PS3 game updates are awful


Recommended Posts

i don't mind patches in games, even big ones, but i prefer to have some kind of back ground process for it to download and install, so i can do other stuff with my system. i'm not sure about the 360, but i know with ps3 your system is dedicated to the patching process and only the patching process until it's done, and it asks you for prompts iirc to begin the install after downloading is done so you can't just leave it and come back when it's finished you have to actually sit there and wait for it to finish downloading and installing so you can press a button to continue the process.

this is nothing like pc games, which outside of steam have taken on teh mmo paradigm of having a launcher of some kind that patches the game up as soon as you start it and you can let it run after a fresh install and first run and it will eventually patch up the current version so you can get online without any prompts needing your permission. steam is even better since it automatically downloads updates in teh background, and i've never had it interfere with my online gaming(ie cause lag), though i have really decent internet.

yeah years ago updating on pc used to be a pain. at first it was a matter of getting a pc gamer issue with a disc with the updates on it, or finding the page with the downloads and waiting hours for the 4 mb file to d/l and then zipping it to a few different disks for later installs and installing patches in the right order. but in the last ten years most games have been able to just download and install the latest patch and it brings it up to teh latest version, and patch size has mattered less and less as bandwidth and speed has increased. i can download and patch a 6gb-16gb mmo like aion or wow in just a couple hours.

the only thing that sucks pc wise is when an mmo or game has a launcher for the patching process, but you have to log int to start patching, which means usually that you have to have an active sub, so you can't just keep your game up to date and start your sub time AFTER you've already patched. this annoys me because i generally like to patch then pay or input my time card on games with subs.

but yeah, patching on pc has been a breeze for years now. i recently reinstalled diablo 2, which is like 10 years old, and patching was simply a matter of downloading and installing the latest update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAY to avoid the fact of what i posted. You quoted me on it and apparently cannot read or comprehend. The top first the FIRST REPLY IN THIS THREAD YOU MADE, so according to you the developer(s) failed to "apparently make the game correct the first 6 times". Which means, in this case, SONY FAIL TO APPARENTLY MAKE THE GAME CORRECT the first ## of times with LBP. Oh you didnt see that facepalm coming did you? Way to dig your own hole on this one.

On top of all that, to reply to the second quote, I never said I have a problem with waiting, but most of the people in the thread are making it a point that instead of removing old updates and including them with new updates, or just having new updates dispatch, you have to do it in the order the patches came out. So, i dont think ANYONE would appreciate just buying a new game, or hell in this case a DIGITAL COPY OFF THE STORE, and still having to download patches from day 1 release of the game till now. SO if there were 6 patches, then someone who bought the game today, DIGITALLY, still has to wait for all 6 patches to install, that lets say came out within the last year since the game released.

So please learn to comprehend instead of just say the same thing 3 times now, you dug yourself a hole. Ill say it again, PATCHING SYSTEM SUCKS. GET OVER IT.

really, chill down man, its the internet, you're going to have a stroke if you act like that all the time lol.

Again, their patching system is the same as any other patching system. You have to wait for the patch to finish to play the game, same with steam games. Cry more. I don't fail at comprehending, I just don't bother to read what little kids cry about, because really, you don't deserve my full attention with an attitude like that.

Amazing what people whine about when it doesn't even matter. Grow up a little, or if you believe you are, act it.

i don't mind patches in games, even big ones, but i prefer to have some kind of back ground process for it to download and install, so i can do other stuff with my system. i'm not sure about the 360, but i know with ps3 your system is dedicated to the patching process and only the patching process until it's done, and it asks you for prompts iirc to begin the install after downloading is done so you can't just leave it and come back when it's finished you have to actually sit there and wait for it to finish downloading and installing so you can press a button to continue the process.

this is nothing like pc games, which outside of steam have taken on teh mmo paradigm of having a launcher of some kind that patches the game up as soon as you start it and you can let it run after a fresh install and first run and it will eventually patch up the current version so you can get online without any prompts needing your permission. steam is even better since it automatically downloads updates in teh background, and i've never had it interfere with my online gaming(ie cause lag), though i have really decent internet.

yeah years ago updating on pc used to be a pain. at first it was a matter of getting a pc gamer issue with a disc with the updates on it, or finding the page with the downloads and waiting hours for the 4 mb file to d/l and then zipping it to a few different disks for later installs and installing patches in the right order. but in the last ten years most games have been able to just download and install the latest patch and it brings it up to teh latest version, and patch size has mattered less and less as bandwidth and speed has increased. i can download and patch a 6gb-16gb mmo like aion or wow in just a couple hours.

the only thing that sucks pc wise is when an mmo or game has a launcher for the patching process, but you have to log int to start patching, which means usually that you have to have an active sub, so you can't just keep your game up to date and start your sub time AFTER you've already patched. this annoys me because i generally like to patch then pay or input my time card on games with subs.

but yeah, patching on pc has been a breeze for years now. i recently reinstalled diablo 2, which is like 10 years old, and patching was simply a matter of downloading and installing the latest update.

nicely done man, liked it. PS3 could definitely go with some background patching. But list me 1 game that you are able to keep playing with out it being updated, and while it is updating. There really isn't one, unless we bring in those games that you will be playing with other non-patched people. If a game has to patch, every system, makes you wait to be able to play that game while the update is going. But as you said, being able to do something else completely different while a game is patching would be a great addition.

Coming from the age of DOOM shareware playing PC era, patching used to be hell all the way up to when steam showed up. Certain games are still hell to patch if they are not offered by either Blizzard or Steam, like Test Drive Unlimited or even Crysis (which had single player patches and multiplayer only patches) . I also love how Heroes of Newerth handles their patching, which is weekly updates and fixes, with extra content.

You own and have played every single PS3 game and PSN game? blink.gif

Meh, I prefer restrictions. In fact, I prefer that games be released bug free with proper testing. If a patch is required, they should be small, infrequent and painless. Extra content should be left for optional DLC (free or paid).

Disagree about restrictions, but totally agree with games need to be released bug free. But , if it isn't, I welcome any patch that will fix it, size does not matter. I'd rather have something working than something that doesn't.

All this post reminds me of that great Louis C.K. joke about how everything is amazing and no one is amazed by it anymore... if you haven't heard it, youtube search it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I disagree. If you give a developer no limit on patch size and frequency, especially after they should have released the product in proper working condition, you are inviting then to release a poorly made product. Most likely to make a release date, the developer just assumes they can patch later at any size and any time. That is an incoveniece to the consumer, as well as a burden and a waste of the consumers time. It's shotty workmanship and unacceptable. I at no time should be subjected to a broken game and inconvenienced by frequent and large updates. I say mandate a patch size and frequency and put the onus on the developer to properly test their product. We should not be beta testers. It's even worse for offline gamers that need to find patches online for consoles and put them on USB sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I disagree. If you give a developer no limit on patch size and frequency, especially after they should have released the product in proper working condition, you are inviting then to release a poorly made product. Most likely to make a release date, the developer just assumes they can patch later at any size and any time. That is an incoveniece to the consumer, as well as a burden and a waste of the consumers time. It's shotty workmanship and unacceptable. I at no time should be subjected to a broken game and inconvenienced by frequent and large updates. I say mandate a patch size and frequency and put the onus on the developer to properly test their product. We should not be beta testers. It's even worse for offline gamers that need to find patches online for consoles and put them on USB sticks.

I wasn't trying to imply that I welcome huge patches( though i sort of worded it that way lol) , but more of, I welcome any fix to a horribly released game. There is no excuse for a game that is released almost unplayable, and I most likely wouldn't purchase such a game, as it would show basically the quality of said game already. But if a 500mb patch will make a game go from a 1 to a 10 or even to a 6, I wouldn't be ****ed, and wouldn't mind downloading it. By no means though do I want game companies to released such garbage that would require such a patch. But it is good to know that if such a thing happens, a fix can be done. I'm a big advocate of doing something right the first time. But I also have a great amount of patience, so I don't really mind if I have to wait for something I want. Things in life that are worth it normally require effort and waiting. Though we would all much rather prefer instant gratification. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend that you don't buy LittleBigPlanet. The amount of content they have added to the game since it came out will mean you will be patching for the better part of an hour or two. Does that make the game bad? No. It makes the game even more awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah obviously you can't play an unpatched game online... but being able to do something as simple as browse the psn store or w/e or be able to go afk and let teh patch do it's thing would be a big improvement for the ps3 from what i remember of it.

i haven't played a lot of non steam non blizzard non online only with a aluncher games in the last few years on pc so i don't know if there are still PITA to patch games out there. most of my games either patch through the launcher or automatically through steam these days, and even large patches such as major content patches in mmo's only take me like half an hour to download most of the time and i can do other stuff while i do them.

@awbrian, welcome to teh future of gaming on consoles. as soon as they went online they opened up the doors to zero day patches for games to meet launch deadlines and paying for"dlc" that's already on the disk. patches are only going to become more frequent and larger in size as time goes on.

in pc games frequent patches that are large are generally seen as a good thing, as they often fix balance issues and bugs that crop up as well as add content. usually there are two kinds of patches, minor patches which are small, and major which usually have a laundry list of fixes to gameplay and code and what not, and usually include some kind of new content as well.

no multiplayer game is perfectly balanced at launch, and ongoing suppport for online games keeps the game alive and people playing over teh long run. though there are a few console franchises that seem to be more invested in ****ting out another retail box that adds minor fixes minor features and a new map or two on top of the last version at least once a year, instead of building a game to last for years on end and the studio make money off the server rental licenses and cybercafes(like valve or dice/ea, though the latter ****s out some pretty bad games fairly often too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah obviously you can't play an unpatched game online... but being able to do something as simple as browse the psn store or w/e or be able to go afk and let teh patch do it's thing would be a big improvement for the ps3 from what i remember of it.

i haven't played a lot of non steam non blizzard non online only with a aluncher games in the last few years on pc so i don't know if there are still PITA to patch games out there. most of my games either patch through the launcher or automatically through steam these days, and even large patches such as major content patches in mmo's only take me like half an hour to download most of the time and i can do other stuff while i do them.

@awbrian, welcome to teh future of gaming on consoles. as soon as they went online they opened up the doors to zero day patches for games to meet launch deadlines and paying for"dlc" that's already on the disk. patches are only going to become more frequent and larger in size as time goes on.

in pc games frequent patches that are large are generally seen as a good thing, as they often fix balance issues and bugs that crop up as well as add content. usually there are two kinds of patches, minor patches which are small, and major which usually have a laundry list of fixes to gameplay and code and what not, and usually include some kind of new content as well.

no multiplayer game is perfectly balanced at launch, and ongoing suppport for online games keeps the game alive and people playing over teh long run. though there are a few console franchises that seem to be more invested in ****ting out another retail box that adds minor fixes minor features and a new map or two on top of the last version at least once a year, instead of building a game to last for years on end and the studio make money off the server rental licenses and cybercafes(like valve or dice/ea, though the latter ****s out some pretty bad games fairly often too)

There are some, but they are getting fewer and fewer as time goes. It has gotten much better.

But ya, consoles are now basically getting a taste of what us PCers have had to go through for so long. Guess that is why it doesn't bother me. At least with consoles, you know the game will really work pretty decent the first time you put it in, unlike pc games, where you have to worry whether or not your pc can handle it and how it will react to what you are using lol. Coming from PC gaming all my life, I feel sort of spoiled by how easy everything on a console is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You own and have played every single PS3 game and PSN game? blink.gif

Meh, I prefer restrictions. In fact, I prefer that games be released bug free with proper testing. If a patch is required, they should be small, infrequent and painless. Extra content should be left for optional DLC (free or paid).

I own about around 130 PS3 software titles, about about 1/2 are disc based, the reset are psn downloads (excluding PS1 classics, Qore, Demo's).

Out of this collection only 2 game jump to mind as to having this micro-updates (A->B->C->D).

All my games are installed on to the hard drive (if applicable) and then launched to check for updates.

I do this periodically to check for updates and a bit obsessive about keeping things up to date.

I completely agree with you about proper testing, and only small patches / with extra content being DLC.

Since console gained ability to be patched after launch, I feel the quality control on console games had dropped to that of pc.

It use to be if a console game had flaw, they had to recall the discs and took a lot of bad press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chill out, dudes.

Buy a XBOX360, where the update/patch system works flawlessly.

Problem fixed.

I'd definitely not saw flawlessly. :wacko: We're also overlooking some major extenuating factors here, especially with regards to PC & 360 title updates.

Keep in mind that PC (by "PC", I mean games designed to be played on Windows NT 5.x & later OSs) games have been a steady presence for nearly a decade+. It would be in the obvious interest for developers/publishers to improve and innovate the methods by which game titles are patched and updated. Xbox/Xbox 360, by extension/associate, is a "console-ized" version of PC platform. And since everyone and their mum has been developing apps for Windows since the 90s, it's needless to say that updater apps/suites have pretty much refined the process into a streamlined science in itself.

And let's not forget about the oh-so-beaten-to-death topic of (anti)piracy & console platforms. Realistically speaking, both Microsoft and Sony have had their fair share of piracy woes in the past. But due to system similarities shared between PC & Xbox platforms, and familiarity pirates/crackers have already had pwning Windows DRM schemes, Microsoft has fighting the war wwaayyy longer (& harder, lol :pinch:) than Sony. In fact, MS has all but lost (so far) the most recent battles, resorting to flat-out banning confirmed modded consoles from Xbox Live online services. But here's the twist in the story... Sony has been both blessed and cursed by their most recent DRM antipiracy schemes --- BluRay's own BD-ROM Mark and BD+ copy protection mechanisms. Due to the newness and complexity of these, in both hardware and software, pirates and hackers/crackers are still generally "getting the lay of land", and haven't had enough time to break it yet. As far as software developers are concerned, they're in a similar position, still getting acclimated with the intricacies of BD and have yet to utilize the full potential of the PS3 platform (believe it or not).

Also, PC & Xbox/Xbox 360 games have to be developed to (initially) fit/run from a SL/DL DVD or HD-DVD medium. Excluding things like expansion packs, mods, digital downloads, etc., that means that, depending on the publisher/developer and title, a greatly smaller amount of data needs to be updated, in comparison with PS3s' BluRay'd titles.

Lastly, including the bit(s) about LBP, you have to take into account what type of title it is. Obviously a developer isn't generally going to do a bunch of hotfixes and updates on more graphically "simple" games (crap loads of 2D RPG, strategy, fighting, & word games to name a few), reserving support and maintenance to the "bread-winners" (3D adventure, FPS, JRPG, action, simulation, & survival-horror titles come to mind). As far as LBP goes, it's basically a 3D puzzle title with dumbed-down developer tools left attached to it. Of course there'd be a dozen & a half hotfixes for it. Playstation/Sony would have hell to pay to the gamerdom if players thought they were developing & submitting intrinsic and challenging level designs, but were repeatedly being panned for (actually, or not...) making "Nintendo-hard" or broken designs. Personally, I share ZeroPunctuation's feelings for this type of game, "...I pay for games to be (complete) games... I pay professional game developers to do the design for me..." (paraphrasing). If I wanted to make games, I'd be a game developer myself. :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pain's a bad example, the only other game that does the same thing is Hot Shots Golf 5 Out of Bounds, and it's patching is worse.....

Hot Shots is definitely probably the absolute worst I've come across yet. I did them all overnight over several days as it was slow and took forever. A few other games with have several large updates though and I definitely wish they'd create some cumulative updates for these every so often just to give you a better idea of what to expect. Surely it can't be that hard to do, but I guess they just don't see it as being worth the time investment to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the PS3 updating system might not be elegant but every console system has a "negative" or things that users go "Why didn't they think of it?"

Overall, I'm a very happy PS3 owner and player and will continue to be one. In my opinion, it's still the "better" console out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, having the system auto detect the updates, auto download them, and auto install them is awesome compared to what most PC games force you to go through.

Steam updates all the games automatically from what I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.