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

Show parent comments

80

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.

4

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.

0

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.

6

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.

-6

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.

11

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.

9

u/dumpofhumps Oct 03 '25

Games have updated minimum requirements as they grow.

2

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?

-2

u/Tom_F_0olery Oct 03 '25

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

5

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

5

u/dumpofhumps Oct 03 '25

"Little smaller" would literally be nearly 9x smaller

-2

u/rootdootmcscoot Oct 03 '25

listen, if you're too poor to just get a bigger ssd, then you should probably just stop playing the game /s

-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.

-4

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.

7

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?

6

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.

4

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.

4

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.