I’m pretty sure bethesda said playing starfield with a hard drive isn’t great 1tb SSDs aren’t too expensive anymore I’d really recommend moving away from a hard drive
M.2 SATA drives are still a thing, same port, but different slower protocol as NVMe. They are less common, but still around and available in TB size. Don’t think there is any reason to get this outside of compatibility with old hardware.
There is also mSATA, which is a different port from M.2, but has a very similar look and size. Also slower than NVMe and no reason to get them unless you have hardware that uses them (e.g. some old Beelink miniPC have them).
I definitely support the hypothesis that calling all storage drives hard drives is an old curmudgeon thing 😅 I’ve been doing computer nerdery for way over 30 years, and a hard drive is a hard drive even if it doesn’t have spinny disks in it
I think storage or storage drive is the umbrella term these days. “Hard drive” was always short for “Hard Disk Drive” (which was named in comparison to Floppy Disk Drive) but since it was the only type of drive used for non-volatile internal storage for a good 20 years or so, it became a catch-all term. These days, many people understand there’s two different kinds and a lot of systems have both, so hard drive is becoming recognized to mean the spinning disks; as opposed to SSD, which is now an umbrella term incorporating 2.5" SATA, M.2 SATA, and M.2 NVMe, which are all Solid State Drives but different combinations of interfaces and form factors.
Nah, the "SS" and "HD" bits refers to how each storage disk reads data. HDDs use hard metal disks to read & write data, hence it got the misnomer hard disk drive. SSDs use solid state flash memory to read & write data, hence it being called a solid state drive.
If you want the general category, you'd want to say "storage drive" specifically since if you say "drive", that can also refer to an optical drive (AKA the CD slot) or a USB drive (AKA flash/thumb drives).
The classic, computer science term for all of these devices is “secondary storage”, if anyone’s looking for a way to confuse people briefly before explaining that you mean “hard drives, SSDs, etc.”
Sure. And of course it remains to be seen whether Starfield is worth it, but it’s undeniable that a game of this magnitude isn’t a common occurrence. If they realize the game’s potential, then missing out on it because of a relatively inexpensive hardware upgrade seems like a shame.
I’m guessing one of those is Baldurs Gate, but I’m struggling to think of two more. There’s been some decent games for sure but none other that I’d put on the same scale. Diablo 4 had the potential but squandered it imo.
None are baldur’s gate. While I’m loving baldur’s gate, it’s far from a market disruptor. The three games I was thinking of were TOTK, Diablo 4, and FFXVI.
To be clear, of the ones listed I only care about TOTK and BG3. I’m looking at “megaton games” by a general ascertainment of how relevant they are to the enthusiast gamers, and how much they sell. FFXVI came out and kinda did not great for an FF game so I’ll concede there. No idea about Diablo 4, I assume it was middling or “as expected”, while TOTK sold 18 million in its first 6 weeks; though I may largely be familiar with that due to being in proximity of Nintendo-related circles.
It really is subjective what measure we’re using though. BG3’s been amazing in relative terms to what would typically be expected of “DnD RPG” (maybe there’s a better term), and developers have been reacting to it far more than they would most other megaton games. TOTK’s no slouch on its own, impressing developers over its extremely impressive yet performent physics engine.
All fair points. I wasn’t trying to argue, just to have a friendly discourse :) My calling it a “game of magnitude” is obviously very open to interpretation.
For what it’s worth what I was trying to say was that this game has the potential to be unlike any game before it, so it’d be a shame to miss out on it just to avoid a minor hardware upgrade. But that in itself is of course also subjective. Suffice to say I myself won’t be missing out… :p
Fair say! I’m personally not someone who particularly vibes with the aesthetic of bethesda games so I’ll be missing out, but I hope it’s as good as fans expect ❤️
Is a game like Starfield “missable” though? Games like this’ll realistically be accessible for years (decades?) to come (not even counting Bethesda’s love of rereleasing their latest hit a la Skyrim lol). They might miss out on the cultural discussion if the game’s a hit though, that’s definitely a trade-off of late adoption, like what I’m experiencing with BG3 lol.
Yeah that’s fair. It might even be worth waiting a year so the community can fix all the bugs :p I know I’m too impulsive to wait that long though. Played through Cyberpunk at launch and loved it!
If I’m being honest, they deserve it. I played Overwatch 2 maybe 10 Times, the constant reminder that you aren’t playing for fun, but for a totally original and new character or something very useful like a skin in the battle pass is quite annoying. The 5v5 was at first glance refreshing but got old at a rapid pace. Just play Team Fortress 2 if you’re looking for a great shooter.
They dont push it on you, except when you need to grind 45 levels a season just to be able to play the new character that anyone willing to pay already has.
Maybe thats not a problem for you, i dont k ow your situation, but i get enough time for maybe 2 or 3 games a night except when i have nothing else on. I BARELY scraped getting rammattra and i had to win 35 games as support to get lifeweaver (which sucked as a solo player). Now theres another one i have no hope in hell of unlocking unless i want to cough up the cash.
That isnt fun, its a fucking drain. Its boring and its a complete slap in the face for anyone who supported overwatch 1 and waited years for the version of overwatch 2 that we were all promised that isnt going to happen.
So you are saying that you had a different experience to me and that is exactly my point. Putting aside the fact that i glfind it very unlikely that you got the new hero “with ease” i did not and winning 35 games as support as a solo player is not easy or fun.
Regardless saying you dont need the new hero shows you dont really understand the mechanics of the game. You are supposed to be able to change your character to counter the choices the opposing team have made. If the new character is a good counter and i dont have them then i lose out. Simple as that.
It is so damning that the entire industry has reacted that way. It’s not that they closed a studio, that cod have been ignored. It’s how brazenly they closed successful studios for being successful while talking out the other side of their mouth to the press.
It feels gross in a much more palpable way. And with everything else going on in tech it feels so wrong coming from one of the biggest companies in earth.
I’m 100% over Xbox. I hope their next console is the worst release since ET on Atari.
A message from Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa, posted this morning to social media platform X, confirms we’ll hear of Switch 2 “this fiscal year” - before the end of March 2025.
But the message also damps down any expectation we’ll hear about Switch 2 in the next few months - as Furukawa rules out any further details being shared in an upcoming Nintendo Direct scheduled for June.
Furukawa wrote. "We will make an announcement about the successor to Nintendo Switch within this fiscal year. It will have been over nine years since we announced the existence of Nintendo Switch back in March 2015.
“We will be holding a Nintendo Direct this June regarding the Nintendo Switch software lineup for the latter half of 2024, but please be aware that there will be no mention of the Nintendo Switch successor during that presentation.”
That thing was underpowered when it came out, let alone now. They could likely grab a bunch of sales by coming out with a higher-powered system alongside a cheaper version, because many people would like to play games at higher than 25 fps.
And yet it was one of the best gaming experiences ever, no matter the framerate and resolution.
Been a long time since fidelity was interesting to notice, tbh. Don’t get me wrong, all else being equal I’d take 165Hz and 4k over 24Hz and 720p. But all else isn’t equal. And the better game easily wins.
Felt like it was doing just fine to me for how advanced the systems were on a console that was six years old. I do wish you were able to play it, it's an awesome game, it indeed has ambitions that surpass the hardware, but I do think they managed to pull it off, if only by the skin of their teeth.
While I disagree that the game was unplayable, I first played the game emulated at 4K@60K with AutoHDR (surprisingly decent) and it’s almost criminal how poor it looks on native hardware by comparison. The game scales really well.
Maybe with a new Nvidia kit we’ll get DLSS and Frame Gen. And I expect ToTK to get a new port.
I read all the time that TotK has terrible performance, but i never noticed in all the time I played it. I guess growing up playing on old pc hardware made me tolerate shitty framerates.
I fucking care when I only play docked and games like xenoblade chronicles 3 fucking lag in places. The switch is used least for me between an s, ps5 and a midrange pc despite it having “fun games”
Can also confirm excessive lag with XC3. Also, when jumping into the depths in TotK, game would freeze off and on. These Nintendo apologists are wild. The Switch was utilizing outdated hardware when it dropped. I’ll be impressed if the Switch 2 has at least PS4 level hardware.
Keep in mind, underpowered hardware means lower price, which means more sales. It worked with the Wii, it worked with the Switch. I fully expect people to bitch about the Switch2 being underpowered, using “ancient” stuff from 2020-21
“Lateral thinking with withered technology.” Nintendo gave up on competing technologically with its competitors after the GameCube, and it proved to be a good decision.
Okay, I should have looked a little more I was just looking at the years. It sounded like the original release years. That’s what I get for half assidly googling while I work lol.
So it’s like when Rockstar turned the GTA remasters over to the phone people and we ended up with a clusterfuck.
Aspyr’s KotOR port was considered pretty good, I believe. I was disappointed in their Civilization series ports for Linux because their netcode was incompatible with the Windows versions, which is baffling to me, considering Linux users are already siloed so much in other ways. But the games ran okay, so it wasn’t all bad.
But yeah, I haven’t really heard any good updates or news come out of Aspyr for a while. If I recall correctly, they were the original devs for the KotOR remake, which was going to be their first game from the ground up from a technical perspective. But they had that taken away from them after working on it for a year or two, which is crazy. It must’ve truly been awful.
Man this is a shame. Slightly related… How’s the switch port? I have a friend who’s obsessed with Star wars and just got her first switch and I was going to tell her to get that
KotOR’s console controls can be a bit awkward at times. I haven’t played it on Switch, but I originally played it when it released on the OG Xbox. I assume the control scheme is similar. And the graphics are going to be dated, but that’s a given for a game from '03. But other than that, I’m sure it’ll be a fantastic experience, especially for a die-hard Star Wars fan. It’s still my top game of all time, and if you can play it on PC with some graphical enhancement mods, it still holds up really well nowadays.
The original was not EA. It was Pandemic Studios, who released Battlefront 1 and 2 both before they were acquired by Electronic Arts between 2007- 2009.
Ah, thanks for correcting me there. I knew that EA were involved at some level and I didn’t think to research that part of the post I was replying to, so I stand corrected, but I think the main point I was making is still valid, that the team that initially developed the game weren’t behind this re-release.
Embracer, actually, and while I do suspect that the blame for a lot of these problems lies with them (especially the lack of servers, which was almost certainly down to Embracer cheaping out), it’s hard to blame this particular failure on anyone but Aspyr. While Embracer almost certainly created the conditions by not giving them enough time and resources to deliver good work, it’s still on Aspyr that they used someone’s work without permission. There’s no real justification for that, even if you’re in a bind.
I mean, it is pretty amazing. It’s funny if they’re ironic upvotes and it’s wild if they’re upvotes of agreement because it is complete misinformation.
Yeah EA has lots of bad rep and yeah they made a couple of games in the series. But the game the article is about, as well as the original game it is remaking were nothing to do with EA.
Sony finally remembered that Bloodborne existed at the worst possible time. Still, at least the game isn't being outright canceled and judging from the Micolash redesign, it looks like the creator is making the best of it. I do wonder if there's a possibility the creator could sell the game now, since it's now a legally distinct gothic kart racing game and not a Bloodborne fan game.
Wouldn't be surprised if mod tools never come at all.
If there's one thing I learned, it's that gaming companies will promise you anything to get on your good side. Take statements like these with the biggest grain of salt.
True but Bugthesda has got to know that mods and modders are the backbone of the longevity of their games by now, right? Without mods their games tend to be unplayable.
So people play it on console because it's a good game without mods, which would mean it's not unplayable. There's also little reason beyond just general cynicism to believe mod tools aren't coming when their past several offline games got mod tools a handful of months after release, including Skyrim. As far as I can tell, it's quite normal for mod tools to come several months after release for non-Bethesda games as well. I don't think the longevity of mods has anything to do with whether or not a game is unplayable.
If the game is so riddled with bugs it famously needs modders to create mods for the sake of fixing the product, there is quite the significant tie between longevity of an unplayable game and mods. See, the problem is your wording sees the cause and effect the wrong way around. Hopefully this helps you to understand.
Oh and yiu ask about people continuing to play Bugthesda’s games on console, I’ll happily point out you’re asking fir a logical answer from a market that proliferated child gambling, standardised season passes and the standard of the complete version of a game release costing 100 bucks before the industry still found an excuse to increase the usual price of 60 bucks up to 70. It’s not because something is bad that idiots won’t buy it.
I've played Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, and Fallout 4, the latter two at launch. I've never installed mods for any of these games, and I rarely install mods in general. Skyrim had a rough launch, where it would crash for me frequently, but that problem was resolved within a few weeks, tops. They're all very playable, and I never felt like I needed mods to fix them, which is why they also sell well on consoles.
and the standard of the complete version of a game release costing 100 bucks before the industry still found an excuse to increase the usual price of 60 bucks up to 70
Inflation is a fact of life, and prices were going to increase somehow, especially since a lot of AAA games these days are recklessly large, including Bethesda games. There's a lot more at play with the way DLC works and the pricing around them than just trying to sneak a price increase by you, but the short answer is: I don't think it's a big deal to have an entry level price for a game and another price for the game and expansion content.
I missed Oblivion so I can’t weigh in on that one. However, every game since has brought some kind of issue that prevented me from finishing the game to a satisfying level of completion. I will be including New Vegas in this because, although it was developed by Obsidian Entertainment, there were enough caveats included in the creation - including their god-awful game engine - that Bugthesda might as well have made it themselves, and thus suffered from the exact same game-breaking problem Fallout 3 did.
Fallout 3 & New Vegas: If you owned the original disc versions of the games and bought the DLC (how dare we), there was a glitch where the save game would become large enough the game would cease to run properly, gradually getting laggier and laggier until the game would struggle to manage a whole 5fps in a built-up environment like the Bethesda Ruins. This same bug would occur without the DLC during the natural progression of the game once the player heads into Red Rock Canyon although that particular iteration fixed itself as soon as the player bruteforced their way into one of the rabbithole buildings. I can’t say for the RRC version but the one that would lead to basically dead saves was fixed by buying the GOTY/Complete editions respectively and only with a fresh save. All old saves were still borked. To highlight the difference in the developers, the parts of New Vegas that get praise are the parts Obsidian were left to their own devices.
Skyrim: 70+ hours in, I personally encountered two game-breaking glitches that locked me out of the Companions and Blades quest lines respectively.
Fallout 4: After a game patch, I loaded up the game to find my 110-hour save hardlocked from loading (permanent black loading screen). Reaching out to Bugthesda gave me the solution of “completely reinstall the game and DLC and just start a new save”. Naturally, I wasn’t too impressed with their “help” considering this was also back when I had 8Mb/s internet so spending another week redownloading wasn’t inconsequential either.
All of these previous games were on console. From here, both I and the friend to be mentioned had already swapped from console to master race.
Fallout 76: After the lackluster release, I had zero desire to play the game, let alone pay for the (dis)pleasure but a couple of years after further development (which should have been done prior to release but the true mark of a money-grubbing company is convincing your playerbase to pay you for the privilege of beta testing for you. We’ll be coming back to the corporate practices you want to excuse later, don’t worry) my best friend - the person who introduced me to the game series - decided he wanted to play 76 and wanted company for the endeavor so he bought me a copy of the game. Much to my surprise, the experience started well. There were the usual hallmarks of a GaaS product such as the daily grind-a-thon quests, the multiple currencies - one of which could only be obtained by paying - and the walled garden of desirable cosmetic items conveniently tied to the premium currency as well as other niggles in that vein but it was overall enjoyable so we got a couple of hundred hours of it… until they updated the game and I suddenly found myself with a lighting glitch that prevented me from seeing anything in buildings (the overworld kind, not the rabbithole kind). Naturally, I reported the issue and got a canned response; reinstall, blah blah blah. Didn’t fix it. So I waited patiently for the next patch, then the next update and the inevitable patch to follow. Still borked. Eventually, I just removed the blight from my hard drive since it was only taking up more and more space to keep hoping Bugthesda would actually fix their game (something I should have already learnt was a good punchline instead of even wishful thinking by that point).
Starfield: Now for this pile of crap, I refused to watch any trailers, listen to anything anybody was saying about it before the release, genuinely skipped segments of podcasts to avoid hearing any amount of hype about it. Just didn’t care for it. Naturally, cultural osmosis being what it is, I still ended up hearing bits and bobs including when release time came around and all of Dear Todd’s Molyneux-isms (see: false advertising) came to light too. A buddy hooked me up so I got to find out how bad it was for myself. Despite meeting required specs by some margin for 1080 high settings and being installed on undeserved SSD real estate, I encountered constant lag spikes despite how slow movement speed is in the game and generally empty environments. All problems that reek of minimal optimization at best.
Games like Dishonored, DOOM, and Deathloop prove Bethesda has an eye for quality and make for one hell of a AAA publisher but as a developer, they’re subpar on a good day and depend on unpaid modders to put the other cheek in their half-assed jobs. Personally, I don’t care for The Elder Scrolls - fantasy just isn’t typically my bag but I really like the premise of Fallout and I genuinely think the only way we’re going to ever get a genuinely good one, the overlords of Microsoft need to micro-manage enough to see Obsidian in charge of the next release. Their choice of team, story and most importantly, get rid of that massively out-of-date and unfit-for-purpose engine Bugthesda insists on repolishing.
Inflation is a fact of life
Sadly, that’s where you’re actually right. However, the excuse of inflation only goes as far as explaining why the real release of the game costing $100 until recently. And even then, that’s when being extremely generous. You refer to the bloated size of games - most of which isn’t needed and often drags would-be great games down - as a reason for increased cost but something people tend to fail to mention is how much bigger the market is than when $60 became the norm. There are more players than ever before and the industry is bragging bigger profits year after year. You see, the problem there is that one and one doesn’t make three. If the cost was rising equal to all of these different price hikes, why are profits not comparable to how they’ve always been? Instead, what we see is exponential growth in profits. That’s profits, not net worth. Those two are very different and should not be confused.
Now, I’m not opposed to expansions, they aren’t a new concept by a long shot but they need to add value. I, and many others, think of The Witcher 3’s expansions as valuable. They scratch the itch for more of the same product while being easier for the developers to bring to market than a full game. Win-win. Not every expansion can be on that same level, I will give you but there’s also a massive difference between a Blood & Wine and all the nickel-and-diming bull excrement companies like Ubisoft, EA, Activision and Konami - for the sake of pointing out it’s not just North American companies who are guilty - have become infamous for.
A company has won when they can convince their customers they’re getting a bargain for ultimately giving them nothing. By the way you’re buying and reselling the regurgitated excuses, you have clearly lost to them like many, many others and I’m genuinely dreading what my favorite hobby is going to look like in five years time because of those people and their ever-increasing tolerance to getting screwed and expected to be grateful.
but something people tend to fail to mention is how much bigger the market is than when $60 became the norm.
No, people mention it a lot, but it's got a fundamental flaw in its rationale in that the larger market is not spread anywhere near evenly across the industry. Grand Theft Auto will outsell Starfield 10:1, and Starfield is an elite position to sell more copies than the vast majority of games out there. When we talk about how much bigger the market is than it was when prices increased to $60 (which was itself lower than prices had been 10-20 years earlier), we're capturing the sales of games that blow their next closest competitors out of the water. The same goes for profits, which are going to heavily favor an industry with Shark Cards and Ultimate Team loot boxes compared to a game that just sells a base game and an expansion pack via season pass for a total of $100. A rising tide does lift all boats, but it lifts a select few way higher than just about everyone else.
By the way you’re buying and reselling the regurgitated excuses, you have clearly lost to them like many, many others and I’m genuinely dreading what my favorite hobby is going to look like in five years time because of those people and their ever-increasing tolerance to getting screwed and expected to be grateful.
Buy the stuff you like and don't buy the stuff you don't like. Loot boxes and battle passes prey on impulses wired into people at an instinctual level that makes that more than just a free market scenario, but you like Witcher 3 expansions. Starfield is offering the same business model as that. Buy it or don't, depending on how much trust you have in that product to be good. I'm content to buy a $100 version of Street Fighter or Guilty Gear or Mortal Kombat but not so much Tekken (remember Street Fighter II cost $70 in 1992 money, $150 adjusting for inflation, offering far less than we get today). I feel like I got a bargain on Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate 3, but if they had something to upsell me on, I'd likely be a happy customer to pay for that too.
As for the game-breaking glitches you ran into, I fully believe that you encountered them, and that sucks. I also believe that sheer law of averages would indicate it's not the norm, and that the vast majority of people are able to play these games without mods, or they would not do as well as they do, critically and commercially.
But it’s not for the benefit of modders anymore. It’s because of how they can monetize them like they did with Skyrim and Fallout’s “Creation Club”.
Get modders to make what’s essentially some minor DLC for you and offer it at a “small price” or with a “Special Edition upgrade” while those same modders are actually making waaaaay better mods and releasing them for free on Nexus or wherever (this is basically the state of Skyrim AE; some very notable modders did some cool stuff for CC, but their other mods were way fucking beyond those in terms of quality).
I would argue the mods they don’t directly make money from still increases their profits. People aren’t still playing Skyrim for the Creation Club content, which is pretty much all garbage and actually makes the game worse.
Different people have different priorities. Sure, pay and benefits is a factor that just about everyone considers. The difference lies in the weight that factor holds for them compared to other factors such as a genuine enjoyment from their work, wishing to avoid taking from the strike fund, or any other factor that matters to them.
For most people, the consideration works out in favor of a strike. In a large enough population, though, it won’t for some people. 95%+ is really good. Let’s take it and not alienate those that didn’t vote for it. That leads to attrition of the union.
Thanks for the genuine reply. I thought union members trust their union to manage the strike fund well and decide when an actual strike is necessary, but that’s apparently not the case.
Because they can’t just strike whenever they’re slightly upset. Strikes are the weapon you use when the negotiations go nowhere and all other options are off the table. And a strike won’t work with people who aren’t fully committed to lay down the work to fight for a cause. So you’d vote against a strike when you don’t think that the cause is so important that it warrants a strike.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for asking a simple question.
Could be a number of things. Some people are begrudgingly in unions. They kind of need to be in the union to get the job, but they might not like the idea of organized labor.
Some people might be tight on cash and might also need their regular wages at the moment.
I understand why you’re getting down voted, so I’ll explain a bit: although union members are able to leverage protest for a variety of reasons, that’s usually the last thing anyone wants to do. Negotiations are always the first step so that actors or whomever can still get paid, since while on strike that’s not paid labor.
“Okay, I know you weren’t too happy about my plan to retroactively charge you for every mile you drive in the car I already sold you… What if I told you, I’ll only charge you for a maximum of… uh… 30,000 miles per year?”
Could he have timed the announcement around his sales, or would that be something that legal would have to have ensured wasn’t happening?
If this was ongoing and regular for years then yeah it’s nothing. If there are protections in place to ensure announcements aren’t timed around the schedule then that’s even more nothing (as long as it can be proven that procedure was followed).
It still seems like a system that can easily be manipulated, but yeah if it’s legal then it’s legal and there really can’t be any punishment regardless of ethics or optics…
Damn that’s a good question. I honestly don’t have an answer. I’m not high enough level to that type of validation. Basically I have enough knowledge to insider trade but not enough to influence a decision such as changes in pricing or when something will launch.
I have windows in much I can sell and have to schedule my sales in those windows six months in advance.
It’s really stupid since I’m trading small dollar amount. 20k a year give or take but the company I work for takes it seriously.
Yep, a disgusting habit the big gaming studios have gotten into. At this point there’s no reason to get games like these as soon as they drop. Better to wait like a year or so for the collection to come out for 20 bucks. I’m finally getting bl3 just now and I’m sure my experience will be somewhat improved having all the bug fixes and updates. It really is a shame but I for one don’t ever see myself paying 60 dollars for a game just to be sucker punched with the rest of it released as dlc. It’s so unfair and they should be losing sleep at night. Sorry for the rant.
They’ve confirmed there won’t be a battlepass. And I’m not going to complain about them offering more content down the road for anyone willing to pay, especially considering it’ll likely get a massive discount at some point.
I’ll take this traditional DLC model over a battle pass model any day.
eurogamer.net
Ważne