UPDATE with a full unessecary download? Why?

[Stick]

You know, it is so annoying that companies do updates the lazy way. I purchased Fallout 4 at release. I few months ago I decided I was going to play it. To install it took 7 days of downloading. OK, I am patient. All good. I get into it, and enjoy it, and plan on spending the weekend exploring the wasteland. Then, an update.. A lazily packaged update.

Why on Earth would an update force download of the entire package? I have been a developer for decades. There is only one answer. Laziness. Unless every single file has been updated for some needed reason, there is no need to include them in a manifest on an update. The update should only download files that have been modified/added from the originals.

So, here I am, unable to take part, my weekend plans blown out of the water, because I have to download for seven days to update. Some people do not have fast internet. Myself, at a temporary location away from the big city, I am limited to a 1.5 Mbps stream between the hours of 2300 and 0600. The rest of the time is reserved for other people on the shared connection who happen to like television and streaming entertainment. It has been downloading for two or more days during this window, and just reached 25%. Why would this be inflicted on the customer?

It makes no sense to re-download every file. Do the needed planning and work and build an update package that contains only the needed. I mean, this is common sense. Not doing this where possible is lazy, rather rude, and inept. Be more customer tuned and bandwidth friendly. Some have 5, or 10 GB usage limits every month as well. Let's be better producers.

I normally pack up the PC and go to a friends to do major downloads right now. But, that is not an option this week. I will one day return to a location that has decent connectivity, but companies need to keep these scenarios in mind. Be better!

[Sinius]

The size of the DL is the size of the DL. The size of the updates is the size of the updates. No developer should have to accommodate for the individual bandwidth of each user. I am sorry that you have limits and challenges but that is life. Regrettable but a fact.

[Zuleica]

Originally posted by Sinius:

The size of the DL is the size of the DL. The size of the updates is the size of the updates. No developer should have to accommodate for the individual bandwidth of each user. I am sorry that you have limits and challenges but that is life. Regrettable but a fact.

I think you missed his point. When you package an update you don't necessarily have to package the entire game but only those assets you are updating. However it entirely depends on how their engine packaging works. It may be ancient and never updated.

[Piderman]

tl;dr: your Internet sucks and you´re mad about how Steam handles its files. Tough luck, deal with it.
I can relate though, two years ago, i needed at least three days to download a game the size of Fallout 3.

[EricHVela]

I remember a little over 4 years ago when, for us, simple updates and installs of small games took over a day. So, I feel the pain, but I also accepted it as one of the things that comes with living out in a forest. It's not something I'll fault developers. We don't always know why the packages are done a certain way.

It seems like they can't win. A small package needing almost the same space of the uncompressed size of the installed game because that how patching works but replaced files cause a complete redownload because of Steam's file-check features. Or because patching would be extensive, a nearly-full redownload is provided. Or other reasons.

We have to think beyond our own situations. As Sinius stated, that is life.

[cswiger]

Steam implements compressed delta patching using a variant of the rsync algorithm, which may fall back to transmitting entire files if that is smaller than the deltas turn out to be.

Game developers do not and cannot control how Steam patches games. They upload their files to a depot and then publish those to the public branch (or some other branch). Valve's servers and the Steam client do all of the work.

(Frankly, I don't believe that the OP has been a developer for decades. What Valve is doing is routine when compared with CI/CD pipelines used across the software industry.)

[Sinius]

Originally posted by Zuleica:

Originally posted by Sinius:

The size of the DL is the size of the DL. The size of the updates is the size of the updates. No developer should have to accommodate for the individual bandwidth of each user. I am sorry that you have limits and challenges but that is life. Regrettable but a fact.

I think you missed his point. When you package an update you don't necessarily have to package the entire game but only those assets you are updating. However it entirely depends on how their engine packaging works. It may be ancient and never updated.

I get the point and I understand. My point is that we do not know exactly why these updates are packaged the way they are. There can be many other considerations other than laziness. I am not going to make that assumption from my bedroom/den/computer room.

[Stick]

Originally posted by Piderman:

tl;dr: your Internet sucks and you´re mad about how Steam handles its files. Tough luck, deal with it.
I can relate though, two years ago, i needed at least three days to download a game the size of Fallout 3.

No, I am questioning why common sense has gone extinct. There truly is no need to force customers to download all the content for a single update. What I am saying is, let's be more responsible as developers. I am not the only one (temporary) that has poor connectivity, and share a connection with others. I have to be mindful of the other people and because of that Steam is set to only download at certain hours and at a capped speed. This is beside the point. No update should ever require replacing every file. Common sense!

[Stick]

Originally posted by EricHVela:

We have to think beyond our own situations. As Sinius stated, that is life.

I am thinking as a developer. I would never do this to my fans/customers. It defies logic, and is negligent. Did they re-record all the audio? Really? OK then, but why send it again if they have not?

We all have game update all the time, and it doesn't usually bring down and replace the entire package. Only two companies have done this that I know of. Normally, an update is a fraction of the entire product. Really.. This is avoidable. And it is lazy not to be more efficient. We only update needed files. This is what manifests and planning is for.

[cswiger]

Originally posted by Stick:

No, I am questioning why common sense has gone extinct. There truly is no need to force customers to download all the content for a single update.

Steam doesn't do that. Steam compares the installed manifest versus the latest manifest available on the deployed branch, and updates only the changed files via a smart algorithm (again, see rsync) which attempts to minimize bandwidth used.

What I am saying is, let's be more responsible as developers.

The devs do not control the Steam client or Valve's servers.
Why haven't you read the actual documentation?

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/updating

[Stick]

Here are two ways to update a published game on Steam without forcing the entire download:

Upload a new build via the browser (Not so good, less control)
Steam will compare the new build to the previous one and only send the necessary updates to players

Upload a new build using the Steam command-line application (Good, full control)
This method requires setting up script files to tell Steam what to upload, and it will only upload the changed files This can significantly reduce upload times for larger games

Yea, option one is pretty easy. So is option two, but it would require someone to create some scripts. "Oh, that's right, we renamed some of the archive, that doesn't need to be sent, let's script that out.. Nahh, let's go to lunch, screw the fanbase. "