Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If you don't want to and it's single player game, just play offline. If it's a multiplayer game, sorry, you're gonna have to update.
Valve doesn't force Developers to do something they might not want to do. The developers have access to utilize branches, if they so choose so.
The developers have the option to enable version choice via branches which stops auto updating and lets you choose the version BUT it is their choice whether to enable it. Valve will not override developers decisions over products the developer owns.
- See if there are beta branches.
There is no actual setting to not update. And considering how Valve considers "always up to date" to be vital (they originally build Steam as an auto-updater) you shouldn't expect a change in that anytime soon.
There are things you can try on your own, though:
* Set the game to update only when launched, and then run the game without Steam running.
* Set the game to update only when launched, and then play the game in Steam's Offline Mode. (I've heard this might not work.)
* Set the game to update only when launched, back up your existing game install on your own, and after an update has been applied, swap your backup back in.
* Make Steam think the game is updated, by editing the appmanifest files for example (or editing their permissions). You can find guides on how appmanifest files work.
* Download old versions of games from Steam. (I've heard this might not work anymore.)
* Buy games from sources that don't force updates, preferably DRM-free stores (which generally provide a standalone installer).
Compatibility with older hardware, modded game, features removed from newer versions, etc.
This fallacious information again, really?
Letting people turn off updates isn't forcing game developers to do anything.
Meanwhile, you keep telling people to waste game devs' time (on a dev by dev basis; think about the labor hours!) for something Valve can implement far more efficiently, and to put themselves at the mercy of waiting indefinitely for individual devs to do that.
And FYI to the OP: branch versions don't directly make updates optional either. They're just workarounds to the fact that Steam forces updates.
First, your writing is (as usual) semi-incomprehensible.
Second, why do you keep confusing individual users having the option to not update their games with developers not releasing updates at all? Because this is not the first, nor the second, nor even the third time you've done this.
Third, why do you insistently ignore the nature of an option? -- one where different people can make different decisions based on their own needs. We have the technology to allow things that benefit the many but hurt the few to be opted out of by the few; Steam just needs to implement such a feature.
There's nothing on the developer's side to "override". Developers would get to release updates just fine.
Thank you. You’re exactly right on the reasoning, I’d rather not have to go through the process of fixing my game again with a bunch of mods because of some steam update and I’ll try the solutions you listed in the future
Steam prevents playing games in offline mode if there is an update pending, it's tied to Steam's DRM Like usual, DRM is being anti-consumer. But If the game is DRM free on Steam, then the game can be played without Steam even running, just run the game's executable in the game install folder.
There are several reasons why someone would not want to update right away:
- They have a data cap and cannot afford the data until the next month. So they will want to skip the update until next month, but until then they still want to play their game.
- They have really slow internet, and they want to play and leave the updating at night when they are not on the computer. So they want to play the game now, and have it update later.
- They found out that the newest patch actually breaks something in the game, and they want to wait for the next patch to update instead of using the newest update that broke something, and they want to be able to play the game while they wait for the next update, without getting the current update.
- They like to mod their games, and they want to wait for the mods to be updated to the newest version before they update the game, and still be able to play it while they wait.
Nobody has to force any developer to do anything with a simple option on client side to simply not update. Doesn't effect the developers at all, doesn't effect their ability to create updates, nor effect their ability to upload those updates to Steam.
People shouldn't complain when they know Steam is an always-update platform. It's like purchasing RUST and demanding the Dev stop updating monthly or else its "anti consumer" when they believe in monthly content updates, and weekly/bi-weekly skins.
As for the rest of it; we went over that already, in immense detail in the other threads which I'm fairly certain you posted in at least one of them. Things that aren't Steams fault or are out of Steams control for one or a few users doesn't mean Steam should be forced into doing something on behalf of the Developers. They're the store, the Dev chooses what version(s) are out, it's realistically that simple. Anyone else seems to be under the impression forcing a bigger company to step on smaller companies/entities/people, which is not how you ask for or resolve issues that affect a small minority of people.
There's other competition/services, if you truly want the option to just not update period, without offline mode or questionable methods.
So criticisms on things that people know well aren't legitimate? Then what criticisms are legitimate?
Also, you're completely misunderstanding what's going on when you say "it's like demanding the dev stop updating" -- because the point is that with such an option the dev can keep updating just fine while an individual player can choose whether to get the update then or get it later and keep playing their existing install in the meantime.
The point is to get out of game devs' hair -- not get into it, which is what you keep suggesting, given how you keep telling people to ask devs to make beta branches.
It is very much under Valve's control whether Steam lets players access the Play button when an update is pending.
Yeah, the game dev chooses what versions are distributed by the Steam platform.
That's very different from forcing updates onto people with already-installed version on their local machines.
And you seem to be under the impression that a player-side option to keep playing even when updates are available involves forcing game devs to do something when in reality it does nothing to force game devs in any way.
Unlike what you suggest, which is to tell people to bother game devs.
DRM is very much anti-consumer, there is no arguing against that, it is factually anti-consumer in every single way.... period. Steam using it's DRM to prevent you from playing a game that you bought is very much anti-consumer, again, there is no arguing against that, it is anti-consumer... period.
Most games are only on Steam, so our choices as customers are often limited to one store only. That means we have to deal with the failings of Steam, but that is why Steam forums also exist to make suggestion for improvements to Steam. And it would be a big improvement, and good for consumers, for consumers to have a choice about updates, a choice that would not effect anybody else at all in any shape or form.
There is no reason for Valve to force updates, it's unneeded, they have no good reason to not have the option to not update a game, which again would not effect anybody else at all if such an option existed.
Valve can control this though, they can control how a user can interact with Steam and can control the users ability to play a game, in which Valve has chosen to use DRM against the users by forcing updates or else they are not allowed to play, and Valve can control that 100%, Valve has the capability to do the right thing for consumers by not holding their DRM in such a way over the games that is preventing people from playing their games they bought.