Forza Motorsport 7 said to be 100 GB (at least on PC and most likely XB1X)

Forza 6 was around 50 GB at launch.

Thanks 4K.
Apparently it is already up on the store for preorder.

Time to go out and get a huge external HDD


Irritating. Especially considering 4K is just not necessary on a 40 inch screen. Heck it’s unnecessary on anything under 50 inches.

Can’t say for sure this is final or if this is just the download with the 4k textures. Matbe there is/will be another DL for people who don’t need 4K.

Or it could also be the increase in cars from 450 to 700 and the increase in locations from 26 to 30. Which is doubtful, but I’m sure adds quite a bit. Not an extra 50 GB though. But I’m guessing it’s all those 4K assets.

Tracks take a lot of space because of the millions of polygons. They go from 160 track variations to 200. I think 4K textures are the smallest part of the size increase.

1K textures (1024 x1024) come in @ 1.33MB each.
2K textures (2048x2048) come in @ 5MB each.
4K textures (4096x4096) come in @ 22MB each…

Significant file size increase when you start to think in the hundreds/thousands.

Those sizes are with pretty good compression and mipmap levels. File sizes can be larger depending on output config.

Pretty sure this is the first time Turn 10 is using Photogrammetry for the tracks as well. Not sure how much that adds to file size but it does mean the tracks are going to look even better than before on top of the 4K assets.

This is a ridiculous statement from a gaming standpoint. You need higher resolutions the closer you get to a monitor/TV to not notice the pixels. They make 27" 4K monitors for a reason. You want as much clarity in the distance as possible ESPECIALLY for racing titles and first person shooters. Lower resolutions look uglier, the closer you are so when you’re gaming two feet from a monitor, the higher the resolution the better. I game at 1080p on a 32" fairly close up and objects in the distance are too hard to pick out. 4K (or even 8K) isn’t too much in my opinion. The resolution can never be too high for gaming. Not to mention, the higher the resolution, the uglier the aliasing, so even if you were gaming on a 20" monitor, you’d see a drastic difference in quality between 1080p and 4K and you don’t need to enable as much antialiasing.

1 Like

It’s all in the clarity, that’s what makes 4V great. I’m a massive man of High Resolution Audio, Lossless FLAC files and have a HIFI-MAN 802s with a very specialized and upgraded amp card and I have a very nice pair of Denon AH C821’s for my portable music setup. All in all it’s worth around €1,500 (at the time). That might sound like a lot of money for a portable audio player where I could just use my phone and a pair of €5 apple earbuds and you might be thinking what’s the reason? The Clarity and quality is the reason and it’s the same with a 4K TV. 4K TV’s not only have far more pixels and better quality than a 1080P TV but the overall quality and clarity of the picture is increased massively. Innovations like Quantom-Dot, OLED and others are present on most High-End 4K TV’s and not present on most 1080P TV’s. In short what I’m trying to say is similarly to the Xbox One X, a 4K TV opens up more doors for innovation and step forwards in picture quality and fidelity, whcih is why if you buy a high-end 4K TV it is a lot better than a 1080P TV.

I actually still use my 10 year old 42 inch Samsung Plasma TV and it’s only 720P. The reason I haven’t upgraded as of yet is because the picture quality and clarity is simply still astonishing. When we bought it, it had the best colour contrast of any TV ever at the time (Didn’t bother me as I’m colour-blind haha ) but it was phenominal but now the simple fact is a 4K TV is better and I’ll be sad to see my Plasma go but I can’t wait to see the Xbox One X running on 4K with Forza 6.

4K is perfect on my 40inch TV. I personally do not want nor need anything bigger than that.

But not sure what relevance this even has to the size of the game files.

4k textures for in game assets, file inflation occurred like this when 1080p became popular too.

Also, no disrespect meant, the whole no point in 4k below 50 inches is kind of a human cap. The human eye can’t discern detail differences between 1080 and 4k at the pixel density/resolution already offered below 50". From 50 and above its really a person to person distinction, I have excellent eyesight, and unless I get inches from a screen 4k offers nothing for me.

It is absolute insanity saying we cannot see a difference between 1080p and 4k on small screens. I can, my 70 year old dad can (who just bought a 4K set because he was so impressed by it), everyone I’ve gone with to look at 4k sets can easily see the difference on any screen size at any distance.

I don’t understand how people can’t see a difference.

You might be mistaking the technically worse motion processing as a better picture, which is common.
If you come from other LCDs recently you see the whole 240hz screen refresh, which on content you view is actually forcing frames. The large majority of content is 25-30 fps. This is a perfect range for the human eye. On LCDs they force more frames to get to 60, 120, 240 whatever the screen is set at. This creates that artificial, soap opera look. If you want a really jarring example of this effect, the Hobbit was a huge example, forced 60 fps, actually offered up too much detail and the eye was constantly seeing frames that should have been motion blurred.
With new 4k sets, motion processing isn’t up to snuff yet. The set attempts to force 60fps, but isn’t fast enough so it uses frame blur to fill in the gaps. Which is pleasing to the eye, which makes you think the screen is better than it really is. But technically for you it is better, it’s easier to watch and allows your eyes to focus on intended details and not get caught up on details in between frames which shouldn’t be there.

Plasma is the best at handling picture vs motion, but it’s dead. Go find an old plasma to look at, even 720 sets look better than the majority of tvs today.

By your logic, any PC monitor above 1080p is pointless? You have a lot to learn.

Actually, he’s on the money 100%. Motion enhancements, particularly those coupled with picture enhancements can make an image stand out more in certain ways, so to speak. For a completely fair comparison, you’ll need to take a 1080p and 4K screen that both run at a stock/native 60 Hz and then try to spot the different for yourself on a, say, 40 or 50" screen. Believe me, I’ve seen a lot of gaming set ups up close, the difference is minimal at best unless you game on a fairly large screen (60 inches or above), sit quite close and play a game that natively takes advantage of 4K. So yes, a Fm or Horizon game that is 100% native 4K will look pretty good on a fairly large screen versus a 1080p version of the game. But the question is, isn’t 1080p sufficient for most gamers as it is?

For reference, I game on a late 2008/early 2009 40" Sony LCD TV that’s native 1080p and 60 Hz. My games look beautiful whether I’m sitting 6 feet or 14 feet away from the screen. I’ve never had complaints about jaggies or excessive blur, that sort of thing.

Take home is: 4K is still relatively new and its more of a luxury and future proof investment in a way, rather than a necessity. Even if you have a 1080p screen, a 4K game will be downscaled from 4K to 1080p, which looks noticeably better than a regular 1080p game. Just wait and see - FM7 will look even more crisp on the standard Xbox One.

The fellow above you knows his stuff - to date, Plasmas and old CRT TVs boast the best motion detail. Even the most expensive LED screens cannot match the same level of clarity and crisp motion detail and end up using some kind of frame interpolation to fool the eye into thinking that you’re looking at a moving image with no loss in detail.

Got to Agree with Voodoo here. He isnt correct.

The Xbox 1/S wont be downsampling anything. You will get standard assets on those machines (ie: medium).
4K is technically already dead, bypassed. 8K TVs drop next year. 8K broadcasting begins in Japan shortly.

PC monitors as pointed out dont do this cause their refresh rates are real or mooted by Gsync/Freesync.
TV refresh rates are faked. Most are still 60hz.

PC hardware is pushing 8K now too for reference.

View distances change this dynamic. Not to mention PCs better take advantage of 4k resolution for more screen real-estate.

I won’t argue that 4K looks a little better. The question is for the individual user whether it’s worth investing in the upgrade. The screen seems a little smoother with 4K to me but it’s not worth the extra money. I just want to be able to run the game and for the time being, 1080p will be more than enough.


I thought the same as you until I saw HDR 4k content. I think you are selling 4K short by saying it only looks a little better.
Just watch these in 4K/60. They are pretty damn amazing looking. Even on a 1080p monitor. I can only imagine what they look like on a 4K screen.
They play best for me at: 2160p 60fps HTML5. You can also DL them and they will look even better.

Well that’s total nonsense. I can notice QHD detail on my 6 inch smartphone lol.