By: Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com), April 19, 2019 8:29 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
wumpus (lost.delete@this.in.a.cave) on April 19, 2019 7:40 am wrote:
> Top selling games for January 2019 (the latest a simple search shows):
> [note that some are download size, other taken from https://www.gamesradar.com/biggest-ps4-install-size-games/
> after patches and whatnot are loaded]
>
> 40G 1. Kingdom Hearts 3
> 20G 2. Resident Evil 2
> 76G 3. Grand Theft Auto 5
> 101G 4. Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
> 43G 5. Madden NFL 19
> 40G 6. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
> 105G 7. Red Dead Redemption 2
> 40G 8. FIFA 19
> tiny 9. Minecraft (searches returned world size)
> 40G 10. Battlefield V (install size. Battlefield IV premium ballooned to 75G)
>
> So these are the size of the currently popular playstation HD games. Crank them to 4k
> and you will quickly fill a sub-TB hard drive. While I really don't expect them to be
> able to get away with rotating storage, expect Sony to need to ship a lot of QLC flash.
Sure, if one presumes crancing up to 4k means four times the size. But it doesn't. And not many people will be alternating between e.g. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Call of Duty (just to pick the largest ones). For most people, there are one or two games they are currently playing, and many more that they could maybe revisit some time in the future. If there isn't room for all of the latter, it doesn't really matter whether you can hold 10 or 50 % of them ready to play.
Many people also take advantage of PS+ to get new games. However, my understanding of US Internet market is that many people wouldn't be happy to download 100+ GB games, so they probably pick something smaller to offer there.
I'm not suggesting 500 GB would be ideal, but I can see them getting away with that. Even if one takes the list above and multiplies sizes by four, 1 TB seems quite enough. Added value of few more terabytes goes down pretty fast for most people (personally, I've always thought the 500 GBs in current generation consoles would be too little, but most people disagree (and to be honest, I don't really have any idea. I game mostly on PC. My about 200 game collection there is less than 2 TBs, but of course that has little to do with today's AAA games)).
I don't see much point with having too-small-for-a--single-game cache SSD + HDD, since that would be problematic for developers (games would still need to deal with the assumption that they may be "swapped out" of SSD any time). The space where SSD + HDD makes sense is just too narrow.
-JLarja
> Top selling games for January 2019 (the latest a simple search shows):
> [note that some are download size, other taken from https://www.gamesradar.com/biggest-ps4-install-size-games/
> after patches and whatnot are loaded]
>
> 40G 1. Kingdom Hearts 3
> 20G 2. Resident Evil 2
> 76G 3. Grand Theft Auto 5
> 101G 4. Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
> 43G 5. Madden NFL 19
> 40G 6. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
> 105G 7. Red Dead Redemption 2
> 40G 8. FIFA 19
> tiny 9. Minecraft (searches returned world size)
> 40G 10. Battlefield V (install size. Battlefield IV premium ballooned to 75G)
>
> So these are the size of the currently popular playstation HD games. Crank them to 4k
> and you will quickly fill a sub-TB hard drive. While I really don't expect them to be
> able to get away with rotating storage, expect Sony to need to ship a lot of QLC flash.
Sure, if one presumes crancing up to 4k means four times the size. But it doesn't. And not many people will be alternating between e.g. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Call of Duty (just to pick the largest ones). For most people, there are one or two games they are currently playing, and many more that they could maybe revisit some time in the future. If there isn't room for all of the latter, it doesn't really matter whether you can hold 10 or 50 % of them ready to play.
Many people also take advantage of PS+ to get new games. However, my understanding of US Internet market is that many people wouldn't be happy to download 100+ GB games, so they probably pick something smaller to offer there.
I'm not suggesting 500 GB would be ideal, but I can see them getting away with that. Even if one takes the list above and multiplies sizes by four, 1 TB seems quite enough. Added value of few more terabytes goes down pretty fast for most people (personally, I've always thought the 500 GBs in current generation consoles would be too little, but most people disagree (and to be honest, I don't really have any idea. I game mostly on PC. My about 200 game collection there is less than 2 TBs, but of course that has little to do with today's AAA games)).
I don't see much point with having too-small-for-a--single-game cache SSD + HDD, since that would be problematic for developers (games would still need to deal with the assumption that they may be "swapped out" of SSD any time). The space where SSD + HDD makes sense is just too narrow.
-JLarja
