• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Cosmo Clock 21
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:43 PM)
Cosmo Clock 21's Avatar
Aka Lab Zero can't catch a break:
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/01/09/sk...-to-file-size/
http://www.xblafans.com/microsoft-ho...ons-61789.html

Despite landing on the PlayStation 3 back in late November, Skullgirls' Slightly Different Edition update has yet to make its way to Microsoft's console. The delay is due to the file size of the update itself, according to XBLA Fan's translation of a tweet from the official Japanese Skullgirls account.

While Microsoft limits XBLA updates to just four megs, the fighter's Slightly Different Edition patch weighs in at 590 megabytes. Being granted an exception to the rule is apparently possible, though subsequently time consuming. No announcements have been made regarding an expected completion date for the whole deal.

Edit: Ravidrath got a detailed explanation. See post 86
Last edited by Cosmo Clock 21; 01-10-2013 at 07:40 PM.
Wuthering_Heights
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:46 PM)
Wuthering_Heights's Avatar
Oh, Microsoft.
AndyMoogle
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:46 PM)
AndyMoogle's Avatar
Games are allowed to have bigger than 4MB nowadays, but obviously a limit is still there. Would be interesting to know the exact limit.

Since the game is on XBLA, couldn't they just replace the game with a new patched version? They've done it before with Bomberman for example.
Last edited by AndyMoogle; 01-10-2013 at 03:49 PM.
el retorno
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:49 PM)
el retorno's Avatar
offer it as free dlc?
matics
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:49 PM)
matics's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wuthering_Heights

Oh, Microsoft.

I was hoping this was the first reply.

Am I the only one still hoping Skullgirls comes to Steam?
El Sloth
Banned
(01-10-2013, 03:52 PM)
El Sloth's Avatar

Originally Posted by matics

I was hoping this was the first reply.

Am I the only one still hoping Skullgirls comes to Steam?

They've teased that some sort of PC announcement is coming later in the month.

You most definitely are not the only one.
JG07
Junior Member
(01-10-2013, 03:52 PM)
JG07's Avatar
Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?
Interfectum
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:53 PM)
Interfectum's Avatar
MS better change their shit patch policy for next-gen.
Isaccard
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:53 PM)
Isaccard's Avatar
When's it coming to PC/Steam?
Chacranajxy
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:55 PM)
Chacranajxy's Avatar
Real question: Does Microsoft actually do anything good for gaming anymore? It seems like every single thread about them is either about how shitty their policies are for developers or advertising.
darkblade77
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:55 PM)
darkblade77's Avatar

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

IIRC bandwidth is a factor; for example, Sony charges the publisher by the bandwidth spent by consumers downloading these additions. MS has a different system that (I think) is in part designed to discourage putting bloat on their network. It's just really outdated.


Originally Posted by matics

I was hoping this was the first reply.

Am I the only one still hoping Skullgirls comes to Steam?

Right now it's looking likely that Skullgirls will make it to PC based on what Ravid has been saying the past few weeks, so I think it's OK to keep your hopes up.

It's not a great indicator of anything, but Skullgirls did become available for preorder on Gamersgate again. (thanks Tizoc)
Gentleman Jack
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:57 PM)
Gentleman Jack's Avatar

Originally Posted by JG07

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

They charge out the ass for the cert process on every patch, you'd think they could roll whatever bandwidth charges they incur somewhere in that $40k
CambriaRising
Member
(01-10-2013, 03:58 PM)
CambriaRising's Avatar

Originally Posted by el retorno

offer it as free dlc?

Free DLC on a MS console? Ask valve how that worked out for them.
KageMaru
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:02 PM)
KageMaru's Avatar
I don't understand why any type of patch should have any memory size limit. They really need to get this sorted out for next gen.
VariantX
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:03 PM)

Originally Posted by el retorno

offer it as free dlc?

Probably part of why the patch limit is so small to prevent people from giving away free dlc
RuGalz
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:05 PM)
pretty retarded rule but...

1) add a new random variable to the game
2) recompile
3) profit?
androvsky
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:05 PM)
androvsky's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkblade77

IIRC bandwidth is a factor; for example, Sony charges the publisher by the bandwidth spent by consumers downloading these additions. MS has a different system that (I think) is in part designed to discourage putting bloat on their network. It's just really outdated.

Even Sony has mostly dropped bandwidth charges. From a dev interview last summer, between SCEA and SCEE, only one of them has a bandwidth fee any more, and it's only for downloads larger than 2 GB.
Barkley's Justice
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:07 PM)
Barkley's Justice's Avatar
Gaming needs a chaperone!
el retorno
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:08 PM)
el retorno's Avatar

Originally Posted by CambriaRising

Free DLC on a MS console? Ask valve how that worked out for them.

They don't have free dlc? Didn't halo 3?

Microsoft really needs to fix this. Why the hell does it cost so much as well?
darkblade77
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:08 PM)
darkblade77's Avatar

Originally Posted by androvsky

Even Sony has mostly dropped bandwidth charges. From a dev interview last summer, between SCEA and SCEE, only one of them has a bandwidth fee any more, and it's only for downloads larger than 2 GB.

Makes MS seem even more disappointing in context then, although there may be other factors we're unaware of.

Maybe they're just waiting for next-gen, since it's generally been stated they'll be a lot more accommodating then? Your guess is as good as mine.
Shito
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:10 PM)
Shito's Avatar

Originally Posted by JG07

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

Nope.
This process is in place because the 360 has to support 20Go SKUs, and more importantly old SKUs without any HDD (I think the memory card is something like 4Go?).
So, what they did was reserve a given buffer space on the drive where to store the updates, and cycle through them once it maxes out -- the new one erasing the oldest one. That's why you always have an update prompt when playing a game you haven't played for ages: your old update got erased, and you have to download it again.
With such a system in place, it's easy to see why they would want a size limit on those patches.

This shouldn't be a problem for the "720", since all SKUs will have an HDD. Just like the PS3 or the Wii U do.
jett
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:11 PM)
jett's Avatar

While Microsoft limits XBLA updates to just four megs

What the fuck?

I can only say that I'm glad there's an alternative to XBL.
JaseC
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:14 PM)
JaseC's Avatar

Originally Posted by el retorno

They don't have free dlc [on the X360]? Didn't halo 3?

Microsoft really needs to fix this. Why the hell does it cost so much as well?

Nope. Portal 2 is the exception for the simple reason it's also on the PS3.

Edit: I'd assumed by "'they" you meant "Valve", but I just realised I'm probably wrong on that.
Last edited by JaseC; 01-10-2013 at 04:22 PM.
bitoriginal
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:16 PM)
bitoriginal's Avatar

Originally Posted by jett

What the fuck?

I can only say that I'm glad there's an alternative to XBL.

Quite frankly I appreciate the limit. I've turned PS3 games on to see I've got to download over 500mb, which would take about an hour on my shit connection. I then turn it off to play something else. Most games on the Xbox patch in about a minute, and it doesn't eat into my gaming time.

I understand that some games differ from the norm such as Skullgirls, but in general, I think that the patch size limit on Xbox is a good thing.
KageMaru
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:18 PM)
KageMaru's Avatar

Originally Posted by jett

What the fuck?

I can only say that I'm glad there's an alternative to XBL.

While I agree that it's stupid, you do realize your quote is torn out of context, right?
Castor Krieg
Banned
(01-10-2013, 04:20 PM)
1. Set a limit for patch sizes.

2. Make only first patch free (or how many there was, no matter)

3. ???

4. Profit.

Bring on next gen.
LonelyGreyWolf
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:20 PM)
LonelyGreyWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by el retorno

They don't have free dlc? Didn't halo 3?

Microsoft really needs to fix this. Why the hell does it cost so much as well?

Nope, at least not XBLA games, not sure about retail games. Pretty sure Bioshock had free DLC. I recall Bastion having free DLC on PC and the DLC on X360 cost 80 MSP because they couldn't have it be free. There's also a fee for making DLC (and patches too for that matter).

Since everything is downloaded from XBL on X360, MS takes a fee. That fee definitely covers more than just the servers though, like earnings.
shidoshi
GameFan alumnus
ganguro preacher
(01-10-2013, 04:21 PM)
shidoshi's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkblade77

IIRC bandwidth is a factor; for example, Sony charges the publisher by the bandwidth spent by consumers downloading these additions. MS has a different system that (I think) is in part designed to discourage putting bloat on their network. It's just really outdated

It's a fair argument - the costs for bandwidth that Microsoft has to deal with for downloads. Maybe they could do something like, say, charge consumers a fee for online to help offset those costs.
Saty
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:23 PM)
Saty's Avatar
Another reason to want a Steambox.
Clay Davis
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:23 PM)
Clay Davis's Avatar

Originally Posted by JaseC

Nope. Portal 2 is the exception for the simple reason it's also on the PS3.

When pressed about whether Microsoft effectively enforced the pricing, Faliszek added: "Well, they helped us get the first one out for free. We had the one DLC out for free. And I think... they have to look and say, wow, we're kind of being unfair to everybody else if these guys can do that

that's interesting.

I can't help but feel valve like the additional income but know they can blame microsoft for any backlash. after all, why price the dlc for the odd price of 560msp when they could price it for 200msp or 400msp?

it should be noted there's a ton of free dlc on the store as well as a number of free games, so I'm not sure that's even valid any more. after all, that is from nearly 4 years ago.
Castor Krieg
Banned
(01-10-2013, 04:23 PM)

Originally Posted by shidoshi

It's a fair argument - the costs for bandwidth that Microsoft has to deal with for downloads. Maybe they could do something like, say, charge consumers a fee for online to help offset those costs.

Yeah, that will work. I wonder why didn't they do so? Oh, wait a minute...

CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
(01-10-2013, 04:24 PM)
CrunchinJelly's Avatar
The limit isn't 4MB, hasn't been for almost two years. Regardless of the actual limit, there are ways around it.

Ask Criterion, Dice and many others...
JaseC
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:24 PM)
JaseC's Avatar

Originally Posted by LonelyGreyWolf

Nope, at least not XBLA games, not sure about retail games. Pretty sure Bioshock had free DLC. I recall Bastion having free DLC on PC and the DLC on X360 cost 80 MSP because they couldn't have it be free. There's also a fee for making DLC (and patches too for that matter).

Since everything is downloaded from XBL on X360, MS takes a fee. That fee definitely covers more than just the servers though, like earnings.

Forza Horizon has a couple of free DLC packs due this month.
toythatkills
(01-10-2013, 04:24 PM)
toythatkills's Avatar

Originally Posted by KageMaru

I don't understand why any type of patch should have any memory size limit. They really need to get this sorted out for next gen.

Because when I put a game in, I want to play it. I don't want to wait for it to download a patch for half an hour first.

Obviously there should be exceptions, but they should be just that: exceptions.
darkblade77
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:26 PM)
darkblade77's Avatar

Originally Posted by CrunchinJelly

The limit isn't 4MB, hasn't been for almost two years. Regardless of the actual limit, there are ways around it.

Ask Criterion, Dice and many others...

1.) It's a contextual limit.

2.) I agree, there is a long-established history of games from AAA publishers getting to pick and choose which platform rules they don't have to follow. Skullgirls doesn't fall in that category, though.
Draft
(01-10-2013, 04:26 PM)
Draft's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chacranajxy

Real question: Does Microsoft actually do anything good for gaming anymore? It seems like every single thread about them is either about how shitty their policies are for developers or advertising.

The provide the one platform where publishers can sell enough units to justify AAA development costs.
JaseC
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:26 PM)
JaseC's Avatar

Originally Posted by Clay Davis

that's interesting.

I can't help but feel valve like the additional income but know they can blame microsoft for any backlash. after all, why price the dlc for the odd price of 560msp when they could price it for 200msp or 400msp?

I think that's the point -- 560 MSP was as low as Microsoft would go.

it should be noted there's a ton of free dlc on the store as well as a number of free games, so I'm not sure that's even valid any more. after all, that is from nearly 4 years ago.

I edited my post just moments ago; I thought he was asking about Valve, not the X360 in general.
Clay Davis
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:26 PM)
Clay Davis's Avatar

Originally Posted by bitoriginal

Quite frankly I appreciate the limit. I've turned PS3 games on to see I've got to download over 500mb, which would take about an hour on my shit connection. I then turn it off to play something else. Most games on the Xbox patch in about a minute, and it doesn't eat into my gaming time.

I understand that some games differ from the norm such as Skullgirls, but in general, I think that the patch size limit on Xbox is a good thing.

I tend to agree. I hope they keep a limit next gen but both increase that limit to something like 20mb and drop the fee or at least reconsider the cost. have a scaling system or something.

first patch is free, second patch costs a few hundred and then ramp up the cost to say a couple of thousand and if a fourth patch is required, charge 10k or something. 40k is excessive.
dan2026
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:27 PM)
dan2026's Avatar

Originally Posted by toythatkills

Because when I put a game in, I want to play it. I don't want to wait for it to download a patch for half an hour first.

Obviously there should be exceptions, but they should be just that: exceptions.

This is a fair point.

If you let developers do whatever they want, some will end up taking the piss.
I'm surprised that a resolution can't be made here though.

It seems like they are arguing over semantics.

I was also all for this game when it came out (and bought it on the 360 lol)
Now the game might as well be dead to me.
New characters, new modes, bugfixes, all of it came to naught in the end.
Last edited by dan2026; 01-10-2013 at 04:30 PM.
bigtroyjon
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:28 PM)

Originally Posted by Clay Davis

first patch is free, second patch costs a few hundred and then ramp up the cost to say a couple of thousand and if a fourth patch is required, charge 10k or something. 40k is excessive.

40K is an internet myth. They charge 10K.
Clay Davis
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:29 PM)
Clay Davis's Avatar

Originally Posted by JaseC

I think that's the point -- that 560 MSP was as low as Microsoft would go.

I'm not so sure, there's nothing in the article that suggests they enforced a price point but rather insisted that they charge for the dlc. the pricing is seemingly left up to the the publisher / developer, otherwise all dlc would have a set minimum limit and that's not the case.

Originally Posted by bigtroyjon

40K is an internet myth. They charge 10K.

that's a lot more reasonable. do you know if it's a scaling system or is that the fee for all patches after the first one?
Truckondo2.0
Junior Member
(01-10-2013, 04:29 PM)
Truckondo2.0's Avatar

Originally Posted by shidoshi

It's a fair argument - the costs for bandwidth that Microsoft has to deal with for downloads. Maybe they could do something like, say, charge consumers a fee for online to help offset those costs.

MS does charge a fee. The Xbox Live fee.
KageMaru
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:30 PM)
KageMaru's Avatar

Originally Posted by toythatkills

Because when I put a game in, I want to play it. I don't want to wait for it to download a patch for half an hour first.

Obviously there should be exceptions, but they should be just that: exceptions.

I understand that but there are other patches that far exceed 4MB, which is my point. Why have this stupid rule that any patch that does not change the executable be limited in file size?
Jotamide
Banned
(01-10-2013, 04:31 PM)

Originally Posted by matics

Am I the only one still hoping Skullgirls comes to Steam?

Definitely not. :/
el retorno
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:31 PM)
el retorno's Avatar

Originally Posted by Truckondo2.0

MS does charge a fee. The Xbox Live fee.

JaseC
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:31 PM)
JaseC's Avatar

Originally Posted by Clay Davis

I'm not so sure, there's nothing in the article that suggests they enforced a price point but rather insisted that they charge for the dlc. the pricing is seemingly left up to the the publisher / developer, otherwise all dlc would have a set minimum limit and that's not the case.

I'd say the "economy of value" comment suggests just that, but it's difficult to be certain as there's no further clarification.
Nabs
(01-10-2013, 04:32 PM)
Nabs's Avatar

Originally Posted by Clay Davis

I'm not so sure, there's nothing in the article that suggests they enforced a price point but rather insisted that they charge for the dlc. the pricing is seemingly left up to the the publisher / developer, otherwise all dlc would have a set minimum limit and that's not the case.

Not all DLC is the same. I think Microsoft sets the minimum depending on the type of content provided.
Palette Swap
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:33 PM)
Palette Swap's Avatar

Originally Posted by CrunchinJelly

The limit isn't 4MB, hasn't been for almost two years. Regardless of the actual limit, there are ways around it.

Ask Criterion, Dice and many others...

Off the top of my head, Bioshock, RDR and Mass Effect 3 had free, sizable DLC too. Then again, these were AAA multiplats so the same rules might not have applied. Burnout is interesting in that it was DLC acting as massive title updates.

Wasn't Hydrophobia overhauled for free?
ToyMachine228
Member
(01-10-2013, 04:33 PM)
ToyMachine228's Avatar
This story was broken by XBLA Fans. You should at least link to them as well as Joystiq in the OP.

http://www.xblafans.com/microsoft-ho...ons-61789.html
Tizoc
Banned
(01-10-2013, 04:33 PM)
Tizoc's Avatar

Originally Posted by matics

I was hoping this was the first reply.

Am I the only one still hoping Skullgirls comes to Steam?

http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-SKULLGIRLS/skullgirls

Thread Tools