STALKER 2 File Size Could Be A Massive 180GB On Console

STALKER is one of the most memorable post-apocalyptic RPG’s that got lost to time. The last entry to the series was seen in 2007 with Shadow of Chernobyl, and in 2020 GSC Game World confirmed the return with STALKER 2: Heart of Chernobyl. However, the Xbox Store of the game has some worrying news. Stalker 2 file size could be a bulking 180GB which is almost as big as the PC version of the game.

Stalker 2 File Size makes Warzone look modest

According to the Xbox page of the game, it seems that the game is expected to weigh in at a massive 180GB on the Xbox.

According to Steam, the size is more or less the same as the PC version which currently weighs in at 150GB on Steam.

STALKER 2 is said to be exclusive on the Xbox Series console for 3 months, and will be available for Xbox Game Pass subscribers on day one. After which it could potentially come to other platforms, specifically the PS5.

GSC Games World has also confirmed that the specs on Steam are not final and could be updated closer to the game’s release date.

With a file size of 180GB, this title is definitely going to be giving Call of Duty games a run for their money.

It is worth keeping in mind that the 1TB storage on Xbox Series X consoles is currently expandable using proprietary expansion cards which are quite costly at the moment, which is why the size of the game is quite concerning.

There are a few games that are quite that size on Xbox, with the most recent being Forza Horizon 5, and Halo: The Master Chief Collection before it.

What are your thoughts on the file size? Let us know in the comments section below if you’re able to fit the game on your Xbox console.

I want ALL the AAA games to weight 200…300…or even 500 GIGABYTES.
Ok, there are programming techniques that allow devs to save memory… like occlusion culling, etc etc.
But knowing how powerful some pcs are, is it normal, that someone with a 16core cpu, 64GB memory, 4 or TB M.2 disc, and graphic cards with 24GB of vram, when he plays a recent AAA on his rig, even at 4k, 60/90fps and ultra settings, the game is only using 5 or 10% of cpu, 5/8 GB of ram, and it barely uses 5 or 6GB of Vram (from the 10..16..or 24GB available)!
Is it normal, in 2021/22, with ultra advanced game engines such as unreal 4/5 , big games are using very little ram, and only a fraction of the existing vram …and almost no cpu ? !
Shouldn’t ALL games, AAA or not, be using 100% of the cpu, 40 or 50 GB of ram, and ALL the vram available (eg, 24GB on the rtx3090) ?
Yes, coding for 100 million ps4 isn’t the same as coding for 1000 different pc specs…but when resources are available, Shouldn’t games be using as many resources as possible ?
If console game makers are able to use 99.9999% of the available cpu, why are pc games only using 10..or 20% max, of the cpu ? Worse, just a few years ago, most AAA games were only using and running on 1 single thread, no matter if there were 8, 16 or 300 cores available ! What a shame, what a laziness!

Also, is it normal that modders themselves have to create textures, one by one, optimize, resize, etc, in order to release what looks like a ‘photorealistic textures pack’… like skyrim or fallout4… when all the devs needed to do was exporting ALL their assets, textures, 3d models at the maximum quality, no matter if it weights 50, 100 or 300 gigs.. and make it available for download, from a server, or even from torrents !
People can only play a particular game at 20 fps, with that 250GB texture/3d models pack ? No problem, hardware will evolve, and 3 or 4 years from now, a rtx 4090 or rtx5090 will be able to run it at 90 or 120 fps, with better raytracing, etc etc !
For many years, devs made their games so they could fit in a 9GB dual layer DVD. Then, all games were magically weighting around 50GB: the size of a bluray ! Fortunately, some big games started requiring 70..90..or 120GB, and the whole ‘must fit in a 50GB disc was over’.
Now, it’s time for games to weight..whatever they must weight ! If a person can download 50GB, or 100GB..he can also download 200 or 300 ! Games will eventually reach those sizes, it’s just a matter of 2 or 3 years.
If a game needs 250GB of textures, to run and look amazing, why should they limit that game to 100..or 70GB instead ?
You have completed a game, that is using 250GB ? Well, delete it, or move it to an external 8TB drive. Want to replay it, to complete that achievement or trophy ? Copy the game back to the fast ssd, once done, move it back to the USB storage.
10 years from now, a game running on a rtx8090, with 256GB of vram, at 16k resolution, could require 1000..2000..or even 4’000 Gigas of storage ! We can’t avoid that evolution, so, it’s time to get used to bigger and bigger games!

Hans says:
December 4, 2021 at 9:24 am
At least the game likely will be much smaller when it comes to PS5.
Steve says:
December 4, 2021 at 6:33 pm
I want ALL the AAA games to weight 200…300…or even 500 GIGABYTES.
Ok, there are programming techniques that allow devs to save memory… like occlusion culling, etc etc.
But knowing how powerful some pcs are, is it normal, that someone with a 16core cpu, 64GB memory, 4 or TB M.2 disc, and graphic cards with 24GB of vram, when he plays a recent AAA on his rig, even at 4k, 60/90fps and ultra settings, the game is only using 5 or 10% of cpu, 5/8 GB of ram, and it barely uses 5 or 6GB of Vram (from the 10..16..or 24GB available)!
Is it normal, in 2021/22, with ultra advanced game engines such as unreal 4/5 , big games are using very little ram, and only a fraction of the existing vram …and almost no cpu ? !
Shouldn’t ALL games, AAA or not, be using 100% of the cpu, 40 or 50 GB of ram, and ALL the vram available (eg, 24GB on the rtx3090) ?
Yes, coding for 100 million ps4 isn’t the same as coding for 1000 different pc specs…but when resources are available, Shouldn’t games be using as many resources as possible ?
If console game makers are able to use 99.9999% of the available cpu, why are pc games only using 10..or 20% max, of the cpu ? Worse, just a few years ago, most AAA games were only using and running on 1 single thread, no matter if there were 8, 16 or 300 cores available ! What a shame, what a laziness!
Also, is it normal that modders themselves have to create textures, one by one, optimize, resize, etc, in order to release what looks like a ‘photorealistic textures pack’… like skyrim or fallout4… when all the devs needed to do was exporting ALL their assets, textures, 3d models at the maximum quality, no matter if it weights 50, 100 or 300 gigs.. and make it available for download, from a server, or even from torrents !
People can only play a particular game at 20 fps, with that 250GB texture/3d models pack ? No problem, hardware will evolve, and 3 or 4 years from now, a rtx 4090 or rtx5090 will be able to run it at 90 or 120 fps, with better raytracing, etc etc !
For many years, devs made their games so they could fit in a 9GB dual layer DVD. Then, all games were magically weighting around 50GB: the size of a bluray ! Fortunately, some big games started requiring 70..90..or 120GB, and the whole ‘must fit in a 50GB disc was over’.
Now, it’s time for games to weight..whatever they must weight ! If a person can download 50GB, or 100GB..he can also download 200 or 300 ! Games will eventually reach those sizes, it’s just a matter of 2 or 3 years.
If a game needs 250GB of textures, to run and look amazing, why should they limit that game to 100..or 70GB instead ?
You have completed a game, that is using 250GB ? Well, delete it, or move it to an external 8TB drive. Want to replay it, to complete that achievement or trophy ? Copy the game back to the fast ssd, once done, move it back to the USB storage.
10 years from now, a game running on a rtx8090, with 256GB of vram, at 16k resolution, could require 1000..2000..or even 4’000 Gigas of storage ! We can’t avoid that evolution, so, it’s time to get used to bigger and bigger games!