people complained about the updates on the ps3 because most of them didn't add much. just like what we see on the ps4 and so many "stability" updates. the xbox 360 didn't get as many updates but were often major ones. now it seems microsoft is able to add monthly updates on the xbox one that not only fix things but also add new things.

Since the Xbox One moved to monthly updates it's probably made the contrast bigger.

PS3 did get regular updates but proper feature updates were few and far between, basically.

It's because xbox fanboys need to find something to attack the competition with. PS4 is besting xbone in nearly every area.

Updates is one of the few things they can find. For some reason getting an update every month is something to brag about. It's laughable really. But I guess it makes them feel a little superior for some reason.

@LifeInNZ- constant updates is one of the worst things to happen to software in the past few years. It's annoying that anytime you launch anything you don't use frequently it demands you wait to update before using it- stopping your work dead in its tracks! It also fixes some bugs while adding new ones, requiring yet another update soon after.

@RocketScience - that's pretty much the truth

If the Xbox One consistently was "updating" slowly to boot frequently with no visible changes, I think people would complain!

Heck, I would be one of them!

Just like PSN is taken down frequently for maintenance and Xbox Live is maintained while the entire system is running. That is how a cloud is, and the way Sony is doing it is what they did in the late 90s early 2000s.

Point is, people prefer in order of preference:

* fast smaller and frequent update with LOTS OF FEATURES added
* fewer updates with LOTS OF FEATURES added
* fewer updates with LITTLE TO NO FEATURES added
* frquent updates with LITTLE TO NO FEATURES added

The point is, if you are going to interrupt me, it better damn well be worth my time!!!

If you can avoid interrupting me like the standby and instant on mode of Xbox One/PS4 it is best and all of these issues are minimized, but it d@mn well better work.

On the topic, I'm glad Sony is moving to an agile process. The effectiveness of it remains to be seen though, but at least they are making progress. Very happy about this, but I suspected this when I saw the public beta on the OS.

Good job Sony! Give credit where it is due!!! :D

@uth11:

"It's annoying that anytime you launch anything you don't use frequently it demands you wait to update before using it- stopping your work dead in its tracks! It also fixes some bugs while adding new ones, requiring yet another update soon after."

That is definitely not on the Xbox One! I don't use my PS4 enough to say though.

Either way, that is more an issue of the poor programmers not testing their code properly before release. System updates should have both unit testing and integration testing and would yield very few problems. Most of the time it is the integration test that misses and that part is handled by the beta.

My PS4 updates overnight.

There are more update related articles on N4G than actual firmware updates I've had to deal with.

Microsoft has changed the way they handle software development. They plan monthly updates on all of their software including Windows. That is why 10 is rumored to be the last release. From now on changes will be made gradually unless they are a security issue. It's also part of the reason to push for subscription based OSs.

I would be glad if they would get feedback from us to improve the service.

Why do people keep mischaracterizing the OS updates of last gen...

Yes people hated the PS3 updates... But not simply because they were frequent... They also interrupted gameplay sessions, removed features, bricked consoles, sometimes added nothing of use, and took forever. When you have all those issues AND happen frequently, it's annoying...

With the xb1 updates, it all happens in the background, and substantial features are added most of the time... It's completely different from what happened on ps3.
Stop comparing the response to these two completely different situations.

@Omeganex9999,

I REALLY hope you are joking about security updates not being "useful" for the gamer. These are necessary updates as opposed to the ones you appear to be talking about, which sound like extra bells and whistles updates.

Another thing, you don't have to turn your console on to update it; you can easily set up auto update so it does it overnight. I imagine most people with a PlayStation 3 knows this, especially those who are active on internet news sites and are "in the know".

DarXyde:

"I REALLY hope you are joking about security updates not being "useful" for the gamer. These are necessary updates as opposed to the ones you appear to be talking about, which sound like extra bells and whistles updates."

When was the last time you or ANYONE for that matter had a security breach on the PS3?

In fact, you cannot find one in the entire console history, because it has never happened.

The major breach that did affect console owners? PSN hack as it almost 80 million people!

In short the breach is far more likely to happen at the server level rather than on your puny console that houses game saves and stores nothing of value (that isn't already in public).

Donthate,

Wasn't talking to you, troll harder elsewhere. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, but the fact still stands that security updates are useful and I would rather they beef that up than give me features before having their house in order.

I don't care what's more likely. The fact still stands that it happened and Sony needed to improve security as a result. I'm glad they're constantly doing that. Cyber crimes are pretty serious and I'm glad that their effort is going into consumer protection.

@DarXyde:

"Wasn't talking to you, troll harder elsewhere."

Of course you weren't talking to me, because I am the voice of reason. How else are you going to pull the wool over people's eyes?

"the fact still stands that security updates are useful and I would rather they beef that up than give me features before having their house in order."

The problem is that there is no security update needed on the console.

What is needed is they fix got dang PSN so it doesn't go down when they need to maintain it like Xbox Live. They need to bring PSN into 2015, and not stay in the early 2000s.

"Cyber crimes are pretty serious and I'm glad that their effort is going into consumer protection."

What are they protecting your console from?

Let's face it, what Sony calls "stability & security" update are bug fixes.

"I don't care what's more likely."

Security is all about risk management as no system is unhackable unless it isn't connected to the world. The way you manage risk is you weigh it against the value of what you are protecting. Consoles stores nothing of value, and you can't really turn it into a DDOS zombie either so little protection is needed.

I am not against security update, but as you say, the house IS IN ORDER!

@donthate,

"course you weren't talking to me, because I am the voice of reason. How else are you going to pull the wool over people's eyes?

Nah, you're just trolling. A voice of reason calling themselves a voice of reason is as legitimate as someone who loves gossip telling you that your secrets are safe with them.

"The problem is that there is no security update needed on the console.

What is needed is they fix got dang PSN so it doesn't go down when they need to maintain it like Xbox Live. They need to bring PSN into 2015, and not stay in the early 2000s. "

Says who? **You**? Yeah, the network downtime is a bit of a hassle, but for all we know, updates are security and bug fixes related to network stability. It's unfortunate that it happens, but what isn't there to like about a more reliable, secure network?

"What are they protecting your console from?

Let's face it, what Sony calls "stability & security" update are bug fixes."

Future attacks? Contingencies to deal with attacks?

Let's face it, you don't work for Sony. What you say and what I say are purely speculative hunches. At the very least though, I can somewhat support my statement given Lizard Squad's mention that Xbox Live was much easier to take down than PSN. I'd say that's a testament to Sony's effort in increasing security against attacks.

"Security is all about risk management as no system is unhackable unless it isn't connected to the world. The way you manage risk is you weigh it against the value of what you are protecting. Consoles stores nothing of value, and you can't really turn it into a DDOS zombie either so little protection is needed. "

Never even remotely implied any system cannot be hacked. Nothing every constructed by man has been considered perfect, digital age included. Consoles can totally store information of value. Credit card information stored on servers is one thing, however phishing can be done through connected consoles, as indicated by receiving unusual PSN messages and opening them specifically on a console with credit card information attached to it.

Sony's security updates are important. For all we know, Sony has attempted to stress test/DDOS/hack their own network, found flaws, and continue to update their security measures.

Let's go with what you say for a moment: "no system isn't unhackable" if connected to the internet. So they should just rest on their laurels and say "this is good enough"? "Good enough" rarely ever is. People want to play online, but they want to be able to play knowing there's little risk of their information being stolen. We're paying to play online, but we're also paying to do it securely. If you want to talk about risk management and compromise, look at it this way: the network must periodically go down to ensure the network is secure.

And for what it's worth, PSN going down relative to Xbox Live is comparable to Xbox One sales relative to PS4. The problems with both Xbox One's sales and PSN are grossly exaggerated and only appear dire when compared to the better-received competition. PSN isn't really down that often at all and, if it is, it isn't down for too long.

I actually run Fedora 22 (Linux) on my PC's and have never been inconvenienced with an update in over 15 years.

Since Fedora is a developmental OS I get updates pretty much every day and in one week it is nothing unusual to get over 200 updates. I can automate the update process or manually (GUI or command line) do it which I prefer to do, although when I update I do it at my convenience and even when updating the process does not stop me from doing anything.

If I get a new kernel I know a reboot is necessary for it to take effect however I have full control as to when I do that even though it only takes about 90 seconds.

I don't have any issue with any console that gets regular updates although I do suggest that you manually update rather than automate the process. Set aside about 10 minutes a month or even a week to do an update check and if required check on the Internet that there are no issues and if none then update at your convenience.

@Sureshot

I have not touched IOS for years although at the time it did appear that it was designed to be "noob/old people friendly" and was IMHO embarrassed to be actually based on BSD Unix although if you knew were and how to look all the Unix commands were actually there.