After a gamer received an early copy of the game before its release and streamed it on YouTube, there was an outrage among fans anticipating the game on Reddit as the video apparently showed an older version of the game for the Nintendo Switch version.

The original post reads: “The end of heists screens lack the speed up feature which means it’s below version 124. But here’s the strange thing ... at 1h 13m 16s, he steps outside and the billboards use the NEW texture which was added in version 131 ... so the graphics have been updated but the game itself has not. That’s odd. But at 1h 16m 44s he’s blinded by a flashbang and there is no flashbang present. This means there’s no flashbang update, which was update 124. There is no possible way the game is above version 124.”

After being contacted by Polygon for some clarifications on the issue, Starbreeze had the following to say:

Payday 2 is releasing on Switch with content up to and including the ‘Most Wanted’ update, which is equivalent to the content released through mid-2017 on PC. PS4 and Xbox One received one additional update after that, the ‘Master Plan’ update, which released near the end of 2017. So Switch is one update behind other consoles, which are slightly behind PC.

The reasoning for the Switch content: we’re making continuous updates to a game that’s turning 5 years old this year, and to get the game out in early 2018 on Switch meant that our team had to go with the content ported and available at the time of console submission. The PS4 and Xbox One versions are now almost up to par with PC content, and Switch is close behind those versions. There are future content updates planned for Switch, as well.

So there you have it officially! The Switch will indeed have an outdated version of the game.

Payday 2 is set for a release on the Nintendo Switch on February 27.

SOURCE

 

[dimmidice]

"older", sorry. typo, i'll fix.

"There was an outrage among fans anticipating the game on Reddit as the video apparently showed an older version of the game for the Nintendo Switch version."

They can't say "one version behind" there because that's not discovered till further in the article. It doesn't make sense to put in the title either because then you're giving away the entire point of the article in the title.

At most they could've bolded "So Switch is one update behind other consoles," or replaced "So there you have it officially! The Switch will indeed have an outdated version of the game." with "So there you have it officially! The Switch will indeed be one update behind the versions of the game." or something like that.

 

[osaka35]

"There was an outrage among fans anticipating the game on Reddit as the video apparently showed an older version of the game for the Nintendo Switch version."

They can't say "one version behind" there because that's not discovered till further in the article. It doesn't make sense to put in the title either because then you're giving away the entire point of the article in the title.

At most they could've bolded "So Switch is one update behind other consoles," or replaced "So there you have it officially! The Switch will indeed have an outdated version of the game." with "So there you have it officially! The Switch will indeed be one update behind the versions of the game." or something like that.

Usually with news, you put the most relevant and pertinent information at the top. Then you discuss the less relevant stuff. Is the news people on reddit jumped the gun, or the game is shipping with a version or two out of date hotfixes? The title and beginning sections make it seem like it's an older build of the game, some drastically older bit of game that is far inferior. Whether this was the intent or not, who knows, but that's how it reads. As this is suppose to be a news article, it should have at least some semblance of accuracy

 

[dimmidice]

Usually with news, you put the most relevant and pertinent information at the top. Then you discuss the less relevant stuff. Is the news people on reddit jumped the gun, or the game is shipping with a version or two out of date hotfixes? The title and beginning sections make it seem like it's an older build of the game, some drastically older bit of game that is far inferior. Whether this was the intent or not, who knows, but that's how it reads. As this is suppose to be a news article, it should have at least some semblance of accuracy

The most pertinent piece of information is the answer to the question "is the switch version an older version" that's what the community was wondering. How much it's behind is specifics. You can't put too many specifics in the title because there's only so much room and you actually want people to read the article.

And again how is it inaccurate? It literally states ALL the facts. Straight from the developers mouth. Keep in mind i already said they could've emphasized it's only one update behind. As i said in my last post. But that's not an inaccuracy.

 

[pwsincd]

no news here... post a large image ... add spin to a sensible statement... and u have "tabloid journalism"

 

[Joe88]

so we have to guess in a range of about 8 months out of date

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

I jumped from the first to the third (latest) page, and we're still arguing about the way the article's written? Jeez.

First, the article content:
It's totally fine for an older version of the game to be out at launch or on game cards, they gave a good rationale, followed by saying the Switch version will be updated later. No problems here.

Second, the article itself:
The title is fine. It's a statement of fact. The article body is also fine, it's an objective report on the situation.

I really don't see why there's a big fuss about any of this? The article isn't taking any slants. I believe those who think it is are just projecting their perceived biases.

add spin to a sensible statement...

If you could elaborate on what "spin" there is, that'd be great. I don't see what you mean.

 

[pwsincd]

well at the time of beginning to port the game to switch it was current... but since then there has been updates on other consoles... makes sense they continue to finish porting it b4 they port further updates. and then they go on to say there will be more updates...

quite informative and logical... but the post ends with a line " indeed the switch will have out dated version" .. suggesting "we knew it would" its only nintendo.!! ... atempting to undermine an inanimate object for the article to have weight.

 

[Deleted-355425]

This game died out pretty fast on Xbox, I won’t be buying it.

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

well at the time of beginning to port the game to switch it was current... but since then there has been updates on other consoles... makes sense they continue to finish porting it b4 they port further updates. and then they go on to say there will be more updates...

quite informative and logical... but the post ends with a line " indeed the switch will have out dated version" .. suggesting "we knew it would" its only nintendo.!! ... atempting to undermine an inanimate object for the article to have weight.

Mmkay, so I was right, you are projecting perceived bias. Look, this story broke out a few days ago when a gamer received an early copy of the game and streamed it to YouTube. That's when people started wondering if it was an outdated version. Now that Starbreeze has confirmed it will launch with an older version, it's completely logical to end the article by saying it "will indeed have an outdated version." The "will indeed" is in reference to the confusion when the story first broke and the official statement given by Starbreeze later to dispel doubts, and not anti-Nintendo bias as you claim it is.

 

[Dungeonseeker]

Fanboyism? Sorry, but you'll have to take my word for it that that I don't give a toss about the game (and don't even have a switch). The reason I'm saying it's a twist of words is, like @xtrem3x says, because it uses the facts and presents things in a completely different way than that it was intended.


If this was a new game, I would agree to that (the first bunch of patches are usually the ones fixing major bugs and/or imbalance issues) . But it isn't. Again: this game apparently has seen 5 years of continuous bugfixes. At that point, your vacuum analogy is more akin to "you get a model of a vacuum cleaner that has been tweaked, upgraded and improved for 4 years...but instead of seeing that as a plus you put on a sour face because your neighbors have one that has a month of extra tweaking and tinkering". In other words: this representation attempts to make something into a problem that never was one in the first place.

You realise you almost exactly defined an inferior product during you're post about how it's not an inferior product, right?

 

[pwsincd]

Mmkay, so I was right, you are projecting perceived bias. Look, this story broke out a few days ago when a gamer received an early copy of the game and streamed it to YouTube. That's when people started wondering if it was an outdated version. Now that Starbreeze has confirmed it will launch with an older version, it's completely logical to end the article by saying it "will indeed have an outdated version." The "will indeed" is in reference to the confusion when the story first broke and the official statement given by Starbreeze later to dispel doubts, and not anti-Nintendo bias as you claim it is.

thats a fair point , then i guess the article could have been clearer.

 

[osaka35]

I jumped from the first to the third (latest) page, and we're still arguing about the way the article's written? Jeez.

First, the article content:
It's totally fine for an older version of the game to be out at launch or on game cards, they gave a good rationale, followed by saying the Switch version will be updated later. No problems here.

Second, the article itself:
The title is fine. It's a statement of fact. The article body is also fine, it's an objective report on the situation.

I really don't see why there's a big fuss about any of this? The article isn't taking any slants. I believe those who think it is are just projecting their perceived biases.


If you could elaborate on what "spin" there is, that'd be great. I don't see what you mean.

objective, it is not. this is a very good example of how to not write an article and how to.mislead. terrible journalism.

 

[Pippin666]

I want another fps like Doom, run and shoot. Not gonna buy this what ever the version.

Pip'

 

[Futurdreamz]

I fail to see how any of this is news or warranting this argument. It's one thing if they will not or are unable to update it later, but they are focusing on a stable port first then immediately will port the updates. If the updates were extreme then they would've waited for them and rolled them into the port (such as the texture updates), but adding bits such as a flashbang can easily be added later.

 

[Kioku]

I fail to see how any of this is news or warranting this argument. It's one thing if they will not or are unable to update it later, but they are focusing on a stable port first then immediately will port the updates. If the updates were extreme then they would've waited for them and rolled them into the port (such as the texture updates), but adding bits such as a flashbang can easily be added later.

In this day and age where multiplat ports are expected to have the same content at the same time (not counting the console exclusivity BS with Activision and the like) its an issue. Or at the very least something to show concern about. The only thing that Doom didn't get due to technical reasons was snap map. Outside of that, it's EXACTLY the same game.

The excuse of a "stable port" after a pretty unhealthy length of time with no news after announcement doesn't work here.

 

[Futurdreamz]

In this day and age where multiplat ports are expected to have the same content at the same time (not counting the console exclusivity BS with Activision and the like) its an issue. Or at the very least something to show concern about. The only thing that Doom didn't get due to technical reasons was snap map. Outside of that, it's EXACTLY the same game.

The excuse of a "stable port" after a pretty unhealthy length of time with no news after announcement doesn't work here.

Realistically if Sony or Microsoft came out with an entirely new console that didn't have backwards compatibility the developer would be doing the same thing anyways, porting a specific build then adding the patches after. Payday 2 was brought to the other systems several years ago so they can focus solely on patching. Just be grateful that you are getting the game and you only have to wait a little for parity.

 

[osaka35]

I fail to see how any of this is news or warranting this argument. It's one thing if they will not or are unable to update it later, but they are focusing on a stable port first then immediately will port the updates. If the updates were extreme then they would've waited for them and rolled them into the port (such as the texture updates), but adding bits such as a flashbang can easily be added later.

Agreed. This is business as usual, but some seem to think the sky is falling. It's utterly baffling. Especially since this was run as a news article.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

I wonder if people remember how shit Overkill is as a dev team for their console ports? Y'know, like how they previously told consoles owners to "buy a fucking platform it works on" (aka PC) when the game was basically broken on consoles for months instead of, y'know, fixing it. Quality dev! Surely they won't act the same way here!

If you honestly think they're gonna support the Switch version any more than they do the other console ports, you'll be sorely disappointed. I expect one or two updates that won't even bring it to current builds and then complete abandonment in favor of PC only. It wouldn't surprise me that the only update they bother with is one that adds paid DLC and that's it.

The game itself is nice and all, and maybe if you've never played before it might even be worth getting if you don't mind always being behind on builds, but otherwise meh, not worth the money.

 

[Kioku]

Agreed. This is business as usual, but some seem to think the sky is falling. It's utterly baffling. Especially since this was run as a news article.

Been following this since it was posted on Reddit. Can safely say this is as bad as it sounds. Tom said it right. You'll be sorely disappointed if you think they'll support the Switch version anymore. Oh well, I digress. People seem to be okay with the lackluster these days? Oh well, won't matter to me. Won't be buying it.

 

[osaka35]

Been following this since it was posted on Reddit. Can safely say this is as bad as it sounds. Tom said it right. You'll be sorely disappointed if you think they'll support the Switch version anymore. Oh well, I digress. People seem to be okay with the lackluster these days? Oh well, won't matter to me. Won't be buying it.

So we shouldn't believe them when they said it'll get the same updates the other consoles will? The things missing seem to just be hotfixes for the most part...I'm not sure why that's "lackluster"