Dead Rising 3 Gets Massive 13GB Update

Dead Rising 3 Gets Massive 13GB Update

This gargantuan patch is reportedly just one of four planned updates set to hit Dead Rising 3.

Those planning to slay some zombies in Capcom's Xbox One exclusive Dead Rising 3 might want to allocate some significant time to download its latest game update, as according to reports, the patch is at a whopping 13GB. This was first revealed by Xbox Studio Manager Mike Ybarra over on Twitter where he states, "Wow, a 13GB DR3 update? Holy...good thing I have 110mbps."

At the time of this writing, Capcom or Microsoft have yet to release the official patch notes for the update. But people on Reddit and on the official Dead Rising 3 forums are saying this is for the title's first expansion, and is only one of four planned updates for Dead Rising 3's Season Pass. Fortunately, gamers concerned that this might eat up a lot of space on their hard-disks will be glad to know that the 13GB patch supposedly does not add up to the overall game's size.

Now, for those who don't have the patience to wait for a 13GB patch to finish before stomping some zombie heads, you can choose not to connect the Xbox One to the internet and just play it as is. However, keep in mind you won't be able to connect to Xbox Live while playing DR3.

For those who've downloaded the update, let us know if you notice any in-game tweaks.

If you haven't given Dead Rising 3 a go yet, make sure to read The Escapist's review, where it's called "an exclusive title with a big open world and tons of zombies that demonstrates the power of the next gen console well."

Source: Twitter via NeoGAF

Permalink

There's no DSL in my area, I'm forced to use a UMTS modem with a traffic limit of 5 GB a month.

And boy, am I glad I didn't buy a XBONE...

Lord. if this is gonna be a thing, they really need a good alternative to this, for people who physically cannot download patches like that- like, take a flash drive to your closest retailer and get them to put it on that for you, or something.

sigh...
How big must a download be before it isn't really called a "patch" anymore. That's two games worth right there. Doesn't the XBONE also only have a 500 GB hard drive. How much space are you gonna have left after the updates just for games xD

Neat, it's going to be really cool if anyone buys this a couple of years down the line, i hope the rest of the patches are significantly smaller :O. It would probably take me over 8 hours to download something like this... Wonder if this is something we are going to see more of, goodbye harddisk space^^.

Alex Co:
a whopping 13GB. This was first revealed by Xbox Studio Manager Mike Ybarra over on Twitter where he states, "Wow, a 13GB DR3 update? Holy...good thing I have 110mbps."

You'd think we would be surprised by the level of douchebagginess spewed forth by Microsoft execs, but there it is.

StubbornGiant:
How much space are you gonna have left after the updates just for games xD

IGN did an experiment on the Xbox One's hard drive size. They couldn't install every game currently out. It doesn't even get close to 500GB before filling.

OT: What did they do? Remake the whole game? I don't even think all my programming projects, including games, even come close to 13GB combined, and this is just a patch!

The Sony TV is a nice touch :D

OT: I'm kinda used to this size of patch (or just entire games this size) as a PC Gamer, but its a pretty hefty download still. Dunno how they work out a 13GB patch isn't going to take up much space either.

Creator002:

StubbornGiant:
How much space are you gonna have left after the updates just for games xD

IGN did an experiment on the Xbox One's hard drive size. They couldn't install every game currently out. It doesn't even get close to 500GB before filling.

OT: What did they do? Remake the whole game? I don't even think all my programming projects, including games, even come close to 13GB combined, and this is just a patch!

From what I have read elsewhere, the game only takes up an additional 2-3 gigs after the download, so the real question is why did they need to overwrite 10-11 gigs of content. Since I haven't heard of a patch this big yet for the XB1, I really wonder what Capcom did wrong with their game design.

Capcom will just say "see? This is why locked-on-disc DLC was genius! Now you're making us put it as ACTUAL DLC and you cry about it!"

13GB is huge. It would be big for certain games, let alone a PATCH. This is a death sentence for anyone with a data cap or a less than stellar DL speed. Welcome to "next gen", I guess.

Jesus, and I thought Battlefield 3 updates were unnecessarily long.

Sanunes:

Creator002:

StubbornGiant:
How much space are you gonna have left after the updates just for games xD

IGN did an experiment on the Xbox One's hard drive size. They couldn't install every game currently out. It doesn't even get close to 500GB before filling.

OT: What did they do? Remake the whole game? I don't even think all my programming projects, including games, even come close to 13GB combined, and this is just a patch!

From what I have read elsewhere, the game only takes up an additional 2-3 gigs after the download, so the real question is why did they need to overwrite 10-11 gigs of content. Since I haven't heard of a patch this big yet for the XB1, I really wonder what Capcom did wrong with their game design.

they most likely are doing changes to the core game to support new features in the dlc since they rushed the product.

So, basically, it would take me thirteen hours just to update the game before I could play it.

Genius! Because I know that when I plan my gaming habits, I plan for what I'll want to be doing half a day later. I'm glad there's a studio finally catering to my needs.

Goddamn, at 13 Gb, I hope it's an expansion, because if the base game has that many problems needing to be ironed out, that's a rather damning claim, and a poor showing for next-gen.

I guess that they made all of the games content be sorted in a bunch of really huge files. I know DR2 was like that. So any time they need to update any little thing, they need to send a new version of the entire file that they changed.

You know what will be absolutely hilarious (At least for those of us who enjoy watching train wrecks)? When that insane download ends up only changing things if you buy a $15+ piece of DLC.

I got an Xbox 360 back in 2006 with the 20gb Hard drive, and while the limited space has been a pain in the ass recently ive never needed to upgrade it (im only doing so becuase i needed to replace my xbox anyway), so going from 20gb is enough to a patch requires 13gb is a joke.

Chaosritter:
There's no DSL in my area, I'm forced to use a UMTS modem with a traffic limit of 5 GB a month.

And boy, am I glad I didn't buy a XBONE...

Keep in mind this is very likely to be the future no matter what console/computer you own. It might hit the Xbone first, but big updates are likely to be TEH FEWCHUR!

joshuaayt:
Lord. if this is gonna be a thing, they really need a good alternative to this, for people who physically cannot download patches like that- like, take a flash drive to your closest retailer and get them to put it on that for you, or something.

No way would console manufacturers allow that sort of easy updating on their lockboxes.

Not nowadays, that is.

StubbornGiant:
sigh...
How big must a download be before it isn't really called a "patch" anymore. That's two games worth right there. Doesn't the XBONE also only have a 500 GB hard drive. How much space are you gonna have left after the updates just for games xD

Aren't most games in the 40 GB range on the Xbone? So isn't it closer to a third of a game?

I can't say I'm overly surprised at the size of this update, I'd guess is they have optimized a ton of their code they didn't have time to finish before launch. Hench the massive rewrite of the game, moving to x86 architectural means rewriting code had has been in use since the Atari days. I'd guess had a bunch of these changes in the pipe and couldn't be implemented before the the discs had to be printed.

I hate to say this but expect this to be the norm for games now, with the majority having access to high speed internet, developers like releasing post launch updates and patches. The vast majority of PC games are download only now. Some you can buy a physical copy but I think this will become less and less. I get this is a issue for many people, my family has limited internet at home as well. If my younger brother wanted to download a game or MMO for his PC he's get a usb stick from me and take it up.

I do agree that they should start having these updates being able to be downloaded onto a usb stick for those unable to download at home. Even though high speed internet is the norm they should still do their best to help the potion of the gamers who don't have access.

you know not everyone has fibre yet. a 13 gb mandatory patch is pretty ridiculous.

Sanunes:
From what I have read elsewhere, the game only takes up an additional 2-3 gigs after the download, so the real question is why did they need to overwrite 10-11 gigs of content. Since I haven't heard of a patch this big yet for the XB1, I really wonder what Capcom did wrong with their game design.

I was about to ask that. Steam is always updating things like Left for Dead or Team Fortress with 4 plus GB patches and my Steam folder isn't growing by that much. At least they are updating games that are multiplayer centric and get tweaked all the time. These PCs in console's clothing may have surpassed them in a negative aspect that was once a PC only thing. If they have to send you most of the original game's worth of data to overwrite what's installed, I'd hate to think how rushed more games will be in the future if this sets a precedent.

Hairless Mammoth:

Sanunes:
From what I have read elsewhere, the game only takes up an additional 2-3 gigs after the download, so the real question is why did they need to overwrite 10-11 gigs of content. Since I haven't heard of a patch this big yet for the XB1, I really wonder what Capcom did wrong with their game design.

I was about to ask that. Steam is always updating things like Left for Dead or Team Fortress with 4 plus GB patches and my Steam folder isn't growing by that much. At least they are updating games that are multiplayer centric and get tweaked all the time. These PCs in console's clothing may have surpassed them in a negative aspect that was once a PC only thing. If they have to send you most of the original game's worth of data to overwrite what's installed, I'd hate to think how rushed more games will be in the future if this sets a precedent.

If I remember right from the TF2 forums sometimes during updates people would complain about their client downloading a larger patch, I think it was a bug where it would re-download most of the files for whatever reason.

OT: So it's for dlc? Why not make people download it when they buy the stuff instead of taking up space?

Nathan Josephs:
you know not everyone has fibre yet. a 13 gb mandatory patch is pretty ridiculous.

Not to mention that 13gb is enough for an entire new game >_> ....

Are you just downloading the entire game again? Not exactly what I would call an update. Its fucking bullshit, and only the first out of four 'updates', this is madness.

Sanunes:

Creator002:

StubbornGiant:
How much space are you gonna have left after the updates just for games xD

IGN did an experiment on the Xbox One's hard drive size. They couldn't install every game currently out. It doesn't even get close to 500GB before filling.

OT: What did they do? Remake the whole game? I don't even think all my programming projects, including games, even come close to 13GB combined, and this is just a patch!

From what I have read elsewhere, the game only takes up an additional 2-3 gigs after the download, so the real question is why did they need to overwrite 10-11 gigs of content. Since I haven't heard of a patch this big yet for the XB1, I really wonder what Capcom did wrong with their game design.

the answer to that is bad file storage. they probably went the easy way and stored the data in large archives. like "textures.dat holding ALL textures in the game in one file, which actually has 10.000 files inside, but hard drives treat it liek one file and thus less likely to get things fragmented. however they probably encoded the archive in such a way that you cant replace part of it without reprocessing whole archive (part of why modding some games were hard). so they thought its easier to jut redownload whole archive even if it changes only part of it, hence the large sized download. we see this a lot in the MMOs and their archived packages. expansion comes out, heres a 5 gb download that wont actually icnrease the size of the game.
Basically this is good idea when you plan to never update the game as it usually causes less trouble for people that dont know how hard drives work and get it fragmented (as NTFS actually looks if it can fit whole file without fragmenting when writing, which causes less fragmentation when using the drive, and FAT 32 doesnt (but really noone uses FAT anymore))

Strazdas:

Sanunes:
snip

the answer to that is bad file storage. they probably went the easy way and stored the data in large archives. like "textures.dat holding ALL textures in the game in one file, which actually has 10.000 files inside, but hard drives treat it liek one file and thus less likely to get things fragmented. however they probably encoded the archive in such a way that you cant replace part of it without reprocessing whole archive (part of why modding some games were hard). so they thought its easier to jut redownload whole archive even if it changes only part of it, hence the large sized download. we see this a lot in the MMOs and their archived packages. expansion comes out, heres a 5 gb download that wont actually icnrease the size of the game.
Basically this is good idea when you plan to never update the game as it usually causes less trouble for people that dont know how hard drives work and get it fragmented (as NTFS actually looks if it can fit whole file without fragmenting when writing, which causes less fragmentation when using the drive, and FAT 32 doesnt (but really noone uses FAT anymore))

I think really big files are, in general, more likely to get fragmented. However, I suppose that if you had an archive file that you wrote directly over, without resizing it at all, future updates shouldn't make fragmentation worse. But then you are implementing a kind of file system in the file itself, which is a bit strange. It would be a development effort with few gains and added restrictions that I doubt studios would subject themselves to.
FAT32 is a very dated file system, but it does seem to get used in basically all USB flash drives. It doesn't support files over 4GB (as indicated by the 32 in the name). It is possible to manually split larger files up before copying them over, but that's not really something you want to do with any frequency.

OT:

A 13 GB update really doesn't seem like something that should be common. Proper patches should only include the data that actually changes. So unless they changed a significant amount of the assets for the game, this really shouldn't be so big. Even if they are using large archives, patching systems can work on a binary level (most effective if the patch is applied on an uncompressed level, of course).
Granted, it could turn out to be a common occurrence if Microsoft only provides them one method to patch, and it's an inefficient one.

Will you be able to do other things while it downloads? And can you turn of the machine during a download and continue on a later moment?

ntfwc:

I think really big files are, in general, more likely to get fragmented.

One big file is more likely to get fragmented than 1 small file. however 1 big file versus 10.000 small files is less fragmented as those 10.000 files would be written all over the drive. And since NTFS looks for "large enough" space to fit the file if possible it is more likely that at worst that big file will be in 5 fragments instead of 10.000 files in 100 fragments. That makes readability easier and since you need to read hundreds of those files each time your loading something - working with it faster.

But then you are implementing a kind of file system in the file itself, which is a bit strange. It would be a development effort with few gains and added restrictions that I doubt studios would subject themselves to.

i do not know how hard of easy it is to develop for that, only that most games i know used that and that games that didnt and are inconstant developement also started moving towards packages like these (for example world of tanks). It is obviuosly popular with game developers.

FAT32 is a very dated file system, but it does seem to get used in basically all USB flash drives. It doesn't support files over 4GB (as indicated by the 32 in the name). It is possible to manually split larger files up before copying them over, but that's not really something you want to do with any frequency.

I have a flash drive with FAT32 as well, however that is also getting outdated. all the flash drives i see now are going full NTFS, so FAT32 is pretty much obsolete with exception of older devices like my MP3 player that still uses a 2gb FAT32 card.

Even if they are using large archives, patching systems can work on a binary level (most effective if the patch is applied on an uncompressed level, of course)

I agree that this is how it SHOULD work. however sometimes archives are built in a way that you would need to "Rebuild" them to make this work (for example how if you mod San Andreas and forget to press rebuilding of the data file the game will be full of bugs). and sometimes doing a "mysteriuos rebuilding" on a machine that takes a lot of time with large archives (takes around 2 minutes for ~2GB files i done it with, no idea how much 13 gb will take) may cause anger with users. Especially considering that nowadays some people may even download the whole thing faster than that. I do agree that updating the archives would be what should be done but does the average user even know what that is?

Strazdas:

ntfwc:

But then you are implementing a kind of file system in the file itself, which is a bit strange. It would be a development effort with few gains and added restrictions that I doubt studios would subject themselves to.

i do not know how hard of easy it is to develop for that, only that most games i know used that and that games that didnt and are inconstant developement also started moving towards packages like these (for example world of tanks). It is obviuosly popular with game developers.

I don't doubt that packaging resources is popular. I was referring to designing an archive format where you could update the archive file in place without changing its size, in order to avoid possible fragmentation from reallocation. Since individual objects would likely change size in updates, you would have to handle allocation and deallocation within the archive yourself, so you would be implementing a type of file system. It would be an interesting challenge.

Zachary Amaranth:
[quote="Chaosritter" post="7.839935.20635986"]Aren't most games in the 40 GB range on the Xbone? So isn't it closer to a third of a game?

If that's the case then its worse than I thought lol, I sense portable Xbone hard drive extensions in the near future...

StubbornGiant:

If that's the case then its worse than I thought lol, I sense portable Xbone hard drive extensions in the near future...

I think that was the plan in the first place, but it's still kind of stupid (of them). Especially when you're trying to make this the center of a living room experience.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here