Is it? Pathfinder seems more like the exception than the rule. I've got a big library on GoG and none of my games even reach a quarter of the 200 MB limit.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Should probably have been more clear that it's extremely small for pathfinder. And since GOG is setting a global limit and they are selling pathfinder on their storefront, their global limit is too small.

[–] HornyOnMain@fedia.io 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I'd more argue that the game company should be finding ways to reduce their save file size. 1GB seems ludicrous, though I don't know the system enough to know the technical reasons behind that. This is still a strange business decision for GOG as they don't have the market share to move the needle, the games affected will just sell less on their store until the game company doesn't even bother with it.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

While I do agree that Owlcat could do a better job with their save file system, from the point of view of the consumers it shouldn't be their problem. If GOG sell their games and offer cloud sync, they should provide adequate amount of space. Storage is relatively cheap.

[–] HornyOnMain@fedia.io 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Are you forgetting the files are also taking up space on the consumers drives?

Edit: additionally, larger save file size typically(but definitely not always) means longer loading times. There are tangible consumer benefits to reducing save file size.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood me, I never claimed that excessive file size can't be a problem for the end user. I was saying that in regards to cloud save, large file sizes shouldn't be a problem for the end user. It's a problem GOG should take up with the developers they allow selling on their storefront with GOG's advertised feature set.

I'd like to challenge you on that edit of yours though. On an SSD the time it takes to load a save file into memory is negligible, and in almost all cases less than the game assets the game loads up when you start a game. The complexity of the game world is the dominant factor.

[–] HornyOnMain@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago

Fair points for both, we're on the same page for the first point. GOG should be doing exactly that to mitigate the issue, and hope they have been but haven't been as successful with that technique. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for it.

For the second, I agree that the majority of the issue are the storage space themselves, the others are tangential concerns. To me, a company that struggles to limit their file size has a poor take on how they implement features, it's a red flag that there are likely much bigger performance issues with the code. One doesn't mean the other has to exist of course, but they show up together fairly often.

I'm personally tired of game companies just throwing shit at the wall and not caring about the performance. They (well AA and bigger companies mainly) seem to have completely lost interest in doing anything other than the bare minimum. Does it work on the absolute latest hardware? Must be good to ship.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Save files have a ton of variance. They can be as small as a few KB or they can be full save states of an entire open world. Back in the mid 00s, I had save file folders that were larger than the install directory, like The Witcher and Prey (2006).