154

Starfield install size revealed, available to preload now (www.eurogamer.net)

submitted 1 year ago by iusearchbtw@lemmy.sdf.org to c/games@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

On PC, the game is 139.84 GB. On console, it's 100.19 GB for Standard or 117.07 GB for the Premium Edition

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 1 year ago

I remember when Titanfall being 50gb sparked an outrage, it's a good thing SSDs are cheap now.

[-] dandroid@dandroid.app 15 points 1 year ago

I picked up a 1TB NVMe for literally $38 this week. Absolutely absurd how inexpensive SSDs are right now.

[-] jackfrost@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Be careful, most cheap NVMe drives have low endurance. Llike, not "Oh, you're just hand wringing about nothing," endurance ratings but an actually and relevantly low number of terabytes that can be written before the drive becomes failure-prone. They also usually lack a DRAM cache, so certain operations can be as slow as a mechanical hard drive, thereby negating the major advantage of opting for solid-state storage.

[-] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

What low TBW numbers have you seen that give you concern?

[-] dandroid@dandroid.app 6 points 1 year ago

They were all that price unless I went up to PCIe 4.0, which my laptop doesn't support. I got a well-known brand. But thanks for the heads up!

[-] 2nsfw2furious@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago

For future proofing it can be worthwhile to get a pcie4 drive for a pcie3 machine.

That said, even if you have a pcie4 machine it may not be worth it to bother with pcie4 storage. I was annoyed about loading times with baldurs gate 3 and decided to try installing it to a RAM disk (yes, using 130GB of RAM)... Barely loaded any faster. Turns out the main bottleneck is elsewhere and my storage was not the issue

[-] dandroid@dandroid.app 2 points 1 year ago

It was for a laptop. I'm not going to be changing the motherboard to a PCIe 4.0 compatible one. By the time I buy a new laptop, I may need PCIe 5.0. I'm not sure, but I don't want to overspend now when by the time I need something it is cheaper. If PCIe 4.0 is more than $38 cheaper when I need it than now, then I saved money. And I doubt I'll be in the market for a new laptop any time soon. Mine is only 2 years old and still kicks ass.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 0 points 1 year ago

Well known brand like Sandisk?

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

If you're running a database server or something with lots of writing and data you don't want to lose, I can see the concern.

But a drive for gaming is the best possible use case for a lower endurance drive. Even a poor drive can write the whole thing 200 times. I doubt many people would even get close to that.

[-] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This could be a problem for console players though, especially those with a Series S which can't run new games off an external.

[-] rDrDr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Not if you have a PS5. I just added a $99 2TB Samsung 980 Pro to mine. Microsoft really shafted Xbox owners with their Seagate partnershit.

[-] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I completely agree, Microsoft shouldn’t have been greedy and used proprietary storage. Sony did it the right way by allowing you to add your own which lets you find a good deal.

[-] rDrDr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which is ironic since Sony spent two decades trying to make Memory Sticks, UMDs, and MiniDiscs happen. I think they've finally learned their lesson on proprietary storage.

PS5 will also support up to 8TB of additional storage. Series X maxes out at 2TB.