Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
I see you're not aware of PC gaming experience as well. It's okay to be naive.
That and you can always cancel patch installation on games. If you are playing online then of course you'll need a patch.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Downloaded game from PSN. Excited to play. Patch detected.
- Thread starter Hydrogen Bluebird
- Start date
I see you're not aware of PC gaming experience as well. It's okay to be naive.
That and you can always cancel patch installation on games. If you are playing online then of course you'll need a patch.
Because with LBP, you're downloading all of the bonus content/DLC/costumes. You can play all of the new content if you join a friend that has purchased it. Same deal with multiple costumes for fighting games.
360 patches are limited in size. It's the reason why you had to download the Burnout Paradise expansions on XBLM separately instead of it just auto-patching. It's also why they're much faster.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
I think it's because KOFXIII wasn't available as a digital title until recently, thus the version submitted to certification was 1.02.
Anyways, treat the problem, not the symptoms. Pretty much all the suggestions in this thread would have been rendered moot if a sensible digital system had been implemented.
IIRC, on the 360 there are pretty strict limitations on the size of patches, but Sony allows developers more freedom in this respect.
wackojackosnose
Member
The worst ones are when the updated patch is just a newer and replacement version of what you just downloaded e.g. SSF2, MvC2.
Hari Seldon
Member
Often when I want to play a game of NHL13 on my PS3, I will start the boot process up and then go over to my PC and play a few minutes of GW2. Yes I can load up an entire MMO and mess around in the AH before I can actually get into a game of NHL13. Although most of this is probably EAs fault since it has to connect to a different server every time you go into a fucking menu option, like the game is coming at you via Onlive or something.
hey now, Onlive doesn't work that way.
NHL 13's UI is completely dogshit. It takes forever to connect to EA's servers and even longer to load a franchise or online franchise. Coming from 11 it's jarring.
The_Player
Member
That's the question I'm askin myself every time the game downloads for 6 hours and deciding to patch afterwards, right when I'm full of anticipation for playing. Dudes really should learn from (at least) Valve how to execute D2D service.
Have lived in 3 places with 2 different isps wired/wireless different modems different routers, even multiple ps3s forwarding specific ports etc etc.
Psn for me has consistently has had slower internet than any other internet enabled device I have used post dial up.
My vita seems to be slow but not NEARLY as slow as my ps3 when it comes to this thankfully.
Downloading/installing tokyo jungle took 7 hours from start to finish. Started the download went to a short 5 hour shift at work came home and it wasn't even close to done yet.
I can't remember the last time and XBL or steam game took more than an hour and most it's less than half of that.
Felix Lighter
Member
Seems like a reasonable complaint to me. Playing without patching isn't always a good idea. Hopefully, they get it right next time around because I don't think anything is going to change with the current system. Is it handled the same way in with the Vita?
But you said the patches are mandatory. Kaz Hirai pls
My first guess is certification. Patches are faster and less expensive to certify than an entire game all over again. No need to have to re-cert the entire game for a patch.
Second guess would be recompiling - unless you jump versions (1.0 - 2.0) you usually don't recompile code especially something heavy like a video game.
Patches are also easier to maintain when that patch introduces more bugs... saving developers time from recompiling the entire game all over again for version 1.02
Its a much more cost/time efficient to patch. Even with an up-to-date downloader - the developer will STILL have to maintain several versions of code at once. For the people who downloaded day 1 - they have patches from there out. For those who downloaded an updated version - all those patches that follow afterwards.
So say there were 2 patches before an updated downloader. Those 4 (original, patch, patch, updated) versions will have to be maintained through every change since you'd need to make sure your patch can work with every version out in the wild. That is a time dump like no other. More time and money need to be spent to maintain.
Its not just PS3 games - a rather large majority of programs and applications on any operating system do the same.
Some of the only times you will find up-to-date versions are when those versions are released on open systems that do not have certification processes every time someone sneezes and when developer bandwidth allows. Some environments don't do this - but regularly force a re-download of the entire package - wasting bandwith which means - wasting money.
Sucks but "oh well". This is nothing new nor is it indicative of any single platform.
At least these patches aren't hidden behind a paywall.
joeygreco1985
Member
I find that it only patches a few games at a time. I'll turn on the PS3, it'll say "the following were patched". Then I'll turn it off and turn it on the next day, and another set of 2-3 games were patched. And so on.
I guess it limits itself?
This. Stop whining that they fix bugs/add content
joeygreco1985
Member
He's whining that it has to download patches after downloading the game itself, which I agree with. Why can't it download the up-to-date game in one shot like steam?
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
Ive always wonder this myself as well why the game is not patched on the server side before it is even sent out in teh first place.
NinjaBoiX
Member
A lot of games prompt you to do this every 5 or 10 minutes though. It's awful. Sony's patching system is a joke.
Because the game obviously needs fixing for their to be a patch?
Slow speeds, bandwidth caps, etc. all exist, it's not a ridiculous point at all.
It checks if any patches are available for the last 10 or so played games.
I hadn't played GT5 in a while, and it prompted me to update to 2.08 yesterday
NinjaBoiX
Member
Get ready to re download I2 once you've patched it. I'm not even joking, all 15gbs needs to be re downloaded. here's my thread from about a year ago. Sony are a bunch of jokers when it comes to this stuff.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=438649
Metalmurphy
Member
That didn't happen to me.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
You just have to prepare yourself for it emotionally. Always expect the worse. I usually buy games later on so I just assume the ps3 is gonna find a couple patches adding up to a gig or so.
Even so, i'm 99% sure the whole thing has to go through QA again.
WrenchNinja
Member
Not necessarily.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
I've been experiencing the same with Origin this weekend OP, I feel ya.
I have 3 Mbps internet at home. It sucks. With extremely limited time to play a game, it blows to sit down and have half the gaming time you have sucked up by downloading/installing patches. I have Plus now so it is a little better, but it's still a really poorly designed system. I know I could go "eat a sandwich" or whatever, but that doesn't make it any less shitty.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Yeah, studios are in the business of wasting precious time on coding superfluous patches.
Brad Grenz
Member
It's like PSN. XBLA games are not pre-patched.
So true. When I put in a new game I'm not expecting to be able to play it in the next half an hour (system update, game update and whatnot). Kinda like PC gaming with all the official and unofficial patches. Does it so suck? No doubt. But knowing Sony I always expect the worst so I learned to live with it (well kinda, I don't own a PS3 personally but play a lot over at a friends house). Looking at the (old) PSN I'm amazed that downloading and installing patches even works.
WrenchNinja
Member
No, but they are in the business to sell DLC.
stuminus3
Member
One of my biggest wishes for next gen consoles is that they handle patch management in a similar way to Steam does it - if you have a save for that game on your hard drive (or the actual game, in the case of Steam), the patch will get pushed out whether you're playing it or not. Ideally even when the system is in "sleep" mode.
Steam has me spoiled in this regard because I usually have the client running and even if I just have it launched to play something I don't have to load up some other game just to make sure I'm getting the updates. I know I'm not alone in the times I've wanted to play a PS3 game, been cock-blocked by an update, and just powered the system down and gone off to play something else instead.
I don't like the MS solution, either. It made more sense when the standard hard drive size was 20GB.
Steam has me spoiled in this regard because I usually have the client running and even if I just have it launched to play something I don't have to load up some other game just to make sure I'm getting the updates. I know I'm not alone in the times I've wanted to play a PS3 game, been cock-blocked by an update, and just powered the system down and gone off to play something else instead.
I don't like the MS solution, either. It made more sense when the standard hard drive size was 20GB.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Actually, good point. The problem I had with I2 was a DLC patch. Bah!
The solution would be for the service to automatically download all patches when you download a game, and install them when it's installing the game. Heck, it doesn't even have to be automatic; it can be like how when you purchase some games, you're given a list with a demo and an unlock key, and the option to download all. Just replace the key in this instance with the patch(es).
thelatestmodel
Junior, please.
Solution - have an "updates" section on the dashboard that lists when updates are available.
You can select which games you want to patch, if there's one listed and you want to play it now, just apply the patch later. Basically how the App Store works.
I don't know why Sony and MS insist on surprising you with patches only when you go to play the game that needs patching, it's stupid.
You can select which games you want to patch, if there's one listed and you want to play it now, just apply the patch later. Basically how the App Store works.
I don't know why Sony and MS insist on surprising you with patches only when you go to play the game that needs patching, it's stupid.
Pretty sure that's why MS' patch system is worlds better. It took iOS a long time to get them as well.
Why would you do that?
Member
Actually, I secretly like the patch system. You can delete the updates if you want and play the game without patches. If only I could do something like that on PC, especially with GTA games that seem to limit modding functionality as time goes on.
Then again, I can't think of any practical reason for that on PS3, so yeah. lol
Then again, I can't think of any practical reason for that on PS3, so yeah. lol
NinjaBoiX
Member
Not always. Again, this is the problem I had with I2. The patch wasn't in a separate folder, the whole thing was grouped in with the game file. I had to delete all 15 gbs. There is no ryhme or reason to it, seems utterly random.
Title updates on the 360 used to be limited to 8MB in size and they're cumulative, so the first time you played a game the worst you'd be faced with is 1 patch of 8MB that requires no separate install. Unless you're still using dial up, the 360 system worked fine compared to the PS3's.
Even now, the 360 system is far better than the PS3's cos it still uses delta patches that are cumulative, but they have increased the maximum size (or removed the limit perhaps). Still, the biggest title update I can find on the 360 (outside of ones that are basically a patch and DLC combined) is 47MB.
As the wonderful Charlie Brooker once said, "the PS3 is like a TV channel that only displays progress bars".