Question about quality/size and compressed games

[Adabelitoo]

I'm close to release the first version of a game, the things is that right now the game (or at least the folder) is on 1,63 GB which I think is a lot for a first release, at the same time I use 1,37 GB of that just in images and according to what I read, devs release their games using .webp for their image and .webp is way more lighter than .png, so I always thought "Now it seems pretty heavy but once I convert all the .png to .webp the game will reach his fair size"

So, the question that hits me a few minutes ago was: Isn't that a compressed game?

I never played a compressed game (because I have like 1TB of free space) I know that the trick is loosing quality to make the game lighter but most of the first releases that I played aren't bigger than 1GB and they aren't called compressed versions neither. So maybe I actually don't know what a compressed game is or how to do it?

Then I compared my game with the games I have and for example, Milfy City 0.5 is 3.2GB, and no, my game doesn't has half the amount of content that Milfy City v0.5 has. So I am kinda lost...

P.S. Just in case this info could be usefull, I am using Koikatsu-CharaStudio for the images, which can contain metadata sometimes but as far as I know, the screenshot function (F11) doesn't produce image with metadata

 

[polywog]

Significantly smaller image file size using better jpeg encoding
a lot of people still don't have support for webm files
fewer people download large games
host limits restrict file size / daily download limits mean fewer downloads, and more complaints

 

[recreation]

My alpha (test) version had png only and was about 700mb, for the first release. I decided to batch save all my images to jpg with 80 to 100 % quality. The first release ended up with roughly 120 mb even though it had more content with no visible quality loss

 

[mickydoo]

Mine is all saved out of photoshop as a high quality jpg, I converted a couple to webm and the size was more or less the same.

 

[redknight00]

I recommend using WEBP for compression, you'll get better results and less size than JPG in general, but the bottom line is you'll only know after some testing.

You must be registered to see the links

is a good tool for batch conversion, some 80-90% quality is enough that you won't even notice most of the time.

 

[Huitieme]

I recommend using WEBP for compression, you'll get better results and less size than JPG in general, but the bottom line is you'll only know after some testing.

You must be registered to see the links

is a good tool for batch conversion, some 80-90% quality is enough that you won't even notice most of the time.

This.
I've been using it as an example for another dev and the pictures folder went from 2Go to 450Mo.

 

[the66]

not to mention, webp's support transparency/alpha channel.

 

[polywog]

not to mention, webp's support transparency/alpha channel.

lossless webp supports alpha. lossy webp kills alpha (with a few rare exceptions)
webp w/alpha has some issues scaling