MLB The Show 17 News Post

MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

10:51 AM - April 11, 2017 by Steve_OS

MLB The Show 17 patch 1.03 is available now, check out the patch notes below.

Online gameplay fixes and improvements (both in menus and in the field)
- Time outs, bullpen and substitution menus.
- Pausing/unpausing at the same time as your opponent.
- Double switching and pinch hitters/runners.
Detroit Tigers road uniform name fixed.
Year to year save fixes and message handling.

We will update this post if more details arrive later.

Game: MLB The Show 17Hype Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS4Votes for game: 36 - View All

Member Comments

# 101 underdog13 @ 04/12/17 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	I agree that it's very strange how anal people are about small visual details when there are significant, relatively easy-to-fix gameplay issues to work out. I don't understand how someone can think getting the socks right is more important than in-season contract extensions

Contract Extensions aren't a gameplay issue, and is way harder to implement then the correct socks.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

# 102 ParisB @ 04/12/17 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	I agree that it's very strange how anal people are about small visual details when there are significant, relatively easy-to-fix gameplay issues to work out. I don't understand how someone can think getting the socks right is more important than in-season contract extensions, but if that's what the fans are asking for, then we gameplay critics need to speak up louder, I guess? I don't know even know how the developers find out what the customers want. What channels do they use to reach out to us?

Yea but to each their own. For me, I've watched almost every single Angels game for the last 20 years and go to 10 games per season...yet I have no idea if The Show has their socks, jersey fonts, alternate jerseys, gloves, stripes etc all correct. I don't even know if they have stadium details or dimensions correct. Just not my thing. If it looks and plays like a rat, then golly it must be a rat [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

# 103 dalger21 @ 04/12/17 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underdog13


	Contract Extensions aren't a gameplay issue, and is way harder to implement then the correct socks. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

People that aren't programmers usually assume something is easy to implement. "Oh just add it in, such and such had it in their game." That's generally the attitude.

# 104 BillPeener @ 04/12/17 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underdog13


	Contract Extensions aren't a gameplay issue, and is way harder to implement then the correct socks. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Contracts affect player morale, which affects gameplay in Franchise mode because it influences player ratings. And of course, offering contracts is part of being a realistic GM. Yes, that doesn't apply to arcade mode, so what I'm hearing you say is that you don't count Franchise mode as part of gameplay. Do I have that correct?

How are extensions harder to implement than correct socks? I'm a programmer, so I know how changing even a small feature can break the game. However, offering extensions in-season has been done by many other baseball games, ones that never had official socks. Programming the extension logic would take some time, but once it's coded, it can be mostly re-used in subsequent years.

Those socks, however, need to be updated every year to comply with new graphic upgrades and whatever legal rights Sony must secure to use brand names. Not to mention, players often change sponsors, and developers surely have to keep up with apparel changes every year.

On the flip side, Extension logic never depends on brand rights or ever-increasing fidelity. Comparably, the trade system has been basically the same format for years now - I'm guessing they've made minimal changes over the years to it, and the same can happen with extensions. Once the system is in place, for the most part it only needs tweaking.

Socks need far more than tweaking, but maybe you have better reasons for your claims. I'm definitely interested in your explanation.

And of course, socks and contracts extensions are just one dimension of this "what the fans want" / gameplay dilemma.

# 105 BillPeener @ 04/12/17 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalger21


	People that aren't programmers usually assume something is easy to implement. "Oh just add it in, such and such had it in their game." That's generally the attitude.

And what about people who are programmers? How does their attitude usually go?

# 106 jmel07 @ 04/12/17 01:32 PM

Any gameplay changes in this patch? I'm just not going to read 14 pages (sorry, I know it's semi-lazy).

Thanks

# 107 bcruise @ 04/12/17 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	And what about people who are* programmers? How does their attitude usually go?*

More realistic than ours.

You don't know what their job entails if you aren't a programmer, so why speculate?

# 108 bcruise @ 04/12/17 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmel07


	Any gameplay changes in this patch? I'm just not going to read 14 pages (sorry, I know it's semi-lazy). Thanks

Nothing reported on. The things mentioned in the first post are all we know of for sure.

# 109 WaitTilNextYear @ 04/12/17 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tessl


	This thread is a perfect example of why gameplay doesn't get fixed. Search through the thread and you see people complaining about some teams road batting practice jersey, some other teams matte batting helmet, somebody using a gimmick mode - quick counts - complains it isn't realistic so now they have to spend time fixing a gimmick mode. There is a sticky about socks. The numbers of a uniform weren't the correct height. Last year a few people who must play with metal bats complained the ball on hits down the foul line didn't curve enough like they do with a metal bat - MLB uses wooden bats. Now balls curve foul like a Frisbee in a hurricane. I'm glad they fixed that. The devs have this long list of stuff to fix and gameplay issues frequently never get fixed. I play manage mode - the purest form with zero human input. CPU vs CPU. Full counts. There isn't enough offense. Not enough hits, not enough runs. That seems like kind of an important thing. When they determine the winner of a game they add up the runs to determine the winner. Call me crazy but it seems to me that's something they would have interest in getting right. I've never heard of socks determining the winner of a game. Are they going to fix it? If I was a gambling man I'd bet they won't.

It really baffles me as to how otherwise intelligent people can be so reductionist and closed-minded in their viewpoints. Why should everyone need to set their priorities as you do? There are thousands of customers all with their own set of likes/dislikes/preferences so statistically speaking some people will care about things that you don't and vice versa. How is it that people still are made incredulous by this notion? So what if someone worries about sock colors and someone else worries more about gameplay issues?

The best strategy to take around posts/threads/topics you don't care about is to avoid them and watch them sink to the bottom eventually. Do I think that some people on here are victims of moderate-to-severe OCD...probably? But, I am not a medical doctor. Is it right of me to belittle their interests at every turn because I don't share their interests? No, it isn't.

# 110 PhlliesPhan6 @ 04/12/17 01:35 PM

PS4 noob here. Are patches the same as PS3 where I get prompted to download it when I start the game? I didn't get asked to download it last night.

Sent from my VS987 using Operation Sports mobile app

# 111 bcruise @ 04/12/17 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhlliesPhan6


	PS4 noob here. Are patches the same as PS3 where I get prompted to download it when I start the game? I didn't get asked to download it last night. Sent from my VS987 using Operation Sports mobile app

It might have downloaded automatically. Highlight the Show 17 icon, press options and go to update history. If it says 1.03 you're good.

It does usually prompt you before you start a game if you have auto updating off.

# 112 ODogg @ 04/12/17 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcruise


	More realistic than ours. You don't know what their job entails if you aren't a programmer, so why speculate?

I'm not a programmer but I took programming in college so yeah, probably why I give games a little more slack. People don't realize just adding/changing one little thing can affect all sorts of other things. Things don't get programmed in a vacuum.

# 113 underdog13 @ 04/12/17 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	Contracts affect player morale, which affects gameplay in Franchise mode because it influences player ratings. And of course, offering contracts is part of being a realistic GM. Yes, that doesn't apply to arcade mode, so what I'm hearing you say is that you don't count Franchise mode as part of gameplay. Do I have that correct? How are extensions harder to implement than correct socks? I'm a programmer, so I know how changing even a small feature can break the game. However, offering extensions in-season has been done by many other baseball games, ones that never had official socks. Programming the extension logic would take some time, but once it's coded, it can be mostly re-used in subsequent years. Those socks, however, need to be updated every year to comply with new graphic upgrades and whatever legal rights Sony must secure to use brand names. Not to mention, players often change sponsors, and developers surely have to keep up with apparel changes every year. On the flip side, Extension logic never depends on brand rights or ever-increasing fidelity. Comparably, the trade system has been basically the same format for years now - I'm guessing they've made minimal changes over the years to it, and the same can happen with extensions. Once the system is in place, for the most part it only needs tweaking. Socks need far more than tweaking, but maybe you have better reasons for your claims. I'm definitely interested in your explanation. And of course, socks and contracts extensions are just one dimension of this "what the fans want" / gameplay dilemma.

I consider contract extensions to be a franchise feature not a gameplay feature.

As for other Mlb games having mid season contract extensions, I remember mvp 05 having midseason contract extensions but don't recall if the cpu ever did them. Either way that would be a requirement now if implemented, and that would be the hardest part.

Things that are factors in midseason contract extensions that aren't there for offseason extensions.

- At what point in the season does a contract get signed? Is it more likely to get done in the spring or later in mid summer
- How does a player morale adjust during a season he expects to get a contract extensions.
- How does a players performance adjust how much a player/team want to sign an extension? Does a player decide not to sign if he is having a great season?
- If a team isn't going to sign a guy, do they trade him at the deadline or do they trade for someone to replace him?
- If they don't get a contract done during the season, how does that impact chances of getting one done during offseason?
-What about if a player gets injuried? Does the team stop wanting to sign him, or just lower his value?

All these make it way more complicated, I for one would be very disappointed if midseason contract extensions were the main addition feature of Franchise mode.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

# 114 BillPeener @ 04/12/17 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underdog13


	I consider contract extensions to be a franchise feature not a gameplay feature. As for other Mlb games having mid season contract extensions, I remember mvp 05 having midseason contract extensions but don't recall if the cpu ever did them. Either way that would be a requirement now if implemented, and that would be the hardest part. Things that are factors in midseason contract extensions that aren't there for offseason extensions. - At what point in the season does a contract get signed? Is it more likely to get done in the spring or later in mid summer - How does a player morale adjust during a season he expects to get a contract extensions. - How does a players performance adjust how much a player/team want to sign an extension? Does a player decide not to sign if he is having a great season? - If a team isn't going to sign a guy, do they trade him at the deadline or do they trade for someone to replace him? - If they don't get a contract done during the season, how does that impact chances of getting one done during offseason? -What about if a player gets injuried? Does the team stop wanting to sign him, or just lower his value? All these make it way more complicated, I for one would be very disappointed if midseason contract extensions were the main addition feature of Franchise mode. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

You did a good job explaining why contract extension logic can be so complicated. But even then, we're talking about a game designed to emulate reality. Is it more realistic to not be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with authentic socks, or is it more realistic to be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with generic socks?

Again, it's not just a matter of socks - there's so many more visual aspects the devs would have to get right to make the game look realistic. But here's the other thing - I don't know about you, but the game itself doesn't really look all that real. It's called the Uncanny Valley effect, and boy does it affect this year's game. Players are becoming so realistic that I'm starting to see how unrealistic they actually are. After playing '16, seeing '17's pitcher deliveries and batter swings made me cringe. The swinging motions, the way the bat hits the ball, and those darn pitchers...

It looked really bad until I got used to it. But here's the thing, I don't care about that because I don't expect the developers to make the game look as realistic as real life. That's unbelievably hard to do and will never be perfect. In fact, I bet the Uncanny Valley problem only gets worse as the game becomes more realistic. You liked that one guy's post bashing people who aren't programmers and thus can't comprehend the magnitude of the problem, but visual realism is a major programming dilemma that hasn't even come close to satisfying the naked eye.

My argument is that they should put less programming effort into socks and more programming effort into actual MLB mechanics. This is not just a baseball game - it's an MLB game, and thus ought to have MLB likeness. For me, contract extensions go far more towards depicting reality than batting gloves on a player who swings so unrealistically.

Also, as long as contracts affect player morale and thus player ratings in Franchise mode, then you simply can't justify saying extensions are merely a feature and not a gameplay issue. If the developers added the option to disable player morale, then yes, contracts would no longer affect gameplay.

Finally, despite the complications with contract extensions, OOTP has had them for years. No other game has ever had truly realistic socks. So, one could argue that extensions are by default easier to program, seeing as they already have been. (and to critical acclaim)

# 115 Mav3rek7 @ 04/12/17 01:56 PM

As a programmer, I can tell you that changing a visual aspect should be a super simple and quick/easy fix. Changing the way something behaves programmatically is a much more time consuming/deeper issue.

I understand people upset that uni-fixes are done before gameplay fixes. But the simple fact of the matter is, that a gameplay fix that would alter the way the game behaves would take a little time to re-program, debug, test, tidy up the programming, and then test again, and then post.

It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process.

Trust the process.

# 116 dalger21 @ 04/12/17 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	And what about people who are* programmers? How does their attitude usually go?*

People that are programmers know how these things go. I'm not saying you can't be upset about something you want implemented and it hasn't been added. All I'm saying is that it's not as easy as "putting it in".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mav3rek7


	It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process.

Explained better.

# 117 underdog13 @ 04/12/17 02:11 PM

First to get it out of the way, the post I liked in no way bashed non programmers. I definitely feel it to be true though. Many people on here expect things that are way harder than they appear. Something like rotating interleague schedules comes to mind. Creating an algorithm for that would be a huge pain.

I agree they should focus on more franchise modes and more off field things. Personally things like numbers being too low, I've never noticed besides pictures on OS. On the other hand something like mid season contract extensions doesn't matter to me either.

Things that matter to me like profile association in rtts and not hiding stats in rtts, don't get much attention from others because it doesn't effect or matter to them. Just like uniforms and mid season mode extensions don't matter to me.

In the end, everyone should respect each other's opinions. Even if we don't care about what they care about. I know I've never opened the uniform thread because it's not something that interests me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	You did a good job explaining why contract extension logic can be so complicated. But even then, we're talking about a game designed to emulate reality. Is it more realistic to not be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with authentic socks, or is it more realistic to be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with generic socks? Again, it's not just a matter of socks - there's so many more visual aspects the devs would have to get right to make the game look realistic. But here's the other thing - I don't know about you, but the game itself doesn't really look all that real. It's called the Uncanny Valley effect, and boy does it affect this year's game. Players are becoming so realistic that I'm starting to see how unrealistic they actually are. After playing '16, seeing '17's pitcher deliveries and batter swings made me cringe. The swinging motions, the way the bat hits the ball, and those darn pitchers... It looked really bad until I got used to it. But here's the thing, I don't care about that I don't expect the developers to make the game look as realistic as real life. That's unbelievably hard to do and will never be perfect. In fact, I bet you the Uncanny Valley problem only gets worse as game becomes more realistic. You liked that one guys post bashing people who aren't programmers and thus can't comprehend the magnitude of the problem, but visual realism is a MAJOR programming dilemma that hasn't even come close to satisfying the naked eye. My argument is that they should put less programming effort into socks and more programming effort into actual MLB mechanics. This is not just a baseball game - it's an MLB game, and thus ought to have MLB likeness. For me, contract extensions go far more towards depicting reality than batting gloves on a player who swings so unrealistically. Also, as long as contracts affect player morale and thus player ratings in Franchise mode, then you simply can't justify saying extensions are merely a feature and not a gameplay issue. If the developers added the option to disable player morale, then yes, contracts would no longer affect gameplay. Finally, despite the complications with contract extensions, OOTP has had them for years. No other game has ever had truly realistic socks. So, one could argue that extensions are by default easier to program, seeing as they already have been. (and to critical acclaim)

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

# 118 BillPeener @ 04/12/17 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mav3rek7


	As a programmer, I can tell you that changing a visual aspect should be a super simple and quick/easy fix. Changing the way something behaves programmatically is a much more time consuming/deeper issue. I understand people upset that uni-fixes are done before gameplay fixes. But the simple fact of the matter is, that a gameplay fix that would alter the way the game behaves would take a little time to re-program, debug, test, tidy up the programming, and then test again, and then post. It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process. Trust the process.

First you say you're a programmer, then you say visual graphics are "super simple and quick/easy" to fix. If it's so easy, then why didn't games 10-15 years ago have official socks, yet they had contract extensions (or other related logic)?

As a programmer, if Sony came to me right now and said, "you can either program the socks, or you can program the contract extensions", I'm taking the latter every single day. I don't know how SCEA's visual graphics system works. Maybe they've made it relatively simple to add new gloves, shoes, socks, and so on.

Even then, they still have to update that every year as the engine changes. I don't know how you can make the argument that contract logic is significantly more complicated / time-consuming than handling graphic upgrades every single year. Because remember, contract logic doesn't necessarily have to change much, if at all, each year. Once it's done, it's kinda just done.

I'm willing to leave open the possibility that the visuals are actually easier / quicker to implement than particular gameplay mechanisms, but I have a lot of doubt.

# 119 baconbits11 @ 04/12/17 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffy777


	It honestly doesn't matter if The Show has single player modes for that matter. They market it as a multiplayer game and it should deliver on that because there are plenty of people who only buy The Show to play exclusively online. It should be held to the same standard as any other game that has multiplayer. That's the only reason I mentioned other multiplayer games and the fact that there would be a virtual **** storm if their servers were in this state for 2 weeks following release.

I would guess this has more to do with the online code of the game than the servers. I would think this game has a lot of legacy code considering online has been a problem with the Show for a good 5 years.

# 120 Mav3rek7 @ 04/12/17 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillPeener


	First you say you're a programmer, then you say visual graphics are "super simple and quick/easy" to fix. If it's so easy, then why didn't games 10-15 years ago have official socks, yet they had contract extensions (or other related logic)? As a programmer, if Sony came to me right now and said, "you can either program the socks, or you can program the contract extensions", I'm taking the latter every single day. I don't know how SCEA's visual graphics system works. Maybe they've made it relatively simple to add new gloves, shoes, socks, and so on. Even then, they still have to update that every year as the engine changes. I don't know how you can make the argument that contract logic is significantly more complicated / time-consuming than handling graphic upgrades every single year. Because remember, contract logic doesn't necessarily have to change much, if at all, each year. Once it's done, it's kinda just done. I'm willing to leave open the possibility that the visuals are actually easier / quicker to implement than particular gameplay mechanisms, but I have a lot of doubt.

I say I'm a programmer because I am a programmer...

The point I was making is that visual issues are usually just a simple matter of updating the overlay for that particular part. The basic programming structure of the jersey is there, the colors are just simply overlays for those pieces. The issue of an incorrect uniform part could be as simple as changing one line of code. Instead of leftUniSleeve = "12345" it needed to be leftUniSleeve = "12346". Those types of programming issues are quick/easy related to visual aspects.

Official uniform sock choices weren't in the game 10-15 years ago because of memory space. It's 2017, we have more space on things than ever before and can add in the little things that had to be omitted previously.

As for contract extensions, I'm going to make some assumptions here...

1) I'd say each year with each new iteration of MLB the Show they probably start with a bare bones template (for lack of a better term) and build from the ground up. If they were simply reusing all the code from last year and just updating rosters, then we'd get a new game every month, or not at all.

2) There is turnover in any company. Maybe the same guys who worked on it last year aren't 100% the same guys who worked on it this year. Maybe they switched roles, who knows.

3) Sometimes in code you don't really know how adding in one thing may affect another. Or it changes it in a way you didn't expect. You can plan/code/test till you're blue in the face, but something seemingly trivial can greatly change something else and you may have never seen it coming. It happens.

4) Contract logic is infinitely more complicated than visual aspects. Logic in general is infinitely more complicated. The graphics are nothing but skins on top of 1's and 0's. The actual 1's and 0's themselves are the hard part. Putting a pretty bow on something in the programming world is a trivial task.

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 Next »

More Links

MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details