A recurring frustration among PC gamers is the ballooning size of modern game installations, often exceeding 150GB. One proposed solution gaining traction in developer forums suggests modular installations: separating core game components from optional elements like multiplayer modes and—crucially—offering tiered asset packs optimized for specific hardware profiles. This approach promises significant storage savings, especially for users prioritizing performance over ultra-high-fidelity visuals.

The concept breaks down as follows:

0) **Core Game**: Runtimes, executables, essential logic
1) **Single-player Mode**: Campaign/story content, cinematics
2) **Multiplayer Mode**: Netcode, anti-cheat systems
3) **Low Assets**: Optimized for 1080p (8GB RAM, 8GB VRAM, ≤15GB)
4) **Medium Assets**: Optimized for 1440p (16GB RAM, 16GB VRAM, ≤30GB)
5) **High Assets**: Optimized for 2160p (32GB RAM, 24GB VRAM, ≤50GB)
6) **Optional**: Language packs, third-party integrations

Users would select desired components during installation via platforms like Steam’s DLC system or a dedicated selector. Advocates argue this prevents installing 150GB of high-res textures when a medium-spec PC can only render them at lower settings anyway.

Why Isn’t This Standard Practice?

  1. Asset Pipeline Complexity: Creating distinct low/medium/high asset packs triples (or more) the workload for artists and engineers. Each tier requires:

    • Re-exporting textures at multiple resolutions
    • Adjusting LOD (Level of Detail) configurations
    • Rigorous testing across permutations
      This multiplies QA efforts and complicates patching.

  2. Technical Dependencies: Modern games dynamically stream assets based on scene complexity and hardware capability. Rigid tier separation might break dynamic scaling systems like Unreal Engine’s texture streaming or NVIDIA’s DLSS/AMD’s FSR, which adjust quality on-the-fly.

  3. Economic Disincentives: Publishers prioritize minimizing support complexity. Offering multiple asset tiers increases the risk of installation errors, user confusion (“Why does my game look bad?”), and fragmented player experiences. Bandwidth costs for hosting multiple packages also rise.

  4. Platform Limitations: While stores like Steam support optional DLC, managing interdependent packages (e.g., ensuring multiplayer mode compatibility with all asset tiers) introduces update synchronization nightmares absent from current deployment tools.

The Roadblocks to Adoption

"Theoretically elegant, pragmatically painful" summarizes developer sentiment. The proposal assumes assets are cleanly separable—but modern game engines bundle resources into monolithic packages for performance. Decoupling them risks:

  • Increased Load Times: Scattered assets could hinder efficient data streaming.
  • Broken Workflows: Tools like Unity Addressables or UE5’s Pak files optimize delivery holistically; restructuring for tiers requires custom tooling.
  • Storage Savings vs. Overhead: While users save disk space, developers incur significant engineering overhead for a subset of players—often those with hardware constraints less likely to purchase premium editions.

Glimmers of Progress

Select games do implement facets of this model:
- Call of Duty lets users uninstall campaign/multiplayer modes post-install.
- Microsoft Flight Simulator streams ultra-HD assets on-demand.
- Star Citizen’s "Delta Patcher" updates only modified files.

Emerging tech like NVIDIA RTX IO and DirectStorage could enable smarter asset streaming, potentially making pre-defined tiers obsolete. For now, however, the dream of truly modular installations remains hampered by entrenched technical workflows and economic calculus—even as game sizes continue their relentless climb.

Source: Discussion on Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46418172)