Anyone play planetside 2 any more?

I stopped playing because I'd play every month or so, and each time there'd be a multiple gigabyte patch file.

NetHead wrote on Feb 9, 2015, 09:11:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 16:05:

walrus1 wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 15:07:
Normally I agree with you. However, when your day one patch isnt a couple hundred MBs but is 3 GBs...

Could just be the case that the game was not built in a modular fashion, thus something as small as fixing a misspelling requires a 3GB patch.

I don't think that's an excuse, if anything that scenario would only reveal incompetence.

You would be surprised at how many levels simple software patterns and common sense rules are ingored. One man's incompetence is another man's bread. My rule of thumb, if it looks like lazy programming is to blame, it usually is.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 16:05:

walrus1 wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 15:07:
Normally I agree with you. However, when your day one patch isnt a couple hundred MBs but is 3 GBs...

Could just be the case that the game was not built in a modular fashion, thus something as small as fixing a misspelling requires a 3GB patch.

I don't think that's an excuse, if anything that scenario would only reveal incompetence.

They maybe have something like a custom archive to store content which keeps performance up and can make it harder to alter (hack/mod) the game so that's a good thing for them, however being to lazy or incompetent to make a patching process which would allow them to update a small text file in that archive without replacing the entire archive is beyond laughable.

Unless of course they really are releasing 3GB of updated content which brings us full circle. Such massive day one patches for a digital release is stupid and also reflects badly on their ability/design. If it really is updating so much content of the game they should have updated the download and saved countless time and bandwidth for their customers as a whole.

It's not as if they didn't see this huge patch coming, maybe they just don't give a crap about making their customers download massive patches. If they keep this up it alone could kill the game because who wants to download GB+ patches every few days to a week when they want to play a game, nevermind all those that are not on uncapped connections.

InBlack wrote on Feb 9, 2015, 03:24:
Either Im getting grumpy and old, or games are generally getting worse and worse. I tend to think its a combination of the two.

Same here, and I think you nailed it.
It is the combination of both.
These days the best to wait around for the game to be patched up, and get it on sale.
There is less and less reason to buy games on release or before.

An interesting read that applies to casual games, but yeah the reality is that AAA gaming is slowly adapting or trying to adapt similar business models. It's the nature of the Capitalist beast I guess, still there is no reason for style to dominate over substance and no reason why good games can't make a profit. All it takes is a little vision and leadership. Most AAA publishers and studios are literally splurging millions on marketing, IP licenses, and basically style > substance when they could be spending a fraction of that amount to actually create meaningful content and gameplay.

InBlack wrote on Feb 9, 2015, 03:24:
Well apparently this game is another clusterfuck of epic proportions. Will wait and see, but Im getting more picky and choosy as Im getting older, less and less games fail to reach a standard of quality Im sort of hardwired with. Either Im getting grumpy and old, or games are generally getting worse and worse. I tend to think its a combination of the two.

They are getting worse because dev costs have spiralled out of control. Companies have come to understand how braindead most of humanity is when buying games so they are pumping and dumping like mad.

Check out the comments and especially marty howe's comment:

Games biz article

Fantaz wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 13:46:
they need to optimize the game for PC more, because the beta ran like crap on my PC. I also think they may be spending more money on marketing than development.

this game seems to have even less replayability than Titanfall... it ships with just 3 monsters, although that may change with DLC. still, it will get old pretty fast.

Don't forget! You get that 4th monster if ONLY you pre-order, and new hunters if you buy it from Amazon! If you wait for reviews, too bad! You now get to pay $15 bucks for that 4th monster. Customer or not.

And let's not forget this game was already pushed back from Oct of last year. That 3gb day one patch is surely TR just "listening" to the community...mmhmm.

I was really looking forward to this game. Sadly, i almost bit today on the GMG offer, but then quickly came to my senses. Their pre-order/dlc model is just insulting, and it hurts us all. To hell with them.

The worst of it all is i used to ENJOY getting excited for big titles like this, but these publishers just keep ruining my love for this wonderful hobby with their endless fuckery.

Well apparently this game is another clusterfuck of epic proportions. Will wait and see, but Im getting more picky and choosy as Im getting older, less and less games fail to reach a standard of quality Im sort of hardwired with. Either Im getting grumpy and old, or games are generally getting worse and worse. I tend to think its a combination of the two.

Funny thing is, most people buying this are likely getting it digitally. Had they not announced a patch, it would have been seen as the final files downloading for preloads, lol.

Garbage. Save your money..

dizave wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 19:04:
Remember back in the day when we used to see on Bluesnews "x game has gone GOLD!" Devs used to work on games until they were finished to their standards.

There's always been buggy, unfinished crap. Even "when it's done" greats like Doom and Quake had numerous patches.

Remember when even on consoles they had to meet strict requirements before given "gold" status, I guess the console makers have gone lax on their patch size limitations and frequency of updates.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 16:05:

walrus1 wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 15:07:
Normally I agree with you. However, when your day one patch isnt a couple hundred MBs but is 3 GBs something has gone very wrong bug testing wise. I'm fine with them fixing bugs and making minor tweaks in a day one patch but when your patch is 3 GB you're making major changes to the game that should have been made before the game went gold. Which is exactly what Evolve just did.

Could just be the case that the game was not built in a modular fashion, thus something as small as fixing a misspelling requires a 3GB patch.

Remember back in the day when we used to see on Bluesnews "x game has gone GOLD!" Devs used to work on games until they were finished to their standards. Skip to 2015. We don't usually see announcements like this anymore. As games get more expensive to produce, publishers try to set a realistic date for the devs to finish development for various finnancial/advertising/etc reasons. As the date gets closer to release, the devs realize that they need more time. Rather than delay, the devs send what they have to the publisher so they can do their own QA/production/etc. This gives the devs a month-ish to actually finish the game as best they can. Hence, day one patch.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 16:05:
Could just be the case that the game was not built in a modular fashion, thus something as small as fixing a misspelling requires a 3GB patch.

Reminds me of how patching works for Path of Exile on Steam. Oh, you need this 10MB patch? Come back in a half hour or use the standalone launcher instead.

walrus1 wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 15:07:
Normally I agree with you. However, when your day one patch isnt a couple hundred MBs but is 3 GBs something has gone very wrong bug testing wise. I'm fine with them fixing bugs and making minor tweaks in a day one patch but when your patch is 3 GB you're making major changes to the game that should have been made before the game went gold. Which is exactly what Evolve just did.

Could just be the case that the game was not built in a modular fashion, thus something as small as fixing a misspelling requires a 3GB patch.

deadearth wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 13:29:
I swear, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In this day of digital distribution 'going gold' is meaningless. Berating developers for a day one patch is idiotic (especially for an online multiplayer game).

I guess these guys should have done nothing but sit on the hands after going gold?

How about don't rush your game to market if it's not ready yet? I doubt this massive patch alters the gameplay enough to make a difference so 3GB of technical glitch fixing doesn't instill confidence in your product.

The real problem is that this game is being driven less by creativity and more by marketing, funding for after sales support looks sketchy right now since their whole scheme of having a ton of DLC for the game isn't going over so well with most people, along with the fact that the game is essentially extremely boring after a few hours of play.

I would peg the bang for your buck price at around $30 not $60 or the ridiculous amount of $100 for the superduper supreme deluxe version.

deadearth wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 13:29:
I swear, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In this day of digital distribution 'going gold' is meaningless. Berating developers for a day one patch is idiotic (especially for an online multiplayer game).

I guess these guys should have done nothing but sit on the hands after going gold?

Normally I agree with you. However, when your day one patch isnt a couple hundred MBs but is 3 GBs something has gone very wrong bug testing wise. I'm fine with them fixing bugs and making minor tweaks in a day one patch but when your patch is 3 GB you're making major changes to the game that should have been made before the game went gold. Which is exactly what Evolve just did.

DangerDog wrote on Feb 8, 2015, 12:18:
Rushing to get your "gold" copy to mass production before you're even close to being finished. Genius.

This is going to be Titanfall all over again, don't blink because the game will be dead in a month.

At least they'll have an offline single-player mode. That should give it more legs than Titanfall.

At least Titanfall got some market exposure to allow it to last as 'long' as it did post-release and looked fun. I think this game will sink about as quick as Brink if it's still hindered by past core issues which may not be resolved through patching regardless of size.

they need to optimize the game for PC more, because the beta ran like crap on my PC. I also think they may be spending more money on marketing than development.

this game seems to have even less replayability than Titanfall... it ships with just 3 monsters, although that may change with DLC. still, it will get old pretty fast.