To bad hd dvd didn't win. They were faster at read speeds, they just held 10 less GB

2-3 DISCS

Won't matter now, the HDD will be faster no matter what. I expect no less then 1TB HDD's on "next gen" consoles

TESV will be about the same size.

Considering how long DVD drives had been out before games switched from several CDs to DVD, I'd bet on it still being awhile before PC games come on blu-ray. (Even ignoring the massive file bloat that'd be needed for that. I'd bet that we need to get to another generation of game consoles first - as long as games are developed side-by-side for PC & X360, they're not going to target games to require 1gb VRAM, which means not needing 10's of GB of super high-res textures.)





....honestly, why would anyone want a game to take 40GB of space? The current 8-10+ is crazy enough as it is.....

(of course, I still remember when programmers had to be efficient writing their code. When computers had 48k of RAM, 5.25" discs held 140k of data, and PCs came with "big" 10MB harddrives. )

I laughed hard.

One can dream. It would be a nice alternative for BD drive owners willing to pay an extra $5 for the game on a single disc.

^ this

Oblivion was ~ 5GB on disc


Another note about Mass Effect 2. It was not an open world game, so they could easilly break it into 2 discs. Skyrim will be open world, so unless you honestly think they are going to pull a "Insert disc 2 for rest of dialog." it will HAVE TO be on one disc.

The special features on most blu-rays take up more then that.You cant beat it as a movie medium unless you count netflix which is a great indicator for how the games industry will go in less then 10 years to 70% digital distribution.(rough estimate from a profit standpoint not physical disc's to non physical)

Oblivion is also 5 years old. Skyrim may be relatively the same size as Cyrodiil in Oblivion, but it is not the same game. Higher quality/quantity game assets require more disk space. TESV will not fit on a single DVD. 12GB is my estimation.

I am not talking about the 360. I am talking about the PC version. There is no swapping discs on PC. The PC version will be larger than the 360 version.

Well if we are comparing Skyrim to current games: (all on PC mind you) (for an image of the install disk)

Dragon Age: 7.7GB
Dragon Age 2: ~6.9GB
Dead Space 2: Just about 10GB total on two disks
Dead Rising 2: 6.6GB
Assassins Creed 2: 6.6GB
Stalker: Call of Pripyat: 4.2GB

Now those are some rough estimates of fairly current games. I doubt this game will be on more then one DVD. Atleast the base game on a single disk and then a second disk for GOTY content when that comes out.

Look at Dead Space 2 at 10GB. How is it that Skyrim will not be larger? The PC version will not fit on a single DVD. Mark my words.

id probably say 1 DL DVD compressed info to the max, probably will take up around 20gb on your HDD, open worlds on multiple disks for xbox doesnt bode well unless you want to switch DVD's every 20 mins, keep in mind that just because there is only 9.4gb on a dl dvd, the game will probably have more info than that, just compressed, So for xbox 360 users that just means longer load times while waiting for the info to "unzip"

~8.5GB. Microsoft don't permit games being published on double-sided DVDs.

im still not getting why console players just cant install the game on their HD. if you dont have one at this point, whos fault is that? bethesda shouldnt be forced to take out content to fit it on a DVD just because some people havent gotten around to getting a HDD for their console yet.

It's not the consumer's fault that Microsoft overprice their HDDs just because they're mounted in a custom caddy, either.

[redacted]

I hope the gamesize VERY large... And take A LOT to install it...

Same here.

Because quantity = quality.


:whistling:

No, because "quality" usually = large file sizes. e.g, high-res textures, high-poly models, advanced particle and AI systems, etc.


:foodndrink:

Dont think that they care about textures. They want a decent looking game, that can fit on one disc for consoles (so no swapping like discs during game play, essecially in open world), and that will load a decent rate. Long load times kill games. They will let the modders worry about high res textures.

For the last time, I am talking about the PC version. There is NO disc swapping. Full install.

So the question is, with them designing the game for three different platforms, two and a half of which have low VRAM and/or low RAM (X360, PS3, and lower-end PCs), is it cost effective for them to make a whole set of higher-res textures targeted at, say, systems with 1024mb vram?



....checking the latest Steam Hardware Survey, 42% of PC systems had 256 or 512mb vram, 36% had 1024.