# GTA IV PS3 Freezing solution



## Cayal (May 3, 2008)

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 (May 3, 2008)

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 (May 3, 2008)

Cayal said:


> 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 (May 3, 2008)

^ It seems to be American only.

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


----------



## Lenny (May 3, 2008)

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 (May 4, 2008)

Lenny said:


> a patch


 


Lenny said:


> a patch


 


Lenny said:


> 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 (May 4, 2008)

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

And it is a rare thing.

Lets not go over the top.


----------



## McMurphy (May 4, 2008)

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 (May 4, 2008)

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 (May 4, 2008)

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 (May 4, 2008)

Commonmind said:


> 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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

Lenny said:


> 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.


----------



## Cayal (May 6, 2008)

Lenny said:


> but they're a rare breed.



Not any more. More and more developers are going PS3 first.


----------



## Cayal (May 6, 2008)

Overread said:


> 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



In the case of GTAIV, with the numerous reviews and plays how had this not come up in the reviews. Surely this had to happen to some reviewer somewhere if this is as prevalent as it is advertised.


----------



## Commonmind (May 6, 2008)

Cayal said:


> In the case of GTAIV, with the numerous reviews and plays how had this not come up in the reviews. Surely this had to happen to some reviewer somewhere if this is as prevalent as it is advertised.



Well, believe it or not, the enthusiasts press only makes up about .01% of the gaming population, if that, so it's not surprising it hasn't happened to any of them.


----------



## Overread (May 6, 2008)

Not only that but consider the amounts of cash in play here - I would be more surprised to find that there were no backhanders and such for high quality reviews (several full page quality reviews at that).
Not to say that there is no quality in GTA, but more that sometimes a little push in the right direction makes some people overlook the little problems ;-


----------



## Commonmind (May 6, 2008)

Overread said:


> Not only that but consider the amounts of cash in play here - I would be more surprised to find that there were no backhanders and such for high quality reviews (several full page quality reviews at that).
> Not to say that there is no quality in GTA, but more that sometimes a little push in the right direction makes some people overlook the little problems ;-



Reputable review sites do not accept bribery, despite what the general Gamefaqs' community would have you believe. IGN hadn't given a game a 10 in almost nine years, and most of the other well-known sites have reputations for being pretty greedy with their scores.

I know it's easy enough to believe this sort of nonsense when problems like these arise -- the game has some inherent bugs and therefore the journalists are all corrupt for giving it a perfect score -- but in actuality the number of people having these issues is rather small. It doesn't surprise me that some of these publications haven't happened across any problems.

And after playing GTAIV on a 60gb unit for the last 40 hours, I can attest to the game's quality.


----------



## Cayal (May 7, 2008)

Gamespot fired a guy for giving a poor review to Kane and Lynch.


----------



## Lucien21 (May 7, 2008)

Cayal said:


> Gamespot fired a guy for giving a poor review to Kane and Lynch.


 
No they didn't.


----------



## Overread (May 7, 2008)

I thought they did?
Regardless the case was (something like) gamespot told this reviewer that he "was to give a good review of the game" as opposed to letting him just review it. So he went a review which did only point out the bad sides of the game - a very bad review.

After that I thought he was fired and then there was a small outcry from the community that a reviewer was being fired for "standing up to false reviews" or something along those lines - after that I stopped following the story.

Personally I find reviewers to be better than EA's advertising! But in the end a demo is the only good review of a product before buying


----------



## Commonmind (May 7, 2008)

That's not what happened, at all. 

Gamespot runs 24 hour advertisements and chose, without coincidence, to run their Kane and Lynch ad the same day Jeff Gerstman's review went live. Gerstman, as an 11 year employee of the company and in a position of editorial management, uploaded his review with little to no editing from senior staff -- something that is not uncommon for someone in his position. As a result the system of checks and balances, the one that would've thwarted these nasty rumors from starting, failed: Gerstman's review went up, he was subsequently disciplined for the questionable nature in which it was written (I read the original review, which was definitely tactless and had quite a bit of that ego-centric Gerstman belligerence), something he had been disciplined for previous to this incident, and the company inevitably decided to let him go. The advertisements came down at the same time (on schedule, ironically) as the review was edited for content and language (note the score never changed, a hint that the editing process wasn't meant to rectify the ire of the advertisers but to correct the issue of its questionable content). News then went public that Jeff had been let go and the result was fans of the site, and even company employees, bought into this grand conspiracy and created a news story out of a relatively small issue. 

The truth of the matter is Gamespot's senior staff and parent company had been building a case against Gerstman for quite some time. The Kane and Lynch review was the final straw, as it were. And as a paying subscriber to Gamespot since it began offering its premium service, I can say, without a doubt, that the company's choice to let him go was valid and justified. The guy was a jackass, excuse the language, and I'm only disappointed that this whole issue has ended up hurting Gamespot's reputation.


----------



## Cayal (May 8, 2008)

Sounds like good PR spin there, of course they are going to deny it.
But why would other employees leave so soon after?

No I'd sooner believe in the power of the all mighty dollar being the influence than a mighty big coincidence.


----------



## Commonmind (May 8, 2008)

Let me clarify. Gerstman was fired for the content of his review, not because the advertisers pressured the company to action; and that was my point. 

When Gerstman was let go he was not allowed, contractually, to discuss the reasons behind his dismissal, so Gamespot staff was also left to speculate. Frank Provo and Alex Navarro were the only ones to leave as a result of the Gerstman-Gate scandal and both of them very adamantly stated that it wasn't so much the why of the matter, but how it was handled, what it inevitably did to the site's reputation and how company officials did little to stem their concerns -- offering up even a small explanation of what had actually happened -- or to quell the outcries of their subscribers. The sad truth being that they (Gamespot/Cnet) were also contractually obligated to keep their mouths shut as well -- here's a classic case of catch-22: they terminated Jeff Gerstman, paid him a severance, signed a contract with him that he would keep tight-lipped about the situation (as is normal in these types of terminations) and they would honor that end of the bargain as well so as not to soil his reputation. 

So you see, even if they wanted to simply come out and say, "Hey, listen, we fired Jeff because he was a belligerent ass and his reviews were starting to degrade the editorial quality and integrity of our site," they couldn't.

And of course you'd sooner believe the "mighty dollar" was the main factor here, it's simply the more intriguing camp to join; the grassy knoll, the smoking gun, call it what you will, people are more inclined to buy into the conspiracy rather than look at the evidence objectively and make a logical assessment. 

The problem with this whole situation is that we forget the importance of consistency; if this was Gamespot's main goal, why then would they have allowed similar (albeit more tactful) reviews of games which they'd received advertising revenue for go unedited? 

Crackdown, Need for Speed, Dark Sector, Skate, Call of Juaraz, Shadowrun; these are just a few examples of other titles/series that had ads which ran on Gamespot's site, all of them received below average scores, some in the low 7's and 6's, and all of them from arguably more influential, higher-paying publishers than Eidos.

Your opinion is your own, and I can respect that, but let me say that I definitely don't want to get into a long, drawn out debate about this subject, considering it's relatively old news and that it will go nowhere since there's still no definable explanation as to what happened.


----------

