Gaming

I'm pretty sure bethesda said playing starfield with a hard drive isn't great 1tb SSDs aren't too expensive anymore I'd really recommend moving away from a hard drive

You do realize storage drives aren’t exactly expensive?

M2 pcie 4 drives are getting pretty cheap recently. I got a 2tb one for 100 with a heat sink on sale. My main from Kingston was 70 with 1tb

I've vowed never to pre-order, period.

Or at least until there are solid reviews, which was what I did with ToTK.

Gaming companies have to earn their money from me every single time.

I’ll be playing it via GamePass and can try to report back once I have some hours under my belt in it.

Fallout 3 released two hardware generations ago at around 8GB. Fallout 4 released last gen and sits at around 25GB. One generation later, Starfield is launching at ~140GB - almost 6x the file size of the previous generation.

I can't speak for everybody, but my PC storage didn't jump to 6x capacity in that amount of time, and my download speeds didn't get 6x faster. But I imagine that's why it's concerning to some people.

Even just going by console standards, we're looking at only a jump of 2x capacity between the Xbox One and Xbox Series X - or exactly the same if you have a Series S. It takes up over 20% of the storage Series S in just one game - with a mandatory install, unspecified patch sizes, impending DLC, etc.

Obviously there's a discussion to be had of WHY the games are increasing exponentially like that, but on the surface that's likely where the bulk of the frustration comes from.

I want Valve to encourage developers to use their branch tool like Witcher 3 did with the next gen upgrade to make high resolution assets optional.

There's no reason to have 100-something GB of assets on an 800p device. Same with languages. Support is awesome. Disrespecting my storage to pack them all without any way to cut out the waste isn't.

That's before the heavy duplication of assets for sequential HDD loads that I'm guessing hasn't disappeared yet.

Here's the thing: I don't want games to keep improving, at least, not in that way. It doesn't mean anything to me that the game includes ultraHD textures and looks stunning on an 8K monitor because I'm still rocking a 3070 with a 1080 120 Hz. The fact that it takes them three years to make a game look this good, which is meaningless to a majority of gamers who can't afford that kind of hardware, is especially frustrating. And now they're telling us for the pleasure of waiting so long for them to put the finishing touches on what is effectively marketing material, I have to reserve not just 100+ GB, but all that space on an SSD because the game loads too damn slow otherwise? That's like an eighth of the available space on your average m.2 drive, for one game, for something most people won't even be able to enjoy because their hardware just isn't made for that kind of output.

I don't want sixteen times the detail, I want an optimized game with serviceable assets and a gameplay loop that doesn't feel like a second job. And granted, this is getting beyond the graphics argument, but I like games that aren't afraid of not appealing to the broadest audience. I want my Fallout in Space to have more than four dialog options that all point the same direction. I want to make meaningful choices and play a character that has real opinions and can act accordingly, instead of endless modifiers on the gear of a voice-acted talking doll that exists to service a mostly linear plot. I don't want F4, I want FNV. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the reviews come out and it ends up being as meaningful as I want it to be, but I'm not holding my breath, and in all likelihood I'm not jumping through the hardware hoops to play a game I probably won't like.

Not everyone has large SSDs with space to spare to play multiple games, it seems like it would be pretty straight forward to have HD texture pack downloadable as DLC or something like Skyrim had back in the day, I wonder why more devs don't do that? That would give players a choice of which to use.

I think most people have 1tb of storage space and not much else. Most games these days are well under 100gb. In that respect, it’s kind of ridiculous to have one game take up 1/10th of your storage. I doubt most gamers are going to see those high res textures anyway.

Your point is valid though, too. Games are only increasing in size. I already have 5tb total in my PC but would need more space to install this particular game (I have a lot of games lol). I don’t have a problem upgrading but I don’t think a lot of people the money to buy a $70 plus a good HDD/SSD. Just my thoughts on this.

Data invalid. Please enter credit card number.

On console the Premium edition includes it, and is 17GB larger.