I haven't completed it on PS4.5 yet...

Undying:

Its not a HDD space but SSD space. Many have no that much to spare.

jbscotchman:

That's just one reason I haven't bough an SSD yet.

The only solution is buying an even bigger SSD, or more smaller ones. 😎

fantaskarsef:

The only solution is buying an even bigger SSD, or more smaller ones. 😎

Indeed. Only a madman would install this on hard drive.

Loobyluggs:

I haven't completed it on PS4.5 yet...

I've never played either one, but I've watched friends play the second. I'd love to play it but there's just too much to choose from this year.

Here's a thought; why not simply offer the game pre-installed on it's own 240Gb SSD? The Red Dead Pass-It-Around Edition.

Celcius:

Here's a thought; why not simply offer the game pre-installed on it's own 240Gb SSD? The Red Dead Pass-It-Around Edition.

Cplifj:

Distribution on something like an SDcard seems more and more feasible.

I'd like those ideas but honestly, the companies simply don't want that. They'd rather sell you a higher speed plan to earn more off of it, in terms of ISP. Especially with that solve / enable it all 5G wireless internet.... 🙄

fantaskarsef:

They'd rather sell you a higher speed plan to earn more off of it, in terms of ISP. Especially with that solve / enable it all 5G wireless internet.... 🙄

Eh? Higher speed plan? For RDR2? How would that work with RS ?

I don't get people that don't use large HDD's. 4Tb HDD's cost 100$. This game only takes up 3,75% of that space. If you are worried about speed, buy a slightly smaller & faster HDD. And if for whatever reason you refuse to install it on an HDD, good god... SSD prices are low aswell. 1TB drives start from ~110$. Play the game and uninstall it if you are so storage starved that 150gb is somehow too much for you. And regarding download/data-limits... get off from these contracts/plans. Don't use them. Get unlimited plans or no plan at all. If you let yourself be fooled out of money, good riddance. You deserve shitty data-limited plans. I have never in my life used them. (And sorry, I feel bad if you live in a neighborhood, where there are no reasonable providers available. Maybe start your own ISP business?) PS* back in the day, ~around 2000, I used a 680Mb HDD and played 400Mb games on it. When I wanted another game, I simply uninstalled the one I finished playing. That was normal.

Highly recommend the game, I've had a ton of fun playing it on xbox last year. If you like westerns and open world games you'll love this.

labidas:

I don't get people that don't use large HDD's. 4Tb HDD's cost 100$. This game only takes up 3,75% of that space. If you are worried about speed, buy a slightly smaller & faster HDD. And if for whatever reason you refuse to install it on an HDD, good god... SSD prices are low aswell. 1TB drives start from ~110$. Play the game and uninstall it if you are so storage starved that 150gb is somehow too much for you. And regarding download/data-limits... get off from these contracts/plans. Don't use them. Get unlimited plans or no plan at all. If you let yourself be fooled out of money, good riddance. You deserve shitty data-limited plans. I have never in my life used them. (And sorry, I feel bad if you live in a neighborhood, where there are no reasonable providers available. Maybe start your own ISP business?) PS* back in the day, ~around 2000, I used a 680Mb HDD and played 400Mb games on it. When I wanted another game, I simply uninstalled the one I finished playing. That was normal.

I see what you're saying, but it's not the amount of disk space that's the problem, it's everything else surrounding it. There's no good reason for the game to be that huge. Here's some of the objective reasons why a game that large is a problem: 1. It's a pain in the ass to download all of that data - not everyone has a super high-speed connection. If a file is corrupt, have fun scanning for data integrity. 2. Although this game's system requirements aren't terrible, they're not lightweight either. If you've got a PC that can play this game, chances are, you've got a CPU powerful enough to handle decompression. You can cram a lot of lossless data into a small package, at the cost of CPU time. But usually, games aren't stressing the CPU a whole lot when they're loading something, so it's a non-issue. 3. The bigger the files, the slower the load speed. In some cases, that can even cause stuttering. Again, with compression, you can take some of the load off your drive. A CPU in most cases can decompress faster than a HDD can read. 4. "Back in the day" when you uninstalled a game, games could be quickly and easily reinstalled within a matter of minutes using the media it came on, and your save file was easy to archive. Most games back then didn't come with updates either, and if they did, they were usually only a few MB. But, what are you going to do with 150GB? Using storage meant for backing up personal files is stupid, because that's meant for data you can't replace, so the game is just taking up space for more important files. Most people don't have optical drives anymore, so burning it onto a BDXL disc isn't an option. And since these games update so often, there's a good chance most of that archive is going to be obsolete by the time you might restore it.

I definitely need a bigger SSD. Then again, I probably won't buy this until it's on sale. Games have become way too expensive here in Australia of late. 150gb doesn't bother me. It's quite common to see 80gb plus thesedays. The download will be a lot less, the 150gb will be unpacked size I believe.

schmidtbag:

I see what you're saying, but it's not the amount of disk space that's the problem, it's everything else surrounding it. There's no good reason for the game to be that huge. Here's some of the objective reasons why a game that large is a problem: 1. It's a pain in the ass to download all of that data - not everyone has a super high-speed connection. If a file is corrupt, have fun scanning for data integrity. 2. Although this game's system requirements aren't terrible, they're not lightweight either. If you've got a PC that can play this game, chances are, you've got a CPU powerful enough to handle decompression. You can cram a lot of lossless data into a small package, at the cost of CPU time. But usually, games aren't stressing the CPU a whole lot when they're loading something, so it's a non-issue. 3. The bigger the files, the slower the load speed. In some cases, that can even cause stuttering. Again, with compression, you can take some of the load off your drive. A CPU in most cases can decompress faster than a HDD can read. 4. "Back in the day" when you uninstalled a game, games could be quickly and easily reinstalled within a matter of minutes using the media it came on, and your save file was easy to archive. Most games back then didn't come with updates either, and if they did, they were usually only a few MB. But, what are you going to do with 150GB? Using storage meant for backing up personal files is stupid, because that's meant for data you can't replace, so the game is just taking up space for more important files. Most people don't have optical drives anymore, so burning it onto a BDXL disc isn't an option. And since these games update so often, there's a good chance most of that archive is going to be obsolete by the time you might restore it.

Sorry but you're wrong. There's plenty of reason for a game to be that huge. The download will be smaller though, something you failed to mention. 1) Not really. Even with 6MB/s it wouldn't take that long. Downloads don't really get corrupted thesedays btw. 2) Non issue as you said 3) Not quite how it works. Big game doesn't mean every file is huge, so your point is moot and uninformed, sorry. 4) True, but games also didn't look the same. You're complaining now, and in 5 yrs this will seem trivial, which it is. Especially considering the price of SSDs now, it's really not a big deal. If you can afford a PC and buy games on Steam etc, you know what you're getting in for. Slow download speeds in certain areas are what they are, but you deal with it. I'm not complaining with my slow 6MB/s and I regularly install/uninstall games that are 80Gb Plus. I just installed Hitman 2 Gold with all DLCs, watched a movie, played a different game, game was installed. Over 100Gb btw.

Anyone know if you can host private lobbies.

Word of warning, the Rockstar launcher has the tendency to charge multiple times for the same order. If you receive an error do not refresh the page or manually try to order again. The payment will probably go through anyway, you just have to wait. Saves the hassle to go through their ticket system to get a refund.

For me it's not about the disk space it takes up but the fact that's going to take 3 days to download on my shitty internet.

Irenicus:

Sorry but you're wrong. There's plenty of reason for a game to be that huge. The download will be smaller though, something you failed to mention.

Reasons such as? Remember, I'm arguing for lossless compression. Also, the download won't always be [much] smaller, depending on which DRM you get it from.

1) Not really. Even with 6MB/s it wouldn't take that long. Downloads don't really get corrupted thesedays btw.

Not everyone has that much speed. And I never said the download gets corrupted. But corruption after it is downloaded does occur. Why else do all DRMs have a data integrity check? You are not everyone. Don't treat your experiences and preferences like they suit everyone's. I personally can download at 8MB/s, which is more than fast enough for my needs, but I'm not speaking on my behalf.

2) Non issue as you said

I meant it's a non-issue for the data to be compressed...

3) Not quite how it works. Big game doesn't mean every file is huge, so your point is moot and uninformed, sorry.

Are you serious? You clearly aren't understanding the point here. There are many games where all of the data is crammed into ~4GB files, of which there may only be a handful. Obviously, the game isn't loading up the entirety of each file; it's only reading what it needs to. None of this changes the fact that the more data the drive has to read, the longer it takes to read that data. This isn't up for debate. If you compress the data, you can offload the disk read to the CPU, which noticeably improves load performance.

4) True, but games also didn't look the same. You're complaining now, and in 5 yrs this will seem trivial, which it is. Especially considering the price of SSDs now, it's really not a big deal.

I really don't think you're understanding what you're arguing against. I'm not complaining about storage space, I'm complaining about what to do about a large game when I want/need to archive it in the event I run out. I'm not buying a whole drive just to archive a game, especially when the game could be compressed to the point where I wouldn't have to. It's the principle of the matter. And considering how much you seem to think a game this large is no problem, chances are, you'll need to be buying a lot of drives just to archive games. That's a waste of money for a problem that could be effortlessly avoided.

If you can afford a PC and buy games on Steam etc, you know what you're getting in for. Slow download speeds in certain areas are what they are, but you deal with it. I'm not complaining with my slow 6MB/s and I regularly install/uninstall games that are 80Gb Plus. I just installed Hitman 2 Gold with all DLCs, watched a movie, played a different game, game was installed. Over 100Gb btw.

Your mentality is mind boggling. So, even though you could get a better experience without sacrificing anything, you'd rather just suck it up for no reason other than "it's just the way it is"? You're literally arguing against free efficiency here. With lossless compression, you get your game faster, the game will load faster, you save disk space, and archiving is less of a pain. Why avoid that? That's like deliberately driving a tractor to work and being totally fine with the fact that it's horribly slow and wasteful of fuel, for the reason "that's just how it was built" while completely ignoring the fact that you could just drive a normal car like everyone else.

Cplifj:

Distribution on something like an SDcard seems more and more feasible.

Seems like we've come full circle. From games being distributed on diskettes, CDs and DVDs to having everything in one digital library to now again people wanting to use SDcards, SSDs and such.

where I live, 50Mbits down/ 10Mbits up costs around 20€/ month. It's gonna take me a little over 6 hours to download that game. The fastest connection provided is 500Mbits down/50 up for ~35€ month, that's a ~40 minute download. My point is... things get faster. 150gb downloads won't seem that big for most of us in a few years just like 15gb doesn't seem all that big right now. 10 years ago I though my 4Mbit/1Mbit(down/up) is really fast. Not anymore. Dial-up was once a thing.

Backstabak:

Seems like we've come full circle. From games being distributed on diskettes, CDs and DVDs to having everything in one digital library to now again people wanting to use SDcards, SSDs and such.

yup, but cheap ~128gb SD cards are still cost around 25$. I think it's more feasible that gamestores (like those physical ones... in the mall) let you copy the game on your SD card, portable HDD or whatever your storage unit of choice is, right after you buy it. Copy the game and get a key.

labidas:

where I live, 50Mbits down/ 10Mbits up costs around 20€/ month. It's gonna take me a little over 6 hours to download that game. The fastest connection provided is 500Mbits down/50 up for ~35€ month, that's a ~40 minute download. My point is... things get faster. 150gb downloads won't seem that big for most of us in a few years just like 15gb doesn't seem all that big right now. 10 years ago I though my 4Mbit/1Mbit(down/up) is really fast. Not anymore. Dial-up was once a thing.

It makes no sense to me how people here will spend 50% more for a 10% improvement in frame rate, yet when you can noticeably improve your download time, load speed, and disk usage with absolutely nothing to lose, that's suddenly not worth paying attention to? Since when is free performance and free storage suddenly not worth anyone's attention? Since when did enthusiasts agree to mere adequacy?

lol