114
I Simply Do Not Have Room On My PC For Starfield
(www.thegamer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
114 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
263 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I said "Internal SSD" not NVME SSD. So some description fail on my part, I meant SATA SSD.
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.
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.
Compared to a HDD, yeah USB 3.0 speeds aren't too bad, but most laptops being released these days use an NVMe for storage (or possibly even a soldered drive). My comparison was around what you'd expect in a laptop purchased in the past year or so.
For your partner's laptop, getting better read performance from an external drive doesn't surprise me, but there are also limits to this. Games are starting to support DirectStorage, which allows the GPU to directly read and decompress assets from the hard drive. This won't work with an external drive (at least from my understanding), so those games will likely fallback to much slower methods of loading assets if they support the laptop at all. This is also not taking into account the other hardware on the laptop, which might have been excellent for the time, but with how much CPUs and GPUs have advanced over the past 4 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they're starting to reach their limits with today's major releases.
I hear what you're saying, but I have about 200 games stored on a traditional HDD that only provides me a read speed of about 220MB/s absolute maximum and I have never had a single issue with any game running from it. As you say this could become a problem as devs adopt directstorage but as it stands right now, it's a total none-issue.
I have a 2TB NVME M.2 drive in my PC but don't really see any advantage to putting games on there, that's what bulk storage is for. If you are playing online, 99% of games will have a countdown or otherwise make you wait until the slowest PC is also ready to go. If it's a game that uses loading screens, I really don't care as it still loads pretty damn fast.
Pretty much the only games that I will throw on my M.2 drive is open world games that load as you go if I am on my first playthrough. RDR2 lived on there for a while.
Given that Starfield has a requirement for an SSD even in minimum requirements, would even USB3 be fast enough?
just need the USB 3.2 2x2 gen 2 thing (thanks USB for that fucked up name scheme) that the USB spec mangled for the 40 Gbps transfer speed
You also have to be careful with what other USB devices you plug into your computer (both internal and external). The spec is 40 Gb/s for the controller, but ports often share the same controller and the bandwidth will be split between connected devices. For some computers, this could mean that 3 or more ports should be completely blocked off when plugging your gaming USB drive in, at least while playing the game. If your PC only has a single USB controller, I guess you'll also need bluetooth peripherals.
Fair enough, I imagine the potential audience of people who both have that tech (and are aware of if rather than it just coming with their machine) and also don't have enough internal memory to install a game is quite small in the grand scheme of things and a hard sell for a publisher.
Should be.
I'll let ya know.
You can get a USB 3 SD card reader and a fast SD card yourself. Even if it was bundled with the game, you're paying for the cost of the physical materials.
I don't think you understand economies of scale. It doesn't make sense for me to pay retail price for a single unit, especially if I have no other use for it. These costs are trivial at scale, and would also hopefully provide some impetus to optimise the code and texture storage.
Economies of scale aren't magic. Games are somewhat resistant to price increases in the face of inflation because we've shifted to digital distribution that you're looking to erode with the suggestion of shipping with physical media again, and you'd still have to pay well more than half of the price it would take you to buy that same media on Amazon. The storage size has grown because they've been optimizing for other factors, and I'm sure they came to the conclusion that it's more likely you'll free up space or buy storage expansions in the future after a price drop than it is that you would buy a game that ran worse or looked worse forever because they optimized more for storage space.
I am happy to pay whatever extra it costs to have the experience of actually owning a game on a lasting medium with some artwork. My experience with digital downloads is that I just never care as much. Often I won't even finish the game unless it is beyond amazing. I like to receive tangible things for my hard earned money I guess.
Flash drives are not a lasting medium. You'd need something like a quad-layer blu-ray, which is not cheap and has slow read speeds compared to solid state storage. Also nobody has blu-ray readers anymore. Also blu-ray publishers are tiny. Also the expense of distributing physical media.
So we've arrived back at the beginning - you can have this cake and eat it too, but you're going to have to eat the expense yourself. Imposing it upon the entire consumer market is selfish and wasteful.
Damn I’m paying $3 more for production costs in a large scale bulk order.
Too much! Better give me a shitty plastic trinket and a postcard.
That would work only in the console (or Apple) world where you can control who and how can access the data. Otherwise someone will stick it to an USB 1.1 hub connected to the USB 2.0 port for the mouse and then complain "the game is unbearably slow!!!!"
Plus I don't think anyone would want to pay $150 for a game (no, you can't use a $10 USB drive for this)