I can afford a new SSD so I may get one, but there's just so many other things I'd prefer spending it on.
But at the same time, other people with this issue have it installed on their SSD but they're still having problems, feel like it would be stupid to buy a new SSD and then it wouldn't work - and would Starfield even be worth it in the first place?
Maybe I'm being childish, I don't want to be fair to triple A game devs. It's like whenever I see that somehow a Warzone update is 60gb in size, I don't want to pretend it's the new standard when in most likelihood it's the game company not allowing time for optimization. Just feels stupidly anti-consumer.
to me its just not a reasonable argument because of everything else. a 1 TB Samsung EVO, their like top of the line one that you can run without a cable and without having a frazzy new motherboard is about 80-90 bucks
an SSD twice the size of starfield, like 250 gb is 50 bucks, less than you'll pay for the game itself
a new graphics card that you require to have the game run above 5 fps is 1000 dollars
i can agree that the expectation to shill out a gazillion dollars for a new product is not economical, but thats no different from every new graphics-intense game, and nothing's stopping anyone from playing fallout 1 and 2 instead on internal intel graphics. the SSD is the most reasonable part