They need 15% of that space.
It isn’t about the drives or if people can afford a certain size SSD (although that matters more than you are admitting). It’s about asking better of people and companies responsible for destroying over a decade of hardware advancement due to bad optimization (to save money), overly-abstracted frameworks (to save money), and improper handling of assets (to save money).
They made a mistake in not prioritizing this, they fixed it and admitted there was a problem. That’s good. What isn’t good is people polishing their knobs as if the devs did this out of the goodness of their heart. They didn’t, they were losing players because people were speaking with time and money. Just like you wanted. Just like people in this thread are doing.
But glancing through your other replies I’ll just stop here. May your drive space remain vast, and your tolerance for badly-optimized software remain stronger than mine.
Holy shit, ok I’ll state it yet again and then I’m done. For the 3rd time, this isn’t about who can afford what drives or who has what drives or what drives exist in our universe. Pretend drives doesn’t exist if that is easier because the drives don’t matter. Drive space is a symptom of the underlying issue.
This is about the near universal trend of software companies destroying a decade plus of hardware performance gains because they refuse to properly optimize their software. Full stop. Anything else is a side effect of not properly optimizing things. The drive type arguments, drive space arguments…they disappear once the fundamental issue (optimization) is addressed.
Holding these companies accountable is how this gets fixed. It’s how this particular instance got fixed. This thread wouldn’t even exist if these weren’t legitimate complaints because the devs wouldn’t have bothered with this round of size reduction if there wasn’t a problem affecting their bottom line.