Next-gen internal storage: lower capacity SSD or higher capacity HDD?

Snakeyes

Member
I'd honestly prefer a 150-300 GB SSD to a 1 TB HDD in the upcoming consoles. You could always delete and re-download games if they're tied to your PSN/XBL account. Music, movies and pictures could be hosted through cloud storage.

In return we'd get sleeker, smaller systems and very short load times, which is a much more exciting prospect than having the whole XBLA library on your system.
 
I'd much rather have high capacity hard drives over smaller SSDs.

You're insane. SSDs would make stuff so much faster. OS when it needs to access the HDD, loading downloadable games or even games with installs.

It's just a shame they're so expensive.
 
Higher capacity HDD with a slot for notebook SSDs. People would complain too much about the higher price SSD would imply, and the lower capacity would make a console seem weaker than the other to most [ignorant] people.
 
Two SATA ports and two drive bays. Sell the system with a few gigs of onboard flash for everyone, a big HDD for the premium model, and sell branded SSDs too.
 
Internal soldered SSD chips? No thank you.

A slot for any notebook SSD or HDD like in PS3? Yes thank you.

This.

SSD will improve with storage, price and availability in time which will allow people to upgrade their memory on the next Playstation console and take advantage of the superior technology. I honestly was completely fine with my 60GB storage space on my PS3 until I replaced it with my current slim.

I would prefer that SSD was brought in earlier on than keeping high capacity hard drives.
 
SSDs ALL the way. It would be amazing to see what developers could do with blazing fast storage. Traditional HDDs suck.
 
The cloud. If I was in the console selling business and I wanted to encourage a subscription system for online play and features, I would force a model much like apple's iCould. You start off with free 5GB and as you fill it up with stuff you can opt to increase it by increasing your monthly subscription fee.
 
Rather have more space, the other option is still too expensive, some games will be like 30 gigs and I much rather they Sony and Microsoft both also have options to install games to the hard drive like 360 does to save the life of the system.
 
SSD for next-next generation, HDD for this one. SSD will probably reach the size/price that makes it practical then, whereas for now it's better for the next Xbox and Playstation to have massive HDDs that are relatively cheap.
 
My hope is they have some dedicated flash for OS usage and game caching ... and downloads, media, saves, etc are handled like PS3. ie a SATA connection where you can put in whatever you want. Obviously what would normally come with the systems would be an HDD for cost reasons.


It's kind of the best of both worlds. Cost isn't too out of hand ... has performance benefits for the games ... and the user has as much space as they want for their own stuff.
 
I'd honestly prefer a 150-300 GB SSD to a 1 TB HDD in the upcoming consoles. You could always delete and re-download games if they're tied to your PSN/XBL account. Music, movies and pictures could be hosted through cloud storage.

In return we'd get sleeker, smaller systems and very short load times, which is a much more exciting prospect than having the whole XBLA library on your system.

150 GB - 300 GB SSD? How much do you think next gen consoles are going to cost? $500+?

It is going to be HDD. SSD is too expensive.
 
The differences in load times and boot speed (and boot speed isn't long with consoles) would not be worth the price of a ssd for me. And since a lower capacity SSD would be more expansive than a higher capacity hdd, I would probably choose for the hdd.
 
Also:

Less likely to fail (no moving parts). Less noise. Less heat. More tolerant of physical abuse and drops.

Once you go SSD, it's impossible to go back.
 
I don't mind loading. As long as it isn't Neo CD-style loading times, i'm fine. In fact, i'm rather have load screens than blurry Bink cutscenes covering up the loading.
 
I'd honestly prefer a 150-300 GB SSD to a 1 TB HDD in the upcoming consoles. You could always delete and re-download games if they're tied to your PSN/XBL account. Music, movies and pictures could be hosted through cloud storage.

In return we'd get sleeker, smaller systems and very short load times, which is a much more exciting prospect than having the whole XBLA library on your system.

If in 2 years time, it is cheap enough to put a 150+ gig SSD drive ito a console, I would totally take that over a 500+ gig HDD. We can talk preferences all we want, but in reality it always comes down to cost, and HDD will always win out in that regard.
 
I'd love an SSD, but sadly they're just too expensive and low in capacity for use as a HDD replacement.

HDD with SD Card slot and USB storage is the best way to go.

Nintendo will go with SSD though for the Wii U (probably 8-16GB and everyone will hate them for it)
 
I'd love an SSD, but sadly they're just too expensive and low in capacity for use as a HDD replacement.

HDD with SD Card slot and USB storage is the best way to go.

Nintendo will go with SSD though for the Wii U (probably 8-16GB and everyone will hate them for it)

Whoa they are!? That's amazing! I figured they would cut costs as much as possible. SSD is sweet.
 
Two SATA ports and two drive bays. Sell the system with a few gigs of onboard flash for everyone, a big HDD for the premium model, and sell branded SSDs too.

This, give us the option to choose.

I can't imagine ever needing more than 500 GB's on a console, I'd be surprised to see DD next gen (at least on any large scale) and to be honest next next gen will probably be cloud based gaming so won't even need a harddrive.
 
I think ideally, both. OS, saves, and crucial data on the smaller SSD; full games, media, everything else on the HDD.

Whoa they are!? That's amazing! I figured they would cut costs as much as possible. SSD is sweet.

Nintendo's been in love with flash memory for a while. Probably because spinning disk hard drives have moving parts, Nintendo's usually keen to avoid that for obvious reasons.

They're also allowing USB storage so hopefully my above ideal of "both" is possible on Wii U, although it won't be the default.
 
I dont know the state of the hdd or ssd market, but unless the big three wants to sell of thier games digitally then I want an ssd. It would be faster, and I never buy anything from thier marketplaces,expect for small arcade games,.
 
Unfortunately small SSD aren't that fast. Maybe newer designs will be, but they'll be too expensive even in 2 years for a console.

Money would be better spent on RAM and a traditional HDD in all machines.
 
One of the reasons why I hope the next generation does not come next year is so that SSDs can drop down in price enough for them to perhaps be included in the new consoles at a reasonable price. I think the ability to very quickly load a lot of data from a drive would lead to some amazing things.
 
I'd much rather have high capacity hard drives over smaller SSDs.

I'm sorry you haven't used a SSD yet.


I'd say have a STANDARD 16/32GB SSD (on a board though, so you can pop it out if it dies or whatever) with a slot for a hard drive or SSD that the user can buy and add.
 
I want a choice like the PS3 has. If MS pulls that shit with the 360 HDD like they did this gen, I will skip their console altogether.
 
HDD

I don't want to be forced to pay hundreds extra for some small capacity SSD. It's not like it makes much difference in a games console. This isn't a PC.

The way the ps3 is currently set up is best since you have the option, but I'm 100% sure next gen everyone will go proprietary hard drives. Except Nintendo who won't provide a hdd at all.
 
Top Bottom