Earlier quoted context omitted.
SSDs did not "stop getting bigger a decade plus ago." The largest SSD announced in 2015 was 16TB. You can get 128-256TB SSDs today. You can buy 16-32TB consumer SSDs on NewEgg today. Or 8TB in M.2 form factor. In 2015, the largest M.2 SSDs were like 1TB. That's merely a decade. At a decade "plus," SSDs were tiny as recently as 15 years ago.
Perhaps my searching skills aren’t great but I don’t see any consumer ssds over 8TB. Can you share a link? It was my understanding that ssds have plateaued due to wattage restriction across SATA and M.2 connections. I’ve only seen large SSDs in U.3 and E[13].[SL] form factors which I would not call consumer.
Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
231–240 of 297 posts
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#232Back in 2014, Titanfall's disk space was 75% UNCOMPRESSED audio (35GB of 48GB) for the gamers with only dual-core CPUs. from https://www.escapistmagazine.com/titanfall-dev-explains-the-... “On a higher PC it wouldn’t be an issue. On a medium or moderate PC, it wouldn’t be an issue, it’s that on a two-core [machine] with where our min spec is, we couldn’t dedicate those resources to audio.”
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought 4x (1TB->4TB the storage for half the price after my SSD died after 5 years (thanks samsung), what you mean they 'stopped being bigger'? Sure, there is some limitation in format, can only shove so many chips on M.2, but you can get U.2 ones that are bigger than biggest HDD (tho price is pretty eye-watering)
By stopped getting bigger I mean people still think 4TB is big in 2025. Just like 2010 when 3/4TB was the max size for consumer storage devices. u.2/u.3 is not consumer yet, unfortunately. I have to use m.2 nvme to u.2 adapters which are not great. And as you say, low number of consumer cpu+mobo pcie lanes has been restricting from the number of disks side until just recently. At least in 2025 we can have more than 2…
I think this is more a symptom of data bloat decelerating than anything else. Consumers just don't have TBs of data. The biggest files most consumers have will be photos and videos that largely live on their phones anyway. Gaming is relatively niche and there just isn't that much demand for huge capacity there, either -- it's relatively easy to live with only ~8 100GB games installed at the same time. Local storage is just acting as a cache in front of Steam, and modern internet connections are fast enough that downloading 100GB isn't that slow (~14 minutes at gigabit speeds).
So when consumers don't have (much) more data on their PCs than they had in 2015, why would they buy any bigger devices than 2015? Instead, as sibling commenter has pointed out, prices have improved dramatically, and device performance has also improved quite a bit.
(But it's also true that the absolute maximum sized devices available are significantly larger than 2015, contradicting your initial claim.)
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#234> 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 have heard that in many scenarios it is faster to load uncompressed assets directly rather than load+decompress. Load time is prioritized over hard drive space so you end up with the current situation.
Very fast decompression often means low compression or multicore. I have seen libjpgturbo vastly outperform raw disk reads though
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#235> 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…
At any given point if it wasn't vital to shipping and not immediately breaking, then it can be backburnered.
Messing with asset loading is probably a sure fire way to risk bugs and crashes - so I suspect this mostly was waiting on proving the change didn't break everything (and Helldiver's has had a lot of seemingly small changes break other random things).
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is no surprise to me that people still have to use HDD for storage. SSD stopped getting bigger a decade plus ago. SSD sizes are still only equal to the HDD sizes available and common in 2010 (a couple TB~). SSD size increases (availability+price decreases) for consumers form factors have entirely stopped. There is no more progress for SSD because quad level cells are as far as the charge trap tech can be pushed an…
I read that SSDs don't actually guarantee to keep your data if powered off for an extended period of time, so I actually still do my backup on HDDs. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.
(More relevant might be that backups are a largely sequential workload and HDDs are still marginally cheaper per TB than QLC flash.)
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#237Earlier 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…
They're using the outdated stingray engine and this engine is designed for the days of single or dual core computers with spinning disks. They developed their game with this target in mind.
Mind you, spinning disks are not only a lot more rare today but also much faster than when Stingray 1.0 was released. Something like 3-4x faster.
The game was never a loading hog and I imagine by the time they launched and realized how big this install would be, the technical debt was too much. The monetary cost of labor hours to undo this must have been significant, so they took the financial decision of "We'll keep getting away with it until we can't."
The community finally got fed up. The steamdb chart keeps inching lower and lower and I think they finally got worried about permanently losing players that they conceded and did this hoping to get those players back and to avoid a further exodus.
And lets say this game is now much worse on spinning disk. At the end of the day AH will choose profit. If they lose that 10% spinning disk people who wont tolerate the few seconds change, the game will please the other players, thus making sure its lives on.
Lastly, this is how its delivered on console, many of which use spinning media. So its hard to see this as problematic. I'm guessing for console MS and Sony said no to a 150gb install so AG was invested in keeping it small. They were forced to redo the game for console without this extra data. The time and money there was worth it for them. For PC, there's no one to say no, so they did the cheapest thing they could until they no longer could.
This is one of the downsides of open platforms. There's no 'parent' to yell at you, so you do what you want. Its the classic walled garden vs open bazaar type thing.
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#238> "It's no surprise to see modern AAA games occupying hundreds of gigabytes of storage these days" Is it not? I've genuinely never understood it! I used to do a little bit of level building for IdTech3 games back in the day but it's been 20 years. I'm not totally ignorant of what's involved, just mostly ignorant. I really want to know though, what is all that data!? Textures? In particular I find the massive disparit…
Mostly. I have a HD texture pack for Quake 1 that weighs in about 15GB on my NAS. That project is from 2011-ish.
> Robocop: Rogue City takes something like 8gb.
Did you mean 38GB? According to Steam the space required for Robocop Rogue City is ~38GB.
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#239> 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…
Game companies these days barely optimize engine graphical performance before release never mind the package size or patching speed. They just stamp higher minimum system requirements on the package.
Re: Helldivers 2 devs slash install size from 154GB to 23GB
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> In the worst cases, a 5x difference was reported between instances that used duplication and those that did not. We were being very conservative and doubled that projection again to account for unknown unknowns. That makes no goddamn sense. I’ve read it three times and to paraphrase Babbage, I cannot apprehend the confusion of thought that would lead to such a conclusion. 5x gets resources to investigate, not assum…