Clarification on Xbox submissions

Mike Reitmeyer · Jun 20, 2012

I just wanted to clarify something about our previous submission that failed due to Title Update size. We didn't fail because we tried to include the DLC tables in the title update, we failed because we were trying to patch the assets for the original 4 launch tables (Tales, Black Hole, Ripleys, and Theater of Magic). The DLC tables were and still are separate downloads.

The solution we had to implement is the executable is patched, along with some assets for the menus. After you download the patch and run, when you get to the main menu a dialog will appear suggesting you download the updated launch tables . If you download this update (optional), it will include bug fixes and the lighting fixes I mentioned a few weeks ago.

The DLC and Title Update are awaiting Microsoft's approval. We'll let you know as soon as they approve it.

PiN WiZ · Jun 20, 2012

Will this be a factor when trying to patch the assets for DLC tables in the future or is it a non issue since DLC tables were not part of the original game?

Mike Reitmeyer · Jun 20, 2012

It shouldn't be, since the assets are a separate download, you may be asked to re-download them. The only real pain is that we have to write the code to handle whether or not the player downloads the newer assets or stays with the old ones.

The Title Update itself is just the executable and some menu assets. The executable contains the execution code for each table, but the ROM, Textures, Models, Sound, are part of the table assets.

I do find it odd, that we are not allowed to require the user to download a set of assets to play. For example, say we change the HUD assets, since those were in the original game (in one location), we either have to program to allow the user to have old and new (separate download), or put the new HUD assets in EVERY table. Which means they download redundant assets. But you can't say, tell the user if you don't download this update, you can't play these tables (the ones that use those assets).

PiN WiZ · Jun 20, 2012

Mike Reitmeyer said:
It shouldn't be, since the assets are a separate download, you may be asked to re-download them. The only real pain is that we have to write the code to handle whether or not the player downloads the newer assets or stays with the old ones.

The Title Update itself is just the executable and some menu assets. The executable contains the execution code for each table, but the ROM, Textures, Models, Sound, are part of the table assets.

I do find it odd, that we are not allowed to require the user to download a set of assets to play. For example, say we change the HUD assets, since those were in the original game (in one location), we either have to program to allow the user to have old and new (separate download), or put the new HUD assets in EVERY table. Which means they download redundant assets. But you can't say, tell the user if you don't download this update, you can't play these tables (the ones that use those assets).

If users are not going to be required to download table updates, how is this going to affect online tournaments since it's possible not everyone will be playing the exact same version of any given table?

Mike Reitmeyer · Jun 20, 2012

PiN WiZ said:
If users are not going to be required to download table updates, how is this going to affect online tournaments since it's possible not everyone will be playing the exact same version of any given table?

I would imagine we could require that you have the latest or you can't play a tournament. Hopefully we can convince Microsoft that , that is the only fair way to do it. I know we can lock someone out of a tournament, if the tournament included a table they didn't own.

PiN WiZ · Jun 20, 2012

Mike Reitmeyer said:
I would imagine we could require that you have the latest or you can't play a tournament. Hopefully we can convince Microsoft that , that is the only fair way to do it. I know we can lock someone out of a tournament, if the tournament included a table they didn't own.

Thanks for the replies Mike...I'll let you get some well deserved rest now.

Mike Reitmeyer · Jun 20, 2012

Welcome. Have a good night.

Kevlar · Jun 20, 2012

Can't all updates be compulsory? why would someone not update when launching the game and being told there is an update?

Franky · Jun 20, 2012

sorry, maybe i get something wrong - the TU was rejected and it has nothing to do with the dlcs - so why are we still waiting for the dlcs then?

Jeff Strong · Jun 20, 2012

Kevlar said:
Can't all updates be compulsory? why would someone not update when launching the game and being told there is an update?

No, I think they all have to be optional.

Pinhead · Jun 20, 2012

Thank you very much for the clarification, Mike! I always appreciate such transparency from game developers.

I wish your resubmission process and eventual DLC release much success.

Kevlar said:
Can't all updates be compulsory? why would someone not update when launching the game and being told there is an update?

Yeah, title updates are only mandatory insofar as declining one will disconnect you from LIVE during that game's session.

Well, I've chosen not to accept the recent Minecraft update, because I'm working with some friends on a project that would be impractical without the duplication glitch that has been patched.

Franky said:
sorry, maybe i get something wrong - the TU was rejected and it has nothing to do with the dlcs - so why are we still waiting for the dlcs then?

I was kinda wondering that myself. Until now I'd assumed the oversized update was critical to running the new tables. Now, I'm not sure why the DLC wasn't pushed through while the update was in limbo.

Matt McIrvin · Jun 20, 2012

Mike Reitmeyer said:
I do find it odd, that we are not allowed to require the user to download a set of assets to play. For example, say we change the HUD assets, since those were in the original game (in one location), we either have to program to allow the user to have old and new (separate download), or put the new HUD assets in EVERY table. Which means they download redundant assets. But you can't say, tell the user if you don't download this update, you can't play these tables (the ones that use those assets).

While I don't know the details of how these downloads work, I could understand this policy as a guard against vendors pulling certain kinds of higher-order shenanigans. E.g. offer a free update to a game but have it break the game unless you then buy a non-free download.

Even short of vendor malice, it'd prevent a situation where a download broke someone's game because they installed the patch and then their connection went down, or there was some problem installing the subsequent download, etc. Better to say that at the end of each install you are always left with a functioning product.

Matt McIrvin · Jun 20, 2012

Pinhead said:
I was kinda wondering that myself. Until now I'd assumed the oversized update was critical to running the new tables. Now, I'm not sure why the DLC wasn't pushed through while the update was in limbo.

They've got enough trouble dealing with varying assets; this strategy would mean that they'd also have to support two different versions of the executable running the new DLC. They may not think the specific changes that led to the TU rejection are critical to the new tables, but there are apparently a bunch of bug fixes and stuff in there too, which could affect the new tables themselves.

In general, if you're a commercial software developer, you always want to restrict the possible combinations of code and assets and environments that you have to support, to the maximum degree consistent with your business; that reduces the potential for unexpected trouble.

Sean DonCarlos · Jun 20, 2012

Pinhead said:
Until now I'd assumed the oversized update was critical to running the new tables. Now, I'm not sure why the DLC wasn't pushed through while the update was in limbo.

Mike said the title update has executable code for the tables as well as new menu assets (presumably for the new tables). So if the DLC came out first, you would likely be able to download the new tables but then have no means to access/execute them.

Ark Malmeida · Jun 20, 2012

Thanks for taking the time to create this thread and update us Mike! Very much looking forward to the new tables (and the improvements to the old tables which already look and play great IMO).

Gord Lacey · Jun 20, 2012

Franky said:
sorry, maybe i get something wrong - the TU was rejected and it has nothing to do with the dlcs - so why are we still waiting for the dlcs then?

The code update includes menu assets which would be needed to access any of the DLC. Having the DLC is useless if you don't have the menu that allows you to access it.

Mike Reitmeyer · Jun 20, 2012

Serenseven said:
Mike said the title update has executable code for the tables as well as new menu assets (presumably for the new tables). So if the DLC came out first, you would likely be able to download the new tables but then have no means to access/execute them.

Gord Lacey said:
The code update includes menu assets which would be needed to access any of the DLC. Having the DLC is useless if you don't have the menu that allows you to access it.

Exactly. No menu assets to access the tables from. And also the code to handle the special objects on the table is part of the executable. Each table requires some special code to get it to work properly.

DLC takes about 3 days for approval, but it won't work without a code update. So either a title update is necessary (which takes a few weeks for certification), or you would have to add code to the DLC, in which case the DLC then has to go through multiple weeks of certification. The simplest and fastest way is to just update the title update with the code so only one certification is needed. This also allows code fixes for all tables in one submission.

Richard B · Jun 20, 2012

Matt McIrvin said:
They've got enough trouble dealing with varying assets; this strategy would mean that they'd also have to support two different versions of the executable running the new DLC. They may not think the specific changes that led to the TU rejection are critical to the new tables, but there are apparently a bunch of bug fixes and stuff in there too, which could affect the new tables themselves.

In general, if you're a commercial software developer, you always want to restrict the possible combinations of code and assets and environments that you have to support, to the maximum degree consistent with your business; that reduces the potential for unexpected trouble.

If they have to keep old assets for the one or two dumb asses who insist on not updating their tables, then the cost and complexity exponentially increases every time they update the tables. Thus, we may never see them improving the physics, fixing the Black Hole and Gorgar problems, add operator menus (or limited options) and other wish list improvements.

Mike Reitmeyer · Jun 20, 2012

Matt McIrvin said:
While I don't know the details of how these downloads work, I could understand this policy as a guard against vendors pulling certain kinds of higher-order shenanigans. E.g. offer a free update to a game but have it break the game unless you then buy a non-free download.

Even short of vendor malice, it'd prevent a situation where a download broke someone's game because they installed the patch and then their connection went down, or there was some problem installing the subsequent download, etc. Better to say that at the end of each install you are always left with a functioning product.

For Xbox 360, a Title Update (Patch) is downloaded to a separate location, then applied overtop the original executable (which remains untouched). This is to prevent the game breaking if a download fails somehow. The original game is always there, the patch is just applied overtop at runtime. Assets are the same, they are access through a separate path. So the original assets still exist on your machine.

As for the malice issue, the certification process should weed out anyone trying to do that. Especially if the download is mandatory to play.

The size limitation is odd to me in this day where games like Diablo are a 15GB download, or the latest patch for Battlefield is 1.5GB (which EA was able to get an exception to the 4MB rule)

I think the problem mostly lies with Microsoft and Sony still being game disc oriented, they haven't really embraced Downloading games fully yet.

Emmanuel Papillon · Jun 20, 2012

Richard B said:
If they have to keep old assets for the one or two dumb asses who insist on not updating their tables, then the cost and complexity exponentially increases every time they update the tables. Thus, we may never see them improving the physics, fixing the Black Hole and Gorgar problems, add operator menus (or limited options) and other wish list improvements.

That's insane.

Is there no other way?

Clarification on Xbox submissions

FarSight Employee

Mod & Forum Superstar

FarSight Employee

Mod & Forum Superstar

FarSight Employee

Mod & Forum Superstar

FarSight Employee

New member

Franky

Guest

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

Site Founder

FarSight Employee

New member

FarSight Employee

New member