Friday, April 7th 2023
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor PC Install Size is Daunting at 155 GB
Electronic Arts has updated the listings for PC system requirements for Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, and the gaming community has reacted to the refresh of the game's minimum installation storage requisite. It calls for a whopping 155 GB of disk space, for the base game alone, not including the expected routine of patches and extra story content (via DLC). The publisher suggests that an SSD is best used for an optimal in-game experience. The slightly older PC requirements specified a minimum of 150 GB for HDDs, and 130 GB for SSDs.
As it stands, the Respawn Entertainment developed action adventure game has one of the larger minimum storage requirements among modern titles - all the more surprising given that it will offer a relatively short and linear single player experience. Current installations of the PC version of Red Dead Redemption 2 will occupy 150 GB of disk space. Jedi: Fallen Order (2019), Survivor's preceding title in the series, demands a comparatively modest install base of 55 GB. It will be interesting to observe whether Jedi: Survivor will drive sales of larger storage solutions - in the recent past, gamers have scrambled to acquire higher capacity SSDs and HDDs in order to accommodate the ever-growing installations and content drops required to play the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare series.
The Steam page for the game has been revised with the up-to-date specification requirements, as of the time of writing these read:
MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: 4 core / 8 threads | Intel Core i7-7700 | Ryzen 5 1400
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: 8 GB VRAM | GTX 1070 | Radeon RX 580
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 155 GB available space
RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: 4 core / 8 threads | Intel Core i5 11600K | Ryzen 5 5600X
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: 8 GB VRAM | RTX 2070 | RX 6700 XT
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 155 GB available space
Additional Notes (for both sets): Internet required for non-optional patching, no online play.
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor will be available on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows PC on April 28th, 2023.
Sources:
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Steam Page, Game Informer
As it stands, the Respawn Entertainment developed action adventure game has one of the larger minimum storage requirements among modern titles - all the more surprising given that it will offer a relatively short and linear single player experience. Current installations of the PC version of Red Dead Redemption 2 will occupy 150 GB of disk space. Jedi: Fallen Order (2019), Survivor's preceding title in the series, demands a comparatively modest install base of 55 GB. It will be interesting to observe whether Jedi: Survivor will drive sales of larger storage solutions - in the recent past, gamers have scrambled to acquire higher capacity SSDs and HDDs in order to accommodate the ever-growing installations and content drops required to play the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare series.
MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: 4 core / 8 threads | Intel Core i7-7700 | Ryzen 5 1400
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: 8 GB VRAM | GTX 1070 | Radeon RX 580
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 155 GB available space
RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: 4 core / 8 threads | Intel Core i5 11600K | Ryzen 5 5600X
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: 8 GB VRAM | RTX 2070 | RX 6700 XT
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 155 GB available space
Additional Notes (for both sets): Internet required for non-optional patching, no online play.
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor will be available on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows PC on April 28th, 2023.
70 Comments on Star Wars Jedi: Survivor PC Install Size is Daunting at 155 GB
What ever we like it or not. Games Will only get bigger and bigger, hence why I have 8 TB of dedicated ssd storage for games alone for my two PCs combined. 4 tb for each machine.
If it all goes wrong, I can ad additional up to 50 tb of hdd storage. Minus the hdd space all ready in use.
So I'm good for a while. It feels like yesterday that gta san Andreas that was a huge game for its time with massive 5 gb of data...
Physical media isn't a constraint anymore so devs don't care about compressing files and polishing maps and models, a grass texture is 5GB? might as well add it anyway, not like anyone will complain, gamers will just buy larger SSDs as copium.
It's all about releasing new games FAST, focusing on multiplayer to keep whatever fad is going on alive and milk gamers with microtransactions and premium servers.
In general once I beat a game a uninstall it (if it's a single player game with not much replayability in my mind).
Granted, I made sure I have enough storage for as many games as I realistically want to play, but if I get close to filling up my storage I'm just going to uninstall the games that don't interest me anymore because I have an Unlimited download cap (which I pay $25/month for with Comcast) and fast enough download speeds I can just re-download in minutes if I want to play a game years from now.
The story, the scenery/environment/design/aesthetics, OST, animation, voice acting etc. make a game interesting.
BF1 80+GB, BFV 90+GB, God of War 65GB, A Plague Tale Requiem 47GB!, 50-70 the rest of them etc. etc.
If I remember correctly the Fallen Order was about 50.
It's normal for a big title (ex. RDR2) to exceed 100GB but the Survivor doesn't seem or it's very unlikely to have the size or the mechanics or even the graphics like any of the aforementioned games.....
There are some competitors at 4TB size now, you can finally get a usefull fast SSD for about the same money (like Kingston NV2, Crucial P3)... But there is no competition at 8TB size. And I was hoping I could finally abandon the spinning disks, but it's not even in plans, 3 years after we got 870 QVO...
By my estimation, it will take my connection about 8.8 hours (if the missus isn't watching Youtube in the living room, which she will be).
We can make it big, pretty and fast, but we can't make it small without either sacrificing a lot of the pretty or a lot of the fast.
This isn't really a "lazy devs" equation in it's entirety. Some of it just can't be helped. Thar being said, 155GB does seem like their asset management is using little packaging at all, which is a big no no. But I'm only guessing.