I read up to jog my memory. QLC is slower for writes, so they generally have an SLC cache that you write to, and then it shuffles the data to QLC during idle periods. As the drive fills up, so does the SLC cache, so it slows down. Not really much of an issue for games where read performance is key. Read performance of QLC is right up there with other SSDs. In fact, the drive might not even need an SLC cache because the write bottleneck will likely be elsewhere (internet, hard drive, blu-ray drive).
So I agree, QLC is probably the way they will go, and I also expect the drive will be under $200, maybe $150.
Exactly. Where we could potentially see issues come up is the lack of DRAM cache if it's true. That could potentially throttle transfers during game installs as the drive fills up. Still faster than 5400rpm spinning rust though.
That's where I think Sony made a brilliant decision with the PS5. They kept the 4 lanes allowing a peak of 5.5GB/s in reads. The fact that it's also M.2 means that the drive is also user replaceable with any other gen4 SSD that meets the specs for the PS5, without the need for a customized solution that adds to the cost. The tooling alone for those Seagate SSDs is probably not cheap. At the same time, with the Xbox solution you get storage expansion rather than replacing the main drive. Had Sony also opted for expansion rather than replacing the main system drive, they would have most likely adopted a custom solution too. An alternative to the custom solution would have been to make the type-c port USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) but then you have no control over what drive gets plugged in there.
I'm still hoping that you can use a normal portable HDD for storage, and then the OS would just auto-copy a game over to the SSD once you attempt to run it.
That would be the most cost-effective approach, but I don't know if that's how it will actually work.
Pretty sure they already said you can use HDDs to store your XSX games but not use them to play the games.