Modern Warfare PC Players Can’t Do Anything About 200+ GB Install Size

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,595
Points
113
call-of-duty-modern-warfare-velikan-1024x576.jpg
Image: Infinity Ward



Activision and Infinity Ward released Season Five of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: Warzone earlier this week, and as we’ve come to expect, the new content requires plenty of additional disk space. The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One updates take up 33.9 GB and 49.8 GB of storage, respectively, while the PC version demands 54 to 47 GB of storage.



Naturally, players have voiced their concerns about the ballooning install size, but what’s really worth criticizing is how PC players are being treated. While console owners have the option of uninstalling data packs to reduce Modern Warfare’s overall footprint, PC players have been excluded from this privilege. Needless to say, this makes little sense – the PC version is...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...
 
on PC who cares except for download times. SSD and HDD are cheap for PC.

Consuming 100gb on my PS4 is just plain stupid.
 
Burticus said:
on PC who cares except for download times. SSD and HDD are cheap for PC.

Consuming 100gb on my PS4 is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree. drives are fairly cheap for PC and these sizes are probably going to be the norm pretty soon for most new titles.
 
Can't say I ever look at how much space a game is taking up.
 
Burticus said:
on PC who cares except for download times. SSD and HDD are cheap for PC.

Consuming 100gb on my PS4 is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Same can be said about consoles. You can get an 8TB external for $140. That is about as cheap as any internal drive you can get for the same capacity right now.
 
Yeah I don’t really care about the footprint. I do care that it takes me days of downloading before I can play (rural US, bad ISP). I wish devs would put a bit more effort into how these files get distributed.

My PS4 right now is updating two games. One is a 44G update, the other 72G. They have 77 hours remaining and have been sucking up all of my bandwidth all weekend.
 
Brian_B said:
Yeah I don’t really care about the footprint. I do care that it takes me days of downloading before I can play (rural US, bad ISP). I wish devs would put a bit more effort into how these files get distributed.

My PS4 right now is updating two games. One is a 44G update, the other 72G. They have 77 hours remaining and have been sucking up all of my bandwidth all weekend.
Click to expand...

Did you hear that the skylink network is accepting beta testers? Might be in your region I don't know.
 
Burticus said:
on PC who cares except for download times. SSD and HDD are cheap for PC.

Consuming 100gb on my PS4 is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Many people have monthly bandwidth limits which effect both the PC and consoles. Giving that console players have the option to opt out of going over their data cap and PC users do not seems a bit unfair.

Though I am not sure if the options available to lower the install size on a console is before or after the download.
 
For people to have the idea that it's okay to force PC users to have higher file sizes is okay just because they can add more space is sort of childish. Since console users have the same exact option to use external hard drives, so why not force them to go out and fork over money for more space? On top of the PCs require a lot more room to allow maintenance to even run. Being both a PC and console user my console does everything for me with very little space needed. The point is a 1tb HD doesn't allow a lot of games to be installed on it, high end that is. One spends 60$ on a game to play then is forced to go and purchase a HD for another 60$+ to play that game. And then people sit here and say there's nothing wrong with this? Also when it gives system requirements they should tell buyers they'll need 175gb to install as this is false. They should keep it updated so one knows not to buy it if they dont have 230GB to spare.
 
Biggest issue to me is that I don't like reinstalling games, so I'd have to add spinners back to my build to mitigate the problem. Or set up another iSCSI target on my NAS...

This is mainly because desktops just don't have enough PCIe lanes for multiple NVMe SSDs, and at the same time, larger M.2 SSDs are just too expensive, putting a 'reasonable' cap on the max high-speed local storage one can have without having to resort to less reasonable measures like HEDT platforms or say external Thunderbolt SSD arrays.
 
Are you able to use a cache server to help speed up multiple installs of a game from Steam? I had it setup on an old NAS like 10+ years ago when I hosted LAN parties a lot, but I messed with squid since then. I seem to remember reading something a while back about the protocol being changed, or something changing in the steam download process that made it not work anymore.
 
From what I gather Linus from linustechtips still seems to have a steamcache server running for his company.
 
Really have no idea; main issue is that with a faster internet connection, having an 'archived' copy of the game's folder isn't that useful since it has to be completely rechecked, and by the time you've copied it back over and rechecked it, you usually can just have reinstalled it.

And that's just Steam... what to do about Origin, UPlay, Xbox Live, Epic, etc.?

Honestly I wish that was a 'supported feature' that was common to these services, i.e., allow you to maintain an 'archive' copy somewhere locally that stays updated. I kind of feel that that'd be useful for desktops and consoles.
 
LazyGamer said:
Really have no idea; main issue is that with a faster internet connection, having an 'archived' copy of the game's folder isn't that useful since it has to be completely rechecked, and by the time you've copied it back over and rechecked it, you usually can just have reinstalled it.

And that's just Steam... what to do about Origin, UPlay, Xbox Live, Epic, etc.?

Honestly I wish that was a 'supported feature' that was common to these services, i.e., allow you to maintain an 'archive' copy somewhere locally that stays updated. I kind of feel that that'd be useful for desktops and consoles.
Click to expand...

Back when I hosted one for Steam it didn't work like that. If the data stored on the cache server was different from what was stored on Steams servers then you'd only download the new data and that'd would get added to the cache server, but you'd download everything else from the cache server at your LAN's speed.

This made it much, much easier when 4 - 5 people would be downloading a new game we wanted to play on a ~10Mbps connection or so.

Steam uses (or used) the standard HTTP protocol so nothing fancy. If Origin, Uplay, Xbox, Epic, PSN all use the same HTTP protocol then they'd be able to do it as well.
 
I think archived Steam games worked pretty well; Origin not so much, and that's where my most played games are.

And yeah, it really shouldn't be that hard!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top