(10-12-2020, 05:19 PM)Shonumi Wrote: I dunno, seems like with how much RAM we have these days, an alternative to constant SSD streaming would be loading up everything there. If anything, I think consoles like the PS5 are going that route with SSDs because their RAM capacities are going to lag behind gaming PCs. 16GB in the PS5 is already arguably skimpy compared some PC builds these days. Can't blame them as they've got a price-point to hit.
I doubt developers would miss an opportunity to make use of the massive amounts of RAM on PCs in the future. In a few years, most of us will be sticking 64GB or more in our systems as the minimum, most likely. Obviously an SSD would definitely help initially loading all that stuff to RAM compared to an HDD, but I see the SSDs on upcoming consoles as overcoming a memory limitation that PCs don't necessarily have.
the SSD is imo to beat loading times, which are a bain to consoles. this is something PC's also don't have because they don't have a 2,5" (max) 5200 rpm hdd's (and if you do, i assume you had to cut some costs?)
and i disagree with the RAM thing.
i have 16GB ram, its more than enough to what i need for my uses (this includes Photoshop and lightroom with pictures of 4000x3000).
i am not going to end up wasting even more money on RAM just to run a game.
If you don't, games would quickly run towards a swapping hell if they did what you are suggesting.
Games these days often use packed files of + 4GB a piece.
lets assume you are going to load 3 of those files in RAM. 12GB constantly used by your game ( + Windows = more than 16GB is needed. and lets be honest, 12GB game is very very very very small).
...and we aren't even extracting, decompressing or doing anything with the content of those packed files...
so no, unless you want to stop earning money on people that can't waste +/- 1200€ on a gaming rig (or buy unstable budget shit), this is really not going to work