192
HELLDIVERS 2 Tech Blog #2 - Opt-in install size reduction beta (from 154Gb to 23Gb) (store.steampowered.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

*We have followed through on our plans and made small reductions in the PC installation size over the last few patches while still adding new content. While this was a good start, our short term fixes have not been enough to keep up with all of the new content in the latest patch. The longer term goal has always been to bring the PC installation size much closer in line with the console versions. We are happy to report that, thanks to our partners at Nixxes, we have reached that goal much sooner than expected._

By completely de-duplicating our data, we were able to reduce the PC installation size from ~154GB to ~23GB, for a total saving of ~131GB (~85%). We have completed several rounds of internal QA and are ready to roll this out to early adopters as a public technical beta. Our testing shows that for the small percentage of players still using mechanical hard disk drives, mission loading times have only increased by a few seconds in the worst cases. This is live NOW!*

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

They need 15% of that space.

It isn't about the drives or if people can afford a certain size SSD (although that matters more than you are admitting). It's about asking better of people and companies responsible for destroying over a decade of hardware advancement due to bad optimization (to save money), overly-abstracted frameworks (to save money), and improper handling of assets (to save money).

They made a mistake in not prioritizing this, they fixed it and admitted there was a problem. That's good. What isn't good is people polishing their knobs as if the devs did this out of the goodness of their heart. They didn't, they were losing players because people were speaking with time and money. Just like you wanted. Just like people in this thread are doing.

But glancing through your other replies I'll just stop here. May your drive space remain vast, and your tolerance for badly-optimized software remain stronger than mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -4 points 11 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Holy shit, ok I'll state it yet again and then I'm done. For the 3rd time, this isn't about who can afford what drives or who has what drives or what drives exist in our universe. Pretend drives doesn't exist if that is easier because the drives don't matter. Drive space is a symptom of the underlying issue.

    This is about the near universal trend of software companies destroying a decade plus of hardware performance gains because they refuse to properly optimize their software. Full stop. Anything else is a side effect of not properly optimizing things. The drive type arguments, drive space arguments...they disappear once the fundamental issue (optimization) is addressed.

    Holding these companies accountable is how this gets fixed. It's how this particular instance got fixed. This thread wouldn't even exist if these weren't legitimate complaints because the devs wouldn't have bothered with this round of size reduction if there wasn't a problem affecting their bottom line.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent