Call Of Duty: Ghosts Wants Your ENTIRE HARD DRIVE

All for this one scene of Riley BRINGING DOWN A HELICOPTER.

When I first read over the newly released specs for Call of Duty: Ghosts, I heard a high-pitched wail from within my PC’s case. Now, it should be noted that my PC is, in fact, haunted by an actual ghost, so I initially thought nothing of it. But then, when the ghost announced it was going out to buy a carton of milk, the pained whimpering continued. That’s when I understood: it was my hard drive. CODBOO’s 50 GB requirement filled the poor slab of storage with a primal terror, and it clawed helplessly at unfeeling walls in an attempt to escape. That, in turn, startled my molasses-slow Internet connection, which began bellowing in horrific dial-up tones. Neither will stop. So thanks, Infinity Ward. Thanks a lot.

Here are the specs, courtesy of Nvidia:

Minimum System Requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHZ / AMD Phenom X3 8750 2.4 GHZ or better
  • RAM: 6 GB RAM
  • HDD: 50 GB HD space
  • Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti / ATI Radeon HD 5870 or better
  • Sound: DirectX Compatible Sound Card
  • DirectX: 11
  • Internet: Broadband connection and service required for Multiplayer Connectivity. Internet connection required for activation.

Recommended System Requirements

  • Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

Why does a rather ho-hum looking (and not particularly lengthy, especially on the single-player side) game demand these lofty specs? I haven’t the foggiest, but let us not forget that this is the first Call of Duty with both playable dogs and women, which of course means that… yeah, I’ve got nothing. Maybe Riley has over three million lines of meticulously recorded doggy dialogue or something.

The Internet requirement is also a bit questionable. If it’s just for multiplayer, then there’s nothing to see here. However, the list goes on to note that it’s “required for activation” as well, which could a) also apply to single-player and b) come with its own set of restrictions in regards to install limits, check-ins, etc. I’ve mailed Activision for clarification.

So there’s that. In other news, how about those revised¬†Watch Dogs specs? I suppose that one at least has reasons for demanding a rig of lordly caliber. Still though, how are those of you with mid-range machines feeling? Is it time to start squirreling away cash for an upgrade?


  1. bleeters says:

    Fish AI and Real Emotional Connections are pretty taxing on system hardware, I believe.

    • Turkey says:

      Each copy comes with a tear weighing peripheral which affects whether the dog dies at the end or not.

      • roryok says:

        If Molyneux reads comment this he’ll spend the morning thinking about actually building it

    • SuicideKing says:

      Since neural networks are massively parallel, that 780 is required to simulate accurate emotional responses of the AI.

      • Pythonic says:

        I know this is a joke but a fun fact about ANNs is that once fully trained the run time for them is O(1) so they wouldn’t be computationally expensive in game

    • p14c3b0 says:

      Dog emotions are rendered in realtime

      • The Random One says:

        An actual dog’s brain is included in the code, for maximum verisimilitude.

    • rb2610 says:

      I suspect they’ve just gone crazy on high resolution pre-rendered cutscenes or something silly like that, those things take up so much space.

  2. Anthile says:

    That 100GB SSD doesn’t feel like such a smart investment anymore.

    • akstro says:

      I doubt the final minimum requirements are going to be this high. These must be placeholder specs because a 550 TI as minimum is pretty silly for COD.

    • SuicideKing says:

      Even a good 256GB is cheap these days.

      • Barnaby says:

        Maybe cheap relative to what SSDs have cost in the past, but come on. SSDs are not “cheap” unless you happen to be Scrooge McDuck or some other wealthy individual. Go take a look at 512GB+ SSDs and come back here and tell me they are cheap with a straight face.

        EDIT: I checked on Amazon and the cheapest 256gb drive I could find was 150 bucks. Most of them average somewhere around the 170 mark (USD).

      • Somerled says:

        Any PC-centric site needs to auto-preface statements like these with “relatively.” Or sometimes, “I’ve heard that.”

    • Shuck says:

      I’ve been trying to figure out some reasonable specs for my next gaming machine, such as how many gigs the SSD really needs to have. If this is a sign of things to come, the answer is apparently: all of them.

      • Barnaby says:

        My current solution is using a spinny disk hard drive (750gb WD drive) as the main store for my games combined with an SSD cache. This means I have a partition on the SSD that uses Intel’s SRT (Smart Response Technology) to cache the applications that you run from the spinny disk drive. So say you load up L4D2 (or some other game), the first time it may take a little while, but until it is cleared from the cache (by loading other stuff from that drive) the game will continue to load purely from the SSD. I’m not huge into benchmarking or measuring my system, but from my day to day usage perspective, it works great. It really wasn’t too much of a hassle to setup and has worked without failure ever since.

        Read more: link to

      • belgand says:

        For me personally I’ve found the problem to be that Windows 8 will slowly eat your entire hard drive. Even if you’re not particularly installing much to it. I run a dual-boot system and partitioned it off with about 15-20GB free, but Windows has now bloated its way out to taking over almost all of the 40GB assigned to it despite not really installing much in the way of software to the drive.

        • Ushao says:

          Unfortunately I’ve run into the same issue in prepping my system drive for an SSD. What’s also unfortunate is that you can’t clean any of that up. I went looking around and the two main folders that eat up space are “Installer” and “WinSxS”, neither of which can be cleaned up without serious repercussions.

  3. Rich says:

    Question: These days, does “graphics card x or better” mean “newer” or quantitatively better? I ask because I have an HD 7770, which according to the likes of is slightly worse than a HD 5870, despite being newer and with more impressive sounding specs.

    • Mechorpheus says:

      Unfortunately you normally have to look at a better ‘performing’ part, rather than a specifically newer one. In this case, it comes down to the target markets/price points. The 5870 was a flagship part at one stage, the best of the best for enthusiasts, so AMD (or was it ATI for that part?) threw everything they had at it. The 7770 is a more mainstream, cheaper part, so they use smaller, or in some cases ‘defective’ chips (ones which don’t remain stable at the higher clock-speeds or temperature points demanded for the higher end parts, so they shut off portions of the chip or downclock it) for those parts to improve chip yield.

      The 7770 might be a newer part, and based on the newer GCN architecture, but it’s simply a much smaller chip than the 5870 so it can’t push as many pixels, in spite of running at a higher clock-speed.

      • Unruly says:

        The Radeon 5xxx series was the last one to be branded as ATI, but by that point they had been fully owned by AMD for a few years already, so either answer is technically correct.

        Anyways, you’re right about game requirements typically meaning “better performing” when they say “or better.” Which can make it somewhat confusing since in recent years, at least in AMD’s case, their advancements haven’t been so much in the performance arena but in shrinking die sizes. For instance, take the aforementioned Radeon 5xxx series. When the 6xxx series released, the only real difference between the 5750 and the 6750 was the die size and the accompanying power draw reduction. Actual performance-wise they were nearly identical, with the 6750 sometimes falling behind. I know this because I bought my 5750 right around the 6xxx launch and compared price:performance and went with the 5750 because it was $50 or so less and had the same bench scores. And I remember that being true for the majority of the 6xxx line when compared to the 5xxx line.

        • Sakkura says:

          They changed naming conventions. The 5870 was the top single-GPU card from the 5000 series, but the 6970 was the top single-GPU card from the 6000 series. The 6970 was significantly faster than the 5870. The 6870 was also significantly faster than its predecessor, the 5770. Same goes for 6850 vs. 5750.

      • Kitsunin says:

        Doesn’t it have something to do with the numbers generally? Like 5xxx is older than 7xxx but usually x850 is better than x400 regardless of the first number? Or is the number utterly unrelated to quality and the only way to get any idea is via research?

        I never really understood graphics cards, I just know mine is good enough for whatever I want it to do, and that’s enough for me…

        • SuicideKing says:

          Nope, that’s only valid for the upper range of each generation, with exceptions. The second digit usually indicates whether it’s mainstream oriented, or high-end.

          So a Radeon HD 6870 is better than a 7750 in most cases, but a 7750 may or may not be better than a 6770 (because of the third digit). A 7770 will be better than a 6770, however.

          The 6770 was essentially a tweaked 5770.

          It’s not very straightforward, and a lot of re-branding takes place, especially for lower end cards.

          For example, a GTX 770 is basically an overclocked GTX 680, and the new AMD R9-280X is basically a re-branded Radeon HD 7970.

          • Unruly says:

            Very much this. As I mentioned above it can get even more confusing sometimes, like with the AMD 5xxx and 6xxx series cards. The only difference in the hardware design between the 5750 and 6750 was the die size, so with the 6750 they were packing more transistors into a smaller area. Aside from that, nothing really changed. But performance-wise, the 6750 actually performed slightly worse than the older card in some of the benchmarks.

            I’m pretty sure that rang true for almost all of the Radeon 6xxx line until you got to the high-end 6870+ stuff.

  4. MeestaNob says:

    Not much mystery to this, CoD games activate on Steam these days…

  5. Bull0 says:

    Mmm, 50GB is definitely my entire hard drive, because I’m reading this post in 2001

    • Alien426 says:

      I’m reading this on my first PC and it has only 70 MB. I wonder when the truck is delivering the thousands of 3.5″ discs… Oh dear the game needs more than 4 MB of RAM; never mind then, I’ll send a letter to cancel my preorder.

      • Bull0 says:

        Just as well, it would have been a nightmare to install off those disks and probably won’t be all that great anyhow. You should check out Halloween Harry though. Or Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold. I’ve got Jazz Jackrabbit on a floppy if you want to borrow it.

      • roryok says:

        70mb? You lucky bastard. 40mb here.

        note: I actually still have my first computer, an Amstrad 286 with a 40mb HD. It still works. Sadly I don’t have any of the beige dell boxes in between that and my collection of hardware.

        • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

          10mb Eagle PC, green screen etc cost £2500 in 1983 YOWZERS!!!

          • Wisq says:

            My first computer was a laptop with two 3.5″ drives and no hard drive at all. So, yeah. :)

    • atticus says:

      Yeah, well no problem for me because I’m storing my most demanding games on 2TB rotating disks with magnetic heads, and I’m reading this in 2007.

    • Panda Powered says:

      I’m writing this in 2030. We are back to 3,5″ 1,44 MB diskettes but now they are holodisks so its 1,44 holographic megabytes which is better.
      They are only corrupted half the time now compared to all the time.

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      Piss taking aside 50gb compared to an average game size of 10ish gigs is actually going to cause issues for some people using 128gb or smaller SSDs, theres actually a chance they won’t be able to run this from their faster drive, either that or remove ALL of their other games.

  6. Mechorpheus says:

    I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that this will use SteamWorks, as the last 4 have done, so the internet connection will be needed for that.

  7. DrScuttles says:

    8.25gb free of 581gb. And I was so looking forward to David Cage levels of Emotion surrounding the dog.

    • roryok says:

      dude, delete some stuff. If you’ve only 8GB free Windows is going to run like that dead dog

      • nrvsNRG says:

        i’m pretty sure that his OS isnt on there and thats just his gaming ssd.

    • Lev Astov says:

      I recommend WinDirStat to help you visualize your HDD contents and decide what to clean up. Even after uninstalling everything I can think of that I don’t need, it usually helps me find at least several more GB of junk that can be deleted.

      link to

  8. Low Life says:

    As I went to calculate how much time it would take to download the game with my current internet connection (assuming the download itself was indeed 50 GB), I opened the Windows calculator and the first thing I did was dividing 50 000 by 1. I just felt like I had to tell someone. And by the way, the time I came up with was just short of 14 hours.

    Part of me is happy that games are starting to take advantage of the resources available on the PC, even if that’s partly because of bad optimization. Time to put all that RAM to good use! (Not with Ghosts, though)

    • Panda Powered says:

      I may suffer from caffeine deficiency in my brain but do you have a 1 Megabyte per second connection or 1 Megabit per second?

      50 Gigabyte = 409 600 Megabit.

      With a 1 Megabit per second connection that’s:
      409 600 seconds = 6827 minutes = 114 hours.

      Edit: I might add that IF the specs are for the steam download it’s the installed HDD space requirement and the download size is usually a lot smaller AFAIK. :)

      • Low Life says:

        10 megabit so the download speed is usually around 1 megabyte :)

        • Panda Powered says:

          Slightly more than 11 hours then if your speed is constant max.
          So you have time to complete the single player in the 3 leftover hours. Obligatory COD-snark. ;)

          • Low Life says:

            Unfortunately that’s a very big if. Luckily I’ll be moving in a few weeks and then I’ll have all the bandwidth in the world.

          • jezcentral says:

            Wouldn’t the download be compressed, though?

  9. Reginald XVII Archduke of Butts says:

    I blame the presence of women. All those gender-segregated barracks just eat up hard drive space.

  10. alkonaut says:

    Combined multi/single player games should allow for uninstalling the single player assets when I have finished the campaign. That way at least I could salvage some of the SSD space once I have played it through. The “storage is cheap” argument doesn’t really hold for huge multiplayer games, since fast storage isn’t cheap, and fast storage is more or less required. Case in point: try playing BF3 multiplayer from a mechanical harddrive: most servers tend to have very short round start delays, so the critical first minute of a round is played between those who have SSD’s. By the time you join in the course of the rush round will have been determined by the SSD players playing the first minute.

    • Fanbuoy says:

      IIRC, MW2 (the last CoD game I bought (well, technically I later rebought CoD 1+UO and CoD 2 (that was part convenience and part protest (Should I cut down on the parentheses?)))) allows for that on Steam. It may happen again.

      • Ansob says:

        BlOps 2 definitely did, so it would make sense for Ghosts to allow the same thing.

      • pez2k says:

        I believe that uninstalling one of the two modes in MW2 only deleted the executable for that version and left all of the data files. It wasn’t very efficient.

  11. revan says:

    Non-issue for me. Stopped caring about CoD around Modern Warfare 2. As for people saying this is not 2001 and 50GB isn’t a lot, that’s not true. This game isn’t going to be only thing on anyone’s HDD/SSD. With 1TB HDD and 100GB SSD (decent amount of space in my opinion) I still find myself short on space when a new, large game comes out. And I’m sure many more people do too.

    • rei says:

      Yep, regardless of how much HDD space I have on any system, I’m perpetually hovering at the almost full level :|

    • Sharlie Shaplin says:

      I went nuts with my current system, and got five terabytes of storage. I have every game I own installed and still have 1.5tb space left. I should be good for awhile.

      • revan says:

        Guess I know what I’ll be buying for my next system. 5TB hard disk… :D

        • Stardreamer says:

          For that size I’d be considering a NAS device with multiple smaller drives rigged in an array of some sort. But that might just be me. Bit obsessed with sprucing up my network at the moment. :)

      • Convolvulus says:

        1.5TB may not last as long as you think. The Xbone and PS4 will use 50GB discs, so we can expect all multi-plats to bloat considerably.

        • Sharlie Shaplin says:

          Well see I guess. I don’t plan on buying too many games in the near future due to a massive backlog, courtesy of Steam sales. :D

  12. Jekhar says:

    What? Last time i checked, Arma 3 used under 10 Gigs of HD space. I don’t think COD will have a map that large, so what’s going on? Did they decide to scrap the interactive tunnels of the previous games and finally go full on FMV Cinemativ Adventure ™? Now in HD 3D smellovision?

    • Panda Powered says:

      They probably went more insane than usual on one-off set pieces for the single player and the amount of sound and environment assets are through the roof.

    • SuicideKing says:

      Yeah but Arma 3 is missing a lot of other things (a campaign is among that) that they’ll probably include in CODBOO.

      • ahmedabdo says:

        I think the campaign will not require that much of space. The campaign itself consists mostly of scripts rather than art contents. You may argue however, that BIS promised more contents for the game to accompany the campaign chapters, but I don’t think that some added weaponry would require that much of space like that of Altis map.

      • Defiant Badger says:

        I think your forgetting bee shadows

  13. jkz says:

    It needs 50GB to record my 3P1C killstreak

  14. finalfanatik says:

    I understand that I may be a bit behind The Times, but 50GB is 10% of my harddrive space…
    I’m thinking of all the tens of non-CoD games I could put in that space instead…

  15. Spacewalk says:

    50GB is a lot of bullshit that can be stripped out of a game.

  16. Natdaprat says:

    They must be taking into account the 4+ planned $20 dollar each DLCs. Rome 2 specs said you need 32gb, but it was only a 10gb game.

    • SuicideKing says:

      Yeah same with BF3. Initially 10GB, right now it’s almost 20GB even though the only DLC i’ve had since launch is B2K.

  17. Spoon Of Doom says:

    This is not a new trend, the last COD games have been unreasonably large as well. I always wondered what it is that’s eating up so much space, because COD doesn’t have that much content and there should be no way that it rivals big RPGs and/or open world games in required disk space.

    • Ansob says:

      The last few CoDs have split their game modes (SP, MP, zombies) into three executables. Black Ops 2 had a shared core of ~6GB, and another ~3GB or so per mode, with you being able to install any combination of the three modes (i.e. you could install SP and MP only, or all three, or only MP, or whatever).

      I can’t imagine 50GB is correct – even allowing for HD textures on PC (assuming they’re not going to mangle the port’s graphical qualities for consoles this time), I don’t really see how they could end up with a game taking up more than 25GB.

      • SuicideKing says:

        Maybe it’s for both single player and multiplayer? MW2 SP takes 11.4GB, and the MP is another 10GB download.

        They did promise high-res textures for the PC, so that could be a contributing factor too…

        • Ansob says:

          Well no, that’s my point – BlOps 2 is about 15-18GB for the whole thing. I can’t see how Ghosts would be three times that.

  18. bstard says:

    If I was a bastard I’d point and lol and the Cod people.

  19. snowgim says:

    Hey, Blu-ray movies are about 50GBs, and COD is pretty similar to watching a Blu-ray, right?

    • Werthead says:

      Apart from character development and an interesting storyline, sure :)

      Though I might be selling CoDGoats short. It may be the title that takes the SP narrative forward in epic and emotionally fulfilling ways. Or they’ll use the dog for cheap sentiment, whichever works.

  20. Shockeh says:

    Here’s a question – How can it have a minimum of a 560Ti, and a ‘reccomended’ of a GTX 780 and still run on the paltry hardware of a current Xbox or PS3. Even with supposed console optimisations and cutbacks in fidelity, that just doesn’t ring true to me. I know it’s symptomatic of the times (end of a console generation) but that’s just too far removed for me to feel convinced either the spec is accurate, or the PC build is as optimised as it could be,

    • iainl says:

      Because the PC version is based on the Xbone/PS4 release, not the heavily butchered old-gen console versions.

  21. Screamer says:

    Maybe the boobies are realistically simulated and textured.

    • revan says:

      It’s that TressFX thing. And dogs are known to have a lot of hair, well, fur, whatever… Plus if there are multiple dogs in the game. Animating all that must take a toll on a system.

  22. Aaarrrggghhh says:

    Upgrading for CoD? Bwahahahahahahahahahah!

  23. Screamer says:

    “…. how about those revised Watch Dogs specs?”

    So now we’ll have to see if were getting better games or less optimised ones like last time with the console refresh. Why do we need 8 fast cores to do the same the console toys do with 8 slow cores :/

  24. Zogtee says:

    Battlefield it is, then. Origin be damned!

  25. warcroft says:

    Dogs and breasts take a lot of giggage.

    • Volcanu says:

      and dog breasts even more so…

    • Vandelay says:


    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      Damn right. Would you restrict them to mere D-cups? The obsessively detailed texture map size needed increases exponentially with each cup size. Sub-surface scattering textures and shaders, non-Hookean elastic calculations precomputed for truly accurate boob jiggle, individually personalised for each female model with bouncing deformations which have to be modified by customisable underwear… Would you restrict their artistic vision to just “sensible M&S bras”?

      I’m amazed they can fit it all on to one hard drive.

  26. -Spooky- says:

    20GB for the game and the rest 30GB are for the dogs. So including Dog Food, Toys and other stuff. OR – they have a huge amount on cutscenes to be a interactive movie. *huehue*

  27. Solidstate89 says:

    This damn game is still using a modified Id3 engine and they have the gall to ask for a 780 as recommended? And 50GB is ridiculous, freaking Shogun 2: Total War is almost half the size and that’s the largest game I own, with visuals far more impressive than CoD.

    Someone is high as fuck over at Activision.

  28. Zekiel says:

    The big news for me in this story is the minimum requirements for Watch Dogs (since I don’t care a fig for COD).

    Can someone explain to me how the PC version has such ridiculously high minimum specs when its also released for XBox 360 and PS3? How does that make sense?

    The bigger concern is that I’m not starting to think the possibility of running the Witcher 3 on my current rig is vanishingly remote… :-(

    • Bull0 says:

      All these ps3-ps4 xbox360-xbox one transition era games are seemingly getting two different distributions, with everything dialled back for the old consoles or dialled up for the new consoles depending on who you talk to. Be glad that you’re getting the more demanding of the two builds for your PC.

  29. DatonKallandor says:

    Call of Duties specs have always been insane. It’s ugly as fuck, having barely advanced since the Call of Duty 1 and 2 days. Still using the same old abused Quake 3 engine.

    They call it “Infinity Ward engine” of course claiming it’s not the same engine they’ve always used. Which is still a ridiculous lie, just as when Bethesda claimed Skyrim was using a “new engine”. Tweaking a few lines of code does not a new engine make.

    Them not making even the slightest effort to optimize or improve the graphics year after full-price+DLC year just shows their utter contempt for their audience. And the full knowledge that no reviewer or media outlet has the balls to call them out on just how ugly their games look – even when you don’t consider the ludicrous budget they’ve got.

    • fish99 says:

      You could argue their audience deserves such contempt.

    • Bull0 says:

      You’re exaggerating. Run Call of Duty side-by-side with Black Ops 2 and tell me with a straight face that they’re the same, that no effort at all has been expended.

      • DatonKallandor says:

        Run the eve of 2013 CodBlops 2 side to side with the eve of 2008 Crysis and tell me they’re keeping at all pace with modern graphics or any form of optimization whatsoever.
        And don’t bother bringing the old “you needed a NASA computer to run Crysis on release day” urban myth out. I ran Crysis on a 600 dollar PC on modded-beyond-max settings on release day.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I don’t think it has all that much in common with the Quake engine anymore. The latest id tech engine will still likely have parts of their previous engines in it. Doesn’t mean Rage was just running on the Quake 3 engine though.

  30. squirrel says:

    Just a graphically gorgeous version of Counter-Strike and you need such an expensive set-up to play…… This deal just doesn’t pay off.

    • GSGregory says:

      Cod and counterstrike are not similar at all.

      • Wisq says:

        Yeah, I don’t like Counterstrike at all, but I’ll definitely say that CoD makes CS look awesome by comparison.

  31. skyturnedred says:

    I’m gonna have to delete quite a bit of porn if I ever want to play this.

  32. poohbear says:

    It sounds like they could careless about the PC market and have surrendered it to BF4. I mean seriously, stating a $600 GTX 780 as recommended specs?!? maybe 0.01% of PC gamers have a card like that.

    • PoLLeNSKi says:

      I’m sorry, but “couldn’t care less” is the correct form of what you’re trying to say.

      a) They don’t care at all: it’s impossible for them to care less – They couldn’t care less.
      b) They care somewhere between a little and a lot: They could care less.
      c) They are careless. They have an absence of care.

    • welverin says:

      You could also come to the realization that recommend is not the same as required, is more about having it run well with all the settings jacked up to the max, which, so you’re aware, isn’t remotely necessary.

  33. fish99 says:

    I doubt any of those specs are accurate, and TBH with them coming from NVidia and recommending only an NVidia card, they’re a bit suspect. If the game does need that kinda hardware and yet runs on PS3/360 then you may be looking at the laziest port in history.

    • ahmedabdo says:

      Let alone comparing a GTX550 Ti with the far superior HD5870!

    • Blue Shark says:

      Or perhaps it is the best port in history and they are making every effort to use the hardware and it will look better than Battlefield 4!

  34. Shadow says:

    50 GB isn’t much at all in 2013, but only if taken completely out of context. There’s a billion things to fill a hard drive with, especially if you’re a gamer and the average mainstream game is 10-20 gigs a pop. And the fuller a drive gets, oddly enough the harder it is to make room. Judiciously deleting stuff becomes a rather disproportionately time-consuming process.

    And doing it for a game that will likely have 5-6 hours of average singleplayer content tops and may not even be worth the time or bandwidth its download would take? Nah, I’ll most likely pass on this one.

  35. DanMan says:

    They must have lots of really high-res textures and plenty of (multi-lang) audio files to arrive at 50GBs of data. Didn’t they post about how they had to turn their production upside down in order to build scalable graphics (like any PC dev worth that title already does)? Seems like they haven’t gotten quite the hang of that yet. Keep trying IW! You’ll get it one day!

  36. abremms says:

    Thanks for that 250gb data cap, Mediacom. I wasn’t worried about it till these ‘next gen’ system specs started coming out. I was on the fence about this one, if i’m going to blow a fifth of my data allowance on one download, then it’s not going to be a mediocre shooter where I play the campaign once then never touch again.

    PS, aren’t data caps the stupidest thing ever? there is no data shortage, we don’t have to ration data. bandwidth is the bottleneck, if I pay for 20 megabit then I oughta be able to use 20 megabits all day everyday. If they don’t have the infrastructure then don’t tell me its 20 megabit. rawr. upgrade your damned infrastructure, ISPs.

    • belgand says:

      I have some spare data coupons if you need a bit more this month. The page just fell out of my ration book wouldn’t you know.

    • diamondmx says:

      (Some) ISP execs have admitted it’s got nothing to do with the cost of bandwidth. It’s just a way of driving up prices.

  37. Scumbag says:

    Or you could just install Doom and Doom II for under 50MB.

  38. cylentstorm says:

    I suppose it would be over-simplifying it to attribute lazy programming or under-funded teams with unrealistic deadlines to the batshit insanity of those sys reqs, but hey–I’m nothing if not a simple creature. Fuck Call of Dookie, anyway. Moving on…

  39. Strangeblades says:

    Riley is just the Littlest Hobo who was wounded in his latest adventure and then rebuilt to be the Robocop of canines.

  40. Arglebargle says:

    I don’t worry about space on a hard drive: It’s CoD, so the space it sucks up will be on some other poor bastid’s computer system.