Hacker News Reader

Comment by heimidal | Hacker News Reader

People want “games as a service”-level updates without having having to download big patches. Or they get upset that a patch comes out every week or so.

There’s really no winning.

View on HN

I think that there are different groups. One group wants constant updates. The other group is irritated by constant updates. Both are vocal on social media. I fall into the latter camp-I don't get a ton of time to devote to gaming so when I do I'd like my games to be ready to play. Biweekly multi GB updates make this difficult, and it's extra insulting when they're just adding cosmetics.

If you’re a casual player, I get it. To contrast, Destiny 2 originally launched with casual players in mind, resulting in casual players becoming less of a vocal audience after the first month or two (like you’d expect for most games) while the more hardcore players never stopped shouting their dissatisfaction.

At the end of the day, the hardcore side are the ones who usually determine if a follow up will be successful or not; balancing both audiences is likely an exercise in frustration and futility.

I don't own the game, so I don't have a dog in this race.. But it does seem a bit silly that you have to download the ENTIRE game again..

At that size, they should have some sort of delta update tool.

It was a beta. For all we know, they decided to switch DRM protection formats or make other sweeping changes in the months since the beta build was originally forked.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to say “sorry, this beta must be deleted and the full game must be retrieved.” That’s the life of a beta tester.

If that's the case, then they probably ought to have had the beta before the stamped discs, right? :)

As I understand, the discs that need the huge update aren't beta discs, they're what you can go buy in the store.

> People want “games as a service”-level updates without having having to download big patches.

I usually hear "games as a service" derided as a combination of lazy bugfixing and wanting a constant stream of money. But anyway, "service"-level patches don't need to be very big. A code fix or a new item aren't going to cause any major churn.

That’s not necessarily true. If a new item introduces a new perk/mechanic/effect, adding the triggers for said effect may have wide-reaching effects. Texture files are often bundled as large bitmaps with dozens or hundreds of textures laid out in one binary, resulting in the entire texture file needing to be re-downloaded.

Right? They've been pretty up front and honest about the online only aspect due to the nature of the game. If they hid that fact, yes, lots to be pissed off about.

But it's like "I bought this package that said it's salt on it. It's not sweet at all! Why isn't this like sugar? This should be like sugar!"

Later, they complain a pack of sugar is too sweet.

"I'm so pissed over what EA did with Battlefront" What did they all do? Buy Battlefront 2. "I hate EA!" They still buy EA games. "I hate online only games!" They buy online only games. Gamers are such a whining bunch of babies and you can downvote me all you want.

There are alternatives and options out there.

I suspect the people who complain about various things are not the same people buying those same things. It's not a willpower or hypocrisy problem, it's a coordination problem.

I think you’d be surprised, honestly. Lots of people put hundreds of hours into games like Battlefront 2, Destiny 2, World of Warcraft, etc all while screaming at the top of their lungs about the good old days and how awful it is now. Meanwhile, they’re effectively paying $0.50/hour.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com