alt Hacker NewsIt would be one thing if it was a 20% increase in space usage, or if the whole game was smaller to start with, or if they had actually checked to see how much it assisted HDD users.
But over 6x the size with so little benefit for such a small segment of the players is very frustrating. Why wasn't this caught earlier? Why didn't anyone test? Why didn't anyone weigh the pros and cons?
It's kind of exemplary of HD2's technical state in general - which is a mix of poor performance and bugs. There was a period where almost every other mission became impossible to complete because it was bugged.
The negativity is frustration boiling over from years of a bad technical state for the game.
I do appreciate them making the right choice now though, of course.
Replies
>But over 6x the size with so little benefit for such a small segment of the players is very frustrating. Why wasn't this caught earlier? Why didn't anyone test? Why didn't anyone weigh the pros and cons?
Have you never worked in an organization that made software?
Damn near everything can be 10x as fast and using 1/10th the resources if someone bothered to take the time to find the optimizations. RARE is it that something is even in the same order of magnitude as its optimum implementation.
It was a choice, not an oversight. They actively optimised for HDD users, because they believed that failing to do so could impact load times for both SSD and HDD users. There was no speed penalty in doing so for SSD users, just a disk usage penalty.
Helldivers II was also much smaller at launch than it is now. It was almost certainly a good choice at launch.