PSN weekly updates

RenegadeRocks said:
Apparently, you switch on ur ps3 everyday, these days, I don't. And if you switch on ur ps3 only once a month, and that too you have limited time with you to play, and you realise that that time would just go waste in updating that damn thing , you do get angry !
Click to expand...

One of my PS3's gets less use the than the other and software updates are proving to be brutal, especially since Sony does not roll them up into a single download. Running LBP for the first time required something like 16 software updates, all individual downloads and installs with PSN speed adding to the slowness. I just bought RE5 finally and that required 2 large updates on top of the 5GB install. I didn't time it but it took at least 15 minutes to to get into LBP and probably 25 to get into RE5.

The PS3 in question is about to be sent off in a coffin so once I get the replacement I am looking at many hours to get everything re-installed. At the very least Sony needs to come up with a better process for rolling updates and installs into a single queue that can be left running unattended.

As it is, I want a warranty that will replace all the time I am wasting this gen with $%^&* progress dialogues!

Cheers
 
Yeah, that's true. It's an aggravation to want to play something only to be hit with an update. Uncharted 2's really bother me, as most of them there are no changes. At least with MAG or similar, the patches have an perceptible impact. Combined patches would be a lot harder than single patches though as you need to account for every build.
 
I experience the same as Renegade!
I only play PS3 once a month or so...typically there is a PS3 update necessary (and I don't know what changed...they could have implemented at least an onscreen change log while updating!!) and then there is typically a day one patch for the actual new game waiting as well...great start for a gaming session!
 
but you only have to patch if you plan to play online...often (before I was PS+) I'd just skip and install before I went to bed...I do agree it's be nice if they could provide multi-patch tho.
 
goonergaz said:
but you only have to patch if you plan to play online...
Click to expand...
Although true, Sony don't make that clear. eg. With the LBP2 beta there was a patch that crashed my PS3. It didn't occur to me to decline the patch, until explained the solution was to decline the patch, start the game, and then patch from there. A lot of Joe Publics are just going to see the "you need to patch" message and okay it. Plus it's a silly inconvenience even playing offline. Sometimes I'd appreciate a Wifi switch on the PS3 so I can disengage from the Internet and not have games wanting me to log in!
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Yeah, that's true. It's an aggravation to want to play something only to be hit with an update. Uncharted 2's really bother me, as most of them there are no changes. At least with MAG or similar, the patches have an perceptible impact. Combined patches would be a lot harder than single patches though as you need to account for every build.
Click to expand...

There was an interesting comment on this by the Naughty Dog community manager in a podcast this weekend. Basically they got strong feedback that updates for online were too often, even though they are a fraction of what is common for PC online games (he quoted 12 for Uncharted in 2 years vs more than 100 for many PC games).
 
goonergaz said:
nobody makes it clear (including MS), but it's common sense isn't it? the game should work if you don't have the internet - so why do you need to patch it to play offline?
Click to expand...
Sure, but then again isn't it also common sense not to ask a player to patch until they actually try to go online when it's needed? And so as it's common sense that a program won't ask you to do things you don't need to do, it's common sense that it'd only request you patch because it's a requirement.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Sure, but then again isn't it also common sense not to ask a player to patch until they actually try to go online when it's needed? And so as it's common sense that a program won't ask you to do things you don't need to do, it's common sense that it'd only request you patch because it's a requirement.
Click to expand...

I agree (to an extent) - if you skip the patch it then tells you you need the patch when you try to go online...but then you have to restart the game and the gamer would complain "it takes XX amount of time to be told the game needs a patch, why can't it be mentioned when I launch the game?".

All that's needed is a little message to say what the patch actually does, but again, if the game was "broken" then why would it allow you to skip it!?
 
Hell yeah, they also need to stop experimenting aimlessly (e.g., that zooming, time-consuming UI) and release completed firmware like Cross Game Chat and get EA to release the webkit browser (for a fee even). :p
 
Shifty Geezer said:
...Combined patches would be a lot harder than single patches though as you need to account for every build.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about a single patch, just a single download. It should not be that difficult to implement an on the fly packager (a glorified tarball should suffice). This should also be rolled into the OS so you can choose an "update me" link which downloads and installs any updates needed (OS + installed games) and then turns off the PS3 off (much like the current one for store content).

Cheers
 
deathindustrial said:
I am not talking about a single patch, just a single download. It should not be that difficult to implement an on the fly packager (a glorified tarball should suffice). This should also be rolled into the OS so you can choose an "update me" link which downloads and installs any updates needed (OS + installed games) and then turns off the PS3 off (much like the current one for store content).

Cheers
Click to expand...

There is, it only costs 49.99/yr. :LOL:
 
Cornsnake said:
Sony might what to do something about the PS3's userfriendliness if they ever want appeal to a more mainstream market.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't for the love understand why I have a netflix icon under my video section that I can't use anyway. Obviously, because I go online with my US account, the icon is there - though when I attempt to open it, it states that I have to be within America to be able to use it. If they already are going to use GeoIP to block out non authorised users, why not also enable/disable feature icons using the same mechanics?

I'm becoming increasingly fed up with the XMB becoming cluttered with stuff that either doesn't interest me or can't be used in the first place.
 
Well clearly the icons are the standard XMB and act as just shortcuts (like in windows) - then when you click a dead shortcut the program doesn't work.

Maybe you would prefer Sony just cancel the ability to have US accounts, that'd make things a lot clearer!?

WRT 'clutter', why not just group the icons - that's what I do? I have no idea why people think the Sony GUI is that bad, I have little problem finding things and my kids don't need any help either!? Maybe you're just too used to the MS GUI - I know I have problems finding things on that so it's probably just a familiarity thing.
 
goonergaz said:
Well clearly the icons are the standard XMB and act as just shortcuts (like in windows) - then when you click a dead shortcut the program doesn't work.

Maybe you would prefer Sony just cancel the ability to have US accounts, that'd make things a lot clearer!?

WRT 'clutter', why not just group the icons - that's what I do? I have no idea why people think the Sony GUI is that bad, I have little problem finding things and my kids don't need any help either!? Maybe you're just too used to the MS GUI - I know I have problems finding things on that so it's probably just a familiarity thing.
Click to expand...

At least in Windows, I can delete shortcuts I don't want or need. In the XMB I can't. Just to name a few - I have a photo utility program that isn't even installed under pictures that I can't get rid of, then there's the video upload feature that isn't installed either (and isn't needed), now there's also the netflix icon that doesn't even work accoarding to the region I'm in, yet the icon is still there. Then you also have a PSN shop logo in practically every category, despite having an entire category devoted to the PSN features... And don't get me started on the "search media-server" icons under each category... not really efficient.

I already use the grouping function, so having unnecessary icons that aren't needed adding up makes it all the more obvious.

I wouldn't complain as much if the icons at least were an installed feature, like i.e. Home or the Folding. But having an icon to install something that's optional but isn't wanted and have that clutter up the XMB?
 
The icons are there because they want the average consumers to be aware of them, instead of venturing deep inside PS Store to discover them.

I always thought they should deliver a newsletter to our XMB inbox, or use some sort of dynamic theme/background app to plug a product tastefully. That ticker tape is not cute, and these small icons may affect navigation.
 
I agree patsu, it's nice to easily see new features - I must confess the ability to delete/hide icons would be nice...in singstar I have over 100 songs and it'd be nice if I could group them myself to help minimise the trawling.
 
goonergaz said:
I agree patsu, it's nice to easily see new features - I must confess the ability to delete/hide icons would be nice...in singstar I have over 100 songs and it'd be nice if I could group them myself to help minimise the trawling.
Click to expand...

For Singstar I use voice recognition, works great and saves scrolling. One of the few areas where I actually like voice recognition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top