Where do I stand on the current state of console storage?
Another item making its rounds in the PS4 vs Xbox One world is the actual storage capacity of each unit. With the Xbox One having somewhere less then 400GB of its 500GB available and the PS4 having just a little over 400GB, every one seems to be ripping into Microsoft. And it seems justified on the surfaced. Sony does offer more available hard drive space after all. But is it relevant? I guess that is for you to decide individually. And perhaps it is just my bias leading me towards these conclusions, but in my opinion, while I'll agree the PS4 is superior in this respect, I hardly think it matters.
I have a few thoughts on this... the first is, yes the Xbox One, based on the reports has less available space despite having the same sized HDD. But how are people not equally enraged that Sony's OS takes up almost 100GB as well?
I was surprised by both numbers, the Xbox One is technically running 3 OS's, so one would expect it to be a bit bulkier. I was actually more surprised at how Sony's OS is. But, is it really even the OS taking up that space? I have to assume not. For instance, things like paging files may be to blame. The Xbox One, otherwise, is an order of magnitude larger than Windows 8 which it is based on. And it offers less functionality. Which just seems beyond unlikely.
So, I have hard time swallowing either number, and an even harder time believing that the OS is sole consumer of that space. People don't include the paging file in the size of a Windows installation for instance. And, there is a good reason for reserving additional drive space. Firstly, for the aforementioned paging functionality, but also for things like quick resume, error dumps and other things the OS may need the space for that aren't actually directly parts of the OS, but which couldn't function if the drive were allowed to fill up.
And, if running out of disc space is impactful to performance and a gaming system needs to perform regardless, then carving out a huge portion of the drive for that reserved space is actually a rather sensible thing to do. But not really part of the current argument.
As far as the difference between the two. Yes, Sony "wins" this case. Whatever that means. Do I think the win is relevant. Not really. The fundamental problem is the overall size. More on that in a bit. The difference amounts to 46GB. Which seems like a lot. But the reality is... it isn't. There are some games for these systems that large alone. And, if the current state of premium titles on the Xbox One store is any indication, 30GB is about the average for a premium gaming title. So, you couldn't even fit 2 average sized games in the amount of memory that makes up the difference.
People, by and large, are upset because they perceive 46GB to be a big thing. And, while in general computing terms, it still is, in this forum it is beans. As shown above, it means room for roughly ONE more game. It is a gaming console, and storage should be considered in terms of number of games, not gigabytes. If Microsoft and Sony were to instead measure their drives this way, the difference would shrink from 46%, or almost 10% of the drive, to 1-2 games. And while that is STILL an advantage to Sony, I think that if that were how the difference were advertised this would be much less interesting news item.
Which brings me back to 46GB not really being a lot. And not being the real problem either. Assuming that average of about 30GB per game, you could fit 12 on an XB1 and 13-14 on a PS4. Both of those numbers are terribly low. Because 500GB, even if all of it was available for storage, would only net you 16 games that would fit. The hard drives simply aren't large enough, based on the size of the games that are there. Both consoles load the entire game onto the drive + any patches. So, having a disc saves you nothing. There is no mitigating the drive consumption.
At 12 and, we'll call PS4's game "limit", 14 I think people will run out of space before they will be willing to purge old games out. I don't think it is a practical complaint (who really has 12-14 games they are either actively playing or are concerned they will come back to any time soon?). But, I think it is something that will cause, even the people not trolling the internet to complain about. I think the magical number is at the minimum somewhere around 20+. And neither system gets there, nor would even with the full 500GB. Which means both systems *should* have shipped with 1TB hard drives to avoid angering their fan base. In that case both system would be well into the 20+ games range.
So, while Sony did "win" a competition of numbers here both systems feel like losers in this particular area.
For those interested, with the last gen systems the games were much smaller. Looking at that list I would say that the average premium title is about 5-6GB with nary a 10+GB title in sight. We'll call it 6 to be safe. Which means my PS3 with 350GB hard drive could fit 58 games on there if the full 350 is available as storage. And, if you had a physical disc, you didn't need to load the full game into memory either. Making that number even higher. Does your extra 2 games for a total of 14 on a PS4 still seem like the "superior" option? Or just the lesser of two evils?
Anyway, that is the heart of my point. On this topic, BOTH consoles not only fail to match their last gen equivalents, but they BOTH fail miserably. To me, this one is just an argument over who sucks more.
I have a few thoughts on this... the first is, yes the Xbox One, based on the reports has less available space despite having the same sized HDD. But how are people not equally enraged that Sony's OS takes up almost 100GB as well?
I was surprised by both numbers, the Xbox One is technically running 3 OS's, so one would expect it to be a bit bulkier. I was actually more surprised at how Sony's OS is. But, is it really even the OS taking up that space? I have to assume not. For instance, things like paging files may be to blame. The Xbox One, otherwise, is an order of magnitude larger than Windows 8 which it is based on. And it offers less functionality. Which just seems beyond unlikely.
So, I have hard time swallowing either number, and an even harder time believing that the OS is sole consumer of that space. People don't include the paging file in the size of a Windows installation for instance. And, there is a good reason for reserving additional drive space. Firstly, for the aforementioned paging functionality, but also for things like quick resume, error dumps and other things the OS may need the space for that aren't actually directly parts of the OS, but which couldn't function if the drive were allowed to fill up.
And, if running out of disc space is impactful to performance and a gaming system needs to perform regardless, then carving out a huge portion of the drive for that reserved space is actually a rather sensible thing to do. But not really part of the current argument.
As far as the difference between the two. Yes, Sony "wins" this case. Whatever that means. Do I think the win is relevant. Not really. The fundamental problem is the overall size. More on that in a bit. The difference amounts to 46GB. Which seems like a lot. But the reality is... it isn't. There are some games for these systems that large alone. And, if the current state of premium titles on the Xbox One store is any indication, 30GB is about the average for a premium gaming title. So, you couldn't even fit 2 average sized games in the amount of memory that makes up the difference.
People, by and large, are upset because they perceive 46GB to be a big thing. And, while in general computing terms, it still is, in this forum it is beans. As shown above, it means room for roughly ONE more game. It is a gaming console, and storage should be considered in terms of number of games, not gigabytes. If Microsoft and Sony were to instead measure their drives this way, the difference would shrink from 46%, or almost 10% of the drive, to 1-2 games. And while that is STILL an advantage to Sony, I think that if that were how the difference were advertised this would be much less interesting news item.
Which brings me back to 46GB not really being a lot. And not being the real problem either. Assuming that average of about 30GB per game, you could fit 12 on an XB1 and 13-14 on a PS4. Both of those numbers are terribly low. Because 500GB, even if all of it was available for storage, would only net you 16 games that would fit. The hard drives simply aren't large enough, based on the size of the games that are there. Both consoles load the entire game onto the drive + any patches. So, having a disc saves you nothing. There is no mitigating the drive consumption.
At 12 and, we'll call PS4's game "limit", 14 I think people will run out of space before they will be willing to purge old games out. I don't think it is a practical complaint (who really has 12-14 games they are either actively playing or are concerned they will come back to any time soon?). But, I think it is something that will cause, even the people not trolling the internet to complain about. I think the magical number is at the minimum somewhere around 20+. And neither system gets there, nor would even with the full 500GB. Which means both systems *should* have shipped with 1TB hard drives to avoid angering their fan base. In that case both system would be well into the 20+ games range.
So, while Sony did "win" a competition of numbers here both systems feel like losers in this particular area.
For those interested, with the last gen systems the games were much smaller. Looking at that list I would say that the average premium title is about 5-6GB with nary a 10+GB title in sight. We'll call it 6 to be safe. Which means my PS3 with 350GB hard drive could fit 58 games on there if the full 350 is available as storage. And, if you had a physical disc, you didn't need to load the full game into memory either. Making that number even higher. Does your extra 2 games for a total of 14 on a PS4 still seem like the "superior" option? Or just the lesser of two evils?
Anyway, that is the heart of my point. On this topic, BOTH consoles not only fail to match their last gen equivalents, but they BOTH fail miserably. To me, this one is just an argument over who sucks more.
Comments
Post a Comment