• adriaan@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t really expect developers to account for 100× slower file loads with maps and assets streaming in, so it makes sense. SSDs aren’t really less available either. The only issue is that games these days are enormous in terms of disk space requirements.

  • odseey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cyberpunk 2077 will not stop working on hard drives, but the company will stop active support and testing of the game on the HDD. Ultimately, players may encounter performance issues or bugs.

    so not an actual hard requirement, but more like an indication that it won’t work as intended.

    • Ech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Personally, I still consider SSDs too expensive compared to HDDs, especially considering the space that modern games take up. A dedicated 1TB SSD (around $50 at a good price) can hold maybe 10 games these days.

  • Goob@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This seemed more or less inevitable as soon as consoles switched to SSD. Heck, the PS5 (and maybe Series X?) SSDs were faster than what the average joe gamer was using when they came out. In any case, I think it makes sense. If we want higher and higher quality textures, gotta have the bandwidth to support it.

  • Bimfred@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Entirely reasonable. With the graphical fidelity gamers expect these days, and how much everyone hates long load times, HDDs simply do not cut it any more. The number and filesizes of all the art assets that need to be loaded is too great.

  • gh0stcassette@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I imagine you could still run it off an HDD, it’d just take forever to load. In game everything is in RAM though, so unless you have less than the recommended RAM or have a bunch of apps in the background, it’ll be be just as playable (if you don’t care about long load times)

    • BasicTraveler@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, you can get all the same benefits with adding extra memory without having to deal with setting up and managing a massive RAM drive.

      When a program or the OS itself needs to read data from the disk, it does a disk read operation. Before reading the data directly from the disk, the OS checks if the requested data is already present in its cache. If the data is found in the cache (a cache hit), the OS can retrieve it quickly from the RAM, avoiding the slower disk access. If the data is not present in the cache (a cache miss), the OS reads it from the disk and also stores a copy in the cache for future use. If the cache is already full, the OS needs to make space for newly read data. There are various strategies for what data to evict, but something will be bumped out of the disk cache, it’s fast, but not free. The data stays in disk cache until it gets evicted to make space for something else. If you have enough memory, nothing needs to be evicted so even if the game unloads assets, the files on disk are still cached and can be accessed without loading from the physical disk.

      So point being, if you have enough memory, after the data is read once, it’s going to stick around in memory and be access just as fast, and maybe a little faster than a RAM drive. Why maybe a little faster? A RAM disk is effectively double caching the data, once in the RAM disk and once in the disk cache so you need twice as much memory to not have cache misses. Imagine a game that has 10 GB of data on disk, lets ignore the memory it takes to run the game, os, etc, just think about that 10 GB of game data, disk cache, and RAM drive.

      Say you have 16 GB of memory. 10 GB of that will need to be made into a RAM drive, so we have 6 GB left for disk cache. When you’re playing the game, it’s going to try and access that 10 GB of game data, it’s first going to look in the disk cache. The cache is only 6 GB, so the game can’t fit entirely, sometimes the data will be cached, sometimes it’s not. When it’s not, it’s going to go through a few extra steps to remove something and fetch the requested data from the RAM drive. The data eventually gets loaded from RAM, but with a few extra steps. Now without the RAM drive, there would be 16 GB of disk cache, the game will fit entirely. Once it’s all loaded, no more disk access, it’s all in memory.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I recall correctly, the current Linux RAM disk implementation uses the paging/caching backend anyway. Just doesn’t let it be purged from memory.

        • Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah. I use Tempfs for compiling because it gives me a lot more IO.

          It’d take some pretty simple scripting to create a tempfs and copy game files into it prior to launching the game. You’d have to dig a bit into each game to ensure that you’re not loading any directories or files that store permanent data but it wouldn’t be too hard.