• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kotaku: Why Games Still Have Bad Loading Times

More at the link.

Video games look better and better with every passing year. Just in the last few months alone we’ve seen gorgeous technical marvels like Horizon: Zero Dawn, Breath of the Wild, and Injustice 2 (yes, seriously). But while game graphics just keep getting better, loading times—the bane of all impatient players—don’t seem to be improving at all. In some cases, they’re so heinous that they’ve got to be beaten into submission with barrages of post-release patches. Will our more powerful, more expensive gaming rigs ever get strong enough to eliminate the wait?

The programmers I’ve spoken to say that while games can put exponentially more Stuff on screen than ever before, the hardware that stores and loads that Stuff hasn’t improved at the same pace.“GPU and CPU performance increases have far outstripped hard drive read speed increases,” William Armstrong, a programmer who’s worked on games like BioShock 2 and Firewatch, said in an email. Hard drives are constrained by the laws of physics, he said, because the process of reading/writing data always involves converting between pure electrons and some kind of physical apparatus. “That will be slower than pure circuitry,” he said. “Everything is slower than light.”

Yes, hard drives can load things faster than they did decades ago, and modern gaming machines have significantly more memory than previous generations, but the boost isn’t proportionate. Robert Dieterich, a programmer who’s worked on games like Elite Beat Agents and Lips, offered texture sizes—which make in-game objects and environments look more detailed—as an example. If a developer brings average texture size up from 1024x1024 to 2048x2048, he said, the data’s four times larger. Going up to 4096x4096 means it’s 16 times larger.

But, he noted, when you upgrade from the 5400 RPM (rotations per minute) hard drives that were standard a few years ago for today’s higher-performance 7200 RPM drives, that’s only a 33 percent boost in read performance. “Switching to solid-state drives offers significantly better read performance—at higher dollar cost per GB—but you’re still fighting against dramatic increases in the size of game data,” Dieterich said.

And it’s not all about texture size, Armstrong notes. “As game scope increases, the amount of setup... that goes into making a set of data on disk be the video game increases,” he said, “things like initializing AI behavior, settling dynamic physics, registering every bit of loot with save/load managers, etc. As game scope keeps increasing, the amount of setup just keeps getting larger.”

If anything, given this discrepancy in advancement between data size and hard drive speeds, it’s actually a wonder that load times haven’t dramatically increased over the years. This is because developers have created all sorts of techniques to hide or otherwise minimize load times. Loading screens, Dieterich said, usually aren’t where the loading starts—if anything, they are often the tail end of a series of background processes that begin running long before the player careens smack into that progress-stopping, immersion-breaking wall, one that developers look to avoid wherever feasible.

For example, some games begin loading world data during the unskippable company logos at the start of games. Many load the bulk of their worlds before you ever enter them, which is why those initial load screens can be so lengthy. Others stream data in while you’re playing, or use a mixture of both those techniques. Many modern games also procedurally generate some of what you encounter in the game world by taking a small amount of data and using it to build larger things, like high-fidelity textures, during runtime. That wall of bricks might not have come from a .BMP file, but from a mathematical equation.
 

shanafan

Member
Not sure in all my years of gaming that load times have ever had a profound effect on me. It's just something that I am used to.
 
Need 3D XPoint

Of course by the time that's affordable games sizes will be bigger again. It didn't even end up as fast as intels boasts either
 

Stevey

Member
Still not fast enough, as pointed out in the article you didn't read.

Can't stand loading times, but hey they give me a chance to browse Twitter.

They're fast enough for me is what I meant.
And I did read the article thanks.
 

gblues

Banned
If unpatched Bloodborne drove you bonkers, be happy you weren't around for the bad old days of the C=64 when it would take 5-10 minutes for a program to load from tape/1541 disk drive.
 

Kindekuma

Banned
The only games I've played lately where I've noticed how long the loading times are was for FFXV, HITMAN, Horizon Zero Dawn, and Breath of the Wild. But considering the games I've listed are open world/sandbox, I can excuse a long initial load. However games like FFXV and BotW have load screens often and that wears on me pretty fast.
 

Nheco

Member
Because console games are huge in size, consoles have a shit ton of RAM and both use a 5400 rpm 2,5 hdd.

Kotaku and news that aren't exactly news.
 
If consoles stick to HDDs next gen I hope they look into something similar to Optane for caching to make loading faster for the OS and any game you are playing.
 

JordanKZ

Member
It would probably be even worse if these new consoles streamed straight off the disc, like old consoles did.

Quite honestly, SSD's are not getting cheap enough, fast enough. It's still relatively new technology, so it's pretty understandable, but there's no market pressure because very few companies are making NAND flash and even fewer and making the extremely high speed 3D variety. Heck, it's difficult to make the stuff as it is, so it's not all that surprising. If there were more competition in the space, we'd probably see quite a bit more of a drop in price by now.

From a personal standpoint, I refuse to use anything but an SSD unless its for media storage. £300-400 is a lot to spend on a 1TB drive, but it's seriously worth it if you can afford it.
 

jelly

Member
I played COD2 on Xbox recently and loading is ridiculously fast. You can go from booting game to resume current game in about less than 10 seconds. Game is old but even on console, I was quite impressed.
 

Midas

Member
Because console games are huge in size, consoles have a shit ton of RAM and both use a 5400 rpm 2,5 hdd.

Kotaku and news that aren't exactly news.

Most people don't know things like this. Chill a bit and be happy that they explain how things work for those who don't know.
 
Not sure in all my years of gaming that load times have ever had a profound effect on me. It's just something that I am used to.

The only time I ever was really annoyed by load times was Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain on PS1. Those were incredibly long, even for that era.

Ironically, the follow up game Soul Reaver, was fully 3D and a much more complicated game, but had zero load times after the initial start up, because it helped pioneer streaming load times as you play.
 
I haven't had a deal with loading times lately although it's been awhile since I played a giant open world game or something.
 

collige

Banned
Eh, the only game I've played recently that really annoyed me with load times was Arizona Sunshine which has a several-minute long startup on top of lengthy mid game loads.
 
Engine design issues have to factor a lot in this. There are two reasons why I loved Persona 5, outside of any game/story things.

1. It launched with zero patches in the west. I installed from disc, and started playing. No day zero update or any other bullshit.

2. Load and save times are nearly instant. I press load, select a game, and am playing in under 2 seconds. HOLY SHIT.

That feels so rare nowadays, console or PC. Sometimes it is ludicrously bad, like Justified 3 or even Witcher 3 on console early on (I think it got better, I switched to PC at some point and it was under 10 secs then). Yes, hard drives and CPUs may not have kept pace with GPUs but a 45 second load time for a save is far beyond that, it has to entirely do with your game not being optimized for quick saves and loads.
 
Think I'm so used to loading times that they don't even really register any more. Sword Coast Legends is the only game I can think of that I've played in the past few years where it annoyed me a bit, especially after dying

Doesn't look like they're going anywhere I guess, which is not really surprising considering how big & complex games are getting. I do appreciate efforts to hide/disguise load screens or at least make them look good
 

w0s

Member
2. Load and save times are nearly instant. I press load, select a game, and am playing in under 2 seconds. HOLY SHIT.
I am loving persona but it loads so fast because it is loading so fucking much while you play. Even though it is short loading times.
 
Engine design issues have to factor a lot in this. There are two reasons why I loved Persona 5, outside of any game/story things.

1. It launched with zero patches in the west. I installed from disc, and started playing. No day zero update or any other bullshit.

2. Load and save times are nearly instant. I press load, select a game, and am playing in under 2 seconds. HOLY SHIT.

Still the loading times for everything else was annoying IMO .
It won't have bother me as much but i had now come from playing HZD .
 
SSD in consoles (as a hardware standard) would still make a major difference. I'm really hoping next-gen consoles opt for 1TB of cheap, not-fastest-on-the-market SSD over 3TB of spinning HDD or 256GB of best-in-the-business SSD. Hopefully the optimal price/storage/performance numbers work out such that that's the decision Sony/MS go with.
 

Curufinwe

Member
Engine design issues have to factor a lot in this. There are two reasons why I loved Persona 5, outside of any game/story things.

1. It launched with zero patches in the west. I installed from disc, and started playing. No day zero update or any other bullshit.

2. Load and save times are nearly instant. I press load, select a game, and am playing in under 2 seconds. HOLY SHIT.

P5 is snappier than a snapping turtle named Snappy.
 

antibolo

Banned
I dunno, seems better than last gen in general.

No longer loading things from optical discs directly made a huge difference.
 
I'm less concerned about load times and far more concerned with the lack of advancement to NPC and combat AI. Both issues suffer from the same problem. Good AI and load times dont show up in screenshots.
 

Kthulhu

Member
If unpatched Bloodborne drove you bonkers, be happy you weren't around for the bad old days of the C=64 when it would take 5-10 minutes for a program to load from tape/1541 disk drive.

Never play unpatched New Vegas. That is the true hell.
 
Only game in recent memory that has bugged me due to long load times was LEGO City Undercover on the Switch.

And even with long load times, the ability to just put the system in sleep mode and wake it up into the game instantly mostly eliminates the issue (at least the very long initial load, loading into and out of levels does take a little while too).

I haven't had loading times on my PC ever since getting an SSD years ago*, and even on consoles I can't name a single one that has bothered me in a long time. If anything my SSD loads a little TOO fast sometimes in games that provide you with useful information during load screens, haha.

*Except Mass Effect Andromeda load times sucked at launch on PC, but I think that was an issue with it taking forever to log into their systems or something (sometimes it would load really fast, and other times it would take a few minutes). And it has built in, unskippable ship taking off/landing animations that play all the time which artificially inflates the load times.
 

Espada

Member
While Nioh takes a 30-45 seconds to load a stage the loading screen upon dying is only 3-5 seconds TOPS. I heard The Surge also has very quick reloads when you die.

I remember seeing a video on why loading times haven't changed all that much, what the causes are, and why it'll probably with us in some form or another well into the future. It largely has to do with how quick data is moved from storage to ram, and then how efficiently the game swaps assets and whatnot into ram as it needs them.

But this generation is most certainly better than last, on average.

BTW: Has anyone tested how fast games load from a RAM drive?
 
SSD in consoles (as a hardware standard) would still make a major difference. I'm really hoping next-gen consoles opt for 1TB of cheap, not-fastest-on-the-market SSD over 3TB of spinning HDD or 256GB of best-in-the-business SSD. Hopefully the optimal price/storage/performance numbers work out such that that's the decision Sony/MS go with.
From my experience so far, SSD's in gaming are hit n miss. Some games are just not optimized enough for an SSD to be a major boost. I know for a fact that on Xbox One this is the case, and I believe DF has formally investigated the issue in one of their past articles. It barely makes a difference in some games, while it works nicely in others.
 
Quite honestly, SSD's are not getting cheap enough, fast enough. It's still relatively new technology, so it's pretty understandable, but there's no market pressure because very few companies are making NAND flash and even fewer and making the extremely high speed 3D variety. Heck, it's difficult to make the stuff as it is, so it's not all that surprising. If there were more competition in the space, we'd probably see quite a bit more of a drop in price by now.

Yeah, meanwhile game installs keep getting bigger and bigger, so even if SSDs get cheaper moving from launching with a 500GB HDD to a 500GB SSD won't cut it. I'd imagine that next generation consoles will probably go with some manner of hybrid approach where mass storage is still on an HDD while some intermediary solution is used to store data for the game you're playing that's higher capacity but slower/cheaper than the system RAM but also faster than an HDD- maybe a small SSD optimized to withstand a shitload of writes, maybe just a lot of slow cheap RAM, maybe something else.
 

renzolama

Member
Engine design issues have to factor a lot in this. There are two reasons why I loved Persona 5, outside of any game/story things.

1. It launched with zero patches in the west. I installed from disc, and started playing. No day zero update or any other bullshit.

2. Load and save times are nearly instant. I press load, select a game, and am playing in under 2 seconds. HOLY SHIT.

That feels so rare nowadays, console or PC. Sometimes it is ludicrously bad, like Justified 3 or even Witcher 3 on console early on (I think it got better, I switched to PC at some point and it was under 10 secs then). Yes, hard drives and CPUs may not have kept pace with GPUs but a 45 second load time for a save is far beyond that, it has to entirely do with your game not being optimized for quick saves and loads.

Comparing the asset/engine complexity of Persona 5 to Just Cause 3 or Witcher 3 is silly. It's like claiming that a Toyota Corolla is designed more optimally than a Ferrari because it gets better gas mileage. I agree, it's really cool that Persona 5 loads so quickly, but the reason for that is because the game design and goals are completely different, not because Persona 5 is an amazing example of optimization effort relative to the others.

Edit: For the record, I'm all for praising development effort across all game genres, just not at the expense of criticizing the effort of others when the comparison is technically nonsensical
 

nillapuddin

Member
Always assumed it's how devs force us to take breaks. Wonder what gave me that thought.

15-minute.jpg


gallery_5_6_83441.png
 

Tagyhag

Member
It also helps to have stronger hardware.

A low-end PC will always load particular games slower than a high-end PC, even if they both have the exact same SSD.

Like the article says, games are only getting bigger, so I wouldn't be surprised if next gen uses SSD's.
 

border

Member
Could you solve this by simply building hardware with enough RAM to fit an entire game into? Like, if the average game size is 25GB, why not just have 30GB of RAM?

Or would you still have to have massive reload times when you die or fail or want to start a new game?
 
Top Bottom