Support NeoGAF

[SteveWinwood]

When you have a shitty hard drive and shitty internet yes.

Lots of America has shitty internet and the xbone hard drive is not huge.

We should get better internet, and everyone else should just buy computers.

 

[Rains]

image asking that question a few years ago people would have laughed at a 13GB patch but as time goes on there only going to get bigger along as the patch has the content and fix's the bugs i can put up with the size plus the Xbox one downloads in the background

 

[Bright-Light]

I suppose it depends not the person and their gaming habits.
I have a ps4, my xbox one is actually coming tomorrow, (very exciting times)

I plan to go fully digital this gen, so huge patches will be a bit of a problem . It may mean that I have to delete a game from my memory to allow room for a patch.
If every game starts to have a 13 gb patch then it means it's taking up a lot of room.

If someone uses disks, I can't see it being an issue.

Final point, I suppose it depends on what the patch is bringing. If it's like DR3 and it's prep stalling dlc I'm never gonna buy, then it can fuck off. If it's a patch to improve the stability or performance of a game I enjoy, then bring it on.

 

[Furyous]

It's a huge problem because these it enables devs to issue 10 GB+ patches. Some ISPs institute 100 GB a month download limits. If a user has seven games then they'll almost hit their limit. Why not release the patch in waves of 3 GB?

 

[rezn0r]

Been too busy to see the update notes until now. Yes it's unreasonable, but at least there were some fixes included too. I wasn't going to be too surprised if it was all just DLC.

 

[KillerIsJed]

At the very least hopefully this will encourage people to complain to their ISPs to offer better services and faster speeds. North America's service blows.

 

[zeopower6]

Aren't massive patches normal for PC gaming?

(and sometimes forced because of Steam's way of doing things ughh)

 

[grosvenor_92]

Yes a patch that size is pretty ridiculous and I for one don't want it to become a trend

 

[NBtoaster]

Aren't massive patches normal for PC gaming?

(and sometimes forced because of Steam's way of doing things ughh)

Not normal at all.

 

[superchunk]

yes, because that means there was a massive rewrite of a lot of code... basically the game should not have been released when it was.

 

[see5harp]

yes, because that means there was a massive rewrite of a lot of code... basically the game should not have been released when it was.

I agree that it's unreasonable but from my experience, the game worked fine. If there is some crazy benefit to the framerate, that's great but I think it was pretty solid as a whole. I don't think I had a hard lock or crash once. Last gen devs had no trouble adhering to the size limits on 360. Unless something is straight up broken, I don't see how you justify this.

 

[raebodep]

It enrages me.
The people that are responsible for patches like this should go to prison.

 

[Skeff]

I don't think it's unreasonable, but I don't think it should be treated the same as a normal patch, It should not be common and it should be available on the web (many reasons this could save bandwidth-using a friends unlimited usage allowance or updating 2 XB1's)

Also the game should be completely playable without it, I think there are some issues with this at the moment if your XB1 is online and you decline the patch?

EDIT: if the DLC is force bundled into the Patch then that's fucked up, people have caps and the XB1 HDD isn't replaceable without breaking warranty.

 

[YaGaMi]

Of course it is.

 

[xxracerxx]

Absolutely.

And fuck the game developers who add the DLC into the patches, that is just a shitty thing to do.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

So, I'm not saying this fixes anything, but on a scale of what's acceptable, I'd say bandwidth caps on landline connections are the unacceptable practice, not the size of the patch (although, the fact that paid content you can't necessarily play is taking up space on the hard disk is stupid).

It costs ISP's less than one cent per incremental gigabyte used. Data caps are just an underhanded scheme to force people to pay more money.

 

[GWX]

I have a 1mbps connection, so fuck no.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

It enrages me.
The people that are responsible for patches like this should go to prison.

I enjoyed this post probably a bit too much lol.

 

[H2Yo]

Yes. It is.

 

[vg260]

Is there some sort of Microsoft policy that allows a free publisher bandwidth cost for patches but not for DLC or something, because this smells like Capcom trying to pinch pennies at the cost of the customer.

 

[aaaaaa]

Capcom's new DLC policy:

No DLC on disc
Month 1 patch that completely replaces disc's contents with new files that include DLC

 

[KungFucius]

Yes. The fact that it is inflated with DLC data that you then have to purchase is ridiculous. I classify that as bandwidth theft and I will not be purchasing DR3. I own a Xbone and was thinking about it.