Support NeoGAF

[MadClacker]

So, in the last few months I've become increasingly concerned with the idea that "last gen" consoles will, at some point, go offline so to speak. Primarily I'm talking about the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, but what I'm talking about can relate to the current generation of consoles also.

What I'm referring to when I say offline, is the fact that one day Sony and Microsoft will essentially disable the support and turn their servers for these consoles offline. I'm not just talking about Xbox Live or PSN servers that let me play with others online, I'm talking about the ability to download patches and firmware updates. They WILL go offline one day, that's perfectly understandable given the size and space all the patches, DLC content, and other updates for all these games must be taking up. The problem is when these go offline and we're unable to download these patches, assuming you don't have these games preloaded and fully updated prior to going offline, we are essentially left with a gimped console with games that are potentially broken, missing content, and contain some pretty significant bugs and issues.

What happens when we buy an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 that doesn't have the latest firmware on it, and won't launch newer games?

The concept of retro gaming seems to have really become more popular over the last few years. Sure, many of those people that partake in the collecting of old games and consoles are people that weren't around at the time they were hitting store shelves, or were too young to remember, but still - it's becoming an increasingly popular subculture of gaming and one that will suffer many issues when it comes to the future and the consoles that are currently relevant.

Hypothetically speaking, 20 years from now someone buys a Playstation 3 from eBay and wants to play through a bunch of games (s)he played as a kid, or simply wishes to reminisce. They get the console, it may or may not have the latest firmware installed. They go to play a game and discover they cannot connect to the servers to download the (typically many) patches and updates. They're getting a gimped version of that game. Unfortunately, day one patches seem to have become a kind of "get out of jail free" card when it comes to development. Oftentimes, these patches enable a core feature of a game (see Uncharted 4 multiplayer), or fix some pretty glaring issues that, without it, make playing the vanilla 1.0 game unenjoyable, or flat out unplayable in some cases. It's a problem that lies not just with console gaming, but PC gaming also.

It's a genuine scenario that will occur at some point and I don't think there's an effective work around. I've said this before and I'll say it again: we need to significantly overhaul the way in which we handle patch updates for our games. And before you say it, I'm not proposing the most often said fix, which is to simply "make it work before release". Although that would be ideal, as games become a more complex medium to create for, patches will be necessary in many cases. However, relying on one source to obtain these patches - be it through Steam, PSN, Xbox Live - it is not a future proof way to handle them.

That's not even mentioning my own personal grief with how we deal with patches - how developers seem to force patch after patch addressing multiplayer content in a game that I personally don't wish to play multiplayer on. An example of this would be GTA V. I have no intention of playing this game online. Not that I can anyway due to having satellite internet. How about the new Doom? I didn't even play it on a console. I own Doom on PC and Steam MADE me download an 18GB update that pretty much had NOTHING to do with the single player game, and wouldn't let me play it until I did it. Even with fast internet and no bandwidth cap to take into consideration, it's a pain in the ass and ends up eating away at my hard drive space. I'd like to see the industry adopt a system to where patches for single player are separate from multiplayer. If I just want to play single player, I don't need to download countless GB's of updates. If I then decide to load up multiplayer, THEN ask me to download the patch. Sure, some games integrate the two, but there are many who don't.

But in attempt to get back to my original point - give me the ability to download the update file to my computer so I can store it locally. I understand the importance of having everyone on the same playing field (no pun intended) and using the same version, but it would be extremely helpful if I could download PS3, 360, or shit - even PS4 and Xbox One firmware updates and ESPECIALLY title updates to my computer. In 20XX if I decide to go back to play Bloodborne and I'm using a PS4 that didn't have it installed and updated already, I'm going to have a miserable experience with those long ass loading times. That's just one example. Games like Fallout or Elder Scrolls on version 1.0 would be disaster and would of course be missing many of the add-ons and DLC that we currently have to download. Maybe it's petty, but there are many games out there that truly NEED patches in order to function properly. I wish there was a way I could go to a site and download, say "PS4 Fallout 4 1.9 patch" and keep it on my computer.

Again, ideally I'd like to see games that don't need so many patches. Especially ones that fix issues that make me wonder how it passed QA in the first place, but that's just not realistic these days unfortunately.

So in short, I worry about "retro gaming" on PS3/360 and beyond in X amount of years from now.

I've talked about this among friends and various other social circles, but I'd be curious what GAF's input and predictions are on the matter.

Thanks!

 

[TyrantGuardian]

This is a valid concern, and most of these publishers have proven again and again that they share a massive disregard for game preservation.

 

[oni-link]

I'm right there with you

Games make more money when they're run as a service, and I think a lot of people at the top end of the business side of things still see games as disposable products with a sell by date, so preservation isn't high up on their list of concerns

Hopefully patches and updates will be saved somewhere and put online for preservation purposes

It's also not that servers might just go offline, it's that companies could go out of business

Valve are flying high right now but maybe in 10, 20 years, something unforeseen happens and they go out of business, then what happens to everyone's Steam games?

 

[Demoskinos]

Yup. Which is why going all digital now doesn't bother me. Cause honestly the notion of game preservation is going the way of the dodo quickly.

 

[Cru Jones]

Playstation Now and similar services in the future will have you covered.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Hopefully pirates can/are preserving all patches, updates, and DLC.

That's not even mentioning my own personal grief with how we deal with patches - how developers seem to force patch after patch addressing multiplayer content in a game that I personally don't wish to play multiplayer on. An example of this would be GTA V. I have no intention of playing this game online. Not that I can anyway due to having satellite internet. How about the new Doom? I didn't even play it on a console. I own Doom on PC and Steam MADE me download an 18GB update that pretty much had NOTHING to do with the single player game, and wouldn't let me play it until I did it. Even with fast internet and no bandwidth cap to take into consideration, it's a pain in the ass and ends up eating away at my hard drive space. I'd like to see the industry adopt a system to where patches for single player are separate from multiplayer. If I just want to play single player, I don't need to download countless GB's of updates. If I then decide to load up multiplayer, THEN ask me to download the patch. Sure, some games integrate the two, but there are many who don't.

Not happening.

 

[JustSomeone]

And yet somehow people just won't understand that pc is the only way to go
I can easily download patches for 20 year old games on the pc

 

[Reflextions]

Something to consider, the price to store and host this content will reduce massively in 20 years, maybe to a point that the time comes where they consider taking down all this stuff, it'll be cheap enough to maintain even without revenue from older consoles coming.

 

[oni-link]

Playstation Now and similar services in the future will have you covered.

No thanks, re-buying my games so I can play them all again with added lag sounds like a terrible idea

 

[SmokedMeat]

I noticed that CoD Black Ops 2 on Steam has Zombies, Multiplayer, and single player as separate downloads. Same with MW3. That's the way it should be. I agree with not wanting modes I've no intention of using, eating up HDD space.

As for OP's other point, I feel that's why physical games are pretty much worthless anymore. You're usually missing crucial bits not on the retail disc.

 

[perorist]

And yet somehow people just won't understand that pc is the only way to go
I can easily download patches for 20 year old games on the pc

Not every game I want to play is on PC

 

[ShinMaruku]

Given how no developer or publisher understands service I would always be concerned with preservation.

 

[Balzac]

If MS/Sony are smart, they'll contract a third party to host a legacy server, similar to how MMOS like UO and Everquest function right now. You'll pay a monthly fee for access and that will be that. Kind of sucks having to pay but we all know retro collecting is a niche/enthusast market and stuff like that usually comes with a premium cost

Otherwise I imagine that some retro enthusiasts/preservationists will reverse engineer the network protocols used for 360/PS3 and host their own server that users can tunnel into to grab updates. It will be a hell of a task but I think we'll see it sometime in the next decade.

 

[JayEH]

I feel the same way. It's absolutely ridiculous that some games are just busted or "are not the intended experience" without day 1 patches. I care about game preservation but most publishers don't obviously. Luckily the PC exists and it can still preserve games.

 

[Intel_89]

Playstation Now and similar services in the future will have you covered.

Paying extra for stuff you already own isn't really an alternative.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Games that require newer firmwares come with the update on disc for systems that are offline.

Patches are another concern. On 360 you can sideload in patches via USB and some bootsy PC software. Not sure about PS3, but at least most games last gen didn't ship in a completely broken state like nowadays so you might miss some fixes but it would usually be fine.

I don't even know what you'd do about PS4/XBOne.

Download only games are another issue. Mostly these games probably wouldn't exist if they weren't download-only so I try not to get too worked up about this but at some point they won't be available any more. This is already the case for some delisted stuff. I don't think limited run collector's prints solve this either since they will be extremely limited in the future. For this case the best you can do is just buy whatever looks good while you still can, especially during sales... the future for someone new looking to get into these consoles is going to be bleak though.

 

[JaseC]

Valve are flying high right now but maybe in 10, 20 years, something unforeseen happens and they go out of business, then what happens to everyone's Steam games?

Probably nothing.

 

[dark10x]

What happens when we buy an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 that doesn't have the latest firmware on it, and won't launch newer games?

I'm sure this was addressed but newer games should include necessary firmware updates, I believe. Haven't tested this, but that's how it has worked in the past with systems like PSP and Vita.

 

[Chexr]

its all about that game of the year addition baby

 

[Cru Jones]

No thanks, re-buying my games so I can play them all again with added lag sounds like a terrible idea

You preface your post by talking about people who don't discover a console until later on, then you dismiss the solution by saying you won't be able to play the games you already own? Those two scenarios are a bit of a contradiction.

If you already own the system, then presumably you'll have updated the OS and already have the game patches. If you never owned the system then these services are a good option.

If you're talking about owning the system and picking up a game for it 15 years down the line, then you never owned that game in the first place and it would be ok to purchase on a service like PS Now instead.

 

[oni-link]

Probably nothing.

That's good to know, but I was using Valve as an example

Sony or Nintendo or MS could end up completely out of business in a few decades time

Spoiler

I mean, Nintendo have already been doomed for about 30 years now

So even going all digital isn't a guarantee you'll still have access to all your games in years to come

You preface your post by talking about people who don't discover a console until later on, then you dismiss the solution by saying you won't be able to play the games you already own? Those two scenarios are a bit of a contradiction.

If you already own the system, then presumably you'll have updated the OS and already have the game patches. If you never owned the system then these services are a good option.

If you're talking about owning the system and picking up a game for it 15 years down the line, then you never owned that game in the first place and it would be ok to purchase on a service like PS Now instead.

Well a PS4 has at most a 2TB hard drive, so if you own more than 20 games then you won't have them all installed, so even if you opt into a streaming service you'll be paying to play games you already have, in a worse situation, unless you somehow have backed up all your installs/patches from before they shut down the servers, and I don't even know if that is possible, and if it is, It's probably not simple to do

 

[JaseC]

I'm sure this was addressed but newer games should include necessary firmware updates, I believe. Haven't tested this, but that's how it has worked in the past with systems like PSP and Vita.

Yeah, all retail PS3 and X360 games include the latest firmware update as at the time of manufacturing.

That's good to know, but I was using Valve as an example

Oh, I know, I just figured I'd point out that Valve has a contingency plan in place as it's not exactly something Valve advertises.

 

[Het_Nkik]

Xbox 360 can install patches through USB as is. There's at least one site that has game patches archived.

PS3 can do the same but only with custom firmware running.

360 and PS3 should be fine. It's current-gen on that you should be worried about.

 

[Mohasus]

What happens when we buy an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 that doesn't have the latest firmware on it, and won't launch newer games?

Then the firmware update will be on disk and install from there.

 

[Obliterator]

This is one reason I'm all in favor of "Game of the Year" or "Complete" versions releasing. Case in point Witcher 3 just got one that includes all the DLC and patches on disc. 20 years from now someone can put that in a PS4 and have the final complete version of the game.

 

[deim0s]

This is my train to thought with console gaming and the day one patches become the norm.

 

[stuminus3]

Valve are flying high right now but maybe in 10, 20 years, something unforeseen happens and they go out of business, then what happens to everyone's Steam games?

People told me I wouldn't be able to play Half-Life 2 in 10 years. They told me that 12 years ago.

There's too much invested in this thing now for it to all disappear overnight. I'm hoping the console market develops in the same way, but Apple and their complete disregard for preserving purchase histories may have thrown a spanner in the works on that one...

 

[RedSwirl]

I think a significant portion of important last-gen games are either getting remasters that are fully updated or have PC versions that stay fully updated (and are preserved by pirates). Of course there will be a few games that will lag behind.

It sounds like what the OP wants is an option to go back to how PC game patches were done in the days before Steam, where you'd go to Fileshack or Gamershell or somewhere to get the patches. I agree this should be an option. Auto-patching is really convenient compared to those dark days, but it'd be nice to be able to back up updates locally for when you install from a retail disc.

The only store I see offering this option is GOG, which is mostly for retro games. The big AAA exception to this is The Witcher 3. I bought the GOG version and don't use Galaxy, so I download the game and all the updates separately. It's great not having to re-download updates whenever I need to uninstall and reinstall Witcher 3.

I think this should be an option for console games. To start I think day one patches should be freely and separately available as soon as they're ready, so people planning to buy discs can skip straight to the installation process when they get those discs. At the very least the latest or next-to-latest patch of a game should also be available as a separate download or you should just be able to back it up after downloading it.

Luckily this is already the case for system firmware, at least PlayStation as far as I'm aware of. Sony still let's you download PS3 (and I think PSP) firmware on its website. Someone is probably already keeping backups of the last PS3 and PSP firmware versions on torrents somewhere.

I noticed that CoD Black Ops 2 on Steam has Zombies, Multiplayer, and single player as separate downloads. Same with MW3. That's the way it should be. I agree with not wanting modes I've no intention of using, eating up HDD space.

As for OP's other point, I feel that's why physical games are pretty much worthless anymore. You're usually missing crucial bits not on the retail disc.

That's not quite how it works. With COD on Steam you still have to download the whole game (or install from a disc) and update the whole game all at once. It's just that campaign and multiplayer are separate executables to allow you to get to each one quicker.

 

[Cru Jones]

Well a PS4 has at most a 2TB hard drive, so if you own more than 20 games then you won't have them all installed, so even if you opt into a streaming service you'll be paying to play games you already have, in a worse situation, unless you somehow have backed up all your installs/patches from before they shut down the servers, and I don't even know if that is possible, and if it is, It's probably not simple to do

You're making a lot of assumptions that a couple minutes of Googling could clear up for you. Here is an article of how you can backup all of the data on your PS4 using an external HD.

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/features/how-to-take-a-backup-of-your-ps4-games-and-data-686575

 

[Omnii-chan]

I think by that point someone could have made and archive of game patches on the net which we could use somehow with our systems.

Personally I've gone through my PS3 library and updated all my games and I plan to have a hard drive back up once I get another spare hdd. I'm unsure if I can do this with my 360.

It's a lot worse for the current generation. Every second game is released unfinished with 5GB+ updates.
It's a good thing what Microsoft is doing going forward, making sure everything is backwards compatible so at least it carry's over for as long as possible.

I'm already sad a lot of digital games aren't available any more. Every now and then I kick myself for not picking up games like Afterburner Climax, Outrun Online Arcade, etc. I wish they were available in some form to purchase.

Games are like films and should be preserved and catalogued. Hell, anything humanity does should be catalogued for future generations.

 

[MadClacker]

It's nice to come back from lunch and see your posts! I've read what you've all put and have a few things to comment on.

Some of you suggested services such as Playstation Now as viable alternatives for playing older games "in the future". While I grant you that it's an alternative, it's not all that viable seeing as you're still relying on a server somewhere. It's fundamentally the same thing. You're still beholden to Sony, or Microsoft, or whoever, to keep the server running and supported. That's assuming of course the game you want to play is even available to "stream". I don't know about you, but I can list a number of games that I consider classic personal favorites that are also pretty obscure, uncommon, or just not necessarily as well known.

I saw a few posts boasting that this is the very reason that they choose to game on a PC - as if PC games are immune to this issue. They're not. I play many games on PC myself, but I'm still facing the same issue. I still had to rely on Steam servers to download the 18GB DOOM patch that I mentioned in my original post. Not only that, I had to rely on the Steam servers to download the game itself - Or to be more precise, I had to use Steam servers to download the data that I needed in addition to what came off the retail PC game disk that I purchased. This highlighted another comment someone made. That many "retail" physical disks don't even contain all the data for a complete game. I'm not sure how much it'd cost to mass produce and release PC games on a Blu-Ray disk versus using a DVD, but the point remains that PC gaming isn't immune to this.

Someone pointed out that I would like to see patches return to the way it was back in the early days where you went onto a third (or first) party site and downloaded updates there. Yes, I'd like that a lot. Not just for PC games, but consoles also. I'm not sure how viable that would be, but it'd be something at least. A guy I work with mentioned KOTOR II. He has the original disk, but if he wanted to update it - he'd have to go to GamersHell or somewhere else to download the update and do it manually. He could then keep that update file stored somewhere and he'd be good - potentially forever. But in the larger scheme of things all I know is, PC gaming isn't exempt from this issue. I wasn't exactly able to download the 18GB DOOM update in a separate file which I could then use whenever I needed it. I had to have Steam slip it into the game's existing installation. If I were to uninstall it, I wouldn't have the option to download the patch separately - it'd download everything without a choice. Everything's on their terms if you know what I mean. For older games it's not AS difficult to find patches, but with newer titles - you're more or less forced to use Steam, which if you break it down, isn't much different from the principles I described PSN and XBL using.

All that said, I will admit - services like GOG are really great about giving us games that we can just download PC games to our computers and play without the need for updating or worrying about patches, and I greatly support them.

The point was also raised about why this warrants the release of GOTY editions and various other remasters or re-releases. It's a very good point as well. We've all occasionally moaned and groaned about a company re-releasing a title that may or may not include previously released content, but ya know what? In those instances, it might actually be the most viable and efficient solution for retro gaming in the future. The Witcher III was the example given. 20+ years from now, if someone wants to play The Witcher III they can do so through the GOTY edition without worrying about patches as it'd be the latest, and presumably last, version of the game. However, this brings to mind the other worry that the quantity of physical release games will slowly decline as the years go on, essentially forcing us to use digital distribution and making said "GOTY editions" harder to find on a disk.

But still, that's one game. The Witcher III is a massive game that has been practically universally acclaimed and won countless awards. It's bound to get a re-release, as with The Last of Us, Uncharted, and the recently announced MGS V. Think of the hundreds, if not thousands, of games that do not. And besides, as someone else said - not every game they payed for is on PC.

This isn't even really touching upon the other issue of DLC. Say I buy DLC for a game and download it. Then the servers go offline. Assuming there's no re-release, I've lost the ability to get that DLC again. DLC I've payed for. That's an issue that's been discussed before, but as the years go on and support for the 360 and PS3 slowly come to an end, it's a discussion that really needs a definitive answer from those who manage these servers.

Thank you to those who addressed my concern regarding firmware updates being on disks for those consoles who don't have it. I wasn't aware of that. It's a really good idea and I'm glad that's the case.

It seems as though Microsoft are a bit better as far as giving the ability to download updates and backup data onto an external drive. As I understand, there used to be a method of downloading PS3 updates onto a USB drive through means of third party software. Unfortunately, newer firmware updates to the console render it useless.

We need to see more being done by game publishers and hardware manufacturers to ensure we, as consumers, are able to preserve and protect our purchase and enjoy it for as long as we own the appropriate hardware.

 

[Rezae]

There is no money to be made in preserving the content for retro gamers. That's what remasters and PC versions are for.

From a personal point of view, I don't see myself having any "retro" urges for the PS3/360 gen. I think the gen was lacking a bit from a single player point of view, and gaming as a whole has gotten so cinematic it dampers my replay enthusiasm. I do think there were some great indie games and upgraded re-releases from older gens that were PSN/Live only, and I think it's a shame some of those will be gone (if they haven't migrated to PC).

 

[MadClacker]

There is no money to be made in preserving the content for retro gamers. That's what remasters and PC versions are for.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Instead of just letting us download the patches ourselves, it's far more lucrative (for them) to make us repurchase games later down the line through means of a remaster or re-release with patches included. But it's still a gamble on whether or not the consumer will buy into it. I'm all for a re-release of a game if it gives me an incentive to purchase it. Be it more content, better visuals or performance, etc - but re-releasing a title for no other reason than to exploit the retro gaming gray zone in today's industry is frustrating beyond belief.

 

[sechsterangriff]

Ideally platform holders should strive for backward capability in other to keep selling an ever increasing catalog of games to new hardware owners. Allowing users to only access native content is such a waste of potential income.
It really surprises me that PS4 still has no access to the PS1 and PSP libraries and select PS2 games through emulation.

Of course, even if everything was backward-compatible, if the platform holder goes under there's not much that can be done.

 

[RedSwirl]

I saw a few posts boasting that this is the very reason that they choose to game on a PC - as if PC games are immune to this issue. They're not. I play many games on PC myself, but I'm still facing the same issue. I still had to rely on Steam servers to download the 18GB DOOM patch that I mentioned in my original post. Not only that, I had to rely on the Steam servers to download the game itself - Or to be more precise, I had to use Steam servers to download the data that I needed in addition to what came off the retail PC game disk that I purchased. This highlighted another comment someone made. That many "retail" physical disks don't even contain all the data for a complete game. I'm not sure how much it'd cost to mass produce and release PC games on a Blu-Ray disk versus using a DVD, but the point remains that PC gaming isn't immune to this.

Steam has one notable advantage: you can back up the whole game on an external drive or a disc. That's what I do. It won't back up the individual 18GB DOOM patch, but it'll back up that entire patched version of the game. That said, modern PC gaming isn't exactly friendly to people who have super slow internet. Other services like Origin and UPlay need to start doing a backup utility but I think they might let you at least keep the setup files.

I'd also like to think that as more time goes on, more games from that PS3/360 era will end up on GOG. I was worried this wouldn't happen, but then I was surprised to see EA put Dragon Age Origins and Dead Space 1 on GOG. Not too many big-name post-2005 games are up there but I'd like to see more.

 

[Durante]

I saw a few posts boasting that this is the very reason that they choose to game on a PC - as if PC games are immune to this issue.

They aren't fully immune, but

1. Some distribution methods on PC are designed from the get-go to be immune (GoG).
2. It's generally much easier for the end-user to back up all required data for a game and re-use it later on.
3. If both of the above fail, there is still the option of (both legal and illegal) third party distribution of patches/files.

So I'd say that while there is an archival problem on PC too with modern games, it's not nearly as stark as it is on closed platforms, and the user has far more options at their disposal to improve the situation and to mitigate issues.

 

[potatohead]

It's not just about online servers though. Sometimes it's patching e.g. can never return to a version of software, or a game, that you liked best.

Google Chrome took away my Chrome App Launcher on Windows. So convenient to quick search at a click of a button or google in one button too.

Now I can't do that anymore at all. Can't even get it back either.

 

[Version 3.0]

I worry about this, too. Gone are the days where a console dying just means buying another console, and that's it. Having done that a handful of times, and given that both my 360 (twice) and my PS3 died during their market life, it does make me nervous about losing their downloaded content someday.

That being the case, I have a 2nd 360 and PS3 purchased and waiting. Once I'm certain I'm done buying games for them, I'll take my originals offline, transfer my account to the new ones, download all my stuff, patch all my disc games, and then I'll at least have a backup of each.

I have an extra Wii, also, but that one I'll have to resort to cracking it have copies of all my downloaded and VC games.

I'm more worried about this gen. Download-only games are so much more common, and so are disc games that really need that Day 1 patch.

 

[MadClacker]

I worry about this, too. Gone are the days where a console dying just means buying another console, and that's it. Having done that a handful of times, and given that both my 360 (twice) and my PS3 died during their market life, it does make me nervous about losing their downloaded content someday.

That being the case, I have a 2nd 360 and PS3 purchased and waiting. Once I'm certain I'm done buying games for them, I'll take my originals offline, transfer my account to the new ones, download all my stuff, patch all my disc games, and then I'll at least have a backup of each.

I have an extra Wii, also, but that one I'll have to resort to cracking it have copies of all my downloaded and VC games.

I'm more worried about this gen. Download-only games are so much more common, and so are disc games that really need that Day 1 patch.

I have backup PS1's and PS2's, but no PS3's. You seem to grasp my sentiments exactly. I have the Silent Hill's "PT" game on my PS4. I know of no way to back it up and I obviously can't redownload it either.

 

[hemo memo]

I'm surprised no first day patch or update for Inside on PS4 yet.

 

[RedSwirl]

They aren't fully immune, but

1. Some distribution methods on PC are designed from the get-go to be immune (GoG).
2. It's generally much easier for the end-user to back up all required data for a game and re-use it later on.
3. If both of the above fail, there is still the option of (both legal and illegal) third party distribution of patches/files.

So I'd say that while there is an archival problem on PC too with modern games, it's not nearly as stark as it is on closed platforms, and the user has far more options at their disposal to improve the situation and to mitigate issues.

This too. On PC there are already plenty of proven cases of old games that had content patched or added to them which now have fan patches or mods that make them accessible on newer operating systems or get around old DRM problems.

I bought Bloodlines like six years ago on the old Direct2Drive, the DRM that version required no longer worked when I recently tried to boot it up, so I downloaded a fan patch that now let's me play a fully updated version of the game. I backed up the setup files and the fan patch on a DVD. I don't see why people can't figure out similar patches in the future for more recent games if something happens to Steam, Origin, or UPlay.

I'm surprised no first day patch or update for Inside on PS4 yet.

It's a digital game. Whatever would have been in a day one patch would just be included with the download. That's why release dates for digital-only games are often announced only weeks or mere days beforehand. They don't have to wait for any discs to be printed and shipped. It's "done" at the same time a physical game would have its day-one patch finished. Plus, Inside for PS4 is being released later than other platforms, so it's essentially an already-patched version of the game.

 

[joms5]

Yup. Which is why going all digital now doesn't bother me. Cause honestly the notion of game preservation is going the way of the dodo quickly.

I hope that was sarcasm because what you just said makes no sense. If they shut down services have fun downloading those digital games again if you lose them.

And how is game preservation going the way of the dodo? Thanks to scene groups and fan communities, you can still get almost any game that was ever released. Game preservation is fine from my point of view.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

The ability to sideload patches is the answer. Xbox 360 should be fine in this regard. We should really be pushing Sony to add this functionality.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I bought Bloodlines like six years ago on the old Direct2Drive, the DRM that version required no longer worked when I recently tried to boot it up, so I downloaded a fan patch that now let's me play a fully updated version of the game. I backed up the setup files and the fan patch on a DVD. I don't see why people can't figure out similar patches in the future for more recent games if something happens to Steam, Origin, or UPlay.

This only happens if:

A) The game has a fairly large following.
B) The DRM is fairly easy to remove.

A does not apply to a lot of indie games, and increasing number of which are not available DRM Free.
B hinges on whether we figure out how to easily crack Denuvo in the future.

 

[OmegaFax]

I guess there will be problems down the road. If a game requires a minimum firmware to run (see signed keys) or the game shipped barebones (that last Tony Hawk game), you're pretty much screwed. Same goes for games that relied heavily on online features. I don't think Sony's online shooter MAG spawned enough of a following once the official servers went down. PS3, PS4, and PSV game patches are still separate from the base game. I'm certain people will archive updates along with the base game.

 

[MadClacker]

For consoles, we should definitely be given the option to download patches and store them on external media. I don't see what harm it'd do, ya know? Patches are getting pretty damn big these days. It's incredibly inconvenient to have to redownload them, no matter what way you look at it. Especially seeing as we're having to often uninstall and reinstall games due to a lack of hard drive space - again, compounded by the large patch sizes.

For PC it's a bit different. PC gamers don't have the same level of support for physical media as consoles. And those games that DO get released are typically done so on DVD, not Blu-Ray, meaning additional content has to be downloaded (see DOOM) So I'm not quite sure what the solution would be for modern PC gamers to get a completely "offline" method of getting new games. It's not a realistic proposition to expect publishers to suddenly start printing more physical PC games and releasing them on Blu-Ray disks. I think they'll always be reliant on some kind of online distribution to get the game itself, either fully or partially. That said, the ability to download individual patches would be a massive step in the right direction if you ask me.

 

[Bedlam]

Our only hope is hackers and pirates. It's sad but that's how it is because companies are actively working against game preservation.

Playstation Now and similar services in the future will have you covered.

That is not in any way a solution to the preservation problem. Incredibly short-sighted and ignoring swathes of issues.

 

[MadClacker]

Our only hope is hackers and pirates. It's sad but that's how it is because companies are actively working against game preservation.

It's kind of sad that I had to rely on no-cd patches and cracked .exe's back in the day to circumvent asinine security measures on games I had paid for. But yeah, I can see the pirate/mod scene reverse engineering a lot of the modern PC games (we'd be lying if we pretended like it isn't happening today) but it's the consoles that I worry about.

 

[DavidDesu]

This is why I'm seriously hoping that from this gen onwards we will see console makers focus on keeping all games future proof. The x86 thing seems like PS5 should play PS4 games with fairly few issues. I hope. If they really want people to jump all in to their digital ecosystem then they have to take steps to ensure their customers know their purchases have value going forward and aren't limited time leases. I think, and hope they will go down this route. It will benefit them and it will benefit us.

 

[samn]

Probably nothing.

Who's paying to keep those hypothetical authorisation servers up?

What incentive would whoever's left at Valve in the final days have to get this up and running?