this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30618 readers
104 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

1 TB SSDs are 35-60 dollars.
1 TB HDDs are 22-50 dollars.
2 TB HDDs are 40-65 dollars.
2 TB SDDs are 60-90 dollars.

Clearly, price shouldn't be an issue because one of these drives that give you 10 times the storage is the cost of 1 new release, and the theoretical person who just bought BG3 and Starfield just spent 120 dollars minimum. So theoretical person let's do some math!

Seems really silly to complain that you ran out of space on your PC. Get another drive. If you've filled up your SATA ports, get a PCIe SATA card. If you have all your onboard SATA slots full, plus your PCIe slots are full, plus you've upgraded all the drives you could to at least 1 TB, that typically gives you at least 2-4 TB total. BG3 is taking up 150 GB that you reserved for gaming. Uninstall it if you want to play Starfield. If you don't want to play Starfield that badly then you have your answer.

Clearly, the real answer is that this person needs another drive in their computer. They act like the OS drive is the only thing that could possibly exist in a computer. Worst case, go get a USB 3 drive and toss Starfield on that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I legitimately hope you're trolling.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, you can find people complaining about games being too big in cycles going all the way back to the beginning of retail PC gaming. I remember Screen Savers built their "Ultimate Gaming PC" in like 1998 with a few gigabytes of storage, and they said something like, "I know that seems like a lot, but games these days can be hundreds of megabytes, so we want to be able to just fit them all". Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield are both large games. Not every game is that big, nor are these games necessarily doing something wrong by being that big.

SSD prices finally started dropping rapidly, and HDDs are even cheaper, for games like Sea of Stars or 30XX that don't need read speed performance, both of which have options to extend laptop storage space like the author's use case.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember Strike Commander? The floppy disk version (with very limited speech as well) wanted some 40-50MB when the common HDD sizes were 80-120 MB. I had a larger-than-average 240MB and it'd still have hurt if I didn't have a CD-ROM drive to play the CD edition instead.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember Baldur's Gate 2, which had multiple installation options for different amounts of the game running from the HDD vs CD, and it felt so extravagant to go "install all of it on the HDD!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had to uninstall all other games to play baldurs gate back in the days. Running the game without ever needing to switch CDs. Was worth it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Nah, I loved changing out those disks. Core memory nostalgia material right there. Waste of time for sure, but one I remember fondly in hindsight.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The sentiment isn't wrong. Space is cheap now. Had Star field come out when SSDs were having GPU-like pricing I'd be more outraged, but prices are falling and having multi-terabyte systems shouldn't be an issue. Way cheaper than GPUs that can play the game, that's for sure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got a better idea. You want to make your game stupidly large? Ok fine, sell me a physical copy pre-installed on a fast USB stick. Job done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Read speeds from a USB stick are incomparably slower than most hard drives. The USB 3.0 specification has a theoretical maximum transfer rate of 5Gb/sec (~600MB/s). By comparison, my PCIe 4.0 NVMe (I believe most laptops these days come with NVMe storage? Could be wrong) has a read performance, reported by CrystalDiskMark, of 7.3GB/s (that's a big B, not a little b, and looking at 1MiB sequential 1 thread 8 queues). In other words, my hard drive's measured performance is 12x faster than the theoretical maximum throughput of a USB drive. This also doesn't take into account things like DirectStorage, which some games have started to adopt.

I think realistically games should consider separating the higher quality assets from the low quality assets intended for lower performance systems, and make them separate downloads. HD assets could be a free "DLC" on Steam, for example.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

incomparably slower than most hard drives

Than most Solid State Drives you mean, since Hard Drive Disks have way slower read speeds than USB 3.0/3.1, I even have proof, My partners BG3 game was laggy as hell in her hard drive, but it's manageable to play in an external SSD connected to USB3.1. The read speed changes from 35MB7s-ish to 500MB/s-ish iirc. it was VERY noticeable. Her laptop is a gaming laptop bought 4 years ago, and the processor/grapphics card works pretty well still, but the 250GB SSD is just not enough to manage windows and all the other games/programs, and the HHD is way too slow, so yeah. In the future changing the SSD to put a bigger one would be the best but for now an external drive works wonders.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  • Buy 2tb NVME for 60 bucks
  • Buy NVME usb 3 gen 2 enclosure for 20 bucks
  • Get drive speeds comparable to an internal ssd
  • Profit???
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

USB 3.2 gen 2x2's theoretical speeds cap out at 20Gb/s (or 2.5GB/sec). It's certainly a performance improvement compared to USB 3.0, but still doesn't quite meet the performance of an internal NVMe. If your PC supports Thunderbolt, you get double the bandwidth (so 5GB/sec) which does match what some slower PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives can handle. This is of course assuming you're comparing to a NVMe, a SATA drive won't come close to these speeds but I believe most laptops these days use NVMe drives.

Regardless, if you're loading games off a USB 3.2 gen 2x2 interface, and assuming you're using a single drive to a single controller (keep in mind that performance is split between connected devices per controller, and PCs often only have a couple controllers at most to manage all the ports), your read performance is probably more than enough.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said "Internal SSD" not NVME SSD. So some description fail on my part, I meant SATA SSD.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, most laptops these days ship with an internal NVMe, so that's what I assumed you were comparing against. A USB 3.2 gen 2x2 enclosure will vastly outperform a SATA SSD I believe, again assuming it's the only device connected to your controller.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s a touch trickier to upgrade a laptop, which the writer is talking about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it's not, unless they have a MacBook. And even in that case it's not hard to find an external SSD with a thunderbolt or USB3.2 interface.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

There are plenty of PC laptops with drives that aren't easy to upgrade, it ain't just MacBooks anymore.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd be inclined to agree but I'm frankly somewhat at a loss from this articles perspective. Why a 256gb boot drive in 2023? I'm only assuming, based on the math. If it were 512GB I'd assume they'd be able to shuffle off more data. If it's important files you need to access, store them on an external HDD? If they're a gamer and they know space is an issue, a SSD enclosure is not much more added cost to a 1TB drive and it solves the issue...

Like I said, I understand the intent about game sizes. But people playing BG3 or Starfield on their laptop are going to have other issues on top of storage, since most laptops have a pretty linear upgrade path. If you have the 256gb model the rest of the hardware probably reflects that pricepoint. Like @[email protected] said, at a certain point the idea of a game coming preloaded on a USB drive makes sense, but until then the ease for general use of an SSD enclosure makes more sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, 256gb doesn't really get you very far these days. Everything is so bloated, including the operating system.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm kind of sad about how large games have become and how little goes into optimizing that since "space is cheap"; though it seems people don't really care about the bandwidth (environmental) cost of downloading that now that everything has gone digital (not that I'm saying physical doesn't have waste).

I just kind of wish there were alternates, maybe high-res (free) DLC packs or audio localization packs which I feel like were done in the past but never really became a thing. I find myself sticking to indie games that are only hundreds of MBs instead.

I don't think the article provides any conclusions besides beat games faster to delete them to clear space.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

how little goes into optimizing that since “space is cheap”

More and more developers seem to assume everyone else can afford what they consider to be cheap, and feel entitled to gobble up all the resources on other people's systems as if they aren't needed for anything else.

And speaking of environmental costs, there's also the pollution and e-waste generated by constantly pushing people to upgrade their hardware instead of optimizing the software.

As a developer myself, I find it embarrassing and sad.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

More and more developers seem to assume everyone else can afford what they consider to be cheap, and feel entitled to gobble up all the resources on other people’s systems as if they aren’t needed for anything else.

It's adding insult to injury when most of these games are now also launching at $70-80 these days, too.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Space might be cheap, but SSDs are too small for the slot they take up that could've had a much bigger HDD, and now graphics cards are so big there's physically less room for disks and cables too.

I don't want all SSDs to have room for all the games and nothing else.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My cousin just bought a 2tb nvme for $60, $10 more than a 2tb hdd cost 2 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But I want 8 TB drives. Or more, when they're more reliable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.

Damn dude. You only have ~200GB of storage space? Upgrade your HDD/SSD, for real. I don't even review games for a living and I have 2.5TB. I can definitely fit both games. And then some.

This artificial battle of the VASTLY DIFFERENT STYLE RPGs is fucking bizarre and just a made up issue to get clicks, I swear to Christ.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Starfield has ssd listed as "required". Even if it runs from a HDD it might be horrible, like with No Man's Sky.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh, With games like these a 1TB M2 SSD is kinda required to have, I have one and I'm wanting to have two already tbh.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

When it comes to cheap ssds M2 barely has an advantage over SATA, not in any practical sense anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

like i usually hate the whole, "buy a 2tb ssd, its only like $60" line. like to a lot of people that isn't something you can just drop casually for a video game (especially on top of the price of the game itself!) but I don't really think thats the perspective this writer is coming from.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Same. Those comments are coming from a place of privilege.

A lot of people in a first world country can't afford splurges like that anymore. In third world countries it's even worse. Because of import fees, scarcity, and price gauging, a $60 SSD can easily become $100+. In some countries that's over half of the average monthly income

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yup. And with regional pricing, the discrepancy between a game's price and hardware price is even greater.

For example, BG3 is around 15 dollars in Argentina, but a 2TB SSD is around 130 dollars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Counterpoint: If not having room for a $70 game because there's a $60 game already on there (which also isn't normally a problem for him because his main gaming system is his $500 gaming console) is an issue, then the article is already being written from a position of privilege.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whom ever wrote this article is a massive idiot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Seems like the common vibe in "gaming" articles lately. Low hanging fruit Clickbait slathered in ads and autoplaying videos.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Games really need a solution similar to Android.

Have a lower res screen? Only need to download 1080p assets and textures.

Have a 4k screen? Good luck to your SSD.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's a silly excuse. At roughly $20 / TB, a 150gb game shouldn't be an issue

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk about this price I call shenanigans. I just bought an m.2 drive 2tb for $80 and that was a DEAL for me.

So here's some perspective from a poor grad student's life:

After getting the m.2 and an m.2 housing to do the transfer that left me broke for some time considering I only make $10/hr + (shitty commission) and bills/food are insane.

What I really need to upgrade now is my processor, but again doing something like this really is a luxury. Are all my bills paid? Have I spent a good amount on food recently? Like right now I need an oil change and some new tires so that's yet another month AT LEAST of putting off the upgrade.

Before I was putting it off bc I had to move to go back to school and I hadn't found a job yet in the new location.

Before that I was putting it off to save up for the process of moving and buying out of my old lease after a crazy roommate disagreement (I always have roommates bc I can't afford to live by myself).

Before that I had to help a friend get out of an abusive relationship and support them for a while, while they got back on their feet.

Before that my other friend blew up my car's engine and I had to blow every cent of my savings on a new car.

And while it's true that I could've probably tightened my belt a few times or cut out an unnecessary luxury here or there to get the upgrades I wanted the bottom line is: priority.

The REAL bottom line is: buying games is expensive all by itself and frankly I'd rather come home crack open a beer and try to forget that I'm selling every hour of my life to my capitalist overlords than I would have a few extra fps. I'd rather cut myself some slack/some time to study by eating out for a night than be able to hold a bunch of these mega giant ass games on my drive.

I'd MUCH rather gaming companies take care of THEIR workers and give them reasonable time frames to finish games and optimize them than I would have a brand new triple A title come out glitchy as fuck just in time for whatever holiday season they think my poor ass will be able to afford it (spoiler that season is steam summer sale bc I'll be damned if I buy 99% of games full price.)

tl;dr gaming may be one of my getaways from life but I'd rather game companies prioritize giving their workers time to optimize and complete games. I'd rather me prioritize the small day to day luxuries that get me by in life than prioritize having a baller computer to play those glitchy unfinished unoptimized new titles.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This resonates so much with me. I was hoping to upgrade my GPU this summer, and... yeah, that hasn't happened. But new release games are almost always a mess for the price paid, and there's an awful lot of indie games that run perfectly on my computer as it is right now. I don't think people like us are the target demographic of AAA studios.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where do you get your hard drives? Cheapest 1tb SSD I can get is $65, and the cheapest 1tb nvme drive is $80.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not in Australia, I can assure. Unless they are buying them second hand on Facebook marketplace

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When was the last time you shopped for an SSD? Cheapest 1TB NVMe are around $35.