Titanfall requires 48GB of storage

Titanfall may be one of the biggest PC games of the year—literally. Vince Zampella, co-founder of Titanfall developer Respawn Entertainment, revealed on Twitter that the game will have a massive 48GB installation footprint. The compressed download alone will weigh in at 21GB, making Titanfall much larger than any other PC game I’ve seen.

To put things into perspective, consider that Battlefield 4 consumes only about 29GB of storage. Max Payne 3 requires 35GB, which is still 13GB short of Titanfall. Otherwise, the biggest game I can find is Call of Duty: Ghosts, whose system requirements call for 40GB of storage.

On the one hand, Titanfall‘s massive install footprint could be a good thing. A lot of really big PC games feature upgraded art assets, including higher-resolution textures, that make the environments look much better. I suspect most gamers would be willing to swallow a heftier install in exchange for improved visuals. Titanfall does look very pretty, after all.

At the same time, however, Titanfall‘s size could be frustrating for SSD users with limited solid-state storage. Sure, folks can run the game off mechanical drives, which provide plenty of gigabytes on the cheap. But once you get used to the faster load times that SSDs provide, it’s hard to go back to sluggish spinning platters. If Titanfall is this huge, I don’t imagine its load times are particularly short.

The good news is that solid-state storage is pretty cheap these days. 240GB drives are available for as little as $136 right now, and 1TB models can be had for just under $500.

Comments closed
    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    Nevermind the fact this game is multiplayer-only, too, so there’s no COD-style “interactive movie” to be found anywhere.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]I dont see how just a dozen multiplayer maps in an FPS could take up nearly 50GB of storage.[/quote<] Because [i<]EA[/i<].

    • jihadjoe
    • 9 years ago

    Well a two-hour bluray is about 25GB…
    =)

    • Crackhead Johny
    • 9 years ago

    Nothing new. We have been seeing this and will see it forever. As storage gets bigger and cheaper, games and OSs get bigger.
    We remember when the first games came out which required more than 1 CD. We remember when we first filled our amazing 1GB “OMG no one could fill a whole Gig!!” hard drives.

    I will not be shocked if bigger footprint games than this come out this year; the year is still young. What is the footprint of a full WoW install (including mods) these days? How big will it be after next xpac? How big will Titanfall be after all the DLC? 100GB? If they are friendly towards user created content, how big? How much bigger was Q2 at the end of its run (with all the created content), compared to release install?

    In 10 years will we see 1/2T install games? If we do, no one will be shocked.
    At some point we will need new install media unless everything goes digital distribution. “Please insert Blu Ray #17 to continue install.” is not going to make people happy (or at least it didn’t with “please insert floppy # 47 to continue OS install” back in the day). “OMG why didn’t they put this on CD?!” > “OMG why didn’t they put this on DVD?!” > “OMG why didn’t they put this on Blu Ray?!” > future.

    • daviejambo
    • 9 years ago

    I just install games on a HDD , I don’t think installing them on the SDD makes much of a difference tbh

    I’ve got 120meg internet too so this is not a problem really

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    A TROLL??? YOU DON’T SAY???

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    lol…

    • crabjokeman
    • 9 years ago

    Ah, yes. If you’re a troll and you’re being called out as such, resort to Caps Lock and 4-chan style retarded misspelling for maximum annoyance factor. Way to go…

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    48GiB and still another 6-8 hours interactive movie…..

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    WUTS UR POINT? I STILL RIGHT.

    • ColeLT1
    • 9 years ago

    You are right, this weekend is the 5th beta for me. And I think I am skipping it, we only played it for a few hours on the first night on the last beta and gave up. I have lost interest the closer it gets to release. I also am not a MMO fan, nor do I plan on touching the game again until it is F2P.

    • crabjokeman
    • 9 years ago

    Downvoted because you have more hot air than the planet Venus, and everyone knows it.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    From what I’ve read, they went through a ridiculous number of redraws by trying things out. I don’t think working with the engine ‘too early’ is much of a point. It’s entirely possible to port assets too.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    Why do you believe this? It’s entirely possible to make buildings destructible, but not to the point where titans could move through them.

    • Sunburn74
    • 9 years ago

    I think you can. Everyday we make determinations of where our money should go based on value at that time. Should I buy this shirt? Or splurge a bit on fancy ice cream? Or run my car through a car wash? Or maybe get a new lamp for my desk? (all of those things can cost approx 20 dollars). Your brain doesn’t suddenly scream “No just compare the value of this shirt to just other shirts and nothing else”. At least my brain doesn’t work that way.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    from what i’ve played it wouldn’t. they could make certain things destructible and others not. it could have been fine.

    • LostCat
    • 9 years ago

    As far as I know EA acquired them after they’d already been working with the engine. I have no idea how much was already done.

    • nanoflower
    • 9 years ago

    I disagree. A destructible environment would cause major problems for Titans on some maps and similar issues for pilots on the other maps. What I have seen in watching game play shows a good balance of open areas and buildings pilots and support can move through. That would be impacted by a destructible environment.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    Considerable amount of work… You make it sound like EA acquired them out of the blue.

    • LostCat
    • 9 years ago

    If they already had a considerable amount of work done in Source…not really.

    I’m sure they wish they could’ve.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]"Geoff clearly is referring to the historical trend in SSD prices."[/quote<] No he ain't. D'uh.

    • dmjifn
    • 9 years ago

    Groan. Seriously?

    First, the last paragraph of the news post doesn’t fail on the grounds of income bias. Geoff clearly is referring to the historical trend in SSD prices. Broadly comparing today’s SSD prices vs. prices from a year or two ago, it’s an appropriate and accurate conclusion.

    Second, it’s pretty rich to slam Sunburn74’s subjectivity with your own. I think what you mean is “I don’t like that you are so nonchalant about the price of things”. Why take it out on the the validity of his comparisons? Speaking as someone who buys PC trinkets every few months but wears the same sketchers every day until the soles are separating from the uppers – I know you can compare an SSD purchase to shoes. I do it a few times a year.

    • Haserath
    • 9 years ago

    I save money by buying one big shoe and putting both feet in it.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    It does really make you wonder why they didn’t go with FB though…

    • Laykun
    • 9 years ago

    Isn’t asset usage up to the artists who design the levels and place the assets in it? Aren’t they also the one that apply compression to what ever assets they make? This is not the job of programmers, programmers set the budgets and it’s the artists job to fit as much into that allocated budget as possible.

    If space on physical hardware was not an issue you wouldn’t have video cards with hardware decoding for compressed texture formats. How much memory do you think 10gb of uncompressed assets takes up? That’s right, 10 GB. How much memory does your video card have? That’s right less than 10 GB. It doesn’t matter what platform you’re on memory and the bandwidth to use it is always an issue for playable frame rates. You don’t appreciate the special effort programmers go to to squeeze as much out of your hardware as they can.

    • Laykun
    • 9 years ago

    Interesting, I am fact incarnate, as I have just stated, fact. You are not fact incarnate, fact.

    • Farting Bob
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]a shoe costs 60-100 dollars[/quote<] And to make it worse, they insist you buy 2 of them!

    • LostCat
    • 9 years ago

    Source to Frostbite – Titanfall Forever! Coming soon (fifteen years later) to a PC near you!

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    I think SSK makes a point out of this (if a bit of sarcasm). They do use a ancient engine for this game. While the game is fun, it’s really interesting why they didn’t go with the Frostbite engine as they should’ve easily been able to work it out through the company. This game really deserves a destructible environment and would be a huge show case for the Frostbite engine.

    It really is a damn shame as I found this game to have extremely solid game play (despite a few cheesy things in game like the shotgun-auto-aim kick and the smart pistol). It would’ve actually been much more concise show case as making a game like BF4 completely destructible almost impossible due to the size and scope of the game. This literally is a perfect example of where destruction would’ve been a great asset.

    I can only chalk the size up to the ancient engine it’s on. Having played the game, it really is quite pretty… but it doesn’t look like 48GB worth of pretty, especially after having played BF4.

    I’m all for bigger installs, but this makes you question where all the bits are going to… Although the game supposedly ships with 15 maps… so this could be all going towards different environments.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    Yup… confusingly so, they are a developer that works for EA, which means they should be able to get the Frostbite engine on the cheap… And really after playing Battlefield 4, you at least expect the lamp posts to tip over when you slide into them with you 100 ton Titan.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    For a fair comparison, always use the same type of good. You can’t truthfully compare an SSD purchase to a dinner or shoes. The phone comparison comes closest but at 600 dollars you get relatively quite high-end phones and again that’s not fair, considering too many people can’t afford that and there are tons of phones and/or phone contracts that cost a fraction of that.

    So we’re back to where we started, you use your own income to measure other people’s habits and that’s where you (and the last paragraph of this news post) fail.

    • Klimax
    • 9 years ago

    Another solution is WD Black. (It can get close to 100MB/s sequential, which is common for games)
    Another is Velociraptor.
    Or get Flash/HDD combined drives…

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 9 years ago

    Downvoted for truth.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 9 years ago

    I agree with your assessment 100%. Source engine on current games is ugly and cumbersome. I refuse to play the game because I hate the game engine for this genre.

    I still have to give you a -1!

    • Sunburn74
    • 9 years ago

    Meh,
    Put the cost in perspective to other things you pay for in life.

    When a night out to dinner with the wife is 70 dollars, a shoe costs 60-100 dollars, an airplane ticket costs $250 dollars, a good winter jacket costs 100-300 dollar, a cellphone is $600 dollars up front in addition to a 50-70 dollar per month service fee, a 500 gig SSD for $250 doesn’t seem so bad.

    • floodo1
    • 9 years ago

    as long as people keep paying for them 🙁

    • fhohj
    • 9 years ago

    I disagree. I don’t think that FPS games should necessarily be always trying to include some kind of singleplayer element. Some of the best FPSes had no story. If narrative is what you want you’re better off playing an RPG. If you want shooter and narrative then there are games for that too but they may not have multiplayer. This is a twitch-shooter and twitch-shooters only need multiplayer really. I think it’s good that they focused on what they want to do and not try to do too many different games in one.

    • fhohj
    • 9 years ago

    Wow.

    So Meta.

    Titan game.

    Fall on HDD.

    • jensend
    • 9 years ago

    You apparently didn’t bother reading the post I linked. Having almost a quarter of your game’s storage requirements taken up by [i<]completely unused[/i<] assets which are [i<]completely uncompressed though simple compression would have given a 10x savings[/i<] is not an artist problem. Many things that save memory and storage bandwidth during play will not save storage space, and vice versa. And if you claim "space on physical hardware is extremely limited" maybe you're an iOS developer and not a PC developer.

    • LostCat
    • 9 years ago

    Mine’s 30. You probably have LeftoverBetaFiles(tm)

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    Even so, it’s not responsible for the size of it all.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    first no. second, no. I AM FACT INCARNATE.
    SOURCE IS UGLY. CRYSIS ONE QUALITY IN 2014 IS A FAIL.
    AND MS IS BANKING ON THIS. ITS SO BAD I SAY MS IS DUMB TO LOVE IT.

    • SoM
    • 9 years ago

    48.2GB of it sucks shit

    • Laykun
    • 9 years ago

    Seeing as visuals are pure subjective you should have stated it as opinion than as fact. Try using the words “I think” or “In my opinion” for people not interpret it as fact.

    • Laykun
    • 9 years ago

    Based on no actual technical or social information what-so-ever. As a dev I think you’re pretty much completely wrong. Devs try as hard as possible to save on space since bandwidth and space on physical hardware is extremely limited. I think you can blame artists, not developers for such a massive game.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    Downvoted for what? Here we have a game that’s not pretty, it looks years old (compare to crysis 3 and see the difference) and its 48gb. New flash guys, that’s a fail.

    • Laykun
    • 9 years ago

    Graphical optimisations do not take up gigabytes of HDD space. Optimisations are generally in shader code or ordering of execution, which is generally in the range of kilobytes.

    • ColeLT1
    • 9 years ago

    I just checked my The Elder Scrolls: Online beta folder, 48.2GB!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    It’s even their entire computer (almost) via the Econobox.

    • BiffStroganoffsky
    • 9 years ago

    Sir, that is a ‘Welcome’ mat and we will remove it from the hallway if you threaten the other residents of the home one more time.

    • internetsandman
    • 9 years ago

    For about five minutes

    • NeoForever
    • 9 years ago

    It did?

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    That’s what happens when you use the awful source engine in 2014.

    • Farting Bob
    • 9 years ago

    Skyrim’s huge open world only takes about 6-8GB installed, and the HD pack they released a bit later added another 2GB to that, and with just that installed (no user mods) it looks pretty detailed.

    You can install every WoW expansion and it would take up about half the space of Titanfall, and WoW is a pretty enormous game, less detailed textures but probably an order of magnitude bigger.
    I dont see how just a dozen multiplayer maps in an FPS could take up nearly 50GB of storage.

    • ClickClick5
    • 9 years ago

    My first useful HDD was 100MB. After a fresh format, install of Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11, Office 4, I had a mind blowing 78MB free. That was enough room to save my floppy games, and install a few CD games with the middle 50/50 install option. Nothing could stop me! Look at all the BMP’s I can make in paint! And look at all the JPEG’s I can store! MWUHAHA!

    • The_ENLIGHTENED_One
    • 9 years ago

    TitanFall is awful, as bad as cod design wise, and It’s more boring than BF4. The mechanics of the game are so stiff… for how long are we gonna get the same type of games?

    • ALiLPinkMonster
    • 9 years ago

    A lot of people seem to forget what the word “beta” means. I remember playing the BF4 beta and thinking it must have been some REALLY old code, because it was quite underwhelming after seeing the trailers. Then the game itself came out and looked/felt about ten times better.

    • ALiLPinkMonster
    • 9 years ago

    … you mean MLB The Show, right? Yeah, that virtual baseball field was great. Good times.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    Also, I’d take care with applying the term “pretty cheap” to an SSD of any sort that packs 500 GB or more. Remember that the $500 you apparently label “pretty cheap” is someone else’s entire computer.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    What were they thinking?

    • dmjifn
    • 9 years ago

    I remember back when games took up a whole baseball field. We called it “baseball”! People argued over “wood-vs-aluminum”, not this namby-pamby “PCs-vs-consoles”. The only “Mantle” anyone cared about was “Mickey”! Up hill, both ways!

    • dlenmn
    • 9 years ago

    I remember back when games fit on a floppy — not the 3.5″ kind, but the kind which was actually floppy! Now get off my lawn!

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 9 years ago

    I can see that some of the things that look like time/resources compromises can bother some people, but I can also see that they may in fact be real thoughtful decisions based on good game design.

    6v6, definitely a lower number of players than we are used to, but I liked it that way. I didn’t feel like I getting shot every time I turned a corner like in large BF or CoD battles. Its a fast paced game because you are incredibly mobile as a pilot, not because there are 2 – 3 dozen enemies trying to kill you. The result is that I felt more comfortable and far less frustrated than I normally do with FPS games.

    Its a beta, I wouldn’t hang my hat on the idea that the textures and performance we saw in it are going to arrive, unchanged or largely the same, in the final product. A few months of bug fixing and optimization can go a long way.

    I also don’t think the devs have said that there were only 3 game modes in the final release. I’d expect a few more.

    The price is annoying tho. It is only a multiplayer game and they are charging a $10 premium above most PC games. But, they can, so they will. There really isn’t anything exciting coming out on PC at the moment.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    It better; MS is betting on it being a huge push for Xbone systems, and it should be relatively easy to keep both updated.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    I completely agree with what you’re saying in terms of quality suffering. Starcraft II and HoTS were the last ones for me that had the engaging single player and a great multiplayer. They’re few and far between.

    The one thing I’d like to add, though is this: there are not enough awesome single-player mech games. Lots of people didn’t really like MechAssault as a Battletech game, and I can see it compared to Mech Warrior 2 and Mech Warrior 3 especially, but I really enjoyed it as a mech run-and-gun shooter that happened to have Battletech units and factions. But now we’re talking about a 12-year-old game that was the last really good mech shooter.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t know, what was the last game (FPS or 3rdPS) that had an A level stories and A level multiplayer? Most of the time its one or the other. There have been some solid single player story games that had nice ideas for multiplayer, but normally one end or the other suffers.

    I’d probably have to go with the Halo titles (though they have massive budgets with massive teams) and maybe Bad Company 2 (though I don’t know that I’d give both elements As). Not many come to mind.

    Maybe its because I can afford more games now that I’m older, but I’ll take a rock solid single player game and a rock solid multiplayer game separately rather than demanding that I get both together, only to have one element lacking.

    I just hope Titanfall lives up to the hype. Gotta say tho, the beta gave me hope even though I had pretty much sworn off multiplayer FPS due to a major case of noob that I have.

    • larchy
    • 9 years ago

    pfft, I had to choose what I could squeeze into my 10MB games partition on my amiga 1200 harddrive. Damn you History Line 1914-18 and your RIDICULOUSLY LARGE omghuge 8MB install!

    48GB; about time use was made of all this storage for decent art assets!

    • squeeb
    • 9 years ago

    hehe

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 9 years ago

    Titanfall did not look “pretty” enough to warrant that large an install. They did something seriously wrong when they made it. There are a lot of games that look a lot better that require a lot less space and some of them are also multiplayer games. Hell, some of them have more players per server, too.

    Some have a LOT more players per server. Titanfall just screams, “I’m rushed!”

    Like Respawn needed to get the franchise off the ground, so they didn’t wait to make a single player, didn’t wait to get the netcode able to handle more than 6vs6, didn’t wait to get the AI to be something other than a complete joke, didn’t wait optimize the texture usage, didn’t wait to get more than like 8 levels, didn’t wait to get more variety in gameplay modes, didn’t wait to actually give you $60 worth of game for your $60…

    Eh. I look forward to playing it more than the beta when it hits that magic $7.50-10 price point this Fall/Holiday, if not sooner.

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 9 years ago

    That’s not going on my 120GB SSD…

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    I share your view. A powerful narrative completes the experience. The lack of it is something that weakens a brand or game. Just look at hawken.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    I remembe when that was a HDD problem.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    Low res textures in a public beta aren’t surprising.

    I expect that this game will have insanely awesome post launch support

    • Kougar
    • 9 years ago

    You young kids complaining about one game per SSD have it easy. Why back in our day I remember we had to measure each GB and gnash teeth about which [i<]games[/i<] we wanted to store on our precious SSDs.

    • slowriot
    • 9 years ago

    Single player? I mean the developers are named Respawn Entertainment for crying out loud. They’ve been developing a multiplayer only game from the start. The only thing single player would have done is take resources away from the real game. See Battlefield 4.

    • tanker27
    • 9 years ago

    Holy hell, that’s a large footprint.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 9 years ago

    From what the Devs were saying, there was still a lot of heavy graphical optimization going on while the beta was out, so things should improve in the final product. Not to mention the beta code was not terribly recent since they went for the most stable build they had.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 9 years ago

    Or awesome depending on how you look at it. I’m hoping that 48 gigs means a dozen maps as intricate and fun to fight in as the two in the beta.

    • jihadjoe
    • 9 years ago

    Yeah, since they’re already using a huge amount of disk space they might as well have used even more and made [i<]everything[/i<] high res. Modded Skyrimm out of the box would've been nice.

    • odizzido
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve seen titanfall quite a lot on the internet but never looked at it because I assume all games will be DRM trash…..but the 48gig thing interested me so I went to the wiki page and it said published by EA in the first line. I closed the wiki page.

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    its great news for me! it saves me space since i’d never get it due to no single player story. its too bad though, i really do like mech games.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    Bigger SSD……time to get one lol

    • Aveon
    • 9 years ago

    48 Gigs and still no single player story! Well that’s depressing..

    • jensend
    • 9 years ago

    Game developers are often extraordinarily wasteful of space. They’re under difficult deadline pressures, other people’s hard drive space is cheap, and they have little reason to care. [url=https://techreport.com/news/22845/max-payne-3-to-demand-35gb-of-storage?post=631845<]Here's my experience from doing some beta testing long ago.[/url<]

    • [TR]
    • 9 years ago

    Most (if not all) of Youtube’s Titanfall videos will not let you see the difference, anyway.
    I’m not saying you’re wrong. I experienced it first-hand during the Beta, going from High to Insane Texture Detail, but Youtube videos aren’t the best way to judge this.
    Some textures will obviously get more attention, but it only highlights the discrepancy when you run across the lesser examples. I’d be okay with an optional Insane Texture Pack.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]Titanfall requires 48GB of storage[/quote<] Because [i<]EA.[/i<] There's a nasty habit these days of including 25GB HD texture packs which only upgrade [i<]some[/i<] of the textures and not others. Titanfall 1080p youtube footage seems to indicate this is still true, sadly.

    • squeeb
    • 9 years ago

    I wonder why, graphics weren’t exactly groundbreaking in the open beta. Up close I saw a lot of CoD fugly going on.

    • tviceman
    • 9 years ago

    I’m not going 1+ TB for an SSD until they drop to or below $.25 per gigabyte.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 9 years ago

    I’m getting this on PC – just waiting on a last minute pre-order deal from a site like Gamefly or GMG to make my purchase. Will have to see what games it knocks off my SSD. I think Diablo III and Splinter Cell: Blacklist might get relegated to mechanical storage.

    Can’t imagine what this game will look like on Xbox 360. I can only imagine it comes with a few mandatory install discs or something.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!