To make this more practical since I still haven't directly said what was upsetting me, we're talking about space, memory, convenience, installation, content, and just generally getting to the game you want... and the fact that with every single new generation, it would appear its getting worse. This update is one of a few cases where it just crushes things for me. I'm not big into COD. I like it, I thought for $40 I'd get a good kick out of it, there was a lot of content worth enjoying, and its something I know anybody around me can jump in and enjoy (I bought this around the time I replaced my stock controller, thus had co-op capabilities). After playing it for the first 4-5 days after the purchase, I mostly put it down. I still came back as recent as the 31st of January to play some dead ops arcade 2 and a bot match. I mostly do kind of that. I get on, I play some bots, I leave. That's typically my COD experience beyond the first week, but it really does scratch that itch of a good quick dumb fun bot arena. Unfortunately this one in particular is built poorly so that you need to be connected to receive a lot of even the most trivial of features, like gun painter (relevant later). I took a big risk this time, because now more than ever it takes up some big space. 50GB at launch, and I estimated around 6gb more for fixes. That's a huge game space. I could fit two ubisoft open world games, MGSV, tons of indies, or about three remasters within that space. However its just something that happens, occasionally one of the big AAAs throws a big 50GB at you, or so close that a patch puts it there. Typically, I have about two games per that size installed at a time. It just takes up THAT much, and obviously there's got to be room for capture footage from those games as well. I still want other games out there installed to choose from, so I don't have a PS4 full of 50GB games, and honestly I've been scraping by on space for a long time now. I usually have to delete something to put another thing on, even if I technically have the space for it (I'll talk more about that later, it is very relevant to some of the problems). I didn't get until about two years into owning the PS3 (120GB slim model) for this to happen to me, and that was also at a time where I got more games put on the system thanks to my dad also owning and buying games that we shared with each other. So... things are definitely harder on space.
 |
| This was supposed to be a better experience... |
Naturally as a casual player of COD, I expected at some point to remove COD for an install later. I haven't yet, but knew it would happen one day. However... I didn't expect to load it up with a 14GB waiting time AFTER the base install. Sure I can still play whatever worked out of the disc without that, but there are two problems with that 1) Thanks you "known shippable" bugs and AAA for releasing more buggy games than ever into the public that almost need patches to play right. 2) Everything online related is shut down until you're patched up. For an online focused game like COD, especially with artificially constructed locked off features like the freakin' emblem maker of all things, you can't enjoy all of what you paid for until that patch is done. Even to a hardcore fanatic that never deleted this off their system and plays online daily, its 9GB worth the time wasted versus just downloading it off to the side after you paid for the DLC while you play some normal matches like you should be able to do in a sane world. So I'm complaining about a 60-ish Gigabyte game that tests your patience if you dare to delete it or get in on it late, is that all? Well no. In case it wasn't already obvious, people are pissed that teams like this are forcing this DLC content on everybody while still charging you for it.
Furthermore, its worth taking a step back when looking at this. We've got an entire $60 game crammed with a ridiculous amount of content inside it ranging from 8+ multiplayer maps, a zombie map, dead ops arcade 2, a full campaign, a remix of the campaign, runner mini-game, cut-scenes, all the voice acting and sounds in the entire game, 30+ weapons with tons of attachments and skins, and of course all the base programing that works every single one of those things. It all comes in around the full force of a bluray disc at 50GB (I think technically 47GB or so). Now what are we getting from the DLC? 4 maps. I'm hearing conflicting reports that it might be 5 plus zombies, or 4 including zombies, but that shouldn't be a big difference either way. It ends up being 9GBs. That's nearly 1/5th of the base game. To be fair, one of those maps is a zombie map which definitely has a lot more content than just some normal MP arena, but its got no damn right to be declaring its about 1/5th of the base game in size. This isn't anything new really. By this logic, why are network patches now 2GB? Why did AC Unity need an 8GB patch near the first day for its fixes? And don't say its because it was just that buggy, because The Witcher 3 was fantastic before it patched some extra bugs and minor features with a size that literally doubled their whole game. This isn't reflective of the content they're fixing, its just that these patches are horribly optimized. When another one comes, and another one comes, and another one comes, they all add up. Then you're telling me you're forcing DLC we may not even buy on top of this!? Yeah, I get pissed about it. Oh and as for black ops 3, that means we're probably looking at the game ending at around 80-90GB of space. Yeah you thought I was just complaining about 4 maps? Nope, I got the future in mind to, but Black Ops 3 sure doesn't care about your future since it might easily eat up 1/5th of your entire console's harddrive without any care in what else you wanted to do with that space.
The little known team behind Hardware Rivals finally clued us in as to the optimization case when they decided to hurry a patch out near the launch. They remarked that it doubled the size of the (small) game because of its timing.... and like most patches, it didn't actually fix everything as they later patched it again to fix more matchmaking issues. However that patch was smaller and yet included more gameplay relevant content. It all came later after some resting time, feedback, etc. Unless the first one had some major overhaul deep inside it, this perfectly proves that optimization and patience goes a long way to trim this stuff down even if its new content. Killzone Mercenary on the Vita had a similar case, hurrying out a day one patch that took up over 1GB, and they apologized for it, updated it way more, and by the end everything (including added content) was compressed into around 500mb. Yes that's right, optimizing this stuff is the difference between a massive annoying download for little simple fixes, versus entire game changing content alongside fixes that rolls in at what could be just a little bigger than the save file of a modern open world game. Of course I don't expect that to always be the case, especially since we're talking about a vita versus PS4 game there, but you get the idea that optimization goes a long way. Again, Witcher 3 wasn't exactly handing you an extra copy when they decided to hand out a game doubling patch. Actually you know what, let that sink in. I pick on COD for breaking the straw, but Witcher 3 is another unbelieveable case. In the same world we have Killzone Merc rushing out a 1.5GB patch and apologizing for it with a massive compression later, we have a massive open world game like Witcher 3 that manages to make more patches in total that eclipse the very game size itself (mostly in one patch) without any of that being major gameplay content.
 |
| Got a potion for this mess Geralt? |
The major difference though that upsets me here is that Witcher 3 is an open world RPG, and COD is a multiplayer FPS. One is a game you get sucked into, and then you're finished with by credits (I'm not that focused, but a major majority are and I'm still not settled with it yet). The other is something you may just wait to have friends over, or play to kill some time.... or are completely addicted to. COD is made from the ground up to be very accessible, appeal to a wide audience, but also kind of servers as the master of nothing. COD really isn't likely to be the blood and backbone of your gaming, and you'll want to be playing more alongside it, or may not even want to be actively playing it at all. A guy like me has other things I like to enjoy. If I decide an occasional dip is worth the money, and I want to play it occasionally, that should be fine and done. Its straight forward capitalism. Well guess who is suddenly locked out and feeling cheated of their money when we're looking at a future in which it might take me 30GB+ of download just to play a match with a friend, or to get a quick fix of some fast paced TDM fun, but I got to wait on a patch that downloads three expansions I don't even own. Its not just me though, it effects everybody. It effects the guy that just bought the game late and is finally getting in on it only to be met with a huge wall. It effects the people who have data caps. It effects fans who have had a tough day and just want to get home and play a simple match. It effects the milder fan who bought Witcher 3, runs home happy, and then is forced to sit in front of a screen asking him to delete one of his favorite COD games or else he can't enjoy this new game, then he has to sit there frowning in front of a download page as one game that does this scummy thing is deleted to make way for another that does this thing, converting the entire joy of getting a new game into complete frustration. This is bullshit.
Don't give me any of this "its the cost of higher technology" dribble either, a lot of this is in how things are being made or rushed with too many outliers and inconsistencies lingering for me to buy into that talk. Yes memory requirements get bigger, I know and accept that. However things are not going well from various angles, and unoptimized rushed patches for buggy games are just the start. A lot of the supposed excuses behind this fall flat when you look at those that come from outside the norm, or put in the extra effort. Nintendo is running PS3 grade stuff without any of the hassles PS3 went through at the time, but if you talked to devs and sony that made you install games its because the "loading speed needed it". This was also evident by the end of the life cycle, nearly every game just ran off the disc just fine like Bioshock infinite, big shock: they didn't need to install big MBs or GBs to run. Xbox one isn't able to run games before PS4 can, even though they're mostly the same systems, that's because of the way they were built rather than because it had to. I could go on and on, and I originally did, but I'm detracting from my main point by lingering on similar issues. My point is that I believe the tech is screwed up because of carelessness, its not a requirement for the future. This memory hogging comes from bad optimization, the DLC is forced on us because of idiot decisions, games leaped in massive sizes even from their superior computer counter-parts with no stated reason, and games are forcing installs even from the disc because the systems were made to do that whether it was really needed or not. Then there's the fact that the memory inside the very system itself is a false reading, as well as the required space to install a game. The space you need to install a game is double of what it says. So if you have a game that is 20GB, it needs around 40GB to even bother trying to put itself on your system... that even includes games that don't actually need that data but just install it by force. Its something in the system itself that just doesn't even bother to even begin copying over that data if there isn't WAAAAAAAY more than enough available. I could kind of be okay with this in downloads, but this is just stupid when its coming right off the disc. Then sometimes you have to restart the system before it can recognize the space was free if you actually delete enough. Again, that's not the cost of super sophisticated technology, everybody's computer can delete content with an active memory update. Then it changes (even if incrementally) a lot of times you check the memory storage, even if there's been nothing changed. While we're on the topic of incompetent design, lets not forget the fact that this are the guys that knew this was coming and yet choose to ship us 500GB in every model for a good length of time.
So forgive me if I'm not playing ball with the idea that this is the way things need to be. I'm pissed about this, and I either want solutions or at the very least honest explanations as to why consoles or games are being made this way. ...and heck, honestly if this truly, really is all a result of advancing technology... well, I didn't ask for it to this extent. Take Black ops 3 back down to lower textures, less particles, and 720p resolution if you must, I just want to be able to pop it in and enjoy it when I want to. It doesn't exactly use current gen for anything spectacular, its just more COD with a good mix of balances, tweaks, and lots of content. Its a shame I have to make room for a freight train just to play some Dead Ops Arcade 2 once in a while.
 |
| Looking at it in 1080p < Playing it at my convenience |
Basically to try and bring this all to a close, I'm mad with how things have progressed, and I'm not sure why we wait until a giant clunky update to make a small complaint that gets lost. I'm done with that. Its literally to the point where memory space is a buying factor to my games. This happened some in last gen, but its far worse here and now. Now its actually to the point where its not just a buying factor, but a contributing factor to deteriorating a game I bought and want to enjoy. Meanwhile I have to look at a big AAA game and think to myself "Which game can I swear off for a while in order to play this one? Will that be enough?" ...only the problem is, I guess you also have to be a medium that sees into the future and knows what kind of updates they'll role out for it. That in mind, the bugs, the push for certain online games, and oh yeah maybe even the thread of episodic games people are talking about, it seems like games are using advanced technology and rising costs as an excuse to ignore proper releases. Convenient gaming that you just buy and enjoy is becoming very rare, and at this rate I wouldn't be surprised if the next game that you want to enjoy is forcing you to make a schedule just to enjoy it for a little if you're not already forced into that position. You'll need to number crunch each game's memory use, provide space for upcoming pieces of it, pay maybe double on the season pass just to make sure you don't get cut off from the community or friends, hope that you're able to keep good internet access day in and day out for when you want to play it, hope that PSN's servers didn't collapse playing red light green light with itself again, and that the random matchmaking puts you in a match that gives you what you wanted from the game. If you check all that off your list and it stays consistent, then maybe you'll be able to play the game the way you want it on your own time. Oh and you want to know what adds the sweet icing on this little issue? The fact that after I started this article, and before I finished it, the servers for the game went down around the new DLC launch. Its fixed now, but I feel like the point stands. Thankfully, I don't feel like I'm simply rabid mad anymore; I don't need to rock the boat when the captain of the ship is drunk and doing a fine job of that himself.
Don't take this the wrong way. I'm grateful for a lot of the great games out there on the PS4, a lot of the fun times I have had, and the true improvements made. My aim isn't to scare you away from newer consoles, but rather to ask why we're stuck on this crappy two steps forward and one back method of travel. Its not even just about the consoles themselves, but a multi-problem escalation of various poor decisions that don't respect the very market that's supposed to be buying this stuff for some fun time. Meanwhile the funny thing is that in the end, the one lot that is totally clear of all this flak are the same guys I expected to drag us further into this crap: Indies & indie-likes. They had to be sold through digital retail, which meant mostly fixed prices, full downloads, and you never really knew if they used the tech right due to resources. Now they're pretty much the only guys doing anything right, and even if its simply by comparison their download nature is a blessing when you realize their entire game is about the length of a AAA game's patch, or even less (actually, its almost always less in my experience). They've had more frequent sales, they release complete and polished enough, and they're usually games you can pile onto your HDD drive and just load up and play on your own time with no hassle. The very worst case is that maybe there's some small online integration with leaderboards that stalls you if your connection isn't working well. The way things are going, I'm kind of in the mood to ponder if another games crash on the AAA side of things would be good or not. Probably not, but again... its just one of those moments where you're just fed up with the way things have been going. I hope something changes for the better soon, because... well it really is a shame that I've actually got to think about selling a game to salvage its value, simply because its been updated into a situation I don't think I can handle.
No comments:
Post a Comment