audio_delay
Neo Member
So nobody? I don't think Saber Interactive have a good trackrecord making good games by themselves. Halo games and Quake Champions don't count, becasue they were overwatched.
-
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
So nobody? I don't think Saber Interactive have a good trackrecord making good games by themselves. Halo games and Quake Champions don't count, becasue they were overwatched.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
Reading this thread, and boy, discussion on this website has gotten preeety iffy lately... the last couple of weeks, it's like every seemingly contentious thread devolves into people just cherrypicking the sentiments they don't like to justify their persecution complexes. I regret stanning for Nintendo and its fanbase these last few months. I like Switch and I love Nintendo games but the state of discussion surrounding anything Nintendo has me wishing this board had more of a PC presence so I could talk more about the other games I actually play instead. It ain't even like this shit is especially specific to Nintendo's fanbase, either. It's Console Warz season like I haven't seen since '06.
NBA Playgrounds is 7 gigs. That's nothing. We wouldn't be acting like it had a 'big download size' if the Switch's out-of-box storage capacity weren't downright anemic.
NBA Playgrounds is 7 gigs. That's nothing. We wouldn't be acting like it had a 'big download size' if the Switch's out-of-box storage capacity weren't downright anemic.
Maybe Nintendo should get their heads out of the sand and finally get policies in place that worked for 10 years on other consoles.
It's not like this game will be the only one hamstrung by stupid Nintendo policies.
I agree. People are saying this dev shouldn't of released an incomplete game but the switch itself didn't even have it's online service launched. And most seemed to be OK with the Splatoon and Arms model. Heck in this thread it was pointed out that snakepass and Fast RMX just got a mode patched in. But no one hated on those games for being unfinished. The only thing these devs got wrong was not praising Nintendo.
NoHeDidn't
Member
I swear Nintendo early adopters are like those wives who tell you their jealous abusive husband is "just trying to protect her" with his many rules.
Its crazy to innovate and release a hand held console while at the same time not even include basic tech that comes on every phone post 2010.
Its crazy to innovate and release a hand held console while at the same time not even include basic tech that comes on every phone post 2010.
Are we talking about storage? What do you mean by basic tech?
My Galaxy S7 has 32GB standard.
32GB with cheap expandable storage for a portable device is a completely legitimate and defendable decision.
Heck, the most popular portable device in the world by a significant, significant margin doesn't even have expandable storage!
What do you mean?
Minsc
Gold Member
To be fair, the iPhone 7 has read/write speeds about 10x higher (850MB/s read, 350MB/s write) than typical SD memory. IIRC Switch reads at around 100 MB/s, and writes at around 30MB/s via the SD cards, even ones rated at far higher speeds. Allowing people to use standard SD memory like an Android would significantly degrade performance. It's part of the reason why despite having less RAM, even older iPhones can run circles around Androids when it comes to loading apps.
That said, they do make storage that can be used wirelessly or via the lightning port, which apps can access for pictures, videos, etc, and more if jailbroken I imagine. Not ideal, but it's a little misleading to say there's no benefit at all behind the locked in memory in Apple's phones.
I just wonder that while writing this post... The only reason you see that these two devs claim that they have issues, is because they don't "praise Nintendo"? You think corporations work like that? If anything Snake Pass proves you can release a feature incomplete game and still patch it, AND get Nintendo advertisment for it in the process!
Forgive some of us for giving sceptical about two devs who have screwed over their Switch userbase for throwing excuses around them when we have proof of other devs being able to do patches without much hassle. The only thing I get upset reading this is the claim you can't make a game smaller, but this sounds like such a stupid oversight it'll be fixed fast I hope.
Minsc
Gold Member
So if someone were to actually list every game that's gotten patches it'd be a pretty huge list right?
Most Nintendo releases have, even the NeoGeo emulated games have been patched a few times. VOEZ has been, Fast RMX has been, we all know Bomberman has been (a few times). Basically like almost every game on the Switch has been patched, a few multiple times, right?
Nintendo has said they intend to have ARMS almost follow a games as a service plan and receive patches over the years updating its content, adding fighters/story, etc.
Zen Pinball should be releasing on the platform, and that'll receive regular patches / updates in the form of new tables every month or two, etc.
So do we have a everyone in the world vs. this developer situation, or is there more to it than that? Because it just seems weird even with my limited library and knowledge of the platform, there's been quite a number of patches.
Most Nintendo releases have, even the NeoGeo emulated games have been patched a few times. VOEZ has been, Fast RMX has been, we all know Bomberman has been (a few times). Basically like almost every game on the Switch has been patched, a few multiple times, right?
Nintendo has said they intend to have ARMS almost follow a games as a service plan and receive patches over the years updating its content, adding fighters/story, etc.
Zen Pinball should be releasing on the platform, and that'll receive regular patches / updates in the form of new tables every month or two, etc.
So do we have a everyone in the world vs. this developer situation, or is there more to it than that? Because it just seems weird even with my limited library and knowledge of the platform, there's been quite a number of patches.
Yeah, and we've also had some "emergency patches", Snake Pass rumble patch a few days after release comes to mind, so we have already seen most of the kinds of patches that these devs claim are getting rejected. Something's fishy alright, and I hope for the users buying these games, they get updated asap.
Exactly.
I'm so tired of patches, DLC and more. I want plug and play, nothing more nothing less.
If something is not ready, release the game when it is.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
Why?
What the hell is everyone's problem with patches?
Do you guys actually believe that patches create more problems than they solve in this era?
Patches enable games to be fixed after released in case of unforeseen issues or known issues that can't be tackled before release. (believe it or not, most developers don't have the luxury of just delaying their game until it's 'ready'.) Patches enable new content to be rolled out after release. Patches enable balance changes and tweaks after release. Being 'tired of patches' is completely asinine. Maybe you're tired of oversized patches? And that's cool, I guess, although some of you like to overstate that beef as loudly as possible. Being 'tired of patches'? That's naive.
It's rather suspicious imo that the two titles that were shown to have been just rushed out to try and capitalise on sales (Mr Shifty and NBA Playgrounds) are the ones that are having 'harsh' experiences with Nintendo.
Mr Shifty was a title that the publishers farmed out to a 2 man studio to rush out. When people started complaining they began by denying there were issues, then saying that games like Zelda have issues and people are ok with that etc and only accepted there were issues and admitted fault when enough people started complaining. At times it seemed like they either didn't know what was causing the issues or just didn't want to accept there were issues. This patch was promised several times and then was released after a decent wait. Again, Nintendo were blamed for this delay due to their approval taking much longer due to Golden week. I don't think much of this as it is to be expected that holidays would cause delays. A thread on reddit chronicling a lot of the issues can be found here
NBA playgrounds too was rushed out for launch. The devs admitted that they did this because they needed launch day parity to ensure a successful launch, as a delay would have cost sales. They also mentioned that a 2-3 month delay would have been necessary to get full feature parity across platforms, hence why they believed it was more important to get it out there rather than to hold it back. However, when the game initially released they said that online would be ready in a few days. Now, if online was the feature the game is missing, why would it require a delay of 2-3 months but a patch to get feature parity would only take a few days? These things are completely contadictory imo.
I totally believe Nintendo would have some sort of patch size requirement, and I also believe there are hoops to jump through, as you would expect as dodgy patches that cause issues cannot be release. Judging by nintendos past endeavours I also don't doubt that they are a bit behind the times, but I do not believe that this is the issue here. We have two games that were rushed out and not up to scratch and we've had people then trying to frame this as totally not their fault and all the fault of Nintendo
LordRaptor
Member
the lack of detail in the OP makes speculation more guesswork than deduction, but it seems whatever the issue actually is, is not a 'policy' but rather a technical restraint of some kind that nobody else has encountered and Nintendo are trying to adjust to accomodate the needs of this developer.
Which would imply that this developer is doing something highly unusual, which could be because they are doing something ingenious, or could be doing something really dumb.
Well, there's no way back. Today, even small apps on smartphones have constant updates/patches.
It seems, the only solution to change that in the future is streaming service like PSNow
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Whay do you think is more likely, devs get tighter with patch sizes, or devs just abandon post launch support for Nintendo versions of multiplats?
Switch games have been receiving patches for months, and Zelda is 13.9GB. Nintendo shouldn't be catching heat because a dev wants to push out a broken game to try and fix later. If their patch was relatively simple, then it would have been within the guidelines.
10 years ago companies had to pay for patching on consoles, nor have we heard of any other Switch games being hamstrung by these policies besides these 2 broken ones. Even Bomberman was able to receive multiple patches to significantly improve the game.
10 years ago companies had to pay for patching on consoles, nor have we heard of any other Switch games being hamstrung by these policies besides these 2 broken ones. Even Bomberman was able to receive multiple patches to significantly improve the game.
Minsc
Gold Member
Well, that's the impression I'm getting, so I'm re-titling for now, because like every game on the Switch has been patched just about, so it's a very misleading title.
If only everybody would read this post, accurately describes why some of us feel scepticism over this and that it isn't over fanboyism.
Edit: also more accurate title now! Nice job.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Well, apparently you do, with all the nonsense coming out of you on the subject.
Team Filler
Member
Title change won't stop the endless shitposting, but it's appreciated all the same Minsc.
I must have misunderstood something, but doesn't Android do its best to NOT allow you to use SD for apps, and limit those to internal memory? I even remember makers using tricks to make Android believe SD memory is internal memory because of this...
I definitively can't use SD memory to expand app storage... Though it may be because of an older version...
forknknife
Banned
Good thread title change
Huge Succeeded
Banned
I've sidestepped using the word cringe on GAF for years now but this is genuinely the cringiest post I've seen in a long, long time. Go ahead and post that dumbass macro in other Switch threads; you'll only discredit yourself
LordRaptor
Member
Android has allowed this since... I want to say Jellybean?
How big were the Bomberman patches?
If the size is such a problem for an indie MP mode what is is it going to be for 10GB day one patches on AAA games?
Huge Succeeded
Banned
no self-respecting Switch owner wants to play those unfinished games
plus, what on earth will I do if I run out of space, thereby irreversibly bricking my Switch?
okay done being facetious
patch size apparently isn't the problem for these two games so we dunno what'll happen in the event of huge patches yet
I'd like to think that as a human being in 2017 I could be trusted with managing the space on my device
you think only witch owners complain about 10GB day on patches?
I would disagree with the Switch only having 32 GB (of which only about 26 GB is usable) is dependable. Your Galaxy S7 doesn't have apps that require more space then what's available to the user. The Switch had a game day 1 in Japan that couldn't fit in the built in memory.
Games for the Switch are going to take up way more storage space than apps for IOS and Android. Even the main Wii U model launched with 32 GB of flash memory back in 2012 and for some reason Nintendo though 32 GB was fine again for the Switch, even though it has 3 times more available RAM for developers and the assets used in games are going to be much larger than Wii U games because of that.
The only issue Nintendo has is the flash memory shortage, though I do find it somewhat hard to believe they couldn't find some company out there to supply more flash memory for the Switch given their buying power.
Team Filler
Member
Perhaps they could have asked Apple for some.
Minsc
Gold Member
People make this argument, but could you not simply buy this 32GB game on a tiny memory card, and have it not occupy any space at all practically, on the Switch? Pretty sure you can't purchase Android apps on memory cards in stores and play them directly without occupying space.
It's great you can purchase games digitally on the Switch, but it's not a requirement is it? If it were one, you'd have a real argument I suppose. As it stands now, you have an argument that is convenient to you. It's a fair stance to take, but it's painting a skewed picture.
Maintenance
Member
Patches are a requirement though.
That would be a fair point if retail games were not more expensive (Puyo Puyo Tetris, Rime, Axiom Verge, etc.) and if all games were actually available at retail. Right now, for the European market, even the Wii U had more retail games day 1 than the Switch after 3 months.
So what you're saying is AAA switch games will come on 50-60GB memory cards?
I'll tell you exactly what will happen with AAA games:
1) They won't be feature complete compared to other versions to save storage
2) They'll come on a 32GB card and you have to download the rest.
3) Even worse for us switch owners they won't bother with it.
4) They'll be expensive as fuck and come on huge cards.
They are a necessary evil, but in this gen they do give the impression of a system out of control and if Nintendo are intending to police that on their system then I'll welcome it.
Agreed, patches do bring fixes, but they also do things like bring a lot of bloat when things like DLC are bundled in. Devs need to start getting realistic and accept that not every user wants every single asset installed on their system in particular multiplayer assets for users that don't play multiplayer. At least we have seen some progress with games like DA:I splitting the two and making it a separate downloadable.
Whether we like it or not many ISPs impose data caps or high-speed net is not a given. When a single Doom patch can take half a months data allowance for some people, or that patch takes a day to download, then I'd say it is a reasonable response for someone to declare that they are tired of patches.
lwilliams3
Member
Thank you for stating your opinion on this, and for you guys changing the thread name. There was a number of posters that didn't bother to check out the OP.
This is assuming that 32GBs is the max card size. I have doubts that it is.
While the 32GB is indeed a bottleneck, they should have gone for 64. It is also true that some patches are getting ridiculous. GoW4 PC required 80GB of free space for applying the patch... AFTER downloading it. Is good to have some standards. We don't know what are Nintendo's, but hardware realities tell us that they must be more strict than Sony's, MS' and Steam's.
And about the games in question, Wouldn't it be better to just update the eShop binary?
And about the games in question, Wouldn't it be better to just update the eShop binary?
Team Filler
Member
Switch is barely 4 months old. Historically, physical game prices are almost always going to see deeper discounts than their digital counterpoints, so it'll just take some more distance from the system launch for that to set in, I presume.
TheExecutive
Member
Yep.
Why?
Because they can't have one games patch eating up GBs of storage.
Minsc
Gold Member
Are they more expensive, or just more expensive initially? Whether it be a later sale, or the money returned from selling back the game used after you complete it. I know for me it's more expensive to buy digitally (MK8D was $60+ vs $48 or something if I had gone with a retail copy), so using price as an argument would be a bit misleading too, since it goes both ways. Also, since the system is region free, as long as a retail copy exists anywhere, you could purchase it and play it, so it's not the strongest argument either.
I guess what I'm saying is, if you really really want the convenience of digitally owning your games or that you are aware ahead of time it will be a common way you'll purchase games, you are free to expand the memory at your own cost. Perhaps more could have been included in the system? 64GB? But then 2 30GB games wouldn't fit. 256GB? But then those 100GB AAA games with 10GB+ patches would fill the system in 2 games again. 2TBs? Are we still talking about portable system anymore?
Historically, these smaller indie games have always been more expensive at retail. On Switch, they are just even more expensive due to the cards.
TheExecutive
Member
You act like they are taking some moral stance here. They aren't. It centers around their design decision.
Allowed it, yes, but on a per-app basis... I use Lollipop, and not that long ago (maybe it was stil Kit-kat?), most of the time, the "move to SD" button was grayed out (and for several apps, you could, but the app would crash when launch from SD). I just checked, it has improved a lot, although I can't tell how many of them will really work.
If it was that easy, there wouldn't have been apps like move2sd and tutorials explaining how to do it once you've rooted your phone...
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
On older versions yes.
However, starting with Marshmallow, you can format your SD card as adaptable storage and your device reads both the internal and external storage as one (so 64GB internal and 64GB external would be 128GB all together).