-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Preloading Patches on consoles totally needs to be a thing.
- Thread starter Gen X
- Start date
But the difference was that if you wanted to, you could download those patches before you actually had the physical disc in your hands, or back up the patches. That's what I do with my GOG copy of Witcher 3.
OfTheOverflow
Member
As a resident of a country with... 'sub par' internet, I would greatly relish this as a feature. It makes sense, really. Patches are free, why can't I optionally download it if I want?
I think delta updates can be easily handle by the OS. Pre-download all patches/content, verifies game version on the disc, install from it forward.
Or something more similar to Git
Patches can't be pre-downloaded because they are fixes to the core game software itself and not something that can live on its own. Unlike DLC which is added to a game later as its own unit, patches can't be applied to a base that isn't there already.
Applying the patch before the original could cause massive issues with merge conflicts (sticking with the git reference) by having the patched files before the originals. This could also cause the pre-downloaded patches to get overwritten by the parts of the game that were meant to be fixed being applied over top of the pre-downloaded patch.
Unfortunately for people who still buy physical game media I don't think changing the patching system is going to be very high on Sony or Microsoft's list for their platforms moving forward. Games are moving more and more towards digital downloads and as that happens there is going to be less incentive for console makers to change the patching system to fix a pain point that really only exists with physical media.
Applying the patch before the original could cause massive issues with merge conflicts (sticking with the git reference) by having the patched files before the originals. This could also cause the pre-downloaded patches to get overwritten by the parts of the game that were meant to be fixed being applied over top of the pre-downloaded patch.
Unfortunately for people who still buy physical game media I don't think changing the patching system is going to be very high on Sony or Microsoft's list for their platforms moving forward. Games are moving more and more towards digital downloads and as that happens there is going to be less incentive for console makers to change the patching system to fix a pain point that really only exists with physical media.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
The amount of people downloading patches would be insignificant. You guys talk like casual people would be downloading tons of patches to games they may or may not play.
Nobody got time for that.
-shadow-
Member
I'm just wondering since I've never used a retail PS4 or Xbox One. But can't you just boot the game without a patch and install it in standby? I always just play whatever's released on the WiiU that requires a patch and just boot it up and let the patch be applied after shutting the system down.
Yes you can, but like said on the previous page, it's more a side effect of how patching was, well, patched into the system through firmware updates more than anything. It actually counts as a free purchase instead of an actual game patch. So I doubt they'll do it again like they did.
I know they can't be applied if the base isn't there but neither can dlc(as I mentioned in the OP). I assume the downloaded files sit there like a .zip file on a computer desktop until they are unpacked during installation and pointed to a folder.
As for people saying it would be confusing downloading the patches if you didn't have the game it would be obvious you would need a 1.0 - to whatever is the next/latest file. If there was a newer version that would be rectified upon booting up the game after installing the preloaded patch.
Patches are free to end users but they are not free for publishers and developers.
You can boot and play any game without patching them and download patches while playing the game 'offline'.
For every person that will find manually managing what patches to download obvious there will be 10 that will confuse patches for demos or DLC and complain to publishers and misuse the bandwidth.
Cost and user confusion.
Colour me surprised if not just because Nintendo is usually laughed at for being behind everyone else in terms of networking features. They were after all, pretty slow in embracing online.
I couldn't honestly see it being abused, who in their right mind would want to d/l a large patch for the sake of it for multiple games? Most people are struggling for free space as it is.
There wouldn't be any confusion if you could only have the option of 1.0-??? the latest patch, it's not like there would be multiple different patches. As for cost, see above.
test_account
XP-39C²
I dont think this was intentional. From what i know, the 3DS wasnt made with a patching system in mind, so the solution was to move all patches as a store item in the eShop instead. So you need a Nintendo account to download the patches. Microsoft and Sony could probably do the same as well, tie all patches to their storefront instead of having the patches seperated like they have now (you dont need any account to download the patches).
Isn't downloading large patches for the sake of it exactly what people in this thread are asking for? Functionally its the exact same thing, making patches available to download for anyone on the network independently of if they own the title. The potential cost of that to publishers remains the same regardless of the personal motivation of the user.
It's a similar reason why Steam and others don't allow you to download DLC or patches without having the title installed, to cut down on bandwidth costs. The 3DS situation cited is a legacy system that clearly wasn't built with "modern" content delivery in mind from the outset, thus the adhoc patching system treating everything as a store item (probably costs Nintendo a small fortune). The Xbox 360 did a similar thing, and Microsoft moved away from that most likely for the very same reason.
the problem is in the first place that devs and publishers deliver broken games. why do we need patches in the first place? nintendo showed us that most patches werent neccessary, if you would set the ground work for not delivering broken or unfinished games.
prepatching would be a nice idea, but sonys patching system is of course computing from the last century. this should be possible but not with their old styled OS.
prepatching would be a nice idea, but sonys patching system is of course computing from the last century. this should be possible but not with their old styled OS.