-
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
ahm, they allow it?
I can see why this is bad for some devs, but seeing how fucking ridiculously big patches tend to become these days it seems to me like even the most capable console in terms of storage will eventually clash into this issue, forcing the user to micromanage as if we were still in the 256 mega age. Shit needs to stop, because no way I'm downloading a 50 GB patch no matter how many TBS i have, it's a damn joke. I agree Nintendo may be shooting themselves in the foot here, but honestly, fuck these mammoth patches to hell and beyond
This could benefit other consoles. If Nintendo is being stricter that a game works out of the box/initial download they will either delay games to make it perfect or make sure nothing is half assed.
Sucks for people that bought the game though that want to play but can't because its broken.
Sucks for people that bought the game though that want to play but can't because its broken.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
I'll explain why file sizes are larger again. Sigh.
Engines like UE4 and Unity3D, and every other decent engine, packages assets in these things called bundles. Bundles are nice and compressed. This makes overall game size and therefor initial download sizes to be much smaller. This also causes the assets to take less room in memory freeing it up for other things along with speeding up loading times.
The result of assets existing in a bundle is that if you update even just 1 asset then the entire bundle needs to be downloaded again. This means some larger patch sizes. This is the way things work right now. No one is being lazy or intentionally inflating patch sizes.
Again, if you have a better way of doing things hit up Crytek, Epic, Unity etc. They'll pay you a lot of money.
Jubenhimer
Member
If this thread has taught me anything, it's that gamers are desperate to spin anything Nintendo does as negative. All people had to do was read the OP, but instead people are grasping on to this "LOL Nintendo gonna Nintendo" when it's actually a system limitation than some arbitrary policy.
Thanks for the great information. Never knew this.
And because of that, you do not learn and literally do not understand game development.
Most patches are not due to games being broken and unless you are willing to update every games QA budget to astronomical levels and you are willing to pay dramatically increased prices for a modern game, it is impossible to catch every issue prior to release. Because the playtesting field expands dramatically when a million people are suddenly playing your game in a zillion unique ways. Too many variables.
No, just an expert on not being wildly ignorant on the topics I choose to discuss.
The Giant
Banned
You tech gamers are so fucking annoying.
They aren't blocking the patch because of its file size, at least read the OP.
They aren't being stricter on that, they are still allowing patches and the game wasn't broken at launch. Nothing in your post has any place in reality.
i mean, he is not even talking about the patch size anymore, he is talking broadly about developers not giving a shit about the sizes of games because they dont have any restriction.
and you can clearly see this with this game, since they were able to reduce its size by half just a weeks after launching it.
FalconLorenzo
Member
I think youd be surprised. Not a 1:1 comparison, but how is the twitter ios 114 MB and the tweebot ios app is only 7.5 mb? Devs, especially big corporate ones, seem to not want to take the time to be a respectful app store/eshop citizen, because that kimd of stuff doesn't make money directly.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
So why did Nintendo release a system with limitations not even smart phones have in 2017?
Please propose a size and price increase you'd be comfortable with.
Even a quadrupling of storage probably wouldn't please people complaining about 32.
DeuceGamer
Member
This very developer apparently cut the download size in half and was going to reduce the size in half. How come that couldn't have been done before launch?
Again, Nintendo should allow the patch, but developers could also try and reduce the size of their games and thus patches as well.
Because they want to deliver better graphics with a lower price and with decent battery life.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
Jesus... Game size and patch size go hand in hand. I give up. Can you guys just play games and not pretend you know what is going on with the development of them?
Jubenhimer
Member
To keep costs down. You can't put 128GB of memory without significantly jacking up the price. I still think they could've done 64GB, but flash memory ain't cheap. It's a trade off made to make the system more affordable.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
And then make you buy an expensive smart phone to use voice chat on it. *zing*
Oh, and expensive SD cards too.
You left that part out.
Edit: The Switch's battery life also leaves a lot to be desired. I wouldn't call it decent.
what the actual fuck....
i mean even the developer said they reduced the size of the game by half, and still are you arguing, THINGS ARE BIG DEAL WITH IT?
holy shit
Most of their customers wont use either of those things.
Yeah, why blame put ANY blame on Nintendo. It's not like they designed the Switch knowing this could be an issue after seeing 10 years of modern gaming unfold.
The size of the game and the patch are two different things. It was a compromise offered to Nintendo because its easy to reduce the size of assets (texture/audio quality) that may of may not have anything to do with the patch.
DeuceGamer
Member
You aren't making sense. This developer said they reduced the file size of the game from 7GB's to around 3.5 GB's, right? Couldn't that have happened before launch?
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
For a lot of reasons. Time, resources and money. The fact that their publisher and the NBA didn't allow it to happen before launch? Probably one of those reasons. Why don't you tweet them or something and ask?
What? The thing that isn't the reason the patch isn't out?
Renna Hazel
Member
the phone thing is stupid but offering expandable storage options is bad now? That's a pretty silly claim to make.
DeuceGamer
Member
I understand that, but don't say that nothing can be done to reduce file sizes when they were able to cut it in half within a month or two post launch.
Yeah I don't understand the voice chat thing either. You can't argue that SD cards were a bad idea though, as adding 32 gigs with an SD card is much cheaper for the consumer than the difference between including 32 and 64 gigs of flash storage with the console. SD cards also give the consumer the ability to decide how much storage they need.
If you compare it to the other consoles where they have the luxury of being able to include a 500gig+ hard drive for $30 then yeah, it's a rip off. That technology is not possible in a portable device however.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
Again, yes. It could have with the proper time, money and resources. They probably could have put in extra time downgrading the Switch's assets appropriately if their publisher was cool with delaying every sku to do that.
Jubenhimer
Member
I'm not saying Nintendo isn't at fault to a degree. But people are trying to spin this as some arbitrary policy when it's actually a system limitation. Nintendo should find a solution, but people are grasping at any straw they can to make Nintendo look developer unfriendly without actually reading.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
You don't need to explain these things to me. Nintendo created the platform they created. Now we have to deal with these archaic limitations. It is what it is.
Oh it will benefit other consoles all right. It's reason 4997 why the Switch won't get third party games to begin with.
Sony and Microsoft say thanks, Nintendo!
is the same dude, saying that things can't be reduced in size because thats how "game development" works, then admitting that yes they can be reduced in size
Dsyndrome
Member
god damn dude, your bias is showing, cover it
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
Yes, devs have time after launch when their product is released and their publisher isn't constantly looking over their shoulder until the impending required release date. You get it.
They're not archaic for a portable (compare it to the VITA and you'll realise how good we really have it) but if the Switch were a console without the portable aspect then yes, they would be archaic.
... who in 2017 doesn't own a smartphone and is going to have to buy one *just* because the Switch requires it for voicechat? Is it a cumbersome method, most definitely. But let's stop with the hyperbole.
Also, I really wish that Nintendo could make a 4K handheld that had like 9 terabytes of memory and costs $15 bucks and can give me a BJ every night before bed, but magic isn't real. Yall need to realize that not every electronic device can be every single thing to every single consumer. The PS4 isn't and neither is the XBox One.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
ding ding ding
omg you got me
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
The fact that you need to defend this is ridiculous. It's a stupid decision period. Requiring Switch owners to tether a supposedly mobile device to their phone and potentially have to use their own data plan if they don't have wifi. A feature consoles have been supporting for generations...You want to die on this sword? Yikes.
This shows you don't know what you're talking about. All platform holders have their own certification process, with their own rules and limitations.
You even mention Apple, but there is a 4GB file size limit on the App Store (increased a few years ago from 2GB), or a tiny 100MB limit on apps/updates if the Dev wants them to be downloadable over 3G/4G.
The obvious point is Xbox and PlayStation have large HDDs, Switch and phones don't.
Because they can't read the OP.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
How hard can it be to catch issues with these modern games you speak of, which I would consider as having more spectacles rather than complex game design. Are you seriously proposing a game like The Order 1886 is anymore complex outside of its presentation than Resident Evil 4 or Mario Sunshine?
There seems to be a pattern in this thread that some posters equate graphical prowess to higher game mechanic complexity, which in turn requires more effort to patch. This is hogwash. Writing a game engine to computer the area and perimeter of two circles for hit detection is orders of magnitude harder than choosing from a set of template which pre-assembled assets from the store look better in Unity.
Except I literally said, in the post you quoted, that it's super cumbersome and not at all ideal. But okay! I gotta run anyway! Gotta get down to Verizon to pick up one of those new fangled iPhones to finally use my Switch.
Lol. How would a Switch magically connect to the internet if you didn't have wifi? It would either need to tether to a mobile, or the hardware would need to have its own SIM card. Either way, it would use mobile data.
Pretty much everyone in the world has a mobile phone these days. Not just in the West, but every market the Switch is sold in.
GameStop?
Jubenhimer
Member
And because it's easier to manufacture a "Nintendo gonna Nintendo" story than it is to actually look at the story.