Is the era of "pay to patch" almost upon us?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Everybody's obsessed by Steam, but how 'bout the issue of obtaining game
patches. I went to dl the latest DOW patch from Relic and was given links
to Gamespot and FilePlanet. In order to dl from either, I would have to
register (and maybe even pay in the case of FilePlanet....not sure about
that because I didn't stick around to find out). This issue has been raised
in the past, but it's starting to piss me off a bit. If a
publisher/developer is providing a patch to fix problems that should have
been addressed before releasing the game, shouldn't the publisher/developer
host the patch.....not send customers to some second-party pay site or site
that requires personal info. Also, I wonder why no links to
non-"registration-required" sites (where I, in fact, finally dled the patch
after googling it). Are publishers/developers getting a "little something"
for linking to sites that either collect personal info (no doubt,
profitable) or subscription fees? Sure, anybody can google for a free patch
download, or set up a phony hotmail identity to avoid providing personal
info......but noob gamers might not know how.

 

[gus]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

DocScorpio wrote:
> Everybody's obsessed by Steam, but how 'bout the issue of obtaining game
> patches. I went to dl the latest DOW patch from Relic and was given links
> to Gamespot and FilePlanet. In order to dl from either, I would have to
> register (and maybe even pay in the case of FilePlanet....not sure about
> that because I didn't stick around to find out). This issue has been raised
> in the past, but it's starting to piss me off a bit. If a
> publisher/developer is providing a patch to fix problems that should have
> been addressed before releasing the game, shouldn't the publisher/developer
> host the patch.....not send customers to some second-party pay site or site
> that requires personal info. Also, I wonder why no links to
> non-"registration-required" sites (where I, in fact, finally dled the patch
> after googling it). Are publishers/developers getting a "little something"
> for linking to sites that either collect personal info (no doubt,
> profitable) or subscription fees? Sure, anybody can google for a free patch
> download, or set up a phony hotmail identity to avoid providing personal
> info......but noob gamers might not know how.
>
>
>
If you want patches or demos without registering, you need to go to my site.

www.pcgameworld.com


Thanks
Gus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:34:47 GMT, "DocScorpio"
<DocScorpio@stupra-spammeros.com> wrote:

>Everybody's obsessed by Steam, but how 'bout the issue of obtaining game
>patches. I went to dl the latest DOW patch from Relic and was given links
>to Gamespot and FilePlanet. In order to dl from either, I would have to
>register (and maybe even pay in the case of FilePlanet....not sure about
>that because I didn't stick around to find out). This issue has been raised
>in the past, but it's starting to piss me off a bit. If a
>publisher/developer is providing a patch to fix problems that should have
>been addressed before releasing the game, shouldn't the publisher/developer
>host the patch.....not send customers to some second-party pay site or site
>that requires personal info. Also, I wonder why no links to
>non-"registration-required" sites (where I, in fact, finally dled the patch
>after googling it). Are publishers/developers getting a "little something"
>for linking to sites that either collect personal info (no doubt,
>profitable) or subscription fees? Sure, anybody can google for a free patch
>download, or set up a phony hotmail identity to avoid providing personal
>info......but noob gamers might not know how.

I agree that publishers should be responsible for hosting patches for
the games they release. At the same time, though, I understand why
they don't want to - having 250,000 people download a 20M+ patch is
not a cheap proposition. The problem is compounded by the fact that
most of the downloads are going to happen the first week the patch is
released: they'd have to spend a large fortune upgrading their
servers and internet connection to handle a huge rush when the patch
is released, and a week later, the equipment they spent a fortune for
is now running at 10% capacity.

I don't think they get kickbacks or anything for linking to Fileplanet
or other sites. They just use those sites as their hosts because
they're the only ones large enough to handle that many downloads at a
time. As you said, there are free/no-registration/required sites that
host patches, but most of them are far smaller and simply couldn't
handle the crush of traffic generated by a popular game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"DocScorpio" <DocScorpio@stupra-spammeros.com> once tried to test me
with:

> Everybody's obsessed by Steam, but how 'bout the issue of obtaining
> game patches. I went to dl the latest DOW patch from Relic and was
> given links to Gamespot and FilePlanet. In order to dl from either, I
> would have to register (and maybe even pay in the case of
> FilePlanet....not sure about that because I didn't stick around to
> find out).

You don't have to pay for patches on FilePlanet. You do have to suffer a
lot of stupid bullshit though.

But you didn't look very hard, I'm betting.

> This issue has been raised in the past, but it's starting
> to piss me off a bit. If a publisher/developer is providing a patch
> to fix problems that should have been addressed before releasing the
> game, shouldn't the publisher/developer host the patch.....not send

Yes, they damn well should.

> customers to some second-party pay site or site that requires personal
> info. Also, I wonder why no links to non-"registration-required"
> sites (where I, in fact, finally dled the patch after googling it).

Because they are getting kick-backs from File Planet.

> Are publishers/developers getting a "little something" for linking to
> sites that either collect personal info (no doubt, profitable) or
> subscription fees?

I don't know if they're getting a piece of the action or not but it sure as
hell seems like it.

> Sure, anybody can google for a free patch
> download, or set up a phony hotmail identity to avoid providing
> personal info......but noob gamers might not know how.

Well yah, but you can't protect idiots from themselves.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

DocScorpio wrote:
> Everybody's obsessed by Steam, but how 'bout the issue of obtaining
> game patches. I went to dl the latest DOW patch from Relic and was
> given links to Gamespot and FilePlanet. In order to dl from either,
> I would have to register (and maybe even pay in the case of
> FilePlanet....not sure about that because I didn't stick around to
> find out). This issue has been raised in the past, but it's starting
> to piss me off a bit. If a publisher/developer is providing a patch
> to fix problems that should have been addressed before releasing the
> game, shouldn't the publisher/developer host the patch.....not send
> customers to some second-party pay site or site that requires
> personal info. Also, I wonder why no links to
> non-"registration-required" sites (where I, in fact, finally dled the
> patch after googling it). Are publishers/developers getting a
> "little something" for linking to sites that either collect personal
> info (no doubt, profitable) or subscription fees? Sure, anybody can
> google for a free patch download, or set up a phony hotmail identity
> to avoid providing personal info......but noob gamers might not know
> how.



Get the filename from FilePlanet, then go here and find everywhere else on
the Internet where it exists for download:

http://www.filemirrors.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 23:52:16 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:


>It won't last.

They've only been around for since 1992 or so. ;-/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Trinity <three@here.invalid> once tried to test me with:

> On 27 Feb 2005 23:52:16 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It won't last.
>
> They've only been around for since 1992 or so. ;-/

That has little to do with it. What matters is the conditions NOW not 1992.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 1 Mar 2005 03:29:32 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:


>That has little to do with it. What matters is the conditions NOW not 1992.

We are all going to be forced to pay for patches? Get a grip on
reality.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Trinity <three@here.invalid> once tried to test me with:

> On 1 Mar 2005 03:29:32 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That has little to do with it. What matters is the conditions NOW not
>>1992.
>
> We are all going to be forced to pay for patches? Get a grip on
> reality.

Did I say that? No. I said they'd go to one of those "pay or wait" schemes
like the other sites do once they get too popular. Eventually their
bandwidth bill is going to cost them too much money to be paid for by ads
alone, and they're going to need to figure out a way to pay it.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 2 Mar 2005 05:40:09 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:


>Did I say that? No. I said they'd go to one of those "pay or wait" schemes
>like the other sites do once they get too popular. Eventually their
>bandwidth bill is going to cost them too much money to be paid for by ads
>alone, and they're going to need to figure out a way to pay it.

If you had actually ever gone there you would know that they use
multiple mirrors donated to them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Trinity <three@here.invalid> once tried to test me with:

> On 2 Mar 2005 05:40:09 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Did I say that? No. I said they'd go to one of those "pay or wait"
>>schemes like the other sites do once they get too popular. Eventually
>>their bandwidth bill is going to cost them too much money to be paid
>>for by ads alone, and they're going to need to figure out a way to pay
>>it.
>
> If you had actually ever gone there you would know that they use
> multiple mirrors donated to them.

I do go there.

The fact is, the site only gets minimum traffic which is why they can
exist. If they were as popular as FilePlanet, they couldn't get enough
donated bandwidth to keep in business.

I noticed on their front page it said 5 million visitors since 1997.

FilePlanet probably gets close to that every month.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 01:41:32 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:


>I do go there.
>
>The fact is, the site only gets minimum traffic which is why they can
>exist. If they were as popular as FilePlanet, they couldn't get enough
>donated bandwidth to keep in business.
>
>I noticed on their front page it said 5 million visitors since 1997.
>
>FilePlanet probably gets close to that every month.

That's because most people are dweebs. I avoid Fileplanet like the
plague.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

And I have been wondering why didn't someone put up a patch/mod-only
torrent site. It is great and it is legal.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

there are 8 million stories in the uncanny valley drocket
<drocket@hotmail.com> told one of them in
news:efm421l8e12b5tfcneo4hv8cjpn7sc59j0@4ax.com:


> I agree that publishers should be responsible for hosting patches for
> the games they release. At the same time, though, I understand why
> they don't want to - having 250,000 people download a 20M+ patch is
> not a cheap proposition. The problem is compounded by the fact that
> most of the downloads are going to happen the first week the patch is
> released: they'd have to spend a large fortune upgrading their
> servers and internet connection to handle a huge rush when the patch
> is released, and a week later, the equipment they spent a fortune for
> is now running at 10% capacity.

I have a radical and unique idea to solve that problem - they could make
games that don't need patches.

What a concept!



--
The Grand Wombat - maker of the 100,000,000th post to Usenet!!
mhm 20x10
meow -- wombats r us

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

The Grand Wombat wrote:
>
> I have a radical and unique idea to solve that problem - they could make
> games that don't need patches.
>
> What a concept!
>

They do, the vast majority of console games don't need patches.
Personally I appreciate the amount of work that goes into making
software that runs on hugely different hardware setups.

I also love the tweaks and additional material that goes into patches by
good developers, out of the countless games I've ever bought there has
been perhaps one or two that were actually broken. Not a bad average I
would have thought.

Carl........

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Xns960FBA32CD6CDgrandwombatmeowmeow@69.28.186.121>,
The Grand Wombat <wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have a radical and unique idea to solve that problem - they could make
> games that don't need patches.
>
> What a concept!

When people are irate enough because others are charging for patches to
their games, you can make a FORTUNE being first-to-market with this
brilliant idea.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck in this endeavor...

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

inferno2000@my-deja.com once tried to test me with:

> And I have been wondering why didn't someone put up a patch/mod-only
> torrent site. It is great and it is legal.

Well there is http://www.filerush.com/ that has patches for the most
popular games online. And demos.

The problem with trying to do torrents for older/unpopular games is that
there's not enough people downloading them at the same time to really work
well for torrents.



--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 5 Mar 2005 04:02:14 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:


>The problem with trying to do torrents for older/unpopular games is that
>there's not enough people downloading them at the same time to really work
>well for torrents.

Not only that but anyone allowing P2P on their PC is a moron or a
pirate. Which is it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Connected <connected@somewhere.here> once tried to test me with:

> On 5 Mar 2005 04:02:14 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The problem with trying to do torrents for older/unpopular games is
>>that there's not enough people downloading them at the same time to
>>really work well for torrents.
>
> Not only that but anyone allowing P2P on their PC is a moron or a
> pirate. Which is it?

Bittorrent is benign unless you are using some haxx0r version. It works
great for downloading demos and patches from FileRush.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.