The impact is losing data is not unique to large drives and the solution is the same as it's always been - redundancy, whether it's RAID5/6 or ZFS. Yes, maybe you don't want to spend $1000 on two 12TB drives just for redundancy, but now you have a dollar amount to go with how important the data really is to you. In an 8 drive setup you'd still get 6x12 = 72TB.
Moved away from Seagate a few years ago after a bad experience with two of their drives on my NAS. I currently own 12 WD Red hard drives (2Tb and 3Tb) and had zero issues with them over the last few years. Other people might have a different experience, but I would take them over the Seagates anytime (even if they're 5,400-RPMs).
I don't mind paying $400 for a drive if it'll work for 5 years or more. Seagate's reputation has seen it's ups and downs. It was a good idea to invest in quality materials and engineering, and then back that reliability up with recovery services.
@JP76 See the Backblaze articles on HDD failure rates. SiezeGate is by far the worst offender, has been ever since they introduced the Caviar lineup, which is when they earned themselves the 'SiezeGate' moniker.
Oh, and BTW if you want to buy drives for a home NAS, avoid Enterprise and NAS-focused models. Consumer models are designed to last the longest. Enterprise and NAS drives are designed for performance first, reliability second, you pay more and they fail more.