<rant> The Updating Game <rant off>

Seriously, I thought part of 'low power' mode was downloading patches in the background so I don't have to stare at Updating when I go to play. This is one of the reasons I despised the PS3. Go to play a game but the only one you can play is the 'Updating'
game. Box has been sitting idle since Friday night but I still have to download 1.8GB of data first and then sit through the updating process before I can do anything.

:)

 

Double Standards <rant>

The thing that's really funny about all this is that if these rumors are eventually debunked, all those who have been backpedaling can't take back the excuses they made and can no longer rail ms for this, the argument is off the table.

 

Double Standards <rant>

[quote user="MurderTramp17"]

[quote user="Scrutinizer"]

Yep, it's getting way political now.

.

The thing that I find the most hypocritical, and hilarious, is that Jonathan Blow, who was on-stage during the Sony reveal showing "The Witness", tweeted about how 5 GB wasn't going to be enough, saying that his current game was already using that much.
This only encouraged some fanboys to screech "7GB > 5 GB LULZ" for three months.

.

Of course, now that the truth is coming out (and it's pretty apparently true - Sony has issued a statement that does not deny the numbers, which is pretty much an admission that they're close to accurate), it's head-shakingly disgusting/amusing to watch
the same people who were pointing and laughing about 3 GB reserved for OS are suddenly all "Well, 4.5 GB is still plenty enough for gaming." Even worse are the "insiders" at places like neoGAF who sat on their hands and let the 7 GB>5GB "argument" go on for
months without saying a word, who are suddenly invigorated to speak up about how this really isn't much of an issue.

.

And, aside from the console-warriors and PR shills with an Agenda (like J. Blow), it really isn't an issue. Last year at this time, most people were assuming that the new generation would have 4 GB of RAM total, and were happy about it....now it turns out
that both consoles will have 5 GB for games alone. The only reason this seems like bad news, oddly, is because Sony's mouthpieces (Blow) and their fanbase have been advancing the party line of "5 GB just isn't enough for gaming" for months, and are suddenly
backpedaling like crazy. Blow, of course, now has no comment at all about this news coming out, whereas he couldn't stop running his mouth a few weeks ago.

.

The 'defenses' are all-too-predictable, and also bring to mind politics. "But Sony never said 7 GB for gaming themselves" is the current cop-out. Well, of course they didn't, they saw how the RAM debate was being spun to make it look like they were the
"gamer's console" while MS, reserving 3 GB for OS, were clearly making gamers second-class citizens and only going after casuals. Just like a political campaign, the candidate at the top never comes out and says anything, they just leave it up to their "operatives"
to spread the FUD to get it accepted as some kind of truth, while enjoying the benefits of the BS. Sony is Karl Rove, sitting and creating the conditions for The Lie to flourish without actually stating it themselves.

.

It really does beg the question as to what other "truthfacts" are out there currently being accepted as 'fact' when there isn't much 'truth' to them. Remember, Sony is the company that claimed the PS2 was fifty times more powerful than the Dreamcast, and
very likely paid for 'anonymous insider sources' to claim that the PS3 was "orders of magnitude" more powerful than the 360 (Sony writing its own media hype would be nothing new to them - they used to pay their employees to write movie reviews). It really
wouldn't surprise me at all if all the talk about how much more bandwidth and power they supposedly have is the same kind of BS, too.

[/quote]

This. So much this. I think I could hug you right now, lol.

[/quote]

I second this!

 

Actually low power is so it WON'T Download in the background. I suggest read read the prompts.

 

If its server updates to you it wont be updated offline (defiance) other than that if the devs push out an update it will he downloaded. And if someone can correct me if I'm wrong be my guest. And you have to enable it for it to work.

 

If you have the DD it will update in the background, but if you have the disk version it needs to disk to verify the license is still valid before updating.

 

You can watch tv, Netflix, another game (if DD).......

 

I'm all Digital all my games update while I'm away. One of many reasons I went Digital.

 

Yeah disc based games require the disc in to do the last little bit of the update. For me it usually sits at 99% for a few seconds and then I can play.

If we were talking the actual first install of the game, that annoys me!! haha

 

I think I read somewhere that the update / install times (or one of the two) are something they want to work on improving. I can't remember where I read this but I know I read it somewhere. Thankfully the installs are pretty fast for me, its the downloads
that take the cherry off my cake and throw it away lol Need a better net I do.

 

Yea I read that too. CLOUD

 

@ Cloud, "Taking the cherry off a cake and throwing it away" is the new "Slap in the face". IMO

 

LOL! I just went with it Goth [tag:RandomCloudMoment]

ZTROOPER you got any idea where you heard it too? Lol. I have a hard enough time remembering with all the announcements and statements.

 

@cloud im pretty sure i heard that in a Majornelson Podcast a few weeks back about improving install speeds.

May have been in this one?

MajorNelson PODCAST System update

 

Rippen thank you buddy. I will bookmark that and give it a listen to. I appreciate you digging that out mate

Yeah I figured it could of been installs rather than downloads, I knew it was one of the two (if not both). Thanks again bro!