Helldivers 2 new slim PC version cuts the install size from 154GB to 23GB, what?

[midian182]

In a nutshell: As video games become larger, we welcome the news that Helldivers 2 has a new "slim" version that reduces its footprint by 85%. Instead of gobbling up an enormous 154 GB, the game's PC installation size will drop to just 23 GB.

Like many modern big releases, the huge amount of storage space taken up by Helldivers 2 has been a point of contention among players since launch.

But in a new post, developer Arrowhead Studios writes that it has been working toward the goal of pushing the installation size of Helldivers 2's PC version closer to the console versions, which are around 35GB after the post-launch updates.

Now, thanks to the help of Sony's PC-port specialist Nixxes, that goal has been achieved. Arrowhead said it has completed several rounds of internal QA and the new slimline version is now available as part of a public technical beta.

If you want to opt into this beta, right-click on Helldivers 2 in your Steam library, go to Properties, select the Betas tab, then select the "prod-slim" beta from the drop-down box. Close the dialog box and Helldivers 2 will update to the new version, giving you enough room for one or two extra games on your drive.

Arrowhead said the installation size reduction was achieved by completely de-duplicating the data. The company previously warned that changing the file size could increase the load times on mechanical hard drives by a factor of 10. But its worst-case predictions never came to pass.

Arrowhead says the previous loading time projections were based on industry data. It explained that the majority of the loading time in the game is due to level-generation rather than asset loading. This level generation happens in parallel with loading assets from the disk and so is the main determining factor of the loading time, even for users with mechanical HDDs.

Around 11% of players actively playing Helldivers 2 last week were using mechanical HDDs, according to the post. These players may experience slightly longer load times with the slim version, but only a few seconds.

Once the beta has been confirmed to be bug-free, this slim version of Helldivers 2 will become the default version and roll out to everyone. The legacy version is set to be discontinued sometime next year.

Permalink to story:

Helldivers 2 new slim PC version cuts the install size from 154GB to 23GB, what?

 

[MasterAce]

They had 6x worth of duplicate files? For faster load times? That makes no sense to me, comes off as total incompetence.

 

[dangh]

They had 6x worth of duplicate files? For faster load times? That makes no sense to me, comes off as total incompetence.

That is a standard approach, many games are still doing that. When games were read from CD, there were even more duplication to ensure there is no track seeking, just all the data were loading in a single, continuous track. There were a lot of workarounds to address issues with mechanical drives, and the switch to solid state is just shaping nicely very recently.

 

[Primey]

They had 6x worth of duplicate files? For faster load times? That makes no sense to me, comes off as total incompetence.

It makes perfect sense. By duplicating frequently used assets in multiple places within the game’s data structure, the drive head doesn't need to jump around as much which results in faster loading times.

 

[bviktor]

It makes perfect sense. By duplicating frequently used assets in multiple places within the game’s data structure, the drive head doesn't need to jump around as much which results in faster loading times.

No, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, because that’s not at all how block allocation in a file system works. Copying files in a sequence won’t automagically put them in a sequence of blocks. In fact, there’s a good chance not even single files will be placed in sequential blocks. It’s all up to the OS kernel, so this is nothing more than a naive *****’s clueless stab at “optimization”.

It’s funny how they present it as an “achievement”. I.e. they cleaned up the stupid mess they created. Gen-z vibe coding and pride at its finest.

 

[m4a4]

No, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, because that’s not at all how block allocation in a file system works. Copying files in a sequence won’t automagically put them in a sequence of blocks. In fact, there’s a good chance not even single files will be placed in sequential blocks. It’s all up to the OS kernel, so this is nothing more than a naive *****’s clueless stab at “optimization”.

It’s funny how they present it as an “achievement”. I.e. they cleaned up the stupid mess they created. Gen-z vibe coding and pride at its finest.

Do you know how mechanical hard disk drives work?
No? You didn't even read the article? Then why are you commenting?

 

[m4a4]

They certainly did take the legacy optimization a bit too far, but at least now it can serve as a loud "you don't need to do this anymore" to other game devs.

At this point, any gamer that is storing games on a slow HDD knows that they're sacrificing load speed for storage, and shouldn't expect any special treatment.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Why are we still creating games with HDDs in mind?

SSDs have been cheap for a while.

HDDs are for storing games you aren’t currently playing but don’t want to redownload.

Even for budget gamers, a 23 GB game will fit on a small SSD much easier than a 154 GB install. Talk about a self created problem.

 

[letsgoiowa]

I think it's going to be an easier sell to make your game 30 GB and SSD only than 150+ GB. People will be less likely to uninstall your game over time to make space if it's smaller. For a live service game like this, that's a big deal. Plus, it seems like hard drive users can still play this ok.

 

[FaTaL]

If you're not on SSD in 2025, you're being left behind and theres no excuse for you not to upgrade from mechanical. SATA SSDs are cheap AF.

 

[AndreV]

So they bothered and spend extra resources to create that complicated(6x times assets) for HDD version which most people shouldn't use but didnt bother to let the initial assets(6x smaller) for SSD that most people would want to use as a desirable option?

 

[Rapob]

If you're not on SSD in 2025, you're being left behind and theres no excuse for you not to upgrade from mechanical. SATA SSDs are cheap AF.

True, however

SATA SDDs and even SATA HDDs are getting more and more expensive now - and RAM/NAND crisis has not even started for real yet.

I have been on SSD solely since 2010 or so. Hopefully most people have been on SSD for OS/Apps/Gaming for at least 5-10 years by now.

I remember I went from 60 GB, to 120/128, to 250/256 to 500/512 (last SATA) to 1TB (first NVME M.2) then 2TB and now I run 4TB + 2TB + 1TB all NVME M.2 however I don't own a PCIe 5.0 x4 one yet and don't plan to anytime soon, terrible pricing with little to no real world perf gain along with heat / throttling issues unless massive cooling

 

[m4a4]

So they bothered and spend extra resources to create that complicated(6x times assets) for HDD version which most people shouldn't use but didnt bother to let the initial assets(6x smaller) for SSD that most people would want to use as a desirable option?

They aren't a huge studio. To reduce complexity, you pick one or the other. Especially when it comes down to also managing 3 different platforms. Why waste time testing yet another configuration?

Which is also why they've announced that once the reduction is verified as "bug free", the HDD friendly version isn't staying up-to-date for long.