This is a little unusual. Most games never explicitly say you need an SSD or a HDD - but Starfield does! This likely isn’t a hard limit, as recommendations are often just that, but I cannot help but wonder what would happen if the game is run on an HDD?
Makes sense. It’s time to move on from spinning disks people. SSD’s have been affordable for a very long time now.
Not having an SSD is a major bottleneck in performance for any system built in the last 7-10 years already. It’s really not an unreasonable requirement.
It’s likely not only for loading times, but faster loading/streaming of assets and textures. May reduce pop-in with a SSD compared to a HDD.
Indeed but it’s also a matter of how you design your game. If you’re assuming that a game is running off a hard drive, then you’ll likely design it so that it loads everything in at load time because the assumption is that storage will be too slow to provide assets on an “as-needed” basis.
On the other hand, if you can rely on there being an SSD you can just assume that you’ll be able to grab everything and as when needed.
This actually has an added benefit in that you can design more ‘ambitious’ games because you don’t have to worry about needing to fit all of your assets for a given ‘level’ into system memory. You can rely on the fact that you can just load and unload things as and when needed.
While this makes sense, it starts to feel like maybe developers shouldn’t be leaning so hard on hardware to solve software engineering problems. There’s not exactly anything faster than SSD’s at the moment to replace them once developers once again push them to their limits.
Gameplay is what makes a game good, not having the fanciest graphics that need an SSD pipeline just to be able to not have horrible pop-in. Just a personal opinion, of course, but it seems like developers could still be making beautiful games without having to go this route for everything.
SSDs have been around for a long time, and have been affordable for quite a while now. While optimization should always be happening on the developer side, its not crazy to start requiring 30+ year old technology to use modern games.
Is it really an engineering problem to not prioritize a slower storage medium?
Last gen consoles still had HDDs but with the newer gen using SSDs that’s what they seem to go for, rather than HDDs and are using the faster read speeds available to them. So with the current gen in mind and SSDs becoming more common to me it makes sense in that regard.
Now don’t get me wrong here this doesn’t mean developers should use this as an excuse to not optimize their game. But I can see how it could let some be lazy about it and push the issue onto hardware.
And I do agree that gameplay is what makes or breaks it, not fancy graphics. It’s why indie games can be so popular even with pixel graphics (not that all use pixel but you get the idea). But that doesn’t seem to be what they were aiming for.
It would probably run like crap, along with super long loading screens and crappy FPS
I hope that means this game has directstorage
I don’t think its the first game asking for an SSD, plus they are quite cheap nowadays!
Like with a lot of PC specs, it may not be explicitly required to play, but it’s an important suggestion given the nature of this game.
World of Warcraft has an SSD requirement since the last addon. It still runs of HDD but the loading times aren‘t fun. Also I‘ve seen multiple cases of texture- and other pop-ins. I would suspect similar problems with Starfield. Skyrim also had many problems with pop-ins (with mods even on SSD) and I somehow suspect that Bethesda didn‘t really improved on that end.
The loading times will probably be very long.
Only other game that I know which has an SSD requirement is star citizen. It’s not really playable with HDD. Then again, it’s not really playable on SSD either, but that’s another can of worms.
