TrueLink's comments

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It’s probably not the best idea to include saying that being spoiled is part of a reign of terror and then include spoilers for the upcoming words in an image in the article.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Sounds like the studio made out on this one. Still, $40K in 1986 is aproximately $100K in today dollars. Not a terrible paycheck for what was a probably a few months of work.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@johnny0779: Convenience has it's limits. Steaming movie sales only passed physical during and due to the pandemic, and that was with like-for-like pricing. And Microsoft/Seagate doesn't have competition. That's the same reason a HDD for the 360 was three times the price as equivelant on PS3.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TrueLink

@johnny0779: Throughout 2021 while the prices were $230 for the 1 TB Xbox expansion and $200 - $250 for a matching SSD for PS5, absolutely. The extra simplicity and portability is justifiable even at a $30 premium.

But as we roll into 2022, Sony's system is starting to show its advantage. With high-speed controllers now becoming available to all manufacturers, I'm seeing 1 TB PCIe 4 SSDs that meet the PS5's requested speed for $140. They go even cheaper for slower gen 4 drives (which still work). Is the convenience worth $80? At that price, you could pay someone to put in the one screw and still save enough cash for a game.

And how long until 2 TB drives that meet spec are cheaper than the 1 TB Xbox drive? Currently there is a 2 TB SSD that just barely under the speed spec for the same price as the the expansion card: $220. Convenience is nice, but I'll gladly pass it up to double my storage or save a couple hundred bucks.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ganglari: Interesting. I moved my PS4 games to an external SSD before I got the PS5, so I never saw a change. I should try moving some things back and forth when I get home to see if the Other size adjusts based on available space.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Spartan_418: It is odd that there is no mention of Series S's storage size. It's also worth noting that some games are smaller on Series S than X. Typically not enough to even out the storage difference, but it can still lighten the load.

Or at least, they were smaller at launch. I haven't seen much on this post-launch. For example, Forza 4 was 10 GB smaller on Series S. But from what I can find on Forza 5, they are the same.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ganglari: You should be seeing the improved load times for PS4 games with the internal SSD as well. You can also see it with an external SSD, even on a PS4 Pro.

Essentially the CPUs on the PS4 and PS4 Pro are capable of decrypting data faster than their old magnetic disk drives could provide it. On the Pro, this was about twice as fast as provided. On the PS5 these games still have to go through the CPU for decryption since they are not packaged and formatted for its onboard decryption chip. Additionally, the CPU speed is limited in this process to match the PS4 Pro to prevent compatibility errors. So as long as your storage can feed the data to the PS5 as fast as a PS4 Pro could decrypt it, the games will load at that speed--which is about twice as fast as before.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TrueLink

@lisciousone: Honestly, this should have been covered not just from a console wars "which is better" perspective, but also in comparison to last gen. From my understanding, both consoles tend to have smaller game sizes on the new gen compared to the last. This means that the "simplest SSD comparison to make between the two consoles is still one of raw size" that the article gives in not a great comparison for either platform as it doesn't tell the whole story.

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

For being a year out review of storage, I'm surprised this didn't cover install sizes. Most comparisons I've seen have found that PS5 games are on average 23% smaller than their Xbox equivelant.

Some examples:

Battlefield 2042: 42.7 GB vs 51.4 GB

Control Ultimate Edition: 25.7 GB vs 43.6 GB

Immortals Fenyx Rising: 22.3 GB vs 32.9 GB

Avatar image for TrueLink
TrueLink

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@KahnArtizt: Adding to your point of Microsoft being forward-thinking, they also rebuilt the OS for Xbox 360 twice during the generation. Those rebuilds occurred after a crucial change with the release of TLS 1.1 and later 1.2. There is a reasonable chance that when they rewrote the OS, they improved the security capabilities, and extended the potential life. For comparison their enterprise software prior to the 360 release has similar issues of not supporting modern security options.