Jump to content
kmkaks

PlayStation and Xbox thread

Recommended Posts

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/bioshock-4-will-take-place-in-a-new-and-fantastical-world-job-listing-suggests/

 

A job listing for a lead environment modeller at Cloud Chamber reads: “We want you to set the example, leading efforts to help us breathe life into a new and fantastical world.

“Together, we will set the stage for a stunning narrative and systems-driven experience.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maximus said:

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/bioshock-4-will-take-place-in-a-new-and-fantastical-world-job-listing-suggests/

 

A job listing for a lead environment modeller at Cloud Chamber reads: “We want you to set the example, leading efforts to help us breathe life into a new and fantastical world.

“Together, we will set the stage for a stunning narrative and systems-driven experience.”

 

underground? mars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, playstationdude said:

BOTW and Mario Kart still on the list. Damn!

Ninty runs their own race, it doesn't care about competition, maybe that's why it's winning !

 

Nice to see GoT in the list, amnesia a good sign when new ip's sell well, waiting for a price drop to play the game !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-08-15-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-and-warzone-xbox-one-players-forced-to-download-massive-66-3gb-patch-to-fix-weapon-graphics-corruption-glitch

 

Quote

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Warzone Xbox One players are being forced to download a massive 66.3GB patch to fix the weapon graphics corruption bug that has been plaguing the game since the launch of Season 5.

PlayStation 4 owners only need to download a 1.2GB patch, whereas on PC, Warzone-only players need to download a 0.88GB patch, and Warzone and Modern Warfare players must download a 1.83GB patch.

 

#Optimisedforxbox 

 

:rofl:

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KnackChap said:

During 360 days, MS had set limit on size/number of patches devs can deliver.

It was 4mb at the beginning and then increased to 50(?).

Developers had to make free DLCs to put in patches, and they had restriction on number of free DLCs too.

It was quite harsh, but was just for this kind of situations when broken things are shipped.

 

what a fall for MS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Right said:

During 360 days, MS had set limit on size/number of patches devs can deliver.

It was 4mb at the beginning and then increased to 50(?).

Developers had to make free DLCs to put in patches, and they had restriction on number of free DLCs too.

It was quite harsh, but was just for this kind of situations when broken things are shipped.

 

what a fall for MS.

 

It's so easy to dictate terms when you have a huge share of the market. Today, if MS tried to dictate such terms - most of the devs will probably just make the game/dlc/patch exclusive to PS4 and be done with it. Heck, if Xbox and PS architecture were different (Like in 360/PS3 days), then chances are it would have been exclusive regardless. Sony faced the same thing in early PS3 days when they could only demand (More like request) that if a game is timed exclusive to 360, at least put some extra content when it comes to PS3. In many cases this resulted in games coming to PS3 6 months to 1 year late with maybe 1-2 extra costumes here and there to compensate.

 

Shows how important having a market-share is and how times have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, roun90 said:

Shows how important having a market-share is and how times have changed.

I think they kinda fked up things with their own titles and console when day-0 patches allowed to become a norm.

When you allow that often, 3rd party devs will ask too and they don't have to negotiate hard.

 

Generations before PS360 didn't have luxury to patch at all, games weren't so complex as you see today but still testing used to be super rigourous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Right said:

I think they kinda fked up things with their own titles and console when day-0 patches allowed to become a norm.

When you allow that often, 3rd party devs will ask too and they don't have to negotiate hard.

 

Generations before PS360 didn't have luxury to patch at all, games weren't so complex as you see today but still testing used to be super rigourous.

 

 

There's still a lot of Sony and Nintendo 1st party games that don't require a patch and don't even release them. TLoU2 just got one after 2 months and its mostly QoL changes. FF7R is still on v1.0. GoW and Spidey kept adding QoL features and costumes but base games were always solid. Most SP Nintendo games get one patch if you're lucky. It just depends on your design philosophy. 'Release now, fix later' vs 'release complete version and take a vacation to Barbados for a month'.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Right said:

I think they kinda fked up things with their own titles and console when day-0 patches allowed to become a norm.

When you allow that often, 3rd party devs will ask too and they don't have to negotiate hard.

 

Generations before PS360 didn't have luxury to patch at all, games weren't so complex as you see today but still testing used to be super rigourous.

 

 

I would not say it's a good thing though. Generations before PS3/360 - you had a game and you were stuck with it. Games could have a ton of potential, but because some game breaking bugs somehow snuck in - despite the extensive QA, the game was done. Case in point was the original Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. It was a highly ambitious game and was actually absolutely amazing. Heck, it had a very real chance of becoming one of the known and respected legendary franchises like GTA - it was so ambitious. Unfortunately, some game breaking bugs snuck in and in the end - it's barely remembered. I'm sure there will be tons of examples, if we just do a basic search on Google. 

 

PS2 era and before - devs were actually very interested in innovating and trying out new stuff. I don't think most devs stuck to a simple formula like they do these days (Like say - Open World = Witcher Clone). Who knows how many legendary franchises we missed out on just because some bugs snuck in and devs did not have the luxury of fixing it. After all, it's impossible to get rid of all bugs.

Edited by roun90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Right said:

I think they kinda fked up things with their own titles and console when day-0 patches allowed to become a norm.

When you allow that often, 3rd party devs will ask too and they don't have to negotiate hard.

 

Generations before PS360 didn't have luxury to patch at all, games weren't so complex as you see today but still testing used to be super rigourous.

 

 

Because either those consoles didn't have internet option at all or the online infrastructure was absolutely 2rs, also you can't make people download 100s mb patches when the internet was sh*t in those days.

Now everything has changed.

 

in 2007, more content for games were called expansion packs and sold on discs, now the same is on DLC, times change, and so do these "paradigms" whether in game dev, software dev or other media

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PhantomShade said:

 

Because either those consoles didn't have internet option at all or the online infrastructure was absolutely 2rs, also you can't make people download 100s mb patches when the internet was sh*t in those days.

Now everything has changed.

 

in 2007, more content for games were called expansion packs and sold on discs, now the same is on DLC, times change, and so do these "paradigms" whether in game dev, software dev or other media

 

Do you remember the PS3/360 gen early on? DLCs were straight up scams back then lol. Add content in-game itself and sell the "key" which was a 2 string code to unlock what was already in the disc for $10-$20. Or cut out parts of the game which was already finished and many times important to story (Looking at you Mass Effect 2) and again sell it for a price. Some games even sold the ending of the base game itself as "DLC".

 

Expansion Packs used to actually be major extra content that was developed later on to add absolutely new content to the existing game. It's a good thing that the market did not accept this crap and we are back to making DLCs similar to Expansion Packs (Kinda, many devs still sell "costumes", "Game boosts", "Level Boosts" and what not - which originally in PS2 era would be in game itself, not even on expac packs. Looking at you AC). TBH Expansion Packs were the best, had to have huge content and Devs could not BS their way through. DLCs give too much options for scams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

Do you remember the PS3/360 gen early on? DLCs were straight up scams back then lol. Add content in-game itself and sell the "key" which was a 2 string code to unlock what was already in the disc for $10-$20. Or cut out parts of the game which was already finished and many times important to story (Looking at you Mass Effect 2) and again sell it for a price. Some games even sold the ending of the base game itself as "DLC".

 

Expansion Packs used to actually be major extra content that was developed later on to add absolutely new content to the existing game. It's a good thing that the market did not accept this crap and we are back to making DLCs similar to Expansion Packs (Kinda, many devs still sell "costumes", "Game boosts", "Level Boosts" and what not - which originally in PS2 era would be in game itself, not even on expac packs. Looking at you AC). TBH Expansion Packs were the best, had to have huge content and Devs could not BS their way through. DLCs give too much options for scams.

At least they didn't f**k the game design to sell microtransactions. The big third party game publishers like EA, Ubisoft are much worse than they were last gen. EA used to actually make good games back then and so did Ubisoft. Nfs, mass effect, dead space, battlefield, dragon age, far cry, Assassins Creed, splinter cell were all pretty good in the last gen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...