Alternative distribution to optical disks : SSD, cards, and download*

[vipa899]

In 2013 when PS4 and Xbox One launched with 8GB or ram, the highest end PC parts had 4GB or ram.

No, 7970 6GB could be had summer 2012, well over a year before PS4/Xone. Titan didnt release much later after 7970, had 6GB too, and was a monster of a gpu at that.
Thats 6GB just for the gpu, or about 80% of consoles total ram amount.
Wasnt there only 6GB for games in ps4/xbox?

 

[phoenix_chipset]

You have never once said or thought we'd get 512gb to 1tb ssds. Just the fact that you call for an hdd alongside the ssd coincides with that, why else suggest that if not to say they can't afford an ssd large enough for mass storage. Correct? And oh please, I can't remember reading one debate between you and another mod as long as i've been here.

Yeah, keep being intelligent, intelligently.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

No, 7970 6GB could be had summer 2012, well over a year before PS4/Xone. Titan didnt release much later after 7970, had 6GB too, and was a monster of a gpu at that.
Thats 6GB just for the gpu, or about 80% of consoles total ram amount.
Wasnt there only 6GB for games in ps4/xbox?

They only have 5gb for games and.. yep that is a real waste of resources. You'd think with 3gb locked out ps4 could have a decent web browser.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You have never once said or thought we'd get 512gb to 1tb ssds. Just the fact that you call for an hdd alongside the ssd coincides with that, why else suggest that if not to say they can't afford an ssd large enough for mass storage. Correct? And oh please, I can't remember reading one debate between you and another mod as long as i've been here.

Yeah, keep being intelligent, intelligently.

Me asking what the minimum size of SSD for a console needs to be...
Me recommending they put in an SSD and leave out the HDD enitrely...
Me disagreeing with Brit and suggesting the SSD only solution is still the better one...
Me disagreeing with Brit regards bug concerns on swapping out storage with faster options...

You've clearly paid no attention to anything I've posted the entire time you've been here. Take the blinkers off. I'm pro SSD, and I plenty disagree with plenty of people. There's no corporate line, and no need for you to 1) try and group all individual moderators under the one banner and 2) try and one-upmanship the mod team as if that wins you Internet Kudos, as if the 'Mod Team' are a group of experts on a game-show that the public wants to see finally taken down by a plucky contestant.

 

[BRiT]

An ssd + hdd combo is what I consider hybrid storage. You don't think it's possible we'll get 1tb ssd's without the need for an hdd for mass storage, and yeah all the mods share this opinion.

Maybe we won't but it's certainly very possible looking at the price cuts, future cuts and manufacturer discounts (esp. if we only get 16gb ram) - all i'm saying. We'll see

How do you support external storage, something that PS4 and Xbox One currently supports, without hybrid storage pools in order to get actual benefits that developers can ensure are always there?

 

[Jupiter]

The Division works on console because your ability to move through the world quickly is zero. You'll never be inside, then suddenly outdoors and two blocks down 4 seconds later and expecting the engine to have streamed in every street, texture and distance LOD for any direction you may chose in the next second.

There is no point mentioning Star Citizen, a game requiring a minimum 16Gb system RAM and 4Gb GPU RAM, here in the console section.

That's right, In The Division the character moves very slowly because there are no vehicles etc.. However, I think this is more of a CPU/GPU relief than a memory relief.

All well and good up until the point you die and reload at a save point in a different location or use fast travel to go from one part of the world to another.

At that point no matter how sophisticated the streaming technology is, you're going to have lengthy load screens unless they pop you into a box (relatively little graphical assets) that takes a long time to exit (new graphical assets streaming in).

Using The Division as an example if you die...long loading on a PC with an SSD. If you fast travel...long loading on a PC with an SSD.

Then you have hybrid systems like Gears of War 4 and God of War (2018) that load all of the assets at the start of a "level" (which is just a segment of the map) and masks that load with minimally interactive corridors or transitions.

Regards,
SB

There are loading screens after dying but why does it have to start immediately? After losing one could need a short calming phase in my opinion. I think the spawning in Battlefield V is impressive (camera goes down to the gorund). It feels seamless to me.

Yes, an SSD helps a lot with topics like fast travel etc. In some situations I have no loading times (Wildlands) and reach my destination one second after pressing the button. I can wait a few seconds. While loading times in gameplay annoy me they don't bother me at all when spawning or teleporting.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What do you mean, "the mods keep saying"? All of us, as one voice, keep suggesting SSDs will never happen at every opportunity? Go read the alternative storage thread.

Stop trying to pretend the mods aren't the nerd equivalent of the Illuminati!

That's right, In The Division the character moves very slowly because there are no vehicles etc.. However, I think this is more of a CPU/GPU relief than a memory relief.

It's probably a bit of everything. Modern game environments consume a ton of increasing complex, more detailed nom-static geometry with increasingly more unique textures. That's a ton fo memory right there. As I said above, something has to give. There are answers to this, lower resolution textures, more shared textures, smaller environments, less geometry, contrived environments revealing less of the distance, but I'm guessing that isn't what Shortbread craves.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No, 7970 6GB could be had summer 2012, well over a year before PS4/Xone. Titan didnt release much later after 7970, had 6GB too, and was a monster of a gpu at that.
Thats 6GB just for the gpu, or about 80% of consoles total ram amount.
Wasnt there only 6GB for games in ps4/xbox?

Also don't forget that typical gaming PCs had between 4-32 GB of system ram. On average about 8-16 GB.

So while XBO and PS4 had 8 GB of RAM. Gaming PCs of the time on average went with 12-22 GB of RAM (4-6 for the GPU and 8-16 for the CPU).

That said, comparing memory amounts between PC and console is tricky when consoles of this generation have a unified memory pool. There's no need for duplicate assets in both the CPU and GPU memory pools. But even with that, consoles definitely had less memory available than all but the low end of budget gaming capable PC systems.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Seriously I bought a 1tb crucial drive last year on sale for 240 so the base price was 300. You can now buy a 1tb wd blue ssd for half that price! What's the price going to be next year? Think about that, and then consider the savings sony would get buying in bulk. Yeah fellas, noooo way we'll get full ssds next gen.

Sure, and I was and am a huge proponent for SSD or anything faster than mechanical drives for future consoles. But we're only just now dipping back under the 200 USD for 1 TB mark that was set over 2 years ago before NAND demand skyrocketed. I bought 2 1 TB SSDs for under 200 dollars back in early to mid 2016. In 2017 they skyrocketed in price.

The NAND flash market is fairly volatile, but costs should see consistent decrease for a while as TLC is in mass production at all fabs (was only Samsung back then with some other fabs introducing their first TLC offerings) and QLC is primed for introduction.

But it still depends heavily on where demand is and whether we see another spike in demand.

That said. We're still a long way from an SSD only console. If memory amounts go up, game sizes are going to grow as well. 1 TB will be the minimum need as a storage pool for next gen consoles, IMO. And even at 100 USD for a 1 TB SSD, that would be far too expensive for a console. We'd have to see a dramaticly large reduction in the cost of NAND flash for this to happen. Something on the order of 25-50 USD (cost to manufacturer, not consumer) for a 1 TB SSD might make them feasible. That brings them within shouting distance of mechanical drives.

Hybrid solutions with NAND buffer and mechanical storage is the most reasonable solution. But it's also costly.

Regards,
SB

 

[function]

Games are already passing 100 GB installs, in some cases even without X1X extras. With increased performance and resolution will come a demand for better assets - and that demand will ultimately be met.

1TB is the bare minimum for a 2020 console to exist on, 2TB is far more likely. 2TB in a laptop drive will be under $40. I strongly suspect 2TB of SSD will not be under $40 by 2020.

Additional storage in the form of external HDDs has been hugely popular this generation - and almost without exception those drives have been shit-as-fuck 1~2 TB 5400 rpm laptop drives. Without some kind of automated caching for external drives, gamers will find their cost-inflated SSD reliant consoles cost inflated further by the need to put 2TB SSDs in USB3-limited caddys.

Bring it on I say. I used to pay $100+ in modern money for a 16 mbit cart (that's 2MB for you pube-trimming youngsters), but the use of slow and limited flash in modern phones does not suggest that even millennials are prepared to throw unlimited amounts of their parents money at multi-terrabyte quantities of storage for their games.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I'd almost say developers got spoiled this generation. For the amount of "power" the base PS4 and Xbone have, they would've been serviceable with 3/4 or perhaps even half the RAM had it not been for all the crap they run in the background. R9 270 2GB I used to have got by on 2GB just fine, and could run numerous games that recommended 3GB for higher end textures. Perhaps a more limited memory setup would force devs to reign in their tendency to oversaturate their worlds with more minute performance robbing details that don't offer that much to the visual value. I'm kind of tired of this 30 FPS target nonsense, when some games are barely hitting it half the time (I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed games). Adaptive resolution only goes so far. Boy am I cynical.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People seem to forget that PS4 was set to release with 4GBs.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Fair enough @Shifty Geezer I was mistaken, my apologies.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

How do you support external storage, something that PS4 and Xbox One currently supports, without hybrid storage pools in order to get actual benefits that developers can ensure are always there?

Like how PS4 currently handles external drives, you just move data from internal to external when you need the space, and games aren't run off the external drive.

So ps5 ships with 512gb to 1 tb ssd and you buy more storage as needed. Why not, since Nintendo gets away with 32gb on Wii u and switch.

 

[function]

Like how PS4 currently handles external drives, you just move data from internal to external when you need the space, and games aren't run off the external drive.

So ps5 ships with 512gb to 1 tb ssd and you buy more storage as needed. Why not, since Nintendo gets away with 32gb on Wii u and switch.

Nintendo didn't get away with anything on the Wii U. It bombed harder than a B-52.

Switch is portable, so the massive cost of storage relative to a HDD is unavoidable.

PS4 runs games from external storage, as does XB1. Any solution involving external storage needs to 1) be affordable and 2) be automatic beyond pointing the download at a drive. That will require at least at least 150GB of caching space on an internal SSD. Plus 20~30 GB for OS and apps, another 16+GB for suspend.

Next gen needs a bare minimum of 1TB in the box (probably 2TB) and to be able to run externally stored games automatically either directly or using a cache.

Console vendors want to sell software, not someone else's SSDs and USB caddys.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

So PS4 can run games off external, ok. Point still stands, they can have you transfer data back and forth between internal and external.

Switch is also a home console, so eternal Nintendo critics aside they're getting people to pony up for external storage and the system sells like hot cakes.

If the software and hardware is good, people will buy more storage.

 

[see colon]

Switch is a bit different, though. First off, most games bought physically don't require a large install like nearly every game on PS4 or XBONE. Second, Nintendo doesn't support external storage, just expanding the internal storage via SD cards. But again, unless you only buy digital, or only buy the games that have an install, Switch comes with enough space for it's target audience. XB1X is the worst offender, since many games install those "4k textures" on top of the default install, and the system ships with a max 1TB drive.

 

[function]

So PS4 can run games off external, ok. Point still stands, they can have you transfer data back and forth between internal and external.

Point doesn't stand, at all. You don't need to transfer games in order to run them, as you claimed. You run it from wherever it was installed to. That requires either loading directly (as with PS4 and X1) or caching. Caching requires a large amount of internal memory to be reserved, as games are already exceeding 100GB and still growing.

I'm fine with caching, as for me an infrequently and predicatable penalty is worth it for the gameplay experiences it can offer.

But you can't expect people to have to buy external SSDs in order to go beyond what is already a paltry and almost unusable "480GB" drive. All of the PS4 / Xbox 1 owners I know already have 1 or 2 TB USB driven HDDs supplementing their clogged up systems. And yeah, for most of them it's 2TB.

Switch is also a home console, so eternal Nintendo critics aside they're getting people to pony up for external storage and the system sells like hot cakes.

Nintendo have no other option but to use only solid state. Nintendo Switch games run (mostly) from the carts they were bought on, and don't need installing. Nintendo Switch games are relatively small. Nintendo aren't so heavily into DD. Nintendo games aren't available on a competitors platform. Nintendo have no direct competitor in the niche they have identified and conquered.

Just because Nintendo have succeeded with these limitations (this time) doesn't mean these limitations will not be a factor for vastly larger games, with vastly more DD activity, in a fight with more direct competition.

If the software and hardware is good, people will buy more storage.

So people limit their software and hardware purchases because of cost considerations, but somehow, the finances to purchase additional storage are not even a factor!

Bollocks.

Money is finite. It you want to buy games but can't because you have to spend four times the value of that game on external storage first, then software sales suffer.

The time of solid state consoles will come, but not in 2019 with a 500GB PS5.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

Switch is a bit different, though. First off, most games bought physically don't require a large install like nearly every game on PS4 or XBONE. Second, Nintendo doesn't support external storage, just expanding the internal storage via SD cards. But again, unless you only buy digital, or only buy the games that have an install, Switch comes with enough space for it's target audience. XB1X is the worst offender, since many games install those "4k textures" on top of the default install, and the system ships with a max 1TB drive.

True, but some physical games require additional downloads on switch to even play. I won't be buying them, but for those that don't care about complete games and buy a lot of digital (again not me) additional storage is practically mandatory. How many people these days are going to avoid buying games that need patched? A minority for sure. Digital is becoming very prominent.

If Nintendo can get away with this, even if the games are smaller, I think the others can.

And yeah frankly these devs that have gigs and gigs of patches need slapped. Like red dead is 105gbs but only comes with one disc? I'm pretty sure there is 0 regard for proper compression there.

Microsoft had it right with 360's patch limits and imo they never should have caved.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

They COULD set it up to where you can't run from external, is what I said. We'll just see, huh?

You wouldn't buy external ssds, you buy external hdds which are dirt cheap and people buy them on PS4 and xb1 Soo..?

To make this absolutely clear for you @function where words can't be mistaken, in this scenario you'd have your 1tb ssd or whatever, then you pay less than $100 for a 4tb external drive that doesn't need to be fast enough to run the games, just store them. Which people already pay for.

No amount of screaming it makes it true that games would HAVE to be able to run off external and this is absolutely possible, whether you agree that this a good choice or not.