It doesnât actually need 130gb of updates, thatâs the fun part. They probably only made a couple gigabytes of changes at most, just their shitty folder/packing structure requires downloading every single âunitâ of the game again because they made minor changes
I want you all to realize that elden ring, one of the most detailed, intricate, and eye pleasing games we have, is 60 gb. 60. And on consoles pushes it to 45 gb.
That's more than half the capacity of the base edition of the new consoles.
Microsoft and Sony need to step in and establish a maximum file size for games. There's no excuse for a remake of a hallway shooter from 12 years ago to be that large.
The real conspiracy is that a big game requires you to delete or limit the number of competitors games. Not only is yhere no incentive to be smaller, there is actually a strategic incentive to be bigger.
Been playing CoD since CoD1, and MW2 was the last one I bought. I'm done with the franchise only because of the bullshit they've been pulling on their customers. Was getting constant 3:1 and 4:1 K/D in most matches I played, and I'm done. I wish the publishers pulled their heads out their arses, though I have no faith that they will at this point.
I legitimately got angry when my friend bought me a CoD a few years back (no clue what one, I feel like there's been 10 in the last 3 years). I hated it so much. The abilities, the kill streaks, etc. all made it feel miserable.
Would it affect anything if a total size + recent updates' sizes were shown on the store page in bold? Shitty internet is still a thing, and getting a bigger drive isn't as problematic as just not wanting this behemoth to hoard free space you could use elsewhere.
Oh you mean like how a 20 year old game is still fucking $20?
On top of that during the last steam sale I could get the newest Battlefield game for cheaper than COD1, COD:UO, COD2 and so on and so forth. Matter of fact, every single battlefield title from old to new was cheaper than those 20 year old games.