Support NeoGAF

[Schnozberry]

Nintendo should let the consumer decide if they want to download the patch or not. It's not hard on Steam to stop automatic updates.

Figuring out the best method of compression and patching is a lot of work. I feel for the developers here. I agree in principle about getting it right the first time, but if you want your games well compressed to fit on flash memory, then large patch downloads it is (unless you support delta updates at the network download and OS level).

Technical realities suck. Making a hard line on the policy won't fix them, it'll just cut off support for your console.

I don't think the line is as hard as people are making it out to be. It took a few weeks to get an exception to the policy, which wouldn't have been an issue had they not shoved out a poorly optimized port with features missing. Then they went on to poorly manage fan expectations about a patch by making public statements about timelines they had no idea if they could meet.

 

[fernoca]

The weird thing is that the two games that had problems with this (NBA Playgrounds and Mr.Shifty) are also games that were rushed and released as is, then hoped they could fix it with patches.

The other issue is the back and forth from the team handling Playgrounds. They should've been clear from the beginning rather than say "few days"..."a few weeks".."next week"..."next Thursday"...and two months passed.

It is really weird that the patch that was supposed to allow online multiplayer is too big. But seeing how the game ended been 7GB and they admitted that they could get it down to 3GB, guess there's just bloat in there tbst tbey hoped to fix later.

Switch games has been getting patches since day one. Others had gotten DLC even. So is not just a matter of Nintendo been too strict, or "Nintendo fans been ok with not getting updates to their games" as some has been saying in this thread.

There are some cases were there's just too much bloat on games and patches. And that also applies to many Xbox One and PS4, that with patches are taking over 100GB.

Updates that fix stuff should be mandatory. Updates that add content should be optional (or mandatory in some cases like fighting games were you need to see the others when you go online...and if, because someone that has no interest in ever playing online shouldn't need to download every character or costume released).

But if an update that is supposed to "fix" something is as big as a game, maybe something is just wrong.

 

[pretty done]

You are in a thread about patching a game that shipped with literally a full on missing mode that was in other versions.

Bringing up a Zelda patch that had performance increases(of which you're being hyperbolic outside of some very specific scenarios in the game, which also weakens your point) is probably not a strong case to make your point in that context.

But they only shipped it at that time because of another Nintendo policy. No late ports or you need to add a Switch exclusive feature/mode. So you can't really blame the devs for that.

 

[Pokemaniac]

But they only shipped it at that time because of another Nintendo policy. No late ports or you need to add a Switch exclusive feature/mode. So you can't really blame the devs for that.

If this was actually a policy they had, then how did stuff like Shantae or the Tomorrow Corporation games get in? I'm pretty sure this is just an assumption people are making.

 

[HappyBivouac]

Maybe try finishing your game before you release it.

Not surprising that Nintendo is being overly restrictive and they should get heat for it, but consumers and the industry have become just way too lenient about shipping and selling unfinished products.

 

[SirNinja]

If it means more manageable patch sizes, then I'm all for it.

Bad news: it's not going to mean that. It's going to mean "devs not being able to fix issues easily (or at all) due to arbitrary regulations".

Don't release broken games.,

In a world without overbearing publisher deadlines, stressful hours, and an increasingly high level of difficulty in identifying/testing for/solving issues that arise, I suppose this would be a rational solution.

 

[KaKaRi]

No wonder why 3rd parties are hesitating to bring their major titles to Switch.

 

[jonno394]

But they only shipped it at that time because of another Nintendo policy. No late ports or you need to add a Switch exclusive feature/mode. So you can't really blame the devs for that.

Huh? You got a source on that? I thought the Devs decided they needed it day and date with other versions as they'd have lost out on too many sales with a delayed release.

 

[Calm waterfall]

are you an expert on game developing culture?

Very good job defending Nintendo. I hope they actually pay you for this.

 

[Tei]

Maybe developers can create a option in the menu where people can write hex codes, then publish a long string of hex numbers and have people write these numbers in this text box. instead of downloading them from the net.

In 1981, game magazines use to include entire games this way.

 

[Undead Fantasy]

Don't release broken games.,

Bingo.

Nintendo gets nothing but praise from me here.

 

[Ruud_Luiten]

I like the way this thread is going. Patches cannot be applied, solution of fans: 'don't release broken games'!

I love it <3 never change!

 

[haimon]

People saying "32 GB, in 2017!!" need to check the storage on their cellphones. The Switch is first and foremost, a portable.

That comes with all kind of development implications, and limits.

Every time Nintendo talk about switch they mention it's a home console.

Thus it's up to them to make sure it is up to snuff on other home consoles.

 

[Camper Van Beethoven]

Bingo.

Nintendo gets nothing but praise from me here.

Such a stupid fucking stance.


Patches aren’t just about fixing games. They’re about improving them and adding features. Anyone who celebrates things like this is beyond ridiculous.

 

[commish]

What a thread. Love it.

Nintendo still can't operate in 2017 but I love this playing disgaea on my couch.

 

[cuate]

Such a stupid fucking stance.


Patches aren't just about fixing games. They're about improving them and adding features. Anyone who celebrates things like this is beyond ridiculous.

patches have become too big and bloated in recent times. I think being stricter in terms of file size is a good thing since a lot of us don't have fast internet/ bandwidth caps.

 

[KingBroly]

Such a stupid fucking stance.


Patches aren’t just about fixing games. They’re about improving them and adding features. Anyone who celebrates things like this is beyond ridiculous.

This seems more like 're-releasing the entire game as the same thing' instead of a patch.

 

[KazenY2J]

Such a stupid fucking stance.


Patches aren't just about fixing games. They're about improving them and adding features. Anyone who celebrates things like this is beyond ridiculous.

"It's fine if Nintendo does it"
Most of this thread proves that.

 

[cuate]

"It's fine if Nintendo does it"
Most of this thread proves that.

or it's wrong if nintendo does it. goes both ways.

people have been complaining about patch file sizes getting too big. I don't see how being stricter about it is a bad thing.

 

[commish]

or it's wrong if nintendo does it. goes both ways.

people have been complaining about patch file sizes getting too big. I don't see how being stricter about it is a bad thing.

Well, this developer is showing you why it's a bad thing. If you think N has enough sway to get devs to change their practices, I think you'll find devs who just focus on other platforms.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

This sounds fucking stupid on Nintendo's part. Gonna discourage these devs from bringing their next game to the system.

This teams next game is Shaq Fu, so they doing gamers a solid then. The devs lies and lack of responsibility are what will keep me from their next few games.

 

[Camper Van Beethoven]

or it's wrong if nintendo does it. goes both ways.

people have been complaining about patch file sizes getting too big. I don't see how being stricter about it is a bad thing.

Because it results in worse products for customers compared to other platforms.

 

[notaskwid]

Nintendo protecting the average Citizen from the dangers of lazy devs™

 

[Ruud_Luiten]

Because it results in worse products for customers compared to other platforms.

It's what Nintendo want and fans love that.

Don't release broken games!!!1
Lols

 

[Shadowhelper]

They're not always broken games. Sometimes you just miss bugs. If its a huge game, it will happen. If its an online multiplayer game, this is especially true about balancing issues, changes to environments and weapons. This is almost surely going to result in more buggy third party games, not less.

I really really doubt this is about protecting the consumer. Come on, that sounds crazy. This is Nintendo after all. Pretty sure its simply server costs. Costs a lot of money and bandwidth to pump all those updates out to everyone and Nintendo will probably never have PSN like subscription numbers to more easily justify paying for that.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

This teams next game is Shaq Fu, so they doing gamers a solid then.

You have no idea if it will be any good or not.

 

[fernoca]

The other elephant in the room is that the Playground team has also been releasing patches late on Xbox One. The only platforms getting the patches on time are PC followed by PS4.

The only reason they have been talking about the Switch version is because they have been bombarded with questions over the past weeks, because two months has passed of them just saying "next week". So of course people are pissed off. To the point that they are offering a free game (Shaq Fu) to every Switch owner that buys Playground before the patch hits "next week"....two weeks ago.

So while I do understand the pressure and everything related around development, the fact that there are issues with Nintendo now, not two months ago when it was "in a few days", and Xbox has also been getting patches late, you have to wonder what else has been going on. Maybe the team is too small to handle 4 separate SKUs and they've been spreading thin not only to patch 4 versions, but continue making content for the 4 of them. So 2 versions were affected in the process.

 

[Undead Fantasy]

Such a stupid fucking stance.


Patches aren't just about fixing games. They're about improving them and adding features. Anyone who celebrates things like this is beyond ridiculous.

*Sees massive +10Gb day one patches*

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Updating games post release to add content is fine. Releasing a broken game and fixing it with patches is not and never will be.

 

[cuate]

It's what Nintendo want and fans love that.

Don't release broken games!!!1
Lols

sorry that not everyone enjoys downloading multi gb patches?

 

[Coreda]

Nintendo protecting the average Citizen from the dangers of lazy devs™

 

[Nirolak]

...I'm not sure how the Switch intends to have service games if they don't allow large patches. Making huge changes over time that require giant patches is a normal part of those.

I'm guessing they just gave Rocket League carte blanche exceptions? Or is that losing cross-play when the next major content update comes out?

 

[Nerazar]

It's not "harshly limiting" if they don't allow gigazillion bytes (first day) patches. I wouldn't want to download one game (let's say NBA Playground which is not finished at launch at 7GB (why is that thing so big? ARMS is just like 2 GB) and then again download a 10GB patch in order to get all the normal features back.

That's on the devs of game. It sucks for the customer, but this example should show everyone that a certain level of quality should be applied here. You just cannot copy the XBO/PS4 "strategy" with file sizes there - 100GB games should not and will not work on Switch for good reasons. If they allow one dev to go that way, everyone will do it.

 

[Camper Van Beethoven]

*Sees massive +10Gb day one patches*

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Updating games post release to add content is fine. Releasing a broken game and fixing it with patches is not and never will be.

Except it’s not broken at any point if it’s a day one patch.

If a game I’m looking forward to has the option of being delayed a month, or me having to download a patch for 20 minutes on release day, guess which I pick? Hint; I’m not a Nintendo apologist trying to turn their flaws into a strength.

 

[fernoca]

...I'm not sure how the Switch intends to have service games if they don't allow large patches. Making huge changes over time that require giant patches is a normal part of those.

I'm guessing they just gave Rocket League carte blanche exceptions? Or is that losing cross-play when the next major content update comes out?

I guess one has to wonder also, how big is too big, at least for Nintendo to saw "lol no"

In this case, a patch that was "too big" just to add online multiplayer, recquired waiver and caused delays for every other patch and even to out in hold some of their plans. Then they had other updates and fixes and even one to reduce the size of the game by half (currently on hold).

But considering Nintendo will be releasing two relative big pieces of DLC for Zelda, plus constant updates for ARMS and Splatoon 2. So the intention is there. Just have to wonder the extent.

Would be good if the developers said how big was said update. Because if it was 7GB, which was the full game, it would make sense and cause concern.

EDIT:
Rockey League updates similarly to Splatoon and the sizes are not that big. So maybe the have no problems with constant and small updates.

 

[cuate]

Except it's not broken at any point if it's a day one patch.

If a game I'm looking forward to has the option of being delayed a month, or me having to download a patch for 20 minutes on release day, guess which I pick? Hint; I'm not a Nintendo apologist trying to turn their flaws into a strength.

anyone arguing for lower file sizes is a nintendo apologist? way to shitpost.

 

[haimon]

Hopefully it leads to developers releasing finished games, which would be better for the consumer than buying a game and having to download a 50 gig patch.

Does this also apply to console makers?

I seem to recall all consoles needed a big day one patch.

Too bad they couldn't just release that when it's ready.

 

[Niceguydan8]

But they only shipped it at that time because of another Nintendo policy. No late ports or you need to add a Switch exclusive feature/mode. So you can't really blame the devs for that.

The point of my post was to suggest that your Zelda point was a pretty bad comparison.

Also, sure I can blame the dev. Was it the profit maximizing decision? Almost certainly. Part of the problem is Nintendo, yeah. Another (and i'd argue even bigger) problem is the state that they released the game in. That sort of release is not acceptable either.

 

[Koren]

They're not always broken games. Sometimes you just miss bugs. If its a huge game, it will happen. If its an online multiplayer game, this is especially true about balancing issues, changes to environments and weapons.

The question is: do developpers that release such games really have issues with the patch policy? It's not a "no patch" policy, but restrictions on it that could allow a lot of bugs corrections.

Load balancing is nowhere near an issue, tuning the damages, correcting weapons and the like is tiny changes in the code, they'll never be hundred of megabytes big, and thus will never trigger any size limits in code.

I really really doubt this is about protecting the consumer. Come on, that sounds crazy. This is Nintendo after all. Pretty sure its simply server costs. Costs a lot of money and bandwidth to pump all those updates out to everyone and Nintendo will probably never have PSN like subscription numbers to more easily justify paying for that.

Well, that's probably true, but if that was the only reason, they could simply make developper pay for large patches...

I think there's another reason: the space in Switch is really limited, if we get patches that reach GB, you'll limit the number of games you can use in your Switch... I'm sure they want it to be as painless to use as a 3DS, not deleting/redownloading patches on a regular basis to free space.

Because it results in worse products for customers compared to other platforms.

Or in some cases we could get better ones... I remember loading times being better on GC because Nintendo released dev kits that were simulating discs access (even if like other dev kits they were using HDDs as storage), which made developpers optimizing the loadings.

 

[Starbuck2907]

They try to release with the other versions so the Seitch version doesn't seem like an afterthought port. Then, they want to patch the game. Here is how I always envision Nintendo's decision making process...

Nintendo: Are they third party? Fuck'em.

Then 3rd part support dries up.

 

[cuate]

They try to release with the other versions so the Seitch version doesn't seem like an afterthought port. Then, they want to patch the game. Here is how I always envision Nintendo's decision making process...

Nintendo: Are they third party? Fuck'em.

Then 3rd part support dries up.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Ruud_Luiten]

sorry that not everyone enjoys downloading multi gb patches?

Everybody should have the option in doing so if they want a better experience.

 

[Koren]

Except it’s not broken at any point if it’s a day one patch.

I think it is. First, if you use carts, that's a LOT of space wasted in the console. Second, when the servers are closed, you're stuck with a broken game.

If a game I’m looking forward to has the option of being delayed a month, or me having to download a patch for 20 minutes on release day, guess which I pick?

I'd definitively pick a delayed game, and trying to turn me a Nintendo apologist because of that seems stupid to me.

I won't even always be in a situation where I *can* download the day-one patch after I buy the game...

 

[PantsuJo]

"It's fine if Nintendo does it"
Most of this thread proves that.

Yes.

Not only most of this thread, but most of NeoGaf proves it, in fact.

 

[Undead Fantasy]

Except it’s not broken at any point if it’s a day one patch.

If a game I’m looking forward to has the option of being delayed a month, or me having to download a patch for 20 minutes on release day, guess which I pick? Hint; I’m not a Nintendo apologist trying to turn their flaws into a strength.

LOL.

Good luck playing the game when the servers are shut down.

 

[fernoca]

They try to release with the other versions so the Seitch version doesn't seem like an afterthought port. Then, they want to patch the game. Here is how I always envision Nintendo's decision making process...

Nintendo: Are they third party? Fuck'em.

Then 3rd part support dries up.

Except the third parties that has been releasing constant updates and free DLC on Switch games.

The only other team that had similar problems with their game (Mr. Shifty), was basically telling people to buy the game on PC while making up excuses to not fix the game. So sometimes, there's just a bit more.

The Playground team while a bit more positive, took two months to actually address this issues.

 

[ramparter]

I don't think the line is as hard as people are making it out to be. It took a few weeks to get an exception to the policy, which wouldn't have been an issue had they not shoved out a poorly optimized port with features missing. Then they went on to poorly manage fan expectations about a patch by making public statements about timelines they had no idea if they could meet.

Lol tell me this is sarcasm.

 

[fabricated backlash]

But they only shipped it at that time because of another Nintendo policy. No late ports or you need to add a Switch exclusive feature/mode. So you can't really blame the devs for that.

Are you thinking of MS with this?

 

[cuate]

Everybody should have the option in doing so if they want a better experience.

I guess people with slow internet or bandwidth caps can get fucked. this isn't about not allowing patches, but about having reasonable file sizes. multiple gb day 1 patches are absurd and should be discouraged.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

...I'm not sure how the Switch intends to have service games if they don't allow large patches. Making huge changes over time that require giant patches is a normal part of those.

I'm guessing they just gave Rocket League carte blanche exceptions? Or is that losing cross-play when the next major content update comes out?

Are you joking? There already has been very big content updates for several games. But these had a reason for being so big. It obviously depends on the game and the update. The game this thread is about has just lazy developers.

It's good that Nintendo does not encourage bad development practices like these. Looking at the statements of the developers and the patch size of this game its very clear that they are just unprofessional.

 

[Lutherian]

Oh, maybe the devs of NBA Playgrounds should have bring the online mode right in the first version, don't cha think ?