Prevent automatic updates for good

[Unknown1]

Dear community,

how can I disable the automatic update ENTIRELY for specific games and/or globally?
I can only find suggestions like "stay offline", "keep copies of all games on your hard drive" etc. which renders Steam as a service obsolete. I hope that is not the case yet and we can enjoy Steam for many more years to come.

Motivation: I'm playing multiple games heavily modded and I *need* to decide when to update which myself. Plus, I want to start games (esp. single player) exactly when I want them to, having updates enforced to me at game start is *not* a valid option.
Automatic updates (such as for "The Witcher 3") can mess up games for my setup - games that I have paid money for. I find that neither remotely funny nor desirable.

I don't understand why this isn't a simple checkbox in the Steam update settings.

[Crazy Tiger]

You'll have to use the workarounds you found.

Originally posted by Unknown1:

I don't understand why this isn't a simple checkbox in the Steam update settings.

Because Valve doesn't want to offer it. It's their service and platform, they decide how it works.

[Unknown1]

Not what I was hoping to hear but the most obvious.

Does anyone know some means to give feedback to the Steam development/product team. Maybe people are complaining about this issue already and additional voices might help underlining the severity of poor decisions like this?

Otherwise, keeping the eyes open for a new distribution platform would be the only choice.

[Crazy Tiger]

People have been complaining about this for as long as Steam exists, so 19 years now. More threads won't do anything. Valve is known to be about "always up-to-date", it's a core principle of the company and the Steam platform.

Unless laws require changes, this won't change.

[The Nintendo Patent Lawsuit Fest]

You can set automatic updates to a time where you're definitely not awake and your PC off. I set it to between 5 and 6 AM.

[SVaughan]

Originally posted by Altefier:

You can set automatic updates to a time where you're definitely not awake and your PC off. I set it to between 5 and 6 AM.

Imagine not reading anything that the OP said.

[The Nintendo Patent Lawsuit Fest]

Originally posted by SVaughan:

Originally posted by Altefier:

You can set automatic updates to a time where you're definitely not awake and your PC off. I set it to between 5 and 6 AM.

Imagine not reading anything that the OP said.

I read everything. Imagine making this comment.

What exactly is your problem with my suggestion? It's impossible to disable automatic updates. We have established this. Setting them to a time where you know Steam or PC is not running is the closest you can get.

[SVaughan]

Originally posted by Altefier:

Originally posted by SVaughan:

Imagine not reading anything that the OP said.

I read everything. Imagine making this comment.

What exactly is your problem with my suggestion? It's impossible to disable automatic updates. We have established this. Setting them to a time where you know Steam or PC is not running is the closest you can get.

OP doesn't want the updates in general. So setting a time is counterproductive to the post.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

People have been asking for what you are asking for for years, but there have been far more voices against the idea of player choice, most people seem to like that Steam limits them and do not want there to be player choice at all, they want Valve to control them.

Have there been? Because just over the last two or three years it's always been only the same set of 4 or 5 people regurgitating the usual defeatist "it hasn't happened yet, so it'll never happen" or repeating the same old arguments such as "publishers are customers too."

Whereas the people raising this as an issue have continuously been new and other people; and those chiming in to show support for the suggestion have equally been new faces and regulars to the issue.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Unless laws require changes, this won't change.

Might still happen thanks to the EU Digital Content Directive.

Member states have to implement directive EU 2019/770 and its article 19 gives EU residents the legal right to terminate contract if an update hinders their ability to access or use purchased content compared to the situation before the update. The only out a trader gets from that, is if they allow users to continue to use their old version.

But we'd need more than a few good cases of a publisher massively screwing up an update and triggering EU residents to use that given legal right and force Valve (Steam being the trader in the transaction) to cough up the refunds, before they'll consider it a large enough financial risk that they'll change the policy and allow users to retain their old version.

[SVaughan]

Originally posted by RiO:

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

People have been asking for what you are asking for for years, but there have been far more voices against the idea of player choice, most people seem to like that Steam limits them and do not want there to be player choice at all, they want Valve to control them.

Have there been? Because just over the last two or three years it's always been only the same set of 4 or 5 people regurgitating the usual defeatist "it hasn't happened yet, so it'll never happen" or repeating the same old arguments such as "publishers are customers too."

Whereas the people raising this as an issue have continuously been new and other people; and those chiming in to show support for the suggestion have equally been new faces and regulars to the issue.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Unless laws require changes, this won't change.

Might still happen thanks to the EU Digital Content Directive.

Member states have to implement directive EU 2019/770 and its article 19 gives EU residents the legal right to terminate contract if an update hinders their ability to access or use purchased content compared to the situation before the update. The only out a trader gets from that, is if they allow users to continue to use their old version.

But we'd need more than a few good cases of a publisher massively screwing up an update and triggering EU residents to use that given legal right and force Valve (Steam being the trader in the transaction) to cough up the refunds, before they'll consider it a large enough financial risk that they'll change the policy.

Where does that Directive appear in US Law? Given Valve Co is a US based company.

[RiO]

Originally posted by SVaughan:

Where does that Directive appear in US Law? Given Valve Co is a US based company.

Doesn't matter for EU residents; because law states any transaction or contract with a consumer that is resident in a member state of the EU falls under the jurisdiction of that member state.
And if US companies don't like that, they simply can stop doing business in the EU. (And also refund all their existing customers in full, for unilaterally exiting from existing contracts without valid reason. Which is a mighty big deterrent for companies offering single lump sum contracts of indeterminate time.)

This is part of the Rome I and II treaties on international contract law, which the US afaik also accepted. So not only is it law in the EU, the US is bound to also enforce it on US companies from their side.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Steam is the second worse store for mod support in the industry, MS store being the worse. Along with the work arounds you have seen, also consider using any other PC gaming store that also sells third party games, because they all are better stores when it comes to running modded games.

People have been asking for what you are asking for for years, but there have been far more voices against the idea of player choice, most people seem to like that Steam limits them and do not want there to be player choice at all, they want Valve to control them.

Developers force updates unless they choose to use version choice via branches.

Image: https://ibb.co/9cvN7FP

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

CDPR as all developers can update a game without recourse to anyone.

The reply:

Originally posted by Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Yeah, they can update the game. That means they get to create and distribute updates.

That doesn't mean they get to force it onto people who don't want it.

And you know about version choice as you have been given examples before:

Motion Twin - Dead Cells - https://ibb.co/dW5HSXg

Paradox - Hearts of Iron IV - https://ibb.co/vwKwjyT

And finally you do not purchase a licence for a specific version but the latest or last version on the server. Anyone purchasing a licence for The Witcher 3 today will get the "next gen update" version.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by RiO:

Might still happen thanks to the EU Digital Content Directive.

Member states have to implement directive EU 2019/770 and its article 19 gives EU residents the legal right to terminate contract if an update hinders their ability to access or use purchased content compared to the situation before the update. The only out a trader gets from that, is if they allow users to continue to use their old version.

But we'd need more than a few good cases of a publisher massively screwing up an update and triggering EU residents to use that given legal right and force Valve (Steam being the trader in the transaction) to cough up the refunds, before they'll consider it a large enough financial risk that they'll change the policy and allow users to retain their old version.

Expect you missed this is about "3rd party mods" as quoted below and 3rd party mods are NOT part of "official" developer updates.

Originally posted by Unknown1:

Motivation: I'm playing multiple games heavily modded and I *need* to decide when to update which myself. Plus, I want to start games (esp. single player) exactly when I want them to, having updates enforced to me at game start is *not* a valid option.
Automatic updates (such as for "The Witcher 3") can mess up games for my setup - games that I have paid money for. I find that neither remotely funny nor desirable.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Expect you missed this is about "3rd party mods" as quoted below and 3rd party mods are NOT part of "official" developer updates.

Originally posted by Unknown1:

Motivation: I'm playing multiple games heavily modded and I *need* to decide when to update which myself. Plus, I want to start games (esp. single player) exactly when I want them to, having updates enforced to me at game start is *not* a valid option.
Automatic updates (such as for "The Witcher 3") can mess up games for my setup - games that I have paid money for. I find that neither remotely funny nor desirable.

Indeed, it would not apply for unsanctioned third-party mods.

However, in case of a supported modding system e.g. workshop mods or other forms of sanctioned mods, if you read the fine print of the agreement, those actually say the modder gives the publisher permission to redistribute their work. And what end-users are downloading is then actually additional content for the game as offered by the publisher. I.e. there the legislation flowing from the directive would apply.

Actually; it would even apply if you would download a mod from other sources in the latter case. It then does constitute hindering use of the content, by way of the update breaking modded games and modding being an officially supported feature.


All that said; the modding discussion is a nice segue, but not core to the argument that there is a real chance Valve might start offering downloading historic versions or might offer a rollback as a general feature for the platform, and a precautionary mitigation from their side for the potential problem of being faced with waves of refunds when publishers provide broken updates.

We've seen something not quite unlike this happening with their refund program, wrt the EU right of withdrawal. Nothing required them to offer that as a general feature to everyone on the platform. But they still did. Because it's just easier that way. (And prevents other customers getting ticked off over being treated as second-tier on the platform.)

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by RiO:

Indeed, it would not apply for unsanctioned third-party mods.

However, in case of a supported modding system e.g. workshop mods or other forms of sanctioned mods, if you read the fine print of the agreement, those actually say the modder gives the publisher permission to redistribute their work. And what end-users are downloading is then actually additional content for the game as offered by the publisher. I.e. there the legislation flowing from the directive would apply.

Actually; it would even apply if you would download a mod from other sources in the latter case. It then does constitute hindering use of the content, by way of the update breaking modded games and modding being an officially supported feature.


All that said; the modding discussion is a nice segue, but not core to the argument that there is a real chance Valve might start offering downloading historic versions or might offer a rollback as a general feature for the platform, and a precautionary mitigation from their side for the potential problem of being faced with waves of refunds when publishers provide broken updates.

We've seen something not quite unlike this happening with their refund program, wrt the EU right of withdrawal. Nothing required them to offer that as a general feature to everyone on the platform. But they still did. Because it's just easier that way. (And prevents other customers getting ticked off over being treated as second-tier on the platform.)

Incorrect as mods are "unsanctioned" unless created or authorised by the developer after all mods on the workshop, Nexus, etc are overall "3rd party created user mods", and modders are known to break things or take shortcuts to make their mod work.

More importantly "an update broke my game" has to be proven and when others are playing said game it is obviously "not" broken as in dead but instead the mod is not compatible with the game version.

As for "hindering the content" it is "unofficial content" added by the end user as in not guaranteed to function after all the mod may be outdated.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Originally posted by RiO:

Indeed, it would not apply for unsanctioned third-party mods.

However, in case of a supported modding system e.g. workshop mods or other forms of sanctioned mods, if you read the fine print of the agreement, those actually say the modder gives the publisher permission to redistribute their work. And what end-users are downloading is then actually additional content for the game as offered by the publisher. I.e. there the legislation flowing from the directive would apply.

Actually; it would even apply if you would download a mod from other sources in the latter case. It then does constitute hindering use of the content, by way of the update breaking modded games and modding being an officially supported feature.


All that said; the modding discussion is a nice segue, but not core to the argument that there is a real chance Valve might start offering downloading historic versions or might offer a rollback as a general feature for the platform, and a precautionary mitigation from their side for the potential problem of being faced with waves of refunds when publishers provide broken updates.

We've seen something not quite unlike this happening with their refund program, wrt the EU right of withdrawal. Nothing required them to offer that as a general feature to everyone on the platform. But they still did. Because it's just easier that way. (And prevents other customers getting ticked off over being treated as second-tier on the platform.)

Incorrect as mods are "unsanctioned" unless created or authorised by the developer after all mods on the workshop, Nexus, etc are overall "3rd party created user mods".

More importantly "an update broke my game" has to be proven and when others are playing said game it is obviously "not" broken as in dead but instead the mod is not compatible with the game version.

As for "hindering the content" it is "unofficial content" added by the end user as in not guaranteed to function after all the mod may be outdated but as always you cannot cite any cases.

You don't need mods for an update to break a game, though.