Intrinsic said:
I really don't see what the issue is; I expect these consoles to be able to have at least 8 games installed to their internal drives. Not every games a 100GB+ game. But more so, even if given the option to buy some sort of compatible SSD expansion drive... I wouldn't. I find that to be a waste of money. Why should I spend $100+ on some sort of compatible 1TB drive (be it XSX proprietary drive or a 7GB/s NVMe off the shelf drive), when I can buy this 2TB drive for $65 or this 4TB drive for $94 I mean yes, I would've to be doing some house management, but copying to ad from an external drive is a lot faster than redownloading data or reinstalling from the bluray drive. I would probably only need to moe things to the external drive like 2- 3 ties a year anyways. And I am likely to go for the 4TB drive because that at least allows me to have a good amount of selected PS4 titles from my current library on there and it least with that games I can play them off the external drive. |
Because those drives are insufficient from a performance perspective to load next-gen games from.
Microsoft has taken a performance-guaranteed approach with it's propriety "memory cards". - But that will be more costly.
Sony however is not as propriety, but there isn't enough details to showcase how flexible it truly is or what it's costs are.
I actually like having all my games installed and updated... I have 20~ Terabytes worth of storage on the Xbox One X, 4 Terabytes on the Xbox 360... 50 Terabytes on my PC.
Shit could get expensive for me next gen if I spent $100 per Terabyte...
Not to mention that unlike the spinning rust drives, NAND isn't good for data retention anyway.
| Intrinsic said: The issue is that there is a lot of generalization going around and people don't really take what these machines actually do need into consideration. Lets paint a cerian picture. Ihave edited my originalpost to give a more accurate depiction of what really happens. PS4 running game at 1080p@30fps. 33ms render time with its 1.8TF. Going by steps.
Now not everything scales with resolution. But for certain is that if you double the rez, and this gets a little tricky. Say you want to g from 2Mpx (1080P) to 4M px.
Now you want to bump up to 8M px(native 4k). You need another 30% bump to your CPU and another 100% bump to your GPU bringing your GPU TF to around 7.2TF. But he CPU and GPU in the PS5/XSX is significantly more powerful (or efficient) that whats in the PS4. The CPU is like at least 400% better, and the GPU TF is at least 65$ better. So the PS5/XSX would need around 3TF to render that same game at native 4K@30fps and around 6TF to do it at 60fps. |
Not the way it works.
Nor does Teraflops have a direct relationship with resolution anyway.
| Otter said: The storage space is not ideal but its also super trivial. How many games do you guys play at a time, 10? Especially when you take into account the the biggest games are normally single player campaigns, I think its fine. Games like COD have yearly replacements, and games like Read Dead Redemption come around once every 5 years. Plenty of games are also tiny, the average size of a game this gen is way closer to 40GB then it is to 100GB. Next gen I think we will see sizes vary drastically & the average being around 80GB and the max being 200GB in extremely rare blockbuster instances. Either way it will not be a problem, just as 500GB was not a problem this gen. |
What everyone and their dog seems to be forgetting is the hardware compression/decompression blocks in the Xbox One and Playstation 5... It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that game sizes will be decreased due to compression by almost 40-50%... Of course some datasets will compress better than others, but Sony, Microsoft and AMD didn't do a ton of engineering working on compression/decompression for naught.
| Chrkeller said: It all depends on how it works. If I can load up an external HDD with game, leave the internal storage empty, have games automatically transfer to the uber fast SSD drive while I play, this would be great. But if I constantly have to install/delete this is a problem and makes me consider PC. Especially since I have kids who will want a certain number of games installed pretty much at all times. Storage could be a major issue with consoles. Not sure I like what I am seeing. I would be curious how well games run from an external standard HDD. |
That approach seems better to me as well. I can keep 500~ or so games installed on the mechanical drive and transfer them over on a per-needs basis, that way I won't have to download 10's of gigabytes worth of patch data after every long-ass install. (Data needs to still come from the slow internet/optical disk!)
| KBG29 said: It is fun to discuss this topic, but it should be a conversation around understanding the hardware, and learning how the features will work to achieve new game design, and new ways to interact with game worlds. When it comes right down to it, we are going to see more equal performance between PS5 and XBSX than we did between PS4/XBO or PS4P and XBO X. A large number of multiplats will run identical on both systems. Some will take better advantage of PS5, some will take better advantage of XBSX. The exclusives will deliver what each console can achieve at its peak performance. |
The next battle should be mostly centered around price I think.
If the Xbox Series X is cheaper than the Playstation 5... Then it's a no brainer. Same holds true in reverse.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
