161–170 of 297 posts
In other news - "Call of Duty installer now takes additional 131GB of space on the disk"
I stopped playing CoD mainly because I was tired of juggling disk space to try to play it even casually. It's surprising to me that game publishers have ignored this as some checklist requirement to stay below.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic question. > I imagine 90%+ is peered or hosted inside ISPs, not via transit How hosting inside ISPs function? Does ISP have to MITM? I heard similar claims for Netflix and other streaming media, like ISPs host/cache the data themselves. Do they have to have some agreement with Steam/Netflix?
The CDN/content provider ships servers to the ISP which puts them into their network. The provider is just providing connectivity and not involved on a content-level, so no MITM etc needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the post, "the change in the file size will result in minimal changes to load times - seconds at most." It didn't help their game load noticeably faster. They just hadn't checked if the optimization actually helped.
The actual source ( https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/553850/view/49158394... ) says: > Only a few seconds difference? > Further good news: the change in the file size will result in minimal changes to load times - seconds at most. “Wait a minute,” I hear you ask - “didn’t you just tell us all that you duplicate data because the loading times on HDDs could be 10 times worse?”. I am pleased to say that our worst…
No, they measured it now, not first. The very text you pasted is very clear about that, so I'm not sure why you're contradicting it.
If they had measured it first, this post would not exist.
I recently downloaded Hunt showdown. I think it was around 70 gigs. About a month later, I had to update it. The download was the same size. I think they literally just overrode the entire game because they were too lazy to update it properly.
> With their latest data measurements specific to the game, the developers have confirmed the small number of players (11% last week) using mechanical hard drives will witness mission load times increase by only a few seconds in worst cases. Additionally, the post reads, “the majority of the loading time in Helldivers 2 is due to level-generation rather than asset loading. This level generation happens in parallel wi…
it's not cost to them . The cost is paid by consumers and platforms. Also if goal was to improve things for small minority they could've just pawned it off to free DLC, like how some games do with 4k texture packs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone "takes pride in their work" and makes my game load five times longer, I'd rather they go find something else to take pride in. And others who wish one single game didn't waste 130GB of their disk space, it's fine to ignore their opinions? They used up a ton more disk space to apply an ill-advised optimization that didn't have much effect. I don't really understand why you'd consider that a positive thing…
By their own industry data ( https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/553850/view/49158394... ), deduplication causes a 5x performance increase loading data from HDD. There's a reason so many games are huge, and it's not because they're mining your HDD for HDDCoin. The "problem" is a feature. The "so it remains unfixed until someone with pride in their work finally carves out the time to do it" mindset suggests that t…
too lazy
Arrowhead is a whole company full of "lazy" developers who just don't like to work very hard?
Or do you think they had their hands full with other optimizations, bug fixes, and a large amount of new content while running a complex multiplatform live service game for millions of players? (Also consider that management was probably deciding priorities there and not the developers)
I put hundreds of hours into HD2 and had a tremendous amount of fun. It's not the product of "lazy" people...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably only 11% of PC players, approximately 100% of console players will be on SSD.
Rather 89% PC players have an SSD. For the console players much less. People (read: hordes of kids) are still using PS3, PS4, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems bizarre to me that they'd have accepted such a high cost They’re not the ones bearing the cost. Customers are. And I’d wager very few check the hard disk requirements for a game before buying it. So the effect on their bottom line is negligible while the dev effort to fix it has a cost… so it remains unfixed until someone with pride in their work finally carves out the time to do it. If they were on the ho…
The problem they fixed is that they removed a common optimization to get 5x faster loading speeds on HDDs. That's why they did the performance analysis and referred to their telemetry before pushing the fix. The impact is minimal because their game is already spending an equivalent time doing other loading work, and the 5x I/O slowdown only affects 11% of players (perhaps less now that the game fits on a cheap consum…
Not what happened. They removed an optimization that in *some other games* ,that are not their game, gave 5x speed boost.
And they are changing it now coz it turned out all of that was bogus, the speed boost wasn't as high for loading of data itself, and good part of the loading of the level wasn't even waiting for disk, but terrain generation.
> With their latest data measurements specific to the game, the developers have confirmed the small number of players (11% last week) using mechanical hard drives will witness mission load times increase by only a few seconds in worst cases. Additionally, the post reads, “the majority of the loading time in Helldivers 2 is due to level-generation rather than asset loading. This level generation happens in parallel wi…
I started my career as a software performance engineer. We measured everything across different code implementations, multiple OS, hardware systems, and in various network configurations. It was amazing how often people wanted to optimize stuff that wasn't a bottleneck in overall performance. Real bottlenecks were often easy to see when you measured and usually simple to fix. But it was also tough work in the org. It…
There will be huge mistakes occasionally, but mostly it is death by a thousand cuts -- it's easy to commit a 0.1% regression here or there, and there are hundreds of other engineers per performance engineer. Clawing back those 0.1% losses a couple times per week over a large deployed fleet is worthwhile.