Printable View
From what i remember, Starcraft 2 Beta Client starts with 1.5GB,then, on present day with 1.15 patch, the game has grown to a disgustingly huge game that takes 9.77GB.
My computer has limited space,and deleting other games isnt an option as im still playing them.
So,the question is, is it safe to delete some of the older versions of the game in the Starcraft 2 Beta/Base Versions to cut down the sizes?
I dont watch older replays,and those older versions arent needed.
Moved to the StarCraft 2 Discussion forum because issues with the game do not belong in the Issues/Feedback forum. The latter forum is for issues and/or feedback regarding the site.
Not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesenium
But, you could try moving the folders of the older versions out of your Starcraft 2 folder, and see if it works :)
Well you know you can get a lot more memory for really cheap now. I'm fully updated and I only show as 8.88g. I forget but don't the replays take up a far amount of memory if you don't delete them?
I have the game taking up about 9.7g and I just installed it onto my new laptop 2 days ago.
If you are having a problem with space you could always pick up an external hard drive (for relatively cheap) to put some games on. My old laptop used to have 120g hard drive which was then partitioned into half for linux and half for windows. I didnt even have enough room to install a single game when all was said an done.
Picked up a 500 gb external and installed SC II beta straight on to it and it worked like a charm.
Putting game on an external drive is far from optimal, your loading time will be really long. I got raid 0 with 150mb/s and the first loading is somehow long. When you long the graphic on extreme you have to load 1.5G in ram, the data transfert on an external hard drive will be awful.
Consider buying another internal drive, if you don't have a portable.
In the age of 500GB for 40$ it's hard to sympathize with you even though I had a 30GB HD up until 2007. Still, if you need to, just delete the versions of SC2 that you aren't using. You'll still be able to play Battle.net just without replays for past versions. The version folder is basically 16+ versions of the same core files.
The only thing that's really annoying for me is that it puts files like the replays and maps in the My Documents folder, which is on my computer's system partition. I realize that it's meant to help people find their maps and replays easily, but I'd rather be able to choose where that stuff goes — anywhere but C:\
I must admit, keep the entire vore file of every version is not the cutest way to enable retrocompatibility of replays...
I hope they are working on something less demanding on space. Will it be 30G after 2 years and 10 patch + single player? And after expansion, 45G ? They need a way to make this work better.
The replays are pretty small. My biggest one is 500k, and most are around 200k. I suppose if you've played thousands of games, though, they'll add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandilorordo
I agree. What others have said is true, hard drives are cheap these days. However, I don't think that gives license to every game company to throw a 1 GB file onto my hard drive every time they want to update 1 MB of game data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gt2slurp
It's pretty much the only way to ensure replay compatibility with older versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobit
Unfortunately, that is the price.
If you want all your replays, you'll need all the versions.
Almost 10gb? That's a I call a real game. Yeahhhh
I'm not much of a programmer, but it seems like they should be able to modularize the code. If I make a simple program, it's going to consist of several subroutines or functions. I can change one of these functions without messing with the rest of the code. I can easily envision swapping in the changed code and leaving the rest untouched. If someone wants to run an old version of the program, it's not hard to picture plugging the old function back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hav0x
The only difference with SC2 is that of scale. They may not have planned it to be modular, though, and if that's the case, you're right. It would then probably require a large amount of rewriting of the code.
They've got to come up with something better. Even a 500GB HD will be crippled by StarCraft 2 if it keeps up this way. This method is probably just a hastily put together way for beta, I mean really, it should be fairly easy just to have all core files put to the same redundant files instead of copying them.
Your My Documents folder can be moved.Quote:
The only thing that's really annoying for me is that it puts files like the replays and maps in the My Documents folder, which is on my computer's system partition.
Functions are not free-standing objects. Even in source code, functions tend to be packaged inside of files that contain many functions. And when you're talking about compiled executables, that's many functions from many files. Millions of lines of code.Quote:
If I make a simple program, it's going to consist of several subroutines or functions. I can change one of these functions without messing with the rest of the code. I can easily envision swapping in the changed code and leaving the rest untouched. If someone wants to run an old version of the program, it's not hard to picture plugging the old function back.
You maybe can break certain related code up into DLLs. But even then, your best granularity between them is at the DLL level.
However, you might notice that the SC2 executable+DLLs aren't anywhere near 1GB. So obviously there's a lot more going on than just replicating code. The unit definitions have to be retained, so that they have the exact same behavior. Animations need to be retained. Probably textures and models too, assuming that a patch can alter these.
How many versions of SC2 do you expect there to be in 5 years? There have been 16 versions of SC1. Assuming 2 GB per version, that's 32GB.Quote:
Even a 500GB HD will be crippled by StarCraft 2 if it keeps up this way.
Not a lot.
Get rid of early versions. Replay won't even be valid since the game will be so different upon release.
So every time there's a new patch you're basically re-downloading the game eh? I think the beta builds won't be present in the retail version, unless someone wants to manually put it into the folder.
I think for people who don't care about replays, this kind of thing should be optional - meaning when you update the game, the updater asks if you want to preserve the previous build for viewing replays. Unless they can find a better way to optimize the patches, the user should have the option to download previous versions of the game if he plans on saving replays. Since that's a very small percentage this shouldn't be a default thing.
Not even close to redownloading the game for each patch. Regardless:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...21561&sid=5000
"When the second phase of beta begins shortly before the release of the game it will include a new patch. This patch will be removing all previous version folders. Any replays created during the first phase of the beta will no longer be viewable once the next phase begins. "
Even 32GB is a monstrous amount if you have a decent size collection of MP3, video, or game collection. For me, StarCraft 2 isn't really an install and reinstall kind of game. It's the kind of game that stays on a HD until it dies. If the game were to be 32GB it would be a problem on 500GB. Besides, I said "at this rate" which is a very important keyword that you obviously missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Well ok, its 7.6 gb for all patches, so each patch is ~600mb. Regardless, it looks like we won't have to worry about space anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRabidDeer
32 GB is child's play if you have a 1TB HD, which is already becoming relatively inexpensive. Even if sc2 w/ replays is around that size that's less than 3% of total HD space available.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
You can get more harddrives, you know. I have 3.5TB of storage space on a dedicated WHS machine. My main computers have 500GB drives each, solely for local storage and games.Quote:
Even 32GB is a monstrous amount if you have a decent size collection of MP3, video, or game collection.
The size won't really matter. Beta is going to go in a couple days, then come back. Once the game is released, you won't need the beta, you can't really use it. This is beta, its only so big because they are still trying things out.
If you're seriously concerned that a game is taking up 10GB of space then you need to update your computer or storage capacity at least. This is what happens when time moves on, technology moves forward. :P
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136517
$59.99
800GB
7.5 cents per gigabyte.
Therefore 10gb = 75c worth of storage. Shesh...
Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant facts like "you can get more space because HDs are cheap" or "There's HDs bigger than 500GB". I already agreed with these statement before they were said in my first post in this topic. What does that have to do with the statement that "At this rate, a 500GB will be crippled (NOTE: Not filled up) by these patches"?
All I'm saying is that 32GB is nothing to sneeze at even on a 500GB. I never said it would somehow make it impossible to have other things on it.
Well guys, i have tried deleting all the older versions. The game still works but older replays will not play. I have played like 10 games on it and no problems so far.
I wont want to get a brand new hard disk because im waiting for funds to replace my laptop. 9.77GB wont be a problem for you, but it will be a problem with other people who have limited space,ie: me.
It means that if you're concerned that if you have a 500GB HDD and a game using 2% of that is too much then the game isn't your concern, your personal space requirements are not being met by your current hardware and there's very cheap ways out there to drastically increase your storage capacity to meet those needs. The fact that SC2 is 10GB is the only irrelevant fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
WC3 has community made version changers that do what the SC2 BETA client is doing.
This is just a case of Blizzard taking cues from the community for game features.
I'm glad its integrated so i don't have to find an app that does it and I would gladly trade disk space for the feature.
OT, its good to know that we can remove the files without breaking the game.
I bet if you compress the files in 1 ZIP or RAR file, it would shrink down nicely. There should be lots of repeating code in each version which compression programs love.
I wasn't referring to your comments but if you're aiming them at mine then they are completely irrelevant. All I'm saying is that a 32GB game is ridiculous and would take up a large portion of the HD that would have a noticeable impact on a 500GB HD if you have MP3 and other things. If StarCraft 2 weren't the kind of game that you always keep installed then it would be a non-issue after all Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 both take up almost 30GB in and of themselves and I see no problem with that. 'Nuff saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Maul
Though I'm quoting you Mr Lee I'm not necessarily directing at you. If there was a problemQuote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
(http://danjlovesthe90s.files.wordpre...anilla-ice.jpg)
here are the two logical solutions:
1. Get more space or manage your current solution better
2. Ask Blizzard to cut things from the game
So, you're saying the logical solution for using a 500GB is to get more HDs that you won't use? You're not understanding. Let me reiterate what's happening. I specifically said a 500GB HD and I said what you said before you even came to this topic. Why are you acting like I disagree with you or didn't think of it? I have two 500GB in RAID right now. What I'm saying is that 32GB is nothing to sneeze at even on a 500GB. I never said it was hard to manage, get more space, or any of the things you did. All I'm saying is that 32GB is a ridiculous amount for a game even on 500GB.
I never said:
1) HDs were expensive or hard to get. (Everyone knows how to get HDs :D)
2) 32GB in and of itself was a lot of space. (I just said it's an amount to be considered for optimizing)
3) 500GB didn't give you enough space to have anything with a 32GB game.
All of these things are things that you thought I said and I can't figure out why because I've gone out of my way to show you that I never said these things. In fact, I said these things before you even came into this topic. It was my first post in here :D The ability to get more HDs is irrelevant because I said "on a 500GB" which is as crucial as "at this rate" which most people keep missing for some reason. What you're doing is looking at this from a "solve the problem" perspective which I already know how to do as I've already done it myself and hinted at it in my first post here. I'm looking at this from a "this is why Blizzard should fix this" perspective which is why you look to fixing the problem while I seek to speak why it needs to be fixed. I hope this finally clears this up.
But I don't believe Blizzard should fix the amount of space the game uses because there is nothing to fix. Games are becoming more sophisticated and require more space. The only way Blizzard could change the size the game requires is to cut features, which is not good in my eyes.
Im guessing you deleted a couple of "BaseXXXXX" folders in the "Version" folder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesenium
You deleted all of them up to but not including "Base 15580"?
ME2 is less then twenty gigs, nor 30 : p
Ah ha! So there's the confusion. Glad we found it. The game takes so much space because there's 16+ plus different copies of the same 600MB-800MB core files in each version folder. All Blizzard has to do is find someway to only need one for each. The game files themselves only take up about 2GB. If they were all necessary content then I would glady desire 32GB+. Hell, I'd love some uncompressed video for 300GB+ :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Maul
@newcomplex: I said Mass Effect AAANNNDDD Mass Effect 2. For the games themselves, that's 13GB and 12GB according to my installation directories. That's full patched but with no DLC.
I think the core files are kept for the backward compatibility for replays, which should include all models/sounds/etc for the state of the game for each prior patch. This should be important for someone who archives every game they play. :P There certainly should be a way to optimise this to only use the data that's changed. I think it's a good compromise however, seeing if you watch a 1.11 BW game on the current release it either won't load or be bugged. I don't want this to happen in SC2.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
The space used will only get larger too, I imagine, with all the singleplayer data, cinematics and whatever other goodies they're keeping from us.
Old StarCraft: Brood War replays could be watched by switching executables. There's third party programs which automatically changes the .exe to the patch you need so it's easy to do this. Blizzard is just making a way to do it without changing executables so that the less computer literate people can do it automatically. Basically, there's no reason for the current StarCraft 2 method other than not having implemented another method yet. I'm sure they will though. They haven't done it yet because they have infinitely more important things to worry about right now.