this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
793 points (98.7% liked)

196

17609 readers
865 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

There's a simple conflict of interest here: with a game that big, you can install fewer games. You don't want to uninstall it since it's so big, and sometimes your friends want to play it. So you keep it installed and play it more often.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Welllll… everything in software development is trade-offs.

It’s honestly pretty rare that one solution is unequivocally “better” than another, across every dimension you might care about (which includes non-technical things).

The kinds of egregious defects you might think of as brazen incompetence or laziness are more often the result of everyone (technical and non-technical alike) refusing the actively pursue one side of a trade-off and hoping that the devs can just “nerd harder”.

Technical constraints as in the case of the N64 example can actually help avoid the “just nerd harder” fallacy, because they prompt serious discussions about what you can and can’t compromise on.

Ironically, when we sit here as users and complain about games not being optimized in this way or that, we’re also refusing to engage in a conversation about trade-offs and insisting that devs just “nerd harder”.

Edit: That’s not to provide any excuses for the blatant financialization of the industry which prompts the whole “don’t trade off anything, just have them nerd harder” mindset… but to warn yall that even if the market wasn’t ruled by greedy suits, we would probably still be feeling like old games managed to do more with less, cuz well… trading away 500MB of bundle size so you can get better logging of resource management in production wasn’t really an option.

[–] Lumiluz@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

Ok but like, Kirby and the Forgotten Land Switch 2 edition + DLC is going to be 1mb smaller than the Switch 1 version without the DLC

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Welllll… everything in software development is trade-offs.

Trade offs between "let's release this unfinished piece of junk NOW" and "let's spend couple of months more and ensure the code is optimised and without major bugs".

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 18 hours ago

...and then there's Star Citizen...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SoupBrick@pawb.social 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mmmmmm, shareholder profits.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have the suspicion it's not even about shareholder profits, it's use dumb/useless metrics of success.

It's the equivalent of measuring a programmer's productive output in number of lines of code written. It leads to code like this:

Something similar happens with storage space: It is wasted unnecessarily because media designers are paid for "high definition" assets.

[–] SoupBrick@pawb.social 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I was more of thinking the company prioritizing a yearly release schedule with little to no money/man power invested in optimization. Money not spent on the game is money to sate the shareholders.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I really like efficient code, and that includes memory and storage-efficiency.

Luanti, where i run a server rn, uses less than 1 GB of storage space for a huge world, and i think the whole program code for all of mineclonia+the core luanti engine only uses sth like 30 MB. it's really storage-efficient.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I looked up luanti. Perfect time to get into writing mods again lmao.

[–] applemao@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Yet another thing awesome on luanti. My friends aren't convinced it's minecraft and say it's a rip off just buy the Microsoft one and im like , no fuck Microsoft not doin it.

[–] KiwiTB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Ignores the 300 gig is largely already heavily compressed saving you terabytes of space

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ignores the 300 gig are made up of partially duplicates assets to improve loading times on shit drives.

[–] KiwiTB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's been a common method since CDs first showed up.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

So? Still makes the games way bigger than necessary!

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

Yeah, high def assets aren't exactly light on disk space.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kruhmaster@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

I'm having an absolute blast jumping between zombies, hardcore Stakeout 24/7 and prop hunt.

I chose the path of fun ✌️😌

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›