The Abundance Of Regular Updates On PS3 Means Fewer For The PS4

Anyone who owns a PlayStation 3 will know that that the console was tweaked and patched with alarming regularity, most of the time for no apparent reason other than to “improve the stability of some software.”

Sony have explained that they are taking an alternative approach on PlayStation 4, the complete opposite of how the previous console was updated.

“What we want to see is what people think about this approach and what we’ve done by going the opposite of what we did with PS3, where we had a lot of updates and it wasn’t always the most positive thing,” explained Vice president of product planning Murray Hume to Digital Spy.

“One of the main things is, we’ve learned a lot from our mistakes on PS3, to be honest, in trying to improve on PS4, and we hope we’re doing that. But if users tell us they want it different, then that’s fine,” he added.

Microsoft’s once a month update seem to be the perfect way to drip feed in new features, perhaps Sony should adopt that strategy, what do you think?

Source: Digital Spy



  1. A monthly update sounds fine, as long as there is something meaningful to update.
    Id hate every 30 days getting a improved system stability and nothing more.

    • Sorry to hijack this comment but 2.00 now live.

  2. I always felt the increase on PS3 updates coincided with that berk who was trying to hack it and release how to do it (until they took him to court). Those updates took so bloody long though.

  3. It’s hardly the same thing. The raft of updates on PS3 were 0.01 modifications just containing a stability/security update. If that kind of thing stops on any console then it’s a good thing. But I’d hardly call it an improvement to sparse out feature-laden updates, especially when Microsoft are showing they can do it every month. Sounds like a crappy spin to me.

  4. Typical, a load of people on the internet complained the PS3 had too many updates and now people complain PS4 has too few. I personally never minded loads up updates on PS3, even if they were never explained, but I know lots of people did mind. I suppose with the PS4 being able to download whilst in standby it lessons the annoyance. Still doesn’t stop people being miserable sods either way sadly!

    • I don’t think people would mind if frequent updates brought new features with them. Frequent stability updates like the PS3 had that add no useable features aren’t so popular.

      • Exactly.

      • What? System stability is not “a usable feature”? Speak for yourself.

        If these frequent updates really patched bugs that could cause my PS3 to crash, they were more than welcome. Having the console freeze mid-game is never welcome, and I have had more than my share of those IMHO.

        OTOH, if the mentioned updates were mostly ways to prevent hacks to jailbreak the PS3, yes, they meant nothing to me since I use the stock firmware on my PS3 and have no intention to hack it. Still, most attack vectors for jailbreaks are unpatched bugs, so they should not be there in the first place.

        Being a software guy myself I know how hard it is to create a bug free piece of software (it is impossible hard, especially if you have to account for those pesky users that insist on using the software). Patches to remove bugs are good, not all patches need to be feature improvements even if those are great.

      • I think you’ve misunderstood me. By useable features I literally meant useable features. A feature ie: Youtube, Ps home that you can use. You can’t use “stability update”

      • And I think you misunderstand me. But let us address it another way.

        When is it ok to release bug fixes that only aim to stabilize the system software? Should you do it:

        A) as promptly as possible to avoid customers having unnecessary crashes
        B) only when you have new features that can be “used” per your definition
        C) wait and release bundles of bug fixes every X months unless you can squeeze it into an option B

        Why people clearly find option A “not so popular” and they only like updates when it falls under option B?

        Do stability issues mean nothing for you guys? Have you ever had your system freeze up in a multiplayer game where everything had been going so well up until the freeze or far from a save point on a hard mission in single player? Why this extreme fixation on “usable” features?

        Say that a game or game patch comes out, which happens to trigger a previously unknown bug in the system software. How pissed do you think the community would be if they later found out that Sony had been sitting on a patch for a month or two just because they had no new features in the pipeline ready to be deployed (option C).

        I’d rather have small frequent incremental updates than bigger fixes less frequently if the latter made my system crash more often. YMMV.

        But I am clearly not like most people on the internet which makes this a lose-lose scenario for Sony. If they release bug fixes quickly and it includes no new “usable” features, people complain and if they do not fix them quickly enough, people complain. It is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”-scenario.

  5. Does the PS3 even have that many updates? I’ve never noticed and never heard anyone else complain.

    • Not recently. There was a point where we getting one a week.

      • Good times.

      • Fair enough. That was probably before I moved out of my parents house and got this new fangled internet thing. Been on PSN since mid 2011.

  6. When the console needs more features (the last 12 months) there should have been a regular drip-feed of updates that add tangible improvements to the console, with a gradual reduction in frequency over time as the console becomes more feature-rich.

    I think this is just something of an excuse though, considering nearly 12 months on, even after 2.0, there are still many features missing. The evidence suggests it’s got nothing to do with the frequency of updates and everything to do with very little being improved in the forward-facing aspects of the OS.

    You don’t push regular updates, if you don’t have anything to update.

  7. Shame they dont adopt the same approach with PSN updates.

  8. Tough one really, not being an XBox owner I don’t know how the monthly update works and feels, but from the fringe of the topic it sounds really good. I think weekly reports (of a good humoured and non patronising nature, maybe written by Mike Bithell) followed by a monthly software update would work well and project a good image. I think a lot of us just want to feel a bit more involved.

  9. But they don’t do it often example they added features or fixes like every 3/4 months or longer there has never been updates every month.

    Also people that bitch about how many updates in those days are they going to bitch every month as well.

    As a ps4 gamer I should be called part-time ps4 gamer as I never play on my ps4 much I hope this update approve me going back on it plus the games to really start coming. :)

  10. I think they need to do a once a month update, as long as it has new features/feature.
    And if it’s announced and made a bit of a song and dance about based in users feedback, on the PS blog for example, that can’t hurt either.

Comments are now closed for this post.