this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54669 readers
417 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ok, you convinced me that I want Galaxy for Linux too 😁
the achievements, social, and install management stuff wasn't too important for me but having it simplify offline installer downloads vs doing it from browser would be great.
Definitely agree that being able to control install location + whether or not to update is nice (compared to steam) but I was comparing vs what I can already do in the offline installers so I guess that's why it didn't matter to me if the client could do it. But some games you need to download a lot of files which is kind of a pain in the ass from the browser (especially when it's something you need to run under wine since gog tends to split windows games into multiple pieces/.bin files more often than they do native linux ones from what i've seen).
I thought the file splits are based on size? But maybe I'm wrong. The larger games I have also tend to be Windows-only anyway so maybe I just don't know this stuff.
they are based on size but it's only the windows versions. for example, if you buy witcher 2, it has windows and linux versions. linux version is a single ~20 GiB file while the windows version has a small exe + lots of bin files that are 1.5 GiB or less and you need all of them to install.
Oh, I see. That's quite interesting. And I noticed that the Mac version is only split into 4 parts, with one clocking in at 11.6 GB (though others are capped at 4 GB).
I'm very curious why these differences exist.
Oh yeah, completely forgot about Mac version lol.
As for why, no way to know for sure without inside info, but best guess is that they are trying to account for maximum file size limits across all the various possible Windows/Mac filesystem types but whichever employee setup the Linux ones realized that most Linux users wouldn't be using shitty Microsoft filesystems. FAT12 is fairly safe to ignore but they might have been considering FAT16 and HFS as the lowest common denominators, then making the files slightly smaller than the max file size just in case.
That or possible that they were balancing by network loads (since Windows versions probably account for around 99% of all downloads) and that was somehow determined to be the sweet spot.