XenthorX:

1) Textures 2) Textures 3) Textures 4) Animation data ? The more uniquely textured item you have, with the higher their respective resolutions, the more space it'll take. With Photogrammetry getting involved you end up with more and more object using their own set of textures that artists didn't have to create (and couldn't pack together and re-use on several 3D object as they are object specific). For instance, while you could create a wonderful 3D 'in-construction wood' house model in the modeling software of your choice, and then 'texture it' by creating a tileable wood material and apply it on the whole house, you could also use photogrammetry on real world wood beams and floor assets from a construction site, which would all be unique with a level of detail you would have spent countless hours to reach if you were to model, but by being unique and not procedural tileable assets they'll take much more texture space/data.

nizzen:

No problem with cheap ssd's and 500Mbit internet 🙂 Cheaper and bigger storage is out every year. Can't see the "problem" Thank god the world is going forward. I don't miss floppydrive...

geogan:

The lazier people get and using lazier, easier methods to do things, the bigger the storage gets. This has been happening for 30 years... in Commodore 64 days... they had to create a few 16x16 16 colour tiles and then manually build entire maps from combinations of tiles. As time went on the tiles just got bigger and more numerous, and more colours... and less often re-used, until we get to the lazy-ass situation of today where they just say frack it... take loads of high resolution use-once pictures and frack them all over gigantic maps and make it look real as quick as possible.. and frack users and their storage or download bandwidth.

Only Intruder:

It would take me 175 hours to download on my shitty home connection :'(

Irenicus:

Geez, do you even manage to download and play ANY games with net that slow? Mine is really slow, relatively: 6MB/s but I download big games in a few hours at most, if it's going to be more than 3 hours I just do it while I sleep 🙂

TheDeeGee:

175GB for the same boring ass gameplay they had 10 years ago.

vbetts:

You know, with storage being so cheap not sure how this is an issue. I mean you can get a 1tb drive for about $40.

Undying:

When we talk storage people mean SSD not HDD. Do you really want your games on a hard drive?

Undying:

When we talk storage people mean SSD not HDD. Do you really want your games on a hard drive?

vbetts:

So in general testing on sata 3 HDD to an ssd, your gameplay is going to be pretty much the same for performance, your only difference is load times and even then most load times are not going to drastically change. Hell, even and NVME drive you won't notice a massive difference in load times in games. That being said, even SSD's are starting to reach a lower price point. 1tb SSDs can be found for $90 if you really want to spend the extra money. Hell, even going from a HDD to NVME in games you will virtually notice no difference.

Undying:

Idk man im trying to avoid texture popin, stuttering and slow loading times. Even if you have enough ram/vram there is still stuff game is pulling from your drive as you go.

vbetts:

There are of course exceptions to this, but most game engines are pretty good with this issue. ID Tech games I know are kind of bad for this, UE3 games were pretty bad, and some UE4 games can have this issue. Usually though this is why I tell people if they are going to get an HDD for gaming, get one with at least 64 mb of cache. This helps a lot, or use SSD caching.

tsunami231:

That is alot GB's needed for game that look they way that does are they using nothing but uncompressed audio files or something? I dont know if this same issue but Doom (2016) has some horrid texture loading weapon changing and bunch of texture loading on character and monster that you see in cut scenes. its actual really annoying consider how smooth the gameplays