1 TB upgrade on PS 5 $110
1 TB upgrade on Series X/S $210. $100 more, slower and only can be used on the Series S/X.😂
Seems like Xbox is not consumer friendly in this area.😎
Ouch. Yeah that’s not very good at all. Hopefully they’ll get this sorted out and get better pricing in the future. I’d rather spend less myself.
@Pedro: Yeah, the sooner the better for sure. I like to have a bunch of games at the ready to jump back and forth with so I’m going to need a lot of space right from the get go when I pick up an XSX. Have a lot of games already that I’ll want installed.
@Pedro: why would you buy that scam. I bought a 4tb external drive to help hold some of my games and it's more than enough. It cost around $80. I keep the Xbox series x games on the ssd, and put my Xbox one and 360 games on the 4tb. You can even move series x games to the external for storage if you like, then move it back to the ssd when you want to play it.
1tb ssd is the sweet spot.
Proprietary has always worked out great, it's good that Sony has at least seemed to learn from the Vita fiasko
The Xbox Series SSD is actually the cheapest, largest and fastest CFExpress card you can get.
A slower 160GB CFExpress card by Sony can be as much as £400 almost.
While it is too much for console storage, I think MS wanted to address ease of use.
Hopefully they’ll find something cheaper.
Yeah MS needs to cut the price in half. That said, Sony should have made theirs portable. I unplug my Xbox SSD and take it with me to friends/family with my games on it. I also have two of them which allows me to just plug and play them.
Sony has faster and less expensive options but I wish they were portable.
With my 5TB HDD, I haven't felt even close for a need to upgrade and doubt I ever will. :P
Edit: TBH, with a little more thought, perhaps when the Real this gen games start free flowing that require the SSD I may find myself wanting an upgrade instead of deleting and reinstall all the time. We'll see.
Every game on nintendo Switch - Every Developer except one $60 games
Microsoft Bethesda - Skyrim first $70 game on the switch
why pay $10 more for microsoft games on the switch right pedro?
Every game on nintendo Switch - Every Developer except one $60 games
Microsoft Bethesda - Skyrim first $70 game on the switch
why pay $10 more for microsoft games on the switch right pedro?
The base Skyrim game is $60 the $70 version includes expansions at least be honest with your posts, or is that too much to ask?
Proprietary is always more expensive. And console gamers act scared of tools like screw drivers, so I figured the premium was justified.
Every game on nintendo Switch - Every Developer except one $60 games
Microsoft Bethesda - Skyrim first $70 game on the switch
why pay $10 more for microsoft games on the switch right pedro?
The base Skyrim game is $60 the $70 version includes expansions at least be honest with your posts, or is that too much to ask?
it doesnt include any expansions it includes some free mods on PC
Every game on nintendo Switch - Every Developer except one $60 games
Microsoft Bethesda - Skyrim first $70 game on the switch
why pay $10 more for microsoft games on the switch right pedro?
The base Skyrim game is $60 the $70 version includes expansions at least be honest with your posts, or is that too much to ask?
it doesnt include any expansions it includes some free mods on PC
Nope you are wrong there is a version without the added content and DLC for 59.99 then there is the anniversary edition for $69
INCLUDED CONTENT (for the anniversary edition)
The Anniversary Edition includes the core game, pre-existing and new Creation Club content, plus all three official add-ons: Dawnguard, Hearthfire, and Dragonborn.
Proprietary is always bullshit.
I agree, but that is funny coming from somebody who is pro console. The epitome of proprietary bullshit.
We don't talk about it, dude. We're supposed to ignore me being pro console.
Proprietary storage form factors are dumb.
I get it can be marginally easier for the consumer to use, but availability and cost become issues. Not worth the trade-off IMO.
Sony's implementation is crap too. Took over a year for them to *enable* the second M.2, and they didn't include enough thermal mass, nor did they put it in the airflow path (even tho the stupid design of the PS5 was to accommodate the stupid blower fan).
Why do consoles suck so much? These are multi-dollar companies and they should do better.
Not surprised. They also have no incentive to drop the price so i wouldn't hope for one. It's a locked down format so it's a case of pay up and/or shut up.
To add insult to injury: although the xbox Series consoles do use an M.2 SSD for the internal drive: it's encrypted to your specific console also. So if it craps out and you source another one (maybe from an XS with a dead SOC)....tough. It won't work.
It's BS from MS and there is no need for it. It just turns a lot of perfectly good hardware into landfill.
Sony have been better on this front. It was great to be able to get a PS3 and 4 back into working condition of the HDD crapped the bed. It's also great that the PS5 uses an M.2 NVME drive to allow data expansion. It's just a shame the internal drive is soldered on and not user replaceable. Maybe they will release a bios update that will allow the PS5 to boot from the NVME drive if it can't boot from the internal SSD...but i wouldn't bet on it.
Nintendo also get a nod for using standard SD cards since the wii for memory expansion. Like the PS5 though: getting a system with a dead internal drive back on the line is a bit of a non runner.
@PSP107: The PS3 was before the vita. One doesn't really have anything to do with the other.
I think the only time Sony didnt allow off the shelf storage in their console was the PS1 (it was the done thing at the time in fairness and things like SD cards weren't really a thing at the time) and the PS2 HDD addon (it used a standard HDD but i dont think you could use any HDD. It had to be the sony one). Since the PS3, Sony have generally been good with this on the console front.
But yeah...that was a bad mistake on Sonys part regarding the vita. It didn't cause the Vitas downfall but it certainly didn't help.
@osan0: "The PS3 was before the vita. One doesn't really have anything to do with the other."
I'm not talking about PS3. Vita was before PS5(and PS4) and Sony allowed users to picked their own expanded memory storage opposed This Sony learned from Vita's main flaw.
@hardwenzen: not when one is the sole owner. ✔️👍
Its a 12 years old game that can't even run on a Switch. It should be given for free because you're paying for their online service from the 18th century.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment