File size inflation is a natural process. We can't have 10GB games forever.
And devs have been supporting games for upwards of 3 years post launch, so 50GB in patches is hardly unreasonable.
-
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
File size inflation is a natural process. We can't have 10GB games forever.
And devs have been supporting games for upwards of 3 years post launch, so 50GB in patches is hardly unreasonable.
DeuceGamer
Member
My question is, where they aware of these limitations when they initially released the title without a major feature of the game? If so, and I assume they should have known, then it's as much their fault as it is Nintendo's. With that said, Nintendo needs to allow this through since it is a major feature and they are only hurting the consumers.
Skittzo0413
Member
I think people are not reading these comments correctly. I saw the post on reddit several hours ago and it had a lot more context (the link is in the OP).
Basically there are certification issues with the patch, one of which apparently is patch size. They've already gotten an exception so that Nintendo will allow a patch of this size.
This is completely different from them wanting to reduce the file size of the game by half- that's something they said weeks ago would come in this patch, and they now say the system can't handle it at this point. Someone in this thread already mentioned that Mr. Shifty's file size was reduced via patch so it's not the Switch system that's causing this issue. Maybe it's UE4?
Basically there are certification issues with the patch, one of which apparently is patch size. They've already gotten an exception so that Nintendo will allow a patch of this size.
This is completely different from them wanting to reduce the file size of the game by half- that's something they said weeks ago would come in this patch, and they now say the system can't handle it at this point. Someone in this thread already mentioned that Mr. Shifty's file size was reduced via patch so it's not the Switch system that's causing this issue. Maybe it's UE4?
Visualante2
Member
Yet they allow a 32gb+ download game on launch.
I don't think most people seem to care about that given this thread. I can't wait for the inevitable threads of "Why did they patch the PS4/XO/PC version of the game but not SWITCCCHHHHHH?!?!?!?!!" or "This issue has been fixed for months on PS4/XO/PC, when are we gonna get it?!?!@ :'((((("
going by differences in phone models based on internal storage it'd probably increase the cost to us by $50
Considering the last quote in the OP it seem to be technical issues. I wonder how long until Nintendo get's their online infrastructure where it needs to be to support larger file sizes.
The cheapest Switch on ebay last time I checked was $60 over MSRP and on average they sell for $100 over MSRP. The Switch could afford being $30-$50 more expensive and it still would sell.
The cheapest Switch on ebay last time I checked was $60 over MSRP and on average they sell for $100 over MSRP. The Switch could afford being $30-$50 more expensive and it still would sell.
DeuceGamer
Member
Interesting. If this is true then I guess there are other issues with the way they are trying to go about it, or something in the patch is an issue?
My understanding of this is that the initial download can be any size. It's the patching process that has limits. Even so, the limit can be waived...which it was in this case. There's more going on here that we don't know.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
The NBA Playgrounds dev is still in the wrong. How about not putting an unfinished game out for sale, then trying to throw others under the bus, all because you wanted a quick cash grab from Switch owners.
Next time, delay a version until it's ready.
Next time, delay a version until it's ready.
Is it? I keep seeing posts stating this but I had to almost immediately upgrade my 500GB hard drive in my PS4 because of ridiculous install and patch size. Witcher 3 had a 17GB patch once. DOOM was even worse with a 29GB patch from a new install. On a console. They are bringing this same wasteful mindset to Nintedo platforms and they are being checked. Devs, please start actually finishing your games before releasing them missing whole modes or wait until they're done. Oh, and compression exist. Use it.
Apple charges a premium for storage because they don't allow Micro SD. Sony did the same with Vita memory cards.
Nintendo has Micro SD so they can't charge a premium. I think their intention was to ship a barebones console and get fans to buy all of the accessories and peripherals separately, including internal storage. The problem is that they need to accommodate the barebones 32GB, which was horrible even in 2012.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
That's Nintendo's fault too with the release timing clause.
Dead Man Typing
Member
If the current version on people's consoles is 7GB and the patched version with the extra features is 3.5GB - Nintendo needs to find a way to let the devs replace the old version.
You wouldn't have a situation of base game + patch. Just new version replaces old version completely.
That's fine for digital games if Nintendo can solve that problem.
Physical media is going to be a problem as you can't just replace the data on the cart so it's going to take up more of that 32GB to make bigger changes.
There's not really a good solution here. Let devs go crazy and you end up with a situation like Doom where I wish I could uninstall the bits of the game I don't need to keep the file size down. Maybe that's something that Nintendo and other first parties can look at. Small mandatory patch + optional free DLC to patch the rest of the game.
Do we know how limited the patch file size is?
You wouldn't have a situation of base game + patch. Just new version replaces old version completely.
That's fine for digital games if Nintendo can solve that problem.
Physical media is going to be a problem as you can't just replace the data on the cart so it's going to take up more of that 32GB to make bigger changes.
There's not really a good solution here. Let devs go crazy and you end up with a situation like Doom where I wish I could uninstall the bits of the game I don't need to keep the file size down. Maybe that's something that Nintendo and other first parties can look at. Small mandatory patch + optional free DLC to patch the rest of the game.
Do we know how limited the patch file size is?
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
That's the stance I'm taking. If your game isn't ready to go, delay the damn thing and get it right. Patches should be for fixing issues, not adding features you weren't able to implement in time.
I'm pretty sure the point is that it would have made the switch more expensive PERIOD. It won't be 600 dollars expensive, but it would lose it's 299 usd price point, which is fantastic for a brand new console that isn't a rereleased or slim version of an already existing console. As it stands now I think that trade off is a pretty good idea considering the demand for the system itself AND the demand for the memory used to make the system too.
DarkLordMalik
Member
I am absolutely shocked at some of the people who are defending this practice? What is this? 2006?
While long patch sizes are not needed and they shouldn't become a norm, it is not always up to the devs. The games who do get strong post-launch support e.g MMOs and GaaS type games will get HUGE updates no matter what and with this policy, Nintendo is not going to get any of them.
While long patch sizes are not needed and they shouldn't become a norm, it is not always up to the devs. The games who do get strong post-launch support e.g MMOs and GaaS type games will get HUGE updates no matter what and with this policy, Nintendo is not going to get any of them.
whyreggielie
Member
Well it's built for portability, would suck to be lugging around a 2tb external with you everywhere you go. I can understand why sd cards are used here. Not to mention constantly plugging in and unplugging the hardrive, especially for those who have kids, would lead to corrupted hardware disasters of epic proportions with a console that you're meant to just pick up and play.
Also the hardware is fairly new and nintendo have been trying out many different policy changes in regards to the Switch. I'm sure things will get ironed out with time, but that doesn't excuse 3gb patches now to 7gb games.
What release timing clause? There are plenty of games that have been delayed for the NS compared to other versions. We're still waiting for RiME and Yooka Laylee.
Skittzo0413
Member
Guys... please read the damn OP. They already got an exception for their patch.
Patch size isn't a problem if you can get exceptions.
Patch size isn't a problem if you can get exceptions.
they were given a exception for a bigger than normal patch size.
there is something we dont know here
I've seen $50 price differences between phone models that allow for expandable storage
Yep, that's baffling to say the least.
But to be completely fair, I still don't understand how can developers release patches that big in the first place. It's basically a full game!
Wait, really? That's pretty strange.
I wonder if that's the case for Switch games, because Tinybuild (Mr. Shifty publisher) was saying the patch was too large because of the Unity plugin they were using to export.
Tinybuild on Reddit said:
Weird.
Hey, I don't want to rag on Tinybuild for being a crappy company in EVERY post I make.
Both games have a traditional publisher and a retail version though. We've heard from several other indies that Nintendo wasn't very interested in late ports just yet, and the eShop release up to now pretty much show that.
Fox Mulder
Member
The switch has tiny storage and makes sense that Nintendo doesnt want it filled with patches. It sucks, but Nintendo always makes compromises in hardware somewhere.
RavageDark
Member
Thank you!
you know what is fine also? reading the goddamn OP
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Snake Pass was just patched yesterday.
Maybe some devs should put out finished games that do t require so many back and forth discussions.
I can't speak about everyone else, but from my discussions with them, this was not true. They didn't have a problem with ports. Not sure how much I can get into, but I'll simply leave it at that.
And then we'll have other users say "I'm not buying a late port".
It was certainly a reason brought up to some indies, even though they were rather inconsistent with this policy. Looks more like "you're not meaningful enough, you never made a big game for us, so we don't want your late port now".
But this is 2017. People don't read OPs.
Inspectah_Deck
Member
Yes, you are right, there is Xdelta.
This is code for "I won't buy a Switch until Nintendo lets developers release incomplete games on my platform, and patch them in weeks to months later for their own financial gain." All platforms need strict guidelines on these ridiculous patch sizes and frequency. Bandwidth is not a free resource.
I can't speak for them, but I know my own experience in trying to get my own game approved for release on the NS. That's not what I was told.
chrisPjelly
Member
That fucking sucks. Not using it as an excuse, but this probably has everything to do with the system not having an HDD since it has to be portable. If the Switch is as capable of having "modern" games as the other systems then even storing them on SD cards will be an issue.
Living the Dream
Member
Nintendo released ARMS and Splatoon in an unfinished state. Where's your backlash?
I don't know your game, nor do I know what you have been told, nor do I know whether your game is being put on Switch. Care to elaborate?
As there was no such limit (or at least not a very small one) on Wii U as far as I know (there were some big patches and content packs on that system, for sure) there's likely a bunch of technical reasoning or concerns behind all of this stuff. Hard to say much about it, honestly, but I feel for the dev and it's a bad situation all-around that they shouldn't have to be put in.
Bad form by OP to say that Nintendo is "harshly limiting" developers without knowing the actual limit, though.
Bad form by OP to say that Nintendo is "harshly limiting" developers without knowing the actual limit, though.
Cynn
Member
It means glitchy and broken games plus worse ports. Post launch support being limited cannot be twisted into a positive.
eyeball_kid
Member
Data usage is directly proportional to available storage space. Some of this comes down to additional functionality that increased storage provides, but a significant chunk usually comes from a lack of concern for efficiency. For instance, there was a recent analysis of popular iOS apps (such as Facebook) that have hugely increased their sizes over time, and the vast majority of the size is due to duplicated assets and unnecessary files.
I would say with the rise of 4K textures, game devs need to implement some form of the app slicing that Apple does, which intelligently only has users download the assets that are necessary for their system. i.e. if I have a base PS4, I shouldn't have to download GBs of 4K assets.
There are also new compression techniques appearing that can massively compress model textures with very little perceptual artifacts, but those haven't made it yet to game dev workflows.
To say that we should just accept 50GB patches as part of progress is wrong. Unless devs are pushed to prioritize data efficiency, their games will continue to bloat in parallel with storage sizes and bandwidth capabilities.
I dunno, the reaction to Shantae (twice), Rocket League, Minecraft, and this entire thread kind of prove this assertion wrong.
Maintenance
Member
32GB is holding the system back.
I'm shocked.
Truly, I am.
No one could've seen that coming.
I'm shocked.
Truly, I am.
No one could've seen that coming.