Air Zombie Meat
Member
Maybe a choice between downloading fixes only (and not being able to co-op with dlc owners) or getting the entire 13 gb package would have been the way to go.
-
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.
Is a 13GB game patch unreasonable?
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Yeah it's kind of dumb. What happened to compatibility dlc packs
Most likely redownloaded stuff that was already there. Afaik is it easier to replace the old files instead of re configuring them
sechsterangriff
Member
Probably because of segregation of the on-line player base. There are certain types of DLC where it is useful to have all the players with the content data even though not everyone purchased it. For example, to be able to play against a DLC character, or see an opponent with a DLC item or costume, etc.
But for things like map packs or episodic content, it doesn't make any sense to include that type of content in a patch if you ask me. Unless the publisher's goal is some sort of maneuver to pay less fees for having content for sale.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Then they need to find a better system, because a 13Gb patch because otherwise "DLC breaks things" isn't an acceptable solution.
no, it starts at 50% because the patch size is roughly half of the final size (24.8GB). All xbox one patches are like that. You're still downloading somewhere between 12.5 and 13GB
sechsterangriff
Member
It could also be the case the game is so broken that your patch is essentially replacing most of the game and assets :lol
your wrong, my data usage only showed 7 GB for the patch/day and many others have stated the same
BloodMoney
Banned
A "patch" should not include DLC... thats just weighing down the pipes (bandwidth) passing data most people will never access to begin with.
taizuke
Member
I'd have no problem if buying the DLC meant downloading a 10-13 GB file. The problem arises when you force people to download the DLC by including it in the patch. If i'm just downloading a patch i shouldn't have to download the DLC as well. Specially when the file size is that big.
I do get that if i wanted the DLC i just download a key and voila! Cause the DLC installed with the patch. But, it's just too big a file and i can't in good conscience be okay with it when not everyone cares about the DLC and is forced to download it.
I do get that if i wanted the DLC i just download a key and voila! Cause the DLC installed with the patch. But, it's just too big a file and i can't in good conscience be okay with it when not everyone cares about the DLC and is forced to download it.
SwiftDeath
Member
Yep. Bug fixes are great and welcome but you don't force people who might not buy DLC to download the DLC. That's just insane
ScepticMatt
Member
forcing to download DLCs is ridiculous
Looks like the majority of that patch is re-downloading fixed versions of the various game maps that had issues.
soul creator
Member
I understand the desire as a developer to make sure everyone is always on the same page, and there's no "sorry, we're booting you from co-op with this person, go to the marketplace to download the compatibility update!" dialog or something. And since they figured that the system can download updates in standby, I could see them thinking it was the better choice, especially since Dead Rising 3 has an option for drop-in/drop-out co-op while you're playing single player. So in theory, this way is more "seamless" without introducing extra dialog boxes or whatever.
That said, judging from the response, it's probably a better approach in the future to just literally disable the co-op menu option unless you download the patch. Which is kinda how it was done on older systems. Or maybe add an option to the Xbox One settings menu to "limit downloads over metered connections" or something. I believe Windows 8 has a setting like this.
Out of curiosity, what happens if you decline the update? Can the game be played single player at all while still being connected to Xbox Live?
That said, judging from the response, it's probably a better approach in the future to just literally disable the co-op menu option unless you download the patch. Which is kinda how it was done on older systems. Or maybe add an option to the Xbox One settings menu to "limit downloads over metered connections" or something. I believe Windows 8 has a setting like this.
Out of curiosity, what happens if you decline the update? Can the game be played single player at all while still being connected to Xbox Live?
I'm all for including universal DLC content in patches (ie. clothes, characters, weapons that would show up in multiplayer/co-op where the other players haven't bought DLC)
However including all the assets in a patch that would make downloading the DLC merely a small key file is bit much to ask.
The PS3 update system that people complain about updates taking too long did the former (and sometimes the latter)...
It's why "free DLC" would be released along side updates on the 360 due to the patch file size limits set by Microsoft.
However including all the assets in a patch that would make downloading the DLC merely a small key file is bit much to ask.
The PS3 update system that people complain about updates taking too long did the former (and sometimes the latter)...
It's why "free DLC" would be released along side updates on the 360 due to the patch file size limits set by Microsoft.
I was told by a friend in the industry that Xbox One patches are, by default, the size of the game itself. Probably a relic of the "install everything" days.
Development teams can strip this down to just what's needed, but that requires extra work. It seems like maybe the DR3 team couldn't figure that out so they threw in the DLC content just to use up more of the 13 GB.
Development teams can strip this down to just what's needed, but that requires extra work. It seems like maybe the DR3 team couldn't figure that out so they threw in the DLC content just to use up more of the 13 GB.
Goldenroad
Member
What's unreasonable is shipping a game that requires a patch this size.
Gucci Messiah
Banned
Nobody is being a fanboy in here, you've just been making assumptions and aggressively throwing around insults. I'd calm down with that if I were you and wanted to stick around GAF.I'm very calm. I'm just tired of the fan boys throwing hate and incorrect facts about a system they dislike.
moltonasty
Member
It's incredibly unreasonable. Is there anyone out there who would even dispute this?
Sure different system, different game, etc. but Super Mario 3D World is roughly a 1.7 GB download. For the entire game. Considering that, yes, I do think a 13 gb patch is insane.
Sure different system, different game, etc. but Super Mario 3D World is roughly a 1.7 GB download. For the entire game. Considering that, yes, I do think a 13 gb patch is insane.
your right, my words were harsh, just annoys me when alot of people bandwagon with little facts
QuantumBro
Banned
Does Xbox One require that the patch be downloaded before the game can be played again?
The first item (DLC) is likely 90+% of the data. Fixes don't necessarily mean replaced assets. Assets (textures/audio) take up space, but code is trivial by comparison (correct if wrong)
Air Zombie Meat
Member
If your bone is connected to the internet I think it does.
It's absolutely unreasonable, and I wish it were unacceptable. And in the DR3 case, the idea of lumping large amounts of data from DLC packs in with mandatory updates feels like a punishment to the part of the audience who hasn't chosen to buy the DLC.
One of the thing I appreciated from last gen was the requirement of a top-end limit to updates in the 360 ecosystem. I know this created come cases of inconvenience for particular titles, but for me, it was worth it. It made patches a completely unobtrusive process. This is something that will effect my buying decisions.
One of the thing I appreciated from last gen was the requirement of a top-end limit to updates in the 360 ecosystem. I know this created come cases of inconvenience for particular titles, but for me, it was worth it. It made patches a completely unobtrusive process. This is something that will effect my buying decisions.
No, you can just choose not to download/install it and play it like normal. Online play requires it though, as far as I know.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Pretty ridiculous to have a patch bigger than the vast majority of games that exist. Yes.
NullPointer
Member
Absolutely unreasonable, especially in an ecosystem that doesn't currently support extending or swapping out hard disk space.
Its even more unreasonable if a hefty chunk of that is DLC content that most buyers won't even see.
Keep the updates small, keep the downloads short, and keep the updates relevant to the player.
Its even more unreasonable if a hefty chunk of that is DLC content that most buyers won't even see.
Keep the updates small, keep the downloads short, and keep the updates relevant to the player.
speculawyer
Member
Unwise.
But if it is the only way they can do the fix . . . well, you gotta do what you gotta do.
But if it is the only way they can do the fix . . . well, you gotta do what you gotta do.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Ah ok, my bad. All I could remember was that once I started the download I couldn't play it until it finished.
LightofRohan
Member
For this generation no...
Goddam, DC Universe randomly updates with 10gig+ patches every once in a while. I don't really care. But I don't have a X1, I'm guessing it is more annoying?
Goddam, DC Universe randomly updates with 10gig+ patches every once in a while. I don't really care. But I don't have a X1, I'm guessing it is more annoying?
Dreams-Visions
Member
It was unreasonable for THIS patch.
1.) The DLC it added was not free. The DLC represents the bulk of the 13GB.
2.) The game stability updates could have and should have been separate downloads for those who did not and were not planning to buy the DLC.
IF the DLC had been free...no, even then, it still should have been separated and an optional 10GB install or whatever. But I generally don't mind a big update if it's adding big things for fre.
1.) The DLC it added was not free. The DLC represents the bulk of the 13GB.
2.) The game stability updates could have and should have been separate downloads for those who did not and were not planning to buy the DLC.
IF the DLC had been free...no, even then, it still should have been separated and an optional 10GB install or whatever. But I generally don't mind a big update if it's adding big things for fre.
QuantumBro
Banned
No it doesn't, the majority of the 13GB was dlc.
So it's the same as last gen, once higher internet speeds come around no one will care.
Phire Phox
Banned
Yes. My internet is booty so it takes a long time to download. Not to mention the people with data caps.
Witcher 2's EE patch didn't have locked DLC, sure it was big but at least you knew you'd use all the data.
It's completely unreasonable to waste that space if it's for DLC that might not even be bought. Battlefield is arguably the worst culprit with how they're incapable of separating DLC from patches.
Senor Kami
Banned
It's stupid large imo and dumb just like how I think Street Fighter 4 on PS3 being around 20GB to download while it's around 5GB on PC/360 is dumb, but not "unreasonable." Games are getting bigger ridiculously big this gen. Their patches are too.
If you have no internet, ridiculously slow internet where this is like an all-day download, or extremely limited internet like AU where their home bandwidth cap is more in line with a US cellphone cap, I can see you being upset though.
If you have no internet, ridiculously slow internet where this is like an all-day download, or extremely limited internet like AU where their home bandwidth cap is more in line with a US cellphone cap, I can see you being upset though.
The map meshes take basically no space at all. Graphic rendering issues are code changes. All the things in the patch besides the DLC should equal a small patch.
3rdamention
Member
This is why I believe whole heartedly, YES, it is unreasonable. To make people download paid for DLC< even if they were never going to buy it, is just a really poor development choice.
Most games make you download the DLC, after you pay for it. Why they went this route, forcing everyone to download paid for DLC, whether they want to buy it, or want to download it at all, is pretty ridiculous.
JinjoUnchained
Member
...and publishers still wonder why people won't buy games on Day 1 and just wait for the GOTY edition instead?
Robot Pants
Member
Coupling a patch with unpaid for DLC is a really really really really stupid idea. But it's fucking Capcom so I'm not surprised one bit. They'll probably keep doing it too.
DAT #1 DLC STRATEGY
TransTrender
Gold Member
This is probably a symptom of the always online, 24hr check in, used game lockdown, and whatever other cockamainy ideas they wanted to implement.
Isn't that dependant on the delivery of it? They were fixing holes in the world after all among other things. The rest of what is in there does not sound like it would take up GBs worth of space.
