Gaming patches are taking the piss

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

Seems unlikely, you can easily compress the patch, unpack it and install it. I think you refer to the files used when streaming data.

[mushashi]

2 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

Someone on GAF said the reason they've gotten so big this generation is the weak CPUs in the consoles, before they'd compress everything and have a thread running decompression before loading it into memory, but now they're pretty bottlenecked so they just leave everything uncompressed and skip that, so massive massive size increases.

 

Don't know how true it is, but would certainly explain it.

 

Sounds like Bullshit, the PS4 has a dedicated hardware decompressor. The real reason has already been explained, delta patching on huge monolithic packages isn't very efficient.

 

Quote

To further enhance optical drive performance, the PS4 features a hardware on-the-fly zlib decompression module (a special piece of hardware used to quickly decompress the data on the Blu-ray disc, which has been compressed to save space and bandwidth), allowing for greater effective bandwidth

 

[Salsa Party Animal]

Another problems is games is too big and you have to uninstall games if you want to add new games despite hard drive upgrade.  Patches is shit  due to size. It need to only patch source code and leave alone sound, graphics, video and stuff alone unless it is replacing the files for better version. It make me miss PS2 and Amiga games. 

[NEG]

I'd say it's MS at fault, don't forget their initial plan: you own nothing. Go to a store to activate purchases. Can't resell, DRM up the wazoo, etc etc.

 

Of course, Sony ended up doing the same, so either they both had the same shitty business consumer practices in mind to begin with, or there really is a problem fitting games onto discs now.

[Salsa Party Animal]

Any developers sharing their view on patches ?

[Norfolk Enchants]

To update Gran Turismo 6 retail disc to 1.22 requires quite some 'baby-sitting'. Download the first 6 patches of 21, cancel, go off-line, install, back on-line, download and install the remaining 15 patches individually (going offline after each one.) It took me several hours yesterday. 

[Huz]

It feels like the problem is that bandwidth for the developer is too cheap. There's no financial incentive for them to minimise the size of their patches, so they don't. If Sony and MS charged them per megabyte, or even better made developers serve up patches from their own infrastructure, I suspect the downloads would become more reasonably sized.

 

But then I also suspect it would reduce the likelihood of us getting extra content for free, so, meh.

[SqueakyG]

This will never ever happen, but I wish Sony and Microsoft would come up with some new tough rules for developers and publishers, to make sure that updates are only as big as they need to be. A bible of rules, to be followed as part of the licensing agreements.

 

One essential rule would be for publishers: Stop with the day 1 patches! If the game requires a heavy day-1 patch to make it technically acceptable, that means it needed another month in development before the code went gold. From now on, just push release dates back. (It'll never happen, the industry is fucked).

 

 

 

 

But for a more radical idea, I'd do something like this...

 

Give the user the choice of THREE different update types, with the choice to opt out of two of them:

 

Update type 1: Essential bugfixes and technical improvements.

Mandatory (users can't opt-out)

Covers: Fixing bugs, optimising framerates, fixing screen-tear, adding more options to menus such as FOV sliders and v-sync, rebalancing the game.

Maximum file size: 100MB per patch

 

Update type 2: Multiplayer stream

Optional (users can opt-out - though it may make multiplayer unavailable)

Covers: The continuing development and support of the multiplayer game modes - new maps, items, weapons, game modes, 'preparing the code' for paid expansions, etc.

Maximum file size: unlimited

 

Update type 3: Game evolution stream

Optional (users can opt-out - though it may make DLC expansions unavailable)

Covers: The continuing development and support of the single-player game - new game modes, substantial upgrades, 'preparing the code' for paid expansions

Maximum file size: unlimited

 

 

I know there are reasons why this can't happen. No need to argue why it can't work, it's just a fantasy.

[footle]

On 31/12/2016 at 20:32, Huz said:

It feels like the problem is that bandwidth for the developer is too cheap. There's no financial incentive for them to minimise the size of their patches, so they don't. If Sony and MS charged them per megabyte, or even better made developers serve up patches from their own infrastructure, I suspect the downloads would become more reasonably sized.

 

But then I also suspect it would reduce the likelihood of us getting extra content for free, so, meh.

 

Ok.

Let us briefly analyse this proposal, ignoring what happens when the developer/publisher goes bust and stops paying for their own infrastructure.

 

10GB patch, 100,000 downloads. 1000TB. On demand pricing from amazon? $25k. I suspect planned download would be cheaper, and of course it's also what you're paying your Xbox Live/PSN/Steam Fees percentage for: even 200GB of download per copy is only $5 - which isn't really a big distribution fee.

 

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

On 31/12/2016 at 20:32, Huz said:

It feels like the problem is that bandwidth for the developer is too cheap. There's no financial incentive for them to minimise the size of their patches, so they don't. If Sony and MS charged them per megabyte, or even better made developers serve up patches from their own infrastructure, I suspect the downloads would become more reasonably sized.

 

But then I also suspect it would reduce the likelihood of us getting extra content for free, so, meh.

Another side-effect would be that publishers would most likely release as few updates as possible. While this might sound like a good thing, many refinements and bugfixes would be delayed until there was a pressing need for the publisher to release some kind of 'servicepack' to fix gamebreaking bugs or prevent cheating in online modes.

 

 

I don't think there's a real solution though - the possibility to patch after release has been a blessing and a curse and it's just something we have to live with.

 

[Bacon Horsemeat]

Delaying any patches until a month (or certain time period) after release may work. The first few weeks are crucial to most games' success, and bugs will result in returns and bad reputation for a lot longer. So that will give the incentive for devs to delay the game until its ready.

[Ketchup]

3 hours ago, Napole0n said:

Another side-effect would be that publishers would most likely release as few updates as possible. While this might sound like a good thing, many refinements and bugfixes would be delayed until there was a pressing need for the publisher to release some kind of 'servicepack' to fix gamebreaking bugs or prevent cheating in online modes.

 

 

I don't think there's a real solution though - the possibility to patch after release has been a blessing and a curse and it's just something we have to live with.

 

 

This is what used to happen to xbla games where they got their first patch for free and after that had to pay. Basically meant if a second patch was needed they'd hold off till they either had a game update or they crammed as much as possible. Unless it was a game killing bug and often Microsoft would let that one go for free if it was a major issue that harmed people playing the game.

[GwiDan]

I've complained about it elsewhere but redownloading ALL the patches on my replacement PS4 after the other one broke was utter utter misery. 

[Huz]

5 hours ago, footle said:

 

10GB patch, 100,000 downloads. 1000TB. On demand pricing from amazon? $25k. I suspect planned download would be cheaper, and of course it's also what you're paying your Xbox Live/PSN/Steam Fees percentage for: even 200GB of download per copy is only $5 - which isn't really a big distribution fee.

 

 

Not too sure what your point is. Are you saying that a $25k bill wouldn't put publishers off releasing needlessly bloated patches? Because I reckon it would.

 

I don't know what the last sentence means.

[footle]

9 hours ago, Huz said:

 

Not too sure what your point is. Are you saying that a $25k bill wouldn't put publishers off releasing needlessly bloated patches? Because I reckon it would.

 

I don't know what the last sentence means.

 

25k for any reasonably sized game is going to tend to irrelevant. Certainly compared to some complicated patching/repatching process that requires multiple people to write/verify/ensure it doesn't break; Indie games, sure, but I doubt they're your 10GB patches.

 

the last sentence just shows that on your standard 30% storefront cost of distribution, even five+ times of your average game size is going to be easily covered. In many cases 10 or 20 times... this is one of the things  the publisher is getting from Microsoft, Sony, valve when they sell via their store.

[Huz]

Hmm, it surprises me that an ongoing cost of that magnitude for each patch wouldn't encourage publishers to come up with a more efficient distribution pipeline. But then I don't obviously know much about the economics of game distribution.

 

It does simply reinforce my point though - while releasing ridiculously big patches remains cheap (both financially and in terms of effort) publishers have no incentive to change their practices.

[mushashi]

Back in the good old days of burn once and forget about it, devs/publishers just didn't publicise when a game got an update (just look at the variants of various game ROMs), or in the case of the Japanese, they were effectively beta-testing the export/Greatest Hits version a lot of the time.

[Vin]

Picked up Mankind Divided cheap earlier on. 

 

13gb update. 

 

[Boozy The Clown]

Dead Rising 4 - 16Gb

 

I think it's to put you in the mood for smashing heads with a sledgehammer.

 

 

[squirtle]

Have they changed how these work on the Xbox One yet? I don't like the fact that I have to go offline to play the game until the patch is downloaded, whereas on all other consoles I can still play the game, but the network features in the game are suspended while the patch downloads in the background. Such an annoyance on the One.

[Salsa Party Animal]

People say GT 6 need 21 patches to make it work, there should be an option to download one patch for all 21 combined.

 

[JohnC]

What's the reasoning, if any, behind having to download patches for a game you've just downloaded? Can't they just let you download the latest fully patched version to begin with?

[Alex W.]

I would imagine it varies from store to store. Probably it's easier and cheaper (doubtless Sony and MS charge fees for every little thing) to just release and test the patch and keep the original version, rather than also release and test an updated version.

[Down by Law]

well this hasn't gotten any better has it

 

Battlefield V - Welcome to Battlefield! In 10 hours. 16gb Patch. Off to CEX you go

Spyro the Dragon - Enjoy Spyro 2 & 3. After you've downloaded this 30GB! Patch. Piss takers.

Call of Duty 4 Remastered - Got the code with the Infinite War special edition. 78 gigs! For a remaster! Cancelled. Waste of a code.

Just Cause 4 - No massive patch but the developer says there's one coming, as they rushed it out. Gee, thanks.

Fallout 76 - Lol

 

 

 

 

 

[Down by Law]

This is becoming a proper mare, I look at my game collection and rather than deciding what I'd really like to play, I look at the games that are most unlikely to have received massive patches.

 

It can be done. Titanfall 2 had a day one patch of a few hundred meg, and I think during the entire life of that game when they were adding new maps, modes and weapons nothing topped 5gb. Resident Evil 2 Remake is confirmed 21GB- for the entire game! and look how good it looks! So what's going on? How can something like Call of Sodding Duty 4 Remastered be nearly 100gb? 

 

Amazon are going to let me return Battlefield for a full refund as nowhere on the product page does it say you'll need to download 20gb of additional content just for it to work. People on data caps are completely screwed and for people like me who can only get broadband via phone line it's just another reason to be put off from modern gaming.

[Droo]

Am I the only one who just plays the game and doesn’t bother updating it, at least the first day?

 

[Down by Law]

Well that's the problem - you can't play Battlefield without an update and Spyro 2 & 3 aren't even printed on the disc, so good luck trying to play those.

[jamesy]

Just put in Quantum Break there and it wants me to download a 77gb update after the game installs from the disc. I believe there's video content and such included but still seems like madness. Reminded me how I use to complain about playstation games taking too long to load compared to n64. Laughable now.

[Garwoofoo]

The Elder Scrolls Online is a huge pain. The main game is well over 100GB now and every time it gets a patch (even a tiny one) it takes about three hours "copying" - which I assume is the PS4 unpacking it, applying the new data then repacking it.  Not the game's fault but a three-hour update time for a 100MB patch is quite honestly ridiculous.

[Alex W.]

Sony, in their brilliance, changed the way PS4 games update so that they create a duplicate of the entire game installation, patch that, and don’t delete the original until that has successfully booted. Solving a problem with bad patches nobody really had at the cost of increasing update install times by an order of magnitude