Is "SSD Required" the new thing for recent games?

[kalirion]

BG3 is the first game I noticed that requirement with, but a quick google searched also showed it on the new Ratchet & Clank game, Starfield, and some games I'd never heard of.

So is BG3 really unplayable without being installed on an SSD?

Edit: Question was answered (it's NOT unplayable).

Also, I do have a small SSD for the OS, but it doesn't fit large games, my motherboard is likely too old to support SSD's newer than SATA2, and I don't want a hassle of trying to find a way to mount another SATA2 SSD in my case which has no proper brackets for them.

[Patriot]

I don't know if it's unplayable, but I can almost promise the game performance would be greatly diminished. It's a fair substantial upgrade from platter drives, and for modern gaming I would consider it a must have.

[ComradePreacher]

You can play it without SSD, they have an HDD mode option in game settings. Though can't say if it'll be stable

[everybe2]

No it`s fine. A bit longer laoding screens and that`s it.

[kalirion]

Thanks!

[Reqhart]

Should be able to play it. It even has a HDD mode setting in game. However SSDs are becoming more mandatory as HDDs are not fast enough for loading textures or pulling game data in a "live" environment anymore.

The experience with a HDD might not be so good. It's been well known for around 5 years HDD is quickly getting phased out support for games. Also SSDs just aren't that expensive anymore.

[everybe2]

Originally posted by kalirion:

Thanks!

ACT3 has some performance issues , but that`s for lot of people.
With high end PC`s as well.

[hannibal_pjv]

These games are no so huge so no wonder why ssd is the ”minimum” requirement in these days. Also direct storage will become common component of game design because of current gen consoles. Not mandatory yet, but allmost!

[cfehunter]

Originally posted by kalirion:

BG3 is the first game I noticed that requirement with, but a quick google searched also showed it on the new Ratchet & Clank game, Starfield, and some games I'd never heard of.

So is BG3 really unplayable without being installed on an SSD?

Assets have been getting higher and higher fidelity, there's just more and more to stream from disk and old spinning metal HDD's don't really cut it anymore.

[Abysswalker]

Sorry but if you want to call yourself a gamer, you have to have an SSD these days. Its essential. These drives are cheap too so there is absolutely no excuse for you not to have one.

[Grimmsch]

It is not required - there is a HDD mode in options. It uses more RAM than.
Why people still use HDDs for games in particular is beyond me tho.

[Nilserrich]

SSD hard drives for the system and programs have been the standard for years. Even the last two Windows releases assume in their development that everyone uses SSDs by now. How did that pass you by?

In any case, an SSD is recommended for nearly everything now, including the operating system. And M.2 SSDs are not that expensive anymore.

I wouldn't say BG3 is unplayable, though. But it definitely reduces the fluidity of the gameplay, with long loading screens, textures that load too late in focus, and I can imagine that the hard drives are generally a bottleneck in your system as well. Depending on what else you have installed.

Edit: Ohh, yes. There is a performance mode for HDDs. It's supposed to put more load on the graphics card and the CPU.

[Moriendor]

Buying a decent m.2 NVMe SSD in mid 2023 should be a no-brainer. You can get an excellent 2TB model like the Kingston KC3000 with Micron NAND for a mere €110 or the 1TB model of the same brand for just over €60.

[Balzack]

It feels weird that I don't hit the minimum requirements based on my storage drive rather than my CPU or GPU. That's just not a situation I would have imagined happening lol.

I mean, I do have an SSD for my drive C of course. But there's certainly not enough space on it right now for a 150GB game. I otherwise use a 2TB HDD as my secondary where I play a lot of my games.

I guess I'll either shuffle things around, or wait to play when upgrade or get a new rig. But yeah. Like I said, just feels like a very strange issue to run into. I'm pretty sure the last time I had to think about my storage being the barrier for entry for a game was in the late 90's.

[Abysswalker]

Originally posted by Balzack:

It feels weird that I don't hit the minimum requirements based on my storage drive rather than my CPU or GPU. That's just not a situation I would have imagined happening lol.

I mean, I do have an SSD for my drive C of course. But there's certainly not enough space on it right now for a 150GB game. I otherwise use a 2TB HDD as my secondary where I play a lot of my games.

I guess I'll either shuffle things around, or wait to play when upgrade or get a new rig. But yeah. Like I said, just feels like a very strange issue to run into. I'm pretty sure the last time I had to think about my storage being the barrier for entry for a game was in the late 90's.

The first thing I would do if I were you is getting a 2TB SSD (preferrably an M.2) and transfer every game on the HDD to the SSD. You will be blown away by the performance difference, especially when it comes to load times and ingame asset loading.

[d.gabi]

I do not have SSD, played so far about 30 hours, there are no real problems. When you go to a new area, you have to wait, but it is not even like minutes, it is just not instantaneous. Also the loading of a saved game can be like 30 seconds. If you can't live with that, buy an SSD.