The Bigger They Are: The Titan They Fall? 48GB Install

Subject: Editorial, General Tech | February 25, 2014 - 03:43 PM |
Tagged: titanfall, ssd

UPDATE (Feb 26th): Our readers pointed out in the comments, although I have yet to test it, that you can change Origin's install-to directory before installing a game to have them on a separate hard drive as the rest. Not as easy as Steam's method, but apparently works for games like this that you want somewhere else. I figured it would forget games in the old directory, but apparently not.

Well, okay. Titanfall will require a significant amount of hard drive space when it is released in two weeks. Receiving the game digitally will push 21GB of content through your modem and unpack to 48GB. Apparently, the next generation has arrived.

View Full Size

Honestly, I am not upset over this. Yes, this basically ignores customers who install their games to their SSDs. Origin, at the moment, forces all games to be installed in a single directory (albeit that can be anywhere) unlike Steam, which allows games to be individually sent to multiple folders. It would be a good idea to keep those customers in mind... but not at the expense of the game itself. Like always, both "high-end" and "unoptimized" titles have high minimum specifications; we decide which one applies by considering how effectively the performance is used.

That is something that we will need to find out when it launches on March 11th.

Source: PC Gamer

February 25, 2014 | 04:17 PM - Posted by MuffinPot (not verified)

What confuses me this is supposedly on different source engine yet every problem i had with ghost i have with this game and everything i did to fix in ghost also worked in this game and now it has the stupid size due to uncompressed high res textures just like ghost

February 25, 2014 | 04:19 PM - Posted by MuffinPot (not verified)

I though these guys broke off from activation how the fuck are they doing the same shit the devs are doing over at activation in their games

February 25, 2014 | 04:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

And they wonder why pushing consoles to Digital Downloads would fail. We'd all be paying overcharges for going over our caps. The patches alone on some 15GB games are bad enough being multi-GB, this thing is probably looking at 10GB patches if the trends continue.

February 25, 2014 | 05:00 PM - Posted by NamelessTed

I honestly don't understand how people could be so angry about file size, and I am blown away with some of the bullshit that people are spouting out.

I can ALMOST understand concerns with SSD sizes. If you only have a 64GB SSD maybe it is time to upgrade to something larger, or get a second one to have your games installed on. SSDs are cheaper than ever.

In regards to the game using too much of a person's monthly data cap, this is not a problem with Respawn, EA, or this game. That is specifically a problem with ISPs. If your ISP limits your monthly data usage to 50-100GB then that is serious issue with the ISP, NOT games.

And to the few people that I have seen say that they are stuffing data to deter torrents, that is just a massive joke. If anything, people that torrent don't give a shit about data size and would be able to torrent 50GB just as easily as somebody downloading the game via Origin.

February 25, 2014 | 05:20 PM - Posted by Kwaz


February 25, 2014 | 07:45 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

In regards to the game using too much of a person's monthly data cap, this is not a problem with Respawn, EA, or this game. That is specifically a problem with ISPs. If your ISP limits your monthly data usage to 50-100GB then that is serious issue with the ISP, NOT games.

Umm. I think that's the point. We're moving toward a digital download everything era and Caps are a real problem to address that will affect this lifestyle going forth. You do realize upwards of 75% of the Internet lives under such caps and we're not talking some 1TB monthly limits which wouldn't be of concern, but 100GB or less for most people.

The problem is most the world lived under this since the beginning, while in the North America we kind of started off with this unlimited thing trying to catch up by placing artificial limitations and charging for it. The future at this rate will be not just paying for the game, but then paying for the transfer of the game to your ISP. It's exactly why people nearly rioted when there were rumors the XBONE was going to be digital download only.

It's a legitimate case and media companies, including game developers offering digital downloads, have to take into account as we move forward. I can't tell you how many countless GB updates I've had just from TF2, including some that were practically re-downloading the entire game. Think about people who have libraries full of titles on consoles and PC's. It's a serious issue unfortunately that I wish we didn't need to concern ourselves with and with little competition it forces people to accept it because you can't fight against the BS charges.

February 25, 2014 | 10:59 PM - Posted by NamelessTed

I totally agree that data caps are a serious issue. I just don't think it is at the fault of and game developers/publishers. It is 100% the issue of ISPs.

We are finally entering a new generation of games. TBH, this has taken way longer than it should have. The Xbox 360 using standard 8GB DVDs has prevented many games from being larger than they could have been. Some games even shipped on multiple discs, others had content cut and massively compressed textures just to squeeze by. Games could have been 20GB+ years ago.

We can't expect games to increase in visual fidelity and at the same time be pissed that the games take up more digital space. Seriously. I see people bitch and whine about how some games don't look as good as they should, or that their textures or so low resolution and blah blah blah. And then when games are getting as big as they are now people are whining about how they take up so much space, and how they are using up all their bandwidth.

The bandwidth issue isn't unique to just video games either. It has a very serious effect video streaming and just general file sharing. I personally find my internet service to be better than what most people in the US get. But, I honestly don't know of any major US based ISPs that still have data caps. IIRC, Comcast removed their monthly data caps within the last year, but I could be wrong on that. If it is still the case that there are major ISPs throttling bandwidth and setting caps on data then that is what people need to be pissed about.

February 26, 2014 | 12:16 AM - Posted by biohazard918

AT&T for one they have a 150gb cap on dsl service and 250gb on uverse. They charge you for overages 10 dollars for every 50gb you go over. I had dsl with them up until last November and every month my bill was on average 20 to 30 bucks higher due to overages. Many providers have data caps but as far as I know at&t is the only major isp to enforce them. I'm with cox now and most months I go well over my 300gb cap. All they do is send me an email saying that they are happy I am getting so much value out of my internet connection and that they think I would be better served by a higher speed tier. That said data caps do impact people even when unenforced many people reduce usage to stay under them. Also this is for wired service god help you if you are in area where satellite is your only option for broadband you are talking about 140 dollars or so for 40 gigabytes worth of data.

February 26, 2014 | 02:11 AM - Posted by NamelessTed

I stand corrected in regards to some of the US ISP practices. I had heard AT&T was bad but I didn't realize they sucked that much. I personally have Cox and wasn't aware of any sort of soft data caps on their end. I don't recall ever receiving any emails from them informing me that i had used too much bandwidth in any given month. It could just be that I don't go over 300GB.

February 25, 2014 | 05:48 PM - Posted by biohazard918

Hum if this is going to be typical I may need to get a larger hard drive fortunately 3tb hard drives have gotten quite cheap. This could be interesting for console gamers as the ps4 only allows games to be installed to the internal drive and the largest 2.5in drive is currently 1.5tb or less than 30 games xbox can handle this a little better due to external drives but its still sub optimal. I'm left wondering why the console makers opted for 2.5 inch drives there doesn't seem to be any cost savings a 500gb 2.5 drive costs about what a 3.5in 1tb drive does.

February 25, 2014 | 06:23 PM - Posted by Jim cherry (not verified)

my guess is they had a contract for a large amount of 500gb drives a few years back and rather doing a new contract and canceling an order that had already been started they decided to wait for those contracts to end and do new skus on a new order of high capacity drives.

February 25, 2014 | 06:12 PM - Posted by Growler (not verified)

Folks, check out steammover. I use it to move all my games to and from my ssd (when playing) and hard drive (library storage). It's simple to use and a lifesaver!

February 25, 2014 | 06:12 PM - Posted by JohnGR (not verified)

Are we talking about PCs here? So where is the problem? There are 1-2-3 or more TBs disks out there. You really need everything on an SSD? Why? If you feel it is so much necessary to put everything on an SSD, then start shouting at the companies that sell SSDs to drop the prices, or sell your house and buy 1TB capacity or more on SSDs to run your games faster. You do pay hundreds of dollars for the most expensive Nvidia cards and the fastest Intel cpus while at the same time laughing at AMD don't you? So stop winning for a few extra GBs.
(this post is not addressed to the author, but in general)

February 25, 2014 | 06:19 PM - Posted by JohnGR (not verified)

edit: stop whining

February 25, 2014 | 06:19 PM - Posted by Cristian (not verified)

Sorry, but I think 48GB it's alot of nothing. Where's the optimization in code? I doubt that's all about textures, because seriously, 48GB of image data it's ALOT of data, just imagine a full 18 MEGAPixel image inside an 5 Mb JPEG. Code, 3d maps and other stuff should keep small. Someone explain me this idiotic size please...

February 25, 2014 | 07:44 PM - Posted by Brian Meredith (not verified)

"Origin, at the moment, forces all games to be installed in a single directory (albeit that can be anywhere)"

It doesn't force you to install to a single directory. For example I have BF3 on my HDD and BF4 on my SSD. You just have to change what directory you install to before downloading the game. It isn't as easy as Steams way of doing it but it's not impossible to install to multiple directories on Origin.

February 25, 2014 | 08:36 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud


February 25, 2014 | 09:13 PM - Posted by Brian Meredith (not verified)

Yes sir

February 26, 2014 | 05:54 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

you couldn't a year ago but I discovered that you could after wanting BF4 to go on to my ssd and other games to a older HD

February 26, 2014 | 01:06 AM - Posted by snook

that's what I do also. thanks for making the post.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.