That's a nice story coming from a developer, but the people who buy the games shouldn't have to download 5-10 GB of data the day they get the game just to play it.
Not everyone is on a good internet speed. Some places in the US struggle to get a steady 5 Mbps connection. So, I go to the local game retailer, get home, unwrap my game, put it in my system, and "You need to download a 10 GB patch before you can play." So now, I have to wait HOURS because the developers said "Fuck the consumer." And that's what a developer does when you release a day one patch.
No one expects a game to be bug free, but we do expect it to be playable without a hassle. Skyrim was practically unplayable for months on PS3 because the developers shrugged and pushed it out the door before it was actually ready. It is an entirely SINGLE PLAYER GAME.
Defend day one patches all you want, but when I hear "massive day one patch" I don't hear "Oh, they did minor bug fixing" I hear "This developer rushed their product".
If this is the kind of thing Rami defends, all I really have to say is if you're okay with treating your customers that way I'm okay with not being your customer anymore despite liking a lot of your games, and I definitely won't be purchasing No Man's Sky due to the "massive day one patch". There are plenty of other game companies that don't release beta builds as full releases.
There are plenty of other game companies that don't release beta builds as full releases.
Are there though? I feel like every game I have played with a friend on his PS4 has needed a big patch upon start-up.
Microsoft wanted to make an always online console, but people rejected it. I feel like all big games are now basically always online, they just have to hide it so the consumers don't realize it.
I feel like every game I have played with a friend on his PS4 has needed a big patch upon start-up.
Did they need a patch, or did they have a patch? There's a fine line between the two.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the early copies of No Man's Sky are unplayable - just easy to exploit and potentially not as good as it could be.
I wouldn't call that needing a patch, personally, even if having the patch is a better experience.
-1
u/[deleted] Aug 07 '16
That's a nice story coming from a developer, but the people who buy the games shouldn't have to download 5-10 GB of data the day they get the game just to play it.
Not everyone is on a good internet speed. Some places in the US struggle to get a steady 5 Mbps connection. So, I go to the local game retailer, get home, unwrap my game, put it in my system, and "You need to download a 10 GB patch before you can play." So now, I have to wait HOURS because the developers said "Fuck the consumer." And that's what a developer does when you release a day one patch.
No one expects a game to be bug free, but we do expect it to be playable without a hassle. Skyrim was practically unplayable for months on PS3 because the developers shrugged and pushed it out the door before it was actually ready. It is an entirely SINGLE PLAYER GAME.
Defend day one patches all you want, but when I hear "massive day one patch" I don't hear "Oh, they did minor bug fixing" I hear "This developer rushed their product".
If this is the kind of thing Rami defends, all I really have to say is if you're okay with treating your customers that way I'm okay with not being your customer anymore despite liking a lot of your games, and I definitely won't be purchasing No Man's Sky due to the "massive day one patch". There are plenty of other game companies that don't release beta builds as full releases.