And one of the publishers/console devs is Tinybuild, who "coincidentally" seems to run into issues that are someone else's fault with every console patch they (eventually) release.
-
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
- Thread starter Atheerios
- Start date
And one of the publishers/console devs is Tinybuild, who "coincidentally" seems to run into issues that are someone else's fault with every console patch they (eventually) release.
Posts like that make me wonder how people can have their heads in the clouds lol
Minsc
Gold Member
I adjusted it to the current neutral version, as I posted doing so earlier, so no worries. Sometimes things need a little back and forth to wind up in the right spot.
Yeah, for some games, I think a physical release doesn't even make much sense. Heathstone would certainly not do well with one. In the case of a game like that which receives monthly patches, I imagine they'd have a deal arranged ahead of time with Nintendo, and have tested their updating system so they know they'll be able to support the platform properly.
As far as your examples of Doom / other very very large content updates of like 20-50GBs, the system is only going to be able to support those types of games if the developer finds a way to deliver the updates in a different more optimized manner, so it probably won't happen. I just don't see games going past the 64GB size, even with 200GB SD cards, it's just not too feasible to be updating games over 50GBs every couple weeks or months. Flash storage hasn't advanced enough yet. Maybe when those 1TB SSD sized flash memory cards are $60...
Also for the updating games to be smaller, or entirely new sets of data... this was done before with Shovel Knight on the 3DS, so I imagine they'll get it working sooner or later with the Switch.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
They would have been damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
I really hope Nintendo sorts this out and doesn't give devs more reason to avoid the platform.
charlequin
Banned
Yes, they don't. Both PS4 and X1 changed their patching policies dramatically from their predecessor systems specifically because the platform-holders recognized they wouldn't be able to support the necessary patching strategies for many major titles otherwise.
This is a 2006 conversation that people are inexplicably having here in 2017. This was a major industry concern at a time where major games were almost exclusively purchased physically, internet/broadband penetration was far lower (I think it's actually doubled in the US in this time), infrastructure for acquiring patches was far less sophisticated, and companies weren't set up to rapidly iterate on their releases.
If you look at the marketplace in 2017, digital sales are increasing double-digit percentages each year, all the most popular games are online-centric service games that update constantly, and most people play everything on devices that make patching seamless and transparent. Because mobile is the single biggest platform, most engines and games are designed around environments where space can be at a premium but update bandwidth is basically unlimited. Nintendo (or any other individual platform-holder) doesn't have anything worthwhile enough to let them actually stand athwart that trend.
it is not, but is fucking obvious, and trying to use argument to talk shit about the switch is stupid
Schnozberry
Member
It's not inexplicable. The games and developers mentioned in the OP released broken and/or feature incomplete games that needed serious retooling in order to fix. I think writing it off as a 2006 problem is conceding the principle that games should release complete and without game breaking bugs. It may be the norm for the industry to crunch heading into release and not have enough time for proper QA, but that doesn't mean it isn't anti-consumer. The argument over bandwidth and abuse of customers data will only grow more intense as more providers apply stricter data caps or start offering tiered services once US Net Neutrality goes up in smoke.
If the thread discussion is limited to whether or not restrictive patch policies are good or bad, then I think they are bad and Nintendo should offer some flexibility. But I don't think it excuses the willingness of development teams to knowingly release sub par versions of games, make promises regarding fixes they can't fulfill, and then shift blame after the fact while holding onto consumers money.
Rushed or not, 7GB+ patches are common and standard. I've seen 8GB, 10GB patches, FREQUENTLY and more. This is exactly why Nintendo needs flexible friendly practices on game updates with third parties to make it attractive for the platform, not obstacles. I cannot see how anyone can defend this practice. If the game is rushed, wouldn't you want the game patched? You're not forced to buy a rushed game. All the people who want to play a NBA game and have a Switch are now suffering because of archaic practices like these.
Honestly! Complaints about Nintendo and storage have to be some of the strangest things I've ever seen on this forum. They have allowed you to expand your system memory with non-proprietary formats for 10+ years. I'll take 32gb with the ability to buy my own memory any day over having to buy proprietary memory (vita/360), having to do massive backups that can take literal days if I want to upgrade (PS3), wait years for an OS update to let me play off an external drive (X1/PS4).
And sorry, but giving me a large 5400rpm hard drive is not a bonus. I haven't bought a 5400rpm drive in nearly 15 years. Talk about being antiquated. I have literally no interest in it and it just serves as an excuse to increase the costs with a big number. Give me something small for the OS and let me attach my own shit. Thanks.
/rant
See I can understand a patch that was 5GB or more for say a big game like Mass Effect, FIFA, GTA, a mmorpg, etc. What about NBA Playgrounds even suggest it should be getting a patch of that size or more in the first place!? How is that not on the developers in this case?
I can easily see Nintendo looking at Dragon Quest X and seeing a 5gb patch and saying okay. It's a mmorpg and a expansion just came out. Or if it got a Call of Duty and a new map pack came out. Or if the system got Diablo 3 and big update came out. Those are huge games to start with. NBA Playgrounds is a 2 v 2 NBA Jam cartoonish styled inspired basketball game.
It was mentioned that the online on the PS4 and XBO were bad and full of disconnects. If true I doubt this patch, assuming it's real given the company here, would be the last one from them. If they're having issues maybe Nintendo sees all of this is and pumping the breaks in case they make things worse. We don't really know if this patch is even real in the first place given that they've strung people along for weeks.
I can easily see Nintendo looking at Dragon Quest X and seeing a 5gb patch and saying okay. It's a mmorpg and a expansion just came out. Or if it got a Call of Duty and a new map pack came out. Or if the system got Diablo 3 and big update came out. Those are huge games to start with. NBA Playgrounds is a 2 v 2 NBA Jam cartoonish styled inspired basketball game.
It was mentioned that the online on the PS4 and XBO were bad and full of disconnects. If true I doubt this patch, assuming it's real given the company here, would be the last one from them. If they're having issues maybe Nintendo sees all of this is and pumping the breaks in case they make things worse. We don't really know if this patch is even real in the first place given that they've strung people along for weeks.
Minsc
Gold Member
What if they don't monitor the patches at all and they are released in a way that comprises the security of the hardware/software? On iOS people try and sometimes sneak emulators in to patches, or other retail games, etc
I think the idea there is it needs a 3.5GB patch because it is redoing the entire game with new data, the old game is 7GB, they have now optimzed the data better and the game now only needs 3.5GBs. So all the patch data needs to be new.
charlequin
Banned
Yes, that is absolutely correct. "Complete" is basically a meaningless descriptor in 2017 and shipping games "complete" is simply not something developers should be prioritizing. Most successful games today will have new features and potentially whole swathes of content that didn't exist at launch, and trying to draw an arbitrary line around what set of those makes something "complete" is unlikely to get anyone very far.
It's true that we don't want people to ship games with "game breaking bugs" but increased availability of patching hasn't made that more common even a little bit, and has dramatically helped in addressing it when it does still happen.
As one might define "useful" outside of a pure gaming context, no.
Id however never trade having a dedicated handheld with its plethora of commercial buy to play games, in comparison to what passes for games on the play or app store in the majority of cases.
It's essentially like the difference in involvement between playing browser games on facebook occasionally, and downloading commercial titles via steam, but for a handheld device.
Physical input and triggers also matters to me, and I can't imagine I'm the only one feeling that way.
Using mobiles to complain about the Switch is just silly, there's clear markets for both.
A few GB, I can understand that.
But constantly hearing about patches/updates in the order of *tens* of GB seems crazy to me honestly.
I'm from Italy and data caps isn't a thing with ISPs but I believe it's just a matter of time. When it happens, I'm afraid console gaming as it currently stands might get a huge hit if developers/platform holders don't find a solution.
Maintenance
Member
What games are over 80-100gb on PS4/XB1? Please, do tell.
Not one, but at least 4 like you said.
Schnozberry
Member
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Adding features for free or as DLC after the fact is different than what I am referring to. If a game ships without advertised features with TBD future dates, but still charges full price, then I think it's taking advantage of consumers. Particularly those who have slow or metered connections that purchase retail games hoping not to have to chew up a massive amount of bandwidth. It's especially egregious when people aren't informed of huge day one updates or missing features until after long pre-order windows have concluded and people have had money tied up in the games for potentially months.
I also think the practice of ubiquitous large scale patching has modified development practices and consumer expectations, both for the better and for the worse. Large day one patches that fix QA bugs and performance problems are now the norm. Engines are designed in ways where replacing the entirety of a large file bundle is the only option, and native compression tools are inadequate or non-existent. Gamers are able to enjoy a much broader array of post release content, but the trade off is that early adopters can suffer for months with unacceptable performance or missing content before games are properly patched. If games sell below expectations or teams are reassigned to other projects, sometimes the kinds of fixes people hope for are never released. Some people might feel comfortable in the current state of things, but it certainly hasn't improved the end user experience in general.
The list is easy to make on Xbox, because it's all of their major first party games.
Maintenance
Member
Oh yeah, Xbox. Forgot about the 100gb Gears, Master Chief Collection, etc. Initial thought was PS4 because the biggest game I could remember there was probably a MMO or Doom, but added Xbox to the question for fair play.
ronaldthump
Member
somehow patching a game to make it better for whatever reasons is not aokay. The problem here is Nintendo. That's it. This isn't nintendo/switch bashing, its fact. I dont think I've read a post in a long time about "patch dramas" about well, pS4+xbone. Why should Nintendo determine what limits devs have to make their games better?
Making developers think they're not easy to work with is not what nintendo should be encouraging considering that they need 3rd parties. Not piss them off. The easier to work with, the more inclusive their platform is. The better for them.
Making developers think they're not easy to work with is not what nintendo should be encouraging considering that they need 3rd parties. Not piss them off. The easier to work with, the more inclusive their platform is. The better for them.
ronaldthump
Member
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Title change fits.
omg this is so ironic hahahaha
Team Filler
Member
But what if I'm unable to get a bigger harddrive?
Neff
Member
That's almost half my monthly allocated bandwidth.
So yeah I'm happy with Nintendo's policy here.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
"We were put in a position where we needed to get this game out at the same time as the other consoles"
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
neurosisxeno
Member
Almost like they were a business struggling to meet a deadline.
to be fair that patch also reduced the whole game size because it included all the patches better compressed, the gamw went from 90+ gbs to 70+gb
Moving to a country soon in which metered internet is the norm and even the lux package is around 500Gb/month. Massive patches of 10s of gigs are a nonstarter for me.
I'd be more critical of Nintendo if they didn't release such rock-solid software, what's the total size of BotW patches so far? Would be happy to see more devs strive for that...
I'd be more critical of Nintendo if they didn't release such rock-solid software, what's the total size of BotW patches so far? Would be happy to see more devs strive for that...
?!
this post is bizzare. You can't have more than 4 games? 4?
Get a bigger SD card for your Switch.
I love all the assholes thinking this is a big ding on the developers like they're the ones who have to suck it up. Its the players who support third party ports on the Switch that have to eat shit with this policy because its going to increasingly fuck over third party ports that come to a system that very much needs more support and drive customers away if they're unable to get timely updates to their games.
There definitely needs to be some rules in place to prevent abuse of their patching system since theres limited system storage, but if Nintendo is directly in contact with the developer and their changes are reasonable its just complete bullshit that the updates would be blocked how they are. Wasting so many resources trying to juggle this patch will just show developers not to release their software on the Switch or just emphasize leaving them in broken unfinished states.
As a consumer I would greatly prefer having NBA Playgrounds updated instead of it being left in its current state. I was in the position of "I want all third party games on the Switch because its portable and thats amazing" but now I'm like "fuck it I'll stick with PS4 because Nintendo is a dick".
There definitely needs to be some rules in place to prevent abuse of their patching system since theres limited system storage, but if Nintendo is directly in contact with the developer and their changes are reasonable its just complete bullshit that the updates would be blocked how they are. Wasting so many resources trying to juggle this patch will just show developers not to release their software on the Switch or just emphasize leaving them in broken unfinished states.
As a consumer I would greatly prefer having NBA Playgrounds updated instead of it being left in its current state. I was in the position of "I want all third party games on the Switch because its portable and thats amazing" but now I'm like "fuck it I'll stick with PS4 because Nintendo is a dick".
charlequin
Banned
It's not different at all, that's my whole point. Developers don't care about the distinction, publishers don't care about the distinction, and (on balance) gamers don't care about the distinction. We live in an Early Access world where many games have three times as much content, and sell three times as well, three years after they come out.
People assert this all the time but I've never actually seen the evidence that it's a real trend of relevant significance. Everything on PC had early patches in 2006 too, it was just miserable to actually download them; games still shipped broken as hell on PS2, it's just that those games were bad forever instead of getting fixed a couple days later. The idea that on net people are getting buggier and less playable experiences today doesn't really hold up.
Yeah, it's always a little funny when someone who's very upset about Nintendo system third-party support is also in favor of the kinds of developer-hostile policies that are responsible for reduced third-party support on the platforms that have them.
Jubenhimer
Member
They already got approved for the patch, the file size isn't the issue any more.
There is a tad of a revisionist history in this post. Patching did not start in 2006, or xbox360 generation as is implied. Patching has been going on since the early days of snes, with multiple versions of cartridges. The only difference between now and then was the process was seamless and unnoticeable back then, often at the expense and inconvenience to the publisher and not to the consumer. There was a monetary incentive for publishers to get the game right the first time around.
As far as third party support, again revisionist history. Third party has never suffered because of any particular policy Nintendo instituted. Save for the N64, every system Nintendo has release has had either great third party support or poor third party support and none of the blame or credit can be given to Nintendo. Nintendo started with the NES and single handily revived the video game market. Nintendo enjoyed copious third party collaborations and created enduring series that began during this era. The SNES continued the success of the NES and had great third party support. The N64 was an aberration because Nintendo bet on the wrong side of history with the cartridge and the difficult to develop architect. The PSX/N64 era was the turnaround point where Nintendo would be seen as the system with poor third party. Gamecube flopped because it came out too late and suffered from fallout of the N64 and the early success of the PS2, despite having superior technology. Wii third party support was never a problem for the few who knew how to make games for the wii's audience, just dance being an example. The reason third party was lacking on the Wii was because third parties could not compete with Nintendo's first party offering and found their success making AAA titles on the PS3/Xbox360 instead.
The Wii U's failure is too early to call but I believe it failed because Nintendo was catering too much on third parties. Its launch was filled with mostly third party ports. It was a confusing message for consumers, who were mostly interested in Nintendo's first party titles and probably don't want third party ports. Had the WiiU had a Zelda BotW, followed by Mariokart, Smash Bros, Splatoon release calendar early in its life cycle, the WiiU might have been a huge success. But since Nintendo let the third party ports highlight the WiiU's launch, Nintendo lost any momentum off the bat and doomed itself.
Great thing about the Switch is Nintendo understands the leverage it has from its first party lineup and is basically writing off third parties support save for indie titles. Frankly for consumers and Nintendo itself, this strategy may be best. Consumers don't want inferior half baked ports and Nintendo can just sell switches fine with its must have first party titles.
Bioshocker
Member
Feels a bit like Wii U all over again in this matter.
Pokemaniac
Member
Nintendo was actually super permissive with Wii U, though.
That's actually probably what's motivating them to lock down Switch development more. Apparently a few devs kind of took advantage of the situation.
Yeah. On Wii U not only everyone and their mothers could make games for it, but patching was also the same as the others. Sometimes too big and too constant. Lego Dimensions is a mess of constant patches and then in-game downloads for new toys.
Nintendo will have to adjust to how the industry is rolling, they won't change it with the Switch.
The_Endgamer
Member
Defending an 80GB 'patch'... ? Wow ok.
Having to dedicate a whole day (or more) to download something like this is stupid other than the size of these downloads. For games like Overwatch with timed purchases, that's lost revenue. These practices don't make much sense to me.
Minsc
Gold Member
But Nintendo is allowing patches (and tons of them), making exceptions for companies when needed about file size etc, and according to this post:
They are also maintaining a great relationship with the third parties in the process.
Could it be better? Probably, without a doubt. Just about everything about Nintendo is a decade or two behind the times. But I'm not sure this patching thing it's as bad as people are making it out.
Granted I'm probably pulling your statement a bit out of context, and I'm not personally losing sleep over Nintendo third party support, but this patching thing seems to be going overboad by a few people, and if there were no limits, what's to stop developers from releasing 50GB patches on their games when their users don't even have that kind of storage? Common sense I suppose? But I'm not sure how much faith I put in to that anymore.
And also again, for them not allowing every third party to instantly push out any patch they want... could it be in interest of their own security? I doubt the software is bulletproof, and a lesser known third party / indie may decide to include a little loophole in their latest patch that gets pushed out instantly that rips the Switch wide open (didn't the Wii U get similar vulnerabilities opened from games as well)? Or a patch that includes an emulator, etc, like has happened many times with iOS? Seems too juvenile for it to happen on Nintendo, but who knows.
didn't you read what that patch did?
What do you mean?
absolutely nobody is saying that they don't want patches on switch, god knows how you got to that conclusion
All I'm saying is, it's not realistic for any of us to expect most devs to bend backwards for the Switch. I'm sick and tired of huge patches on PS4 but when you say that "there is no need for devs to put out such huge patch sizes", you're deceiving yourself. Take it as you will.
But Nintendo has patched their own games multiple times and even something like Super Bomberman R and Blaster Master Zero have gotten patches. There's definitely more to this story.
On an side, why is it that anytime there's negative news surrounding Nintendo//Switch lately it seems these threads fill up quickly?
Remember when a handful of anonymous developers had less than glowing praise for their policies? Remember when people were up in arms about Dan Adelman flipping out on twitter towards his ex-employer//co-workers about not being able to get Axiom Verge on the Switch? And how when the game finally does get announced, complete with a physical version, the thread is fairly quite, by comparison? Remember how when Psyonix had nothing to announce for a Switch version of Rocket League and some people jumped to conclusions and then at e3 we find out that Psyonix was working with Nintendo since last year about it, complete with crossplay between PC/XB1?
There's potential for a serious, civil discussion about Nintendo practices and policies, but it seems people just want to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence. Why is it people seem to lose their minds whenever Nintendo is successful?
On an side, why is it that anytime there's negative news surrounding Nintendo//Switch lately it seems these threads fill up quickly?
Remember when a handful of anonymous developers had less than glowing praise for their policies? Remember when people were up in arms about Dan Adelman flipping out on twitter towards his ex-employer//co-workers about not being able to get Axiom Verge on the Switch? And how when the game finally does get announced, complete with a physical version, the thread is fairly quite, by comparison? Remember how when Psyonix had nothing to announce for a Switch version of Rocket League and some people jumped to conclusions and then at e3 we find out that Psyonix was working with Nintendo since last year about it, complete with crossplay between PC/XB1?
There's potential for a serious, civil discussion about Nintendo practices and policies, but it seems people just want to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence. Why is it people seem to lose their minds whenever Nintendo is successful?
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Blizzard themselves realized that the idea of having to redownload the client each time was dumb as fuck with Hearthstone.
That's why they tried to change it. It was doubly stupid on a mobile platform with data caps.
Having a patch drop when you weren't in wifi was a PITA. You basically we're locked out until you found WiFi, and it needed to be good WiFi not shitty public WiFi to download like a gig for the update.
Can't tell you how many times I bitched about this with some fellow GAFers in our discord chat.
That's why they tried to change it. It was doubly stupid on a mobile platform with data caps.
Having a patch drop when you weren't in wifi was a PITA. You basically we're locked out until you found WiFi, and it needed to be good WiFi not shitty public WiFi to download like a gig for the update.
Can't tell you how many times I bitched about this with some fellow GAFers in our discord chat.
Jubenhimer
Member
I think it's because people want to grasp at any straw they can to make Nintendo look anti-developer. Even if the policies aren't as bad as they seem, any bit of information that gets out gets blown out proportion and people go "See, see, I told you Nintendo was no good for developers" never mind the fact that many people both in the indie and developer community have praised Nintendo's outreach and support for developers with the Switch. There are areas which Nintendo can improve. But they're not being anti-developer or evil, there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
I have to agree with this one. You can have 100 great indie games being shown in one week, but if for some reason on the next day one Indie dev says they have issues or havent gotten their dev-kits yet Nintendo is evil and treating indies like trash...the overreaction is ridiculous.
We have games like Splatoon 2, DQXI, Minecraft and Rocket League (cross plattform) on or about to hit Switch and some people in this thread are really painting the picture of patches being a mayor issue on Switch - again because of one dev having trouble sorting their shit out in time. Its all black or white here.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
This is absolutely not true over cellular, which is how most of that content is distributed on mobile (e.g. I regularly exhaust my cell "full-speed" monthly limit). And last time I checked, iOS AppStore OTA limit is still 100MB, and their absolute AppStore DL limit - 4GB.