• 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.

A couple devs claim Switch patch sizes can be sometimes limited & other hurdles occur

EDarkness

Member
I don't know your game, nor do I know what you have been told, nor do I know whether your game is being put on Switch. Care to elaborate?

I won't derail this thread anymore, but I'm not sure how much I can get into it. I was just pointing out that ports weren't a problem. The release timing for my game isn't soon, so I have to try again for a NS version once I'm closer to that point.
 

Dsyndrome

Member
I've seen some apologist attitudes on here before but damn. Folks would rather games be not released at all or conform to some magical Nintendo restriction and release weeks late rather than admit that the policy is probably not the best from a consumer or developer standpoint.
 

Sami+

Member
Honestly, I don't have a problem with their policy. Devs have been releasing these insanely sized patches for a long time now and they need to cut that down. If it means more manageable patch sizes, then I'm all for it.

Have fun just not getting those patches then lol
 

TheMoon

Member
Because when you're 99% of the entire library on the console the only person you have the regulate is yourself.

That's a pretty useless comment that's not even funny.

The last addendum in the OP says that it's presently a system limitation and not an arbitrary policy, and that Nintendo is working to change it to accommodate larger patch sizes.

If we accept all of the dev's statements at face value, the premise and framing of this thread is misleading.

can't hear you, too busy typing out my "because Nintendo" post.
 

Shiggy

Member
seriously?

you know he cant elaborate that, c'mon

Why wouldn't he be able to? It's his game.


I dunno, the reaction to Shantae (twice), Rocket League, Minecraft, and this entire thread kind of prove this assertion wrong.

Those games are actually liked and good, which isn't generally true for NBA Playground ^^


I won't derail this thread anymore, but I'm not sure how much I can get into it. I was just pointing out that ports weren't a problem. The release timing for my game isn't soon, so I have to try again for a NS version once I'm closer to that point.

Then i don't quite understand how that relates to ports of old games. They cannot decline a port of your old game if no such previously released game exists.
 
I've seen some apologist attitudes on here before but damn. Folks would rather games be not released at all or conform to some magical Nintendo restriction and release weeks late rather than admit that the policy is probably not the best from a consumer or developer standpoint.

People defended this shitty 32GB since the leak many months ago, no doubt they would defend this stupid practice as well.
 

Takat

Member
Nintendo released ARMS and Splatoon in an unfinished state. Where's your backlash?

ARMS is a complete game, with buttery online and impeccable graphics (60fps solid). With lots of fighters, arms, stages.

Maybe Nintendo is in the wrong for not allowing bigger patch sizes, I'm not sure how that works from a technical side. But going from 6 to 3gigs does make it seems like there's a ton of room to optimize.

We are all better for optimization.
 
This is kind of where I'm at regarding this particular title.

It's not a very good policy overall (and will almost certainly cause some big problems in the future if not addressed), but damn, maybe you should release the entire game from the get-go. This is far more than bug fixes.

This is generally where I'm at too. But even bug fix patches have gotten out of control.

Patches are a necessity; you're always going to find bugs, and it's nice to be able to actually fix them.

That said, there have to be limits. Sometimes I get on Steam and see the number of patches that get downloaded and the absolutely massive sizes and I just thank god that I don't have data caps. And don't even get me started on the Windows 10 store... I'm all for reasonable limits.

Edit: Damn. People have already drawn the, "You're just Nintendo apologists" card. Not a lot of room for actual conversation around here anymore.
 

Plum

Member
Those games are actually liked and good, which isn't generally true for NBA Playground ^^

Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg


Also see this thread. Hell, you even posted in it!
 
I've seen some apologist attitudes on here before but damn. Folks would rather games be not released at all or conform to some magical Nintendo restriction and release weeks late rather than admit that the policy is probably not the best from a consumer or developer standpoint.

Have fun just not getting those patches then lol

I can't tell if you guys just aren't reading the OP or if you don't understand what an "exception" is.

File size is not preventing them from releasing this patch. They have explicitly said this in the OP. They received an exception for the file size of their patch.
 

EDarkness

Member
Then i don't quite understand how that relates to ports of old games. They cannot decline a port of your old game if no such previously released game exists.

Just because my game hasn't been released yet, doesn't mean we didn't talk about other things during that process. I asked a lot of questions about the whole thing and how it was different from the Wii U process. Again, I can only go with what I was told. If that was bad information, then I'm not sure what to say about that.
 

Billfisto

Member
Why wouldn't he be able to? It's his game.




Those games are actually liked and good, which isn't generally true for NBA Playground ^^

1) Devs/pubs have to do all kinds of nondisclosure things with platform holders, and also don't want to ruin their relationship with them, if possible.

2) The whole "people won't buy late ports" thing is dumb. It's basically saying "rush your shitty game to market with known bugs so people will buy it before realizing it's terrible". Maybe have confidence in the quality of your game and release it appropriately and people will say "hey, this is a good game, and it released with few issues" and you'll get good word of mouth and more sales when it comes to new platforms.
 

TheMoon

Member
Didn't Mr Shifty receive an update that basically cut the game's size from 3GB to 1GB? I'm guessing the Switch must support this in some way, like there are two types of updates, similar to 3DS:

1) The Switch downloads the entire app again, the new app is smaller (Shovel Knight on 3DS did this)

Affordable Space Adventures did this on Wii U, iirc, when they added their free DLC add-on update.

Is this a case of "protecting the customers" or something like that?

No, a temporary technical limitation as you can read in the thread.

Nintendo doing Nintendo. Making dumb choice after dumb choice. I love my Switch but seriously even the Wii U didn't have this issue. Now Nintendo is going to be stricter with patch approval? What fucking year is it?

Nintendo should just experiment with the idea of being reasonable at this point. But I guess that as usual doesn't matter to them.

Why are developers still surprised by Nintendo's overall attitude towards them is the part that baffles me. They've been doing this shit on and off forever.

You should actually read the thread maybe.
 

Rncewind

Member
I've seen some apologist attitudes on here before but damn. Folks would rather games be not released at all or conform to some magical Nintendo restriction and release weeks late rather than admit that the policy is probably not the best from a consumer or developer standpoint.

that dirty games that need patching could taint nintendo magic
 

Dsyndrome

Member
I can't tell if you guys just aren't reading the OP or if you don't understand what an "exception" is.

File size is not preventing them from releasing this patch. They have explicitly said this in the OP. They received an exception for the file size of their patch.

So the file system on a currently released system can't handle the patch without exceptions. How is that on the dev then? Why did Nintendo not have this figured out before launching the system? C'mon.
 

wildfire

Banned
I can't tell if you guys just aren't reading the OP or if you don't understand what an "exception" is.

File size is not preventing them from releasing this patch. They have explicitly said this in the OP. They received an exception for the file size of their patch.

I haven't clicked the lins. I'm going off the OP and he brings this up after the exception was mentioned.

About reducing file size:

[Nintendo] won't allow it initially as their system doesn't support it. From our end it's already done.
Once it's supported we will be able to do it.

It seems like the exception doesn't matter because Nintendo doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle that exception.




So the file system on a currently released system can't handle the patch. How is that on the dev then? Why did Nintendo not have this figured out before launching the system? C'mon.

Why was their online subsrption pushed back from September to Q1 2018?

The reasons are highly likely to be linked.
 
I gotta say I'm with Nintendo on this. Patch sizes these days are reaching ridiculous sizes. I bought doom for ps4 and saw the patch size and just said fuck it and played the stock game. Why anyone would want this is beyond me
 

Shiggy

Member
Just because my game hasn't been released yet, doesn't mean we didn't talk about other things during that process. I asked a lot of questions about the whole thing and how it was different from the Wii U process. Again, I can only go with what I was told. If that was bad information, then I'm not sure what to say about that.

That's perfectly in line with what we've heard: that people get told different stuff depending on whom they talk to.



Instead they bitched about it being an incomplete game.

By then they had already bought it because they didn't want to listen to reviews.
 

Plum

Member
NBA Playgrounds was released at the same time on all platforms.

Either way, point still stands, people would have bitched about this being just a late port.

Why does your point still stand? I showed you evidence of 1) people not bitching about other late ports and 2) people being excited for NBA playgrounds. Would those both somehow not be true if this specific game didn't have release parity with its Switch version?

If the developers had announced the delay with a simple "sorry for the delay it's because we need a bit more time to work on online multiplayer so we can release it finished" there's no evidence to suggest that people would bitch.
 

arimanius

Member
I think people are not reading these comments correctly. I saw the post on reddit several hours ago and it had a lot more context (the link is in the OP).

Basically there are certification issues with the patch, one of which apparently is patch size. They've already gotten an exception so that Nintendo will allow a patch of this size.

This is completely different from them wanting to reduce the file size of the game by half- that's something they said weeks ago would come in this patch, and they now say the system can't handle it at this point. Someone in this thread already mentioned that Mr. Shifty's file size was reduced via patch so it's not the Switch system that's causing this issue. Maybe it's UE4?

Yup. I don't blame Nintendo. This is all on the devs who I've already complained about in the NBA Playground thread.
 

OmegaDL50

Member
Patches don't need to be huge. Some level of compression is needed. They even say that they could get the size down from 7gb to 3gb. That means there's an insane amount of bloat in there.

Most patches nowadays don't add to a game's file size but rather update and replace existing files with new ones. This Delta patch method has been a thing for entirety of this gen now. Games are larger so patches are larger.

In that the Diff / Delta is used apply updates to the game that compares the old outdated data with the new data and only replaces the files that need replacing, not add stuff on top of the already installed game with duplicate file entries.

Also it comes down to the limited storage built-into the Switch. People thinking you can fit a 500GB HDD inside the dimensions of the Switch are looking at this in absolutely unrealistic and unreasonable scenario. The Switch doesn't use magnetic disc based storage anyways.

Now 512GB Nand eMC's do exist however it Nintendo opted to put a 32GB one inside the Switch, so having 512GB instead would have easily added $150 to the base cost of the console itself. Nand based storage is not cheap.

An SDXC Card is probably the optimal method for reliable storage for the console for both docked and undocked solutions. Having a USB HDD would be finicky as any data stored to the HDD would not be immediately accessible unless the console was in docked mode. Moving a HDD around with you plugged into the Switch is not only cumbersome but also potentially damaging to the HDD itself.
 

Terrell

Member
In general, I like the idea of there being restrictions, limits and difficulties with patches. Patches seem to get abused these days to 'meet' deadlines by shipping incomplete products. In the case from the op, I'll preface that I'm not too informed, but they're saying that essential elements (online mode?) are missing from the initial release? The real issue seems to be their publisher giving the greenlight and forcing the game to release too early.

But, as much as I dislike patches (that aren't critical bugfixes), they're the reality we live in. Would be great if it encouraged creators to release products that were more complete. Given the landscape though, what it will actually do is prevent Switch players from getting game enhancements, and discourage third parties from even doing Switch ports. So in that sense, yeah, seems like a pretty dumb rule. But there are probably also tech aspects that deal with how the system handles games or something.

I fall into this camp, as well. Patches have been severely abused by game devs who have been taking advantage of large hard drives and not seeming to have much concern for users with data caps on their internet service. Even with the existence of delta updates, we still see large patches because of how the game's package has its data organized and not much is done to fix that.

Drawing lines in the sand isn't the best way to go about it, though. I think the better solution is working with developers to find ways to make patch size reductions and make solutions known to other developers. Perhaps that is happening, but we've got nothing to indicate that is the case at the moment other than Nintendo waiving that restriction in this instance, so it just looks restrictive without a solution. Restrictions are fine, so long as it's coupled with assistance finding a solution to easily meet said restrictions. And that's the part we and possibly some devs are in the dark about.

File size inflation is a natural process. We can't have 10GB games forever.

And devs have been supporting games for upwards of 3 years post launch, so 50GB in patches is hardly unreasonable.

Tech companies of all stripes have been investing big money in battling file size inflation (such as the Alliance for Open Media as a single example, which includes Google, Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia and more, working to get a 4K video codec with reasonable file sizes that won't cost you your first born in royalties to utilize), so to call it a natural process and that nothing can be done about it is a fallacy. Without such advances, 10GB games that were capable of what they were doing would never have been possible in the first place.
 

MUnited83

For you.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with their policy. Devs have been releasing these insanely sized patches for a long time now and they need to cut that down. If it means more manageable patch sizes, then I'm all for it.
You realize Devs are not making patches big just because they want to/are incompetent, right? The only fucking thing this bullshit requirement will ever accomplish will be abandoned Switch ports
 

EDarkness

Member
This does not bode well for FFXIV making it to the system

Honestly, this is probably the issue that's holding up the NS version of the game and not cross play specifically. They have to change the way patches are applied and setup for MMOs, though I wonder how they got around it with DQ X.
 
The OP says the file size has been approved so there is obviously something else wrong here, but let's keep throwing a fit about the file size.

Both games have a traditional publisher and a retail version though. We've heard from several other indies that Nintendo wasn't very interested in late ports just yet, and the eShop release up to now pretty much show that.

I'm not sure I buy this. Wasn't Thumper on PSN? Wasn't the recent Oceanhorn on other consoles and PC? Then there is World of Goo? I believe there are several other examples of games releasing later on Switch as well.
 

Shiggy

Member
Why does your point still stand? I showed you evidence of 1) people not bitching about other late ports and 2) people being excited for NBA playgrounds. Would those both somehow not be true if this specific game didn't have release parity with its Switch version?

Why would people be excited for this game after they actually saw the final product? That thread was made before the game was released, and before it was met with a weak reception.

If the developers had announced the delay with a simple "sorry for the delay it's because we need a bit more time to work on online multiplayer so we can release it finished" there's no evidence to suggest that people would bitch.

Based on what the devs said, this was not an option:
We were put in a position where we needed to get this game out at the same time as the other consoles
 
You realize Devs are not making patches big just because they want to/are incompetent, right? The only fucking thing this bullshit requirement will ever accomplish will be abandoned Switch ports

You're arguing against people who think Nintendo does no wrong. They decided to release a console in 2017 with tons of limitation, but their fans only blame other companies.

There's a reason why Capcom, Activision, 2K, EA and others either won't support or have limited releases. Nintendo fans are the downfall of their own support.

If this game was released later than other they wouldn't have supported it due to not be released the same time. There's always an excuse. Always.

Look no further than complaining at companies for the price differences of the same game on different systems. Nintendo made a design decision to use more expensive media, but nope they blame the other companies.
 

aBarreras

Member
You're arguing against people who think Nintendo does no wrong. They decided to release a console in 2017 with tons of limitation, but their fans only blame other companies.

There's a reason why Capcom, Activision, 2K, EA and others either won't support or have limited releases. Nintendo fans are the downfall of their own support.

If this game was released later than other they wouldn't have supported it due to not be released the same time. There's always an excuse. Always.

Look no further than complaining at companies for the price differences of the same game on different systems. Nintendo made a design decision to use more expensive media, but nope they blame the other companies.
holy shit, you are truly delusional
 

Turrican3

Member
rather than admit that the policy is probably not the best from a consumer or developer standpoint.
Developers, I can somewhat understand that... even if I'd argue in a perfect world games should be submitted in a state as complete as possible.

But consumers? How is having a system with relatively small patches a bad thing?
 

Plum

Member
Why would people be excited for this game after they actually saw the final product? That thread was made before the game was released, and before it was met with a weak reception.

Your first assumption was that if they had announced it was a late port people would have bitched about it without knowing the quality, it's got nothing to do with what people might have thought after the other console versions were released and reviews got out. The idea that people wouldn't be excited for the Switch version because of a weak reception is not an indicator or people irrationally hating late ports, it's an indicator of a game with a weak reception.

Based on what the devs said, this was not an option:

I didn't say anything about it being an option or not.
 
So the file system on a currently released system can't handle the patch without exceptions. How is that on the dev then? Why did Nintendo not have this figured out before launching the system? C'mon.

What? That's not what's happening.

It's very clear: their patch file size was above what Nintendo typically allows but they got an exception such that their patch file size wasn't a problem. It seems there are other problems regarding the patch which they haven't shared.

I haven't clicked the lins. I'm going off the OP and he brings this up after the exception was mentioned.

It seems like the exception doesn't matter because Nintendo doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle that exception.

No, those two are separate issues. This patch was supposed to reduce the file size of the game (from 7GB to 3.5GB I believe), but they are saying that is not technically feasible for some reason (thought other devs have been able to do this, so it might be a UE4 limitation?).

This is a separate issue from the file size of their patch, which is what they needed (and got) an exception for.
 

Neff

Member
Switch has been a refreshingly patch-free experience compared to PS4 and XB1 (honestly, it feels like I have to download something every time I switch them on), and if Nintendo is putting measures in place to discourage developers from relying on them, and in the process committing to a more complete product out of the box, then I have absolutely zero problem with that.
 
holy shit, you are truly delusional

None of what I said is wrong.

Switch has been a refreshingly patch-free experience compared to PS4 and XB1 (honestly, it feels like I have to download something every time I switch them on), and if Nintendo is putting measures in place to discourage developers from relying on them, and in the process committing to a more complete product out of the box, then I have absolutely zero problem with that.

What do you think Nintendo is doing with Splatoon and ARMS? Patching unfinished games.
 
Top Bottom