PDA

View Full Version : Game patch sizes - out of control


Pages : [1] 2

saturnotaku
07-29-04, 08:31 AM
I really don't know if it's simply developers being lazy or what, but I'm sure a lot of you have noticed the outrageous sizes of popular game patches. Far Cry 1.2 checked in at more than 60 mb, Painkiller > 80, BF:V > 130 and the list goes on. It's not a huge deal I'm sure for many because we have broadband Internet connections, but this has to make life a living hell for people on dial-up.

I remember when the patches for the original Unreal Tournament were only about 7 mb and all you had to do was insert the original install CD for it to copy some files. But now it's pretty ridiculous, and it seems that more often than not these updates break more than they fix.

There needs to be some sort of wake-up call for PC game programmers to exercise a little more care. I know it's all about the $$$ but if they invest more time in getting stuff right, the less time they'll spend trying to fix stuff in the long run.

OK, I'll get down off my (soapbox) for now.

LiquidX
07-29-04, 08:53 AM
Personaly I dont have a problem with them because most times its the multiplayer aspect which needs a patch and most of those players have high-speed. Yes I know its the mentality "lets ship now fix later" but hey rather that in a way as long as the single player is straight. 56K users however fully agree with you, I just cant imagine spending a week downloading the BF:VT patch. :)

saturnotaku
07-29-04, 08:55 AM
I think someone could make some money by having patches to all the major games handy and burning/shipping CDs to people who don't want to wait. Charge $5 shipped and you could probably get a CD in-hand before you'd ever finish downloading a 130 mb patch on 56k.

majortom
07-29-04, 09:09 AM
its been my opinion that programmers have been slacking off a LOT for a while now. it seems like theyve been focusing mostly on the engine and eye candy, and sacrifice stability and playability, all to meet a deadline. i think that if they spend a little more time on fixing bugs instead of trying to reach a deadline, most games would probably run a lot better with fewer bugs (DUH). i think that games like doom3 and halflife, which have been in serious development for a while, will run incredibly well, with very few bugs (or relatively few bugs).

Riptide
07-29-04, 09:48 AM
Heh, I remember downloading (@56K no less) the free installments/sequels to Wing Commander Prophecy. Now THAT took a while (100+meg).

MUYA
07-29-04, 10:06 AM
As a former 56kps user untill a 10 months ago, I longed for minimal size count patches.

eL_PuSHeR
07-29-04, 10:50 AM
Games and utility apps that need that huge amount of patching demonstrates how lazy programmers are (again). And downloading those humongous nowadays patches is a big pain in the neck, even on broadband. :lame: :ORDER:

vampireuk
07-29-04, 11:07 AM
EA is notorious for that, 200mb+ patches

stncttr908
07-29-04, 11:19 AM
I think it's just proportional to how large game installs have become. I admit that a vast majority of the disk space is taken by textures, sound effects, and other things that do not involve the game code, but a lot of the time the patches come with new maps, modes, skins, etc. If that's the case then I welcome large patches. If I'm just getting a few gameplay tweaks then I agree with you.

Elminster
07-29-04, 11:57 AM
Last WOW Patch was 2.2GB. Almost a complete redownload.

ynnek
07-29-04, 01:27 PM
Exactly.

Anywho, I'm on cable... So my only complaint is, if you're going to release a big patch, then have plenty of fast sites of direct downloads.. none of this waiting in line,signing up, or proprietary downloader crap.



I think it's just proportional to how large game installs have become. I admit that a vast majority of the disk space is taken by textures, sound effects, and other things that do not involve the game code, but a lot of the time the patches come with new maps, modes, skins, etc. If that's the case then I welcome large patches. If I'm just getting a few gameplay tweaks then I agree with you.

Riptide
07-29-04, 01:37 PM
Exactly.

Anywho, I'm on cable... So my only complaint is, if you're going to release a big patch, then have plenty of fast sites of direct downloads.. none of this waiting in line,signing up, or proprietary downloader crap.
Seconded. I'm tired of having to download from fileshack or some other BS place that makes you register. :p

Fatman
07-29-04, 01:49 PM
I never had a problem with bug downloads. I've been on broadband since mid 2000, but even before that when I was on 56k i would just use GetRight and leave the big downloads over night. If necessary, during the day while I was at work. Having a separate line for the modem also helps. But I could never understand people saying "OMG its 50MB, that takes hours on 56k," just leave it downloading over night, problem solved.

Edge
07-29-04, 02:24 PM
Problem is, what happens when you ALREADY have a big queue of things to download on a 56k? Hell, at one point I had 5 50+ megabyte files in Getright's download queue, that took a few days to download. But whenever a new version of Natural Selecction comes out, that gets priority over everything else, which basically renders my internet unusable for 12 hours or so. Not to mention it's annoying as hell getting in the mood to play a game, launching it, and basically getting a message saying "you have to spend 10 hours downloading a patch to keep playing this game", or at least that's what it sounds like to me!

Thank god I'm getting broadband on the 9th of next month, but still, even needing to spend 30 minutes to download a patch isn't a happy prospect. Wasn't there a Silent Hill 2 patch that was about 5k? Now THAT'S how big game patches should be :P

msxyz
07-29-04, 03:21 PM
I was surprised that a complex, vast game like Morrowind had very small patches (7-8MB). This was mainly because of the smart patcher system that actually patched files rather than substituting them.

ynnek
07-29-04, 03:27 PM
heh thats true...

Remember the old Doom patchers? Those things would take like 30 mins of crunching to patch the files... and back then, it took about 30 mins to download 500k over a 2400 modem.. blah!



I was surprised that a complex, vast game like Morrowind had very small patches (7-8MB). This was mainly because of the smart patcher system that, actually patched files rather than substituting them.

Galeo Deus
07-29-04, 03:28 PM
Uhhh... Who the hell has dial up anymore? I know only 1 person that does personally, and I know a lot of people.

In other words, who cares what the patch sizes are? I like how new content is added and stuff after release, i.e. the Battlefield series, etc.

Elminster
07-29-04, 06:40 PM
I don't know if it will stay this way but WoW uses Blizzards own BitTorrent client to download patches. From my experience with it it goes extremly fast. I always get a solid 300-400KBps.

SH64
07-29-04, 07:38 PM
Uhhh... Who the hell has dial up anymore?

I do .. since the cable cost very much where i live , i cant use it although i can afford it for small periods like 1-2 months but i dont play MP so the price/use equation for the cable dosent suits me right now .

I completely agree with sat .. it takes me alot of my time just to download one of them huge patchs . actually i'm now in the process of downloading BF:V patch 1.4 & i'm in the second day right now ! :o

nvnews-reader
07-29-04, 10:46 PM
100 MB isn't much if you have a cable but I agree about publishers being cheepos. They need to provide a download site for their patches that you don't need to signup or pay to use. At least Nvidia has a fast DL site but not for all games :<

And Elminster, I'm not sure what your avatar is but it's disturbing. :alien:

saturnotaku
07-29-04, 10:59 PM
100 MB isn't much if you have a cable but I agree about publishers being cheepos. They need to provide a download site for their patches that you don't need to signup or pay to use. At least Nvidia has a fast DL site but not for all games

Or the devs need to pay places like Fileplanet or 3DGamers to host those patches. They buy ads so there's no reason they can't kick in a little extra for some dedicated bandwidth.

superklye
07-30-04, 03:01 PM
its been my opinion that programmers have been slacking off a LOT for a while now. it seems like theyve been focusing mostly on the engine and eye candy, and sacrifice stability and playability, all to meet a deadline. i think that if they spend a little more time on fixing bugs instead of trying to reach a deadline, most games would probably run a lot better with fewer bugs (DUH). i think that games like doom3 and halflife, which have been in serious development for a while, will run incredibly well, with very few bugs (or relatively few bugs).

heh, well, with that mentality, Duke Nukem Forever is going to be the most stable, bug free, beautiful game EVER. :)

Edge
07-30-04, 03:15 PM
heh, well, with that mentality, Duke Nukem Forever is going to be the most stable, bug free, beautiful game EVER. :)

It damn well better be, or else it WILL be a disapointment! It also better be the longest, most immersive, greatest story, and best featured game ever made. We need more games that have been in development for 10 years like Battlecruiser...oh wait...

superklye
07-30-04, 03:17 PM
It damn well better be, or else it WILL be a disapointment! It also better be the longest, most immersive, greatest story, and best featured game ever made. We need more games that have been in development for 10 years like Battlecruiser...oh wait...

hahahaha

Goth
08-01-04, 06:36 PM
Uhhh... Who the hell has dial up anymore? I know only 1 person that does personally, and I know a lot of people.

In other words, who cares what the patch sizes are? I like how new content is added and stuff after release, i.e. the Battlefield series, etc.

Boys in the woods still have dial up