3 ms·

> I guess it's a problem of incentives. The developer of the game doesn't pay when the game is larger, I do. This is everywhere in computing but there's a bett

> I guess it's a problem of incentives. The developer of the game doesn't pay when the game is larger, I do. This is everywhere in computing but there's a better reason for it than you're giving. It's a cheaper/easier for companies to develop "bloated" software that runs on more powerful hardware. That includes uncompressed textures/sound (because why bother finding a codec or fine tuning quality tradeoff when you can just get give uncompressed data). But the end result, for you, is more software is available and more developers exist (because writing efficient and performant code is much harder). A game like Stardew Valley, for instance, probably doesn't exist. I've put a ton of hours into that game and I think it's excellent but, not to cast any shade, the game isn't exactly a masterclass in efficiency. It's only slightly more advanced than a SNES game but it consumes many many time more resources. The benefit to you is that an inexperienced software engineer with a great idea can bring their idea to fruition using all sorts of bloated tools.

delusional 1y ago
> A game like Stardew Valley, for instance, probably doesn't exist. I've put a ton of hours into that game and I think it's excellent but, not to cast any shade, the game isn't exactly a masterclass in efficiency. It's only slightly more advanced than a SNES game but it consumes many many time more resources. Stardew Valley is a great example of why storage does not follow the same logic of "fewer constraints lowers the barrier of entry". Stardew is 600MB, it does not benefit from terabytes of capacity or 1900MB/s speeds. Instead, the only games pushing that frontiers are otherwise well staffed and well funded efforts that just don't bother. Call Of Duty would not be a worse game if it was 200GB instead of 300GB. No understaffed indie game I know of takes up a large amount of storage.
- parineum 1y ago
  An SNES cartridge holds up to 48 megabits. SV has better visuals and sound but is it that much better? I don't think SV would have been made by ConcernedApe if he only had a SNES sdk. I believe he used XNA, at least initially. All that framework adds weight but it made SV possible. The tradeoff is 600 megabytes vs 48 megabits. I'll take SV any day of the week.

delusional 1y ago

> A game like Stardew Valley, for instance, probably doesn't exist. I've put a ton of hours into that game and I think it's excellent but, not to cast any shade, the game isn't exactly a masterclass in efficiency. It's only slightly more advanced than a SNES game but it consumes many many time more resources. Stardew Valley is a great example of why storage does not follow the same logic of "fewer constraints lowers the barrier of entry". Stardew is 600MB, it does not benefit from terabytes of capacity or 1900MB/s speeds. Instead, the only games pushing that frontiers are otherwise well staffed and well funded efforts that just don't bother. Call Of Duty would not be a worse game if it was 200GB instead of 300GB. No understaffed indie game I know of takes up a large amount of storage.

parineum 1y ago
An SNES cartridge holds up to 48 megabits. SV has better visuals and sound but is it that much better? I don't think SV would have been made by ConcernedApe if he only had a SNES sdk. I believe he used XNA, at least initially. All that framework adds weight but it made SV possible. The tradeoff is 600 megabytes vs 48 megabits. I'll take SV any day of the week.