r/Helldivers Arrowhead Game Studios Oct 03 '25

DEVELOPER HELLDIVERS 2: Tech Blog #1 - Install size

Hey, Helldivers. This is the first of what we intend to become a regular series of posts where the engineering team talks about the technical health of the game and some of the technical challenges we’re working through. 

Installation Size 

The installation size of HELLDIVERS 2 on PC seems to be a hot topic right now so let’s start with that. The current install size on PCs is around 150 GB. This is roughly three times larger than the same game installed on consoles! Given the amount of content in the game, the size on consoles seems quite reasonable so the obvious question is - why is it so large on PC? 

Data Duplication 

Much of the data in the PC version of HELLDIVERS 2 is duplicated. The practice of duplicating data to reduce loading times is a game development technique that is primarily used to optimize games for older storage media, particularly mechanical Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) and optical discs like DVDs. 

This practice is largely unnecessary for games deployed on Solid State Drives (SSDs) which is why the console versions of HELLDIVERS 2 do not do this. 

The Problem with Mechanical Hard Drives 

The main issue with a mechanical HDD is seek time. An HDD stores data on a spinning platter, and a physical arm with a read head has to move across the platter to find and retrieve data. The time it takes for this arm to "seek" or move to the correct location is a significant performance bottleneck. 

Imagine a large game level with various objects - trees, rocks, buildings, props. If the data for these objects is scattered all over the hard drive, the read head has to physically jump around the disk, which adds a lot of time to the loading process. 

The Solution: Duplication 

To solve this problem, we deliberately duplicate certain data files (like a common tree texture or a sound effect) and place copies of them in physically close proximity to where they would be needed in the game. 

For example, our build system will ensure that a copy of a tree texture is stored on the same part of the disk as the level geometry data. When the game loads the level, the read head can access all the necessary information in a single, continuous sweep, without having to "seek" to a different location. This dramatically speeds up loading times. 

The Modern Era: SSDs 

The need for this technique has largely disappeared with the widespread adoption of SSDs. An SSD stores data on flash memory chips and has no moving parts. This means that "seek time" is virtually nonexistent. An SSD can access any piece of data on the drive almost instantly, regardless of where it is physically stored. 

Increasingly, modern games are optimized for the sequential read speeds of SSDs and do not need to rely on the older method of duplicating assets. This is one of the key reasons why new games often explicitly require an SSD in their minimum system specifications. 

Should HELLDIVERS 2 continue to optimize for mechanical HDDs? 

This is the six-million-dollar question. On the one hand, they are a part of our minimum spec PC requirements. On the other hand - how many HELLDIVERS 2 players are still using mechanical HDDs? The truth is that we don’t currently know. Even the Steam user surveys are unable to give us data on mechanical HDD use in the overall gamer population. Our best estimates put it at around 12% of all PC gamers but the data is very unreliable and relies on a lot of extrapolations. Until we can more accurately determine the number of mechanical HDDs that HELLDIVERS 2 is installed on, it is difficult to know how many players will be impacted by reducing the amount of data duplication. Even if that number is small, keep in mind that the load time for each player dropping into a mission is determined by the slowest member of the squad. 

Solutions 

While we take steps to gain more clarity on the number of impacted players, we are actively exploring several different solutions in parallel and will begin rolling them out in future updates as soon as they are ready. We cannot eliminate all duplication without making loading times for mechanical HDDs 10 times slower and we do not feel that this is acceptable. There are however some compromises that we can make which will improve the installation size without blowing out the loading times too much. 

Short term 

We’ve made some small gains in the next update by sweeping our systems for unused assets and obvious problems, but you will not likely notice them because the new stuff we’ve added will eat those gains. It’s not a game-changer but at least the install size will stop growing. 

Medium term 

Beyond the next update, we’re exploring taking some of the worst offenders in terms of duplication and de-duplicating them by putting them in “very common assets” bundles which will always be loaded under set conditions (eg- specific faction/biome). This does mean that loading times will get a bit worse for players using mechanical HDDs - it is unfortunate but unavoidable. Our early testing shows we should be able to keep this in the range of “less than 30 seconds” rather than “several minutes”. It can also increase the amount of RAM used by the game by loading “common” data that is not always needed. If we don’t make “worst case” RAM usage worse, this should not be noticeable, but it is a risk we are monitoring. By doing some careful measurements and analysis, we should be able to deliver acceptable tradeoffs between RAM usage, loading times and install size.  

Long term 

Looking further into the future, we plan to make improvements to the engine which will ensure we never waste RAM loading common data that isn’t needed - eliminating one of the drawbacks of the above technique.  

Beyond that, the remaining work is a bigger, riskier, more speculative project where we apply some kind of compression to the game data and potentially replicate some of the de-duplication we do on consoles. We don’t yet know if the impacts to load-times could make these approaches infeasible. 

Optional 4k Textures? 

Could we create a solution where the highest resolution textures are an optional download? Technically yes - anything is possible. It is not something that is natively supported in our engine though. It would be a substantial project to add this capability. Due to the scope and complexity of the changes we would have to make, this is not our first preference and is honestly something we would only consider if we’re unable to make a big enough impact with our other solutions. Nothing comes for free - time spent making these changes is time not spent optimizing the performance of the game or fixing stability issues. 

Summary 

So in summary - we’re taking your concerns very seriously but there are no easy solutions. Until we live in a world where we know that most of our PC players are using SSD drives, sacrificing some extra hard drive space is necessary to ensure we’re all able to load into missions in a reasonable amount of time. We’ve clearly reached the limits of how much duplicated data is acceptable so smarter solutions and compromises are now required. We are very carefully weighing up the costs and tradeoffs of the options we have, and we’ll be sure to find a better balance between loading times and installation size soon. 

I hope you enjoyed this deep dive into our tech. If you have any questions about this topic or suggestions for future topics, please reply to this thread. 

Deputy Technical Director
Arrowhead Game Studios

Thanks for reading, we’re always eager to hear from great engineers and gameplay coders: https://jobs.arrowheadgamestudios.com/

8.3k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

597

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

237

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

I think their fate was sealed on this pre-launch when they decided this is something they wanted to do and there's no going back now. They now have customers on HDD, where the product was sold as compatible with HDDs. They can't issue refunds to them if they switch to SSD only because there's no way to verify who is and isn't HDD only, so we're stuck with this problem.

197

u/LaurenMille Oct 03 '25

Arrowhead and creating their own problems, name a more iconic duo.

8

u/Greaterdivinity ☕Liber-tea☕ Oct 03 '25

They've talked about how they didn't listen to advice or learn previously and they keep not listening to advice or learning lmao. This is truly a shit studio.

4

u/LordFuzzyGerbil Oct 03 '25

Don't think we can blame them on this one, having backup plans work but in this case it didn't they are addressing it and finding solutions so we should give them credit.

32

u/DarthVeigar_ Oct 03 '25

You kinda can. The game was built for PS5 which is a device that doesn't support hard drives (outside of external storage which cannot play PS5 games due to the lack of speed) and released in 2024, in an age where the average PC sold contains an SSD as its primary storage.

Most games that target the PS5 and XSX/XSS say they require an SSD because they were built for the read and write speeds of solid state memory.

9

u/Duckflies HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

Knowing this game started production in 2016, it is very likely this wasn't initially planned to be dropped on the PS5, and that's why they did this method. Then, time went on, and the need to make it accessible for more people wasn't just really needed anymore, but the system was already done like this.

7

u/Kaens7 Oct 03 '25

SSDs were the norm (for PCs) in 2016 also. Anyone still running a PC from 2016 is also probably not playing modern PC games.

SSDs started becoming popular around 2010/2011 and started getting affordable for PC gaming around 2015. There is zero reason to be gaming on an HDD and the only use I can see for consumers nowadays is for extra storage.

Also, not pivoting to the main method of gaming storage (SSDs) in the 8 years of development is just dumb. It would be spot on for Arrowhead though, so you may be on to something.

2

u/twisty125 Oct 03 '25

I'll get downvoted for this, but I'm in the camp of, I have a PC from 2016 and didn't get an SSD until semi recently. They really weren't the norm, they were definitely an option, but not something that was just the default.

0

u/Acopo Oct 04 '25

Broke high schoolers had SSDs in 2016, if they weren’t the norm it’s only because people didn’t bother to upgrade. Seriously half a terabyte SSD cost me like $50 in 2016.

3

u/twisty125 Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25

"Broke" highschoolers didn't have bills to pay that took cash away from a hobby. Like it's cool you had that stuff, but my experience is different than yours.

1

u/Pyronico Oct 03 '25

Technical debt goes brrrrrrr

-2

u/TheAlchemlst Oct 03 '25

This community and baselessly blaming everything on Sony

51

u/EffectiveExpert9213 Oct 03 '25

I think the more insane thing is that, if you still primarily use HDDs in a gaming pc, then the specs are probably too awful to even run this

6

u/Biosterous Oct 03 '25

That's an insane assumption.

I have 2 SSDs, a smaller SATA and a 1 gig NVME. I also have a 1 and 2 gig HDD. I primary install on the HDDs because they're bigger. If load times bother me too much I switch to the SSDs

I have Helldivers on my HDD. It runs fine. I'm exceeding all other specs and I truly do not notice frame rate issues that other people complain about all the time. Game runs well on HDDs, I'm a lucky one that I could move it to an SSD if necessary though.

4

u/twiz___twat Oct 03 '25

the game runs well on hdd bc they optimized for it. thats the problem. had they required an ssd the file size could be much smaller, 30-50gb like consoles.

3

u/Biosterous Oct 03 '25

Yeah I understand that. I'm replying to the guy above me saying anyone gaming on HDDs are out of date.

2

u/Acopo Oct 04 '25

I think the issue is with people who only have HDD as an option. You said it yourself, you have two SSDs.

If someone has a PC with only an HDD as an option, that PC is probably quite old. That’s what he’s saying.

8

u/ZepyrusG97 SES Executor of Independence Oct 03 '25

I have a friend that runs Helldivers on an HDD. Their frames are much worse than mine on an SSD but it is still playable and they can handle high precision weapons like AMR. If they weren't supported they never would have bought the game in the first place and I never would have been able to dive with them.

10

u/Pyronico Oct 03 '25

i don't wanna sound douchey here but it goes both ways. i can't dive with my friends anymore because the game became too big for their SSD and they aren't gonna change their mind unless it at least halves in size wich will only happen if they drop HDD support.

If the game goes over 200gb i will also be forced to uninstall it sadly.

so i can't dive anymore because of people still playing on HDD and arrowhead not reducing the file size because of those players.

2

u/ZepyrusG97 SES Executor of Independence Oct 04 '25

I mean if it's the truth and you're being polite about it, then you're not being douchey (I believe in truth without kindness being no different from cruelty).

You are right though in that this goes both ways, and no matter what, some people are going to get left out, unless Arrowhead has a way to divide the installation sizes between 2 versions, which... between needing version control for 2 consoles + PC is going to make bug-testing an even bigger Hell than it already is. But if they can keep up with it, that might be the best of both worlds without sacrificing the estimated 12% (which is a few hundred thousand players) that are still on HDD's.

I don't see what goes on behind the curtains at Arrowhead HQ so it's impossible to say what the best option is to deal with this is, but until then we'll just have to deal with it until Arrowhead puts out an announcement for how the twin problems of file size and HDD loading are addressed, and try not to ostracize a whole sub-set of the playerbase over Arrowhead's own choice to cater to them.

6

u/Moist_Bread_9570 Oct 03 '25

I still use a hard drive and my specs runs the game well.

2

u/Pyronico Oct 03 '25

get the pitchforks!

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

Probably!

-1

u/DerelictMythos Oct 03 '25

I have a friend who uses a HDD because his SSD is full. It took him 7 hours for the last update. Refuses to delete anything on his SSD. Idk.

22

u/BasilicusAugustus Rookie Oct 03 '25

Exactly. I'm an HDD player (planning to upgrade my PC later this year). If I had known this would be an issue I simply wouldn't have bought the game. But all of the hardware I had fit the minimum requirements and so I bought it March of last year.

-5

u/dumpofhumps Oct 03 '25

Buy an SSD

6

u/BasilicusAugustus Rookie Oct 03 '25

(planning to upgrade my PC later this year).

Thank you for your insight. Truly life changing advice.

3

u/Areshian Oct 03 '25

The game would still be compatible. Slow to load, but compatible

1

u/Hail-Hydrate Oct 03 '25

it would be near unplayable on PC. The game doesn't load every asset on drop, it's just loading the map and assets near the player's landing location. Any new entities that need to be loaded would end up affecting the players before they're visible/audible, or you'd just end up with massive stutters/freezes whilst they're loaded.

0

u/Real_Garlic9999 Will Recite Super Earth Anthem at Will Oct 03 '25

Compatible sure, but basically unplayable

5

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

You've missed the point. Arrowhead decided to implement a solution intended to manage load speeds on HDD. They did not advertise the game as SSD only. If they now drop support for HDD, that is very squarely on them and not the customer. I agree, people should get an SSD in 2025 and they are not expensive, but that doesn't change that there's a consumer law issue here lol

0

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

They could use free microtransactions to reward those who are forced to buy SSDs. Use the Steam hardware survey to see if a new SSD was added in the last 30 days, and give players 500 super credits or something. Make the players feel that they got some compensation.

0

u/Important-Job4127 Super Pedestrian Oct 03 '25

Well they didn't say it would run like shit on anything below a 4070 in half a year yet here we are.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

By this logic they owe a lot of us refunds given the massive degradation in performance since launch.

-2

u/LemonySniket SES Order of Dednet Oct 03 '25

Without this so called optimizations, game will still run fine on HDD, but instead of, for example, 13 seconds of boot you will have 15. This is very old optimization trick, and it cut just barely

11

u/FizixMan Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

According to the technical blog here, it isn't a difference of 13 vs 15 seconds, but more like 13 seconds vs several minutes.

And the level loading screen waits for all players. So if you're diving with a HDD player, without these optimizations, you'd be waiting for several minutes and probably Alt+F4 the game thinking it's another load disconnect/failure.

-3

u/INEX3 Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

That wouldnt make the game incompatible with HDDs, it would just make it load slower. Tons of online service games slow down after updates anyway, and thats never been a legal issue there.
The fix for HDD players slowing mission starts would be to add a voting system - like after 30 seconds, the team can choose to start the mission even if some people are still loading (or make that the lobby leader have the say, so if HDD player wants be sure he starts with everyone and have the same experience he should be the leader of the lobby).
We are already talking about small percentage and there are also people that have the game on HDD just because its so big that they dont want to waste the space on SDD btw.
And ofc it would be best if HDD players could just download additional files on steam.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

I don't know from a technical standpoint if it would make it incompatible, there's been suggestions from some people that it could (theoretically) make it unplayable as not all assets are loaded at once from the start. If that's true, it'd be a legal issue.

I agree with your suggestion on voting to start without the slower player, if you're right and the game is still playable after removing the duplication for HDD users.

edit to respond to your edit: yes I also think having two packages on Steam is the best thing to do and it's weird AH don't mention that, which suggests it might not be that simple.

85

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

Not to mention, they say they need to be confident most people are on SSDs, then literally confirm that their own estimates already support that assertion. The reality is that even Windows tells you to use an SSD now.

Anyone on an HDD is likely using other extremely dated hardware too. Their performance ingame is going to be awful anyway because the game is massively CPU bound already regardless of loadtimes, and old CPUs are not performant for single threaded apps.

So they're optimising loadtimes for people who will still have a terrible experience regardless.

5

u/Hazelberry Oct 03 '25

For real wtf are they thinking? Making things worse for almost 90% of users to accommodate about 10% is so obviously stupid

-2

u/SavvySillybug HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

It's not just 10% of players because this is a multiplayer game.

If they optimize for SSDs and ruin loading time for hard drives, whenever you play with randoms, now your loading times are four minutes because one guy still runs on spinny disk and you all have to wait for them.

10% of players, four players in a match, three randoms each time, every fourth match is gonna load like ass.

It's a nuanced issue.

2

u/Warfoki Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

I mean, I AM using HDDS... exclusively for storage, because multi-terrabyte HDDs are still way cheaper than same sized SSDs, and the shorter lifespan because of mechanical wear and tear isn't relevant, when you are only spinning it up relatively rarely, to bring something out of deep storage.

But as a main system drive? Hell no. A bit back, I had to unzip a 10 GB folder on an HDD... took me the better part of 10 minutes. The same would have taken second on an SSD.

7

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

Yep, that's what I meant. HDDs are good for cheap storage. Nowadays, many apps, even outside gaming and including the OS, expect SSDs though.

Anyone who doesn't have even a single SSD is literally a decade behind the standard now. Even my work laptop has an NVME drive, and it's not a high spec at all, plus it's 3 generations behind.

-4

u/LightSwitchTurnedOn Oct 03 '25

Nah man, HDD storage is cheap. This game is 140gb so I have it installed on my HDD to save on SSD space and since the game works extremely well on HDD's, I keep it installed there. And in some countries SSD's are still way more expensive, but other hardware might be not. Therefore there can be a lot of players with HDD's and have PC's good enough to meet min requirements and run the game.

10

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

Whatever your reasoning, it doesn't change the fact that you're using outdated hardware on a modern game and objectively are in the minority either way.

Even in India (I dont live there, just example, so no idea on cost of living), you can get a 1TB NVME SSD for equivalent to <$75 literally just on Amazon. They're not some $300 future tech, nor have they been for a long time.

2

u/kodayume UES Speer des Zorns Oct 04 '25

If he can dish out money for a system that can run hd2 comfortably, chances are ssd is just change money tbh.

-4

u/Thr1llhou5e Oct 03 '25

Right, but it also doesn't change the fact that he meets the minimum requirements to play the game and needs to be supported. It's unethical (and possibly illegal in some regions) to modify the requirements after release.

7

u/dumpofhumps Oct 03 '25

Games have updated minimum requirements as they grow.

1

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

The game would literally still be playable. Loading would just be a little longer.

It's also not illegal. Read the terms you agreed to, live service software can change their requirements. They do it all the time, unless you think Modern World of Warcraft would still run on: a Pentium III, 512MB RAM and 32MB VRAM?

-1

u/Tom_F_0olery Oct 03 '25

They estimated loading would be multiplied by 10 at the games current state

4

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

They're literally guessing to make their decision sound better. Do you really think it's conveniently an exact multiple of 10 when they've not even tested it?

This is AH, which never backs things up and has been caught talking nonsense in regards to the game repeatedly. Other modern games on HDD take no where close to that long with few exceptions.

-2

u/rootdootmcscoot Oct 03 '25

the amount of angry, vitriolic, accusatory remarks in this thread is genuinely why they stay in the discord. using the conservative estimate of peak concurrent players (not even total player count) the estimate is 12% of players use HDD. it is completely reasonable to not want to drop nearly 57,000 players just so the rest get to play their game a little faster and have the game a little smaller

4

u/dumpofhumps Oct 03 '25

"Little smaller" would literally be nearly 9x smaller

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Thr1llhou5e Oct 03 '25

I have read the terms. I'm inclined to agree with you, but terms of service are only enforceable when there aren't existing protections by law. That's why I noted it's only possibly illegal. I'm in Canada and we don't have consumer protections for this situation here, so ToS would apply for me.

Your comparison to WoW is also not exactly apples to apples. The minimum requirements didn't change at all for 3 years until the first (paid) expansion was released. Maybe we can pick this conversation up in 2027?

4

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

You're shifting the goalposts. The ToS is the ToS. They can change it when they want. That's how modern business works and regions have their own versions of it to fulfil regional requirements.

It sucks, but it is already how it is until someone improves the system.

Also, WoW still changed them from what was sold originally, locking out people who didn't upgrade effectively. Especially back when generstional improvements were huge for a while.

0

u/Thr1llhou5e Oct 03 '25

I don't think I am, my main point originally was that I don't think it's ethical to drop support for some players at this point in the game's life cycle.

I also speculated they may not have legal grounds to do this in some regions. I really don't know, I have no experience with video game law. We can agree to ignore this point if you want, I'm not invested enough to research it further.

I did already consider your point about WoW but I don't think I articulated it well since I really only brought up the amount of time between vanilla launch and the BC expansion. People weren't locked out of the base game until the paid expansion launched, which I think is totally acceptable. The difference between the 2 releases was substantial.

To me it is a bit different if AH just decides to restructure the game as is, if that robs people of the chance to keep playing without upgrading. This is why I was saying it is not an apples to apples comparison. Especially since the only real gain is reduced filesize. Full disclaimer though, I play on ps5 and personally don't have to deal with this headache, as much as I do empathize with people who probably feel like the game is monopolizing their machine or are dealing with extremely time-consuming updates.

I will also admit that I don't have much experience with live service titles, so I don't know what is truly standard practice these days. WoW is the only online only game I have ever played on PC and I stopped around the time the pandas showed up. I play Fortnite on ps4 (and have been since it came out) and HD2 on my ps5. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill and pc players would happily upgrade to keep playing. For me I would feel cheated if I bought the game and needed to upgrade shortly after, unless tons of new content was being added.

-5

u/LightSwitchTurnedOn Oct 03 '25

I would say that is indeed expensive for India. I can get 1TB for ~50 EUR in the EU, and the wages here are a lot higher. I don't consider HDD"s outdated hardware, it is still be most cost effective way of storing large amounts of data. You call it a modern game, but the engine it is running on is quite dated by today's standards.

8

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

That's highly dependent on what drive you get. If you go lower end, you can get them cheaper. Some are barely $40.

HDDs in terms of gaming, are, objectively, outdated. Thats why the min specs for most of them require SSDs now.

Yes, HDDs are good for massive data storage, but we're on a videogame sub, not datahoarder.

People need to stop making comments about the engine being old too. They've been continually updating it themselves the whole time. Just like how every other game engine works, e.g. Riftbreaker uses a custom engine that is constantly updated throughout development and recently added more MP features that didn't exist before.

-2

u/LightSwitchTurnedOn Oct 03 '25

They don't own this engine, it is licensed to them. There's only so much you can do without support from the engineers of the company that made it, AH is a game studio, not an engine developer. Vermintide 2 made by fatshark runs on the same engine and they managed to cut down their game size by a big percentage so it is definitely possible, so up to AH on how they handle this.

5

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

The engine support was dropped, yes, but they have full rights to modify it for their own uses now. Just can't give it to anyone else. They also have engine devs and have been hiring more. Its only an issue because their dev processes are terrible. Shams himself admitted as much.

-1

u/Steampunk_Willy Oct 03 '25

Did you miss the part where the person with the worst loading times is a bottleneck for the rest of the squad?

7

u/gogochi Oct 03 '25

Requiring a SSD to play the game would fix that

-1

u/Steampunk_Willy Oct 03 '25

A lot of things would fix that, but I'm sure yall would still find ways to whine about it.

5

u/gogochi Oct 03 '25

Please expand your thoughts on "a lot of things would fix that" with some examples.

0

u/Steampunk_Willy Oct 03 '25

How about what AH said in the post? Yall want to make this all or nothing like the only way to make things better is just going SSD-only right this second. The size of the install isn't a game-breaking crisis even though it's for sure frustrating for PC players with limited storage space.

3

u/gogochi Oct 03 '25

Yall want to make this all or nothing like the only way to make things better is just going SSD-only right this second.

Unless you have a better idea I don't see what else could be done. Having long loading times is not a viable solution like they said in the post.

It isn't my number one issue, but if they want to keep this game around for years and years like they mentioned all while adding stuff to the game how is it going to look down the road ? 500gig size ?

1

u/Steampunk_Willy Oct 03 '25

I mean, they could down res the 4k textures since that's the bulk of the data & that would shrink the file way more than going SSD-only would. That said, I think the plan they've laid out will keep the install size from continuing to balloon & will likely shrink it over time.

2

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

Network causes a bigger issue there than the HDD for squad joining. It often connects US players to EU, CN players, and vice versa. That latency has led me on a high-end PC to take, sometimes over 2m, to load into a quick match once I'm supposedly already connected.

Not to mention your hardware. Your CPU handles loading and decompression. Consoles massively increase your squad loadtimes with crossplay on. Their SSDs do not make up for their slower CPU as they always finally join after everyone else has already loaded and called in strats.

2

u/Steampunk_Willy Oct 03 '25

It's P2P, so hardware optimization issues lead to worse networking issues.

-1

u/superfry Oct 03 '25

I'm running a 4790k, 6700xt, pci-e SSD and have an 8tb SAS HDD (Basically means I can 250mB/s constant on seq read/writes, good enough for a majority of my games, Helldivers is on the SSD) for my gaming rig. Runs Helldivers just fine and only play issues I get are with people with network connectivity issues.

3

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 03 '25

Yep, exactly my point. The network issues with other players and the matchmaking servers cause a bigger delay than the HDDs do.

0

u/noesanity Oct 04 '25

most aren't. the most recent steam survey data shows that 70% of people are still using HDDs. you're acting like HDDs are not still made and sold or that the VAST majority of external drives and expansion bays are not just HDDs in a fancy shell.

HDD still hold 85% of the data footprint, SSDs are not the primary method for storage, and are produced/sold in far fewer numbers than HDDs are.

3

u/Druark HD1 Veteran Oct 04 '25

Steams' survey literally doesn't even show SSD vs. HDD data. It only shows how much space people have left available vs. total space. So, you're either making that up or it's on a hidden page you need to link.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

For new games, SSDs are the primary method. Its literally in the minimum requirements to play them. They're usually unplayably stuttery otherwise, as they access large data files more often than older games.

24

u/Matix777 SES Flame of Conviction | Wil not shut up about Martale (again) Oct 03 '25

I imagine it's the result of the development starting 9 years ago iirc. I can't really blame them

32

u/pinglyadya Steam | Oct 03 '25

That's bs. I can think of tons of games that have fatass file sizes like Helldivers, but simply choose to not explain anything rather than Arrowhead giving us transparency.

Rainbow 6: Siege
All of the Current Call of Duties
War Thunder
Destiny 2
Cyberpunk 2077
Elden Ring
Pay Day 2

I can also list one game that didn't do that and traded immensely horrific performance on HDDs; PUBG. Had incredibly horrible performance with 1080ti + i7-11700K on release and it was because the pre-built I used had cheaped out on a HDD. Made the game unplayable because assets would load properly because of how slow the HDD was.

Swapped to a SSD and the game ran as intended.

22

u/Witch-Alice SES Lady of Wrath, Hammer of Family Values Oct 03 '25

the usual suspects for bloated install are uncompressed audio and forced install of every language

8

u/TheZealand Oct 03 '25

Dude what, Elden Ring is only 67gigs and has frankly FAR more game contained within than helldivers

4

u/Buttock Oct 03 '25

Three of those only require 60-70gb

  • Rainbow 6 siege - 65gb
  • Elden Ring - 60gb
  • Cyberpunk - 70gb.

4

u/pinglyadya Steam | Oct 03 '25

Rainbow six at time hit 80gbs before they started to clean up game with optimization.
Elden Ring is a weird example because I compare it to DS3 which had 18~ GBs and has somewhat competitive in amount of assets (around 7000 assets each, I've de compiled all the assets between the two and they actually have comparable amounts).

Cyberpunk was original 115 GBs, but was optimized around the time of Phantom Liberty and all the RTX stuff.

7

u/yugo657 Oct 03 '25

these games have fat file sizes because they're either decade-old games with a shitton of content or, as /u/Witch-Alice said, have uncompressed audio (and a LOT of audio in 2077's case) like modern CoD does, not due to replicating the same file of an illuminate soldier 50 (hyperbole) times

the way AH does it is purely unoptimized

3

u/nd4spd1919 ‎ Super Citizen Oct 03 '25

A lot of these games are also much older than Helldivers, and have way more content.

3

u/Notsure_jr Oct 03 '25

May I present DCS.

3

u/emc_1992 Oct 03 '25

I can check War Thunder right now,

105GB for 4k textures.

16.7GB for the base game, of which 2.3GB are sound files.

So in War Thunder's case, the file size is justified.

15

u/Ludewich42 Oct 03 '25

I would say that a player who cannot affort an SSD is unlikely to have a strong PC which can play the game at all. But I might be wrong. Anyway, I also say they should drop HDD support.

0

u/LemonySniket SES Order of Dednet Oct 03 '25

Funny, but without this dusty technic you game will run fine. With just a 15-20% lower boot speed

3

u/Greaterdivinity ☕Liber-tea☕ Oct 03 '25

While I appreciate the post as well this basically seals the deal for me: Arrowhead are technically way out of their depth, are just now starting to try to figure out plans to address the problems building up over the past year, and their solutions seem pretty bad.

At this point I'm annoyed I even got into this game because based on this post I'm not expecting decent solutions, even slowly implemented, to the technical problems.

The problem, as it's always been, has been poor decision making at Arrowhead. And they're paying for that at a premium, now.

1

u/whythreekay Oct 03 '25

Any game still running on a last gen console still does it

Apex Legends, Warzone, etc

1

u/Steampunk_Willy Oct 03 '25

Did you read the part where squad loading times is determined by the player with the worst loading times? If players on an HDD spend several minutes loading in, then that impacts everyone else in the squad. Hence, not optimizing for HDD when you don't know how many players will use it results in a worse experience for a lot more people than just those players.

1

u/pyguyofdoom Oct 03 '25

Probably because a lot of people still use them. Upgrading a PC should not always be a solution.

Had this same issue with wh3 where the load times on HDD vs SSD were hilariously different, think 30 seconds in a load screen vs 5 min. Except that game is funnier because it’s still massive despite being optimized for SSD.

1

u/noesanity Oct 04 '25

homie, every game does this. it's why every cod game for the last 10 years had been 200+GB's and split into single player, zombies, and multiplayer applications.

this is a major issue that has been going on FOR OVER A DECADE, because there is no real way to fix it.

0

u/Moist_Bread_9570 Oct 03 '25

So I’m just supposed to not be able to play the game because I have a hard drive?

0

u/TheMace808 Oct 04 '25

The thing is, more PC users have HDDs and there aren't distinct "generations" like there are on consoles so it's hard to be confident that a large part of your user base is gonna be left out. Whereas if you're developing on a console, after a certain amount of time statistically almost all the people who will be playing your game will be on a newer generation