Too many updates too often?

[Bluelight]

I feel really old when I look in Steam download every day and EVERY day there are like 8 games updating. Why is this needed? Why does the developers think that updates are needed so often? If you can't make a working version of the game without updating it every ten seconds I really think you should not make it. Old games in the late 90's for instance. They made the game. Tested it and made sure it was working. Then there was no more updates. It was a complete game. Not some work in progress with daily updates.

Also it's become common to make half finished games that you actually pay for on Steam. and then the game is abandoned without getting finished. Then the company that made the game change names and make a new half finished game. If this is the trend, maybe they should be forced to give their games away for free until it's finished.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

引用自 Bluelight：

I feel really old when I look in Steam download every day and EVERY day there are like 8 games updating. Why is this needed? Why does the developers think that updates are needed so often? If you can't make a working version of the game without updating it every ten seconds I really think you should not make it. Old games in the late 90's for instance. They made the game. Tested it and made sure it was working. Then there was no more updates. It was a complete game. Not some work in progress with daily updates.

Also it's become common to make half finished games that you actually pay for on Steam. and then the game is abandoned without getting finished. Then the company that made the game change names and make a new half finished game. If this is the trend, maybe they should be forced to give their games away for free until it's finished.

You should ask the game devs.

[Gwarsbane]

引用自 Bluelight：

I feel really old when I look in Steam download every day and EVERY day there are like 8 games updating. Why is this needed? Why does the developers think that updates are needed so often? If you can't make a working version of the game without updating it every ten seconds I really think you should not make it. Old games in the late 90's for instance. They made the game. Tested it and made sure it was working. Then there was no more updates. It was a complete game. Not some work in progress with daily updates.

Also it's become common to make half finished games that you actually pay for on Steam. and then the game is abandoned without getting finished. Then the company that made the game change names and make a new half finished game. If this is the trend, maybe they should be forced to give their games away for free until it's finished.

Actually yes its very common to make games that have to be updated all the time. Even back in the days before Steam where you have to go to a website and download a patch for a game.

Just that now its more noticeable.even AAA games have major issues for months or in some cases years on end before being fixed.

At least today if there is a problem with the game there is a chance there will be an update. Before the 90s, before the internet, if there was a game stopping bug in a game that wasn't noticed till the game was out... well too bad, its out and there is no patch. Then the internet came a long, you could get a patch and people complained about incomplete games then too just like you are doing now.

Just think it could be even worse, there was some games back in the 90s where if you wanted to use an expansion pack for the game, you had to update the game, but if you used an update that came out after the expansion, it meant you had to reinstall. But you couldn't just put the expansion in with the original unpatched game, you had to update to a certain point, install the expansion and then install the newest patch. And then hope you keep all the patches needed just in case yet another expansion came out...



If you don't want a game that will never get updates then I suggest you wait till the developer finally gives up on the game.

Personally I like seeing games that keep getting patches, it means they are still working on them still tweaking them still finding problems and fixing them. I don't care if my games get a patch every single day or every single week or every single month. I'd rather see that then a game get no patches once its released specially knowing that games today are FAR more complex than they were in the 90s. Most of the games today can't even fit on a CD.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

引用自 Bluelight：

Old games in the late 90's for instance. They made the game. Tested it and made sure it was working. Then there was no more updates. It was a complete game. Not some work in progress with daily updates.

There actually are multiple versions of various older games. Final Fantasy VI, Metroid Prime, and Pokémon Crystal have multiple versions, if I recall correctly. Just that those were handled as reissues, not as patches.

The fact that software can be easily patched these days probably does lead to some more shoddy work in some cases, but it's not like the games of yesteryear were bug-free.

Anyhow, there's a per-game setting in Steam to tell it to not update the game until you launch it. This way, you won't need to download updates all the time.

You'll still be forced to download updates before you can play the game though. If you need to decline updates, you should try to launch the game without Steam, or copy out the old files and replace the new files with them, or just buy from sources that don't force updates, such as DRM-free vendors. Of course, if a game hasn't been finished yet, declining the update might mean missing out on the finished game, so checking patch notes is always a useful idea.

引用自 Bluelight：

Also it's become common to make half finished games that you actually pay for on Steam. and then the game is abandoned without getting finished. Then the company that made the game change names and make a new half finished game. If this is the trend, maybe they should be forced to give their games away for free until it's finished.

Ever since the Early Access feature debuted, I've mostly just ignored them. Like, I don't just not buy them, but I also don't talk about them with my friends. Given that we can't prevent them from getting on Steam, I think this is the best approach if you dislike them -- give them no publicity, basically. Until they release in a state that you're satisfied with.

[amaraj]

Being an indie developer myself, I am constantly improving my game, so there are new functionalities from time to time. It doesn't mean it wasn't finished at release. It just mean, you can always make it better. I always considered that it is good for my users as they bought the game once but then they can receive any improvements I will ever introduce.

[Bluelight]

It's one thing to update every 6 moths or so for content updates, DLC and bug fixes, compared to updating every day and some developers use Steam to update using preallocation and unpacking of the entire game every time there is an update. Path of Exile was one such example. There where updates every day and it forced you to unpack the entire game on every update. It's a tremendous amount of work for the HDD and your computer runs slower for everything from 20 minutes or several hours. This is totally not needed. And if you fix a bug but the game runs fine without updating, then why do you not collect a say 50 bugfixes in a patch and release it every half a year. There is no way it is needed to update every day or weekly! I really don't like developers that does this, and another example is keen software. They make Space Engineers and appeared like a respectable developer since they had content and bugfixes every Thursday. Why would updating more often count as a developer that is active and cares about the community? It is not the case. I think they fixed the landing gear ten times and it's still not fixed. And Multiplayer servers are having low sim speed even today! Crappy developers imho.

There are some examples of games that I like the way they get updated on, one of witch is Blizzard's Diablo III, it get's updated every season and that's about it. Skyrim get's new content every now and then. And for some reason they like "11", Skyrim released on 11/11/2011, and the next content update is 11/11/2021. This kind of collected updates is good practice.

[Walach]

I remember the pain of trying to install those bloody "sound blaster" shi... things time and time again with dos. Sometimes they worked, some other time not. And you never knew why! I still get angry from them! That's how deep a scar I have.

Games from the 90's that didn't work was more than a pain to get to work. It was hell.

Today I only get irritated, not angry from an install gone wrong! :P

There is a lot of problems in this age of gaming but I don't believe patching them is one of those problems. Maybe the other part you said but that's just too much to talk about for me.

EDIT: Ohh, sorry for keeping this old thread going. Didn't notice the date at first.

[nullable]

引用自 Bluelight：

It's one thing to update every 6 moths or so for content updates, DLC and bug fixes, compared to updating every day and some developers use Steam to update using preallocation and unpacking of the entire game every time there is an update.

Why should we have to wait six months for bugfixes, when they can be pushed out tomorrow?

You're really overlooking the power of digital distribution and the Internet if you think the industry should still be running like they're shipping media primarily on CD's.

[76561198407601200]

引用自 Bluelight：

It's one thing to update every 6 moths or so for content updates, DLC and bug fixes, compared to updating every day

Devs: I know there is a bug in our game and we plan to release it, but some genius believed releasing the patches every 6 months should do well.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

引用自 Snakub Plissken：

引用自 Bluelight：

It's one thing to update every 6 moths or so for content updates, DLC and bug fixes, compared to updating every day and some developers use Steam to update using preallocation and unpacking of the entire game every time there is an update.

Why should we have to wait six months for bugfixes, when they can be pushed out tomorrow?

You're really overlooking the power of digital distribution and the Internet if you think the industry should still be running like they're shipping media primarily on CD's.

引用自 The Living Tribunal：

引用自 Bluelight：

It's one thing to update every 6 moths or so for content updates, DLC and bug fixes, compared to updating every day

Devs: I know there is a bug in our game and we plan to release it, but some genius believed releasing the patches every 6 months should do well.

See, this wouldn't be a problem if players could delay updates indefinitely.

If Steam didn't force the updates onto players, but just let them know it's there, players would be aware of the updates but then have the option to wait until a time that's suitable for themselves in order to receive the updates.

So we don't need to stop devs from releasing updates, just to provide the convenience to players of receiving updates in larger batches.

[nullable]

I wouldn't be against it. I don't really have a problem with the existing system either though.