Ya, At the time of the Xbox always online thing day one patches and hardware updates were already regular. As long as people could download them onto a stick or something and install was the main concern. It was the daily online checks that everyone raged Against.
Sean explained that a good deal before any hint of a day one package and made it clear that wasn't an issue a long time ago. It doesn't appear to have any connection to that.
Yeah, I have been sitting here scratching my head all day long trying to process the 360 that a lot of GAF seem to be making at the moment. I feel like I've woken up in a different dimension or something where GAF is now reddit... The defense of this is astounding in the face of what happened just a few years back.
I'm not saying that I am against it either. Though I think it's sad that the people you sell to are soon to be shafted by this trend especially if sites with a lot of sway in the paths the industry takes like GAF are accepting of it like this.
However, tech does evolve. But most importantly, these things are luxuries. In order for internet providers to expand coverage at cheaper rates there needs to be more demand. They will find a way to reach those people if they know that the demand is there and it will pay off in the end.
I don't know what happened to make GAF do a 360 on this issue because I don't think affordable internet coverage worldwide has evolved that much since then (Could be wrong on that) but I guess it's because it's 2016 and it's ok to screw the less privileged now... Still trying to wrap my head around that.
There is a fundamental difference between a console that is designed to be always on (even if it was unclear how consistent a connection was actually required), and games needing a patch - or just benefiting from one. If I need an internet connection to play games, not a particular game but games in general, I'm not going to support that console. I live in the US and I have infrequent internet outages (normally not for long, but it happens). Furthermore, I don't have the option for a good internet speed, and between that and frequent bad weather overall my internet is pretty poor.
However, games that need patches are often optional, and in the worst case scenario (the internet is down), I can still play any game I want that doesn't require an internet connection.
So it's not a 360 you are seeing. You are trying to compare apples to tomatoes, both a technically fruit, but they certainly aren't the same.
EDIT: Not to mention you are comparing a console manufacturer and the numerous game publishers that make their own decisions as to the condition and completeness of their game during certification.
We live in 2016, not 2006. While it's fine in principle to take a stand on this issue, Day One patches are becoming an automatic thing and I think it's unfair to deduct points in a review for it. Criticize it, sure - write an open letter to the publisher or whatever else you feel is justified - but as much as I wish scores weren't as important as they are, the truth is many people make buying decisions based on score (sometimes if they buy, sometimes when they buy) and deducting points for a game without a patch available Day One is intellectually dishonest in a time when pretty much everyone accepts patches as inevitable.
Anything after that is up to the discretion of the reviewer and the publication.
It's especially the case when you're talking about a game in ongoing, post release development. Such a thing simply couldn't exist without the internet, as the 'final game' doesn't exist, it's a moving target.
And this is an 8/10 game on the disc. If you want the updates that badly, take your ps4 somewhere with internet, update it, then take it home. I did this back in the day when I had dial up and wanted to download patches - with a full sized tower PC. At worst it's a bit of an inconvenience.
Not if this trend becomes the norm which a lot of people here at least think it should and it is looking like it is slowly becoming the norm because it's much easier on the developers and gives the game longer legs. The only thing to be solved like some others have mentioned is game preservation. I think the solution would be to print a final disk or something when game support finally stops and or make keys for access to final code to download.
If pretty much all games are supported through continuous patches there is not that much of a difference IMO between that and a console that you have to have a tiny tiny bit of connection every day or so, I forget the details though I do remember you could do the check in with your phone even and I'd wager that the amount of people with a cell phone of some sort greatly outweighs the amount of people with access to affordable internet. Again, I could be wrong. The biggest difference I can think of would be not being able to take your console with you to places with absolutely no connection which is the biggest reason I was against it.
Besides that. The approach that MS was taking was the monster steps approach of brute forcing your way of which there is no excuse without the consumers agreement. This approach is the baby steps approach that has both similar and new drawbacks but largely screws over the same demographic of people but in a sneakier fashion of which IMO there should be no excuse without the consumers ok as well.
Regardless, I think that in both cases the industry would have then and will now evolve and it will be an issue at first and suck for a while but it will pay off in the end. It's just how fast it happens, how tactfully it is handled and how willingly people take it that will decide whether or not it is seen as a positive.
We live in 2016, not 2006. While it's fine in principle to take a stand on this issue, Day One patches are becoming an automatic thing and I think it's unfair to deduct points in a review for it. Criticize it, sure - write an open letter to the publisher or whatever else you feel is justified - but as much as I wish scores weren't as important as they are, the truth is many people make buying decisions based on score (sometimes if they buy, sometimes when they buy) and deducting points for a game without a patch available Day One is intellectually dishonest in a time when pretty much everyone accepts patches as inevitable.
Anything after that is up to the discretion of the reviewer and the publication.
Exactly. People are trying to force a point of contention saying that the game on the disk is incomplete and unplayable. Having watched hours of footage of this being played, and after a positive review, this is clearly nonsense.
The game on the disk is great, the updates will continue to make it better.
And it's probably because it's so commonplace now. People get used to things. And there are some benefits for those with internet.
It would perhaps have been fairer to delay the physical release and debut digitally. But then I'm sure that would have drawn complaints too. Even if they delayed the digital release, it's always going to be a patch ahead. They'd have base building while the disk didn't etc.
If the game is going to have ongoing updates then there's no scenario where the physical copy is on par with the digital one.
There's just no way around it. Disks are never going to have the latest version.
And yeah, at that point I really think that this needs to be expounded on for the consumers. I mean, if it really isn't going to be like it used to be where you buy a disk and that's the game you get then there needs to be some sort of warning or advisory for consumers. I really do think that's where a lot of the confusion is coming from.
And yeah, at that point I really think that this needs to be expounded on for the consumers. I mean, if it really isn't going to be like it used to be where you buy a disk and that's the game you get then there needs to be some sort of warning or advisory for consumers. I really do think that's where a lot of the confusion is coming from.
And yeah, at that point I really think that this needs to be expounded on for the consumers. I mean, if it really isn't going to be like it used to be where you buy a disk and that's the game you get then there needs to be some sort of warning or advisory for consumers. I really do think that's where a lot of the confusion is coming from.
I just don't see why that is at all necessary. What should it say on the box, "game on disc is different without the Day One patch." I mean, that's obvious. If a game is in such bad shape before a Day One patch, the consumer is entitled to a refund if it doesn't work properly. Is it a perfect system? No. But again, it's 2016 - technology is connected to the internet in large part so software can be improved and optimized over time. This is something that should just be understood as a general aspect of technology.
Besides the fact that the two procedural systems are DESIGNED, as in hand crafted, by two totally different developers for different purposes /gameplay:
Minecraft has biomes, NMS doesn't. NMS has day/night based on planetary rotation, minecraft doesn't. NMS has dynamic weather and storms, MC doesn't. MC has blocks instead of voxels - voxels allowing NMS to have far more interesting and detailed and intricate planet styles and shapes. Minecraft has a handful of preset resources and creatures and places (mostly), NMS's are procedurally created (it's possible for the devs to see resources they never designed). NMS procedurally creates a food chain - it's possible to see one procedurally created creature hunt another then be hunted by an even bigger creature (I saw this happen today), where minecraft creatures never hunt reach other. NMS has procedurally generated NPCs and space ships which fly across systems and land on planets to dynamically buy and sell resources (minecraft has no economy).
Perhaps most importantly, NMS has thousands of pages of actual hand-written story content with narratives and a lore. Exploring the world is compelling because finding aliens -who are each procedurally styled to look unique unlike minecraft's one-note pig men- unlocks story for you which is almost like a choose your own adventure novel.
These outposts and places have an actual pre-set place in the world - so sometimes you'll get a beacon which will point through the ground and say "a settlement is two days walk in this direction". (Two days as in 24 real time hours of your life). Again, minecraft isn't designed to be aware of what is tens of thousands of blocks away.
Along with hundreds of other details I can't be bothered going into.
I adore minecraft and I'm loving NMS but you have no fucking idea what you're talking about here
Yeah. Haven't had the
marriage call yet though...
FWIW the interaction itself IS very simple but the are loads of variations and moments of greater depth are inserted throughout, impacting on other elements of the galactic sandbox.
Something like that. It's just that if patches and stuff are going to be changing games so fundamentally and drastically, which I am totally ok with, something needs to be shown somehow in an easy to understand way. Because, those patch notes aren't just added features IMO when they change so much to the point where it even
rewrites the lore.
That to me is a fundamental change and not just an added feature.
You know, all of this is reminding me of an MMO that I heard of that had moderators for each server that would craft tales and events and work the lore that the players created into the game itself or something. It essentially made the game almost infinitely playable and fresh because everything was always evolving. I can't remember what it was called but I always thought that was awesome. I hope future games can also do something similar with this new trend of consistent updates.
The marketing is definitely AAA...what other indie game would be on the Late Show or be featured at two E3 keynotes? And how many other indie games get a Limited Edition retail package, or a PS4 faceplate, or in-store marketing displays?
As far as whether the game is AAA...I don't even know how to quantify that. Does "AAA" mean big spectacle? It can't just mean funded or published by a big studio. NMS bleeds a lot of lines because of its procedural content. I would say at this point it's more on the side of AAA than not. And a year from now after several big updates, that will probably be even more true.
Besides the fact that the two procedural systems are DESIGNED, as in hand crafted, by two totally different developers for different purposes /gameplay:
Minecraft has biomes, NMS doesn't. NMS has day/night based on planetary rotation, minecraft doesn't. NMS has dynamic weather and storms, NMS doesn't. MC has blocks instead of voxels - voxels allowing NMS to have far more interesting and detailed and intricate planet styles and shapes. Minecraft has a handful of preset resources and creatures and places (mostly), NMS's are procedurally created (it's possible for the devs to see resources they never designed). NMS procedurally creates a food chain - it's possible to see one procedurally created creature hunt another then be hunted by an even bigger creature (I saw this happen today), where minecraft creatures never hunt reach other. NMS has procedurally generated NPCs and space ships which fly across systems and land on planets to dynamically buy and sell resources (minecraft has no economy).
Perhaps most importantly, NMS has thousands of pages of actual hand-written story content with narratives and a lore. Exploring the world is compelling because finding aliens -who are each procedurally styled to look unique unlike minecraft's one-note pig men- unlocks story for you which is almost like a choose your own adventure novel.
These outposts and places have an actual pre-set place in the world - so sometimes you'll get a beacon which will point through the ground and say "a settlement is two days walk in this direction". (Two days as in 24 real time hours of your life). Again, minecraft isn't designed to be aware of what is tens of thousands of blocks away.
Along with hundreds of other details I can't be bothered going into.
I adore minecraft and I'm loving NMS but you have no fucking idea what you're talking about here
Yeah. Haven't had the
marriage call yet though...
FWIW the interaction itself IS very simple but the are loads of variations and moments of greater depth are inserted throughout, impacting on other elements of the galactic sandbox.
The marketing is definitely AAA...what other indie game would be on the Late Show or be featured at two E3 keynotes? And how many other indie games get a Limited Edition retail package, or a PS4 faceplate, or in-store marketing displays?
As far as whether the game is AAA...I don't even know how to quantify that. Does "AAA" mean big spectacle? It can't just mean funded or published by a big studio. NMS bleeds a lot of lines because of its procedural content. I would say at this point it's more on the side of AAA than not. And a year from now after several big updates, that will probably be even more true.
AAA refers to funding, which often results in spectacle, but not necessarily. No Man's Sky's development was indie, but it's marketing has become decidedly AAA.
Which is actually what causes problems for No Man's Sky marketing. This game is a niche title designed to appeal to a certain audience, but through marketing it is now appealing to a mainstream audience that expects to be lead by the hand, told exactly what to do constantly, and not allowed to deviate from the linear path.
That's likely why you see so much push back from people on this game. It doesn't make sense to them as they expect a certain style of game being pushed on them from AAA marketing the last 10 years.
So if you buy this game on ps4 but dont have your ps4 online do you essentially get like 50% of the game? Or does the game require online to play in general and patches are inevitable?
We had a 159-page thread back when a handful of Bloodborne alpha photos (then called 'Project Beast') got leaked, and another 145 pages when a 19-second video clip from the same build got leaked. thisisneogafdude.gif or something
AAA refers to funding, which often results in spectacle, but not necessarily. No Man's Sky's development was indie, but it's marketing has become decidedly AAA.
Which is actually what causes problems for No Man's Sky marketing. This game is a niche title designed to appeal to a certain audience, but through marketing it is now appealing to a mainstream audience that expects to be lead by the hand, told exactly what to do constantly, and not allowed to deviate from the linear path.
That's likely why you see so much push back from people on this game. It doesn't make sense to them as they expect a certain style of game being pushed on them from AAA marketing the last 10 years.
Entirely anecdotal of course but a huge part of the reason MMS speaks to me is because I'm a fan of Minecraft. If the game manages to tap even a percentage of that success...
So if you buy this game on ps4 but dont have your ps4 online do you essentially get like 50% of the game? Or does the game require online to play in general and patches are inevitable?
No. You get the game that people have been playing for the last week or so. No internet connection required.
If you want the latest version you need to have your PS4 online. This is hardly new. Even GAF favorites like The Witcher 3 shipped drastically different than they play and act now.
Not trying to bandwidth shame anyone, but if you don't have your current gen console linked to a broadband connection you're missing out on a good 50%+ of this gen.
AAA refers to funding, which often results in spectacle, but not necessarily. No Man's Sky's development was indie, but it's marketing has become decidedly AAA.
Which is actually what causes problems for No Man's Sky marketing. This game is a niche title designed to appeal to a certain audience, but through marketing it is now appealing to a mainstream audience that expects to be lead by the hand, told exactly what to do constantly, and not allowed to deviate from the linear path.
That's likely why you see so much push back from people on this game. It doesn't make sense to them as they expect a certain style of game being pushed on them from AAA marketing the last 10 years.
While I agree with this point overall, I think in this case, you aren't so much seeing push back from mainstream gamers, more like enthusiasts that seem to have a bizarre grudge against the game. I think there will be some mainstream gamers that do interpret the game as you state, but thats not the current situation. The people generating the push back are targeting the early adopters, the internet savvy "hardcore" gamer thats had that thirst since the first E3 reveal.
Aside from what has been revealed and given to us via the media, all the hype comes from this forum and mediocre imitators.
I personally feel, that the hype is justified and through all the updates - this game will become in the near future; the perfect Science-Fiction game.
Anyone that's ever felt strongly about Sci-Fi while growing up in the eighties, nineties, or beyond - their collective Science Fiction/Space Opera dream world, would be a game like this.
The promise is there, but will the game deliver on that promise? We will find out very soon. Can they patch/update this game to the point of perfection?!? The stress must be incredible for Hello Games.
I wonder if developers load up gaf, bust open a beer and all sit around laughing at posts. A day one patch is enough to get 19 pages in a review thread with one review lol
As I said previously, the stress and pressure leveled on this small team of geniuses must be immense. Let's cut them all some slack and wait until the day-one update/patch, start the game and spend a few hours with it before we start casting aspersions.
Form what I've been privy to see and hear of this game so far, it's already incredible. Also, judging by the update/patch notes, it makes the game seem ideal - give or take a few of the ideas I've had; like the larger ships having a moon rover type vehicle for surface escapades, escape pods, or even space stations you could take with you on warps, due to docking with them, etc. All things that could be remedied with a simple update.
Look at all the other infinite-universe games on the Event Horizon - they're all still in the planning/Kickstarter phase - this game releases in about 24 hours. Through updates in the near future, we/they will get everything in that we all want in a game like this.
So what's the problem?
This game is shaping up to be our ideal Space/Science-Fiction escape. I can't wait to see where it goes!
AAA refers to funding, which often results in spectacle, but not necessarily. No Man's Sky's development was indie, but it's marketing has become decidedly AAA.
Which is actually what causes problems for No Man's Sky marketing. This game is a niche title designed to appeal to a certain audience, but through marketing it is now appealing to a mainstream audience that expects to be lead by the hand, told exactly what to do constantly, and not allowed to deviate from the linear path.
That's likely why you see so much push back from people on this game. It doesn't make sense to them as they expect a certain style of game being pushed on them from AAA marketing the last 10 years.
That's what I meant by the procedural content blurring lines Hello can achieve much more with less staff. I definitely agree that that the mainstream audience is being marketed a game that plays in ways they aren't used to. But Sony obviously thinks it's worth selling to that audience. It will be interesting to see how it's received outside the GAF bubble.
Aside from what has been revealed and given to us via the media, all the hype comes from this forum and mediocre imitators.
I personally feel, that the hype is justified and through all the updates - this game will become in the near future; the perfect Science-Fiction game.
The thing is, they have the perfect base to build on.
It's possible to tell so many stories and add so many features to this game, should they choose to. The groundwork they have laid is phenomenal. No other game has both the space and planetside elements so well developed and integrated.
This thread is quickly going to be a nightmare, once sites have time to play the patched game. I don't expect many reviews for like the next week. Based on the patch notes alone and the size of the universe, there's a lot of meat on the bone that needs to be digested. I do expect alot of pre-review videos going up on Tuesday morning.
The thing is, they have the perfect base to build on.
It's possible to tell so many stories and add so many features to this game, should they choose to. The groundwork they have laid is phenomenal. No other game has both the space and planetside elements so well developed and integrated.
But your review isn't going to be representative of what you'll end up playing as a consumer, especially with a patch as big as this.
Will it completely change your perspective of the game? Maybe not, but if you had negatives that were addressed by the patch, then you owe it to consumers and yourself to wait. And this doesn't seem like simply a patch to fix bugs, it's outright major things.
No. You get the game that people have been playing for the last week or so. No internet connection required.
If you want the latest version you need to have your PS4 online. This is hardly new. Even GAF favorites like The Witcher 3 shipped drastically different than they play and act now.
Not trying to bandwidth shame anyone, but if you don't have your current gen console linked to a broadband connection you're missing out on a good 50%+ of this gen.
Yea but im asking if the offline version of the game is significantly different then the online version post day one patch, game bugs aside....like does/is the day 1 patch radically different/expand on the current game people are playing? I underatand games like the witcher 3 have been radically expanded on since release but i would imagine even after the first patch for the witcher 3, both individuals playing offline vs online generally finished the game with essentially the same experience excluding things like bugs. And some people have multiple consoles, i prefer the online experience xbox offers (plus my friends are their) but still enjoy many of the single player exclusives offered on the ps4.
It's also one thing I actually like about the narrative elements being largely text based (and really nicely written). They can really keep ploughing more lore and narrative into the game over time.
But your review isn't going to be representative of what you'll end up playing as a consumer, especially with a patch as big as this.
Will it completely change your perspective of the game? Maybe not, but if you had negatives that were addressed by the patch, then you owe it to consumers and yourself to wait. And this doesn't seem like simply a patch to fix bugs, it's outright major things.
Not really. The reviewer doesn't have an obligation to wait around just because a developer or publisher decided to do something allegedly drastic after printing discs.
What consumers are going to be playing will not be the same thing that was printed on disc. I don't see how you can make the argument that a review of the game with out a significant day 1 patch would be in any way helpful to users.
An extremely large majority of PS4 owners are connected to the internet. Most people will be experiencing NMS on day 1 with the patch.
Also this is a team of 5 people. Christ almighty. It makes absolute sense that they needed every bit of time they could get to keep working on the game. This is not a AAA studio with a staff of 150.
It is PRICED the same as a AAA game, but that's a different discussion.
EDIT: I will say reviewers should warn readers that the patch is pretty much essential.
Yea but im asking if the offline version of the game is significantly different then the online version post day one patch, game bugs aside....like does/is the day 1 patch radically different/expand on the current game people are playing? I underatand games like the witcher 3 have been radically expanded on since release but i would imagine even after the first patch for the witcher 3, both individuals playing offline vs online generally finished the game with essentially the same experience excluding things like bugs. And some people have multiple consoles, i prefer the online experience xbox offers (plus my friends are their) but still enjoy many of the single player exclusives offered on the ps4.
I don't see what console you play online with is an issue. You don't need your PS4 to be always online to get the benefits of the patch. As long as you're able to download the 800mb patch at some point you'll get all the added features of those who are always connected.
What consumers are going to be playing will not be the same thing that was printed on disc. I don't see how you can make the argument that a review of the game with out a significant day 1 patch would be in any way helpful.
An extremely large majority of PS4 owners are connected to the internet. Most people will be experiencing NMS on day 1 with the patch.
Also this is a team of 5 people. Christ all mighty. It makes absolute sense that they needed every bit of time they could get to keep working on the game. This is not a AAA studio with a staff of 150.
It is PRICED the same as a AAA game, but that's a different discussion.
So what? It's helpful for the people who aren't going to be conneting online and for those that do, it's a nice record of how far the game has potentially come from. Why is this such huge sticking point for some of you? It reviewed well...
So what? It's helpful for the people who aren't going to be conneting online and for those that do, it's a nice record of how far the game has potentially come from. Why is this such huge sticking point for some of you? It reviewed well...
I don't see what console you play online with is an issue. You don't need your PS4 to be always online to get the benefits of the patch. As long as you're able to download the 800mb patch at some point you'll get all the added features of those who are always connected.
It's still an audience that exists. It's kind of sad that you just want to dismiss them...because why? This review hurts the reputation of the game some how?
What confusion? You're acting like there arent going to be tens of reviews that are going to include the patch. All those reviews won't be relevant ten patches from now too, so this being such a huge problem for you and others is pretty ridiculous.
What confusion? You're acting like there arent going to be tens of reviews that are going to include the patch. All those reviews won't be relevant ten patches from now too, so this being such a huge problem for you and others is pretty ridiculous.
