It's not at all hard to believe if you've been playing video games for a while.

Everything is getting slower and slower, and nobody cares.

When I played the Atari 2600, I had to wait for the TV to warm up, but otherwise there were no games with anything approaching load times (with 128 bytes of RAM in the console, who would know). The NES didn't have much in the way of load times either, but you did have to fiddle with the cartridge slot. SNES and Genesis didn't usually load (Air Buster being a noticeable exception). CD based systems sure did like to load, but that's somewhat understandable. In the mean time, more and longer boot screens. The Switch uses a cartridge (or system flash/SD cards), but it likes to load forever too.

PC Gaming has had loading for longer, but it's been getting longer and longer.

Some arcade games have lengthy loading sequences, but only when you turn them on while they read their entire storage into RAM so they can be fast for the rest of the time they're on (which in arcades is usually all day).

Shorter loading times were one of the main selling points of this console generation.

> Everything is getting slower and slower, and nobody cares.

It really depends. The latest crop of games I’ve played (Doom Eternal, Cyberpunk) loads way faster than games from a few years back (aforementioned GTA-V, Shadow Warrior 2…).

This is also on the same machine, so it’s not the hardware that makes it faster.

Doom Eternal's load times were so good I didn't even bother moving it to my SSD (I junction to a larger HDD by default).

Direct Storage will allow for hardware-accelerated decompression straight from an NVMe into GPU memory, without involving the CPU and system RAM.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directstorage-is-comi...

The more important thing about DirectStorage is probably that it will encourage games to use multithreaded async IO rather than serializing all their IO requests even when the underlying storage device requires dozens of simultaneous requests to deliver its full throughput.

I’m not entirely convinced that DirectStorage can do DMA directly from the device to the GPU. I suspect that even current NVMe devices aren’t quite fast enough for this to be a huge deal yet.

I think, but I’m not entirely sure, that Linux can do the peer to peer DMA trick. One nasty bit on any OS is that, if a portion of the data being read is cached, then some bookkeeping is needed to maintain coherence, and this adds overhead to IO. I wouldn’t be surprised if consoles had a specific hack to avoid this overhead for read-only game asset volumes.

Does it need "multithreaded async IO" or just "async IO"? It's usually async _or_ multithreaded; the native multi-request I/O APIs are single threaded, but if you have multithreaded I/O using simpler APIs, the system is batching them into one request at the cost of a little latency.

Kernel-mediated async disk IO is still a mess on all major platforms except for newer Linux kernels with io_uring. There's no way to call the APIs in a way that won't block sometimes, and to even have a snowball's chance in hell of not blocking requires giving up on the kernel's disk cache.

Also you're probably going to want to do multithreaded decompression anyway, and it'll be more efficient if you have the threads completing the reads do the decompression themselves. So in any case you probably want multiple threads handling the completion events.

NVMe is natively a multi-queue storage protocol, so there's no reason for the application or OS to collect IO requests into a single thread before issuing them to the lower layers. The normal configuration is for each CPU core to be allocated its own IO queue for the drive. But multithreaded synchronous (blocking) IO often isn't enough to keep a high-end NVMe SSD properly busy; you run out of cores and get bogged down in context switching overhead at a few hundred thousand IOPS even with a storage benchmark program that doesn't need any CPU time left over for productive work.

With a sufficiently low overhead async API (ie. io_uring) you can saturate a very fast SSD with a single thread, but I'm not sure it would actually make sense for a game engine to do this when it could just as easily have multiple threads independently performing IO with most of it requiring no synchronization between cores/threads.

Lol

"Hey we have this great new tech that makes things even faaster!!"

2 years later

"GTA 6 found to have double online load times, denies claims that game performs worse than GTA 5, tells people to upgrade their systems"

4 years later:

"Tech blogger reverses code, realizes someone managed to loop access between hard drive and gpu despite extremely common modern tech, gets 10x boost after spending a day fixing junk product"

Better technology just hasn't met its match from dumber management and more bureaucratic dev shops...

>It's not at all hard to believe if you've been playing video games for a while.

>Everything is getting slower and slower, and nobody cares.

Yes, modern games are so inefficient and laggy nowadays. Once your game world reaches a certain size it becomes unplayable and that's just in single player. Once you add 10 players you start to hit performance limits very quickly.

There were a few systems for the 2600 that used a cassette tape to load larger games than would fit on a ROM cassette.

I can’t recall the name, but I had the hack and slash adventure game variant. The connector on the custom cartridge was fiddly and required a stout rubber band to reliably work.