I Simply Do Not Have Room On My PC For Starfield

stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to Gaming@beehaw.org – 115 points –
thegamer.com

Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.

117

You are viewing a single comment

I legitimately hope you're trolling.

Nah, you can find people complaining about games being too big in cycles going all the way back to the beginning of retail PC gaming. I remember Screen Savers built their "Ultimate Gaming PC" in like 1998 with a few gigabytes of storage, and they said something like, "I know that seems like a lot, but games these days can be hundreds of megabytes, so we want to be able to just fit them all". Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield are both large games. Not every game is that big, nor are these games necessarily doing something wrong by being that big.

SSD prices finally started dropping rapidly, and HDDs are even cheaper, for games like Sea of Stars or 30XX that don't need read speed performance, both of which have options to extend laptop storage space like the author's use case.

I don't know, I remember being a kid and hearing my mom complaining about some game needing like five floppy disks to install.

My childhood computer had 80 MB of storage on it and 15 of that was used up by the operating system, so I guess installing a 9 MB game was actually pretty taxing.

A 10MB game is basically the equivalent of a 100GB one now.

Remember Strike Commander? The floppy disk version (with very limited speech as well) wanted some 40-50MB when the common HDD sizes were 80-120 MB. I had a larger-than-average 240MB and it'd still have hurt if I didn't have a CD-ROM drive to play the CD edition instead.

Remember Baldur's Gate 2, which had multiple installation options for different amounts of the game running from the HDD vs CD, and it felt so extravagant to go "install all of it on the HDD!"

I had to uninstall all other games to play baldurs gate back in the days. Running the game without ever needing to switch CDs. Was worth it.

Nah, I loved changing out those disks. Core memory nostalgia material right there. Waste of time for sure, but one I remember fondly in hindsight.

The sentiment isn't wrong. Space is cheap now. Had Star field come out when SSDs were having GPU-like pricing I'd be more outraged, but prices are falling and having multi-terabyte systems shouldn't be an issue. Way cheaper than GPUs that can play the game, that's for sure.

I swear I've seen this post verbaitm elsewhere.

What the heck did you just say about storage, you little newbie? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in Computer Engineering, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on terrible cable management, and I have over 300 confirmed SSD installs. You're complaining about space on your PC like it's some sort of divine mystery? Listen up, sailor.

You're whining about dropping $120 on BG3 and Starfield? You could get a 1TB SSD for as low as 35 bucks, you scallywag. Don't even get me started on HDDs; a 1TB one is practically a steal at 22 dollars. And let's go big or go home: 2TB HDD for 40-65 dollars, or if you're feeling ritzy, a 2TB SSD at 60-90. Still less than your precious games, maggot.

You're out of SATA ports? Son, have you heard of a PCIe SATA card? Load that baby up. You've got more slots on your motherboard than you have excuses. Talking about running out of space with a setup that should give you 2-4TB at least? Don't make me laugh. You're telling me you can't find space for your precious BG3? That's only 150GB, sailor, uninstall it if you're so keen on playing Starfield.

And if you've hit the limits of both onboard SATA and PCIe, then I have one word for you: USB 3. Worst case, you get an external drive and run Starfield from there. Don't act like your OS drive is the final frontier; there are many ways to expand your digital seas, you landlubber.

So before you cry about storage again, maybe do some basic math and stop acting like you're navigating uncharted waters. Get another drive, or walk the plank.

1 more...