Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2020-2021] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

[Insight]

Right, 89.94 gb ps5 vs 61 gb series x, and 93.12 gb ps4 vs 56.6 gb one. That's what I am talking about with the question of "What is up with the larger Install size on PS5 and PS4 for COD Vanguard? Does it have 28GB to 37GB of exclusive content?"

89 - 61 ~= 28 gb current-gen
93 - 56 ~= 37 gb last-gen

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453710479935868928

Actual size is different, probably same for Xbox too.
Why all developers managed to shrink next gen versions of their games despite having a higher quality textures except for Call of Duty games?
At least this game is much smaller than the previous game but knowing their track record it'll take all the console's storage when all the updates roll out

 

[Deleted member 13524]

New What is up with the larger Install size on PS5 and PS4 for COD Vanguard? Does it have 28GB to 37GB of exclusive content?

I was going to go with "probably a typo" but the PS game size twitter account beat me to it.

Why all developers managed to shrink next gen versions of their games despite having a higher quality textures except for Call of Duty games?

1 - no need to repeat assets hundreds of times to avoid seek times in hard drives.
2 - In the case of PS5, fast hardware accelerated Kraken decompression included in the SDK for which developers don't have to pay a license for using.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

2 - In the case of PS5, fast hardware accelerated Kraken decompression included in the SDK for which developers don't have to pay a license for using.

UNLEASH THE KRAKEN!

 

[BRiT]

Actual size is different, probably same for Xbox too.

The official COD Blog [ https://www.callofduty.com/blog/2021/10/vanguard-console-preloading-launch-file-size ] was very confusing and didn't clarify enough. Funny how a more limited Tweet provided more clarify than an unlimited article entry.

 

[iroboto]

so basically it's just the additional space that PS4/5 requires to install something. And after it installs, it settles at the respective lower number. But you require the larger number free to actually install it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453710479935868928

Actual size is different, probably same for Xbox too.
Why all developers managed to shrink next gen versions of their games despite having a higher quality textures except for Call of Duty games?
At least this game is much smaller than the previous game but knowing their track record it'll take all the console's storage when all the updates roll out

It wasn't exactly shrunk. The game will dynamically stream textures off the internet as you play. That's part of how they made the install size smaller.

Call of Duty®: Vanguard Console Preloading and File Size Information

Good news for hard drives everywhere:

Due to new on-demand texture streaming tech, Vanguard’s install size at launch will be significantly below that of previous Call of Duty releases – up to 30% - 50%+ of a file size difference on next-gen console and PC.

I'm guessing they don't keep those textures on the internal storage, so it's just constantly streaming textures off the net. I wonder what it'll look like if someone disconnected from the internet before playing? Or maybe it does keep them, which means that over time it might grow to be the same size or larger than previous CODs.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

It wasn't exactly shrunk. The game will dynamically stream textures off the internet as you play. That's part of how they made the install size smaller.

Call of Duty®: Vanguard Console Preloading and File Size Information

I'm guessing they don't keep those textures on the internal storage, so it's just constantly streaming textures off the net. I wonder what it'll look like if someone disconnected from the internet before playing? Or maybe it does keep them, which means that over time it might grow to be the same size or larger than previous CODs.

Regards,
SB

oh LOL.

Fair enough. I guess if you don't play portions of the game, you'll never download them. Not a bad idea.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

oh LOL.

Fair enough. I guess if you don't play portions of the game, you'll never download them. Not a bad idea.

Yeah, although now that I think about it, even if it ends up storing the on demand streamed textures to the storage device, that'll still only be about 80-115 GB for the base game + campaign depending on Region. Not sure how that compares to previous base installs for COD games.

Then over time add in the DLCs that they release. Hmmm, actually it may still end up the same or larger than previous CODs.

That is, of course, if they do end up storing the on demand textures on the storage device. They might try to do something like Flight Simulator and those textures will always be streamed and won't be stored on the internal drive unless the user opts to store them.

Regards,
SB

 

[BRiT]

It wasn't exactly shrunk. The game will dynamically stream textures off the internet as you play. That's part of how they made the install size smaller.

Call of Duty®: Vanguard Console Preloading and File Size Information



I'm guessing they don't keep those textures on the internal storage, so it's just constantly streaming textures off the net. I wonder what it'll look like if someone disconnected from the internet before playing? Or maybe it does keep them, which means that over time it might grow to be the same size or larger than previous CODs.

I read that but assumed they meant streaming from the NVME storage and not needing to duplicate the resources multiple times to ensure latency is low enough for the 30% to 50% size reduction. But according to the official COD article, the download and install size on Xbox One and Series X isn't that different, so I don't get how last-gen is close enough to current-gen sizes.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I read that but assumed they meant streaming from the NVME storage and not needing to duplicate the resources multiple times to ensure latency is low enough for the 30% to 50% size reduction. But according to the official COD article, the download and install size on Xbox One and Series X isn't that different, so I don't get how last-gen is close enough to current-gen sizes.

That could be, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Considering that PC requirements that I've seen don't require an SSD and it has the same base install size as the consoles, I'm a little skeptical that it means streaming off the storage device.

Regards,
SB

 

[Allandor]

1 - no need to repeat assets hundreds of times to avoid seek times in hard drives.
2 - In the case of PS5, fast hardware accelerated Kraken decompression included in the SDK for which developers don't have to pay a license for using.

3 - you may not need all the lower res stuff the lower tier hardware needs as the hardware is more capable and you just don't need it (e.g. low res textures). So you can leave some of the away as well. It is not much but this should also save some space.

 

[SmooTh]

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Interesting that sometimes Xcloud loads even faster than XBS-X.

A decent way to extend the life of an XBO if a person either can't get an XBS system due to availability or budget. You have the choice of sluggish input on XBO due to 30 FPS or sluggish input on Xcloud due to input latency, however the visuals on Xcloud is potentially much better than XBO. 60 FPS looks clearly significantly better than 30 FPS, even with potential streaming artifacts.

For me, neither is a viable solution, sluggish controls due to 30 FPS is just as bad as sluggish and/or imprecise controls due to input latency. But for people that aren't bothered much by either, this is a great way to extend the life of their XBO.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Interesting that sometimes Xcloud loads even faster than XBS-X.

Definitely expected. Even if Microsoft's servers are using arrays of HDD to store the game files, they'll be in massively-parellised RAID arrays that in real world performance destroys the performance of the NVMe drive in the Xbox Series console.

 

[Jay]

A decent way to extend the life of an XBO if a person either can't get an XBS system due to availability or budget. You have the choice of sluggish input on XBO due to 30 FPS or sluggish input on Xcloud due to input latency, however the visuals on Xcloud is potentially much better than XBO. 60 FPS looks clearly significantly better than 30 FPS, even with potential streaming artifacts.

I'm surprised it's not at at least 1440p60 by now. They touted the improved encoding on the XS SOC.

Playing game set to 1080p120 on xcloud should give a decent experience compared to what XO could offer for a lot of people also.
Even if it's displaying at 1080p60 the engine to rendering frame latency would be hugely reduced.

I'm pretty sure MS Flight Sim still isn't on xcloud for some reason, even though they said it would be a way to play it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'm surprised it's not at at least 1440p60 by now. They touted the improved encoding on the XS SOC.

Playing game set to 1080p120 on xcloud should give a decent experience compared to what XO could offer for a lot of people also.
Even if it's displaying at 1080p60 the engine to rendering frame latency would be hugely reduced.

I'm pretty sure MS Flight Sim still isn't on xcloud for some reason, even though they said it would be a way to play it.

I think 1080p/60 is more about keeping bandwidth used at a reasonable level. One thing that hampered Stadia's acceptance was the enormous amount of bandwidth it could end up using at higher quality levels. Lower bandwidth requirements also makes it a fair bit easier to manage the data stream (the overhead associated with ensuring that each packet of the data stream arrives at the correct time on the receiving end) which will help with lowering the latency of the stream.

Regards,
SB

 

[Jay]

I think 1080p/60 is more about keeping bandwidth used at a reasonable level. One thing that hampered Stadia's acceptance was the enormous amount of bandwidth it could end up using at higher quality levels. Lower bandwidth requirements also makes it a fair bit easier to manage the data stream (the overhead associated with ensuring that each packet of the data stream arrives at the correct time on the receiving end) which will help with lowering the latency of the stream.

Regards,
SB

Would be bandwidth on MS side more so than them worrying about users, as they could give users the option.

4k60 would be nice but 1440p60 would be acceptable at the moment.
Think the games may be running in XSS profile, which saves them gpu power (therefore cost) to run it.
Maybe once TV app comes along will run XSX profile.

I currently use it on my XSX even, as it can be convenient just shame about resolution.

 

[scently]

The games are currently running XSS profiles. Xcloud is currently limited to a maximum of 1080p. It'd be a waste to be running games at XSX profile when your streaming res is limited. These xCloud machines are instanced. I'd expect a Series X blade GPU to be able to run at least 2 instances of an XSS GPU load.

 

[BRiT]

I'd expect a Series X blade GPU to be able to run at least 2 instances of an XSS GPU load.

Absolutely not from a CPU perspective. There's not enough CPU to go around to run multiple Series S titles. I'm pretty sure, like 95% confident, they're running Xbox Series X profiles with 1080p display resolutions.

 

[Globalisateur]

Absolutely not from a CPU perspective. There's not enough CPU to go around to run multiple Series S titles. I'm pretty sure, like 95% confident, they're running Xbox Series X profiles with 1080p display resolutions.

We know they are running XSS profiles at least in some games like The Medium cause the streamed game uses the XSS settings (without RT). It's also using the same dynamic resolutions (648p-1080p) according to the youtuber.