If programming is one of your activities, try to consider how that might be influenced by your hardware.
I had to process a 600GB text dataset this summer. Buying a 1TB SSD was a lifesaver in that situation. The new m2 drives claim to be 4x-5x faster, so I've been oggling that the past couple of months. My calculation took 2.5 days on an SSD - you'd be looking at 10-15 days on a HDD. These speed differences can become a nuisance quickly, if your programming/analyses involve tasks that are not instant.
Another thing to note is that some games pretty much "expect" to be on an SSD these days. Even games like Guild Wars 2 have pop-in issues when leaving them on a HDD. It's not unplayable, but I'd argue it influences the gameplay experience enough to think about the move to SSD as a meaningful upgrade. I've seen that in more and more games recently. Moving everything to an SSD often solves the issue. I bought a 120GB SDD, a 500GB soon after and a 1TB this summer. The first one filled up quickly - consider some games these days are easily 60GB-80GB. 120GB is two of those games, 250GB is four.
Baking lightmaps in Unity is also a very CPU heavy process. If you do that often, upgrading to a many-core CPU can be beneficial. (Your CPU seems powerful at the moment, so it's just something to keep in mind looking ahead).
All of these are very specific examples. It's not as if you need to upgrade any of that. It's more about thinking what you want to get out of your upgrade.
For me, it's less about estimates and more about delivered content.
I don't necessarily care about deadlines or estimates, as long as I see a promising development trajectory. I don't see that with SC anymore.
I backed in 2013, now exactly 4 years ago. The idea back then was to release the hangar module in 2013, with the rest of the game coming in 2014.
Keep in mind that the initial pitch included 50 explorable systems, a full single player campaign, multiple gameplay systems (mining/trading/industry), a persistent universe with a rich economical simulation, a modding tools suite allowing people to create and submit their own ships. All of this was pitched in 2012, for realease in 2014, with the initial budget.
We got the hangar module in 2013, which was a pretty substantial release (we didn't have anything before). In 2014, we got the dogfighting module. In 2015, we got the persistent map. 2 years later, in 2017, we may be getting another substantial release later this year with 3.0 (hopefully introducing trading and some missions?).
At this pace, it will likely take 4+ more years to get the feature set that was pitched for 2014.
"Paid Mods" is the most toxic payment model I've ever seen. If it manages to get widespread adoption, it will make Pre-Order Season Pass DLC seem like a pinnacle of morality.
It's the only model where the developer is directly financially incentivised to release an unfinished game. Why work on polishing bugs, when a modder can do it for you AND you will get paid for it. It's a ridiculous notion, where instead of developers paying for the actual developing, the end user pays for both the work and the product.
What's making me furious even more, is that anyone disagreeing with paid mods is automatically labelled as being "against paying for talent". I have nothing against that - if you are a talented 3D artist, a story writer or a music composer, your work should be appreciated and rewarded appropriately. But letting the developer take a huge cut from mods is an incredibly twisted model.