Support NeoGAF

[Roto13]

Sideways is an exception. Most patches for games that size aren't very big and can be downloaded in seconds and aren't a big deal at all.

OP isn't missing anything by not playing that boring-ass game anyway.

 

[Prezhulio]

Even so, i'm 99% sure the whole thing has to go through QA again.

well considering ps+ is capable of downloading patches in the background, there is obviously a system in place to download/install a patch without launching the game.

beacuse of that, it seems pretty reasonable that when you purchase a game from psn, that it could throw a concurrent download for patches. i'm sure the backend for it isn't there on the OS right now so they'd have to do a little work (instead of building useless photo apps), but it subverts the need to resubmit a whole new base game version to cert to replace the one on the store originally.

there is a relatively straight forward solution there, and i hope sony's next console has learned from this type of shit while designing the next online store/OS.

 

[Jackpot]

I didn't miss the point, I just think its a ridiculous thing to be complaining about.

No it isn't. Why make him waste bandwidth by making him download obsolete code?

 

[Roto13]

PS+ helps a lot with overnight download and auto-patches. But still...

Automatic patching shouldn't be something you need to pay extra for, really. If they can make their system less annoying, they should do it for everyone.

 

[magawolaz]

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.

Apologies, didn't know that.

The only problem I have with the patching system is not being able to download in background. I still don't get why is not possible :/

 

[CambriaRising]

No it isn't. Why make him waste bandwidth by making him download obsolete code?

It would be downloaded either way.

 

[see5harp]

Pretty sure that's why MS' patch system is worlds better. It took iOS a long time to get them as well.

It's not just Delta patches, it's the fact that there's no install and that they are incredibly small in size.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

XCOM for PC had a 1.8 GB patch. 1.8 GIGABYTES PATCH

 

[benny_a]

Yeah, studios are in the business of wasting precious time on coding superfluous patches.

Nobody can tell me that GT5 requires the 2.0 patch. It was a very highly rated game and the 2.0 patch came at least 9 month after launch out. So not all patches are required unless you defined required as "multiplayer-compatible."

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

I have an example for you: Brutal Legend on PS3's 1.02 patch has broken sound. 1.00 as well. The only version that isn't broken in that aspect is 1.01

The current system for PS3 is busted but works well enough with the PS+ hack for my use case. Sucks for the people that get shit download speeds though.

 

[Felix Lighter]

It would be downloaded either way.

Depends on the patch. If the patch is replacing the original files, then applying the patch to the initial download would decrease the amount of data that would need to be downloaded.

 

[Metalmurphy]

XCOM for PC had a 1.8 GB patch. 1.8 GIGABYTES PATCH

That's nothing.

Planetside 2 beta has a 4GB patch like every week.

 

[plc268]

XCOM for PC had a 1.8 GB patch. 1.8 GIGABYTES PATCH

Yep, and if you downloaded the game from steam now, it should be prepatched in.

 

[Mikor]

Yep, and if you downloaded the game from steam now, it should be prepatched in.

Precisely the issue. There's no reason why either Microsoft or Sony doesn't just deliver updated binaries from the initial download.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Precisely the issue. There's no reason why either Microsoft or Sony doesn't just deliver updated binaries from the initial download.

There is a reason. Not a very good one, but there is. It's their retarded TRC/TCR.

And the the amazing thing is, broken games get released all the same.

 

[Mikor]

There is a reason. Not a very good one, but there is. It's their retarded TRC/TCR.

And the the amazing thing is, broken games get released all the same.

Perhaps I should have clarified and said there's no *GOOD* reason why

 

[see5harp]

I don't think Steam is completely safe from complains either. Every single game I download requires some strange Direct X install. Borderlands 2 had some strange install loop for .NET stuff for many people.

 

[Stallion Free]

I don't think Steam is completely safe from complains either. Every single game I download requires some strange Direct X install. Borderlands 2 had some strange install loop for .NET stuff for many people.

That isn't something Steam can fix, that's a deep rooted issue with direct x. Maybe every dev can rewrite their renderer to fix it?

 

[Htown]

This is dumb whether it happens on PSN, Steam, Xbox or wherever. Just update the download version. Come on.

I don't think Steam is completely safe from complains either. Every single game I download requires some strange Direct X install. Borderlands 2 had some strange install loop for .NET stuff for many people.

This is actually the fault of the way DX redistributables work, IIRC.

 

[see5harp]

That isn't something Steam can fix, that's a deep rooted issue with direct x. Maybe every dev can rewrite their renderer to fix it?

I have no idea why it happens, only that it does. If you need a Direct X patch or video card drivers pre launch, just to make your game run, that's your bad. AFAIK the software libraries are done before you ship your game.

 

[Ace Harding]

I don't get people blowing this off as "press O, move on."

I have a 360, not a PS3 (yet - waiting on a great BF deal). Even if XBL doesn't provide updated downloadable titles and forces you to download a patch AFTER you just downloaded the game, the most time you have to spend before playing the game is like 30 seconds.

Based on what I am hearing (correct me if I am wrong), to play the patched version of the game and stay online with a PS3 title, sometimes you have to wait much longer than that (minutes? hours?) after you just downloaded the game. That would suck.

I don't want to play offline and without the latest patch. What if it's a multiplayer game?

I guess it all just comes down to DL speeds and patch sizes? Why is PSN so freaking slow? And why can Steam bundle the patch with the game but Sony and Microsoft can't?

I mean this is the ultimate first-world "problem," but still...

 

[Mikor]

That isn't something Steam can fix, that's a deep rooted issue with direct x. Maybe every dev can rewrite their renderer to fix it?

DirectX licensing/usage terms state that you must distribute the redistributable package, and include it as part of your installer, when releasing a title using the API.

Edit: JaseC clarifies further a few posts down.

 

[Stallion Free]

DirectX licensing/usage terms state that you must distribute the redistributable package, and include it as part of your installer, when releasing a title using the API.

The reason that rule exists because of missing libraries causing fuckups?

 

[Mikor]

The reason that rule exists because of missing libraries causing fuckups?

It exists because you never know if a game will be the "first" DirectX game a user purchases for his system, and he may not have the DX stack already installed.

 

[buhdeh]

I remember when I got Pain for free and probably downloaded over 2 gigs of updates. Played it for 5 minutes and deleted it. SMH.

 

[see5harp]

DirectX licensing/usage terms state that you must distribute the redistributable package, and include it as part of your installer, when releasing a title using the API.

What I would prefer is that the install of that stuff happens in the background during the install started by Steam. Sometimes with this stuff is about how everything is presented. The way that games are installed on Vita and PS3 where it's stops everything and displays some bar is extremely antiquated. On iOS you do get an icon with a bar during download and install, but you are free to do whatever you want. 360 may unpack and install at some point but once you buy or patch something it's seamless.

 

[Mikor]

What I would prefer is that the install of that stuff happens in the background during the install started by Steam. Sometimes with this stuff is about how everything is presented. The way that games are installed on Vita and PS3 where it's stops everything and displays some bar is extremely antiquated. On iOS you do get an icon with a bar during download and install, but you are free to do whatever you want. 360 may unpack and install at some point but once you buy or patch something it's seamless.

I agree with you 100%. I was just explaining why every time you launch a new steam game for the first time, it starts installing all sorts of prerequisites that you've already done a bunch of times. This is starting to get off topic now, though.

 

[The Return of]

I always wondered why they don't upload a latest version of a game on XBL or PSN. It definitely is annoying, I remember downloading Warhawk which was around around 2gbs then had to download another huge patch lol.

 

[test_account]

Probably comes down to costs, have to recertify the whole game again.

Does any of these digital download services (Steam, Origin, XBLA etc.) update the full games with the latest patches by the way?

 

[JaseC]

DirectX licensing/usage terms state that you must distribute the redistributable package, and include it as part of your installer, when releasing a title using the API.

You're not entirely correct here; what you've said applies only to games that utilise the D3DX helper libraries. To quote Valve:

FYI, running this is not a matter of making sure your overall DirectX install being up-to-date. Microsoft has a helper library with D3D called D3DX. You'll find binaries for this like d3dx9_43.dll in your Windows\system32 folder. There are over 40 different versions of the D3DX library for D3D9 alone, and many more for D3D10 and 11 as well. Each game that uses the D3DX helper library is linked to a specific version. As such the game must run the correct D3D installer version that it was specifically compiled with to ensure the binaries exist. Even if a later version of the binary is already installed, that version cannot be used, and even if your DirectX install is up-to-date because you've run a more recent version of the installer that is not guaranteed to have installed all previous versions. Even worse, if a version is installed for x86 it doesn't guarantee the same version is installed for x64, so 64 bit and 32 bit games may need to run the same exact installer version but targeting different platforms when run. Furthermore, Microsoft's licensing terms prevent anyone from distributing the files directly, the only way to distribute them is to run the installer, that's also the only supported method from Microsoft to check that the correct version installed. Trying to manually check for the correct versions is extremely complicated because there are numerous files that must all be present and individual system configuration options like dll search paths complicate the situation. In addition, the dependencies and required checks may change in each new version of the D3DX runtime. The code to check correctly and repair broken installs all exists in the installer and running it is a guarantee that the correct binaries will exist when you run the game and prevents lots of bad cases where a game would fail to launch with an obscure error if a windows install was either missing the correct version or somehow corrupted in the past.

FYI, running this is not a matter of making sure your overall DirectX install being up-to-date. Microsoft has a helper library with D3D called D3DX. You'll find binaries for this like d3dx9_43.dll in your Windows\system32 folder. There are over 40 different versions of the D3DX library for D3D9 alone, and many more for D3D10 and 11 as well. Each game that uses the D3DX helper library is linked to a specific version. As such the game must run the correct D3D installer version that it was specifically compiled with to ensure the binaries exist. Even if a later version of the binary is already installed, that version cannot be used, and even if your DirectX install is up-to-date because you've run a more recent version of the installer that is not guaranteed to have installed all previous versions. Even worse, if a version is installed for x86 it doesn't guarantee the same version is installed for x64, so 64 bit and 32 bit games may need to run the same exact installer version but targeting different platforms when run. Furthermore, Microsoft's licensing terms prevent anyone from distributing the files directly, the only way to distribute them is to run the installer, that's also the only supported method from Microsoft to check that the correct version installed. Trying to manually check for the correct versions is extremely complicated because there are numerous files that must all be present and individual system configuration options like dll search paths complicate the situation. In addition, the dependencies and required checks may change in each new version of the D3DX runtime. The code to check correctly and repair broken installs all exists in the installer and running it is a guarantee that the correct binaries will exist when you run the game and prevents lots of bad cases where a game would fail to launch with an obscure error if a windows install was either missing the correct version or somehow corrupted in the past.

Games which don't use the D3DX helpers (such as Source engine games) don't require running the annoying installer on first launch as they only depend on major d3d9/10/11 versions being installed. However, games that do use D3DX must run it as it's the only way Microsoft has allowed for distributing and checking the version info on the files.

So that's why we do it for lots of game installs. We can't stop, it's required due to a bad versioning/packaging scheme as well as bad redistribution licensing terms on the D3DX libraries.

The one thing that could be made better on our side is that Steam could be smart enough to know if an exactly matching version of the dx installer is already downloaded and share that content so you don't download it with each game. Since the installer is relatively small compared to most game installs that wouldn't be a huge win though and requires a good deal of new complexity for partners in how they package up their games and manage installation dependencies. You'd also still end up with lots of different versions of the installer, since as discussed above they are often targeting different D3DX versions and as such are all required. As such any improvement to avoid duplicates isn't an immediate priority, but we may be able to improve it slightly in the future.
So that's why we do it for lots of game installs. We can't stop, it's required due to a bad versioning/packaging scheme as well as bad redistribution licensing terms on the D3DX libraries.

The one thing that could be made better on our side is that Steam could be smart enough to know if an exactly matching version of the dx installer is already downloaded and share that content so you don't download it with each game. Since the installer is relatively small compared to most game installs that wouldn't be a huge win though and requires a good deal of new complexity for partners in how they package up their games and manage installation dependencies. You'd also still end up with lots of different versions of the installer, since as discussed above they are often targeting different D3DX versions and as such are all required. As such any improvement to avoid duplicates isn't an immediate priority, but we may be able to improve it slightly in the future.

 

[Palette Swap]

Needless drama thread.

Nope.
If I buy a game on Steam or iTunes, I won't have to go through this shit. XBL and PSN suck in that regard. It's not game breaking but it's definitely bad design that could be fixed.

Edit: to be fair, Steam still has the DX stuff people have been mentioning and if you want differential updates on iOS, you have to give up google maps.

 

[HoosTrax]

It sounds like certain people in this thread don't understand what a patch is.

Hypothetically speaking, if he downloaded a 2.5GB game, then had to download a 700MB patch on top of that, he doesn't end up with 3.2GB of game content. It means that a substantial portion of the 2.5GB he originally downloaded (up to 700MB of it) was out of date and was replaced with the patch.

Seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask why the obsolete ~700MB out of 2.5GB in this example wasn't just replaced with the most recent files to begin with.

 

[BattleMonkey]

This nonsense is one of the 2 biggest reasons I buy/play 99% of multiplatform games on 360/PC.

When there is a patch/update it will take less than a minute on 360/steam and can randomly take over an hour on psn even with a small file size.

Ive never had a psn patch take that long, it often patches as fast as the 360 games. Only those odd ball games with multiple huge updates does it ever get slow, like SOCOM when it had 600+mb patches one after another.

 

[Tizoc]

What I don't get is why can't I do these updates as background downloads? Once it finishes dling, I quit the game, install the update and then get back into the game. I think this is exclusive for PS Plus members but event hen that's BS.

 

[JaseC]

What I don't get is why can't I do these updates as background downloads? Once it finishes dling, I quit the game, install the update and then get back into the game. I think this is exclusive for PS Plus members but event hen that's BS.

Yeah, you have to pay for that privilege.

 

[The Albatross]

It's a minor issue, but it becomes a major issue because PSN's patch downloading speeds/process are in the freaking dark ages of the internet for 50% of users. X-box live has the same new game workflow with patches, but patches download and install in about 10 seconds and require basically no user action... not an hour requiring you to reset and turn your console back on.

This is "Weekly PSN sucks" Thread. But, it's because PSN sucks.

 

[rogerroger22]

Really wish the PS3 had an 'update all and shut down after' option, then once in awhile I could just do an 'update all', go to bed and not worry about it again for awhile.

Always annoying when I go to re-visit a game that I haven't played in a few months and need to patch.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Yup, just hit circle to play without the patch. This little trick works even if the game is an online mulitplayer ga......


..oh wait.

 

[blu]

Probably comes down to costs, have to recertify the whole game again.

Does any of these digital download services (Steam, Origin, XBLA etc.) update the full games with the latest patches by the way?

Every nintendo service since the beginning.

 

[Satchel]

Yeah it's a bit dumb no doubt.

Pray. For the ove of god pray Resistance 3 never goes on PSN. Or is it too late?

 

[Danneee]

Got LBP2 with plus and it took an hour just to start the damn game because of the 14 patches had to download and install first.

 

[yurinka]

All the patches should be downloaded when available and applied to the games in background seamlessly. Or at least to have an option to do it. And to do it faster.
And when you buy the game it should be already patched to the last version.
And the "downloading" and the "installing" bar should be the same.

Yeah, you have to pay for that privilege.

They are automatic, but aren't background downloads. I'd just add them to the dowload queue instead of to stop the console activity to download this stuff.

Nope.
If I buy a game on Steam or iTunes, I won't have to go through this shit. XBL and PSN suck in that regard. It's not game breaking but it's definitely bad design that could be fixed.

Edit: to be fair, Steam still has the DX stuff people have been mentioning and if you want differential updates on iOS, you have to give up google maps.

In iOS is even worst, you have to download the entire game again. But it's faster because there the game are way smaller.

 

[VGChampion]

If it isn't a MP game I just skip the patch. I don't care if it does do improvements. I want to play as quick as possible.

 

[NeoRausch]

Automatic patching shouldn't be something you need to pay extra for, really. If they can make their system less annoying, they should do it for everyone.

Well yes, no argument here. Yes, stuff like that should be standart customer service for no extra fee nowadays.

 

[Dibbz]

Once it finishes dling, I quit the game, install the update and then get back into the game. I think this is exclusive for PS Plus members but event hen that's BS.

I don't think it is. As far as I know my PS+ is set to check for updates and patches at a specific time that I chose. It doesn't background download patches whilst playing like you are saying.

It'd be a great feature but something like background downloading of patches would be available to everyone if Sony implemented it.

 

[Takao]

Nothing's worse than downloading a PSN game on day 1 to discover it has a patch, lol.

 

[plc268]

It's a minor issue, but it becomes a major issue because PSN's patch downloading speeds/process are in the freaking dark ages of the internet for 50% of users. X-box live has the same new game workflow with patches, but patches download and install in about 10 seconds and require basically no user action... not an hour requiring you to reset and turn your console back on.

This is "Weekly PSN sucks" Thread. But, it's because PSN sucks.

And despite that, you'll have a couple people go, "but my psn downloads super fast!"

Good for you, I say. It doesn't change the fact that I can download a 1.5 gb demo on the 360 in 30 minutes, but it takes 45 minutes to download a 500mb patch.

 

[MattKeil]

Psn for me has consistently has had slower internet than any other internet enabled device I have used post dial up.

This is the key problem for me. I do not understand why PSN is so goddamned slow all the time. Last month I finally replaced the HD in my 60GB PS3, and had to redownload pretty much all my games, DLC and updates. Thanks to PS+ I was able to queue everything up for background downloading, and it totaled around 25 gigs. I left it on overnight, went to work the next day, came home that night and it had gotten through six gigs.

The entire queue took three full days to finish. Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[AndyD]

I don't get people blowing this off as "press O, move on."

I have a 360, not a PS3 (yet - waiting on a great BF deal). Even if XBL doesn't provide updated downloadable titles and forces you to download a patch AFTER you just downloaded the game, the most time you have to spend before playing the game is like 30 seconds.

Based on what I am hearing (correct me if I am wrong), to play the patched version of the game and stay online with a PS3 title, sometimes you have to wait much longer than that (minutes? hours?) after you just downloaded the game. That would suck.

I don't want to play offline and without the latest patch. What if it's a multiplayer game?

I guess it all just comes down to DL speeds and patch sizes? Why is PSN so freaking slow? And why can Steam bundle the patch with the game but Sony and Microsoft can't?

I mean this is the ultimate first-world "problem," but still...

If its a small patch it takes just a few seconds/minutes to download. And these are often required for MP play by the devs, not by Sony. These are not an issue really.

What I hate is when a developer adds in DLC to a patch, then require it for multiplayer play. Then you are required to sit through the download/patch process before playing online. Even if you have not bought the DLC and never will.

 

[Shiloa]

Is it to do with fees?

If you alter the original, you still have to also offer a patch for those who have downloaded the game pre-patch. That's two bits of content which have to be given to Sony. With just a patch, they only have the one.

 

[Palette Swap]

In iOS is even worst, you have to download the entire game again. But it's faster because there the game are way smaller.

Not with iOS 6, hence the google maps trade off I mentioned.