By: wumpus (lost.delete@this.in.a.cave), April 23, 2019 8:06 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on April 23, 2019 7:36 am wrote:
> pgerassi (pgerassi2012.delete@this.wi.rr.com) on April 22, 2019 11:45 pm wrote:
> > Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on April 22, 2019 9:54 am wrote:
> > isn't future proof, and 500GB is the next step (480-512GB going by typical retail SATA3 and NVMe sizes) for
> > the typical 5-7 year life of a console. A midlife kicker
> > to 1TB would take care of even the worst game size
> > creep over that span.
>
> We'll mostly agree on this, except that I don't count game sizes based on what reasonable
> from technical perpective, but based on what will likely be done (100 GB games exist
> for PS4. Larger ones will exist for PS5, but teh console doesn't need to be optimized
> for someone who wants to keep ten largest games around all the time).
>
> > 1TB SATA3 SSD is more than fast enough for FHD textures on GTA-V on my new box which
> > will soon be 2 generations back. It does have 48GB of memory (main and VRAM). A non
>
> -JLarja
Even including the ability to connect a USB drive (like the PS4 can) should cover anyone who wants to own the "top selling [huge] PS5 games" (and doesn't have an unlimited gigabit fiber internet connection). I just have to wonder if any studio is looking at a 500G NVMe and thinking "what type of game would I have if I used *all* of it"?
PS. The MMO Dungeons & Dragons Online was notoriously unoptimized for hard drive access, even when users rarely had SSD. There was a non-supported "defragger" (for the data files) that existed for their sister MMO (Lord of the Rings Online), but its effects were iffy. After a long absence I revisited it (after moving the thing from SSD to rotating disk to save space) and found that the optimization was so bad that the game kicked me out (for lagging too long) because my [area] load time was too long on the rotating hard drive. I had to move it back to SSD just to play the game.
So for lower budget PC games (and presumably console games out at the end of the long tail), I wouldn't expect that much work in optimizing patches. Or at least *count* on much work optimizing patches.
> pgerassi (pgerassi2012.delete@this.wi.rr.com) on April 22, 2019 11:45 pm wrote:
> > Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on April 22, 2019 9:54 am wrote:
> > isn't future proof, and 500GB is the next step (480-512GB going by typical retail SATA3 and NVMe sizes) for
> > the typical 5-7 year life of a console. A midlife kicker
> > to 1TB would take care of even the worst game size
> > creep over that span.
>
> We'll mostly agree on this, except that I don't count game sizes based on what reasonable
> from technical perpective, but based on what will likely be done (100 GB games exist
> for PS4. Larger ones will exist for PS5, but teh console doesn't need to be optimized
> for someone who wants to keep ten largest games around all the time).
>
> > 1TB SATA3 SSD is more than fast enough for FHD textures on GTA-V on my new box which
> > will soon be 2 generations back. It does have 48GB of memory (main and VRAM). A non
>
> -JLarja
Even including the ability to connect a USB drive (like the PS4 can) should cover anyone who wants to own the "top selling [huge] PS5 games" (and doesn't have an unlimited gigabit fiber internet connection). I just have to wonder if any studio is looking at a 500G NVMe and thinking "what type of game would I have if I used *all* of it"?
PS. The MMO Dungeons & Dragons Online was notoriously unoptimized for hard drive access, even when users rarely had SSD. There was a non-supported "defragger" (for the data files) that existed for their sister MMO (Lord of the Rings Online), but its effects were iffy. After a long absence I revisited it (after moving the thing from SSD to rotating disk to save space) and found that the optimization was so bad that the game kicked me out (for lagging too long) because my [area] load time was too long on the rotating hard drive. I had to move it back to SSD just to play the game.
So for lower budget PC games (and presumably console games out at the end of the long tail), I wouldn't expect that much work in optimizing patches. Or at least *count* on much work optimizing patches.
