If MS and Sony launched optional systems with a "hybrid SSD/HDD", would you buy it?

Which next gen system would you buy?

  • The current models how they are now (small SSD + next gen visuals + super fast loading)

    Votes: 221 98.2%

  • New model (bigger storage + next gen visuals + shittier old gen load times)

    Votes: 4 1.8%
  • Total voters
    225
I think your poll is misinformed. The point of SSHDs is to still maintain fast loading, as the drive will shift the needed contents from the HDD to the SSD. The problem is that the SSD portion is small. With game sizes today, the SSD would have to be at least 128 GB.

The Hybrid solution should have been the default in the Xbox One and PS4 generation, and certainly in the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro. Though the latter should have been an SSD testbed as far as I am concerned. The Xbox One Elite console did have an SSHD, but as we have since learned, the slow CPUs also played a part in that generations slowness.
 
Don't buy the deck, let's think about going back to mechanical hard drives.

So much for this being an enthusiast forum.
 
Why would anyone remove the literal best feature of next gen systems? Graphics are hitting diminishing returns, but having cartridge level load times back is fantastic.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Current situation
- PS5 and Series X have small SSD storage (825 gb/1 tb), but it's super fast loading and allows all the next gen graphic perks
- If you want more storage, buy the Seagate Card for X, or install a PC SSD into PS5 at additional cost
- So if you got lots of games you want fast and looking good, you either hot swap with an HDD, delete and redownload, or buy more SSD storage
- Each system allows you to store and run games off an old external HDD at slower loading speeds and no next gen perks

New optional storage system model (PS5 or Series X Version 2)
- PS5 and Series X have a new kind of storage that is right away bigger (2 or 3 tb standard), it allows next gen graphics perks, BUT loads games slower like a last gen system (could be 1 min+ loading screens)
- The cost of these systems remain the same as current models
- Each system still allows you to store and run games off an old external HDD at slower loading speeds and no next gen perks
Click to expand...


"lollipop_disappointed:
 
Last edited:
HDD's are a dying technology. Going forward as SSD's get cheaper and faster, magnetic tape drives will simply not exist any more.

There are two types of HDD, one that has failed and one that is going to fail. RAID arrays in big enterprise servers will still exist for some time but will be replaced by SSD's. No one wants HDD's any more, they're trash.
 
105 votes, all one the same option in the poll.

We have found something we all can agree upon fellow gaffers
 
Last edited:
Honestly 500gbs was more than enough this gen. I nearly always play one game at a time and having to delete and redownload games etc bothers me for about 5 seconds then I don't think about it ever again. It's ESPECIALLY not worth the extra cash lol.

I would probably choose a 500GB PS5 if it bought the price down meaningfully
 
wWBgIS5.gif
 
Why would I want a downgraded storage solution? I can already have that currently when plugging in an external HDD.

If anything- i'd prefer a $1,000 PS5+/Xbox Series X2 with RX6800XT+ graphics. Today.
 
No way! The fast loading is fuckin awesome. Hdd is not a good option at all. I am fine with deleting games to install new ones.
 
The SSD isn't just for loading times but will effect game design and the underlying nature of the game. This'll break compatibility and take away all the advantages of a high i/o throughput that can/will change how games are built.
 
SSD-only storage is always going to be better than any hybrid hard drive/SSD alternative because hard drives have moving parts and are therefore more prone to failure than SSDs. I speak from experience as a PC gamer who have lived through many hard drive failures but oddly not a single SSD failure! Also, it goes without saying that SSDs are way faster at reading and writing than any hard drive, even hybrid ones.

When I got my PS5 last year and realised how measly that 667 GB of internal storage would be for PS5 games, I wondered why the console didn't support games on external SSDs, which would be a cheaper solutions than having to install an M.2 SSD. Sure, some PS5 games like Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart do make use of the blazing-fast transfer speeds but the reality is that one-year on most third-party PS5 games do not really benefit that much from being installed to the internal M.2 SSD, at least in my opinion and are no faster at loading or streaming that the slower SATAIII SSDs I use for my PC games. In some cases, the Xbox Series X's slower SSD is as fast or even faster than the PS5 and on my PC, where I use only SATAIII SSDs, games load just as quick and sometimes quicker than they do on my PS5 (comparing the same games, obviously).

This makes me think that not every PS5 really needs to be installed on an M.2 SSD and that most games would probably run fine from an external SSD with little difference in loading times. That way you could have saved the internal storage for those games that needed the faster M.2 speeds and installed everything else on a cheaper external SATAIII SSD. This could be handled at a system level as well with the PS5 only allowing the games that don't need the extra speed to be installed the external SSD. No doubt this idea isn't used because it is easier for developers to only have to code PS5 games for M.2 storage without having to worry about how fast it is.
 
I am already getting PTSD from all the "Ratchet and Clank could be done on PS3" "we don't really need SSD", etc.

A lot of pain in my life was caused by doing background streaming engine for KC: D

At this point, it feels like bullying :messenger_pouting:
 
Poll doesn't really makes sense given the question, also absolutely never. HDDs are dead. Only good for NAS or cheap back-ups for storage. Not for modern games.
 
With 69 (nice) comments and 128 votes, everyone seems to agree that this suggestion is stupid. My faith in humanity has been every so slightly restored.
 
I voted choice two.

I dont think you guys read my OP.

All I was saying is if you'd trade loading speed for a 2 or 3 tb storage device that keeps the next gen graphics settings. I'd do it. I can live with longer loading screens if I can 2-3x the storage space, keep next gen visuals and not need to buy extra SSD space, hot swapping or redownloading.
 
Last edited:
Just use an external HDD for cold storage if you cannot afford to expand your console of choice's SDD either through the expansion card or additional SSD.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
All I was saying is if you'd trade loading speed for a 2 or 3 tb storage device that keeps the next gen graphics settings. I'd do it. I can live with longer loading screens if I can 2-3x the storage space, keep next gen visuals and not need to buy extra SSD space, hot swapping or redownloading.
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, it's not only loading but also asset streaming. Which is required for next gen visuals, and for which a traditional spinning disk is woefully inadequate.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
I voted choice two.

I dont think you guys read my OP.

All I was saying is if you'd trade loading speed for a 2 or 3 tb storage device that keeps the next gen graphics settings. I'd do it. I can live with longer loading screens if I can 2-3x the storage space, keep next gen visuals and not need to buy extra SSD space, hot swapping or redownloading.
Click to expand...

You'd sacrifice better games just to save a bit of money? Lmao seriously?
 
No. They basically allow that now with external storage anyway. I wouldn't mind a system that did automatically move stuff over.

For instance if I have something on my external, let me launch it and have the system automatically move over something instead of me having to do it manually, and once it has enough data transferred let me play the game.
 
No, thanks. I prefer to have super fast loadings and having to clean the fridge a bit more frequently. Specially booting the console and games, the faster the better.
 
DonJorginho said:
Who's the one jackass who voted for the HDD?

season 6 episode 26 GIF by SpongeBob SquarePants
Click to expand...

StreetsofBeige said:
I voted choice two.

I dont think you guys read my OP.

All I was saying is if you'd trade loading speed for a 2 or 3 tb storage device that keeps the next gen graphics settings. I'd do it. I can live with longer loading screens if I can 2-3x the storage space, keep next gen visuals and not need to buy extra SSD space, hot swapping or redownloading.
Click to expand...
^ This guy
 
StreetsofBeige said:
I voted choice two.

I dont think you guys read my OP.

All I was saying is if you'd trade loading speed for a 2 or 3 tb storage device that keeps the next gen graphics settings. I'd do it. I can live with longer loading screens if I can 2-3x the storage space, keep next gen visuals and not need to buy extra SSD space, hot swapping or redownloading.
Click to expand...
I was wondering who would choose that ridiculous answer. Makes since it's the guy who made the OP in the first place
 
We will only see the proper generational leap when developers lean into nvme only games. right now most games are made to work on a slower drive, and those that are exclusive are still using tools designed to make games for slower drives.

It's the stupidest fucking poll I've ever seen. I do not think removing the one thing the next generation was relying on to actually take a big leap forward is a good idea. The new model wouldn't have slower loading, either some games wouldn't work at all, or you'd be holding the entire generation back by forcing devs to make games that work on the hybrid drive.
 
Last edited:
Even IF in a magical world where the only difference was storage space versus loading, why the hell would you choose longer constant in-game loads? So you don't have to delete/download the occasional game?

I'd much rather spend the time to redownload a game than to spend all that time staring at loading screens when I'm actually playing the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Would you buy a new PlayStation system only for first party games?
2 3
124
163
Shadowstar39 replied
let's say the ps6 comes out in 2027, would you buy it?
2 3 4 5
242
2K
RoboFu replied
  • Poll
If you run XBOX division, what strategy would you pursue?
2 3
117
571
EverydayBeast replied
If you like John Wick and third person shooters, buy this game
25
446
Signalis replied
  • Poll
Will you buy a Switch 2 OLED if Nintendo ditches VRR since it is a challenge to implement it on handhelds?
2
64
622
onnextflix5 replied
Top Bottom