Every patch reinstalls full game

[thegeodemon]

Been having this problem ever since the last change to Steam's new look.

Whenever a game needs a patch, it will download a small patch- say 103mb.
Then the total patch my HD has to write is the entirety of the game size - 20+gigs.
It is always the full size of the game, as if it was starting from scratch.

So the download part is super fast, like 3- 5 seconds. Then it takes 10-15 minutes for my NVME HD to finish the patch because the total patch size always reads the same as the entire installed game.

This happens on every game, every patch. So if a game is 8.4 gigs, then each patch I need to wait for 8.4gigs. If a game is 39 gigs- the patc hwill be 39 gigs even if the update is only 100mb.

I've tried reinstalling steam, changing install directories, and turning on and off cloud sync. I just can't figure it out. It sucks to take 20 mins to install a patch that should be sub 10 seconds.

[my new friend]

Originally posted by SoldierXero:

Icarus is definitely one of the titles that has this problem, but I've noticed it happen on all my titles.

The 70GB game?
Join this thread. https://steamcommunity.com/app/1149460/discussions/0/3195866053916753406/
Pay attention to this post here.

Originally posted by haessliches Frettchen:

From the developer

Long Update Validation Times
Regrettably, some users experience long periods of "validation" and patching after Steam has downloaded even a small update. This is not to do with the download size but is due to how the Unreal Engine data is packaged and how Steam’s updates are distributed. We're talking with Steam and Epic about ways to improve this to make updates faster for you in future.

To avoid disrupting you too much, we will limit our updates to important fixes and not do them too regularly. In our launch week we did almost daily updates, but will now limit to 1-2 updates each week. Players with the game installed on Solid State Drives report shorter patching times.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1149460/discussions/0/3195866053916753406/#c3195866053918333516

[persona2074]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

Originally posted by SoldierXero:

Seriously, just shut up, many people are complaining about the same, something changed and you need to stop defending Steam. It worked one way and now it doesn't. If you don't know what the change is as you claim, then just just shut up. You're of no use to this conversation. No one wants to hear how think you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.

Icarus is definitely one of the titles that has this problem, but I've noticed it happen on all my titles.

Sorry that isn't how evidence works.

People can report problems all they like. The sad fact is that does NOT demonstrate there is a change. All that demonstrates is that a very small percentage of people have had a problem since that last update.

NMow if you have some actual EVIDENCE there's been a change then have at it.

All I'm trying to do is stop myth and misinformation as that tends to run rife here.
The more evidence you can give, the better we can help too.

So have at it.

All you're doing is not helping. that's it.

I found several corrupted files in my steam indices (or whatever jargon) and am hoping chkdsk was able to make the repair. If that happened to some people during the last update, then an error occurred while steam was implementing an update, something they could maybe help with instead of constantly blaming my network. It is also not helpful when we say something changed (not necessarily indicating an intentional change, just a drastic change in performance) and we have you out here trying to call what we are trying to articulate without the proper jargon "myth and misinformation". just shutup. you are NOT helpful and you are NOT acting out some justice by calling people wrong and stupid in a forum. Not once have you attempted to understand. You are obviously not having the issue and have not done ANY troubleshooting to see if there is an issue or not. I had this same discussion with someone recently and allowed them to walk me through all the basics to humor them. they eventually admitted there seemed to be a problem and he had no clue what it was.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by persona2074:

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

Sorry that isn't how evidence works.

People can report problems all they like. The sad fact is that does NOT demonstrate there is a change. All that demonstrates is that a very small percentage of people have had a problem since that last update.

NMow if you have some actual EVIDENCE there's been a change then have at it.

All I'm trying to do is stop myth and misinformation as that tends to run rife here.
The more evidence you can give, the better we can help too.

So have at it.

All you're doing is not helping. that's it.

I found several corrupted files in my steam indices (or whatever jargon) and am hoping chkdsk was able to make the repair. If that happened to some people during the last update, then an error occurred while steam was implementing an update, something they could maybe help with instead of constantly blaming my network. It is also not helpful when we say something changed (not necessarily indicating an intentional change, just a drastic change in performance) and we have you out here trying to call what we are trying to articulate without the proper jargon "myth and misinformation". just shutup. you are NOT helpful and you are NOT acting out some justice by calling people wrong and stupid in a forum. Not once have you attempted to understand. You are obviously not having the issue and have not done ANY troubleshooting to see if there is an issue or not. I had this same discussion with someone recently and allowed them to walk me through all the basics to humor them. they eventually admitted there seemed to be a problem and he had no clue what it was.

Well then, good luck with your problem if that's your attitude.

[persona2074]

initial test after repairing corrupted files was very positive, 10.8 GB in 11 minutes, just as it should be. (Borderlands 2, Im sure more optimized than Icarus but still, 0 issues) I know Steam will bottleneck based on write speed (or, I have read that in quite a few places) and if there is corruption where Steam is writing to disk, that could cause a severe bottleneck on the download. Will update when I install or update another game.

[McShavey]

I've been having this issue too.

I just had a 570MB or so patch for Spellforce 3 Reforced, and it stepped through the entire 39GB game to apply the patch according to the read out in the download screen, and it took ages (~15 to 20 minutes).

It downloaded 470MB or so of the patch and then slowly worked through the entire game, presumably to update files and what not, but it seemed to crawl through it very gradually.

I have noticed that it tends to be on games that have larger install sizes that this occurs with (say >10GB). I also have not noticed this issue prior to the update - even games with large install sizes would patch in updates at a reasonable speed (5 or so minutes for the biggest ones).

I would have normally assumed it had to do with the complexity of the patch and the game, and how it was applied to repair whatever sections of it needed fixing, but that doesn't explain why up until this time I have had relatively quick patches for all the games in my library.

The only times I've noticed long update times previously was when the update file was also large (>2GB), and mostly that was due to the download time. Now though, it feels like there's some kind of bottleneck when patches are being applied to the program, or how they're being applied, or some weird kind of bug in the disk access portion of installing an update.

Not really sure how you'd check on that though, but in my experience there is definitely a noticeable difference. It's not "downloading the entire f'ing game again" levels of frustrating (like Skyrim back in the day), but it definitely puts a big obstacle in the way of being able to jump on Steam and fire up a game in a short time like I used to be able to.

In any case, it definitely hampers the performance of my system when it's doing so to the point I just have to wait it out, because it seems to be using a lot of system resources to do its thing that it makes doing anything else unbearable to even attempt. I find that Epic is no better this regard though, when I have Satisfactory go through an update.

[rawWwRrr]

Originally posted by McShavey:

Not really sure how you'd check on that though, but in my experience there is definitely a noticeable difference. It's not "downloading the entire f'ing game again" levels of frustrating (like Skyrim back in the day), but it definitely puts a big obstacle in the way of being able to jump on Steam and fire up a game in a short time like I used to be able to.

You have two ways to update a large amount of files: 1) re-download all of the files that have been updated, or 2) patch all the files locally with a small downloaded file. Either way the game is being updated, it's going to take time to apply the update.

It could be that developers are making use of patching more often and while it may place more of burden on your PC's performance to apply the patch, it gives the advantage of smaller download sizes which is a benefit to many people on limited network connections. For a long time now we've seen complaints of huge updates that have to be downloaded, so big in fact that some people can't download it before a new update comes along forcing their client to restart the update back from zero.

Patching is not a new technology, and updates are still driven by developers. Steam only serves them to users. If a game feels like it's being updated too often, your argument belongs with that game's developer.

[sprtn104]

I am still experiencing the aforementioned update for Spellforce3 on HDD install.
I tend to agree with Thraxx on this that something “has changed” recently due to a couple of notable differences that those who disagree with Thraxx still have not answered.

First, previous to the Steam update when us computer illiterate muggles could only see the green update bar and now we have more information available that we can see. Folks who disagree with Thraxx say that we just have more info than we had before and we’re overreacting.
My counter to that sentiment is that in the past I used to see a new 100mb patch, downloaded it, then patched it all within less than a minute. And then I would immediately play said game. I can list several examples- Baldur’s Gate 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo MCC, Spellforce 3, Shadow of War, Divinity Original Sin and Ark Survival.
If as you guys are saying that “it always worked this way” and patching needed to sift through the entire games files just to install 100mb worth of files, why was I previously able to play these games immediately after patching them and seeing the update bar disappear if they were still being patched in the background?
Several of the games I listed have online multiplayer. Wouldn’t that cause serious problems if I could play an incomplete game online?

And my second point is that sometimes after finishing a patch for a game, I would immediately turn my PC off and go to work. Seriously, I have done this several times before for games that I wanted to play when I got home that night, so while getting ready for work in the morning I’d turn on my PC, let it do a download and install a patch for a game, then immediately turn off my PC (including flipping the power switch on the power supply) when I would head to work.

If as you say Steam was still patching the game in the background, shouldn’t it have needed to restart the entire process again after turning off the PC?

Btw I am not trying to be petty, I’m just genuinely curious as to why some folks here are so adamant that “this is how it’s always been”, so just be quiet and go back the your room and let big daddy Steam keep doing things the way he wants and just suck it up. Clearly something has changed, and if it hasn’t please address my previous questions because it doesn’t make any sense...

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by sprtn104:

I am still experiencing the aforementioned update for Spellforce3 on HDD install.
I tend to agree with Thraxx on this that something “has changed” recently due to a couple of notable differences that those who disagree with Thraxx still have not answered.

First, previous to the Steam update when us computer illiterate muggles could only see the green update bar and now we have more information available that we can see. Folks who disagree with Thraxx say that we just have more info than we had before and we’re overreacting.
My counter to that sentiment is that in the past I used to see a new 100mb patch, downloaded it, then patched it all within less than a minute. And then I would immediately play said game. I can list several examples- Baldur’s Gate 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo MCC, Spellforce 3, Shadow of War, Divinity Original Sin and Ark Survival.
If as you guys are saying that “it always worked this way” and patching needed to sift through the entire games files just to install 100mb worth of files, why was I previously able to play these games immediately after patching them and seeing the update bar disappear if they were still being patched in the background?
Several of the games I listed have online multiplayer. Wouldn’t that cause serious problems if I could play an incomplete game online?

And my second point is that sometimes after finishing a patch for a game, I would immediately turn my PC off and go to work. Seriously, I have done this several times before for games that I wanted to play when I got home that night, so while getting ready for work in the morning I’d turn on my PC, let it do a download and install a patch for a game, then immediately turn off my PC (including flipping the power switch on the power supply) when I would head to work.

If as you say Steam was still patching the game in the background, shouldn’t it have needed to restart the entire process again after turning off the PC?

Btw I am not trying to be petty, I’m just genuinely curious as to why some folks here are so adamant that “this is how it’s always been”, so just be quiet and go back the your room and let big daddy Steam keep doing things the way he wants and just suck it up. Clearly something has changed, and if it hasn’t please address my previous questions because it doesn’t make any sense...

I think you may be mistaken.

Thrazz has said there have been changes and while he's provided something I can't see how this explains all his claims. It MIGHT be something is changed but the evidence provided doesn't tie all his claims together.

So it's not down to me to prove him wrong. It's down to him to prove he's right as that's how burden of proof works.

Anywho, enough of that.

The recent changes that ARE know about are a very small thing - the shader cache downloads. These are small files that update seemingly all the time. The onyl change is they are know SEEN by you, whereas before they happened in the background. They changed it when they updated the downlaods page a few months ago.

So your issues do not necessarily mean there's been a change. It could simply be that you have other issues.

The fact that you say you're getting it with larger files suggests to me something disk drive related.

Commonly when people have issues like this it can be that they're using FAT filing on their hard drive (instead of NTFS) or they are running low on hard drive space. That's why I explained the way Steam works as many people fall foul of not understanding they need to allow THREE TIMES the total file size for the download and you shoulnd't go over 90% of the drive used either.

So make sure these are OK.

[SoldierXero]

Originally posted by sprtn104:

I am still experiencing the aforementioned update for Spellforce3 on HDD install.
I tend to agree with Thraxx on this that something “has changed” recently due to a couple of notable differences that those who disagree with Thraxx still have not answered.

First, previous to the Steam update when us computer illiterate muggles could only see the green update bar and now we have more information available that we can see. Folks who disagree with Thraxx say that we just have more info than we had before and we’re overreacting.
My counter to that sentiment is that in the past I used to see a new 100mb patch, downloaded it, then patched it all within less than a minute. And then I would immediately play said game. I can list several examples- Baldur’s Gate 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo MCC, Spellforce 3, Shadow of War, Divinity Original Sin and Ark Survival.
If as you guys are saying that “it always worked this way” and patching needed to sift through the entire games files just to install 100mb worth of files, why was I previously able to play these games immediately after patching them and seeing the update bar disappear if they were still being patched in the background?
Several of the games I listed have online multiplayer. Wouldn’t that cause serious problems if I could play an incomplete game online?

And my second point is that sometimes after finishing a patch for a game, I would immediately turn my PC off and go to work. Seriously, I have done this several times before for games that I wanted to play when I got home that night, so while getting ready for work in the morning I’d turn on my PC, let it do a download and install a patch for a game, then immediately turn off my PC (including flipping the power switch on the power supply) when I would head to work.

If as you say Steam was still patching the game in the background, shouldn’t it have needed to restart the entire process again after turning off the PC?

Btw I am not trying to be petty, I’m just genuinely curious as to why some folks here are so adamant that “this is how it’s always been”, so just be quiet and go back the your room and let big daddy Steam keep doing things the way he wants and just suck it up. Clearly something has changed, and if it hasn’t please address my previous questions because it doesn’t make any sense...

Dude, just give up, these other guys simply won't listen to everyone. Something changed and we have a couple knuckleheads who don't believe anyone and try to act like they know anything by typing a bunch of words and acting smart. They aren't. Something major changed, from what I understand even some of the developers are acknowledging it. Icarus being one of them. They are trying not to patch that often if they can help it, because everyone is complaining the entire game needs to reinstall basically. So again, don't listen to these nay-sayers. They got nothing better to do with their time but to butt into conversations they clearly don't understand despite the insurmountable evidence against them, and countless testimonies from both users and seemingly developers.

[isomorphic_projection]

Same here, every new patch. Re-installs the entire game.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by SoldierXero:

Originally posted by sprtn104:

I am still experiencing the aforementioned update for Spellforce3 on HDD install.
I tend to agree with Thraxx on this that something “has changed” recently due to a couple of notable differences that those who disagree with Thraxx still have not answered.

First, previous to the Steam update when us computer illiterate muggles could only see the green update bar and now we have more information available that we can see. Folks who disagree with Thraxx say that we just have more info than we had before and we’re overreacting.
My counter to that sentiment is that in the past I used to see a new 100mb patch, downloaded it, then patched it all within less than a minute. And then I would immediately play said game. I can list several examples- Baldur’s Gate 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo MCC, Spellforce 3, Shadow of War, Divinity Original Sin and Ark Survival.
If as you guys are saying that “it always worked this way” and patching needed to sift through the entire games files just to install 100mb worth of files, why was I previously able to play these games immediately after patching them and seeing the update bar disappear if they were still being patched in the background?
Several of the games I listed have online multiplayer. Wouldn’t that cause serious problems if I could play an incomplete game online?

And my second point is that sometimes after finishing a patch for a game, I would immediately turn my PC off and go to work. Seriously, I have done this several times before for games that I wanted to play when I got home that night, so while getting ready for work in the morning I’d turn on my PC, let it do a download and install a patch for a game, then immediately turn off my PC (including flipping the power switch on the power supply) when I would head to work.

If as you say Steam was still patching the game in the background, shouldn’t it have needed to restart the entire process again after turning off the PC?

Btw I am not trying to be petty, I’m just genuinely curious as to why some folks here are so adamant that “this is how it’s always been”, so just be quiet and go back the your room and let big daddy Steam keep doing things the way he wants and just suck it up. Clearly something has changed, and if it hasn’t please address my previous questions because it doesn’t make any sense...

Dude, just give up, these other guys simply won't listen to everyone. Something changed and we have a couple knuckleheads who don't believe anyone and try to act like they know anything by typing a bunch of words and acting smart. They aren't. Something major changed, from what I understand even some of the developers are acknowledging it. Icarus being one of them. They are trying not to patch that often if they can help it, because everyone is complaining the entire game needs to reinstall basically. So again, don't listen to these nay-sayers. They got nothing better to do with their time but to butt into conversations they clearly don't understand despite the insurmountable evidence against them, and countless testimonies from both users and seemingly developers.

No that's not how logic and evidence work.

We don't belive does not mean we belibe the opposite.

We dont' belive also means the person asserting the claim has the burden of proof.

So unless they come up with it, then it should not be believed.

Idf they do come up with good evidence to prove their claims then I'll happily apologise.

That's how logic works.

[McShavey]

Originally posted by sprtn104:

I used to see a new 100mb patch, downloaded it, then patched it all within less than a minute. And then I would immediately play said game. I can list several examples- Baldur’s Gate 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo MCC, Spellforce 3, Shadow of War, Divinity Original Sin and Ark Survival.
If as you guys are saying that “it always worked this way” and patching needed to sift through the entire games files just to install 100mb worth of files, why was I previously able to play these games immediately after patching them and seeing the update bar disappear if they were still being patched in the background?

Yeah - this exactly. It seems to be handling literally every file in the game, going through all of them sequentially, and then updating where necessary. It didn't work this way in the past, or if it did, it was orders of magnitude faster previously (which is why it seems to show that the updates weren't applied like this previously, and that it only handled the game files that needed to be updated). I have a 1TB SSD with 200GB free (after uninstalling a bunch of titles I rarely play), and it makes no difference to the overall patching performance.

A THEORY:-
I would hazard a guess that maybe the patching protocols have changed for the reason that there is risk for Steam, needing to keep a record of the version number and changelog of a game to apply updates accurately, which is open to error if those files are ever moved or reference to them broken or any number of issues that can interfere with the process, and they've moved away from this referential update and opted for a comparative one (meaning instead of using a reference for how to apply a given patch and doing it by the recorded info, it uses the most current version of the game as a reference and checks the whole game from start to finish to see if there is a difference in the files stored on the computer, and if there is it updates them accordingly).

I mean, that makes sense from a patch delivery standpoint, especially when it comes to being able to trust in the robustness of that as a design choice. Also, it means that you can select any version of a game that you want to play, and it will go through the same comparative process to see where it differs from the version you currently have installed and amends it as needed.

Given that there are a lot of games with modding support that can inadvertently make unintended changes to game files that devs are unaware of, and amateur developers listing titles on steam who may not have great documentation for their development cycle, this solves a lot of those issues as well. It puts a bit of overhead back into the patching process, which sucks a bit for us, but if it improves the reliability of all patches and means that a developer can trust that what they make and send out into the world via an update is what the end user gets, and they can rely on the robustness of steam as a platform, which also makes bug finding easier, it would be a no-brainer to implement this style of patching.

It doesn't explain why they'd keep it some kind of secret though (if they even did - I just hadn't heard anything regarding a change in the updates process).

Anyhow, even with this, it hasn't "broken" anything - it's just noticeably different, and we're wondering why.

[crunchyfrog]

As I've found out from having a look at this there are some changes, but the point is at this point we don't know how it works exactly.

BUt anywho, the point remains that you need to understna dhow it works anyway, and if your hard drives, RAM, CPU, and I/O are throttling then it will slow things down (it ain't your speed that is always the limiting factor) and you should always be cautious about the space allocation I've described before.

There's nothing wrong with wondering why. I was merely addressing the faallcious claim that some of us are being disingenious - that is simply not true.

[McShavey]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

As I've found out from having a look at this there are some changes, but the point is at this point we don't know how it works exactly.

BUt anywho, the point remains that you need to understna dhow it works anyway, and if your hard drives, RAM, CPU, and I/O are throttling then it will slow things down (it ain't your speed that is always the limiting factor) and you should always be cautious about the space allocation I've described before.

There's nothing wrong with wondering why. I was merely addressing the faallcious claim that some of us are being disingenious - that is simply not true.

Understandable. I think with the overloaded system resources argument though, it doesn't make sense in the patching discussion.

I mean, there is no way to assume a significant change to the performance of the hardware itself for any given system and the fact that, statistically speaking, when you take the testimony of the multitude of people expressing these same concerns as a whole, it nullifies that argument - that being, that there is some other factor at play for the people who are affected by this issue. It would be statistically impossible for all the people expressing this concern to be having unrelated resource/throttling issues at the exact same time that is entirely unrelated to the updating process or Steam when the only application these same throttling, resource management issues seem to exist for IS Steam.

What I WOULD agree though there is a possibility, with respect to the allocation/performance of system resources, is if there has been a change to Steam itself and the process by which it is utilising said resources to run patching, it could introduce significant performance issues for selected systems, and may be either unnoticeable or non-existent for others, which would explain the discrepancy in end user experience.

That being said, all of that comes down to the end user giving that feedback to resolve said issue - and by logic and evidence, the first impression and the most simple explanation (Occam's Razor, being what it is) is probably the best place to start. I would assume - but not affirm, that these concerns have arisen as a result of a change to Steam in some way, because it is the most logical place to start, going by the experience that I and many others are having. (Speed issues localised to Steam patching only which suggests it is not a system wide resource issue, many concurrent reports after an update, reports from multiple unrelated sources saying the same thing, the statistical likelihood that all related issues have arisen from the same event, etc.)

The assertion that there is no logic or evidence being used when arriving at these conclusions is as harmful as those that suggest people who ask for an argument to have merit are simply disingenuous actors. I see what you're saying, and I hope this clarifies what I'm saying.

[crunchyfrog]

Not necessarily.

You need to remember that very very few use these forums. Steam has many millions of active users. We see what a handful of people with these issues reporting here? THat absolutely can be just a finicky bit of hardware that is causing this.

We cannot know at this stage.

All we know is that IS how it works anyway, so it may well be quite likely what is exsiting might be made worse somehwo for some.