(UPDATED) Microsoft walks back decision to double price of Xbox Live Gold subscriptions

Your posts in this thread are border-line trolling, and aren't confirming anything nor helping anything other than your ego.
For saying you don't need validation, you sure are doing a lot of validation-posting and ego stroking.

Yeah, I'm trolling, lol. It seems like you can't handle people will buy and use what they want. You, m76 and others are in that group that people should only use what you tell them to.
 
Yeah, I'm trolling, lol. It seems like you can't handle people will buy and use what they want. You, m76 and others are in that group that people should only use what you tell them to.
Apparently, reading is hard for you as well, since I stated no such things in this thread.
Good for you being able to get a PS5 at MSRP, the others and I are so impressed. :rolleyes:
 
120hz support in console are pretty pointless. Most people don't even have 120hz capable TVs. TVs are a market when to the general population size is king. Price is 2nd. I know so many people that still use 1080p TVs from 5+ years ago and do t plan on upgrading til they die. Parents also buy their kids the cheapest bargain bin TVs. Like my nieces still have 720p TVs from 10 years ago.
Most TV’s sold since 2018 are 120hz or better, nothing new is shipping with a 60hz panel. All 4K TV’s are 120. So yeah there’s still a lot of 60’s out there but even the bargain bin ones are shipping with 120’s because it’s often cheaper to make those than the 60’s at this stage.
 
Yes, 120Hz panels, but not necessarily the ability to accept a 120Hz input signal, especially at 4K.
 
Most TV’s sold since 2018 are 120hz or better, nothing new is shipping with a 60hz panel. All 4K TV’s are 120. So yeah there’s still a lot of 60’s out there but even the bargain bin ones are shipping with 120’s because it’s often cheaper to make those than the 60’s at this stage.
DId not follow the conversation so could be missing the point, my cheap 4K tv from 2018 black friday is not, on costco.ca many 4K tv right now are 60hz input:

https://www.costco.ca/element-70-in.-4k-roku-smart-tv-e4sw7019rku.product.100713252.html
https://www.costco.ca/lg-55-in.-smart-4k-uhd-tv-55un7000.product.100701849.html
https://www.costco.ca/hisense-55-in.-4k-uled-android-smart-tv-55q7g.product.100653398.html

I would be curious of a source for a most tv sold since 2018 being 120hz or better.
 
120hz support in console are pretty pointless. Most people don't even have 120hz capable TVs. TVs are a market when to the general population size is king. Price is 2nd. I know so many people that still use 1080p TVs from 5+ years ago and do t plan on upgrading til they die. Parents also buy their kids the cheapest bargain bin TVs. Like my nieces still have 720p TVs from 10 years ago.
I am not sure most people buy that type of console it is a large but a sub sample of the population:
Nielsen-Connected-TV-Device-Penetration-Nov2017.png

And if this generation of console life is against in the 5-7 years, it could become somewhat common among the type of people that buy playstation/xbox to have a tv that support it, the percentage of people that care about that feature in 2024 that would have a tv that support 120 hz could be significant.
 
120hz support in console are pretty pointless. Most people don't even have 120hz capable TVs. TVs are a market when to the general population size is king. Price is 2nd. I know so many people that still use 1080p TVs from 5+ years ago and do t plan on upgrading til they die. Parents also buy their kids the cheapest bargain bin TVs. Like my nieces still have 720p TVs from 10 years ago.

I don't think most of those people care about gaming either. And you can say the same for 1080p TVs when the PS3/360 launched, 4K TVs when the PS4 Pro/XBone X launched, or HDR when consoles started supporting it too. 120 Hz and VRR will start becoming standard on TVs now, just as 4K and HDR is standard now. So 120Hz support is no less pointless now than say HDR is now that most games and TVs support it (to varying degrees of course).
 
Microsoft does not support HDR and VRR on XB1 launch hardware, they only introduced support with a new hardware model (Xbox One S). So in principle the same could hold for 120 Hz, but that is moot anyway as both current generation consoles support 4K @ 120 Hz in hardware.

About whether console games will make good use of 120 Hz? VR games maybe, but I don't see it taking off elsewhere. (I'm aware of DiRT Rally)
 
Most TV’s sold since 2018 are 120hz or better, nothing new is shipping with a 60hz panel. All 4K TV’s are 120. So yeah there’s still a lot of 60’s out there but even the bargain bin ones are shipping with 120’s because it’s often cheaper to make those than the 60’s at this stage.

0.o where do you shop? 120hz is a premium feature even on 4k TVs right now. It hasn’t trickled down to the cheap sets. A lot of those use motion interpolation for an “effective” refresh rate of 120 or 240, but that’s not the same thing.

4k120hz also requires hdmi 2.1, which is not really common on TVs yet. It’s there ina. Lot of newer models, OLED stuff especially, but it definitey isn’t “all 4k TVs are 120hz.”
 
About whether console games will make good use of 120 Hz? VR games maybe, but I don't see it taking off elsewhere. (I'm aware of DiRT Rally)
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...firmed-120fps-games-for-ps5-and-xbox-series-x

Use of actual 4K and 120 hz at the same time will be rare ("2D" scroller and some games like Ori and the wisp I imagine will certainly support 4K 120fps HDR), but one or the other should be somewhat common, i.e. HDMI 2.0 should not too much of an issue in that regard has either 1440p/120 hz or 4K/60 hz should do, if you only play AAA big graphic title.

Full list of 120fps PS5 games

  • Borderlands 3
  • Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
  • Destiny 2
  • Devil May Cry 5 Special Edition
  • Dirt 5
  • Fortnite
  • Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom
  • The Nioh Collection
  • Rainbow Six Siege
  • WRC 9

Full list of 120fps Xbox Series X games

  • Borderlands 3
  • Call of Duty: Warzone*
  • Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
  • CrossCode
  • Destiny 2
  • Devil May Cry 5 Special Edition
  • Dirt 5
  • ExoMecha
  • Fortnite
  • Gears 5 (multiplayer)
  • Halo Infinite (multiplayer)
  • Halo: The Master Chief Collection
  • King Oddball
  • Metal: Hellsinger
  • Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom
  • Ori and the Will of the Wisps
  • Orphan of the Machine
  • Rainbow Six Siege
  • Rocket League*
  • Rogue Company
  • Second Extinction
  • Star Wars Squadrons
  • The Falconeer
  • The Touryst
  • WRC 9
 
Last edited:
It's from a personal friend, so you won't get the proof you want. Also, I don't care whether he concedes or not. I don't need him for validation.
You cannot actually be serious. So if I have a personal friend who will give me a 1060 for free, then that means 1060s are free? ROTFL

If anyone can get a PS5 at MSRP now, nobody says they shouldn't. It's a much better value offer than a PC for gaming. But the reality for 99.999% of people is that you cannot get either except at scalper prices.
 
Also, if you plan to get a new hard drive or SSD, that's extra cost too. A 500GB drive doesn't get you that far these days when games can be over 100GB each.
Indeed. I've already just about used up the 825 GB on my PS5, and they are all PS5 games. I think I can squeeze one more game on it right now.
 
You cannot actually be serious. So if I have a personal friend who will give me a 1060 for free, then that means 1060s are free? ROTFL

If anyone can get a PS5 at MSRP now, nobody says they shouldn't. It's a much better value offer than a PC for gaming. But the reality for 99.999% of people is that you cannot get either except at scalper prices.

I'm a bit lucky in that I got my PS5 at launch for official pricing. I wouldn't have paid a scalper one cent more. With that said, it is somewhat amusing to see some PC enthusiasts here talk about pricing when you'd probably have to pay a few thousand dollars to get PS5-equivalent parts in the current market. Pretty sure no amount of free online play is going to make up that difference!
 
Well... the reversal was nice. At least the F2P games you can play for free online. That should have been a thing forever ago.
Yea them being greedy cost them more in the end. The PR hit and now people who just had gold to play some f2p games won't have to keep it now. It was a bad move and the person who idea was to raise the price should be fired cause he though there wouldn't be any blow back. Especially during a pandemic. They should of eased it in with like a $10-20 hike not ram it all in.
 
I'm a bit lucky in that I got my PS5 at launch for official pricing. I wouldn't have paid a scalper one cent more. With that said, it is somewhat amusing to see some PC enthusiasts here talk about pricing when you'd probably have to pay a few thousand dollars to get PS5-equivalent parts in the current market. Pretty sure no amount of free online play is going to make up that difference!
Well, you can get everything except a GPU in the current market at normal prices. There is no need to get a Ryzen 5xxx to build a ps5 equivalent PC. Even then the 5600x seems pretty readily available which is the top end as far as gaming CPUs go. So thousands? No. The fact is that you're SOOL whether you want a PS5 or build a gaming PC now.
 
Well, you can get everything except a GPU in the current market at normal prices. There is no need to get a Ryzen 5xxx to build a ps5 equivalent PC. Even then the 5600x seems pretty readily available which is the top end as far as gaming CPUs go. So thousands? No. The fact is that you're SOOL whether you want a PS5 or build a gaming PC now.

I know it's anecdotal, but personally I was able to order a PS5 back in November without a bot at least and got it 2 weeks later. I've been trying since then to get a 3080 since before that without a bot or paying a severe markup for a 3080 and no dice so far. Fortunately it's not something I remotely need since I have a 2080 that's still more than adequate for most games so far at 3440x1440. I have enough games in my backlog (on both PC and PS5) to hold me over until CP2077 gets most of its bugs worked out and hopefully around that time I'll be able to score a 3080 to max it out for the most part.
 
Well, you can get everything except a GPU in the current market at normal prices. There is no need to get a Ryzen 5xxx to build a ps5 equivalent PC. Even then the 5600x seems pretty readily available which is the top end as far as gaming CPUs go. So thousands? No. The fact is that you're SOOL whether you want a PS5 or build a gaming PC now.
True, although you do need PCIe 4 support and a matching SSD. And it could easily veer into the thousands if you want one of the higher-end GPUs, like an RTX 3080.
 
Indeed. I've already just about used up the 825 GB on my PS5, and they are all PS5 games. I think I can squeeze one more game on it right now.
I do remember telling people that the PS5's small SSD wasn't big enough for modern games, but then people here said that the PS5 SSD was magic and could compress files down by removing redundant data. That didn't happen now did it?

True, although you do need PCIe 4 support and a matching SSD. And it could easily veer into the thousands if you want one of the higher-end GPUs, like an RTX 3080.
Apparently you don't as the Xbox Series X is either as fast or faster. Most PC's with modern NVME's will out perform the PS5. There's nothing special about the PS5 SSD.

 
I do remember telling people that the PS5's small SSD wasn't big enough for modern games, but then people here said that the PS5 SSD was magic and could compress files down by removing redundant data. That didn't happen now did it?
Agreed, and it's too bad the removal of redundant program files won't be used for PS4 games on it.
Apparently you don't as the Xbox Series X is either as fast or faster. Most PC's with modern NVME's will out perform the PS5. There's nothing special about the PS5 SSD.


At the time, it was being touted as a fast-caching drive, which made sense if properly programmed for.
From what we are seeing now, though, it either isn't enough to make a difference (CPU being the weak link in the chain) or it isn't being optimized/programmed to be taken advantage of it and it was more marketing fluff.

I do think that this feature holds potential, especially since the console is still in its early lifespan, but I'm not going to hold my breath on it making that major of a difference.
 
Last edited:
I do remember telling people that the PS5's small SSD wasn't big enough for modern games, but then people here said that the PS5 SSD was magic and could compress files down by removing redundant data. That didn't happen now did it?
No, they said the SSD makes it possible to not store redundant data as they used to on HDD, except they forgot that 90% of the games are PS4 games, or games that have PS4 versions, so they still need the redundant data for it to work on a PS4.
So games themselves were supposed to be smaller, there was never any compression involved.

Apparently you don't as the Xbox Series X is either as fast or faster. Most PC's with modern NVME's will out perform the PS5. There's nothing special about the PS5 SSD.
Which I told them when they were drooling all over how it will burn PCs and games won't even run on a PC because of it, and console master race ahead! LOL.
The reality is that 5000MB/s sustained sequantial transfer rate means nothing for games. It's still all about iops and medium to small reads. If games were dependent on sequential reads HDDs wouldn't be 100x slower than any Sata SSD.
 
No, they said the SSD makes it possible to not store redundant data as they used to on HDD, except they forgot that 90% of the games are PS4 games, or games that have PS4 versions, so they still need the redundant data for it to work on a PS4.
So games themselves were supposed to be smaller, there was never any compression involved.


Which I told them when they were drooling all over how it will burn PCs and games won't even run on a PC because of it, and console master race ahead! LOL.
The reality is that 5000MB/s sustained sequantial transfer rate means nothing for games. It's still all about iops and medium to small reads. If games were dependent on sequential reads HDDs wouldn't be 100x slower than any Sata SSD.
Demon's Souls, the one game that is only for PS5, is right around 20GB if I remember correctly. But that isn't exactly a game that is huge to begin with. Comparatively, all the cross gen games I have installed are 60-100GB or even more.

On the loading speeds I can say that it was not impressive to me, but I can see how it is for somebody who has never gamed on a decent PC before. My PC still boots faster, and game loading times are extremely similar to my PC. The similarity was such during the first week that I didn't even notice it at first.
 
The loading speeds need to be properly used. No one is currently taking advantage of what they can do with the PS5 SSD. I honestly can't wait to see what 1st part developers do with the PS5 hardware. The blood they get out of the ps4 is still pretty impressive for how old it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
The loading speeds need to be properly used. No one is currently taking advantage of what they can do with the PS5 SSD. I honestly can't wait to see what 1st part developers do with the PS5 hardware. The blood they get out of the ps4 is still pretty impressive for how old it is.
What do you mean not taking advantage of? There is nothing to take advantage of. It was a sales pitch, nothing more. It's a step over ps4 and the bottleneck that was the HDD in it, but it isn't gonna suddenly revolutionize games. It means cyberpunk won't have issues loading textures in time, which it doesn't have on PC either, even with a "slow" SSD.
 
The loading speeds need to be properly used. No one is currently taking advantage of what they can do with the PS5 SSD. I honestly can't wait to see what 1st part developers do with the PS5 hardware. The blood they get out of the ps4 is still pretty impressive for how old it is.
Do you mean the ps5 ssd uncompression hardware ? (Will it be better than the massive extra multithread power of a recent pc ?)

Dark soul type of flagship exclusive made with the PS5 in mind and only the PS5 are not taking advantage of the PS5 capability ? Or Gears 5 on the Xbox ?

At the moment the video of loading time would be interesting to have included exclusively made for the consoles games versus similar game on the PC ssd/nvme, ports can be like you said, not made for it.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean not taking advantage of? There is nothing to take advantage of. It was a sales pitch, nothing more. It's a step over ps4 and the bottleneck that was the HDD in it, but it isn't gonna suddenly revolutionize games. It means cyberpunk won't have issues loading textures in time, which it doesn't have on PC either, even with a "slow" SSD.
Devs can take advantage of having a fast SSD, even if there's nothing particularly magical about it. That Unreal Engine 5 demo was only possible because Epic knew it had a certain amount of storage bandwidth; it could take a while before devs can simply assume enough PC gamers have an NVMe drive.
 
What do you mean not taking advantage of? There is nothing to take advantage of. It was a sales pitch, nothing more. It's a step over ps4 and the bottleneck that was the HDD in it, but it isn't gonna suddenly revolutionize games. It means cyberpunk won't have issues loading textures in time, which it doesn't have on PC either, even with a "slow" SSD.

Do you mean the ps5 ssd uncompression hardware ? (Will it be better than the massive extra multithread power of a recent pc ?)

Dark soul type of flagship exclusive made with the PS5 in mind and only the PS5 are not taking advantage of the PS5 capability ? Or Gears 5 on the Xbox ?
The loading is insanely fast on demon souls. I don't see anything on PC that come close to it yet. The PS5 has a dedicated controller on it that priorities certain data and decompress it. Most developers are still designing games around spinning rust. The rachet and clank demo was pretty damn impressive on how it seamlessly loaded different levels. Is it the holy grail of loading? No but still pretty damn cool where most PCs won't be able match atm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
On that point I completely agree. When the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro used 1TB HDDs, and games were only getting bigger, to launch the new consoles with the same capacity (or a couple hundred GB less, in Sony's case) was a big misstep.

I expect it was done to keep costs down, but... if they wanted to do that they could have used regular PCIe 3.0 drives instead of designing some kind of fancy architecture. The fact that the PS5 will eventually be user-upgradable with "certified" drives says to me that the custom design wasn't as big a deal as they made it out to be in the first place, and the big improvements will come from:

1- developers who no longer need to account for the redundancy of assets required with slower storage (reduced size)
2- developers who can design with load times and seek times orders of magnitude higher than they could with previous gen (faster loads, streaming assets, etc, as seen in the Ratchet & Clank demo, or that UE5 one that Epic showed off)

But I don't see any reason this couldn't have been done on a PCIe 3.0 NVMe drive, and use existing off-the-shelf technologies. If keeping cost down was the goal, that probably would have served the same purpose as "make it faster but smaller". The big advantage comes from having an install base of consoles where the users are guaranteed to all have a high-speed SSD.

Really curious to see if that kind of design mindset starts to shift over to PC as well. At this point I think a developer could get away with including an SSD as a requirement for running a game, with a big old warning that says "faster SSD = better experience, don't even try to install it on a spinning disk."
 
The loading is insanely fast on demon souls. I don't see anything on PC that come close to it yet. The PS5 has a dedicated controller on it that priorities certain data and decompress it. Most developers are still designing games around spinning rust. The rachet and clank demo was pretty damn impressive on how it seamlessly loaded different levels. Is it the holy grail of loading? No but still pretty damn cool where most PCs won't be able match atm.
Because you didn't play Cyberpunk 2077. It loads in a few seconds. Single digits from starting the game to being in the middle of night city, Although the latest patch did slow down loading a bit it went from 3 to maybe 5 seconds. Regardless quick loading times is not a question of a slightly faster rated SSD, it is pure optimization. There are games that take minutes to load that are nowhere near as complex as CP2077.

Having a 6000MB/s rated SSD instead of a 3000MB/s SSD doesn't halve load times. It is barely if even noticeable if you try to load the same game.

And background loading is not new. If someone wanted to make a game where you can switch between levels seamlessly that is what you do. As you know Ratchet Doesn't load levels at a moments notice, it knows very well what level it needs to load when you approach a portal. It's not magic it's a magic trick.
 
The loading is insanely fast on demon souls. I don't see anything on PC that come close to it yet. The PS5 has a dedicated controller on it that priorities certain data and decompress it. Most developers are still designing games around spinning rust. The rachet and clank demo was pretty damn impressive on how it seamlessly loaded different levels. Is it the holy grail of loading? No but still pretty damn cool where most PCs won't be able match atm.
Do you have a NVMe drive in your PC? It really isn't any faster than anything that plays on PC.
 
NVMe makes a massive difference. It just depends on which games. Games where you have to load the enviornment as you walk through it, you will notice SIGNIFICANTLY less lag.

Halo MCC for example, when I popped in the NVMe, upgrading from a nice Sandisk SSD Ultra, it cut my load screen wait into 1-2 seconds from 15-20. Other games also load astronomically faster, but where you may not gain is if the assets are already loaded. Does it help me in Heroes of the Storm? No absolutely not at all. But for open world RPG's it might be one of the biggest upgrades for your PC. Your memory does hold you back today, more than most people think. Not just VRAM.

When I get to the next 'block' I don't chunk/lag, it smoothly already has it loaded. I will note that this is the only real 'performance while playing' you'll get from this upgrade. For me, the occcasional drop to 20 fps to load the new area was gone. Everything is better on NVMe, period; but some maybe more noticibly so than others; depending on how the game works. The biggest game I noticed it fixing was "DayZ". I used to chunk everywhere, but now it never chunks even when driving. Many games I notice no change at all, except when starting the game.

Do you absolutely need it? No, in fact, you really don't need it at all. But once again, this is just one of those things where a traditional SATA3 SSD looks like a potato, and that's just facts. It also kind of lends into the philosophy that in a console, you don't own your experience, so you can't make the decision if a NVMe is something you might want. For anyone reading this not caring about consoles vs PC, but wondering if they should upgrade their SATA SSD to a NVMe with a couple bucks of extra cash: yes

I also agree with M76 that going from a 3000mb/s->6000mb/s isn't going to blow your mind, but the one from SATA3 ~400-500->NVMe 3k+, that one absolutely will. My windows 10 installed in 3.5 minutes. Every game be waiting for you, instead of you, for it. (Until you normalize it :))
 
Last edited:
LTT just posted an appropriately timed video on the subject:



In short: you can't realistically make a PC that offers Xbox Series X (or PS5) features for $500, even when 'cheating' with older parts. Even if you ignore the shipping and component swap problems, Linus' $500 PC doesn't do hardware ray tracing, doesn't include a Blu-ray drive, and makes do with a ~250GB SSD. You can get comparable performance at 4K when ray tracing isn't involved, which is impressive for a $500 computer, but that's about it.

Yes, this doesn't include the cost of Live Gold or PS Plus, but a truly comparable PC would cost considerably more, too. PCs can be better for gaming in that you can outperform a console if you're willing to put in the money; for now, though, the economies of scale work in the consoles' favor.
 
Speaking of game loading times and NVME....
I'm working on a UE4 game in my spare time, and I can load my biggest map in under 3 seconds on my PCIE 4.0 SSD. Also maxes my disk in Taskmgr.
Packaged game is about 8 GB in size and the assets for the big map are about 17GB uncompressed.

After working with UE4 for about 3-4 months now, I have no idea how these games take so long to load lol, and its not like I'm compromising on graphics or texture quality.

The loading is noticeably slower on a SATA SSD (about 8-10 seconds) and HDDs take at least 45+ seconds.

Its kind of weird to not have to wait for anything at all lol. Launching the take takes literally 1 second and loading an average sized map takes just as long.
Games these days are probably bloated to the brim with DRM and other garbage. I'm not doing anything special, I only turned on compression for packaging the game...
 
The loading is insanely fast on demon souls. I don't see anything on PC that come close to it yet.
That's hard to say when the PC doesn't have a native working Demon Souls.
The PS5 has a dedicated controller on it that priorities certain data and decompress it. Most developers are still designing games around spinning rust. The rachet and clank demo was pretty damn impressive on how it seamlessly loaded different levels. Is it the holy grail of loading? No but still pretty damn cool where most PCs won't be able match atm.
Unless Rachet and Clank is ported to PC we won't know what the PS5 can do that other platforms can't.

Demon's Souls, the one game that is only for PS5, is right around 20GB if I remember correctly. But that isn't exactly a game that is huge to begin with. Comparatively, all the cross gen games I have installed are 60-100GB or even more.
Demon Souls is 8GB for the PS3. Demon Souls for the PS5 is 66GB.
 
I am not sure most people buy that type of console it is a large but a sub sample of the population:
View attachment 322389

And if this generation of console life is against in the 5-7 years, it could become somewhat common among the type of people that buy playstation/xbox to have a tv that support it, the percentage of people that care about that feature in 2024 that would have a tv that support 120 hz could be significant.
The ethnicity color wheel in this diagram is humorous to me.
 
That's hard to say when the PC doesn't have a native working Demon Souls.

Unless Rachet and Clank is ported to PC we won't know what the PS5 can do that other platforms can't.
am not saying a pc can't do it. Just the average PC won't be able to do it. A great deal of pre-builds computers come with garbage SSD/NVMe drives that are very slow. Hell some still come with spinning rust as default configuration.
 
LTT just posted an appropriately timed video on the subject:



In short: you can't realistically make a PC that offers Xbox Series X (or PS5) features for $500, even when 'cheating' with older parts. Even if you ignore the shipping and component swap problems, Linus' $500 PC doesn't do hardware ray tracing, doesn't include a Blu-ray drive, and makes do with a ~250GB SSD. You can get comparable performance at 4K when ray tracing isn't involved, which is impressive for a $500 computer, but that's about it.

Yes, this doesn't include the cost of Live Gold or PS Plus, but a truly comparable PC would cost considerably more, too. PCs can be better for gaming in that you can outperform a console if you're willing to put in the money; for now, though, the economies of scale work in the consoles' favor.

I'm surprised they were able to match the performance at all from $500. There is a huge gap between "thousands" and 500. Economical scale, that's just grasping at straws to somehow prove that consoles are objectively better. There is no such thing. Either you are satisfied with a console experience or you spend more money on a PC that far outperforms the console experience, or you go all out and have both so you don't even miss exclusives. There is no "better" here, just different choices. Stop trying to prove that chosing a console is the "right" move. As chosing a PC isn't the right move either, it's a personal preference everyone choses what they chose because it is the right move for them. So stop arguing for heaven's sake. You'll never declare a winner in the console vs pc war.
 
am not saying a pc can't do it. Just the average PC won't be able to do it. A great deal of pre-builds computers come with garbage SSD/NVMe drives that are very slow. Hell some still come with spinning rust as default configuration.
Some games work flawlessly on "spinning rust" with barely longer loading times than on an SSD. it's a matter of optimization. Fast SSD means developers need to spend a little less time on loading optimization. That doesn't mean they can make games that are impossible on a slower SSD or even HDD.

You know what's the difference between an average PC and a console? An average PC can be upgraded with better than average components when necessary. But I'll say it here and now. I'm 1000% certain there won't be any games that require a fast NVME SSD to run on PC, if you have a decent SATA SSD it will be fine. And I'll eat my words if I ever find a game I cannot run from my SATA SSD. You point me to the game, I'll install it on my SATA drive and see how much different it is than if run from my NVME drive.
 
Back
Top