
You may want to set aside a few moments before playing Uncharted 4: A Thief's End on the PlayStation 4, as the game includes a 5GB day one patch. That's according to All Games Delta, who obtained the patch notes from the essential update. In addition to "general fixes and improvements", the patch enables "multiplayer support" and "encounter select". Not sure what the latter is to be honest.
It also comes with a slew of bonus features, including: photo mode, a character model viewer, rendering options, and concept art galleries. We've included all of the patch notes for v1.01 below, courtesy of All Games Delta. Will you be busting your bandwidth in order to enjoy this exclusive? Hunt out the hidden treasure in the comments section below.
Uncharted 4 v1.01 Patch Notes
- Multiplayer support
- Single player Encounter Select
- Bonus Feature: Photo Mode
- Bonus Feature: Character Model Viewer
- Bonus Feature: Render Modes
- Bonus Feature: Gameplay Modes
- Bonus Feature: Single-player Modes
- Bonus Feature: Weapon Selector
- Bonus Feature: Journal Viewer
- Bonus Feature: Concept Art Galleries
- General Fixes and Improvements
[source twitter.com]
Comments 24
Seriously, they didn't have concept art galleries in mind until after the game went gold?? I'll not be downloading, not that I could immediately anyway, without internet access. But I'm sick to death of day one patches...take Ratchet & Clank, that game was stated to be ready last year, but that release was held back to match the film's release. It comes out last week and there's a patch for it! Madness!
And the sky is blue.
I mentioned this in the forum topic, but wouldn't it be a good idea to allow people to download patches prior to a game's release? Like, give a week's window before launch in which people can download a day-one patch, so that when they get the game, it installs, and they don't have to worry about waiting ages for a multi-gigabyte patch to download first.
Time to play the what shall I delete off my hard drive game.
Not really huge compared to other games which i have had to download 12gb+ when i first got the games. I do not mind day one patches you can always play something else while the patch loads.
I thought delaying it 3 times would prevent this. I guess most of May 10th will be me waiting for my crappy internet to download it -_-
@Quintumply That would be really handy. For me, downloading 5GB takes ages.
@feral1975 They have to factor manufacturing in. You may remember that Naughty Dog submitted the game to disc pressing factories on 18th March: https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2016/03/uncharted_4_a_thiefs_end_is_finally_finished_on_ps4
So it's had over a month extra time to work on this stuff.
Patches are always making the game run more smoothly or adding features so its a good thing. On most games unless its online only you can play the game without the patch. Then just leave the PS4 in standby overnight to download the patch
@Draythedestroyer I play that all the time!
@get2sammyb
Sorry, I just think developers these days are using patches as a crutch. Have a realistic deadline, and get it finished by then, and don't uses customers as bug testers. Plus with Ratchet and Clank they had ample time to include any fixes before the game went gold since they'd been sitting on it since last year.
Anyone who doesn't understand day one patches has clearly never written any kind of script or program. You meet a deadline with a working version, then you look at your code and go, "Ooo, could do that", and then "That would make it much more efficient". Within 2 days, you're sending out an updated version. It's just how these things work.
@Draythedestroyer lol right
Funny how people moan about day one patches, as if developers are overly reliant on them. How about seeing it the other way, in that they are using the fact consoles are now internet enabled to give us a better experience while also allowing them to ship the game sooner? Given the two choices I'll take my glass half full, please!
@kyleforrester87 I agree it's a plus, but it's the only plus. It only benefits people who plan on getting it as it releases, then they can't even play it immediately as they have to wait for the patch to download. They take up additional space on an already small harddrive, and people who buy the game post launch don't benefit at all. It helps get the game out slightly quicker, but I think it's bad for players in the long run.
Post launch will still have to download patch if you purchase the hard copy. Anyway, if they fix it, they will come! Patch away!
The Division is the buggiest game I've ever played and they have yet to address most of them... it's playable, but I still get complete game crashes.
@ThroughTheIris56 well, you can just play it while the patch downloads then close it and run the patch once it's finished. Doubt it will change the game that much. People are already playing the unpatched version. Also 5gb doesn't just add 5gb of content to the base game, it replaces (therefore uninstalls) some aspects that are updated.
@feral1975 @ThroughTheIris56 @kyleforrester87
We all have differing opinions on the patching subject, I'm unsure where I stand. We have the facility these days so yeah lets use them, but what will the games run like if the patches ever stop being uploaded or taken off the Internet? When all said and done Im not too bothered, but I have a decent internet connection. I would like games to just play though, that would be nice.
@professorhat I dont think that's the quarrel of the against patches side of the argument. What they are saying is - can we just have a finished code / program / game / experience. The code can be changed up until it goes gold, then that's it. That's the finished article. Of course you can compress code and rework better efficiencies into the programming, but there is always an end point - why cant that be prior to the disc being printed?
@themcnoisy let me ask you a question? Do you write code as a job or even as a hobby? If no, then I'm afraid you just have to accept that that isn't how the vast majority of developers work. Sorry, it's that simple. And if they therefore can make the code better in the ensuing weeks after the disc has gone gold, why the hell not release that optimised code / extra features as a day one patch?
If you do write code and you're able to do it as you say, then you're a very rare beast indeed sir. Take pride that project managers the world over love you 😊
@professorhat Not as a job, or even as a hobby anymore. The program it yourself Amstrad codes from the 80s made me realise how terrible I am at it. Although I've played around with Ruby, Python and various compilers - I dont get much of a result and give up pretty quickly.
I knew Mike Singleton who was big on code optimisation. When I mean big, I mean ocd levels of making the shortest code possible, I had a ton of deep conversations on the subject and a lot of the stuff we chatted about was making the system do as little work as possible. Its a pity I'm a gamer and he was the game maker and if he was around today would make a better fist of having games completed than most in this day and age.
To summarize I think there is a need for patching, especially when unforseen issues arise. However patches are being misused to add in stuff that should already have been completed prior to disc pressing - obviously a bigger issue for people on bare bones internet than for myself.
Awful.
@themcnoisy things can always be improved, especially, I would imagine, the better optimisation of code. We have the tools and capabilities to allow developers to service us with patches.. Why do we get upset about it? Of course you can choose to see it as them releasing a sloppy product and relying on patches to cover themselves. I'm sure sometimes that's the case, too.
I trust ND that their initial release is solid and these are just tweaks. I think that is great, making sure we get a better version than was shipped.
What isn't acceptable, in my book, is issuing a release knowing it is not solid and has debilitating bugs or major functions missing and then issuing several patches days/weeks/months after it releases. I ship code and a day one launch with serious bugs shouldn't happen.
@themcnoisy there's two options with your proposal:
1. At the point of producing the gold code, forbid the development and optimisation of it from that point on. The product is good enough, so that's it. In the past, that was the only option, but given that the guys are still being paid and there is a perfect delivery system for patches now, I'd argue why? Does it hurt to allow development to continue beyond the gold date, and ship it to consumers through a patch? A line in the sand has to be drawn for shipping code to be pressed on a bluray, but that doesn't mean any more that development should stop on that date, so why not carry on?
2. Move the shipping date until no more meaningful development can be done. End result, people get pissed off due to constant delays, and I'm sure there are financial implications for constant delaying of the manufacturing of the physical discs. Not a good option.
Thing is, games now are upward of 20GB of code (and media obviously). That's huge!! When games could run in 512k (or even 64k!) of Ram, there wasn't so much of an excuse, but now, they're so complicated, I honestly think it's not unreasonable for developers to rely on patching to fix things and add extra features they just couldn't get done in time for release, so long as they're not releasing a buggy unworkable POS and then fixing it afterwards. That is taking the pee, and I think we'll all agree on that!
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...