So, Starfield apparently requires an SSD...

Cerny said R&C required an SSD, however, on the Steam page only recommended specs require SSD, while minimum does not. Perhaps Cerny was always referring to higher specs, dunno. With Starfield (PC), though, both minimum and recommended require SSD. I can only assume this is because certain assets need to be streamed in directly from the drive to memory on the fly (no pun intended)....but that is just a guess. Of course, XSX/S is a somewhat different story...naturally.

Any thoughts? Do you think an SSD is really needed for Starfield, like they say?

Probably gonna stutter the f up without one. Wouldn't want to play the game on an hdd.

I doubt that the game would become non functional if it is on an HDD.

RTX2080 for 1080/60, I guess that's reasonable. Still hoping the game will be well optimized AND have DLSS support.

I've seen Ratchet & Clank rift apart played from a microSD card, I've been through the ringer.

I could pretend to understand what unified memory architecture means and blame it on that, but... I've no idea, lol. Could just be bollocks?

*Edit* oh yeah Series has an SSD. Ignore me, I'm a dummy.

You have a vid of it running on microSD? I am guessing it was a Steam Deck.

Ghost is gonna have such a hard time running this game. Might be bitching about Starfield simply because his pc runs the game at 28fps.

Hehe, exactly, but I've also seen videos of people on Desktop PCs installing it on a USB flashdrive for example.

Love how the game keeps running/loading.

Interesting and good vid.

The industry as a whole was moving in this direction even before PS5/Series X, that is the reason they were included.

We moved from playing from disc to mandatory installs (remember that whole SW battle?) because of slow drives, it was inevitable that spinning disk drives would start to limit development with the high resolution screens and textures required.

For those that don't know, this is why installs are so large. Developers need to put replicate data on disk to cut down on seek times, but then they have to store it in a way so it can be read sequentially to maintain high transfer speeds.

I welcome the move to SSDs and I hope more games require it. With the large file size of the game, I would bet that it was written in a way to support HDDs, even if it will be super slow load and transition times

Who doesn't have one anyway?

I hope the game is able to run without one, but it's about time it becomes an industry standard.

@SOedipus: Weirdos.

I have an old 4TB HDD for all my old games that don't require alot to run, but SDD is pretty standard for PC gaming anymore and multiple games before starfield reccomend it already. It may be a new selling point for consoles but PC's already been on the SDD wagon for a while now. I personally wouldn't want it any other way, because I want those speeds when I'm gaming.

Why would anyone in 2023 be using anything but fast storage? I wish developers would continue to make hardline decisions about hardware requirements to force people to upgrade ancient kit.

Should have been the industry standard 10 years ago… But now that the consoles have them, we can move forward techwise.

Isn't Startfield gonna be 130GB+? I couldn't imagine running a modern huge open world game such as this on 'spinning rust'. It might 'run', but it will be an absolute stutterfest. Horrid, horrid performance.

This isn't really a problem anyway. SSD storage is cheap. Absolutely no reason to run such a game on such archaic technology.

I've got 5TB of SSD storage on my PC with about 2TB free.

I've just recently just replaced my old 2tb Firecuda HDD( it had 8gb of SSD buffer for most commonly used data) with a 4tb 2.5" Samsung SSD for $170. I have a total of 11tb of SSD storage now. But I really only used that 2tb HDD for storage and older titles, that Hybrid drive was pretty quick though.

This is the true next generation game not Ratchet And Clank? 🤫

Back to school Cerny! 😁

SSDs are really really cheap these days, not sure what the issue is. You can get a terabyte of storage for 30-50 bucks.

Also from what I've seen of the games that ask for an SSD in minimums, they still run on an HDD. It usually just means long loads and potential instability.

PS5 and Series X both have one. If you're gaming on PC you really should be using an SSD anyway, so not really an issue.

I just realised I said 'GB' instead of 'TB'. I've got 2TB of SSD Free lol (edited my post).

I've also still got a 4TB spinning rust drive. I mean storing 'files' on an SSD is a bit of waste.

Yeah I don't think I've seen anything being sold with a mechanical drive for quite while anyway.

I'd like to be sympathetic to my fellow gamers, something like "Oh games should at least work adequately on old equipment", but honestly if you don't have an SSD at this point...what are you doing, man? C'mon buddy, get with the times.

@nod_calypse: Not just Starfield, just about every new games are now asking SSD because SSDs are now the basic standards requirements as HDD are basically the dinosaurs VHS equivalent tech. DVDs are superior to CDs and SSDs are superior to HDD.

Even my PC now has 2 NVME 1TB and just 1 SSD for OS. I cannot remember the last time I've used an HDD?

I would say it's not a problem either way because 99 percent of people wanting to play the game will already have one..

Nope.

Requirements are there to give you an idea of what you need. It does not mean that everything below minimum specs wont work.

The diffrence in loading times between HDD and new SSD are REALLY significant. SSD's can also reduce texture pop-in in open-world games by providing faster texture streaming.

SSD's are dirt cheap right now.

Who the hell was planning to install Starfield on an HDD...

HDD are too loud and slow. I gave up on them entirely with how quiet my PC is.

I guess playing it from the floppy disks is out of the question.