Support NeoGAF

[surly]

More is better? Not to mention XBLA is completely toxic to indie developers. Several Indie developers have spoken out against it including Phil Fish and Johnathan Blow (some of the more successful indie games mind you).

"More" implies that developers find the platform attractive though, does it not? If it was so "toxic" you would think it would die a death as developers went elsewhere, but nope - there's 2,798 indie games on Xbox Live at the moment and plenty of gamers on GAF who think XBLA is one of the best things to happen this gen.

Jonathan Blow said this: -

XBLA does have a big audience, and it's still probably bigger than Steam for certain kinds of games.

He does have gripes about the certification process and I can understand those, but then I recently bought Hotline Miami on Steam and can't even get past the title screen as it's so buggy, so it's a double-edged sword as ultimately I spent money on a game that I can't currently play - that's never happened with a console game.

Phil Fish seemed very positive about his experience with MS at first. He said: -

I'm sure you've heard many horror stories of people working with XBLA; they've been nothing but understanding and supporting of us this whole entire time.

Then came the issue with the patch and his opinion totally changed, but are you telling me that he didn't know about the MS patching process before going into this? Nah.

 

[SolarPowered]

I have stopped buying games on XBLA and moved to Steam and eShop over a year ago.

I hate the fact that MS treats indie developers like crap. I don't know why so many indie developers flocked to MS, do they not know the history?

This is going to cost MS a lot of support if they continue these practices next gen.

It already has. Don't let Minecraft's numbers fool you(not that they are representative of XBLA as a whole, it is still a healthy enough platform). Notice that Deadlight and MotN immediately found their way onto Steam after the games released despite good sales numbers. Smaller developers and publishers know where are other options and they aren't dawdling when it comes to making money this time around. They are aware of Steam, PSN, PSN+, iOS and Nintendo's improved store(still held back by some terrible account policies, though).

 

[Clay Davis]

Then came the issue with the patch and his opinion totally changed, but are you telling me that he didn't know about the MS patching process before going into this? Nah.

wasn't phil fish angry or bitter about the minecraft developer getting free patches and updates? I remember someone talking about it but can't find it now.

 

[RoyalFool]

wasn't phil fish angry or bitter about the minecraft developer getting free patches and updates? I remember someone talking about it but can't find it now.

I remember that, he moaned it wasn't fair they got a free-pass. when in reality they told Microsoft they wouldn't (allow a) port because the constant updates are an essential part of the game and MS correctly decided to make an exception. You can't expect to do that retrospectively.

 

[Ravidrath]

At least your honest about it, it sounds like your between a rock and a hard place really - shame the performance stuff wasn't picked up before going gold. By the sound of it, it may be easier just to re-publish the title and then have some kind of message in the old version (do you have a news ticker you can update remotely?) to tell people to re-download it, else people are going to be stuck with the original 1.9gb + massive patch.

Yeah, this project has seen more than its fair share of difficulties, and unfortunately they've impacted our customers. Believe it or not, we do try to shield them from this stuff.

And between the game itself and its multiple publishers, this game also has the uncanny ability to fall into just about every 1st party policy crack. You have no idea, man.

I think we looked into the "remaster" scenario, and it's just not something they allow.

 

[El Sloth]

tony hawk hd was a live arcade release if I am not mistaken.

Allow me to rephrase then; Is he sure that the patch limit still isn't true for most smaller XBLA games? I ask because all the games he's posted are published by big AAA publishers.

Right now, I'm more inclined to believe Ravidrath:

I know things have changed under the hood somewhat, but officially the 4 MB Title Update policy still stands.

Also, there are politics involved in this: all but one or two of those games you mentioned are multi-millions sellers. Smaller independent games don't have nearly the clout, and aren't treated the same way. Millions of people buy those games and their DLC, so of course they're going to get preferential treatment. And I'm not being cynical - this was stated pretty directly to us.

Konami put out an update for Leedmees that I think was ~300 megs? And that took nearly 6 months to get approved.

 

[GotchaForce]

From the moment I played it I could tell Skullgirls is an amazing labor of love. You guys have all my monies for any extra content you can get out there. Great to hear the patch is still being worked on.

 

[Ravidrath]

From the moment I played it I could tell Skullgirls is an amazing labor of love. You guys have all my monies for any extra content you can get out there. Great to hear the patch is still being worked on.

Thanks, man.

MS's parity policy extends to DLC as well, so once the 360 patch is out we should be able to get the color packs out on both systems.

 

[HoodWinked]

http://www.xbuc.net/?asc=0&sort=size

590MB patch (game size is 1.09GB) is way larger than the largest patch on the 360 currently. There are obvious reasons why ms would limit patch sizes because steam and ps3 the constant patching can get pretty damn aggravating.

 

[Ravidrath]

http://www.xbuc.net/?asc=0&sort=size

590MB patch (game size is 1.09GB) is way larger than the largest patch on the 360 currently. There are obvious reasons why ms would limit patch sizes because steam and ps3 the constant patching can get pretty damn aggravating.

Serious question: is the constant patching more annoying that not having free game improvements?

I agree there's a point at which it becomes ridiculous, but we've made the game significantly better in pretty much every respect.

And if patches were free, what do you think a reasonable timeframe for patches would be before they become annoying? i.e. Once a month, once a quarter, etc.?

 

[Tomat]

Not really sure why anyone pays for XBL outside of it being the system all their friends play on.

Could just be a case of "the grass is always greener" but the patch process seems a hell of a lot less painful over on PSN.

 

[Risk Breaker]

Serious question: is the constant patching more annoying that not having free game improvements?

I agree there's a point at which it becomes ridiculous, but we've made the game significantly better in pretty much every respect.

Not for me, not at all. Free game improvements through patches are AWESOME. They can be as big as they need to me.

 

[jaxpunk]

http://www.xbuc.net/?asc=0&sort=size

590MB patch (game size is 1.09GB) is way larger than the largest patch on the 360 currently. There are obvious reasons why ms would limit patch sizes because steam and ps3 the constant patching can get pretty damn aggravating.

Ya I mean I hate coming home and having steam tell me it updated games for me. I mean I'm sure GabeN is sitting there counting the money steam charges developers for patches. oh wait.

Also on the ps3 and vita with PSN+ it auto updated everything at like 3 am for me. It's such a shame that things are so easy.

 

[darkblade77]

http://www.xbuc.net/?asc=0&sort=size

590MB patch (game size is 1.09GB) is way larger than the largest patch on the 360 currently. There are obvious reasons why ms would limit patch sizes because steam and ps3 the constant patching can get pretty damn aggravating.

Blazblue CS has some patches listed here under a meg that presumably that support the DLC characters it added, but if you decide to play online you will need to download patches containing all those DLC character assets so you can play against people who bought them, even if you didn't. The smallest patch among them is at least twice as large than anything on that list.

tldr; the list is misleading. It refers to "mandatory 360 patches", but there are plenty of ways a game can have a patch not on that list that would still be "mandatory" to your average gamer and yet still be several times larger than anything on the list.

 

[Ravidrath]

Could just be a case of "the grass is always greener" but the patch process seems a hell of a lot less painful over on PSN.

This is not meant to complain, but, for example...

Sony has guidelines for patching and development, but will bend them and work with you to make what you want to do happen. Somewhat different cases, but they wrote all new rules for Dust 514 and Journey, since both games went well outside their previous policy regimes.

But Sony was really supportive and helpful (especially Mangod) during Skullgirls' development, too. I basically owe Shane dinner for life, but haven't had a chance to treat him yet.

Also, Sony waives patch submission fees if your patch has more than just bug-fixes and adds new, free content. For indies, this is HUGE, and also good for consumers.

 

[Nabs]

That's cool of Sony.

 

[HoodWinked]

Serious question: is the constant patching more annoying that not having free game improvements?

I agree there's a point at which it becomes ridiculous, but we've made the game significantly better in pretty much every respect.

And if patches were free, what do you think a reasonable timeframe for patches would be before they become annoying? i.e. Once a month, once a quarter, etc.?

this is the difficult thing to gauge because the point at which sometimes becomes annoying is depndant on your tolerance at that moment. say you just want to play and you have people over ya at that moment fuck patches.

having the patches relatively small allows you to be more tolerant of patches.

definetly sorta at a fucked up place you guys are at since no other 360 patches are quite that large 590mb would be ~11 times larger than the largest patch on 360 so an exception may be difficult, and wasnt this initially planned as a dlc which fell through? and even if it were released as free dlc it would split the userbase and cause other kinds of problems (MK9 for example)

 

[Ravidrath]

this is the difficult thing to gauge because the point at which sometimes becomes annoying is depndant on your tolerance at that moment. say you just want to play and you have people over ya at that moment fuck patches.

having the patches relatively small allows you to be more tolerant of patches.

definetly sorta at a fucked up place you guys are at since no other 360 patches are quite that large 590mb would be ~11 times larger than the largest patch on 360 so an exception may be difficult, and wasnt this initially planned as a dlc which fell through? and even if it were released as free dlc it would split the userbase and cause other kinds of problems (MK9 for example)

Yeah, I hear you.

But which is preferable to you? More infrequent, larger patches, or lots of smaller ones?

I mean, unfortunately the patch process and submission fees incentivized larger, infrequent patches.


Well, we've been working with MS, so the final patch will be significantly smaller than 590 megs now, but it will still be bigger than any on that list.

And, as I explained in another post, making this DLC was impossible because the loading time fixes required massive file system changes, and that meant updating both the executable and the data.

This isn't really something that's possible with a disc game, not to mention that our load time problems are unique to certain hardware configurations, which wouldn't happen with disc-based games.

 

[GotchaForce]

Thanks, man.

MS's parity policy extends to DLC as well, so once the 360 patch is out we should be able to get the color packs out on both systems.

I'd love some new characters!

 

[Ravidrath]

I'd love some new characters!

ME TOO

Spoiler

Mysterious Character

is going to be so awesome if we ever get to finish her. :\

 

[sp3000]

1080p upscaling

I love how you brag like this is a feature. Bahahaha.

Gotta love people parading outdated console features

 

[El Sloth]

This is not meant to complain, but, for example...

Sony has guidelines for patching and development, but will bend them and work with you to make what you want to do happen. Somewhat different cases, but they wrote all new rules for Dust 514 and Journey, since both games went well outside their previous policy regimes.

But Sony was really supportive and helpful (especially Mangod) during Skullgirls' development, too. I basically owe Shane dinner for life, but haven't had a chance to treat him yet.

Also, Sony waives patch submission fees if your patch has more than just bug-fixes and adds new, free content. For indies, this is HUGE, and also good for consumers.

Praise be to the Bettenhausen.

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

Ya I mean I hate coming home and having steam tell me it updated games for me. I mean I'm sure GabeN is sitting there counting the money steam charges developers for patches. oh wait.

Also on the ps3 and vita with PSN+ it auto updated everything at like 3 am for me. It's such a shame that things are so easy.

PS3 auto patch is PSN+ only.

Anyways, patch downloading seems like something that could be solved with a positive use of certification policy. Require games to be playable out of the box without Day 1 patches. Allow players to skip the patch download process unless they want to do something online.

ME TOO

Spoiler

Mysterious Character

is going to be so awesome if we ever get to finish her. :

First DLC character isn't Big Band or Panzerfaust confirmed hfjsjdbgbahs

 

[beje]

PS3 auto patch is PSN+ only.

Anyways, patch downloading seems like something that could be solved with a positive use of certification policy. Require games to be playable out of the box without Day 1 patches. Allow players to skip the patch download process unless they want to do something online.

That's more or less how it works on the WiiU. It allows for Day 1 patching but it always asks if you want to download the patch right away or not and if you refuse, it lets you play and puts the patch on the download manager so it's ready next time you boot the game.

 

[joe2187]

Hey ravi, Quick question

I know you guys have a ton of other priorities concerning your game, but how difficult would it be to port it over to the vita, cross play functionality and whatnot?

 

[Ravidrath]

Hey ravi, Quick question

I know you guys have a ton of other priorities concerning your game, but how difficult would it be to port it over to the vita, cross play functionality and whatnot?

Technically? We think it should be quite possible. Our sprite munging process can produce assets in just about any resolution we want, and memory limitations should be the only thing holding it back.

UI and networking libraries would probably be the hardest part, though - not sure how much those have changed from the PS3 libraries.


Feasibly? Not possible until someone wants to fund it. And as much as I love my Vita, publishers don't seem to want to take risks on it right now.

Man, it would look so good, though...

 

[CoconutTank]

Serious question: is the constant patching more annoying that not having free game improvements?

I agree there's a point at which it becomes ridiculous, but we've made the game significantly better in pretty much every respect.

And if patches were free, what do you think a reasonable timeframe for patches would be before they become annoying? i.e. Once a month, once a quarter, etc.?

Regardless of frequency, I think I'd only complain if somehow I'm spending more time patching than I am playing

I complain plenty about waiting around for patches to DotA2, mainly due to how crappy my available connection is, but the wait is eventually worth it because after the patch is finished I'm playing a game that's still fun and has new/updated stuff. Same for WoW, same for TF2, and same for any games I've played that can breathe and grow thanks to responsible (and feasible!) patch support.

 

[HoodWinked]

Blazblue CS has some patches listed here under a meg that presumably that support the DLC characters it added, but if you decide to play online you will need to download patches containing all those DLC character assets so you can play against people who bought them, even if you didn't. The smallest patch among them is at least twice as large than anything on that list.

tldr; the list is misleading. It refers to "mandatory 360 patches", but there are plenty of ways a game can have a patch not on that list that would still be "mandatory" to your average gamer and yet still be several times larger than anything on the list.

ya essentially a small up front patch that allows you to download free DLC as needed. i think its a pretty decent solution because assets are downloaded as needed instead of all upfront.

its a good way of having a small upfront patch but allowing people to opt-in for content when they want to.

 

[MCD]

500mb patch for an arcade game?

Lazy devs. Either recompile it again or make it as a dlc.

 

[beje]

500mb patch for an arcade game?

Lazy devs. Either recompile it again or make it as a dlc.

Congrats on not reading the thread, not even this page, at all.

 

[darkblade77]

ya essentially a small up front patch that allows you to download free DLC as needed. i think its a pretty decent solution because assets are downloaded as needed instead of all upfront.

its a good way of having a small upfront patch but allowing people to opt-in for content when they want to.

Yeah, I see where you're going with that now. I didn't realize the list was just for mandatory boot-up-the-game updates at first, and I feel that there are plenty of cases where you'll need to do heavy patching beyond what's on the list to do what you normally want to do in the game, so the distinction isn't that clear-cut IMO.

But yeah, having the option is a good thing.

 

[sleepykyo]

ITT: Microsoft employees defending their employer's bullshit patching policies.

[Edit] But seriously, there is no excuse for Microsoft to charge developers for patching given the Xbox Live charge, and there's no excuse for Microsoft keeping such a pathetically small patch limit.

The complaints about the large patches on the PS3 and limited storage on the 360s seems like pretty good reasons.

 

[MCD]

Congrats on not reading the thread, not even this page, at all.

I hate huge patches with a passion so I'd rather they go with these options.

I read that dlc is a no-no just now and I would love for someone to start the recompile trend and add it to MS policies.

 

[HoodWinked]

500mb patch for an arcade game?

Lazy devs. Either recompile it again or make it as a dlc.

this mentality seriously needs to die. programming is incredibly difficult work.

 

[Ravidrath]

ya essentially a small up front patch that allows you to download free DLC as needed. i think its a pretty decent solution because assets are downloaded as needed instead of all upfront.

its a good way of having a small upfront patch but allowing people to opt-in for content when they want to.

Well, for a fighting game, almost anything major is going to require everyone to update eventually.

Personally, I think a forced update is a better and faster user experience than letting you in and then making you update to play online.

this mentality seriously needs to die. programming is incredibly difficult work.

Hmm, maybe we can petition to make this a banned meme?

 

[electroshockwave]

Until this thread I thought that Skullgirls was 360 exclusive.

Downloading the trial on PSN now and hopefully it will come to steam too so at least something good has come from this.

 

[Ravidrath]

Until this thread I thought that Skullgirls was 360 exclusive.

Downloading the trial on PSN now and hopefully it will come to steam too so at least something good has come from this.

Well, damn - let me know what you think.

Also, sorry in advance for making you patch the demo. But it adds character tutorials and things to the demo, so I think it should help you get a better feel for the game.

 

[MCD]

Hmm, maybe we can petition to make this a banned meme?

Might as well petition all of them banned while you are at it.

 

[SolarPowered]

Hmm, maybe we can petition to make this a banned meme?

Best to leave it up to the mods.

Until this thread I thought that Skullgirls was 360 exclusive.

Downloading the trial on PSN now and hopefully it will come to steam too so at least something good has come from this.

Prepare to be amazed. The changes improved just about everything in the game. The online performance, hitbox glitch gone, more training mode options, expanded tutorials, etc.

 

[Ravidrath]

Might as well petition all of them banned while you are at it.

The difference is that a dev comes on to talk to GAF, and gets hostility from lazy posters who don't want to read the thread.

GAF is always so happy with itself because all these devs read it, but the hostility towards devs is what keeps them from posting.

You may not want to, but I think a lot of people on here would like to talk to more devs openly. I know I would - I'm tired of ferreting them out in PMs because they're too scared to "come out."

 

[Syriel]

That's not been true for a while. The patches used to have a 4MB limit and they'd download to the cache folder on whatever storage device was attached, so over time old patches would be overwritten as the folder filled up.

But now new game patches download to the same directory where the game save/install is. They show up under Storage in the dashboard, so you can manually delete them if you want to, but they no longer get overwritten unless a new version is released. As such, the patch limit is now higher - I don't know exactly what it is, but here's a few examples of title update sizes for 360 games: -

Medal of Honor Warfighter - 58MB
Skyrim - 33MB
Final Fantasy XII-2 - 31MB
Halo 4 - 30MB
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD - 27MB

There's a difference between patches (aka Title Updates) and DLC on the 360. While larger title updates (aka exceptions) are provided as DLC and stored on the regular area of a storage unit (that's what you're seeing with Tony Hawk for example), the vast majority of TUs are stored in the cache area of the system.

As noted by a prior poster, these are FIFO, so if you have a system with limited storage, your cache area will be smaller. Normally, you don't see TUs on your storage media unless you've connected it to a PC and explored it with a third party tool. You can delete all TUs on a specific piece of storage media by using one of the options in the storage maintenance menu. This is also why the larger exceptions are delivered as DLC. They aren't wiped out like other TUs when you clear the cache.

The biggest advantage to the restricted file size is the speed. We've all seen the posts on here about consumer perception between patching on XBL vs PSN. Some XBL games have had upwards of five TUs (Rock Band, CoD, etc.) yet because of the small size the perception is always that "Xbox patches are faster." Compare this with PSN where you can have 100+ MB patches plus installs.

It's not so much a bandwidth thing as it is a consumer experience thing.

This is also why MS does things like the monthly free car DLC in Forza. If you look, you'll notice the free car is exactly the same size as the full pack. The free car gets everyone to download it, but it's basically the full DLC running in trial mode. Without paying you get access to the free car, but your game can now view all the other cars in the pack if someone else is using one. As a bonus, if you decide to buy it later on, the purchase is near instant as the content is already on the drive.

If it was just a "compatibility pack" with no free car, many fewer people would download it.

 

[jmro]

So for the past 7 years every developer has managed to make patches fit within the restrictions & exceptions, but now the Skullgirls team want to release one that is 10x the largest current title update.

Microsoft is the one being unreasonable here?

Tell the dev team to figure it out. If it has a bunch of new assets, get them to put it up as an optional data pack like lots of other teams have done. If it doesn't include a bunch of new assets, they're doing something horribly wrong. (EDIT - Owned by not refreshing thread before posting.)

The binary diff patch system Microsoft implemented is why no one bitches about it on 360 and constantly complains about patches on PS3.

The patch size restrictions are pro-consumer.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

offer it as free dlc?

They did this for Monday Night Combat

 

[Ravidrath]

So for the past 7 years every developer has managed to make patches fit within the restrictions & exceptions, but now the Skullgirls team want to release one that is 10x the largest current title update.

Microsoft is the one being unreasonable here?

Tell the dev team to figure it out. If it has a bunch of new assets, get them to put it up as an optional data pack like lots of other teams have done. If it doesn't include a bunch of new assets, they're doing something horribly wrong.

The binary diff patch system Microsoft implemented is why no one bitches about it on 360 and constantly complains about patches on PS3.

The patch size restrictions are pro-consumer.

Please try reading my post explaining it.

We have explored every possible avenue to get this out in the most reasonable and efficient way possible, and because the new file system requires both a new executable and lots of new data, this was the only way to do it.

For example, we looked into daisy-chaining multiple executables depending on what data you had, but that wasn't possible.

 

[MCD]

The difference is that a dev comes on to talk to GAF, and gets hostility from lazy posters who don't want to read the thread.

GAF is always so happy with itself because all these devs read it, but the hostility towards devs is what keeps them from posting.

You may not want to, but I think a lot of people on here would like to talk to more devs openly. I know I would - I'm tired of ferreting them out in PMs because they're too scared to "come out."

I am only hostile to Windows Phone head devs so you can relax. Sorry if my little joke offended anyone.

 

[jmro]

Please try reading my post explaining it.

We have explored every possible avenue to get this out in the most reasonable and efficient way possible, and because the new file system requires both a new executable and lots of new data, this was the only way to do it.

For example, we looked into daisy-chaining multiple executables depending on what data you had, but that wasn't possible.

My bad for missing your post, but it isn't like you're working on the kinks on a console launch here. There is 7 years of precedent in MS favour. Hell their patching server probably doesn't even support anything greater than 64MB or some insane limit from 2005, they're not just doing it to be dicks.

 

[Raging Spaniard]

Truth: if anybody ever called me a lazy dev irl, there would be violence involved.

Like, that is so disrespectful and stupid, ugh.

 

[Ravidrath]

My bad for missing your post, but it isn't like you're working on the kinks on a console launch here. There is 7 years of precedent in MS favour. Hell their patching server probably doesn't even support anything greater than 64MB or some insane limit from 2005, they're not just doing it to be dicks.

It's just an old policy, from a pre-App Store era, designed mostly for disc-based product, trying to accomodate the systems without HDDs.

I expect some or all of this stuff will go away next generation, provided that internal storage is standard.


And the loading situation that necessitated the extra-large patch was a surprise to MS, too - it's just a strange interaction that occurs with certain configurations of systems, HDDs, remaining space, etc. It's not anything that the testing process can really reveal, since devkits are pretty uniform and often times zeroed out at the start of every project.

I mean, I can't read their minds, but they seem sympathetic to the situation because it really is a weird one.

 

[Syriel]

Actually, I think there's a decent reason for the silence. I was talking to a MS dev once and asked him if Microsoft gives them any best-practice methods or guidelines on how to develop applications for their system, and he said "Nope, they just throw the documentation manual and kit at you." Which means any information on how to write decent code for the system is essentially internal to companies that have experience doing it.

While details are under NDA, the documentation provided with the SDK is pretty darn through. It's not like devs are just thrown to the wind. The level of SDK documentation is one of the things that's often praised on the 360 side.

Yeah, this project has seen more than its fair share of difficulties, and unfortunately they've impacted our customers. Believe it or not, we do try to shield them from this stuff.

And between the game itself and its multiple publishers, this game also has the uncanny ability to fall into just about every 1st party policy crack. You have no idea, man.

I think we looked into the "remaster" scenario, and it's just not something they allow.

The "remaster" thing has been done by a handful of games, but MS tries to avoid it as it forces anyone who's purchased to re-download the entire title (plus any TUs) as opposed to just the TU needed.

That said, if you're already looking at an exception for a patch which makes up a significant percentage of the whole game it might be worth reconsidering.

PS3 auto patch is PSN+ only.

Anyways, patch downloading seems like something that could be solved with a positive use of certification policy. Require games to be playable out of the box without Day 1 patches. Allow players to skip the patch download process unless they want to do something online.

First DLC character isn't Big Band or Panzerfaust confirmed hfjsjdbgbahs

This is the way it is on both 360 and PS3. If you don't accept a patch/TU you are prevented from playing online, but you can still play the game. You don't have to patch.

 

[darkblade77]

While details are under NDA, the documentation provided with the SDK is pretty darn through. It's not like devs are just thrown to the wind. The level of SDK documentation is one of the things that's often praised on the 360 side.

That's great to hear, but I find it hard to believe it covers things like optimization or cost all that well outside of providing a general ballpark of obvious things not to do. There's no substitute for thorough, extensive testing in a range of applications you've made yourself, which is what all the major studios have the benefit of possessing now.

And honestly, I think situations like these probably weren't uncommon at the beginning of the gen, regardless if they were reported or not.