No support. Projects would take up the space in the servers.

No support, while there are some well made games that lag, removing the limit would lose a lot of project space.

stickfiregames wrote:

Support for removing it in the offline editor.

Above.
On place of loading it to Scratch, we can just upload it to some downloader service thing(like dropbox)?

Kal_Kal_Kal wrote:

Let's do some math…

With almost +10,000,000 projects shared, and about 56,185,458 unshared projects, Scratch is growing each day. Let's estimate each project takes up about 1 mb

1000 kb = 1 mb
1000 mb = 1 gb
1000 gb = 1 tb

66,185,458,000 kb
66,185,458 mb
66,185.458 gb
66.185458 tb

Now, each project gets 1 gb,

66,185,458,000,000 kb
66,185,458,000 mb
66,185,458 gb
66,185.458 tb

Now, that seems unrealistic, right? Now, lets hop to 2017, when Scratch has more users and more popularity, and there are 1,000,000,000 projects.
1 gb per project.

1,000,000,000,000,000 kb
1,000,000,000,000 mb
1,000,000,000 gb
1,000,000 tb

If you have 1,000,000 Terabytes laying around, I'll support, but as of now…

No support

Why did you assume that each project will be 1gb? I'm sure Scratch will never support 1gb per project and most people won't even try to make 1gb projects. Also your estimated number projects in 2017… Right now is September 5th, 2016 and there's 16 million shared projects there's no way there'll be billion projects by 2017.

JavierR100 wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

Support for removing it in the offline editor.

Above.
On place of loading it to Scratch, we can just upload it to some downloader service thing(like dropbox)?

That still takes exact same aomunt of memory…. It doesn't matter if you either download a project or look at it online. If you want you can do that on any sites that you can upload so.

rollercoasterfan wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

Support for removing it in the offline editor.

Hello
Please don't simply quote a user without adding your own opinions to the discussion. Thanks!

The size limit exists because Scratch (surprisingly) has limits. It wouldn't be possible to remove it, but I support to increase it (maybe to 75mb or 100mb?)

Kal_Kal_Kal wrote:

Let's do some math…

With almost +10,000,000 projects shared, and about 56,185,458 unshared projects, Scratch is growing each day. Let's estimate each project takes up about 1 mb

1000 kb = 1 mb
1000 mb = 1 gb
1000 gb = 1 tb

66,185,458,000 kb
66,185,458 mb
66,185.458 gb
66.185458 tb

Now, each project gets 1 gb,

66,185,458,000,000 kb
66,185,458,000 mb
66,185,458 gb
66,185.458 tb

Now, that seems unrealistic, right? Now, lets hop to 2017, when Scratch has more users and more popularity, and there are 1,000,000,000 projects.
1 gb per project.

1,000,000,000,000,000 kb
1,000,000,000,000 mb
1,000,000,000 gb
1,000,000 tb

If you have 1,000,000 Terabytes laying around, I'll support, but as of now…

No support

So in 2017, over 15% of the entire world's population (1 in 9) will be using scratch? Pretty sure we aren't at 15 million yet and it's less then 4 months until 2017 so….
Scratch currently has 13 million people & 16 million projects shared. This is from the beta of 1.0 to today. so unless we magically gained at over 500x the rate we had currently, we aren't going to have 100 million people any time soon. Additonally, it's like saying every single project will reach the max which most projects don't.



Also, support

creeperhunter700 wrote:

I was working on a project when a size limit exceeded box popped up. If this has happened to you then I think you would agree that everyone could make bigger and better projects if the size limit was removed.

Support for no limit. Scratch should encourage creativity not limit it.

Support for removing it in the offline editor, and preventing oversized uploads.

ACE009 wrote:

Support for removing it in the offline editor, and preventing oversized uploads.

Wait, it actually exists in the offline editor? TBH I almost forgot the offline editor existed That seems silly. I support to remove it in the offline editor, but I also support a limit raise as per my previous post.

It does unless they removed it since the start of this thread.

stickfiregames wrote:

Support for removing it in the offline editor.

Kal_Kal_Kal wrote:

Let's do some math…

With almost +10,000,000 projects shared, and about 56,185,458 unshared projects, Scratch is growing each day. Let's estimate each project takes up about 1 mb

1000 kb = 1 mb
1000 mb = 1 gb
1000 gb = 1 tb

66,185,458,000 kb
66,185,458 mb
66,185.458 gb
66.185458 tb

Now, each project gets 1 gb,

66,185,458,000,000 kb
66,185,458,000 mb
66,185,458 gb
66,185.458 tb

Now, that seems unrealistic, right? Now, lets hop to 2017, when Scratch has more users and more popularity, and there are 1,000,000,000 projects.
1 gb per project.

1,000,000,000,000,000 kb
1,000,000,000,000 mb
1,000,000,000 gb
1,000,000 tb

If you have 1,000,000 Terabytes laying around, I'll support, but as of now…

No support

Your conversions are wrong. 1024 bytes in a kilobyte, 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte, 1024 megabytes in a gigabyte, 1024 gigabytes in a terabyte, and so on. This means that with 16,369,458 projects shared at the time of the writing of this post, if each were given a gigabyte and used that to its full potential, it'd take up 15985.7988 TERABYTES of server space. No support, as in addition to the website, the projects would fill up the server and Scratch would end.

miner146 wrote:

“Plenty big” Really? You try creating a physics accurate vector graphic Polar express featuring dynamic sounds, vector clones and a complete soundtrack. Then tell me that we have enough space…

No, no no no no no. Yes, you've worked on something for a year and a half and it's all ruined because of the Scratch project limit. That's cool. You know what though? Every single person in the world has their own goal and many if them have failed it already. I've started 7 projects that, if finished I could have been proud of for probably the rest of my entire life. Each of them came with an actual story line, and every main character had a unique personality made for them. I built up how each potential project's gameplay could be like, and if I actually had any motivation to get even halfway done on any of them, any of those could have easily reached the 50MB limit. But no, each dream begun has been shot down by my laziness, and I'm not batting a single eye. If you were going to make a project so large, you should've used a programming language that doesn't have a limit. You might've started the project before knowing about the limit, or you might have not, but either way, hitting the limit is not the Scratch Team's problem. Yeah, I'm going completely unsympathetic right now. Well, sorry. I'm an unsympathetic person. I'm anti social. I genuinely find it hard to care about other peoples misfortunes. Doesn't matter. Miner146 If you hate me because of this paragraph, just remind yourself that people like me exist all over the world, and one day you'll meet one of me in real life. And now report me if you want to :\ I kind of deserve that right now.

Now that that's over.

Increasing the project limit isn't really a solution to anything. It's just an opening to another problem. Scratch projects now have a limit of 60MB instead of 50? Then we'll hit that limit and complain about it.

Digital_Gaming wrote:

Support for no limit. Scratch should encourage creativity not limit it.

This isn't promoting creativity. This is being selfish. Sure, projects can be built freely without the worry of hitting any limit. Now any Scratcher that doesn't know how to cut down on sound files and images can jam up as much Scratch storage space as they want. And now it isn't the Scratcher's problem. It's the Scratch Teams. Here's a different type of creativity: Learning how to make an exciting project that doesn't require so much space. Remember the original Super Mario Bros, said to be “the greatest game of all time” (sure, by IGN, but still)? That was made with only 31 Kilobytes. The image on the cartridge it's in takes up more space than the game itself.

I definitely second what JoeyTheChicken's got to say though. A 40 MB warning would definitely be helpful for people about to hit the limit. And although this is probably going to be no more than a good dream, I'd kinda like to see trustable people that have proven to make really good projects have a higher limit if they really need it.

Digital_Gaming wrote:

creeperhunter700 wrote:

I was working on a project when a size limit exceeded box popped up. If this has happened to you then I think you would agree that everyone could make bigger and better projects if the size limit was removed.

Support for no limit. Scratch should encourage creativity not limit it.

Think of it this way. Say everyone made 1tb projects. (for the sake of simplicity) That means that 16369458 projects would take up 16369458 tb of space. Only a supercomputer with databanks and all can store that much. You got any idea how much that costs? Money to take the roof off the building. Money to get the computer. Money to lift the computer into the building. Money for insurance. You get the idea. It's inefficient, especially for a non-profit site. If you want to make things without a restrictive size limit, code them yourself with a text-based language.

TimothyLawyer wrote:

Just make two projects.

Yes, because it isn't time-consuming at all to re-script the physics engine for… let's say… a very complicated platformer.

The4thPixel wrote:

TimothyLawyer wrote:

Just make two projects.

Yes, because it isn't time-consuming at all to re-script the physics engine for… let's say… a very complicated platformer.

…Why? Are you planning to divide the physics engine evenly between the two projects? If you're going to split a big project into two parts, copy the project so that both projects have the same engine and you don't have to spend time copying each individual script of the engine to the next project.

And why are we getting hypothetical here. You know, when we consider a case that will actually never happen, and base our argument on that. There's no such thing as a project reaching the 50MB limit on pure scripts. If there was, it's either by reverse script optimization or someone I would really want to know.

Alberknyis wrote:

The4thPixel wrote:

TimothyLawyer wrote:

Just make two projects.

Yes, because it isn't time-consuming at all to re-script the physics engine for… let's say… a very complicated platformer.

…Why? Are you planning to divide the physics engine evenly between the two projects? If you're going to split a big project into two parts, copy the project so that both projects have the same engine and you don't have to spend time copying each individual script of the engine to the next project.

Don't worry, I get that. I just didn't like how they were jumping to conclusions so quickly.

The4thPixel wrote:

Don't worry, I get that. I just didn't like how they were jumping to conclusions so quickly.

Then you're gonna hate me

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Digital_Gaming wrote:

creeperhunter700 wrote:

I was working on a project when a size limit exceeded box popped up. If this has happened to you then I think you would agree that everyone could make bigger and better projects if the size limit was removed.

Support for no limit. Scratch should encourage creativity not limit it.

Think of it this way. Say everyone made 1tb projects. (for the sake of simplicity) That means that 16369458 projects would take up 16369458 tb of space. Only a supercomputer with databanks and all can store that much.

But most people don't make projects anywhere near 1TB. That's more storage than some Xbox one/PS4 models. Lets try to be somewhat realistic here and not pull random numbers from whererever so we can sound smart okay?

Alberknyis wrote:

Digital_Gaming wrote:

Support for no limit. Scratch should encourage creativity not limit it.

Here's a different type of creativity: Learning how to make an exciting project that doesn't require so much space. Remember the original Super Mario Bros, said to be “the greatest game of all time” That was made with only 31 Kilobytes. The image on the cartridge it's in takes up more space than the game itself.

Their are several issues with that statement. First of all the original super mario bros came out over 30 years ago! I mean the Internet didn't exist back then and bulky portable phones where the New thing! If you look at some amazing more modern games you'll see that 50MB is nowhere near enough to make a creative game. For example GTA V takes up 65GB (65000MB) Skyrim takes up 5.7GB (5752MB), Red dead redemption takes up 8.6GB (8600MB). But I know what you are going to say These are all modern open world games! Stop cherrypicking a few games! So while I could point out that halo 5 takes up 53GB or that 4GB (4,000MB) update is considered SMALL by modern gaming standards and that Clash of clans a FREE TO PLAY MOBILE GAME Takes more than 50MB of space I'll just say that Sonic CD a 2D platformer released in 1993 takes up more than 4 times the maximum amount of storage space currently allowed on Scratch!