I Simply Do Not Have Room On My PC For Starfield
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
thegamer.com
Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to
1 TB SSDs are 35-60 dollars.
1 TB HDDs are 22-50 dollars.
2 TB HDDs are 40-65 dollars.
2 TB SDDs are 60-90 dollars.
Clearly, price shouldn't be an issue because one of these drives that give you 10 times the storage is the cost of 1 new release, and the theoretical person who just bought BG3 and Starfield just spent 120 dollars minimum. So theoretical person let's do some math!
Seems really silly to complain that you ran out of space on your PC. Get another drive. If you've filled up your SATA ports, get a PCIe SATA card. If you have all your onboard SATA slots full, plus your PCIe slots are full, plus you've upgraded all the drives you could to at least 1 TB, that typically gives you at least 2-4 TB total. BG3 is taking up 150 GB that you reserved for gaming. Uninstall it if you want to play Starfield. If you don't want to play Starfield that badly then you have your answer.
Clearly, the real answer is that this person needs another drive in their computer. They act like the OS drive is the only thing that could possibly exist in a computer. Worst case, go get a USB 3 drive and toss Starfield on that.
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.
Look at moneybags over here throwing around cash instead of just making space
I mean my biggest recommendation is that you can only really play one game at a time, maybe just download the game you want to play later, later.
I've got a better idea. You want to make your game stupidly large? Ok fine, sell me a physical copy pre-installed on a fast USB stick. Job done.
Read speeds from a USB stick are incomparably slower than most hard drives. The USB 3.0 specification has a theoretical maximum transfer rate of 5Gb/sec (~600MB/s). By comparison, my PCIe 4.0 NVMe (I believe most laptops these days come with NVMe storage? Could be wrong) has a read performance, reported by CrystalDiskMark, of 7.3GB/s (that's a big B, not a little b, and looking at 1MiB sequential 1 thread 8 queues). In other words, my hard drive's measured performance is 12x faster than the theoretical maximum throughput of a USB drive. This also doesn't take into account things like DirectStorage, which some games have started to adopt.
I think realistically games should consider separating the higher quality assets from the low quality assets intended for lower performance systems, and make them separate downloads. HD assets could be a free "DLC" on Steam, for example.
USB 3.2 gen 2x2's theoretical speeds cap out at 20Gb/s (or 2.5GB/sec). It's certainly a performance improvement compared to USB 3.0, but still doesn't quite meet the performance of an internal NVMe. If your PC supports Thunderbolt, you get double the bandwidth (so 5GB/sec) which does match what some slower PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives can handle. This is of course assuming you're comparing to a NVMe, a SATA drive won't come close to these speeds but I believe most laptops these days use NVMe drives.
Regardless, if you're loading games off a USB 3.2 gen 2x2 interface, and assuming you're using a single drive to a single controller (keep in mind that performance is split between connected devices per controller, and PCs often only have a couple controllers at most to manage all the ports), your read performance is probably more than enough.
I said "Internal SSD" not NVME SSD. So some description fail on my part, I meant SATA SSD.
Ah, most laptops these days ship with an internal NVMe, so that's what I assumed you were comparing against. A USB 3.2 gen 2x2 enclosure will vastly outperform a SATA SSD I believe, again assuming it's the only device connected to your controller.
Than most Solid State Drives you mean, since Hard Drive Disks have way slower read speeds than USB 3.0/3.1, I even have proof, My partners BG3 game was laggy as hell in her hard drive, but it's manageable to play in an external SSD connected to USB3.1. The read speed changes from 35MB7s-ish to 500MB/s-ish iirc. it was VERY noticeable. Her laptop is a gaming laptop bought 4 years ago, and the processor/grapphics card works pretty well still, but the 250GB SSD is just not enough to manage windows and all the other games/programs, and the HHD is way too slow, so yeah. In the future changing the SSD to put a bigger one would be the best but for now an external drive works wonders.
Compared to a HDD, yeah USB 3.0 speeds aren't too bad, but most laptops being released these days use an NVMe for storage (or possibly even a soldered drive). My comparison was around what you'd expect in a laptop purchased in the past year or so.
For your partner's laptop, getting better read performance from an external drive doesn't surprise me, but there are also limits to this. Games are starting to support DirectStorage, which allows the GPU to directly read and decompress assets from the hard drive. This won't work with an external drive (at least from my understanding), so those games will likely fallback to much slower methods of loading assets if they support the laptop at all. This is also not taking into account the other hardware on the laptop, which might have been excellent for the time, but with how much CPUs and GPUs have advanced over the past 4 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they're starting to reach their limits with today's major releases.
I hear what you're saying, but I have about 200 games stored on a traditional HDD that only provides me a read speed of about 220MB/s absolute maximum and I have never had a single issue with any game running from it. As you say this could become a problem as devs adopt directstorage but as it stands right now, it's a total none-issue.
I have a 2TB NVME M.2 drive in my PC but don't really see any advantage to putting games on there, that's what bulk storage is for. If you are playing online, 99% of games will have a countdown or otherwise make you wait until the slowest PC is also ready to go. If it's a game that uses loading screens, I really don't care as it still loads pretty damn fast.
Pretty much the only games that I will throw on my M.2 drive is open world games that load as you go if I am on my first playthrough. RDR2 lived on there for a while.
Given that Starfield has a requirement for an SSD even in minimum requirements, would even USB3 be fast enough?
just need the USB 3.2 2x2 gen 2 thing (thanks USB for that fucked up name scheme) that the USB spec mangled for the 40 Gbps transfer speed
You also have to be careful with what other USB devices you plug into your computer (both internal and external). The spec is 40 Gb/s for the controller, but ports often share the same controller and the bandwidth will be split between connected devices. For some computers, this could mean that 3 or more ports should be completely blocked off when plugging your gaming USB drive in, at least while playing the game. If your PC only has a single USB controller, I guess you'll also need bluetooth peripherals.
Fair enough, I imagine the potential audience of people who both have that tech (and are aware of if rather than it just coming with their machine) and also don't have enough internal memory to install a game is quite small in the grand scheme of things and a hard sell for a publisher.
Should be.
I'll let ya know.
You can get a USB 3 SD card reader and a fast SD card yourself. Even if it was bundled with the game, you're paying for the cost of the physical materials.
I don't think you understand economies of scale. It doesn't make sense for me to pay retail price for a single unit, especially if I have no other use for it. These costs are trivial at scale, and would also hopefully provide some impetus to optimise the code and texture storage.
Economies of scale aren't magic. Games are somewhat resistant to price increases in the face of inflation because we've shifted to digital distribution that you're looking to erode with the suggestion of shipping with physical media again, and you'd still have to pay well more than half of the price it would take you to buy that same media on Amazon. The storage size has grown because they've been optimizing for other factors, and I'm sure they came to the conclusion that it's more likely you'll free up space or buy storage expansions in the future after a price drop than it is that you would buy a game that ran worse or looked worse forever because they optimized more for storage space.
I am happy to pay whatever extra it costs to have the experience of actually owning a game on a lasting medium with some artwork. My experience with digital downloads is that I just never care as much. Often I won't even finish the game unless it is beyond amazing. I like to receive tangible things for my hard earned money I guess.
Flash drives are not a lasting medium. You'd need something like a quad-layer blu-ray, which is not cheap and has slow read speeds compared to solid state storage. Also nobody has blu-ray readers anymore. Also blu-ray publishers are tiny. Also the expense of distributing physical media.
So we've arrived back at the beginning - you can have this cake and eat it too, but you're going to have to eat the expense yourself. Imposing it upon the entire consumer market is selfish and wasteful.
Damn I’m paying $3 more for production costs in a large scale bulk order.
Too much! Better give me a shitty plastic trinket and a postcard.
That would work only in the console (or Apple) world where you can control who and how can access the data. Otherwise someone will stick it to an USB 1.1 hub connected to the USB 2.0 port for the mouse and then complain "the game is unbearably slow!!!!"
Plus I don't think anyone would want to pay $150 for a game (no, you can't use a $10 USB drive for this)
It’s a touch trickier to upgrade a laptop, which the writer is talking about.
I'd be inclined to agree but I'm frankly somewhat at a loss from this articles perspective. Why a 256gb boot drive in 2023? I'm only assuming, based on the math. If it were 512GB I'd assume they'd be able to shuffle off more data. If it's important files you need to access, store them on an external HDD? If they're a gamer and they know space is an issue, a SSD enclosure is not much more added cost to a 1TB drive and it solves the issue...
Like I said, I understand the intent about game sizes. But people playing BG3 or Starfield on their laptop are going to have other issues on top of storage, since most laptops have a pretty linear upgrade path. If you have the 256gb model the rest of the hardware probably reflects that pricepoint. Like @bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com said, at a certain point the idea of a game coming preloaded on a USB drive makes sense, but until then the ease for general use of an SSD enclosure makes more sense.
Yeah, 256gb doesn't really get you very far these days. Everything is so bloated, including the operating system.
They are a game reviewer, it's kinda embarrassing that they don't hve a decent setup to playtest the games they review.
No it's not, unless they have a MacBook. And even in that case it's not hard to find an external SSD with a thunderbolt or USB3.2 interface.
There are plenty of PC laptops with drives that aren't easy to upgrade, it ain't just MacBooks anymore.
New MacBooks have their memory soldered directly to the main board and don't have an extra m.2 port. There are very few windows laptops that meet both of those criteria. But like I said, even in those cases you can install games on an external drive.
Is it that hard in the days of solid state NVME drives? You just pop open the hatch and pop them in the slot.
Assuming you have a spare slot (and your laptop is designed in a way to make that swap easy)
Most laptops come with an empty SATA or NVME drive.
I'm kind of sad about how large games have become and how little goes into optimizing that since "space is cheap"; though it seems people don't really care about the bandwidth (environmental) cost of downloading that now that everything has gone digital (not that I'm saying physical doesn't have waste).
I just kind of wish there were alternates, maybe high-res (free) DLC packs or audio localization packs which I feel like were done in the past but never really became a thing. I find myself sticking to indie games that are only hundreds of MBs instead.
I don't think the article provides any conclusions besides beat games faster to delete them to clear space.
More and more developers seem to assume everyone else can afford what they consider to be cheap, and feel entitled to gobble up all the resources on other people's systems as if they aren't needed for anything else.
And speaking of environmental costs, there's also the pollution and e-waste generated by constantly pushing people to upgrade their hardware instead of optimizing the software.
As a developer myself, I find it embarrassing and sad.
It's adding insult to injury when most of these games are now also launching at $70-80 these days, too.
I'm fully behind the idea that you should be able to opt for not downloading the biggest texture files and 3D assets, if you're gonna play at low settings, anyway.
But it's worth noting that "optimizing" the file sizes of high-fidelity games isn't really possible. You can't compress textures or 3D assets the same way you might an RGB image. Game textures contain a lot more layers than just color, in modern games they can contain material, depth and specularity maps, just to name a few. And that's before considering any accompanying bre-baked lighting data that entire levels may come with, which trades in the need to real-time render stuff for doing it in advance and storing how something is supposed to look, and shipping it alongside the game.
None of this can be easily compressed. It has to be retained losslessly, or you risk rendering artefacts.
Also, most game distribution services will send you an AGGRESSIVELY compressed (as in packed as a whole, using great amounts of CPU to pack it smaller without data loss) format, which your PC/console unpacks as it downloads. They too have every reason to save bandwidth.
But even then, you seldom see data savings of more than 10-30%. There just aren't that many corners to cut.
I’m not a game dev, but from my modding experience it depends on the game.
MOST of the games that have these insane file sizes actually do it to cut down on processing and on load time and reduce pop-in. If a texture or level doesn’t need any decompression, it loads faster. So entirely depends on the asset. So a lot of games do still compress textures. That’s why there’s a discrepancy between the data downloaded in steam and the actual runtime storage requirement.
The 3D models themselves are usually lower space. As is dialog and audio. Though all of those will be mildly compressed probably.
Texture block compression exists, and some of the available algorithms have fairly little impact on rendered visuals.
As you noted, asset scaling also exists in various forms, from mip mapping to audio codecs to alternate asset packs. Imagery intended for 4k and 8k displays is wasteful for people gaming in 1080p, let alone 720p.
The techniques required to cut down on bloat are well known. Some games just aren't using them, or aren't using them effectively. There's definitely room for improvement here.
Absolutely.
But I did want to make the point that there aren't as many corners to cut as some might think.
And while lossless compression of course exists, better compression is usually also a processing trade-off. You can use more storage and less processing, or use more processing, and less storage.
Compression is not a magic tool that reduces file size for free, its doing math to store some given data using less bits, which then has to be done in reverse to get at the original data.
Space might be cheap, but SSDs are too small for the slot they take up that could've had a much bigger HDD, and now graphics cards are so big there's physically less room for disks and cables too.
I don't want all SSDs to have room for all the games and nothing else.
My cousin just bought a 2tb nvme for $60, $10 more than a 2tb hdd cost 2 years ago.
But I want 8 TB drives. Or more, when they're more reliable.
I’d love to play through the Mass Effect remastered collection on my steam deck but it’s ridiculous that it makes you download all 3 games (100+ GB). On the other hand, Halo MCC is actually good about this and lets you download only the games you want to play at the moment
Even through toy have to download them, doesn't mean you have to keep them. After download ING you can go to the install action path and the delete the other two games you don't want.
Even old games like CSGO are large in size now.. 4K as a free DLC is a good idea!
Whom ever wrote this article is a massive idiot.
Seems like the common vibe in "gaming" articles lately. Low hanging fruit Clickbait slathered in ads and autoplaying videos.
Firefox has a setting to disable autoplaying of videos (default setting is to autoplay muted for some reason). It's in Settings > Site Permissions > Autoplay.
Yeah, like I picked up an 8TB SSD for like $300 the other day to move shit off of three old platter drives, I still have room to spare. A 1TB is like $60, that's less than the cost of the game.
I just my kid a 2TB ssd for $60. 1TB can be found under $30 lately.
A 1tb gen 3 nvme is only $35-40 💀
Maybe overseas, but round here 1tb ssds start at around $60-70 and you'll be lucky to get a 2tb one for less than $150...
My man is trying to install both games on a PlayStation One memory card
Damn dude. You only have ~200GB of storage space? Upgrade your HDD/SSD, for real. I don't even review games for a living and I have 2.5TB. I can definitely fit both games. And then some.
This artificial battle of the VASTLY DIFFERENT STYLE RPGs is fucking bizarre and just a made up issue to get clicks, I swear to Christ.
Starfield has ssd listed as "required". Even if it runs from a HDD it might be horrible, like with No Man's Sky.
Eh, With games like these a 1TB M2 SSD is kinda required to have, I have one and I'm wanting to have two already tbh.
When it comes to cheap ssds M2 barely has an advantage over SATA, not in any practical sense anyway.
A 2TB SSD can be had for like £100. I even put one in my PS5.
That's a silly excuse. At roughly $20 / TB, a 150gb game shouldn't be an issue
Where do you get your hard drives? Cheapest 1tb SSD I can get is $65, and the cheapest 1tb nvme drive is $80.
When was the last time you shopped for an SSD? Cheapest 1TB NVMe are around $35.
Not in Australia, I can assure. Unless they are buying them second hand on Facebook marketplace
I can get a 2tb m.2 for $70, then put that in one of my ssd converters. Voila $70 2tb ssd.
It does depend on the device though. A desktop PC can easily be upgraded with a new drive, but a laptop it may not be as easy, or in some cases, not possible at all. Could always use an external drive, but those are usually more expensive and quite inconvenient if you move the laptop around.
If somebody can point me in the direction of a $20 1TB NVME for my Steam Deck and a free transfer tool please hmu
For a Steam Deck, you're looking at $100 for a good SD card, but that's the price you pay for miniaturization.
For less than 100 USD ($90 - I just checked) there are several well-reviewed 2230 form factor 1 TB NVME drives on Amazon - specifically, the Corsair MP600 Mini, the Teamgroup MP44S, and the Inland TN446. And though I don’t have one of those drives (I have the 2 TB version of the Sabrent Rocket instead) I speak from experience when I say that the install process is straightforward.
Yes, but in this instance laptops that can actually run AAA games are 15" or larger and don't have everything soldered like ultrabooks etc
If you're paying $20/TB, you're probably getting ripped off with some counterfeit garbage from a no-name Chinese Amazon seller that's not even close to the advertised capacity. I wouldn't put anything on one of those drives that I have any intention of keeping for longer than a week at that price.
They might be talking about Hard Drive, which often goes on sale at 200$ for 10TB or 160$ for 8TB (and so on). SSDs are obviously more expensive.
like i usually hate the whole, "buy a 2tb ssd, its only like $60" line. like to a lot of people that isn't something you can just drop casually for a video game (especially on top of the price of the game itself!) but I don't really think thats the perspective this writer is coming from.
Same. Those comments are coming from a place of privilege.
A lot of people in a first world country can't afford splurges like that anymore. In third world countries it's even worse. Because of import fees, scarcity, and price gauging, a $60 SSD can easily become $100+. In some countries that's over half of the average monthly income
Counterpoint: If not having room for a $70 game because there's a $60 game already on there (which also isn't normally a problem for him because his main gaming system is his $500 gaming console) is an issue, then the article is already being written from a position of privilege.
Yup. And with regional pricing, the discrepancy between a game's price and hardware price is even greater.
For example, BG3 is around 15 dollars in Argentina, but a 2TB SSD is around 130 dollars.
Sounds like you need to finish BG3 before starting Starfield.
No space? Lol, clearly you’ve never played ARK Survival Evolved
isnt that only 400 something GB?
Content behind an anti-blocker wall. How much space does this game take?
PC is about 130 GB I believe.
My preload is currently sitting at 117GB according to Windows's move programs list
Get an external SSD if you can't open the laptop, Modern laptops will have a fast usb c port available (I use mine for VR).
They also talk about playing ToTK on the laptop too...
"Will Tears of the Kingdom take up the space they otherwise would have occupied?"
I know you can emulate but this writer wtf
There was talk about making "steam deck optimized" versions of games that would ditch high resolution assets as they would be pointless on a 720p display. Nothing seems to have materialized.
That said, there are reasons why games are taking more and more space. Game assets cannot be compressed the same way image files intended for humans can. They have to be stored losslessly, or there WILL be rendering artefacts. And a material or texture in a game is composed of a lot more layers than just an RGB image (normal maps, specular maps, material maps, depth maps). And modern game-engines can pre-bake a lot of things that otherwise would have to be rendered in real-time. That pre-baked render data has to be stored, preferably in high resolution to avoid aliasing, and shipped along with all the other game files.
Games aren't ballooning in size for no reason. Stuff like pre-baking essentially trades storage for the ability to get the same looks for less processing. More data layers in textures and materials allows rendering to take shortcuts in how the appearance of a surface is calculated, etc. etc. etc.
But none of this would prevent the option to not download these resource files for ALL detail levels. If you're not gonna run a game on ultra textures, you don't need those files sitting on your drive.
Yea, some kind of custom install would be good. Can't be hard to program a dialogue before download that'll select the right assets to install, saving both disk space and bandwidth.
Honestly I'm much more worried about bullshit fucking Xfinity bandwidth caps than drive space.
I mean, I can kind of understand why giant RPGS like BG3 and Starfield need to be so large, but it just feels like every game nowadays is going to eat up a huge chunk of your storage no matter what it is. With both console and PC games moving to SSD as the standard storage medium, I'm hoping that developers will actually figure out how to optimize for storage space, but I'm not holding my breath.
Starfield heavily leans on procedural generation. It would be many times bigger if it didn't. BG3 has something like 170 hours of recorded dialogue. Cutting down means getting of features.
So no, there is no room for optimization here. These games are just going to be that big, period. People just need to accept that they will have to get giant SSDs in the future.
There is most definitely room for improvement. Small example: a lot of games' downloads nowadays contain all the voicelines in every language in high quality audio files. Pretty much nobody will ever play a game in multiple different languages.
Another one: games come with 4k-textures now. Only a small fraction of players actually use a 4k display. Those textures eat up a lot of space and most players dont get anything out of them.
Just so we're clear, BG3 has only one language that is voiced: English. Every other language is in subtitles.
Just to cladify, most Digital Stores will only download the language Pack of your system. That's why when you change the game's language on Steam it needs to download a patch. It is download the language you selected and deleting the previous one.
I mean 2TB SSDs are cheap now. Let’s be conservative and say your OS and programs take up 500GB. Are people really playing 10+ games simultaneously? I don’t get why people in here are so worked up. I would love for my entire library to fit on my computer locally; would I actually take advantage? Probably not. Just uninstall whatever you haven’t played in awhile. I highly doubt the ONLY game the OOP has installed is BG3.
Baldurs gate 3 is the vetter game anyway soo.. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ my personal plan is to jump on starfield much later when the bugs are fixed and the modding community is matured a little
You dropped these:
\\
I remember when GTA 5 hit PC in 2015 and was around 90 gigs. Seems like we've finally hit the point where most AAA games are around its size. How time flies...
I recall it boggling my mind that GTAIV was 15GB (two dual layer DVDs basically) now I have copies of movies that large kicking around on my NAS.
Yeah I remember that too. Doom 2016 was like 70 gbs and there were gaming news articles about it. Now 70 is on the low end for AAA.
Idc about the size of games because I just download them when I need. 1gigabit down gang.
You still have until the 6th, better get off Lemmy and play ;D
An SSD upgrade to 2TB or something would cost less than the game does these days. Or if they're on an extreme budget they can probably find a basic 500GB or 1TB SSD for $10-15 used somewhere.
Games really need a solution similar to Android.
Have a lower res screen? Only need to download 1080p assets and textures.
Have a 4k screen? Good luck to your SSD.