ScrabbitRabbit said:
Even without this glitch...
6.7 GB. For a patch.
Some people don't seem to entirely understand how patching works. Many game files are binaries, or are at least in some way compressed and/or obfuscated. That often means that there's no way to just modify the file in question; if you want to patch it you go back to the source, make your changes, then generate an entirely new file. When people install the patch, they need to download the entire new file, not just a short log of changes to be made to it. So no, 6.7GB is not at all unreasonable, and whether this is the first, fourth, or hundredth patch has absolutely no bearing on how big it might be. All this means is that there are a bunch of different files being patched, probably including at least some involving textures and/or sounds which tend to take up quite a bit of space. It absolutely does not mean that they're having to replace half the game and that therefore it should never have been released.
Of course, the fact that they're up to their fourth major patch and the game is still buggier than a box of cockroaches probably does mean it should not have been released. But it's the amount of things they still have to fix despite the huge number of fixes already made that indicates that, not the raw size of the files used in the patches.
There can be a reasonable argument made that this demonstrates poor design. Having all individual textures, sounds, etc. as separate files makes it far easier to fix an issue that might only exist for a few of them. And of course it makes it much easier for modders to work with it, although not only is that not so much of a concern for devs focussed on consoles, it may even be a reason they deliberately don't do this. However, it does come with downsides to optimisation and the like, since digging through long directory structures and loading lots of separate files can slow things down more than having a single very large but highly optimised file designed specifically for the game to work with.