Thanks for the memory: How cheap RAM changes computing

Re:Thanks for the memory: How cheap RAM changes computing by jon_richards on Monday October 17, 2016 @07:54AM (#12724228)

Titanfall is 20GB of game and 35GB of uncompressed audio (all translations).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thanks for the memory: How cheap RAM changes computing by voltagex_ on Monday October 17, 2016 @08:37AM (#12724463)

I should have a look at the PC version. Is it really PCM audio? Is it seriously not worth it to even compress with a lossless codec?

I miss the days of the PC RIP, where every byte counted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thanks for the memory: How cheap RAM changes computing by cwyers on Monday October 17, 2016 @01:03PM (#12726878)

The game is CPU-bound on some of its rendering, so reducing the load on the CPU by using uncompressed audio allowed them to maintain graphical fidelity with reduced minimum requirements in terms of CPU.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thanks for the memory: How cheap RAM changes computing by mappu on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:33PM (#12728632)

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

There are plenty of high-speed decompressors that could possibly be adapted to PCM data, though, I'm sure RAD would sell you one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thanks for the memory: How cheap RAM changes computing by jon_richards on Monday October 17, 2016 @01:47PM (#12727311)

I think there's also a healthy amount of "People think more GBs equals more content."

[ Parent | on HN ]