Not to forget that GTA V worked fine on PS360 so yes 512Mb was sufficient for capable devs. For me skyrim is a piece of bad SW in all systems.

Because on Xbox 1 they are different game. Are you going to ask why do we need better GPU and CPU to play those games on XSX since we can do with much worse on X1 base model?

It isn't even needed, you can either just use the 1TB internal or transfer from the external HDD to the internal and play. The external SSD is needed just if you want to play directly from it or pick the installed game there and play at a friends house on the go.

Since it is totally unnecessary I would consider that there isn't cause for concern, we pay 60USD for controllers that cost less than 15USD to make so paying 100 for a SDD drive shouldn't really be the issue.

Lmfao meanwhile the wii and all consolea that camr before had colors to spare.

There ain't a consensus about that.

I mentioned Skyrim because it was the memory limitation that made it impossible to fix the game without severely downgrading it with bad performance. The issue with Skyrim was not the old engine. The problem was the game remembers every change you make to the world, everything you displace, knock over, put down, it stores it in memory and commits it to disk in clusters. It did this in a smart way already by only noting the difference opposed to the normal (original) state.

That's why the game started running fine, but the more you altered in the world, the slower it got (using the disk to store and retrieve changes) to the point it ended up crashing because of lack of memory.

So the solution with other games and as always is to make more static games. Everything resets when out of view, nothing is permanent, repeating car models in GTA. Ever notice how it's always the same cars that come by, drive a rare sports car and now it's everywhere on the road... Drive 2 blocks away, turn around and everything is back to normal.

Lack of memory is responsible for all that and it's still the same in RDR2.

It would be awesome to have a full scale version of From Dust, RPGs where changes are permanent instead of scripted. No man's sky (another unoptimized game right) struggles with all the changes you can make. The more changes you can make the more simple the game has to be, see Minecraft.

LBP and now Dreams, always constrained by memory trying to find a balance between segmenting and trying to stuff things in the active view.


Less memory, fewer hopes for some real advance in games. I would like to see more dynamic worlds where you can make permanent changes and where things change on their own over time. Living worlds instead of static always resetting environments. Instead we probably just get more of the same in higher resolution and better lighting. No wonder BC is high on the list of features to have!

I'm pretty sure it is 2.5 GiB (gibibytes, so 2.5 x 1024³ or 2.5 x 2³⁰) instead of 2.5 GB (gigabytes, so 2.5 x 1000³⁾

^{Storage is usually marketed in base-10-numbers, but RAM size is still in base-2-numbers as far as I know.}

"GB means Gigabyte which is a unit of storage capacity of HDD, USB drives, flash drives, SD cards, and Solid States"

But we aren't talking about storage in the context above, we are talking about RAM

32 "GB" RAM have a different capacity than a 32-GB SD card:

https://www.mirazon.com/storage-ram-size-doesnt-add/

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

I've seem GiB before, but not usual.

ROFL! Yeah, no.

NES had only a total palette of 64 colors (6 bit, though 10 were black, resulting into 54 colors total), and even that one was divided into palettes of 25 colors (5 bit including 7 black colors) for backgrounds and even just 3 + transparency (2 bit) for sprites as it's VRAM was too small for more. And even then having more than a couple sprites at the same time caused flickering because VRAM overflow.

SNES had a 32000 colors palette(15 bit) in total, but of those only 256 could be visible at once (8bit) in low resolution, or even just 128 colors (7 bit) with high resolution, while sprites were limited to 16 (4 bit) to save on memory.

Speaking of sprites, they were also limited in size and numbers, otherwise the VRAM would again overflow. Same with the screen resolution, which was only 256x240 on the NES and on the SNES (SNES also had higher resolutions, but those were interlaced, so only every second line or row or even both were actually used).

Let's have a closer look at the SNES for a while. The SNES has a total of 64 Kilobyte of VRAM. Calculate 256*240*8, which results in 491200 bits or exactly 60 Kilobyte for the background of a SNES game. it could have sprites of up to 64x64 in 4 bit color depth, which is exactly 2 kilobyte, so only 2 different of those could exist without screen flickering. Thus most used smaller sprites, for instance 8x8 sprites are just 32 byte tall, meaning 128 of those can fit into 4 kilobyte. And 128 sprites at once are also the maximum it could show based on it's specs.

The reason why older games are more colorful is not due to them having lots of colors, but because programmers could choose by hand exactly what colors they wanted, while the lack of VRAM imposed restrictions on things like resolution and the sprites. Once we reached millions of colors, that just wasn't feasible anymore, and instead the bit depth got simply reduced to not tax the memory too much. The strong compression of those textures to fit into the tiny VRAM further deteriorated their colors, and they looked very muted as a result.

You are good at moderating, but you really seem to have a problem admitting even the tiniest mistake on your side.

When you are writing that there is a difference between 2.5gb (gigabits) and 2.5GB (gigabytes), it is okay because "it is helping with confusion for anyone trying to learn."

And when I am writing that there is also a difference between 2.5GB (gigabytes) and 2.5GiB (gibibytes) and that RAM + storage is counted in different units, I'm "taking it too far for no reason at all"? Why ain't that information also  "helping with confusion for anyone trying to learn."

If more people know the difference between gibibyte and gigabyte (or tebibyte and terabyte) there would be much less confusion why "they don't get the capacity they paid for".

Saw your edit after my post. I don't have anything to apology for because I'm still right and RAM is binary based.

But if the whole industry ignores the correct units I can live with that... ignorance is bliss.