News 'Starfield' System Requirements Demand an SSD and 125GB of Storage

[mamasan2000]

I saw 1 hour long presentation from Bethesda, and it was the soulesst thing ever. It sparked zero interest.

If they don't know how to present a game, they don't know how to make a game.

I wonder if we saw the same presentation, Starfield Direct. I was so-so interested after the beta videos.
The Summer Game Fest video got me excited. Gameplay seems to have variation, whether you play stealthy or go guns blazing and use explosives, it looks really good. And the customization of your weapon, your ship, your outpost. Plus more. And the team has some real characters in there. The sandwich collector, oh my.
If you think that presentation was bad, you should have seen the Ubisoft presentation. I turned it off. Half the time sound didn't work. It was buffering constantly. And what they showed was mostly meh. I am a big Ubisoft games fan. AC, Rainbow Six, Splinter cell, Ghost Recon, I have just about all of them. I liked the Star Wars game but AC:Mirage was too short.

 

[evdjj3j]

Because of nVidia's ridiculous pricing this is going to be the first Bethesda game I've bought that I didn't upgrade or build a new computer for. I wonder how it will run on a 2070? I refuse to buy another 70 series card without at least 16GB RAM.

 

[evdjj3j]

Much like Black Friday/Cyber Monday, Prime Day is a myth.

Buy what you need, when it is available, and at a price you want to pay.

Not to mention you have to factor in the price of Prime.

 

[gggplaya]

Likely storing a ton of assets in an uncompressed format so their poorly optimized port doesn't have to both trying to uncompress it on the fly.

Bethesda typically makes PC games. So this is not a poorly optimized port. This is a game that's pushing the boundaries like Cyberpunk. At worst it's a compromise to be multiplatform.

I was surprised at ONLY 125GB. I was expecting more for a game of this scale with 1000 planets and unique and very dense biomes. The textures also look very high resolution as well. I think the only way to accomplish keeping it at 125gb is to use compression.

I'm glad I bought the 7900xtx with it's massive 24GB of VRAM. Bring on the object density, clutter and high res textures.

 

[palladin9479]

Bethesda typically makes PC games. So this is not a poorly optimized port. This is a game that's pushing the boundaries like Cyberpunk. At worst it's a compromise to be multiplatform.

I was surprised at ONLY 125GB. I was expecting more for a game of this scale with 1000 planets and unique and very dense biomes. The textures also look very high resolution as well. I think the only way to accomplish keeping it at 125gb is to use compression.

I'm glad I bought the 7900xtx with it's massive 24GB of VRAM. Bring on the object density, clutter and high res textures.

I think this is a massive whoosh. The reason it's so large is because they are storing assets uncompressed, it's become all the rage these days to store audio assets with minimum compression. It's the old saying that developer bloat will expand to consume all available resources. Space was once a limited resource and that made developers have to be good about using it, now they don't even bother trying.

 

[TerryLaze]

I've spent 6284 hours playing Fallout 4 and 3580 hours in Skyrim.

How do you do that?!
I have like 400 in skyrim and 700 in fallout 4 and I'm bored to tears with them although they are my favorites as well.
What do you do in the games that keep your interest for so long?

 

[TerryLaze]

I think this is a massive whoosh. The reason it's so large is because they are storing assets uncompressed, it's become all the rage these days to store audio assets with minimum compression.

Can they afford not to?!
I mean it would only take a few reviewers saying that the sound isn't as good as other games and it could sway enough people to not buy it for it to become a financial loss.
Not for starfield maybe but in general for many games.

 

[palladin9479]

Can they afford not to?!
I mean it would only take a few reviewers saying that the sound isn't as good as other games and it could sway enough people to not buy it for it to become a financial loss.
Not for starfield maybe but in general for many games.

There is no loss in sound quality using lossless compression, developers just don't need to do it since space is "free" and content delivery networks compress the data during transmission.
Also claiming a humongous installation size makes people think it's somehow "better" cause bigger is better right.

 

[Dr3ams]

How do you do that?!
I have like 400 in skyrim and 700 in fallout 4 and I'm bored to tears with them although they are my favorites as well.
What do you do in the games that keep your interest for so long?

I'm retired and disabled, so I have a lot of time on my hands. What also helps is the thousands of mods for Fallout and Skyrim available on Nexus.

 

[husker]

I doubt that most of us even know what it takes to "optimize" a game like this. It's just one of those words that gets thrown out without having to go into any real detail. And that begs the question: Optimized for what, exactly? For loading speed? For storage space? For visual detail? The paradigm is that you can only pick 2 of those, so it sounds like Bethesda got as much speed and realism as possible at the cost of storage space. Seems like an obvious good choice on their part. Also keep in mind: Bethesda games are open-world sandboxes which live for years (Skyrim) because of a massive modding community and great modding tools. The way in which assets are stored in the game architecture my not be the most obsessively compact in order to allow mods to function without jumping through too many hoops to make them compatible with the game.

 

[vehekos]

And the customization of your weapon, your ship, your outpost

Customization by itself means nothing. Many new games have that sin.
They are made by people who do not play games, so they thing that the point is to just have different cosmetic choices, for the sake of having choices.

A fun game is fun when you can make the wrong choices, and it makes a difference, so the player gets the satisfaction of "outsmarting" the game.

New AAA games don't get it, and they just turn games into work. Zero fun.

 

[Dr3ams]

Customization by itself means nothing. Many new games have that sin.
They are made by people who do not play games, so they thing that the point is to just have different cosmetic choices, for the sake of having choices.

A fun game is fun when you can make the wrong choices, and it makes a difference, so the player gets the satisfaction of "outsmarting" the game.

New AAA games don't get it, and they just turn games into work. Zero fun.

I'm thinking of Fallout 4 and Skyrim, where customization is a major part of both games. Matter of fact, the two games would be nothing without the customization aspect. The biggest reason why these titles are still popular is the thousands of mods on Nexus, which are all about making Fallout and Skyrim your own through customization.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

It’s probably buggy as all hell just like all of their games. Plus it’s a rip off of a crappy game.

 

[blppt]

I suspect the SSD is going to be the easy part. I would like to see what they actually recommend to get 60fps at 4k. This could be another pig like cyberpunk. If the 2080 recommendation is for a 1080 resolution on high settings it is likely even a 4090 is going to struggle at 4k.

I remember when Bethesda put Skyrim out and it was so badly optimized that it was using x87 extensions instead of SSE. Somebody coded a 3rd party SSE wrapper that improved performance like night and day, which is frankly, ridiculous.

Skyrim was the game that showed exactly how bad my 9590 was for gaming in a direct 1:1 comparison with my Sandy Bridge 2600K because it was extremely single-core dependent.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

That all depends on your definition of high end PCs... because I can tell you that I have had absolutely no issues with Jedi Survivor, CP 2077, Last of Us, Hogwarts, Diablo 4, MSFS 2020, RDR2, GTA5, Forza 5, Street Fighter 6, ACC, Elden Ring and RE4... all on 4K Ultra with RT capping max fps.

It got to the point where I was unsubscribing from YouTube channels because every video was about poor game performance... with Daniel Owen even going as far to say that a 5 year old Ryzen 5 2600 was a "fairly recent CPU."

I don't deny that these games are poorly optimized... but they definitely don't run bad on high end systems.

Yeah, actually I agree some high end systems have no issues running the modern AAA games, but it appears that I used the wrong word here. I actually meant modern upper and lower mid-range and mainstream rigs, not just the "highest" ones with an RTX 4090, since many can't afford these cards, and other high-end CPUs, like AMD's X3D or Intel's Core 9 SKUs.

It's more like these games runs horribly on a "vast majority" of average PC systems, which can be upper mid-range to mainstream PCs.


Btw, on some off topic note, I'm not getting any Forum alerts/notifications here, which is weird. Even some of the user quotes made to me. That's why I had to revisit each thread in which I made a reply to get an update. Not even Emails.

At least 7-10 topics in which I replied recently under the NEWS section, I never got any forum or email alert as well. So now I have to revisit and refresh all the topics in which I have posted replies, to check the status of that topic. Kind frustrating. 😡