I think that we should leave the finer details of the technical side of the game to the devs. I would rather hear how a bigger plundra could effect the game, negatively or positively.
For example: If I think of the game mechanic in a horror game where you need to find batteries in order to be able to light your way, would an infinite battery not diminish the experience?
Why do game makers build in these limits in the first place? They must have a reason, I would think.
This is true. But usually files are not just data but also contain structure.
I just checked my save file to have a guess how big it actually it is. I have one char only and am at about 1/3 of the story line. The save file size is at 3 MB. The save file of my Guerilla playthrough I did before is at about 4 MB. Of course itâs not just Plundra but to me this doesnât look like a save file without structure since the file grows larger the further you progress in the game. So even if the save file stays the same regardless if you have 1 of an item or 10,000, the file size is still large.
Having a file with structure is good because the devs could just up a limit without breaking the save file. If the file wouldnât have structure and everything had itâs position and area that would mean if the datatype for the amount would change, older files wouldnât work all of a sudden.
True, this is the objective of the thread anyway. I was trying to argue (although poorly) why a limitless approach might have a technical limit.
I think increasing the plundra size to say 400 or else would just raise the limit until I need to have a look what I stored and then sift through my inventory and sort out duplicates and useless stuff. So a lower limit makes this approach (until there is a good sorting implemented) easier then a higher one (especially for the attachment section).
Since I only store 1 of each weapon (the one with the highest number of crowns) and attachment a limit of 400 makes no difference at all. Since the player can carry âonlyâ 96kg the player really need some effort to fill the Plundra up to itâs new limit.
The only gripe I have is the performance of the game. If I can âopt outâ of a possible performance hit Iâm happy.
Totally. Basically the game devs could just switch on all the lights in this matter.
Iâm trying to come with a reason why the increase of the Plundra size to a higher limit doesnât make sense other then I already mentioned and the existing limit should suffice but Iâm not getting any other at the moment. But that might just be my fried brain 
To people who want it it will make sense. 
Story-wise it makes sense too because in the real you could stash as much as you like. 
In the real however, those plundra could be plundered as well. What if the devs made it so that the Plundra have a chance of being plundered by a new machine, say only bullets up to 10% at each chance. Wouldnât that be something? A sneaky squirrel that only plunders when you are in the neighbourhood of the plundra. 
The problem for a game maker is that they need to find a balance in how much to limit so that the game is fun for the majority of gamers. I think that balance is correct now. No need for a bigger plundra, not for me at least. It looks to me that the most requests are for making the game easier. 
To anyone thinking that each item you store in game will make your save file bigger and bigger, and if you store âtoo muchâ will make the game crash - think again, thatâs not how databases works (of course this game could consist of spaghetti code that would make trivial things such as creating a neat, lean database for stored items crash the game, but I donât think so).
As for storage size, the more stuff I can gather and store, the happier Iâll be 
This has always been my attitude, and I donât care much for long novels explaining why it is bad for this, bad for that.
Iâm confident theyâll increase the storage space âsoon-ishâ, take it or leave it.
Just look at the size of the plundra box! If I can keep 96 on me, why canât that huge box store 300 or 400?
And those saying the storage size is fine, but are advocating using mules for storage are just in denial. They are implicitly acknowledging the plundra size isnât big enough.
I believe they will increase it too, but not to an unlimited storage ofcourse. I really donât mind if the storage gets bigger, even though I have no trouble managing it now. For me itâs enough since I donât collect and I avoid combat if I can, like I would if it was real. But with more weapons coming to the game, it is inevitable that the storage gets an update for more balance.
I have only one outfit maxed out to 5*. I have chosen to upgrade shoes and pants for more jumping power, and I can tell you it is a big difference. The ability to jump higher and further really enhances the fun I have and getting to places where without the upgrade it would not work. Then I also upgraded shirt and jacket for stealth, so It didnât take long or much storage space to get those upgrades, but I understand that a bigger storage would make it all easier.
And every different playstyle brings in view different âhurt pointsâ so to say.
Iâll be open to what ever the devs bring, and if something is a âhurt pointâ for me, Iâll do my best to see it as the hard parts of real surviving.
I think the current storage capacity for items and materials is fine.
But; one very valid reason to improve storage capacity is the increased loot. The more guns and items added to the loot pool, it makes sense to be able to store them without worrying for space.
They should just make the capacity a function so that it doesnât have to be manually changed and balanced each time they add more items to the game.
I agree - IMHO it would be fair to give letâs say 25-50kg extra space per Weapon DLC pack.
The devs could also make those DLC weapons and accessories weigh nothing. That way if people get the weapon packs they still have 200 kg storage space, and if people donât get those weapon packs, they have the same 200kg storage space.
Whatâs about a special weapon storage box. Like a weapons cabinet only for weapons.
Good one, a cabinet just for weapons and attachments and the Plundra would remain the way it is.
Yeah. That actually would be really realistic. Adding a gun safe, that is. It would definitely fix the whole storage problem.
I had to comment this is exactly what puts off new people posting, we all have different opinions, this is just ridiculous!
I personally think that because of how the gameâs changed since release, they should make some quite significant changes. I think that the game generally lacks good rewards, so perhaps they should give players more and more storage space as they beat campaign missions?
So perhaps at the very, very start players have no storage whatsoever and then once theyâve beaten the first bunker, they get a bit of storage.
Also, a separate weapon locker would be a cool feature. Perhaps a weapon wall, even, so that your favorite guns are on display for people you play multiplayer with.
Latest dev letter confirmed more space for Plundra and Recycling Station as well. And both storages seem to get doubled, unless values change.
So, everyone who pleaded for more storage, can rejoice. 
Me, however, well⌠it doesnât matter.
But in foresight, it only gives a bit more time for hoarders to fill up that new space. And once itâs filled, the same plea will be sung in the forums again. 
(It has happened before and it is very likely to happen again.)
But in the mean time, keep your eyes open for more info from the devs. Oh, next update should be landing at the end of August '21. Though, itâs still unconfirmed if the Plundra/Recycling Station upgrade comes with the next update or one after that.
I really hope the storage expansion comes with the introduction of a useful sorting mechanism. Itâs about time imho.
Plundra just got a lot bigger⌠Coming February 8th to Generation Zeroâs with the Landfall Update
I couldnât find any concrete numbers about the plundra size.
The plundra will be upgradeable 5 times, each time adding 40 to the max weight. Max weight altogether is 400, recycling station gets same thing with 50 per stage going to 500