Titanfall Dev Explains The Game's 35 GB of Uncompressed Audio
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I still think that the user should just choose what audio language to download, each language is probably what? 5Gb, maybe 8.
Except that decompressing audio files doesn't eat up processing at all. Except that the game is running on a modified Source engine, that wouldn't eat up nearly as much processing power as other current game would.
Its more likely that they simply are either shit at compressing audio, or are too lazy to do it correctly.
Its more likely that they simply are either shit at compressing audio, or are too lazy to do it correctly.
Whole games arent even 35GB, and thats just for audio. Yeah, i think they were being lazy. Glad im not getting that game, imagine how long it would take for me to download it if on PC. Many hours.
America isn't the only place where ISPs cap monthly bandwidth.softclocks said:
In fact, as an American, I've heard more stories of capped internet usage from non-Americans, including but not limited to Canada, Mexico, the Phillipines, Japan, the UK, and most prominently Australia. My own internet is, while very slow, not capped.
That said, I would still have a problem with being forced to download all of those audio files because, as mentioned, my internet is slow. And my hard drive space is fairly limited, but that's beside the point. On my internet it would take me just over two full days of nonstop downloading, assuming it went full speed the entire time, just to download Titanfall. And, like other people, I'd only ever be likely to use the English voices anyway, so being forced to download every language pack is just extra unnecessary.
This "digital-only future" everyone seems to want becomes less and less appealing to me every day.
I don't understand either why they couldn't just let you choose which language to install the game in and get a significant smaller size on your HDD. The uncompresed audio is just mind boggling to me. The game should of been max 15GB not 50.
This is just lazy and stupid. I don't want 35 gigs of audio files sitting on my hard drive taking up space that could be reserved for another minimum of two games.
I'm not short on hard drive space, I've got about .75 of a terabyte that's open, but that's not the point.
Finally, even for a min spec PC, if that's the straw that breaks the camels back, you definitely need an upgrade.
I'm not short on hard drive space, I've got about .75 of a terabyte that's open, but that's not the point.
Finally, even for a min spec PC, if that's the straw that breaks the camels back, you definitely need an upgrade.
If those 35gb are divided amongst the various languages, could PC gamers not simply delete the languages they don't use after the game is installed? Could probably reclaim about 20gb of space, though if the game files are checked each time it'll prob just redownload them anyway o.o
I'm irritated by the prevailing assumption that everyone has custom rigs, and that everyone who wants to play a game on PC is willing to shell out for the newest parts. My PC is good, my PC is custom, but honestly when running games specifically, my ps 3 is better, not even comparing to 4.Strazdas said:
Just an idea, Respawn...
During installation, check what CPU the system is running. If it's a dual-core close to the minimum specs, then decompress the audio. Otherwise it's just a lame excuse about being too lazy to properly optimize your game.
Also, where are them decent-rez textures?
During installation, check what CPU the system is running. If it's a dual-core close to the minimum specs, then decompress the audio. Otherwise it's just a lame excuse about being too lazy to properly optimize your game.
Also, where are them decent-rez textures?
Emm... That's where hardware accelleration for audio comes into play. Only on old PC's (let's say 5 years ago) this may cause some small hiccups, but I think that such a PC would have problems just rendering the graphics as well (unless a new graphics card was installed during its lifetime).
Anyway, there's a balance to find between slightly better performance and disk space, but this is just stupid.
Anyway, there's a balance to find between slightly better performance and disk space, but this is just stupid.
Well, I was going to get Titanfall despite having no interest in the Xbox One or PS4, but my PC uses SSDs. Not a lot f games are worth that kind of hit to my storage space, and this isn't one of them.
Yeah, I can't remember how fast MP3 decoding happens, but Flac decodes at over 400x realtime, on a mobile CPU from 2008.Furism said:
https://www.xiph.org/flac/comparison.html
I'd think that the lack of decode time would be balanced out by needing to keep more data around at runtime, especially since the minimum specs call for "only" 4GB of RAM.
Compared to the other things a modern game would be using system resources for, decoding audio is dirt cheap. If anything I think using uncompressed audio will decrease the performance. It increases the disk read time and the RAM usage, likely by a rather significant amount.
I was lucky enough to switch to unlimited bandwidth with a different company then my previous one before Titanfall's Pre-Load got released, or else I'd be eating mud. I used to have a 150 GB bandwidth cap for each month, and while usually that held up most of the time, I couldn't possibly risk it with Titanfall. Can't burn 1/3 of the bandwidth like that. Thank god for the unlimited though, even though I had to sacrifice a lot of speed to get it.
Um what?Nieroshai said:
Any computer, prebuilt, OEM or what have you bought in the last 5 years can easily run compressed audio en-mass. we have beaten the audio codecs requiring significant resources at the beginning of the 00s.
If Playstation runs your games better, then the statement that your PC is good is false.
You either:
A) lie
B) dont know your computer capabilities
C) dont know how to use your computer (for example run plenty of malwares that slow you down)
D) have a very very old computer