@Branthog said:

@laserbolts said:

I'm sure you'll live.

What a useful contribution, you have made. If I cut off your arm, you'll still live, too. So what?

Well, what are we suppose to say honestly?

Sure, it can be frustrating but I think in the grand scheme of things, it's little to worry about. You'd be in the same position if you're a PC gamer. I don't mind going away and waiting for it to be done updating before returning. I agree also that it's frustrating that Sony then introduced a cool feature and have put it behind PSN+ which I'm not willing to pay for, but that's still only useful if you leave your system on. If you switch it on to play something you're still going to have the same issue with needing to install new firmware or patches.

@valrog said:

We still live in a world where 700 MB is considered a lot?

On the PS3 it is because the download speeds from PSN are awful and always have been for me.

and no it's not my connection, I've had this shit for years now, ports opened, wired or wireless. Still slow compared to 360 updates or downloading stuff on my PC/Laptops.

@Branthog said:

@MisterChief said:

I hope the first thing on the PS4 design doc is "Learn how to patch". Seemingly they are unable to patch the OS or games since all the updates are massive. They also don't seem to stack most of the time.

I actually just had some conspiracy nut tell me a few minutes ago that "it's part of their plan to sell PSN+. If you make the forced patches per game enough of a hassle, you'll pay $60 to automate it when you're not using the system."

isnt that what Ryan was talking about his PSN+ doing on the bombcast?

I remember the days when it took even longer than that to install a game, on the pc that is. Installer for C&C 1 comes to mind... 
 
I do have to agree though, 700MB on launch for a patch is pretty ridiculous...

Yeah theres like literally no point of the ps3 having a big hardrive since it's all gonna be updates

I would really be pissed since I'm on a shitty connection and I usually only play for short amounts of time.

They forgot to put the Multiplayer in the disk!

So, a 700 MB patch on launch day.

And another 700 MB patch, today (two days since launch).

@canucks23 said:

This happens when you don't play your ps3 often. Why do people keep making these threads? It's nothing new.

What are you talking about? What does how frequently you play your PS3 have to do with a videogame having a 700MB patch on launch day and a second 700MB patch two days after launch?

That thing you rarely use has updates for it when you go back to it because modern things update. Yep.

@canucks23 said:

This happens when you don't play your ps3 often. Why do people keep making these threads? It's nothing new.

What are you talking about? What does how frequently you play your PS3 have to do with a videogame having a 700MB patch on launch day and a second 700MB patch two days after launch?

@ryanwho said:

@Branthog said:

@canucks23 said:

This happens when you don't play your ps3 often. Why do people keep making these threads? It's nothing new.

What are you talking about? What does how frequently you play your PS3 have to do with a videogame having a 700MB patch on launch day and a second 700MB patch two days after launch?

What does a developer adding patches have to do with Sony?

Fair enough. I shouldn't have tagged Sony as responsible for Insomniac's shitty patching methodology.

@ryanwho said:

That thing you rarely use has updates for it when you go back to it because modern things update. Yep.

I'm pretty sure how often you update the PS3 has no relevance to a game having large patches on launch. The system update part was merely piling on to the experience. And as I pointed out a couple posts above -- it appears this will always be the case with every Resistance update (they just issued a new patch which is also 700mb).

It's not a complaint about patching itself. It's not a complaint about frequency of updates. It's a complaint that their solution to patching seems to be fairly poor. Even the PC doesn't see 700mb updates frequently, any more, because most titles have implemented a patching system that reduces them to tens of megabytes at most - unless they're adding content. (At least, for the titles I've been playing most the last few years - clearly just anecdotal).

Ugh, can't stand the constant installations on downloads, it's like I'm using a (really, really slow) PC. If I still had Gold, I'd just get my demos from the 360.

@Branthog: Is it that big of an issue? Its your "10%" machine right? lmao.. 0% machine problem solved. Fucking gamers.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Branthog said:

Since the PS3 tends to be my "10% machine", meaning I only use it for about 10% of my actual game playing, I had to update it when I logged on today. Not a big deal. That usually only takes about ten minutes.

Then, I popped in Resistance 3. It required that I perform a 700mb update that took twenty more minutes (oh, plus the five minutes for it to install that update . . . and then the five or ten minutes for it to install whatever the game wanted to install the first time it actually starts up, post patch download and install).

Yup, MS copyrighted their DIFF updating process and Sony has been too cheap to lawyer up an alternative, so you got got.

Surely they only copyrighted (or patented, rather, I presume?) their particular implementation of streamed patching? I would assume different platforms or companies would have different ways of performing it (just as there are different types of compression algorithms). I mean, we've been applying patches this way in the unix world for as long as I've been alive, as far as I know.

I did a little bit of googling around to see what I found find about Microsoft's patch implementation process (as far as diff patching) and didn't really come up with anything. If you have any links you could throw at me, that would be much appreciated.

#firstworldproblems

@Branthog said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Branthog said:

Since the PS3 tends to be my "10% machine", meaning I only use it for about 10% of my actual game playing, I had to update it when I logged on today. Not a big deal. That usually only takes about ten minutes.

Then, I popped in Resistance 3. It required that I perform a 700mb update that took twenty more minutes (oh, plus the five minutes for it to install that update . . . and then the five or ten minutes for it to install whatever the game wanted to install the first time it actually starts up, post patch download and install).

Yup, MS copyrighted their DIFF updating process and Sony has been too cheap to lawyer up an alternative, so you got got.

Surely they only copyrighted (or patented, rather, I presume?) their particular implementation of streamed patching? I would assume different platforms or companies would have different ways of performing it (just as there are different types of compression algorithms). I mean, we've been applying patches this way in the unix world for as long as I've been alive, as far as I know.

I did a little bit of googling around to see what I found find about Microsoft's patch implementation process (as far as diff patching) and didn't really come up with anything. If you have any links you could throw at me, that would be much appreciated.

I don't have links but it's well know in the industry. Compression algorithms have nothing whatsoever to do with platforms, Lempel Zev exists on all platforms as does RLE. While you can't copyright a concept, you certainly can copyright an implementation and MS copyrighted DIFF for updating. DIFF patches being applied in Unixoid OSes is a different process (therefore implementation) because that is done to the source code which is then recompiled. The XBOX 360 DIFFs are to live executables (and of course the data they use). Technically it's just ASCII vs Binary in terms of implementation but I'm sure there are ways that MS worked out that they could lock it down yet make it generic enough that it would be worth copyrighting.