Double Agent 360 patched

Newest Splinter Cell game for Xbox 360 gets auto-update patch; lag and connection issues in multiplayer reportedly resolved.

When something needs to get "fixed" in the Splinter Cell universe, special agent Sam Fisher is sent in to take care of things. Ubisoft developers have done their best Sam Fisher impression and released an auto-update for Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent for the Xbox 360.

The patch addresses several issues found in the multiplayer portion of the game, most notably connection and lag issues. Rampant disconnections in the lobby should be a thing of the past, along with much of the in-game freezing, says Ubisoft. For the full patch notes, head over to the Splinter Cell Web site.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Did you enjoy this article?

Sign In to Upvote

91 comments
Sharvie
Sharvie

Excellent i've been waiting for this.

trystkl1826
trystkl1826

I have experienced freezing in the sigle player mode also.

MR-Q
MR-Q

ahhhhhhh !!!

MR-Q
MR-Q

ahhhhhhh !!!

kriptonzz
kriptonzz

Just in time :D I picked it up today.

GrimBee
GrimBee

Could be worse... you could of paid $600 for it...

bjornmmcc
bjornmmcc

So now what excuse are they gonna use for releasing beta products to the consumer? Now that the "everybody's sysyem is different" excuse can't be used anymore. What? Did they test it on a 360 that was different from everyone elses? Of course not. So they knew it was bugged at release. This is a premeditated act wherein they knew they were selling a broken product. It wouldn't bother me at all to see Ubisoft sued over this kind of BS.

Benny_is_here
Benny_is_here

the_real_VIP: "I think you guys do not realize that a patch actually takes some space in a XBOX 360 or PS3 HDD. A good final PC patch goes up to 100-200MB for one game. 10 games with 100MB patch for each game or 5 games with 200MB patch for each game take up 1GB in your HDD. Think how would it be for a console. I don't know about you but when I buy a good game, I keep it even after I finished it and I have about 100-150 console games." This is not the case. Downloading a patch to the 360 takes like 10 seconds. Downloading a 5 MB theme takes longer than that! I'm only guessing here, but I think PC patches are bigger because they replace a lot more data or something. I dunno... Anyway, back to the thing with patches. This is getting old, but I guess we can keep discussing :P My point of view is that PCs and every console connected to the internet has patches for a simple reason. Because they CAN. It's not like you couldn't play any game on platforms not connected to the internet, but you have to admit to seeing a fair share of bugs. Whether it's enemies breakdancing because the physics got messed up, or whatever. Testing a game is not easy. Working out all the bugs takes time, and can usually only be spotted by fooling around, which customers are bound to do :P Working out the singleplayer is one thing, but online multiplayer is another. It takes a lot of skill and time to make it work perfectly for users all over the world. The testers may not have spotted the worst bugs simply because they had the wrong broadband speed! If you ask me, patches are a way for testers to finish their job, instead of not finishing it like they would otherwise. Let's face it, most bugs are in the online portion, and it's good that what's broken can be fixed. The whole deal with the devs releasing an unfinished product is nothing but paranoia on gamers side. We are allowed to expect a lot from a game we just bought for a large price, but don't expect miracles! Conclusion: Online Multiplayer is hard to get right, and patches are your best friend!

theKSMM
theKSMM

Game coding has never been especially simple, and as we scream for the latest features to squeeze every last drop of performance out of our supercomputer-like consoles, it only get more and more complex. All those fancy graphics and artificial intelligence have to be written by somebody who's not perfect. And now that we require every game to have online multiplayer (two games in one as far as a programmer is concerned) it's only going to get worse. If the game is too buggy to play and enjoy most of it's features, it shouldn't be released. If it just has a few loose ends that need tightening, then a patch is a fair way to do it.

Roosnurm
Roosnurm

Everybody tag this as "this is like so lame".

cravygravy
cravygravy

& GAMESPOT THX TO U TOO. I COULDNT SLEEP FOR 8 WEEKS SINCED ITS RELEASE BECAUSE THIS UPDATE HAD NOT HAPPENED YET.

cravygravy
cravygravy

THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE DECADE IF NOT OUR LIFETIME. THANKS UBISOFT.

Goldeneyemaster
Goldeneyemaster

Wow, took them long enough. I have been waiting for a patch for twomonths

makemeweak
makemeweak

I didn't even know it needed a patch...

virtuetek
virtuetek

The Internet created a "catch 22": It allows us to download content and patches for our games which was never available in the past. However, it also gives the developers more room to release an unfinished product because they can always patch it later. I think this game was pretty bug free. I happened to love the single player.

starcher5150
starcher5150

I have no problem with a company patching their games. Some problems with multiplayer cannot be detected until the game is released. How can they possibly test 300,000 people logging into their server to play matchmaking before the game is released? Now if the patch is for single player portions of the game then there might be a problem.

keldog
keldog

For $60, I want the devs to deliver a finished product. I see people defend them by saying it cost a lot to test. Well these are companies that are in it for profit. With that comes costs. The game is already tested and the problems that many of these games launch with are obvious. How long did it take you to figure out that there was blarring connection issues? Don't you think that any one of the devs spent that much time playing the game themselves before it was gold? They don't just code and then hope it works. The biggest problem is trying to make certain release dates. If a game isn't ready, keep working.

WillT12345
WillT12345

I don't mind them trying to save a little money and using us as play testers in a way. But they just took to long to patch the game, I and probibly others lost interest. To me a game company should take more than 3 weeks to get out there first patch, that would at least fix the first set of issues. I at least recognize that the amount of hours and money it costs to play test every little nook and cranny of a game is a lot and it may be more worth it to do the best job you can, release the game, and then watch the forums and quickly get a patch out within a couple weeks. Basicly, there is a middle ground but they just took to long.

SugarDaddie
SugarDaddie

too little too late. people are sick of it now

Cloud737
Cloud737

Great, but it would have been even better if the game didn`t need patching at all.

-HCMF-
-HCMF-

You know I almost for got about this game, between GOW, COD3 and RB6.... I need a vacation just to get all cought up...

colonel_beeb
colonel_beeb

The problem with patching is that it gives companies an excuse to release an unfinished game and then start working on a patch. So anyone who is excited enough about the game to buy it on day one ends up getting a poorer experience than someone who buys it on say, day 90. Its a bit of an insult to loyal fans of the series. The other reason is that ofcourse some games in the last gen could have done with patching but more often than not the game itself had very few flaws. Now adays their seem to be far more flaws and this is most likely down to lazy developers. Its all too easy to forget how long these guys work on games for and like most people after a long amount of time spent on one job they will cut corners. I dont disagree with patching, its great when something goes wrong with a game. The only thing i disagree with is the number of bugs and problems we are seeing that should have been delt with before it was released.

the_real_VIP
the_real_VIP

I think you guys do not realize that a patch actually takes some space in a XBOX 360 or PS3 HDD. A good final PC patch goes up to 100-200MB for one game. 10 games with 100MB patch for each game or 5 games with 200MB patch for each game take up 1GB in your HDD. Think how would it be for a console. I don't know about you but when I buy a good game, I keep it even after I finished it and I have about 100-150 console games.

StevenJWeir
StevenJWeir

Yeah exactly, its not a case of 'Since When did console games ever require patching?' its a case of now they have such an easy way of doing it automatically. Zelda Ocarina of time had 3 versions of it released back in the day, revised carts. Other games have had different versions released, fine tuning a game or finding bugs that can't possibly be found during normal testing conditions, this is not uncommon. But now they can fix things and patch them. This is better, because if people find horrible bugs, they can be fixed without a recall. Anyone remember WWF No Mercy on N64? The stupid bug that deleted every single saved bit of information. They had to recall the entire batch.

Emsley
Emsley

MANY GAMES OF OLD COULD HAVE DONE WITH PATCHING BUT WERE UNABLE TO. WHAT IS PEOPLES PROBLEM WITH PATCHING? iF SUMTHINGS BROKE NOW IT CAN BE FIXED

Romanticide
Romanticide

since when did console games ever require patching...? devs these days are getting lazier. patching is what sucked about PC gaming, its gonna make console gaming suck as well. It's becuase console games couldnt be patched before, now they can be. PC games didnt needthe patch, they just fine tune the game (unless it's a buggy piece of crap). Talking of buggy pieces of crap, when is double agent going to be patched on PC? They really messedup bad on this end.

jellomeister24
jellomeister24

since when did console games ever require patching...? devs these days are getting lazier. patching is what sucked about PC gaming, its gonna make console gaming suck as well.

tomyte05
tomyte05

i want that not a multiplayer fixes but game fixes like technical progress in the solo

GFofgaming
GFofgaming

I would have wanted the tearing effect to be fixed.

rsbrage
rsbrage

hmmm....... well better to fix a problem with a patch then not able to fix it at all.

axes03
axes03

lord-azrael, its called the internet, if u solve one problem another pops up, DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lord-azrael
lord-azrael

Is it just me or is it pointless to buy a game at launch anymore?Youre basically paying for a beta when it should be them paying you,making us pay to playtest games for them is a insult,when will we see a next gen game that doesnt need patching,same with PC as well

Havak123
Havak123

Bah, too bad I am done with this game already!

axes03
axes03

too bad everyones playing gears

NinjaFoot
NinjaFoot

Though it should not have had these problems at launch, and the 'ship now patch later' mentality is a scourge of the industry, at least they fixed the big problems. At least it sounds like they did.