Slashdot Mirror


Ubisoft's Day-One Patch For 'The Division 2' on PS4 is 90 Gigabytes (eurogamer.net)

When The Division 2 launches on March 15th, PlayStation 4 owners will also need to download a day one update -- that's 90 gigabytes. Eurogamer reports: That's according to a new official support page (as spotted by Game Informer) in which Ubisoft warns PS4 players who've opted to purchase The Division 2's physical edition that they should expect an 88-92 gigabyte download on launch day.... Ubisoft also notes that the the final HDD install size on PS4 will be between 88-92GB, for both the digital and disc versions. In other words, it sounds like physical owners are essentially being asked to download the entire game from scratch when release day comes.
The site jokes that when the game launches, PlayStation 4 owners "will have plenty of time to, say, read a book or learn a language or transcend entirely to another plane, while you wait for your download to complete."

124 comments

  1. That's ok - they can pay for all the transit then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully that kind of fuckwittery with the release will cost them some money, and enough to realise that it would be better to do bit diff patches in future, and not fuck things up so badly as well.

    I mean, seriously, what idiot was in charge of that rollout?

  2. Patches by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Ideal patch: Just a handfull of file diffs and new files.

    As implemented: Giant compressed .zip files to "save on data transmission" that requires the entire .zip to be downloaded.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's a DRM patching issue requiring the whole thing to be repackaged and re-checksummed and all that...

    2. Re:Patches by mentil · · Score: 1

      What's really sad is that the PS4 already supports delta patches.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Patches by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The type of computer code used and huge data sets can't be updated?
      It all has to be swapped out with an update?
      Whats more expensive?
      1. Making users download 10s of gigs on their own networks?
      2. Learning to code and getting better upgrade support into the code?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Patches by skegg · · Score: 1

      Up to 92 GB, they say? Are they sure they don't mean 92 GiB?

      Otherwise they should be saying 99 GB ... which looks worse.

    5. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still delta patch so it works to the new checksums.

    6. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing they created a patch of the encrypted files.

    7. Re:Patches by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You can still diff encrypted files as long as you have the keys. Holy shit this is basic data handling 101.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Patches by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The PS4 itself does not support delta/diff patches. This is purely the game software/engine, and has nothing to do with the console hardware or its operative software.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, the PS4 OS does support delta patching, assuming you have set up your data correctly.

    10. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't. If you want to keep information encrypted you can't diff because it would require encryption of modified files which means private key has to be sent outside. This is basic PKI 101.

    11. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are multiple PS4 versions that can have different software variants running on them. The "up to" probably means the PS4 Pro version.

    12. Re:Patches by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      It's a day one patch. There are no prior incremental patches, so this is just the diffs from the previous version.

    13. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you have the keys, on both ends.

      Decrypt the archive, move the data that needs decrypting, encrypt it again. It's possible to make this a deterministic process so that you wind up with the exact same bitstream and all your signatures are still valid.

    14. Re: Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Right, give away the private key, or use symmetric encryption. Oh boy, where is the thought process here? Might as well not encrypt in the first place. Clearly not in the security field. If you are gtfo!

    15. Re: Patches by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If it's encrypted and the user at the end can't decrypt it, it can't be used, and the user at the end doesn't have to have it.

      For example: every DVD player has the capacity to decrypt a DVD. If you decap the chips or otherwise get into the player, you can retrieve the key. The software decrypts the video as it plays.

      So you can sign all the data (encrypted or decrypted) with your private key, then use the session key to decrypt, patch, re-encrypt, and verify that the result is the same as the signature presented.

    16. Re:Patches by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The PS4 itself does not support delta/diff patches.

      [citation needed]

      Even if you were right, and I don't believe that you are, you could work around the problem through an intelligent loader which could handle looking in multiple files for a resource — it would look in the newest file first, then the older one, etc etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are referring to the Day 1 patch on top of the PHYSICAL copy install.

      The physical copy installed a previous version already (unless they shipped the disks with just a small Stub program that did nothing more than poll for an update and install it).

    18. Re:Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      echo "No you can't. If you want to keep information encrypted you can't diff because it would require encryption of modified files which means private key has to be sent outside. This is basic PKI 101." | openssl enc -aes-128-cbc -K 12345678876543211234567887654321 -iv 0 | od -t x1

      0000000 47 34 dc cc 0e d3 31 cc 36 64 25 a8 4b 0e cd e5
      0000020 f1 f7 a4 7e 71 19 96 18 fd f3 8a 33 d8 d6 57 fe
      0000040 3c 57 b4 e0 a7 ed 6b d1 46 44 81 1e 24 2e d0 36
      0000060 a8 20 a8 80 69 0b 33 28 88 97 ea 9d 08 8d 5f fd
      0000100 fa 86 d4 a3 c1 0f e0 2c c9 6b 3f cc ed 53 0a c5
      0000120 b5 54 79 2f 73 6c e8 c5 70 27 fd 0d 35 87 06 cc
      0000140 1c 6c 9b da c5 0f 88 c4 ab 51 22 9b 07 56 ae 57
      0000160 d1 6c a8 2b e6 83 9d 42 a3 74 02 fd 10 3b 6b 3a
      0000200 ce 56 24 c2 ba f0 67 02 27 00 3a cc e7 40 2e 75
      0000220 4f 97 28 94 23 45 e1 c5 c7 d1 aa ba 51 7b 50 df
      0000240 5b 42 ae 95 eb 11 4c 1d 2c e6 88 ff 14 8f 35 a1
      0000260 c7 ec 2c 23 54 55 dd 56 99 75 7d cf 69 86 7e 8c
      0000300 f2 30 1a 10 9f 34 ed 5d 77 9f 04 e8 7c 1a 76 65
      0000320

      echo -e "No you can't. If you want to keep information encrypted you can't apply a plaintext patch because it /*XXXXXXXXX\\xd7\\x76\\x42\xae\\x43\\x90\\xaf\\x01\\x6d\\x81\\x00\\xf5\\xcd\\xfd\\x3a\\x4d*/would require encryption of modified files which means private key has to be sent outside. This is basic PKI 101." | openssl enc -aes-128-cbc -K 12345678876543211234567887654321 -iv 0 | od -t x1

      0000000 47 34 dc cc 0e d3 31 cc 36 64 25 a8 4b 0e cd e5
      0000020 f1 f7 a4 7e 71 19 96 18 fd f3 8a 33 d8 d6 57 fe
      0000040 3c 57 b4 e0 a7 ed 6b d1 46 44 81 1e 24 2e d0 36
      0000060 a8 20 a8 80 69 0b 33 28 88 97 ea 9d 08 8d 5f fd
      0000100 c1 b7 21 41 c0 3e 42 af 6f d8 b2 9c f7 ba 1d 52
      0000120 50 09 bf a9 3d 2b 50 14 46 bb 68 9c b3 5f be f9
      0000140 67 54 f3 60 54 73 fd 5b ac 8b 56 a7 51 da 95 54
      0000160 a4 89 d4 a3 c1 0f e0 2c c9 6b 3f cc ed 53 0a c5

      0000200 b5 54 79 2f 73 6c e8 c5 70 27 fd 0d 35 87 06 cc
      0000220 1c 6c 9b da c5 0f 88 c4 ab 51 22 9b 07 56 ae 57
      0000240 d1 6c a8 2b e6 83 9d 42 a3 74 02 fd 10 3b 6b 3a
      0000260 ce 56 24 c2 ba f0 67 02 27 00 3a cc e7 40 2e 75
      0000300 4f 97 28 94 23 45 e1 c5 c7 d1 aa ba 51 7b 50 df
      0000320 5b 42 ae 95 eb 11 4c 1d 2c e6 88 ff 14 8f 35 a1
      0000340 c7 ec 2c 23 54 55 dd 56 99 75 7d cf 69 86 7e 8c
      0000360 f2 30 1a 10 9f 34 ed 5d 77 9f 04 e8 7c 1a 76 65
      0000400

  3. That is just re-downloading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is just re-downloading the whole game... a patch is just modifications.

  4. Why would you buy Ubisoft anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ubisoft is notorious for consumer hostility. Why put up with their shit?

    There are other games on the market. Lots of them.

    1. Re:Why would you buy Ubisoft anyway? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And why buy their games? I see "ubisoft" anywhere and I avoid it like the plague.

  5. Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And they just made the DVD with a download prompt so they could ship in time.

    1. Re:Maybe game was not ready by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      I read a comment how BluRays disks can only carry 50GBs. Instead of pressing two disks (BluRays are expensive), you have to download the second disk.

    2. Re:Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $2-3 max is expensive? It's a static format, the games they put out these days need updates - they actually fix bugs and add content now. Presumably that's how they justify $65 a copy!

    3. Re:Maybe game was not ready by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      Even 1ct is expensive to the big fish. Manuals are not included in the box these days. Heck, even Destiny for PC did not include any disk, just a download code.

    4. Re:Maybe game was not ready by ffkom · · Score: 1

      BluRays are not quite expensive to manufacture. And games like RDR2 are distributed on 2 BluRays.

    5. Re:Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe anti-piracy? can't play the game unless you download the other half.

    6. Re:Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      getting bdroms mass produced isn't that expensive. look at all the fucking movies that sell for $2-5.. and here, where i am, walmart and co. is prohibited from selling stuff except clearance never-to-stock-again items below cost... so you know, right there, that two bucks still leaves the legally required minimum markup at the retail and wholesale levels (three percent at each stage), plus of course profit to the publisher/creators on top of that.. at least.

      on a sixty fucking dollar game, they can spring for a 2 or 3 disc set and the multi-disc case for them... they CHOOSE not to.

    7. Re:Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's sad, because the download prompt was probably a 200K file on a 4.7GB disc. Talk about waste.

    8. Re:Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This pissed me off so bad about Doom. Bought the collector's edition, mostly for the fig and the physical disk since I didn't have internet at the house at the time. The SOB was only a single layer DVD and I had to haul my computer to work just to download the other 60GB.

    9. Re: Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the disc was full of stuff that needed to be copied to your hard drive. It has to be there to be overwritten.

    10. Re: Maybe game was not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bro, when I played Doom it was on three floppy diskettes.

    11. Re:Maybe game was not ready by Hodr · · Score: 1

      Old spec sheets for the PS4 say they are compatible with 4-layer disks, so either 100GB if original Blu Ray format, or 133GB if BDXL.

  6. Maybe not accurate by sanf780 · · Score: 1
    When I read the article in question, I saw an update that it was not clear whether this was the final game size (90GB) or the patch download size (50GB).

    In any case, large patches on first day have been a norm for a while. 50 GBs is a lot for just a code patch. Game assets need to be downloaded. I cannot tell whether the game on the disk is complete as this is an online only game. The reason I tell you about this is because of the Tony Hawks game disaster. You had to download a large game patch even when playing solo as the disk only had a tutorial and maybe a little bit of the rest of the game. The disk was just like a demo.

    1. Re:Maybe not accurate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Agree and they would get the benefit of doubt if this was the first time a patch was this size. Unfortunately it's actually a very real trend, not just a once off with Tony Hawk. Fallout 76 also had a day-one patch that was actually larger than the total install size of the pre-patch game.

      Game assets need to be downloaded.

      When most assets need to be redownloaded it's no longer a patch, it's a complete re-issue.

    2. Re:Maybe not accurate by mentil · · Score: 2

      It might be an update to optimize all of the textures in order to improve performance. Turns out Skyrim modders figured out that the textures were in an unoptimized format, and were able to make a mod that optimized them, improving performance and reducing file size, while keeping the quality identical. Optimization tends to come at the very end of development, so it's plausible they needed to replace every texture file in the game.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Maybe not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they should finish the game before they ship it. Things like this should be illegal, pretending you bought something (game on disk) when in reality you bought something else (digital download).

    4. Re:Maybe not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reducing file size, while keeping the quality identical

      *cough*Bullshit*cough*

    5. Re:Maybe not accurate by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Fallout 76 also had a day-one patch that was actually larger than the total install size of the pre-patch game.

      That was just for the Playstation version, the PC patch was a few gigs.

      This seems to be specific to the PS4 or at least its dev tools.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    6. Re:Maybe not accurate by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Turns out Skyrim modders figured out that the textures were in an unoptimized format, and were able to make a mod that optimized them,

      AFAICT this is true of every Bethesda game. It's been the case for every fallout FPS, for example. Anyone who pays full price for any of those turds is part of the problem. I waited until it was ripe and got FO4 plus season pass for twenty bucks from cdkeys. And guess what? I still had to go to the console over and over again because of quest-breaking bugs. God help the dedicated system gamers, they're just fucked since they don't get a console.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Maybe not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more reason my last Bethesda game was FO3.

    8. Re:Maybe not accurate by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One more reason my last Bethesda game was FO3.

      Problem is, what game isn't totally half-assed? It's a great reason not to pay full price, but where do I spend my gaming dollar and not have do deal with incompetence? I'd go for a walk, but it still hurts the toe I crushed, and the ground's too soggy right now to go for a bike ride.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Just wait a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait for game reviews, user reviews, and for a few patches. Then decide to purchase. GotY versions are way more practical and cost effective.

    Unless you're one of those who has to have something on Day Zero. Then I have no advice.

  8. Obligatory Penny Arcade by devnullkac · · Score: 1

    Also, the first Penny Arcade: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1998/11/18

    --
    What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
    1. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also this one: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1998/12/21/the-patch-parade

    2. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by Darinbob · · Score: 1
  9. But 5G means data dosen't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are all getting capless 5G now we got rid of net neutrality.

    1. Re:But 5G means data dosen't matter by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I heard they were going to be delivering the internets right to our door with a drone!

  10. Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's almost 10% of your monthly data quota for you Comcast cocksuckers!

    1. Re: Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 4 years ago Comcast only offered half the speed and 200Gb/month. Then ATT came in with fiber and Com doubled the speed and upped to 1TB. ATT took another two years before offering 1TB...

      And that was after Comcast took 18 months to even come to the new community of 150+ homes (+200 older ones one street down). And ATT fiber only got interested a full year later when Google Fiber started rollout out.

      Sad state of telecoms in the US. Dig up the yards 3-4 times and put in 15+ years old tech and call it progress.

  11. There was one minor bug by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    They couldn't fit the 90GB game on a 50GB disc, so you have to download the whole thing.

  12. Pardon my French by quonset · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fuck that shit. If I were a gamer (I'm not) and I was told that after spending money on the game to have a physical copy, that before I could play the game I'd have to download the entire game because of a "patch", I'd be demanding my money back.

    I've read comments on here, both in this story and others, that large "patches" have become the norm, but again, fuck that shit. A patch is a fraction of the size of the program.

    If your "patch" is the same size, or larger, of the game, it's not a patch. It's a complete and total fuck up.

    1. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit. If I were a gamer (I'm not) and I was told that after spending money on the game to have a physical copy, that before I could play the game I'd have to download the entire game because of a "patch", I'd be demanding my money back.

      I've read comments on here, both in this story and others, that large "patches" have become the norm, but again, fuck that shit. A patch is a fraction of the size of the program.

      If your "patch" is the same size, or larger, of the game, it's not a patch. It's a complete and total fuck up.

      If you WERE a gamer, you wouldn't be surprised at downloading a huge patch to play an online game. Because duh.

    2. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes a kind of weird sense if you think about it from the developers perspective - users have been trained to accept huge online updates on both console and pc software, so why not simplify your distribution and servicing platform by having it be online-only while satisfying the traditionalists with a 'physical copy' that is nothing more than a download code on a disc..

    3. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even buy physical media anymore.

      Heck, I don't even keep games installed either if I'm not actively playing them.. I just download from steam the games I'm currently playing, and if I stop for a while, I delete it - can always grab it later.

    4. Re:Pardon my French by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No you won't. You'd complain, you'd be ignored, and then you'd capitulate and download the pat... errr... game because ultimately you've parted with money as a signal that you actually want to play it. And the reality is a download is a minor annoyance.

      People are very tough online when they don't have any skin in the game.

    5. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubisoft sucks Anyway with threat idiotic Uplay crap.

    6. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he just wouldn't buy it. Maybe he really is tough, just not like he thinks. Maybe that's why the whole AAA industry is moaning about profits dropping. Who would have thunk that treating your customers like shit through microtransactions and insane DRM requirements would lead to a drop in "legacy" revenues (people buying fucking games). Spend less money on game mechanics and more time on microtransactions leads to a worse product. And it's leading to a loss in existing revenue. I dream of a world where everyone would boycott microtransactions. But, watching the industry scramble over falling expectations is a nice alternative.

    7. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit. If I were a gamer (I'm not) and I was told that after spending money on the game to have a physical copy, that before I could play the game I'd have to download the entire game because of a "patch", I'd be demanding my money back.

      I'm not going to pardon your Frech, I'm going to pardon your entire bullshit rant.

      If you were a real gamer, you wouldn't give a shit about something that's going to take a few hours to download over your 100Mb+ internet connection, so shut the fuck up already about what's unacceptable here. It's fucking ridiculous we're even talking about this when 80 - 90GB is at worst an overnight download these days. Stop your pointless bitching already. Fucking first world assholes and their pathetic problems.

    8. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like physical copies because at some point these game developers will stop supporting the game, go out of business, merge, etc. There is a thriving community of "retro gamers" playing stull from say the early 2000's all the way back to 8bit DOS stuff on PC and old console platforms. My guess there isn't a chance in hell that a majority of games released the the last half decade will be playable come 10-20 years from now when steam is dead and the online infrastructure/drm that makes these games work disappears.

      So when a lot of these kids playing games now want to go relive their early childhood gaming experience in their 30's or so like we 30 year olds today can do. They won't be able to, aside from maybe watching video of the games on Twitch and YouTube if those even still exist 10-20 years down the road.

    9. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assassins creed Trojan war guy or whatever it is, is a game I would like to play. I won't buy anything ubisoft though, bc they are so condescendingly abusive to their customers.

      Ditto on the two new Star Wars Battlefront, but I don't buy EA games either. EA origin isnt worth the risk to me. Steam is about as onerous a drm scheme as I will accept.

      The extra bonus is that I get to avoid the whole microtransaction driving grindfest and buggy launches those two companies are notorious for foisting off on the public.

    10. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit. If I were a gamer (I'm not) and I was told that after spending money on the game to have a physical copy, that before I could play the game I'd have to download the entire game because of a "patch", I'd be demanding my money back.

      Exactly. If the entire fucking game has to be replaced after day one, it's proof that the original was not fit for purpose.

    11. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought so too, but after playing the div 2 beta, and some older ubisoft games, its really unobtrusive. Quick to install and doesn't bother you.

    12. Re:Pardon my French by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      well, it's the same price, and you get to have a physical backup. you get to download the same game someone with a digital copy has, so in the end you are not really getting screwed.

      i would still like to know what happened to delta patches.

    13. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the packaging didn't disclose a download would be required to play and the store refused to accept the return, I'd take them to small claims for false advertising as I'd specifically buy the physical copy to not waste my limited network resources on downloading a digital copy, especially when digital versions are often a little cheaper to purchase.

      However I've moved on to open source games, so I'll likely never have this problem. Current game I'm playing is Flare which is similar in style to Diablo. Stop supporting companies which try to fuck you over every chance they get.

    14. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a good ADSL connection you may be talking at least 20 hours, if you let the entire bandwidth be tied. You might want to do something fucking else so I bet this would be longer.
      And yes technological DSL upgrades are useless. 1 Gbps DSL is possible if your landline were to be a silly short run like 50m, so most people are stuck with 10-15 Mbps forever or perhaps 3Mbps or 0.5 Mbps if that's a poor or long line.

    15. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd say that patches allow the new generations to experience the 8-bit computer experience of leaving your game loading while you did something else (read a book, watch tv, etc).

    16. Re:Pardon my French by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he just wouldn't buy it.

      Which implies he wasn't very interested in the game to begin with and likely to just pirate it anyway. Seriously if downloading the game is what turns you off buying it they are probably lucky not to have you as a customer, because you're just going to be full of complaints.

      Or you legitimate live in the bush without internet.

      Maybe that's why the whole AAA industry is moaning about profits dropping.

      If you think that's the reason then you're not a gamer. Have you had a look at AAA titles in the past year? Gamers have happily put up with DRM, microtransactions, large downloads, and stupid workarounds for years. AAA industry profits are in the shitter because for the past 2 years they've produced one horrible turd of an buggy escaped from lab beta masquerading as game after another.

    17. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd say that patches allow the new generations to experience the 8-bit computer experience of leaving your game loading while you did something else (read a book, watch tv, etc).

      Dude, you're clueless.
      8-bit games had no loading time. Loading times were only a thing after we started using digital discs (CDs) and after the games started becoming too big for the hard-drives (whose read speed didn't catch up with increasing game sizes).
      8-bit console games were completely plug-and-play.

      I've never experienced a load time that matched today's patching routine.

      And I know you are not from newer gens, because today kids do not read books or watch tv.

    18. Re: Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sucks when you use a 30 minute cassette (C-60) and the save runs for 35 minutes.

    19. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously if downloading the game is what turns you off buying it

      then you're not going to pirate it either.

    20. Re:Pardon my French by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Content patch a few months down the line? Full expansion like in MMOs? Of course those are big.

      A NINETY GIGABYTE PATCH BEFORE RELEASE is not a patch, that's a complete do-over of every last file that makes up the game.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    21. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > . And the reality is a download is a minor annoyance.

      You and I live in very different worlds.

      A 90GB download is a lot more than a "minor annoyance"; for me, that's a 3-day endeavor (non-stop), assuming I don't want or need to use my bandwidth for anything else during that time, and that they actually have decent Resume capabilities built-in.

      Imagine if you had been waiting for a game for months, it finally comes out, so you pick it up on the way back from the office on a Friday evening, with previously-made plans to dedicate that 3-day weekend to it. Then you find out that even in the best scenario, there's *no way* you'll be able to use any of that time towards actually playing the game.

      First-world problem? Maybe so, but I know a lot of people who need to proactively make plans for things like 3-day weekends, otherwise they don't know what to do with themselves and end up letting their entire down-time go to total waste because something changed at the last possible minute.

    22. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On day one it's a fix or a whole new game not an additional content, it would be better to put an I.O.U. a finished product sometime.
      Plus a 90Gb patch.

    23. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which point you might as well just get the digital copy?

    24. Re:Pardon my French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Put up with" is not a way to increase profits if you want return customers. The fact is that it's math of aggregates. Just because some gamers buy the game does not mean that others are not saving their money instead. The point is that when you spend more of your budget and effort on microtransactions, you spend less time on the game itself. This WILL lead to a lesser product, which WILL lead to less purchases. This is not maybe. Just because others still buy the game does not negate this fact. It's like practically how the stock market works. Just because SOME investors are still putting up with a company, does not mean that the company is having a successful year/quarter/month/whatever.

  13. They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    You see, there was a time when a Microsoft patch was larger than the entire Operating System. And those were the days before fat internet pipes we currently have.

    1. Re:They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

      Name one patch that MS has ever released that was bigger than the whole OS? Not even the Windows 10 service releases are as big as the OS is - and they are the biggest patches I've ever seen from them.

      Before fat pipes I remember getting service packs for Windows NT on CD in the mail - those weren't as big as the OS either.

    2. Re:They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win7 SP1 KB976932 x64 is 980Mb
      Win7 install CD is 700Mb

    3. Re: They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by juanoviedo · · Score: 1

      I've never installed Windows 7 with a CD, and I think normal versions take up more than 1.5GB in a DVD. It's like saying a 200MB patch for Ubuntu is enormous because you installed the system with a network installer that was 40MB only. Please, since Vista came out most of us installed Windows from DVDs. What you're talking about is not the usual upgrade nor something that happens often in SOs - and I use Ubuntu and Windows at home, Mac at work.

    4. Re: They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Yep, the absolute smallest Windows 7 install image is 1.5GB for the 32 bit version, more for the 64 bit version. Installation from multiple CDs is not supported. That's also a single language minimal version too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      idk about 'bigger than the entire OS', but MS Office 365 'patches' now redownload the entire Office suite. I recently found that out when I tried to install a language pack (you know, hyphenation and dictionary for Word, maybe 10 Mb in data). The damn installer removed my entire Office installation and reinstalled it.

    6. Re:They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna call bullshit on that.

      I'm looking at the DVD ISOs I got from MSDN. 7 (pre-SP1) x64 is 2.9GB; x86 is 2.23GB.

      The ISOs with SP1 slipstreamed are 3GB and 2.38GB (x64/x86, respectively).

      The standalone SP1 (same KB as you have) is 903MB and 537MB.

      A 700MB install CD doesn't count when it's a hack-job with most things missing that you downloaded from Pirate Bay.

    7. Re:They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The largest I have ever seen was a piece like 300Mb and it was not essential, the big updates are usually consolidated patches,not essential to continue using the OS and those are not zero-day patches.

    8. Re: They borrowed a leaf from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can cut windows 7 down to fit on a cd. under 700 meg.

      If you remove all the crap nobody ever uses.

  14. Re: Obligatory Fart Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I farted. Quite dense. Smelled like berries.

  15. Damnit, I'd have to wait half an hour for that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25 minutes if I don't use the internet for anything else. That seems a bit excessive.

  16. Reminds me of Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5 by DeAxes · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5, where they rushed out the game because the license was about to end, and only finished the tutorial and park editor on the disc, with the entirety of the game finished by patch.

  17. That's no patch by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    it's a space station.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. You're right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that most of /. is going to comprehend just what sort of connections are out in the real world, beyond their cushy fiber to the home shit.

  19. Fwiw by xlsior · · Score: 1

    90 gb is 10 double-layer DVD's, or 2 blu-ray discs. There is No flipping way that that is all new content - someone didn't do a proper 'difference' patch.

    1. Re:Fwiw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did someone get a decimal out of place. Think so. Seems there needs to be some remedial math taught to many folks. So the patch is probably ~9GB. Which is still a large patch and probably the whole game. The largest patch I have ever seen for a game was ofr COD WWII and that was 6BG.

  20. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Updates are getting fatter and fatter these days. I hear you have to download 1.6 TB to update to creimer 2.0 which makes sense given all the shit in there.

    He is now trying to monetize and exploit Stan Lee beyond the grave! This must stop!

  21. It really is a patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, the game is just a stub installer, that reserves some space. the disc is padded with random data, since they had to ship something for the master disc.

    The "patch" just patches the random data. since the data is random, the patch is roughly the size of the game.

    cloud gaming would solve this.

    for a small monthly fee, no hardware to buy, no software to update, all for a small monthly fee.

    1. Re:It really is a patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cloud gaming would solve this

      Talk about solution in search of a problem, but I'll bite anyway.
      Once the cloud gaming solves the patching, what will solve the latency issues, bandwidth issues, data cap issues, queues issues and other ones I can't think off right now that cloud gaming brings?

  22. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It really depends on the publisher and how bad their build/packaging systems are, e.g.:
    • On release day Destiny 2 wanted a 50G download initially, follow by another 40G for option packs.
    • Several months after release Horizon: Zero Dawn still only had a 260MB (megabyte) update.

    Guess which publisher actually tests their stuff before unleashing it on their customers?

  23. Is that even unusual? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Can't remember what the day one patch for Spider Man on the PS4 was, but I think it may have been nearly that large... it kind of makes you wonder if it's meant to help push you into buying games online since you are essentially downloading most of it anyway...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. Ubisoft on black list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ubisoft sucks, this news is hardly surprising.

    Not everyone has access to decent internet.

  25. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound bitter, sweet tits. Missed me?

  26. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by Khyber · · Score: 2

    What's funny is that the Unreal Engine, along with many other engines, have supported diff updates for a long time yet nobody utilizes them.

    It's almost as if they were in bed with the telecom companies to make updates take so much fucking data so that they can effectively charge for that data once they go over-cap. Your steam library needs updating? My last update took 700GB, over fifteen games. Guess what most of those updates actually were? EULA updates. They literally made me redownload the entire goddamned game just for an EULA update. That makes ZERO sense unless they're getting paid to force ISP customers over their data caps or their programmers are just that fucking utterly incompetent. Either way, these companies should be sued for incurring us these charges.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  27. lazyness or console weakness by aepervius · · Score: 1

    They are not really "patch" they are complete re-download of the files, because apparently either out of lazyness or out of problem with console, they can't simply change a small part of the file with a diff path.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:lazyness or console weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this guy said. Mod up. This is not a "patch"... There's no way that they have actually changed every file in the entire game.

      What happened is that they made changes to some of the files in between the time that the discs were printed and the game was released, made this new version available as a download, and then forced everybody to install the downloadable version. (Perhaps because of laziness, perhaps because of technical reasons.)

      If it were actually a "patch", it would actually be quite small (probably a few gigs).

  28. Only one thing has to work, the updater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they just made the DVD with a download prompt so they could ship in time.

    Oh there is likely a game there. Just not the finished one they wanted to ship. There is a running joke in the industry, when a master disc is sent out for duplication only one thing has to work. The updater. Dark humor that is funny because it is so true.

    The game and a lot of data is often there so that they can do delta patches. These files are a known baseline to patch from. When you have numerous patches over time its inconvenient to do a delta from every one, so often you do a delta from the last patch and from the baseline. People who were current when the patch goes out get the delta, everyone else gets the baseline.

  29. Plenty of idiots who don't get diff patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so the whole damn game or software will have to be updated. I see it every day.

    1. Re:Plenty of idiots who don't get diff patches by ledow · · Score: 2

      If they've had to change a lot of the content then a diff patch is going to be larger than the content you want to diff (diff patches generally have to contain some element of the original file for matching, plus what you want to change that to... sure, you can do it with indexes and offsets but that assumes that the entire world has one base version that you can refer to, and if you get it wrong you corrupt *everyone's* game).

      How do you diff, say, a megatexture atlas which you've tweaked some of the dimensions to remove an unused image and repack the rest? Basically the diff for that is going to be as big, if not larger than, the file.

      The executable is barely part of the size - likely it doesn't even make up a percentage of the game. But media, resources, models, textures do and they don't diff well at all (executables don't really, either, but at least they tend to be small enough to be practical).

      Steam does have differential updating. But I still see gigabyte+ updates on a regular basis. Sometimes the impact of changing even a small thing (i.e. changing the compression on the textures to improve performance or avoid a licensing cost, which means changing the code, plus all of the texture atlases, plus re-optimising/recompressing everything) means it's easier to just put out the whole thing again.

      We're not in Windows Update territory here, where someone issues a 500Mb update that includes a setup routine that installs an MSI then runs a .NET Framework update of every file, etc. etc. when they could just patch a single condition in a DLL... games are huge... 90Gb of which 89Gb is going to be content, media, video, models, textures, etc. etc. etc.

    2. Re:Plenty of idiots who don't get diff patches by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Steam does have differential updating. But I still see gigabyte+ updates on a regular basis.

      The main time I see this happening is when some game releases DLC. Rather than selectively install the DLC they pack it into their data files and inflict the download and footprint cost on everyone whether they want it or not.

      For example Planet Coaster does this so the game is 2-3x the size on disk that it needs to be for most people with massive updates from time to time to compound the issue.

    3. Re:Plenty of idiots who don't get diff patches by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      How do you diff, say, a megatexture atlas which you've tweaked some of the dimensions to remove an unused image and repack the rest?

      You use the original file as a dictionary and designate the locations of each texture, with procedural instructions to reconstruct the output.

      (i.e. changing the compression on the textures to improve performance or avoid a licensing cost, which means changing the code, plus all of the texture atlases, plus re-optimising/recompressing everything)

      Now that one you need to reissue the files. You could theoretically write a deterministic decompress-compress procedure, though.

    4. Re:Plenty of idiots who don't get diff patches by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The main time I see this happening is when some game releases DLC. Rather than selectively install the DLC they pack it into their data files and inflict the download and footprint cost on everyone whether they want it or not.

      In a similar sense, I've frequently suggested they should profile or self-profile games and stream content.

      Think about something like Breath of the Wild, 13 gigabytes. Do you need 13 gigabytes to play the opening scene?

      When you start the game, the very first assets you need are identifiable. You can profile the loading screens and such, or you can speculatively identify assets by predicting what the next screen will load based on where menu entries go etc. and what assets (and code!) they call up.

      So as soon as you turn it on, you have a list of things you need to get to a new game.

      The same is true of starting a new game: you know what scene it calls into, and can download that. You can inspect the scene and see what assets it calls, and download those. You can speculatively-render: don't rasterize, but call out what assets would be used in the render, and identify what is visible and what is in the local scene but not visible. You can look for sector changes (doors) and scene changes (transitioning doors). You can look for events and movies.

      You can project ahead and identify what you're going to need. Then, if you encounter something not loaded, you can pause and download it.

      In development, you can profile this: you can speculatively load (with all assets available) and then have the profiler catch anything that was loaded but not used (load last) or used but not loaded (add to the forced speculation at this point). Developers can tweak the speculation to improve its base functionality.

      Much of this already exists: the game loads up everything it needs into memory as you enter a scene (preloading), rather than streaming it off disk as it comes into the render view. We're mainly talking about leveraging that, but with a little look-ahead as to where you could end up immediately (what's the next room?).

      You're coming within range of several shrines and dungeons. Grab their base assets.

      You're getting closer to a particular shrine entrance. Prioritize its assets. Move those to the front of the queue.

      You passed it and are now closer to some other entrance. Change the queue, download those assets instead.

      Imagine: you buy the game and you're playing it 12 seconds later. It's going to take 18 hours to download, but you're getting 21% through it in the next 10 hours.

    5. Re:Plenty of idiots who don't get diff patches by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      I think WoW does this, it lets you play with just assets for the starting areas, then downloads the rest while you're grinding away

      --
      horror vacui
  30. BLAME MANAGERS, not programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coders know well how to do it right, and reduce sizes and diff update.
    Its managers who say - we cant afford the extra testing staff and time to test it, just rebuild and ship as is.
    The managers are dumb fuckers who think everyone has 1tbit internet.

  31. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Incompetence is more likely. Once the game is released to manufacturing all the senior devs are moved on to the next one, with the more junior ones left to handle post-release patches and DLC.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  32. There are only 2 ways the patch can be this big by DrXym · · Score: 1
    a) Ubisoft are so lazy they can't be bothered to produce a delta of their game regardless of the pain it causes people who just bought their game.

    b) They've repacked all their data files rendering everything that went before as obsolete.

    Either way it stinks.

  33. Re: That's ok - they can pay for all the transit t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wouldn't be Net Neutrality. No, we will all pay for the big day 1 downloads.

  34. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My monthly data cap is 110 GB!

    1. Re:Ouch by Calydor · · Score: 1

      My monthly possible download is around 100 GB, and that's maxing out the connection so I can do nothing else in the meantime.

      This is absolute bullshit and a clear assumption that everyone is sitting on uncapped fiber connections today. If you don't then your money clearly isn't good enough for this company.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  35. What the fuck?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of morons don't know how to diff their shit? I got used to game devs being shitty coders, but this just takes the cake.

    It's a fucking disc, not Steam! Is there another game in that patch??

  36. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Division and Division 2 are not Unreal engine games, they have their own engine. UbiSoft (publisher) is proud of their Snowdrop engine, though like any other engine has its tradeoffs.

      The download is the whole game, as some have surmised. You are buying a physical key that allows you to download and play the game. The disc is only your proof of licence. The only real difference between the disc and digital copies is you can sell the disc (and no longer be able to play the game), the digital version you can delete but it remains in your library for redownload (can't sell it). There is one other difference, the digital version runs cooler (on console, anyway).

  37. What the hecking heck?!! by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Nearly every word in that article pissed me off, and I'm not even a console owner! Seriously, who are they making games for that can download a 'patch' that size? Is anything worth that hassle? Have they even heard of QA?

  38. COMCAST CAPS by supercell · · Score: 1

    10 of these patches alone and you reach your monthly CAP on a COMCAST Cable model plan. 1,000 GB a Month doesn't cut it anymore with 90GB game and patches and 4K streams. But Comscam knows this.

  39. Re:That's ok - they can pay for all the transit th by Wootery · · Score: 1

    It's possible for a game to stream data from both the optical drive and the hard-drive in parallel, improving reading throughput. GTA V did this. But most games do indeed seem to treat the disc as essentially a hard-to-copy auth token.

    I wonder why they don't just press CDs. Much cheaper than shipping Blu-Rays, no?

  40. Taking the game back without playing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Case says 33 gigabyte required , fuck right off with first day patches. Garbage garbage garbage.