GTA IV PS3 Freezing solution

[Cayal]

I read on another site the apparent way to fix this (until a patch I assume) is to sign out of the PSN and/or disconnect your ethernet cable. Essentially getting offline all together.

And this will apparently fix the freezing issue that has been roaming amongst GTA IV PS3 versions.

*This apparently works for the 360 as well.

[Commonmind]

It's a placebo fix. The freezing issue is random and all the "fixes" are inconsistent, which means they're not really working and that the person trying them is simply getting lucky and calling it the golden fleece.

Until Rockstar issues a patch, we're out of luck.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by Cayal

I read on another site the apparent way to fix this (until a patch I assume) is to sign out of the PSN and/or disconnect your ethernet cable. Essentially getting offline all together.

And this will apparently fix the freezing issue that has been roaming amongst GTA IV PS3 versions.

*This apparently works for the 360 as well.

I do believe that's more or less the fix that some TakeTwo techs posted in response to questions about it. The full thing also includes turning off everything like Media Sharing, and the screensaver, and basically resetting the console.

I've still not had any problems, and none of my friends have, so I'm huessing that the problem is still more or less isolated to American 60gb launch units, with a few other odd units.

Rockstar knows about the problems, so hopefully a patch will come soon for those who need it.

[Cayal]

^ It seems to be American only.

Kinda worries me since I am getting the American version (from ebay).

[Lenny]

Hard to tell whether its the American PS3s, or the American game, though.

If it is the game itself, then it might be possible to sell the American copy on and instead buy one from the UK - either's better than the Australian version, though obviously you know that already.

[Overread]

Originally Posted by Lenny

a patch

Originally Posted by Lenny

a patch

Originally Posted by Lenny

a patch

is it me or are consoles losing the only advantage that they had over PCs - is the increase in complexity and fad of cross console games goingto be the end of the console - where once it was possible to at least garantee that the games would run when you bought them - with out errors

[Cayal]

It is a very small % that aren't working.

And it is a rare thing.

Lets not go over the top.

[McMurphy]

In regards to PS3, particularly the 60 version, has had some exclusive problems with more than one game, largely when attempting to play Playstation 2 titles, which that American version of console was sold as being able to do (I do believe the European version can't play nearly as many PS2 games, correct?). Take for example Jak X. That version of the PS3 absolutely refuses to play ball with even the newest patches.

I have noticed the trend of patches have become increasingly frequent on consoles that tie themselves closer and closer to PC formats.

[Lenny]

Aye. We can play most of the bigger titles, but in total I think it's only 75% of the PS2 library (whilst we can still play 100% of the PS1 library) with the 60gb PS3. It's because they took out the Emotion Engine, leaving us with a hardware-software hybrid form of emulation, rather than the full hardware emulation the American 60gb's have.

---

is it me or are consoles losing the only advantage that they had over PCs - is the increase in complexity and fad of cross console games goingto be the end of the console - where once it was possible to at least garantee that the games would run when you bought them - with out errors

Personally I blame it on sloppy programing by devs who are too lazy to try to get PS3 programming right. Look at EA and Ubisoft for prime examples. It is a bit surprising for Rockstar, but then again, not one of their games is without problems.

As Cay said, it's still rare. out of the games I own, only three have had or need patches - Assassin's Creed (Ubisoft), The Orange Box (EA, because Valve are run by a moron), and now GTA4.

My others are fine - Resistance, Motorstorm, Oblivion, Uncharted.

It looks to me like it's the multi-platform games that need the patches... and it's no wonder. The majority of devs develop first on the 360 because it's "easier" and then port the code over to the PS3 and do a terrible job of it. There are a few devs, like Criterion and Midway, who have the right idea, and are developing first on the PS3 and then porting over to the 360 (I'm not saying this because I'm a fanboy, but rather because it is actually true - games that are ported from PS3 to 360 are proven to be better for it. It's a damn sight easier to port the PS3 code to the 360 and simplify it, then port it from the 360 to PS3 and make it more complex), but they're a rare breed.

[Commonmind]

A lot of these problems are rooted in the publishers' need to put the game on the shelf, to reach silent release deadlines which require the developers to be less thorough than they were in the past. Coupled, of course, with a far more complex development environment than console developers are used to.

I don't care about the patching process, honestly. If it makes the game I spent 60 dollars for better, than so be it. I'm sure the predictable rebuttal here is that the game should've shipped without issue, but I'm placing no blame -- because, despite what's being implied here, there have definitely been console games in the past that suffered from horrendous bugs, rendering them near unplayable in spots, and there were never any patches to rectify the problems.

But again, things are much different now, and those problems are more frequent and more troublesome and I'm glad the developers are supporting their product post-launch -- something of which they're not required.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Commonmind

A lot of these problems are rooted in the publishers' need to put the game on the shelf, to reach silent release deadlines which require the developers to be less thorough than they were in the past. Coupled, of course, with a far more complex development environment than console developers are used to.

I don't care about the patching process, honestly. If it makes the game I spent 60 dollars for better, than so be it. I'm sure the predictable rebuttal here is that the game should've shipped without issue, but I'm placing no blame -- because, despite what's being implied here, there have definitely been console games in the past that suffered from horrendous bugs, rendering them near unplayable in spots, and there were never any patches to rectify the problems.

But again, things are much different now, and those problems are more frequent and more troublesome and I'm glad the developers are supporting their product post-launch -- something of which they're not required.

You raise some good points, and there are certainly some damning console evidence to support your claims. In regards to the past console games containing bugs that rendered aspects of gameplay virtually unplayable, Yo Noid! for the NES and Superman64 for (obviously) the N64 system are good examples. The former contained a bug that, when a player should tie the computer at a pizza eating contest hosted after every other stage, the game would freeze. Instead of fixing the bug, the manual merely noted the bug as part of the game play. The latter case made it quite easy for players of all skill levels get trapped behind an environment wall if he/she tried. Both examples could have benefited from an age of game development in which post release patches were possible.

Another virtue of the use of patches that was impossible in prior console generations is the use of said patches to improve the gameplay of a game or reward fans for continuing to plug away. How many patches does World of Warcraft have at this point that adds new elements and "levels" to the core game millions of fans have already made successful? Those inexpensive and convenient patches sure would have been welcomed for early purchasers of games such as Castlevania 64. Anyone that bought the game upon its original release date were forced to repurchase the game if they wished to play the additional stages and characters that were added months later upon re-release.

I must add a however---the most dangerous term in forum discussions---to this post. It appears that the frequency of big title games and software that are released to the general public with bugs that absolutely stall the ability to enjoy the experience has increased drastically since the use of patches have become commonplace on consoles. That is something not to be taken lightly, either. To purchase a game at a price that will most likely be the highest amount a consumer will pay during its shelf time, is akin to picking up a book that has a chapter with random text printed rather than the story or paying a theater ticket to see a film that has a ten minute segment playing upside down. Tweaking of content is fine. It is unacceptable to be using early purchasers of a game as the testers of a product. It just isn't a professional method to do business, and I believe the emergence of the common practice of utilizing patches on consoles have been the (partial) cause, not the effect, of unrealistic publication deadlines.

Really, my view on the matter of patches is largely positive. I am glad they exist for the reasons expressed in the first paragraph, and they have furthered the abilities of games to satisfy consumers on new levels. The patches do seem to be used for the wrong reasons at times, and that comes at a great annoyance.

[Commonmind]

No, it definitely shouldn't be taken lightly, and it's -- in my humble opinion -- a sign that publishers are really do anything they can to push games through the door in a timely manner, simply for monetary gains. The unfortunate side of that is the customer suffers, and the more unfortunate side of that is it's evidence that publishers are more concerned with concise financial payoffs and less with the quality of their respective products. There was a trend like this in an entirely different industry, music, and I think we can all agree that industry has suffered greatly as a result (of the greed of music labels and their unwillingness to put a quality product on store shelves).

[Overread]

Its a trend in all industry and work these days - products are not made for quality or functionality - they are made to a time limit and if its not fully tested who cares? They will have a new product out and with a bit of creative marketing (something that they were going to do anyway) it will sell and make a profet (in some industries its even good if it breaks after so long, because then people have to go get another one and another one and so on)
I think it might be a result of out commercialisation of our society where we must have a continual cycle of new goods and things to keep everything running. If things lasted well and long suddenly those economist theories about constant profit increases year after year start breaking down

[Lenny]

I still say it's the fault of EA and Ubisoft and their mutliplatformy things. I know of very few first-party or even second-party games that need patches - Sony, MS and Nintendo usually give FP and SP developers all the time they need to finish the game before it's released.

If anyone's at fault, it's not "the industry", it's a few companies that are trying to cover all the bases. Trend in the industry? Nope. Publishers trying to force games out of the door? Only third-party mutli-platform.

[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by Lenny

I still say it's the fault of EA and Ubisoft and their mutliplatformy things. I know of very few first-party or even second-party games that need patches - Sony, MS and Nintendo usually give FP and SP developers all the time they need to finish the game before it's released.

Unfortunately that's simply not true. There are often cases where First and Second Party developers are under more pressure and even stricter deadlines than Third Party developers. David Jaffe talked very openly about Sony habitually shoving them toward the release window during the development of God of War. And there are many other instances of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo pressuring their in-house companies. The latter putting so much pressure on Camelot during development of a few key titles that they inevitably suffered as a result. Patches? No, but the resulting quality of certain games is still evidence enough that these pressures are very real and often more troubling than the pressure publishers put on Third Party developers.

If anyone's at fault, it's not "the industry", it's a few companies that are trying to cover all the bases. Trend in the industry? Nope. Publishers trying to force games out of the door? Only third-party mutli-platform.

If those few companies control the largest portion of the market it is indeed an industry trend. And being that third-party multi-platform titles are the majority here, I'd have to say (with all due respect) moot point, Lenny. Exclusive first and second-party software is the exception, not the rule.