/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.10848229]

How much hard drive space would you need to have a full no-intro rom/iso set of every big console up to and including ps2/gc/xbox?

[Anonymous No.10848252]

>>10848229
How about you add them up yourself instead of asking so someone else will do the work for you

[Anonymous No.10848374]

>>10848229
>dc ignored AGAIN
i am forgotten...

[Anonymous No.10848382]

>>10848229
>ps2/gc/xbox
Not retro.

[Anonymous No.10848394]

>>10848229
If you really want to do that, make sure you use CHD and RZV to conserve as much space as possible, and maybe just stick to US (or PAL if you are European) rom sets, preferably with no duplicates, otherwise there is going to be a lot of junk. Anyway, somebody told me maybe a terabyte or two for everything up to Dreamcast. The Sony consoles are both gigantic though, PS2 even moreso than PS1

Personally I've only ever done something like this for the cartridge consoles (they're tiny), SEGA CD, and TurboGrafx-CD

[Anonymous No.10848409]

The full USA, and just USA, set for the PS2 is 2.3TB.
So you're looking at needing about 10TB of space. Possibly a bit more.

[Anonymous No.10848413]

>>10848409
Wow that is huge

[Anonymous No.10848425]

>>10848409
Is that uncompressed or in some compressed format?

[Anonymous No.10848491]

>>10848425
All .zip files.

[Anonymous No.10848493]

>>10848229
12

[Anonymous No.10848497]

Depends, do you want the complete CHAD files where every bit is exactly the way the developers intended?

[Anonymous No.10848812]

>>10848229
More than your parents will buy for you

[Anonymous No.10848815]

>the virgin bin+cue
vs
>the chad chd

[Anonymous No.10848879]

>>10848229
I just finished doing this minus PAL for the later disc based systems since I just couldn't justify all that extra space for 50hz versions of the same games. I also didn't go for Xbox because the redump set I found does not trim the ISOs so they are all huge and it was like 8tb on its own. They also don't work on Xemu last I checked so it doesn't seem worth it right now. I do have a decent handful of Xbox games though and a good amount of PAL exclusives. Everything else is fullset USA/Japan and I also have every Wii game for good measure. In total my collection is around 20TB.

It's really not worth having everything, but I enjoy it because I often feel like I have played every game out there so just seeing every single game ever organized with game covers makes it easy to pick out and try whatever looks interesting. Theres a ton of stuff I would have never found if I didn't so I guess its worth it for that.

[Anonymous No.10848889]

>>10848229
three hundred and fifty should do it

[Anonymous No.10849026]

>>10848815
>the virgin bin+cue
>iso's retarded brother
>bizarre mix of fragile and bloated
>never sure which one the program wants you to select, tries both and hopes one works
>trash+bald

[Anonymous No.10849043]

>>10848229
5TB

[Anonymous No.10849064]

>>10848229
I did some rough math for you. I calculated based on the average size of a game for each of the various consoles, and multiplied it by the number of games released on each console. I did this individually for each console and then added the totals together.


The total I came to was 19.42 terabytes. You can make this number smaller if you use some form of compression.

If you are looking to properly archive this data then you will need to make multiple backups and store them at different locations. You will also need to find a way to account for the possibility of drive segments dying so will likely need some sort of array setup. I would also encourage you to store the data in multiple storage formats. Hard drives, solid state drives, blu ray discs...

[Anonymous No.10849070]

>>10848879
>It's really not worth having everything
It's absolutely worth it. Chads like you are how we prevent this data from being lost when takedowns happen or data centers catch on fire.

[Anonymous No.10849072]

>>10848229
>>10848413
>full no-intro rom/iso set of everything
You will be looking at spending a hugh mongus amount of money on literal dozens of terabytes just to store an amount of games and dupes you will never be able to play fully nor care to do so.
>>10849043
try 50tb

[Anonymous No.10849082]

>>10849070
>prevent this data from being lost
Ok but then a mere standard desktop drive won't suffice for that, long term storage solutions are way more expensive. You are looking at using secure storage hdds on an external NAS and with ample redundancy.

[Anonymous No.10849089]

>>10849072
>try 50tb
fuckin make me punk

[Anonymous No.10849107]

>>10849064
Tape. Tape is still king.

[Anonymous No.10849115]

>>10849072
$250 for a 20TB HDD isn’t that much. It’s not a wise investment, but it’s not gonna break the bank unless you’ve failed at life.

[Anonymous No.10849120]

>>10849115
anon a 8tb ssd is like $750usd and prices are going up 20% soon

[Anonymous No.10849138]

>>10849115
>but it’s not gonna break the bank unless you’ve failed at life.
yeah.... failing at life sucks. nigga can't even play vidya

[Anonymous No.10849142]

>>10849115
no
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1760986-REG/seagate_st20000nt001_20tb_ironwolf_pro_7200.html

You need two, that's 750usd on site.

[Anonymous No.10849809]

>>10848409
>set for the PS2 is 2.3TB.
And mostly everything before that is miniscule.

[Anonymous No.10850049]

>>10848382
If 20 years isn't retro then what is?

[Anonymous No.10850225]

>>10850049
Even the current sticky doesn't say "20 years", forced-meme dumbass. Look up the sticky prior to this one (ie, pre-2020 sticky) to know what "retro" means according to this board (in an archive; very easy to find unless you lost half your brain in an accident).

[Anonymous No.10850252]

>>10849115
Or, you know, maybe buy a few 5tb ones. The files are going to spread anyway. It's even less if you get a platter or hybrid.

[Anonymous No.10850684]

>>10848413
eh. 8Tb drives are 140ish now. its not undoable for the average guy. PS2 also has a fuckton of sports games and shovelware that's ignorable unless you're being a completionist.

[Anonymous No.10850689]

>>10848382
Yes they are since a while now.

[Anonymous No.10850761]

>>10849082
Ok, so do that. The point I'm making is that because of people like anon who download everything, if a file gets pulled down then someone may have a copy to reupload.
>>10849107
Tell me more babe. I've got my eyes set on those 20tb CDs that people have been talking about lately.

[Anonymous No.10850937]

>>10848229
If you have the free time to make a retarded thread like this you should have just spent it on doing the math yourself if you care so much.

[Anonymous No.10851187]

>>10850937
But then I can't get seethe posts like yours

[Anonymous No.10851530]

>>10850761
The problem with industrial back-up tape is the initial investment being in the actual thousands for the machine (some even 5 breaking the 5 digit barrier). Sure you can get cheap ones, but you'll get tape storage under the 1TB which is entirely pointless aside from its longevity. It's most definitely business oriented and as a long term storage method not very fast in comparison. If you can get one from a friend from the back of the IT department's truck, that's great.
The newest standard tapes themselves are cheap though. Uncompressed it handles 18 TB max, however if you compress it can handle up to 45 TB either way a good deal for ~100-120 of your favoured moneys. For uncompressed speeds, you get 400 MB/s, which isn't that slow, and modern tapes can even handle partitions. Its durability works a bit different though, it can handle 15-30 years of archival in proper conditions and it's not too hard to maintain those. However it is a long term STORAGE method, not something you are supposed to use as an HDD. The previous gen handled 20.000 end-to-end passes and required 208 to fill it up, so just 96 full fills is what they can vouch for. Most of the time you won't fully fill it up though and if you do, it's likely for archival purposes so that's a moot point.

If you are some kinda data hoarder and you can manage to get your hands on an LTO-8 or LTO-9 (specs mentioned) machine, either for cheap via gray market methods or just because you are rich, it's probably the method for long term storage. I assume you don't have the couple of thousands needed to buy 1 of these machines new though, but keep it in mind for when you win the lottery and need your porn/anime/book/movie/IBM redump set archived.

[Anonymous No.10851671]

>>10851530
Just embarrassing

[Anonymous No.10851702]

>>10851671
Poor hands typed this post. I hire people for that.

[Anonymous No.10851839]

What about buying one USB Blu Ray burner then burning a lot of Blu ray discs, how many would it take and how feasible would it be to play games from Blu ray discs with multiple CHD files?

[Anonymous No.10851845]

>>10850761
>Tell me more babe
You're a grown man.

[Anonymous No.10851973]

>including ps2/gc/xbox
You probably need multiple hard drives for just PS2 let alone GC and Xbox. Everything before this generation can maybe fit on a single hard drive of decent size, except maybe all the PS1 games with multiple discs.

[Anonymous No.10852117]

>>10851702
>Poor hands typed this post.
They sure did. Poor little larping baby hands.

[Anonymous No.10852126]

>>10850761
>Ok, so do that.
why would I do that if I'm not interested in obsessive data preservation at all?
>>10851839
Feasible, difficult, expensive per tb.
>>10851973
>Everything before this generation
The entire redump ps2+xbox collection is about 32ish terabytes, for a normal user it's stupid to grab what the op wants, how many revisions of the same game plus regional versions will anybody be playing honestly?

[Anonymous No.10852168]

>>10852117
>projects his calloused manlet hands onto me
Maybe come back when you are a bit...richer.

[Anonymous No.10852185]

The real question is how big is the size of the disk games you really need in your collection.
Like the top 200 PS2 ISOs, the top 100 Xbox ISOs and so on, how big would that be. Are you really going to want every FIFA game from 2001 to 2014 on PS2?

[Anonymous No.10852226]

>>10852185
In fact if we're going to restrict the number of games in the collection how about just burning 200 PS2 DVDs? Considering how cheap are kits with 100 burnable DVDs. Buy 6 of those for 6th gen + 3 CD kits for 4th and 5th gen and burn away 10 disks a day, in 3 months you'd have a respectable collection, if you ever discover another game you want you can just download and burn it. Can even get a very old used Windows XP PC on the cheap to work for you, someone in your family probably already has one collecting dust so it's just the cheap price of the burnable disks, might be the cheapest option as long as you're sensible about choosing the size of your collection.

[Anonymous No.10852515]

Depending on storage needs, something else to consider is that you can do Parent/Child CHDs that can make certain games even smaller. Downside though is at the moment I don't think any emulator supports loading Parent/Child, so it'd be good for just storage. For an example I tried this with the USA release of Koudelka on PS1
Uncompressed: 2.33GB
7-Zip Compressed: 814MB
Standard CHD: 958MB
Parent/Child CHD: 633MB

And a possibly more extreme example of Parent/Child is something like with Madden NFL 98, the original release CHD is 408MB, and using that as the parent for the revised release, that revised one compresses down to 4.53KB.

[Anonymous No.10852529]

>>10848229
>full

Why would you want all of those games anyway? You wont play all of them. Spend a little time narrowing down rom sets to top 100 best sellers for each console and you'll be at a fraction of the size. Most rom sets are bloated from shovel ware that nobody will ever play.

[Anonymous No.10852910]

>>10851839
Bluray lasts longer than harddrives.
>>10852126
>Feasible, difficult, expensive per tb.
How much expensive.

[Anonymous No.10853004]

>>10848229
Get an old PC, put a 20 TB HDD on it, install Retronas on it, profit.

[Anonymous No.10853424]

>>10852515
>Parent/Child
That's very interesting, no idea about parent/child but some CHD versions do decompress 1:1 to the original.
>>10852910
>Bluray lasts longer than harddrives
it's not that easy anon, discs do need special care for long term storage and not all compounds last that long, in fact after CMC bought Verbatim I think the only actual good discs remaining are M-DISCs.
>How much expensive
Every terabyte will take about 20 50gb discs, if you can fit the data tidly that is, do the math for a good 10TBer and then compare costs.

[Anonymous No.10853456]

>>10853004
>Retronas
I'm failing to see the benefits of this over traditional network shares.

[Anonymous No.10854686]

>>10853456
It has "retro" in the name so it's kewl.
Also, you're retarded if you don't understand that "traditional network shares" is exactly what it gives you, as opposed to the newfangled network shares that your windows 11 machine gives you that don't work with old systems.