bobawesome
Member
yeah bruh 🤣🤔🤔this is 2017 😪 get that weak 720p screen out of here 🤜👎💪give me 4k 😜or give me death 🖕💀
-
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
yeah bruh 🤣🤔🤔this is 2017 😪 get that weak 720p screen out of here 🤜👎💪give me 4k 😜or give me death 🖕💀
Nintendo's patch systems don't seem to allow devs to reduce a games size. There are many things wrong here.
Need that 4K resolution and a Forza7 like 100gb installation size if you wanna be modern...lol.
For now - yes, the plattform is still new so i guess thats something that will be optimized down the line.
BUT...thats something that every developer will have known after signing to be a Switch dev and getting devkits. Blaming Nintendo now because they didnt plan things out better from the start wont get this fixed any faster. Other devs manage their updates just fine.
I don't think that you can say that devs do these large updates to annoy people. There is something related to the systems, how they work, even the middleware devs use to build systems.
I mean, it's nice from Nintendo trying to make the world better with some things but in the end it's affecting customers already in a negative way.
Xbox one games def get patches after PS4 games a lot of the times, mostly smaller games, big AAA games prob update the same time
shadow2810
Member
So Sony/MS's patch systems allow devs to reduce game's size? Do you have example? I'm curious.
Honestly how this can work in a Switch physical copy. The devs were expecting Switch install the games like PS4 & XONE? lol
Theonik
Member
Too much but that's beyond the point. You don't pay for the specs and even then the expensive part is the screen there, and a much more premium build. Apple makes a killing on the things regardless. Anyway I don't see much value in this argument.
wonderful103
Member
Then why are you attempting it?
"Hurr I bet my phone can play botw durr" is not a new trolling attempt on this site in any respect.
Reducing file size of the main game isn't something the developer has to do, it's something they want to do for the user. If it's not possible due to Nintendo, then it's a bit strange to blame the developer in this case for trying to do something that benefits the user.
But of course, if you want to defend Nintendo, then developers may not try to reduce file size after launch and just say "oh, it's out, who cares now?". Just saying "they must have known beforehand" doesn't really change anything about this being an issue, if it's indeed not possible as the developers claim.
I'm pretty sure that's the same at least on PS4. Dunno about Xbox though.
Since its elease, Hearthstone has had three giant updates to do things such as:
1.) Remove all non-local localization files in an effort to reduce file size, causing the whole game to be redownloaded (1.5-2.5 GB patch).
2.) Switched engines from Unity 4 to Unity 5 about a year after release (1.5-2.5 GB patch) to improve performance, stability, compatibility, and ease development.
3.) Massively overhauled the Android version to halve file size and the size of future updates (1.5 GB patch).
Could Blizzard have done any of this on Switch? #2 not being doable would have caused the game to shut down on the platform.
Now, we could consider Blizzard a trashy or lazy developer, but if you want their games, they do things like this.
Similarly a lot of people have expressed a desire for games like Star Wars: Battlefront on the platform, but DICE updates their engine when they release DLC to enable new types of gameplay and better visuals/performance, and that also causes giant patches (sometimes 4-8 GB) plus a giant content patch to hold all the new art assets and related work (5-10+ GB). This type of policy would also kill that dead.
I'm sure lots of people consider DICE a bad developer, but EA has a decade long exclusive Star Wars license, so it's them or nothing on the core game front.
All issues can be resolved at the end - but the fact that they released a unfinished game and the patch isnt out yet is bad planning on their side. They knew the dev. environment on Switch when they decided to drop the unfinished game on the eShop.
Its always easy to blame other people if you mess up. That would be like SE announcing FFXIV to Switch/Xbox and then getting mad at MS/Sony because crossplattform with the PS/PC version isnt allowed.
Mat-triX
Member
Skittzo0413
Member
Apparently Mr. Shifty had it's game file size reduced, so this is false. Nintendo's systems do allow it, but some system the NBA Playgrounds developers are working with is preventing them from doing this. I'm curious if it's a problem with UE4 and the Switch, since Mr. Shifty was a Unity game.
Yes, that's what the last two quotes in the OP are talking about.
TheMule1983
Member
This. The developers admitted to rushing out the game for the NBA playoffs and to beat 2k18 on the market. This is all on them for releasing an unfinished, rushed game. I will not be surprised when they announce that Shaq Fu will not be releasing on the Switch due to "technical limitations" since they offered that free deal.
Honey Bunny
Member
Thank you for changing it.
Having large patches can be about a lot more than fixing rushed releases, not to mention some games have rushed releases for more complicated reasons than 'lazy developers.' Not to mention you're ultimately punishing the userbase for the mistakes of the developer even if they are simply being lazy.
Definitely not encouraging for big third party game support.
Don't forget "Hurr my phone has more storage than the Switch durr!"
Its funny how you "see" people "supermaning" for nintendo, and you dont "see" that the patch file size is no longer a problem.
nonono the greatest one in this thread, "my phone is more useful than a switch"
LOL
Skittzo0413
Member
Or maybe we have so little information from these developers that calling out Nintendo is simply jumping to conclusions.
Again, can anyone tell me whether or not Microsoft or Sony have similar restrictions/certifications for patches? Somehow I doubt anyone can.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Devs release a game with no online and promise it in a few days. Several weeks later there is no online an none of the patches other systems released either. Don't promise things before you know they are feasible is an unreasonable request?
Rellik
Member
You think a handheld gaming console is more useful than a phone?
Saber Interactive also works on Quake Champions, which is a game with frequent 10+ GB updates (like sometimes weekly) that Nintendo plausibly would want.
Doom on the same technology stack actually switches executables to go between singleplayer, multiplayer, and Snapmap, so you can imagine what patching in that game was like, especially when they did major overhauls to things like Snapmap. Going from 1.08 to 1.09 alone was 19 GB and picking up a physical version a year later required over 36 GB of updates.
Doom on the same technology stack actually switches executables to go between singleplayer, multiplayer, and Snapmap, so you can imagine what patching in that game was like, especially when they did major overhauls to things like Snapmap. Going from 1.08 to 1.09 alone was 19 GB and picking up a physical version a year later required over 36 GB of updates.
So you'd rather have no patch for Switch releases right? And you guys will later complain that 3rd party support is poor on Nintendo consoles.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Don't add features to your Switch games even when the other platforms get improvements.
I still don't understand how it is possible to have patches so huge AND frequent unless they are pumping lots of new content with tons of assets with little potential for compression.
I understand Fafalada is a developer and has already stated delta tools are not that good, but still... *shrugs*
It's a mix of content and the type of updates that happen when you (for example) make edits to a map and need to ship the whole map again because of how you handle things like lighting.
A lot of developers will ship notable updates on at least a monthly basis these days and need at least a few GB to do it, even if we consider Quake on the extreme end, and that can often just be on the content side plus the technology updates needed to support that content.
You were quoting a user who was talking about reducing the file size of the main game, not the patch. And again, they do not have to make the game smaller, the game's already out at a size this big. It's just in the interest of end users to reduce the file size.
And if they reduced the file size but the current system does not support such a reduction, then Nintendo is the only one to blame for that as they created said system. Even if they knew about it beforehand, the problem still remains.
His thread title got already changed again, so you might be replying to the wrong mod.
Diablohead
Member
What I don't get is why the game can't be updated to have a different major size, like, patches change files so why can't it change most if not all of the files like say a steam game update can.
The only thing I can think of is some weird license database that keeps track of files or locks them down to help stop hacking a d piracy.
The only thing I can think of is some weird license database that keeps track of files or locks them down to help stop hacking a d piracy.
Schnozberry
Member
Nobody is saying they don't want patches or content updates. They're saying they want developers to release feature complete games that aren't crippled by bugs at launch. It's really two separate problems.
Nintendo needs to fix their policy on patch size, if it's as restrictive as these two developers make them out to be. The problem is that the two games in question that are being used as examples released in a state that required large scale optimization revamps. The original patch size for Mr. Shifty, according to a dev post on Reddit, was nearly a replacement download for the entire game. They had to do some compression and eventually got it worked out. The NBA Playgrounds team mentioned that they got an exemption for patch size, which is good, but other certification hurdles were still keeping the patch from release. Perhaps the patch has other problems that aren't being disclosed? People have been posting on their forums that online games are pretty much broken on the PS4 and XB1 versions because of frequent disconnects, and that the gameplay revisions broke the game balance.
C.Olimar788
Member
I wonder if this policy was what caused the seemingly-last-minute change for Lego City Undercover to not necessitate a 10GB patch?
Policies like these are shitty when they are applied to every situation. Determining whether or not a large patch is a good idea or not should be why the vetting process exists in the first place, not a barrier keeping devs from updating their games.
Policies like these are shitty when they are applied to every situation. Determining whether or not a large patch is a good idea or not should be why the vetting process exists in the first place, not a barrier keeping devs from updating their games.
Fox Mulder
Member
Yeah, devs are really going to change the way they allegedly just don't care about patch size because of Nintendo.
This will only result in fewer games or less post release support.
You say this because I'm assuming you never stepped into any thread about ISP bandwitdths or the pure DEVS making huge install sizes threads. It actually is common opinion that gamers don't appreciate this. For whatever reason people who don't like Nintendo are dominating the conversation.
Don't let them make you believe most people are getting annoyed with the way devs have been patching games in the last decade.
If it's a Unreal issue, then I stand corrected.
I just thought it was kinda funny that people were getting at these devs for rushing something to market, when alot of the Switch's online capabilities weren't even there for launch, I thought this patch thing might have been one of them.
I don't think it is for the PS4 but the PS3 had a pretty awful patching system IIRC. I'm fairly certain the PS3 didn't download "patches" so much as replacements for any altered file, so some patches could be huge.
This I hadn't considered... it obviously adds some complexity to the patching system.
Is really doubtful that Lego City stopped recquiring a 10GB patch at the last minute. Typos happen all the time on covers and Lego City on Switch has actually been praised for how good it is.
midasmulligan
Member
Gotta say, appreciate Nintendo sticking to their guns here given the bullshit practice of "release beta product with grand promises, patch to infinity" that is far too prevalent these days. Your gonna have some collateral damage, but it should make a few devs think really hard before pushing out unfinished product (see NBA Playgrounds for reference of what not to do)
You're nothing but a shitposter. Even the Final Fantasy XIV devs are interested in porting the game. You even shitposted in the last thread where this was discussed.
The iPad Pro is $650.
People on neogaf were mad that Nintendo sold the switch for $300. You want the switch to be compared to a system specs that costs more than twice as much?
Maintenance
Member
Finally a new thread title that isn't biased.
Well, for online it is. Nintendo thinks so since you'll have to use one.
Well, for online it is. Nintendo thinks so since you'll have to use one.
The Maverick
Member
Is there no consequences to shit posting anymore?
D4rth Man7iz
Member
Never change Nintendo!
Fourth Storm
Member
Nintendo is not going to change the entire gaming landscape with their patch policy. They're just hurting their users by ensuring that third party ports end up worse on their platform, as in this case.
If Nintendo can't secure enough components to expand their internal storage, ship the Switch with a damn SD card! Yeah, I know that will drive up cost, but the bottom line is the console needs more storage.
If Nintendo can't secure enough components to expand their internal storage, ship the Switch with a damn SD card! Yeah, I know that will drive up cost, but the bottom line is the console needs more storage.
So go buy an SD card?
Fourth Storm
Member
I think you missed my point. If Nintendo's policy is based on the low amount of internal storage out of the box, they should either pack in more storage somehow or accept that people can do exactly what you recommend I do. Either way, this policy is nonsense in 2017.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Yeah. We saw this one go from fuck Nintendo to fuck developers. Looks like we finally landed at neutral.
I can see this policy really impacting third party developers though. This policy needs to be reviewed.
Jubenhimer
Member
Except for the fact that plenty of Switch games have received patches so far, and only two developers ran into this issue. At this point, I'm starting to question whether such a policy actually exists, and if it's as strict as some here are making it out to be. Saber was very vague with what exactly the issue was.
veloxStrix
Banned
Patch size limits are definitely... limiting. I don't really understand Nintendo's perspective here. Either they want to be a console with third-party support or they don't and it certainly looks like they don't if they can't allow 7gb updates. Of course, I would also like to hear Nintendo's side of the story.
Similarly, I don't like the trend of devs releasing unfinished games.I shouldn't have to wait for online functionality to be added to a sports game. It's something I just expect to be in the game.
And I think these two general ideas are shared by just about everyone. Except somehow it ended up being a "one or the other" situation. Both suck.
Similarly, I don't like the trend of devs releasing unfinished games.I shouldn't have to wait for online functionality to be added to a sports game. It's something I just expect to be in the game.
And I think these two general ideas are shared by just about everyone. Except somehow it ended up being a "one or the other" situation. Both suck.