Day one patchs

[Zeta333]

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/08/...sky-always-on/

I 100% agree and seriously dont get people that qq about day one patchs.

[Deleted]

i see nothing wrong with it, some people got the game early and got to play early, but now they will have to start again when the game actually releases, seems fine.

[poser765]

I think of all the things to get pissed at, this is a pretty insignificant thing. Sure, it's inconvenient, but it is what it is. If there are bugs I would rather they be fixed before launch, but I also know that is never going to happen 100% of the time. So the next best thing is to at least have a patched game when it drops.

[Nahela]

The post by Rami in particular is a good read for anybody that doesn't know the behind-the-scenes. Day 1 patches simply mean you get a better game in a more timely fashion. Until Sony and Microsoft open up their networks to work more like PC, this is going to be the norm, there's no way around it, and that's not even feasible at this point in time.

[Spunt]

All the more reason to not purchase games until well after release.

[unholytestament]

There's a problem with day one patches?

The only problem I can see is for people who have internet plans with download caps.

[anon5123]

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/08/...sky-always-on/

I 100% agree and seriously dont get people that qq about day one patchs.

When it's a small patch that takes a minute, no problem.

When it's a huge multi-gigabyte patch that takes an hour to download and install, that's obnoxious as fuck, and just lets me know that the devs didn't have the game ready for release.

[Ravenblade]

There is nothing wrong with it per se but if the difference in data amounts to enormous sizes rivalling the original game package size then perhaps there needs to be a better choice of deployment model and platform. Losing your savegame in the process of a patch is annoying as hell as it indicates that there is no functioning data migration model for exported user data and it could happen anytime again.

[willtron]

The problem with day 0/1 patches I have is the mindset. Why fully complete a game when you can just patch it? It's the same mindset as 'why sell a full game when you can split it into DLC and capitalise on it more?'. Yes, they're the new normal, but it's a terrible ethic and attitude.

Only in gaming do we see it. If I did something akin to day 0/1 patches in my job I'd be lambasted, and probably fired.

[unholytestament]

The problem with day 0/1 patches I have is the mindset. Why fully complete a game when you can just patch it? It's the same mindset as 'why sell a full game when you can split it into DLC and capitalise on it more?'. Yes, they're the new normal, but it's a terrible ethic and attitude.

That might be the viewpoint from the publisher, but I see it as developers more often than not being forced to ship a game unfinished but continuing to work on it.

It's a good thing that publishers allow this, as I recall the days of Troika and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines where they were prevented from patching the game post launch despite a lot of the work already being done.

[glowpipe]

The people whining about day one patches are the same morons that whine about pre-orders. Thinking tht since they got your money they will just stop developing the game.
Let that sink in for a second. If a dev stop making the game when they got your money from a pre-order and the games quality worsens because of pre-orders. How will that company sell their next game if the first one sucked ? Thats it folks. anti pre-order crowd debunked.

And ofcourse we have the "Lets split the finished game up and sell it as dlc's" This has been proved to happen how many times ? nada nilch ? When a game is done and they are just working on small things like finepolishing it. What do you think the rest of the team is doing that is not polishing engine and fixing bugs do ? They start working on dlc content. And from time to time they managed to create day one dlc's that morons think they just cut out of the original game to earn more. When in fact its additional content made because they had time and extra people working on it.

Have some devs done any of what i wrote about. More than likely. But thats a small ass number and those devs are more than likely not producing games anymore

[Kazgrel]

A day one patch to fix bugs and/or add new things to the game? Sure, that's fine. IIRC, the game at the center of this "controversy", No Man's Sky, went gold at least a month or so ago, so that's a decent amount of time to get some form of patch ready.

Now if it was paid DLC on day one? That's when it's bullshit.

[Zeta333]

When it's a small patch that takes a minute, no problem.

When it's a huge multi-gigabyte patch that takes an hour to download and install, that's obnoxious as fuck, and just lets me know that the devs didn't have the game ready for release.

Then get better internet. Sorry but gold isnt a week before release. Gold is a month-3 before release. And devs dont get to set thier release dates 95% of the time. THier funders do. So after it goes gold they keep working to give your more content, better content and fixed content.

There is nothing wrong with it per se but if the difference in data amounts to enormous sizes rivalling the original game package size then perhaps there needs to be a better choice of deployment model and platform. Losing your savegame in the process of a patch is annoying as hell as it indicates that there is no functioning data migration model for exported user data and it could happen anytime again.

Its not thier fault places broke the street date. Expect a day one patch. Dont be suprised.

The problem with day 0/1 patches I have is the mindset. Why fully complete a game when you can just patch it? It's the same mindset as 'why sell a full game when you can split it into DLC and capitalise on it more?'. Yes, they're the new normal, but it's a terrible ethic and attitude.

Seriously why does this question need to be asked over and over.



The Devs do not get to set thier launch dates 95% of the time. Thier studios or publishers do. Microsoft said to 343, halo 5 will be out on this date. There is no working around that. They got what they did ready for release. Release came and there was a day one patch. Why? Becuase from the date it went gold IE printing on discs to be shipped around the world, they kept working. They didnt open beers and sit back. They kept going to and past launch day. They dont print the fucking discs out 3 days before launch and teleport them around the world.

[Ravenblade]

The problem with day 0/1 patches I have is the mindset. Why fully complete a game when you can just patch it? It's the same mindset as 'why sell a full game when you can split it into DLC and capitalise on it more?'. Yes, they're the new normal, but it's a terrible ethic and attitude.

Only in gaming do we see it. If I did something akin to day 0/1 patches in my job I'd be lambasted, and probably fired.

This is not how it normally works and it's sort of assuming that game development is monolithic work.

1.) whilst the release date is a pretty important date it's usually just part of another development cycle. So the product is not finished until they decide to stop working on it entirely which varies from company to company. Some do it like 6 months after release, others do not even stop five years after release. Some companies have a vacation lock in place for some developers during some phases so a lot of them have some their developers taking some days or weeks off after. However development does not stop nor does the incentive to work on it go away.

2.) game development has several sub-development teams each with their own requirement, programming and content work at different paces, if new maps are being released and they require a certain API then programming may already have done their work in that area. So DLCs may already been in the pipe months before the release since content developers can't twiddle thumbs either nor do publishers/development companies pass on the chance of adding more stuff.

Also it cannot be compared with application development because app development follows different patterns. There's rarely content development and it's a lot more homogeneous. Deployment is always based on latest release package. I'd say from a production standpoint AAA game development at least is a lot harder than application development. Less balls to juggle so to speak.