Yep! Sure, we can call GIF a “legacy” format but at least I can copy and paste it.

"Only" 20GB. Is that sarcastic, or is that actually low for a videogame these days?

That's actually low. For comparison the latest Call of Duty is upwards of 100GB install size.

Final Fantasy VII is a playstation game on 3 dvds. The remake is splitting it up into three individual games. Part 1 is a tad over 100 GB, part 2 is a tad over 150 GB, so we're at over 250 GB for 2/3rds of the original game. I'm sure part 3 is going to be at least another 150 GB, if not more.

Games have gotten insanely huge.

CD-ROMs, not DVDs, so roughly 650 MB per disc

To name a few, God Of War Ragnarok is 190GB, Baldur's Gate 3 is 150GB, Final Fantasy XV is 150Gb etc.

100GB is more or less expected for big name games nowadays

They don't have cut-scenes in 4k HDR though. Even the latest Age of Empires downloads an extra 40GB if you enable 4k HDR. It's nice that they give the option at least.

Uncompressed high res textures and audio and a lot of unique assets.

When disk space isn’t a problem and with loading times being already rather fast (other than any shader pre-compilations that are CPU bound) there is no penalty to large games.

Not only that but having very large games can be sort of a moat especially on consoles, if you can only have 3 games until your drive gets full you might think twice before uninstalling call of duty to try something new.

And whilst this can also present a barrier to entry the big IPs have enough initial pull to overcome any downsides most likely.

Games are designed to take advantage of the hardware capabilities commonly available in gaming PCs and consoles. If CPU/GPU performance or RAM/storage capacity increases, it's always possible to make a game a little bit better by taking advantage of it.

2 TB SSDs became affordable ~5 years ago, and HDDs of similar size were affordable long before that. Unless you have a laptop from a manufacturer with a pricing model designed to create artificial scarcity of storage space, 100-gigabyte games are not a real issue.

Digital downloads are the main form of selling games so developers are not limited by the size of the physical medium (CD, DVD, cartridge etc.)

Also for performance reasons most games are shipped with uncompressed lossless assets which adds up to become huge.

>What happened?

Consumers' computers have more space. There was always a trade off between optimizing for disk space and all the other things that go into making a game. As demand for the former has fallen, developers responded accordingly.

There is absolutely some bloat in 100gb+ games but also come on, graphics are much better now compared to 15 years old games. Textures + video cinematic + models weight a lot.

There's actually a pretty wide distribution of video game installation sizes. People are responding to you with the stats of some of the largest games out there, but they aren't normal games. They're AAA open world and FPS games, which are all the way at one end of the distribution. Some new games I've played in the last year are right around 1-2 gigabytes. If I downloaded another Civ-style game, and it was 20 gigabytes, I'd be surprised... but not outraged or shocked.

Exactly! Valheim is only a few GB, for example.

While 20GB would indeed require 55,556 360k floppy disks, a 32GB micro-SD card has a volume of about 164mm^3.

I still think of a megabyte as a lot of memory at some level because it is and that was enough to run approximately every DOS game including the first Civilization...the new one requires a minimum of 16GB RAM, so about the same rate of growth in requirements.

I don't think its sarcastic at all. I fully expect 100gb for triple a games now.

Rumors for GTA6 place it in the 300-600GB range, but who knows

"For the following heist, please turn your game disc over to side B."

The article shows that it's the same 20 GB that Civ VII requires, starting 9 years ago.

The ram requirement has doubled from 8 to 16 GB though

Haha this is perfect!

Runway’s gotta end somewhere

Technically it could loop around the earth.

You don’t even have to make it that long, you can just make a large circle of runway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_runway

UXR is a thing that all large companies invest in

That sounds like a bad idea to me.

CPU inference for LLMs takes forever (you'll get like 1tk/s on CPU) and limits you significantly in terms of model size/quality. You'll lock up all of your cores to provide service for a single user at a snail's pace.

I don't think it should even be considered as an option

llama 3.2 3b, qwen2.5 3B quantized to 4bit runs CPU inference quite fast. You can get a beefier VM and still save a ton of money. Depending on the context token length of this soluion, it's either fast or slow. If it's below 1024 tokens per request, you get around 10 sec delay, if you are at around 128 tokens I guess you would be somewhere at 1 sec for time to first token...

My point still stands … 10 seconds is an eternity, and a 3B model isn’t that performant.

I’d rather not offer a demo at all than offer it with these parameters.

He means the project, obviously

What are they, then…?

The first two are tasks which involve making images. They could be called image generation or image editing.

I wonder how this can be combined with satellite data, if at all?

I don’t see why not. Photos are often combined with satellite data for photogrammetry purposes, even on large scale - see the recent Microsoft Flight Simulator (in a couple days, when it actually works)

It's usually aerial data, especially oblique aerial. Bing Maps is still pretty unique in offering them undistorted and not draped over some always degraded mesh.

Kind of a misleading title