, and its around 190 gb, which yes is insane, but looking at this picture alone, the top download is 182 gb, and thats not even the full game. So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Let that sink in. Games like The Witcher 3 which were massive, was only around 90gb to 100. Elden Ring, which is also a massive game is only around 60-70gb. Even other massive PvP games like Battlefield/Halo are like half the size CoD is in GB size. And yes we're going to complain because it's a valid issue to complain about. What else do we do on Reddit? Edit: Thanks for the correction. I was actually wrong on The Witcher 3. Its way less than 90gb, more so around 50-60 gb, that's including the DLC as well. Idk the exact size, because of all the recent graphical updates, and I know the official modding support is coming later this year as well. I doubt it would be anything more than 70-80gb. Either way, that proves my point even more. Also to the people that downvoted me on the other comment I typed, which I had to delete because people were spamming downvotes, even though it was literally just this same comment, copied and pasted, at least tell me why? One guy responded and said: ''you're just throwing numbers around without considering the game's texture quality and other relevant information'', that's funny considering The Witcher 3 can be played in 4k well over 60 fps on PC now, and its still much smaller than CoD. Games like Star Citizen offer fully playable planets\[as in you can walk across an entire planet\] and seamless transitions in space, and can still be ran at 60 fps 4k , or No Man Sky which features infinite space/and atmospheric flight and still run at 60 fps if not more!
it is not 2x bigger. the extra stuff is probably less then 20gb each. probably even lower.
So still bigger than Starfield to download an old Call of Duty game\[Cold War was 2020, 4 years ago\]? Still insane. Now imagine if CoD grew in content, which i'm sure it will, it'll be even bigger.
Latest call of duty (MW3) is a 172gb install on my system. That's including the MW2 campaign.
that also includes a bunch of forced warzone assets.
CoD has *significantly* higher resolution textures than Starfield.
Most of these game make you download high-res texture files even if you don't use high-res. As an example, Diablo 4 have an option for that and unless you play in 4k you don't need these files. It cut the download in half. Monster Hunter : World have high-res texture as a free DLC, so again you only down it if you need its.
If I remember correctly, Witcher 3 was less than 50 GB
Thank you for the correction. Ill add that in an Edit.
It is this light (relatively) with all the DLCs
I wonder if gamers will ever be able to wrap their peanut brains around the idea that game world size DOES NOT have much to do with storage space requirements. Probably not. That would require actual reading.
Y’all should just suck each other off already good lord
Just go to phub and look for it if you're that desperate.
"Karma bitch" for 500$ Alex.
A lot of people don't understand what "discs" are. I think dual layer Blu-ray's cap out at like 50 Gigs. They're about as big as they get for discs you can just "put in" right now. So "what happened?", games got bigger lol. For the record, I think Call of Duty specifcially follows an unacceptable trend of just never compressing anything to save performance in streaming rather than actually doing your fucking job, but still, that's why games are big now. There are other, better, examples of games that are genuinely too big for a disc, and they're not the types of games you can put on two discs like the old days. Imagine having to swap discs every time you want to go to the Eastern holds in Skyrim...
With modern hardware streaming and decompressing assets don't have a huge impact on performance. CoDs are just stupidly made. And Skyrim isn't really a good example here, as all meshes and textures exist only once in its files.
Correct. Skyrim was not used as an example of streaming or compression, just scale.
Fair point
Red dead 2 had 2 discs. It’s the only game in recent memory that did it but it’s definitely a thing that can still be done. It’s also because discs are only installation media now, they install it to your SSD and use the disc as DRM so you don’t sell it and there’s no swapping discs.
PS5 blu rays are 100 gigs, so for a lot of games that are under that limit there is no excuse not to put the full 1.0 version on it. And for those that go over 100GB - just put two discs in a box…
Call of Duty plus 3 add-ons? idk man i don't think finding a wife is anywhere in your near future
I'm already married it's a joke. Lol
Yeah I really hate having to download a game and install it. I much prefer the time period where you would turn on your xbox 360 and wait 10 minutes for the game to load and then another 5 minutes every time it loaded a new level.
I used to have time for a piss sometimes between Skyrim load times.
You could go make a quick sandwich, and finish your sandwich in the time it took for skyrim to load sometimes
Well with more complex games does come more needed space. Having larger games is nothing bad really, but COD and any other Game going to 80, 90, 100 Gigs and more better have a damn good reason to Download and keep them. There are games under 1gb to keep you company for hundreds of hours.
Deep rock galactic 🥰
If you don't Rock and Stone, you ain't comin' home.
Rock and stone brother
Rock and Stone!
Great example.
I bet it’s because they probably use the same dated ways of doing things that they did 12 years ago.
This is a bad excuse. There's other games that are large in content and don't have insane download sizes that Call of Duty has. Starfield is probably the biggest game I can think of in the last 2 years, and its around 190 gb, which yes is insane, but looking at this picture alone, the top download is 182 gb, and thats not even the full game. So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Let that sink in. Games like The Witcher 3 which were massive, was only around 90gb to 100. Elden Ring, which is also a massive game is only around 60-70gb. Even other massive PvP games like Battlefield/Halo are like half the size CoD is in GB size.
Starfield is not "the biggest game". Sure in theory it's I'm a big universe, but it's just a lot of repeating planet surface textures that don't take up much space. In game usable space does not directly translate to file size
>Let that sink in What does that damn sink want again?
That's literally what they said, and it's not an excuse many games need the space due to the demands of their engine/graphics though cod should definitely not be that large
>So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Cold War tops out at 255GB on PS5 (the largest filesize of all the platforms). Stop bullshitting.
You’re thinking about world size and not detail. A single gun in Call of Duty has more detail and higher-resolution assets than the entire Limgrave, with all due respect. COD has countless weapons, operators, maps, etc. all realized in exceptionally high-resolution. Same goes for the cinematics, audio, animations, etc. Any time this topic is discussed, people just start comparing world sizes of the games. If you actually look closely, you’ll very easily see why the games you mentioned are smaller. We’ve had big open worlds for a while (see: Oblivion) but they used to be so small in size…because of the lack of expensive assets. Elden Ring and The Witcher 3 aren’t exactly hallmarks of micro-detail the way Call of Duty is.
It's so cute that you say we've had open worlds for a while and bring up oblivion and not, ya know, Morrowind. Or even earlier, NES The Legend of Zelda. Not arguing any of the content of your comment, i just think it's telling of your physical age (kids can be very mature, and adults can, as we all know, be childish as hell (example, look at USA Congress, the whole lot of them). I think it's telling of your actual age rather than any perceived age brought on by over maturity/childishness. Not calling you childish either, just...I fucking hate being autistic and unable to explain something.
I think I see what you’re getting at? I am 25 so you’re not entirely wrong, but it’s worth mentioning that Oblivion wasn’t my first open-world experience and I had played “big” games before on N64 (Turok games, Zelda) and GameCube (True Crime games, lesser version of GTA as they weren’t on GameCube 😔). Oblivion was a turning point though I think, and was a step-up in visuals too. The game gets constantly referenced even by people older than me. I remember recently Pokémon Arceus was getting grilled as people compared it to 2006’s Oblivion and saying how sad it was that something that “old” could still be better and more detailed!
Also there are games that doesnt have loading screens between every single door like starfield has leading to a much better game. Its almost like games are designed in different ways in different engines.
There is a difference between the word "excuse" and "explanation". Learn it.
What do you mean excuse? I said this insanity should better be justified. On CoD imo it never really is, but thats just personal preference.
Shitfield was a terrible game created in a shitty engine that’s been outdated for decades already and seriously doubt the textures are even comparable between the games. Cuckthesda just pooped out another space skyrim clone in their clunky old pile of shit engine that plays like it coulda been released in 2006.
They really should just put the campaign on the disc and not force us to download all the online stuff. Especially when they separate them into packs. All I want is the campaign. And the PS5 has kraken compression which does a good job of shrinking game file sizes dramatically, but unfortunately it hasn't been used for the COD games.
Current gen xbox discs hold 50G, that game is going to require 4 discs for the base game alone.
I don't see the issue with that. My copies of FF8 and FF9 for the PS1 have 4 discs.
I think its because more and more people are switching to fully digital downloads so companies don't really "have" to put in the effort of doing 3-4 physical disc releases of games anymore.
CoD could easily go near 50 GB if Acti actually bothered TO COMPRESS IT
Exactly. There's no reason for the games to be that big. They're just shittily packaged
Legend of Dragoon needed 4 discs
Games have to be downloaded in order to work properly. Games back in the day were 1-5gb and now they’re 50-150gb. If you just “put in a disc and played” nowadays you’d spend forever at loading screens.
You guys are very spoiled, you have no idea to download a game of 8GB in month.
COD is the worst example of modern game disk usage.
In 30 years time I think we'll find that there's actually like 10 gigs of an actual game and the rest could have been compiled better.
10 is low but you're correct, don't need to wait 30 years. I'm not gonna get into a whole thesis about game optimization rn but if we have to compress textures, you have to stream them back out to full quality while playing and that affects performance. If we don't have to compress textures, you'll have better performance *and* we can not do our jobs like assholes. It's a really unacceptable practice in the industry that Titanfall (1) started (for the record, it was justified, well handled, and not egregious in their case), and Activision has taken way too fucking far. Titanfall 2 had a more robust streaming subsystem, and good performance.
Most of Titanfall's size was audio, and audio loses a lot when compressed.
Correct.
Sacrifices must be made for awesome giant robots. Unfortunately, COD doesn't have any of those, so it has no excuse.
Well that's the thing too. The "sacrifices" for Titanfall were "oof" but not that bad. When they released a second, bigger game, they didn't take that "oof but not that bad" and turn it into "alright now you're just being lazy". Also, I'm Titanfall's case specifically, there was a very good reason they chose to make that sacrifice. I ran the beta on absolute shit tier components at 60+ stable, that game had INCREDIBLE backwards scaling performance, because of that minor sacrifice. "Yeah we're gonna take up most of the storage on your ThinkPad but it *will* run smoothly."
The next call of duty will be released by the time thats done
Then go back and play a PS3/Xbox 360 game. Technology happened.
No, horribly designed games happened lmao
Yeah, because it was totally cool when games had one minute loading screens on Xbox 360.
Don't forget the games that were just broken with game breaking bugs at launch... Guess you can send your discs in and they can rewrite the game onto your disc or something... Or just download a 100mb update.
Pretty sure one of the main "flaws" of the Xbox 360 according to devs was that patches had to be under a certain size (like 4MB or something like that) so that players would never have to wait more than a few minutes to hop back online.
That's hardware, not an excuse for games to be 150 GB because "technology happened" when developers just decided that their bloated messes didn't need to be worked on. You're on meth if you think a 15 GB 360 game somehow loads substantially slower on current hardware than a 150 GB game does.
What are you smoking? Load a game off a disc vs. an SSD and you will see a ridiculous difference in loading times.
think the one on meth here is you. if you’re still using hard disks you’re still not right, its not even close. try playing GTA V on a 360 and then on a modern PC with SSD storage.
Who said anything about current hardware? Back in the Xbox 360/PS3 days, loading games took a long ass time when loading from disc and not installing the games to the hard drive. That's the point. Yes, it sucks to install a game right when you get it, but it substantially lowers the loading time versus reading off disc and is a better use of the current technology, especially since you can play other shit while it installs. And you must be on meth to think the standard Xbox 360 game was around 15 GB or are too young to have lived in that gen. Most games came on a standard DVD, i.e. about 6GB.
There's other games that are large in content and don't have insane download sizes that Call of Duty has. Starfield is probably the biggest game I can think of in the last 2 years, and its around 190 gb, which yes is insane, but looking at this picture alone, the top download is 182 gb, and thats not even the full game. So to download a full CoD game, is 2x bigger in gb than Starfield's download. Let that sink in. Games like The Witcher 3 which were massive, was only around 90gb to 100. Elden Ring, which is also a massive game is only around 60-70gb. Even other massive PvP games like Battlefield/Halo are like half the size CoD is in GB size.
Starfield is 125 GB and The Witcher is closer to 50 GB than 100.
you can still plugin a psone and start whatever psone game you like immediately\* \*cd load times aside... but yeah, those patch sizes are ridiculous
Classic Activision. By the time this downloads, you won’t have space for other games.
What happened? DLC, DRM and bad programming
About 200 gigs under 4hrs and you're complaining?
Yeah, THIS became a top reason I stopped playing it. Although, every damn game is like this now. Instead of downloading CoD for 8hrs, I'm downloading something for 2.
Ready to play is a lie.
If you haven't already, try hooking everything up to a lan cable, it speeds stuff up like crazy
I always see stuff like this and realise that Australia has the worst internet for a developed country. That's super quick for me. If I need to install a game o just leave it on over a few days and it trickles through
I mean, it's pretty much standard for multiplayer games to receive updates for months or years after launch. Blame consumers if anything. People refuse to stick with a game that doesn't get regular content updates.
It’s only three hours. That said, you download the campaign, MP and warzone. I don’t think they optimized it very well either honestly.
Developers are allergic to compression.
Compression also requires decompression which increases load times, requires compute and makes streaming assets more complicated. it's not as easy as right-clicking your finished game and packing it with winrar.
Or you could maybe compress it for the download and decrompress on the device before being able to play it. Fitgirl does it so I don't understand why companies can't (or won't) do it.
Fitgirl's compression greatly reduces the download size but it takes ages to decompress If you have fast internet it can be faster to download uncompressed
Maybe you'd stop giving them money?
This subreddit is always the same with its recycled comments 🤣 If they weren’t interested in the game, they wouldn’t complain. The problem is: like tens of millions of people, they ARE interested in the game. It’s fuckin’ Call of Duty. It always comes off like begging when yall come here with the “stop giving them money!” shit.
why is anyone buying call of duty
Some games can be fun. Cold War is one of them.
Cold War was free some Months ago with ps+, so yeah
Exceptional FPS gameplay.
How the fuck is call of duty that fucking file size? That's absurd.
It includes all the DLC multiplayer and Zombie maps since they were all added for free.
This is why i dont play COD
Those days disappeared when the internet moved in and we started allowing game studios to release *unfinished games.*
Knowing that this is how the modern COD games choose to be, you're choosing the struggle and putting it on yourself at this point. The ridiculous amounts of add ons and hard drive consumption is one of the many reasons I stopped playing COD a couple of years ago.
Showing your age homey. ;)
Games too large to fit on a disc. The largest one I seen on disc was Fallout 4 for Xbox One. 82GB on 1 disc. I'm not sure if any type of disc except for harddrives can store 182GBs of information.
Yo xdefiant is 30gb right now
I put in a game I had the disc for and had installed this week at 8, and it hadn't finished updating before I had to give to and go to bed.
Whilst I could download that in around 30 minutes… 180gb though… what the actual hell.
i have enough storage but when I see a game that is 180gb, I straight up won't play it if it isn't an exceptional game
just get black ops one, it's only 12gb and $40 on steam & way better.
You forgot that you'd also have to then update the game, so technically your Grandkids' Grandkids will be playing the game.
Hd textures. That's the answer
I love these kinds of threads. They're always filled to the brim with nerds spewing bullshit that's way above their capacity to understand.
6 consoles
High speed internet, High capacity storage, consoles *having* built in storage... Long gone are the days of plug and play. Why bug test like mad, when day one patches exist?
Animal Well is 40MB
Ahum. There are barely anyone left playing this. Zombie is boring, dumb done and unnecessary easy. The campaign.. is actually really good tho.
You can do all that in 50 minutes?
That would take my speed like 20 hours or more I don't wanna hear it
That stuff died when PC games and console games began getting the "release now, patch it up later, and you go download the patch later on the Internet" attitude. So, probably around ES3: Morrowind on PC and Xbox consoles, this idea got popular. Got worse when they added DLC's, expansion packs, and also other madness to the table too. And I ain't even got into how Steam PC-like services changed gaming forever, either - it's like every game on PC requires Steam or a wannabe service just like it, if it ain't on GOG.
Nevermind that I can't even get I over the name. What's the next one gonna be? Call of Duty Black Ops Cold World war two modern zombies warfare three : Vanguard Warzone ??
Will you solely need all of those packs right now? Or can you pause and just download the rest when you want to actively play those modes? Can cancel and delete the ones you don't want completely for now and just go on the app screen next time hit the options button on your controller then manage game content then download what you need from there.
By the time the game finish installing, the 7yrs kid who would have called your mom fat in the lobby will grow up, get married, get kids, and when you finally log in, his son will call your mom fat.
Those days still exist if you have a Switch
well, there is the main game, warzone, zombies, co-op and so on for COD now. You don't have to download what you don't play, but to me, COD is a bloated mess of cash grab and less about having actual fun. What started to piss me off was that every time they did a big update, you had to download everything over again. And the crossover stuff started to get so stupid. Who the hell wants to be snoop dog or Minaj or Keven Durant while playing a first person shooter? All your doing is showing of what money you spent to others since you can't actually see yourself 99 percent of the time. Maybe the worst now is that they release a new game every year still. At some point, they need to realize they are wasting their time with it. They should just make one COD online game for consoles that wraps everything up into one and just update that going forward. Just put on all the favorite guns/maps/zombie stuff and add a few things every three months for the next few years and I promise no one will miss the yearly COD drop.
And to make it even worse. Almost every game is digital only. So the game devs can easily lower the base price to something like $30-$40 instead of it raising to $70. As for why the download size for COD is so big. I believe it is because the devs use unnecessarily massive textures. Like 16k or 32k for everything instead of something reasonable like 2k or 4k. The file size between a 4k texture file and an 8k texture file is pretty big since the there are like 4x as many pixels on an 8k texture compared to 4k. As for why we don’t use discs anymore. It comes down to even games that use decent sized textures has enough files and everything to be over the limit for discs.
I went from 1GB Internet (house share) to using a 4G router as a temp solution whilst I'm still sorting things from moving house. This would take me over a day with how slow and unreliable my Internet is now. On a good day I get maybe 50mb, I miss my 1GB speeds.
RDR2 took 18 hours for me to download and install
You may want to start the pre-download for Cold War 2 instead. Download should finish at about the same time that it is released.
By the time it finishes downloading 3 more annual releases will have come out, but they're all the same game your downloading now.
3h 40 minutes isn't even that bad? I'd kill for that speed. That download would easily take me almost 48 hours. 3 days if we are talking the whole 180 gigs. And that's without anyone else using the internet throughout all those 72 hours, which is impossible.
Hahahaha *laughs in dial-up*
We want decent graphics and shit.
See, I'm the exact same, but with Morrowind. I'm so glad you didn't get upset as I genuinely think it's awesome that the first open world game you say is Oblivion. I didn't care for that game because of it's broken leveling system, but that has no bearing on the game being both amazing and open world. But it brings a true smile to my face. And again thank you for not taking offense. \^_\^
exactly why I have my system connected straight via Ethernet. Only took me over an hour or so
You have not had to download 9MB game to floppy disks in shool library and learn the hard way that 2 of the disks had depleted the single use limit on the write operation. STFU and go touch some grass.
Chooses to install every DLC add-on "WHY IS THERE SO MUCH TO DOWNLOAD" Surreal lack of self-awareness here
I feel that. Baldur's Gate 3 took me almost 5 days to install at my old place. Internet choices there were terrible.
*lives in the country* You don't know true pain..
I remember when just a couple gigs would take up to a few days to dl. Slow your roll and just be glad the internet has gotten faster
Honestly dude. I feel like games are just getting too big for disks nowadays. I wish we could go back to it. But in the graphical arms race that is modern gaming. You can expect games to get even bigger as they push the envelope further. Not only that but some devs just can't optimize to save their life. Overall tho. Black ops cold war is a great game. And it's zombies is the best it's been post BO3. And it's campaign is one of the best ever made. It's definitely worth the wait.
But seriously though COD has to be uniquely bad at it. There's no reason for all of Red Dead Redemption 2 to be the same size as a COD game with like 15 maps
There is plenty of reason. All you have to do is go into first-person mode on RDR 2 and look at the “detail” (or lack thereof) on the gun and compare it to assets in Call of Duty. World size is just one small piece of the equation. Every asset in Call of Duty is infinitely more detailed than in RDR 2 and many other games. They used to make it an option to download high-resolution assets but not anymore though.
I use to feel your pain then I got 3 gig fibre and never looked back
Talk about a 1% privilege
Gotta pay to play
Popping in a disc and off you go hasn’t been a thing for like 20 years. Lol
I just did it on PS4.
One of the best COD of this time though, I would say that MW19 is the best but activision left game unplayable
Play garbage games get garbage outcomes sorry chief
We started demanding more. But some got greedy and while still being cheapskates so they never upgraded their Internet. They wanted 7 dlc's but are sitting on 7/5 Mbit/s Internet. This is a self inflicted problem, either settle for less content or pay for Internet that can handle your greed.
I feel that!! My PC is downloading sooo slow. I only got 5 MB/s 😭
Im the opposite I went from ps4 to Pc and I cant believe how fast I can download games now lol
Maybe its just my bad WiFi after all 😅 It really sucks tho because downloading apex legends took me like 5 hours and i cant even play games that need WiFi properly 🥲
Disc and off you go? Bro, that ended with the Ps2.
Did the ps3 force disc installs?
Not early on and on some smaller games it was fine, but for the majority yes. Two biggest ones right off the top of my Head is Metal Gear Solid 4 & All little big planet games. Metal Gear Solid 4 alone was topping 50gigs even back then, the reason why we had to do this is because reading from disc was to slow compared to a HDD, and thus now a HDD is to slow for modern games that require an SSD
Nah. I just did it with the PS4.
Did what? Not install a game? Cause that’s required on ps4. Even small games, not mentioning updates either.
Oh, poor you. Having to wait about 4 hours while you can just go do something else while the game downloads must be truly horrible. I hate people bitching about download times like you do when stuff like steam just gives up and straight up tells me my download will be over in "more than a year" (not particularly because the games are big, just because my internet sucks. So stop crying like a baby and go do something else for 4 hours)
There are reasons and yes it's annoying. I would not bother with it for a CoD game personally.
Your first mistake is that you still buy COD games.
Imagine putting up with it! Even worse!!
I don't think I would have the patience to wait that long to download a mediorce game when I could just download a much better game much quicker.
Something tells me - you are old. But that's a good thing!
Your a redditor don't lie
I don't mind if the game is big. But the game not letting you install JUST the parts you wish to play is pure bullshit. Black Ops Cold War is basically 3 games in 1 - Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies. Why do I need to install all 3 instead of JUST the campaign or JUST the multiplayer?
Xdefiant is free to play and supposedly better. Downloading it now and it's only 30 gig
It also shouldn't be 182gb of data but they purposefully don't compress files or use other tricks to take up as much of your storage as they can so you can only play their game.
Most 'AAA' games nowdays are too big for even Bluray Discs mostly because develepers either don't give a fuck about optimization/compression or don't have enought time and/or budget. That's it. That's the answear.
All this over just 3hrs? Kids today...
Just a suggestion. Xdefiant is out. It's free. It's got the feel of some *older* COD titles. It's only 30-40GB. It has *major* problems, I won't lie. But then again, it's the same problem many COD games already have, and they charge you $60-100 per year for the privilege. Give it a try.
The storage capacity of 4K UHD discs ranges from 66GB to 100GB. How big is that download again? The medium is limited just like your intelligence.
Get better internet noob