Annoying Updates

I know this may not seem like a big deal to most, but i recently got a new ps3 (for a bigger hard drive) and have had to re-update all my games to play online. this is not what bugs me though, its the fact that most game developers are starting to have a habit of including non essential things, mostly DLC in these updates. this is very annoying since it vastly increases the amount of stuff you have to download just so that in the off chance you buy DLC, all you have to do is unlock it. In my opinion this type of thing should be regulated by sony and should not be allowed. Not only does it make it harder on my internet and max downloads per month (which are already ridiculous as it is), but makes updates take a lot longer. i mean, its ridiculous, it would be like if i went to buy a house, and they included an AC unit with it, but only let me turn it on if i paid extra...

what do you guys think??

I don't know exactly how it works. But I always thought you have to download it in case someone else uses the DLC. So you can see it. Or something along those lines.. it made sense in my mind, I swear! Well in a game like LBP anyway, because it's possible to see other sackpeople wearing DLC costumes. And it's also possible to play DLC levels if the host has the pack. If you hadn't downloaded that content it just wouldn't render or the game would implode. Not sure :p

Pretty sure it would implode. I mean... LBP isn't LBP without the DLC!

But yea. What OEB said... But... In my words. Meaning that I thought of it first and OEB stole my idea... How dare you!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horwitzer

I know this may not seem like a big deal to most, but i recently got a new ps3 (for a bigger hard drive)

---

You're kidding, right? You can replace the HDD yourself for much less dosh than a new console. You literally just slot it in after screwing it to a bracket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayneh

You're kidding, right? You can replace the HDD yourself for much less dosh than a new console. You literally just slot it in after screwing it to a bracket.

---

Or even better, if you still have the old PS3 and didn't format it, you can transfer all your data to the new one. Or you can use an HD-to-USB device.

Or, if you are insane like my dad, you can plug the PS3 HD on the PC as a secondary HD and backup everything to your primary HD. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horwitzer

I know this may not seem like a big deal to most, but i recently got a new ps3 (for a bigger hard drive)

---

Sorry to break this to you, but...:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayneh

You're kidding, right? You can replace the HDD yourself for much less dosh than a new console. You literally just slot it in after screwing it to a bracket.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdn001

Or even better, if you still have the old PS3 and didn't format it, you can transfer all your data to the new one. Or you can use an HD-to-USB device.

Or, if you are insane like my dad, you can plug the PS3 HD on the PC as a secondary HD and backup everything to your primary HD. :p

---

That was pretty much your mistake, but let's continue on.

Quote:

---

and have had to re-update all my games to play online. this is not what bugs me though, its the fact that most game developers are starting to have a habit of including non essential things, mostly DLC in these updates. this is very annoying since it vastly increases the amount of stuff you have to download just so that in the off chance you buy DLC, all you have to do is unlock it.

---

Well of course you need to update it. The game NEEDS to be updated so it can implement the DLC. If the game gave you an option like "You finished purchasing DLC. Do you want to update?" then the people who play the game will experience difficulties when playing online together. If someone would to own, say, the Metal Gear Solid DLC Pack for LittleBigPlanet, and they updated their game to implement it, BUT his/her friend didn't buy the DLC and didn't update it, then the person who didn't update won't be able to play with the other person because their game wont recognize the new content.

Quote:

---

In my opinion this type of thing should be regulated by sony and should not be allowed. Not only does it make it harder on my internet and max downloads per month (which are already ridiculous as it is), but makes updates take a lot longer.

---

That's not Sony's fault, it's the developers'. If a developer decides they want to add more content to their game, regardless of it being free or not, then they can. The wait people need to endure for the game to update so they can have more content in their game to enjoy is the price we pay as gamers.

Quote:

---

i mean, its ridiculous, it would be like if i went to buy a house, and they included an AC unit with it, but only let me turn it on if i paid extra...

what do you guys think??

---

I think that's an inaccurate analogy. Then how would the AC be paid for? Oh yeah, with electricity bills. Then there's the fact that some games include free DLC, mainly when the game wins GOTY. Overall, if you are willing to pay for DLC then good for you, enjoy the new content you've been waiting for. If not, then ignore it and let someone else enjoy their content. You complaining about something that is necessary for developers to strive and distribute content for their games in order to grow is pointless, so please, with all due respect:

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/x...dealwithit.gif

On an unrelated note, that's a really nice "Deal With it" gif. :p

But yeah @OP, most of the times you download patches to be able to play with others using the DLC, now if you don't wanna play with anyone, just solo and no DLC you could always just not update at all, sure you may miss some patches that fix things, but since you seem to have so much trouble with any and all patches at all, it may work for you.

Lol... The "Deal With It" GIF was dancing in time with my song... xD

Anyways... You did kind of screw yourself over by not transferring/backing up your stuff first...

OK, i have read all of the replies and i was kind of surprised.... HOWEVER when i wrote this post i wasn't really thinking about LBP. obviously for LBP most updates are necessary for playing things online that was made with DLC, and/or viewing costumes etc... but for other games that i was thinking of it isn't necessary. for example, im probably a minority here but i play the mx vs atv games and in those you have to download new tracks as part of updates, even though you will NEVER play them at all unless you unlock them (even online). Also im pretty sure COD does the same with the map packs they put out, so even though you cannot play them at all or even view them on your console without paying for them, you still have to download them.

Also, i got a new ps3 instead of just a bigger hard drive because they had a special on where you get 2 free games so it was worth it... and also i don't have a portable hard drive and copying all of my stuff from my old ps3 (which was full and 120gb) would have taken a long time with a 4gb usb stick lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horwitzer

Also, i got a new ps3 instead of just a bigger hard drive because they had a special on where you get 2 free games so it was worth it... and also i don't have a portable hard drive and copying all of my stuff from my old ps3 (which was full and 120gb) would have taken a long time with a 4gb usb stick lol.

---

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822334016 for External

And

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...NDW-NP&cat=HDD for internal

I have also seen External HD's at Costco for $50 that have enough space, easily.

You could have saved yourself about $50, because (I assume) you already had LBP2, and well... A4One isn't that good.

So... yeah.

Speaking of HDD's, I might need to upgrade my own eventually!

Cod does real updates when map packs come out. That's why a map pack still takes 1-1.5gb to download.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theswweet

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822334016 for External

And

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...NDW-NP&cat=HDD for internal

I have also seen External HD's at Costco for $50 that have enough space, easily.

You could have saved yourself about $50, because (I assume) you already had LBP2, and well... A4One isn't that good.

So... yeah.

Speaking of HDD's, I might need to upgrade my own eventually!

---

Yes i already had LBP2 obvioulsy, but it was 2 new games at 60$ each, so i saved over 120 bucks this way.

Also, i just had to update BF3 and the update was almost 800Mb, which i seriously doubt is all patches and updates. considering most games are between 5 and 15gb, they would have to alter around 10% of the game which seems unlikely.

Anyways, im surprised about the general response in this thread, i mean i didn't think i would be a minority considering the fact that download usage and bandwidth costs money, but i guess no one cares... I feel i should only have to download something if i have to or intend to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horwitzer

Anyways, im surprised about the general response in this thread, i mean i didn't think i would be a minority considering the fact that download usage and bandwidth costs money, but i guess no one cares... I feel i should only have to download something if i have to or intend to use it.

---

I agree with you since I can hit my download limit very easily, not to mention fair usage.

In the case of BF3 it doesn't make sense to have to download that content, since if you haven't paid for it you wouldn't be able to access it anyway. I think the idea is to present less of an obstacle to those who buy DLC - since they make the company more money they're the priority - so their experience is they buy something and only have to download a 1MB key instead of an 800MB map pack. The more convenient it is for them to buy stuff the more likely it is they'll buy stuff.

I transfered everything to a new console recently and had to download a bunch of updates for both the console and for a few games and according to my account I used 1.5GB that day, which is the same as a movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horwitzer

Also, i just had to update BF3 and the update was almost 800Mb, which i seriously doubt is all patches and updates.

---

Isn't there a free karkland dlc for certain users releasing soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayneh

I agree with you since I can hit my download limit very easily, not to mention fair usage.

In the case of BF3 it doesn't make sense to have to download that content, since if you haven't paid for it you wouldn't be able to access it anyway. I think the idea is to present less of an obstacle to those who buy DLC - since they make the company more money they're the priority - so their experience is they buy something and only have to download a 1MB key instead of an 800MB map pack. The more convenient it is for them to buy stuff the more likely it is they'll buy stuff.

I transfered everything to a new console recently and had to download a bunch of updates for both the console and for a few games and according to my account I used 1.5GB that day, which is the same as a movie.

---

yes i suspect that is why they make you download it, for ease of use. but it is still kind of dirty and unnecessary. i remember playing bad company 2 and having over 2gb of nothing but maps, that only "VIP" players could play, so if you where not a "VIP" player you still had to download it to play online, even if you could not access those maps...

Quote:

---

Isn't there a free karkland dlc for certain users releasing soon.

---

this is the same thing, only certain players get it for free and many players may not even want it at all, but if they want to play online they still have to download it... :/

See the main thing is, if you want to play online at all, you NEED to update for your game to ve in the same version as the server, since playing without the update would make your game incompatible, nit to mention if the update fixes some bugs, it'd allow players to keep some bugs while others have them patched, you'd think that'd be worse for the unpatched, but various games have bugs that give advantages to certain players or can be abused for breaking the game rules, like LBP2 did, not to mention the server is updated along the game, and since one can only connect to a server the same version as the game, not updating would make it impossible to to connect.

In short, its not "just to play with players online with the content" but to play online at all.
That's why you can't play online with unpatched games, your game is another version than that of the server, therefor cannot connect, and it'd make no sense to make a new server everytime a new patch is out.
There are just various reasons to why its not possible, or efficient to patch individually.

It may also be to keep the game to one set of data for ease of testing.

Lets use a FPS for an example and lets say it gets 4 map packs in its lifetime all being installed after purchase and not patched in.

Base game 1 configuration.
first map pack is released now there's 2 configurations
second map pack takes us to 4 potential configurations
third map pack would bring it to 8 configurations
and finally the fourth map pack would be 16 different configurations that could exist on the user end that all have to be tested to ensure they work.

However by forcing the data on users in updates they can constantly keep the game as having a single configuration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabid-Coot

It may also be to keep the game to one set of data for ease of testing.

Lets use a FPS for an example and lets say it gets 4 map packs in its lifetime all being installed after purchase and not patched in.

Base game 1 configuration.
first map pack is released now there's 2 configurations
second map pack takes us to 4 potential configurations
third map pack would bring it to 8 configurations
and finally the fourth map pack would be 16 different configurations that could exist on the user end that all have to be tested to ensure they work.

However by forcing the data on users in updates they can constantly keep the game as having a single configuration.

---

I understand what you are saying here but maps are not necessary to the game engine, you can add a map without altering the game engine at all they are completely separate. that is my whole point, updates should not include code that is not necessary for online play such as maps and content that many players will never use.

A few days ago they had a patch for battlefield that included 4 new maps but even though i can't play the maps (since i haven't payed for them) i still have to use up my internet bandwidth and downloading limits to download the unnecessary files that i will never use just so that i can play online. if they had made the patch and the maps seperate, the patch would have been 50 times smaller instead of almost 1gb which i have to pay for....

seriously, how can you guys be ok with paying more because they can't keep updates and content seperate??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horwitzer

A few days ago they had a patch for battlefield that included 4 new maps but even though i can't play the maps (since i haven't payed for them) i still have to use up my internet bandwidth and downloading limits to download the unnecessary files that i will never use just so that i can play online. if they had made the patch and the maps seperate, the patch would have been 50 times smaller instead of almost 1gb which i have to pay for....

---

The update also added more destruction, physics fixes, and weapon patches outside the usual server updates. This was for the SPC since they can't update that at all without an real downloadable update. Meaning that if you didn't download it, the only way for you to be compatible with everybody else (theoretically) is for a separate server update for the weapons updates. Oh and of course you wouldn't be able to see the new destruction. You could walk (and see others) right through a wall that was really blown up but your version doesn't realize it.

I know that's not possible, that's why it was a theoretical idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speedynutty68

The update also added more destruction, physics fixes, and weapon patches outside the usual server updates. This was for the SPC since they can't update that at all without an real downloadable update. Meaning that if you didn't download it, the only way for you to be compatible with everybody else (theoretically) is for a separate server update for the weapons updates. Oh and of course you wouldn't be able to see the new destruction. You could walk (and see others) right through a wall that was really blown up but your version doesn't realize it.

I know that's not possible, that's why it was a theoretical idea.

---

this is getting ridiculous... WHY DOES EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD ASSUME THAT UPDATES MUST INCLUDE MAPS AND NON NECESSARY CONTENT BECAUSE THEY REALLY REALLY DON'T!!!!

EXTRA CONTENT AND UPDATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME PATCH!!!!!!!!!
EXTRA CONTENT AND UPDATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME PATCH!!!!!!!!!
EXTRA CONTENT AND UPDATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME PATCH!!!!!!!!!
EXTRA CONTENT AND UPDATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME PATCH!!!!!!!!!
EXTRA CONTENT AND UPDATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME PATCH!!!!!!!!!
EXTRA CONTENT AND UPDATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME PATCH!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND...

geez.... its one thing to patch a gun and an entirely different thing to add maps as a necessary download that you will never even play... internet usage costs money and they are making me spend more for nothing....