Imho the answer to a lot of the bloat we see with games can be corrected using a newer image format like WebP.
Converting an older game with thousands of images does take work, but the resulting decrease in file size and Upload/Download time is worth the trouble. For newer games the decision to use WebP instead of JPEG or PNG is a no brainer, but I think a lot of Dev's don't even know they can use it, hopefully that will change.
A WebP file for the same image quality is at least 25% smaller and that reduction in image size adds up quickly. The resulting reduction in the size or the Game file is yuge, it's Win/Win for both Dev's and consumers. Some Dev's here are using it, hopefully more will be soon.
While your idea is a sound one, your recommendation is as flawed as the information you're basing it on.
The problem at hand does not stem from using an 'old' image format, but from using either lossless compression (PNG, WEBP) or too high a quality setting on lossy ones (JPEG, WEBP). Granted some developers never bother with the
You must be registered to see the links
or (feel they) aren't technically versed enough to convert their images, most simply lack a clear picture about what quality setting to choose. Which brings us to the sound part of your idea: when in doubt, compressing to WEBP with a quality setting of 90 (preferably with
-preset photo -m 6 -pass 10 -af) produces a very high quality result rivaling the source material at a fraction of the size.
The rest of your claims are unsound, at best. WEBP can only be considered superiour to JPEG in the absence of mozjpeg – or the presence of transparency. In case of the latter, it does reign supreme, yes. However, the size gains you're quoting are doctored results, comparing to cjpeg only and making an utterly ridiculous claim of saving 'at least 25 percent'. That number is way closer to 'at best', even for cjpeg.
Enter mozjpeg. cwebp and mozjpeg are very close in actual compression efficiency, leading to the individual image composition to be the deciding factor which of them produces the better result. So for developers wanting to deliver high quality images on low file sizes, JPEG is not only still an option but can actually be the better one. See
this post of mine showcasing my point.
Do take note that actually comparing the output of cwebp and mozjepg requires either a third-party tool to check the SSIM values or utilizing cwebp's -jpeg_like switch to have it
You must be registered to see the links
that mozjepg and other JPEG encoders do.
MoonBox, see above.
