How do i have a particular game on steam not update at all?

[⎛⎝Duckers McQuack⎠⎞]

It only allows me to set games to update normally, only when i start it, or above all others. But say with skyrim, i rather not update it at all as i see no point in the new update for myself anyways and rather stick to the old update, but steamhas no way to have the game outdated.

As the update only adds useless ♥♥♥♥ i don't want and no actual meaningful updates to fix broken bugs from 10 years ago.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Quint the Alligator Snapper:

But let us consider that old reviews of games that may have outdated information continue to exist as-is on Steam anyway.

The difference is you know the date the review was posted but not the version whoever is saying 'the game is crap and full of bugs' is running.

But you also have timestamps on every message where people are saying "the game is crap and full of bugs".

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this in response to Tito's mention of Windows.

Guess who's making the decision of offering or not that option.
Just like in Steam, the developer does.

Yeah, it's the developer of the delivery mechanism. In Windows's case, it's Microsoft. In Steam's case, it's Valve.

[Tito Shivan]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

The difference is you know the date the review was posted but not the version whoever is saying 'the game is crap and full of bugs' is running.

But you also have timestamps on every message where people are saying "the game is crap and full of bugs".

Timestamps on a forum post still don't tell me which build the user was playing. At most which updates were available at that day. A post made today could be posted by someone running the release build if updates weren't enforced.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Guess who's making the decision of offering or not that option.
Just like in Steam, the developer does.

Yeah, it's the developer of the delivery mechanism. In Windows's case, it's Microsoft. In Steam's case, it's Valve. [/quote]
So both enforce updates and allow the option to stay in a previous build if the developer allows for it.
Microsoft allowing you to rollback updates is no different from Valve allowing for previous builds of Valve games in Steam.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Quint the Alligator Snapper:

But you also have timestamps on every message where people are saying "the game is crap and full of bugs".

Timestamps on a forum post still don't tell me which build the user was playing. At most which updates were available at that day. A post made today could be posted by someone running the release build if updates weren't enforced.

Except updates aren't actually enforced on Steam. Steam doesn't verify files before every launch. It merely inconveniences people who want to stay on an older version.

And this is in addition to the fact that players already frequently report bugs that are due to settings or other factors specific to their local machine. The notion that updates are enforced in order to protect the reputation of the game dev or publisher really doesn't match up with how things actually work.

Besides, like I said earlier, games that actually require version compatibility have other mechanisms they use. Steam's forcing updates is not something that such games can rely on as "enforcement".

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Guess who's making the decision of offering or not that option.
Just like in Steam, the developer does.

Yeah, it's the developer of the delivery mechanism. In Windows's case, it's Microsoft. In Steam's case, it's Valve.

So both enforce updates and allow the option to stay in a previous build if the developer allows for it.
Microsoft allowing you to rollback updates is no different from Valve allowing for previous builds of Valve games in Steam. [/quote]I've already mentioned how an operating system is different from a game. Note that, even if I neglect the difference between an operating system and a launcher client, Windows is in the role of the platform, rather than the software, making it analogous to Steam itself, not any game on Steam.

Furthermore, Microsoft may force updates for its operating system, but that doesn't mean operating systems need updates to be forced. A variety of Linux distros don't force updates. The fact that Microsoft forces Windows updates doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. And for that matter, nor does it mean there are no ways to circumvent its forcing either.

The most important point though is to note who is in charge of the delivery mechanism. In Windows's case, it just so happens that the developer of the OS is also the developer of the delivery mechanism. For Steam games, it generally is not, and the control lies with the entity managing the delivery mechanism -- Valve.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

It's a customer problem when you have people running around talking about half a dozen different versions of the game and having issues for the sake of staying in a specific build.

It's not good feedback to have people running around telling your game is crap, or making streams showing bugs and glitches because they kept running a build with errors patched in following updates.

This is a super easy solvable issue. What Valve can do is when a game is ran that is not updated yet, have a notification come up to inform the user there is an update available, and then have 2 choices, Update the Game or Launch Anyways. This is how Meta does it with the Quest, and users are always aware there is an update available every single time they launch the game and it has an update available. User ends up having a bug? Well they are very much aware there is an update available.

Yep. Players ought to be well aware that there is an update available. It just shouldn't be forced onto them.

[Paratech2008]

If players don't update and the games in question are multiplayer or online games how is that supposed to work?

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

People really need to stop putting CPDR on a pedestal. Some games do not have version choice and it is down to the developer to participate as it is on Steam.

Of the 29 games i currently have installed on GOG Galaxy only 9 have version choice.

Of the 20 games without version choice 3 of those games are CDPR's own games.

That is because Rollback feature has only existed since GOG Galaxy existed, which is may 2015. The 3 CDPR games you are talking about that do not have version choice are going to be any 3 of these:

- Witcher 1
- Witcher 2
- GWENT
- Witcher adventure

Technically Version roll back always existed since before GoG Galaxy you had to manually apply the updates... unless the dev/pub updated their installer.

Only games released after GOG Galaxy did and had updates, or games that had patches release after GOG Galaxy released have version roll back, since Version rollback is a GOG Galaxy Feature, a feature that did not exist before GOG Galaxy did.

As said. It kinda did.
It was just a bit more cumbersome. YOu'd have to basically uninstall, the game, reinstall it from the base installer and just not apply the update.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Paratech2008:

If players don't update and the games in question are multiplayer or online games how is that supposed to work?

Those games naturally need updating for version compatibility. Steam doesn't even need to force people to update those because those games force themselves to be updated.

But for single-player games, ones that can be enjoyed offline, an option to decline updates makes sense.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

This really proves that even developers will keep to the default function of a store and won't do any extra work outside of what is actually needed, so it comes at no surprise that developers on Steam just go with the default function of forced updates and won't go out of their way to do something that it outside of that default function. This is why I do not believe a for single second that any developers actually care if there is a way to roll back or not or if there is a way to not update or not, they simply go with what ever the default function is, so I do not believe any developer is choosing to not have a beta branch, rather they are just human and do what humans typically do which is stay at default options.

This.

This is the power of defaults.

Like I mentioned a bunch of times, game devs are busy people; they just use whatever's the most convenient thing. Steam's update system doesn't allow for updates to be declined, so updates are forced. This isn't because game devs necessarily want to force updates -- as has been pointed out many times, they can circumvent Steam's forcing updates by putting up beta branches -- but just because it takes more work to do something like that, compared to just using the default feature set on Steam, which is just one trunk branch that simply forces updates.

Similarly, a option to decline updates ought to default to accepting them. People generally want their games to be updated, as I've pointed out before. It makes sense to make the default behavior match what Steam already does in this regard, providing a great convenience to people. But for people who don't want their games to be updated, an option in this regard allows their needs to be served as well. Thus, an option creates a win-win situation.

[Nx Machina]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

That is because Rollback feature has only existed since GOG Galaxy existed, which is may 2015. The 3 CDPR games you are talking about that do not have version choice are going to be any 3 of these:

- Witcher 1
- Witcher 2
- GWENT
- Witcher adventure

Witcher 1 and 2 released before 2015 and no longer had any updates after 2015.
GWENT is an online game, so it makes sense there is no version choice for that, and witcher adventure game released in 2014 and I believe it got no new updates since before GOG Galaxy released.

For the other 17 games you are talking about, those will also be games that released before 2015 and had no updates on or before 2015, or are games that released after 2015 but had no updates at all which is common for old games that come to GOG long after they released.

Only games released after GOG Galaxy did and had updates, or games that had patches release after GOG Galaxy released have version roll back, since Version rollback is a GOG Galaxy Feature, a feature that did not exist before GOG Galaxy did.

Incorrect:

Pre-GOG Galaxy you used the "Good Old Games downloader" (discontinued) and would download the game and patches.

Witcher 1, Witcher 2 had patches and yet CDPR removed those patches on GOG Galaxy and removed choice. Secondly they also removed every patch for Witcher 3 leaving only 1 patch on GOG Galaxy.


Secondly you missed the point entirely and ignored it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

People really need to stop putting CPDR on a pedestal. Some games do not have version choice and it is down to the developer to participate as it is on Steam.

NOT all games on GOG Galaxy have version choice. It is the developer who decides if they make version choice available as it is on Steam and yet people claim Valve dictates to developers while ignoring version choice is available on Steam.

Do you and others assume CDPR dictates to developers that they can only release on the GOG Galaxy platform if they use version choice while they hypocritically remove choice from their own games (Witcher).


And finally even CDPR has mandatory updates:

https://regulations.cdprojektred.com/en/user_agreement

6. PATCHES, UPDATES AND CHANGES

6.1 Occasionally we may need to patch or update CD PROJEKT RED games and services (for example to add or remove features,to resolve software bugs or to balance our games). This may result in mandatory and/or automatic updates and older, non-updated versions may become unusable over time. We need these rights in order to keep our games and services running efficiently.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Incorrect:

Pre-GOG Galaxy you used the "Good Old Games downloader" (discontinued) and would download the game and patches.

Witcher 1, Witcher 2 had patches and yet CDPR removed those patches on GOG Galaxy and removed choice. Secondly they also removed every patch for Witcher 3 leaving only 1 patch on GOG Galaxy.

Incorrect:

First, the GOG Downloader wasn't the only way to get GOG games before Galaxy. There was also the simple arrangement of downloading a standalone installer.

Second, CDPR never forced people to update their Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 games, especially not by gating people out of accessing their games until updates were applied -- which is what Steam is doing.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

NOT all games on GOG Galaxy have version choice. It is the developer who decides if they make version choice available as it is on Steam and yet people claim Valve dictates to developers while ignoring version choice is available on Steam.

Actually, games on GOG don't force updates.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Do you and others assume CDPR dictates to developers that they can only release on the GOG Galaxy platform if they use version choice while they hypocritically remove choice from their own games (Witcher).

To use your own words...you missed the point entirely and ignored it.

And who cares about hypocrisy.

...well, apparently you do, I guess.

[Nx Machina]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Nothing I said is incorrect. Not even sure why you are even talking about GOG Downloader, unless you are trying to imply it had version roll back feature, which it did not have version roll back feature.

Did i talk about version rollback? No i did not, i specifically used the word PATCHES.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Witcher 1 and 2 never had version roll back on GOG Galaxy, no game that released before GOG Galaxy and had no patches after GOG Galaxy got version roll back. You are also wrong about GOG Galaxy not having version roll back for Witcher 3:

Again Witcher 1 and 2 had PATCHES on GOG Galaxy which CDPR removed. You can only download the last ever version of each game, in other words CDPR removed version choice for players.

CDPR also forced everyone who used the program onto version 2.0 of GOG Galaxy.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

GOTY edition only had 3 patches after release:

Witcher 3 non GOTY, which has the previous 4 updates available:

They did BUT only one PATCH is available on GOG Galaxy 131 to 1.32 where previously all patches were available.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Correct, any game that has not had an update since the release of GOG Galaxy do not have version roll back. Version roll back only exists for games that had updates since the creation of version rollback.

Again we are not talking about version rollback we are talking about people putting CDPR upon a pedestal that Valve should aspire to yet numerous games on GOG Galaxy do not allow you to download specific versions nor rollback versions which is something the developers can enable.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Most likely the developers are not deciding anything, they simply stick to the default settings like what most humans do automatically without any thought going into it. Steam's default setting is forced updates.

The developers are deciding, it is their product or are you assuming Valve brainwashed them.

You should tell the developers to stop creating updates, uploading them to Steam and instructing Steam (a program) to patch your games.

Are you going to ignore Dead Cells and Hearts of Iron IV which i linked have version choice enabled by those developers and ignore those other developers who do not enable version choice because do not want to give you choice.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

CDPR doesn't dictate anything like that, they simply created a rollback system that defaults to all games that had an update since the release of the Roll back feature would have up to the previous 4 updates available, and that is the default. Developers have to go out of their way to opt out of such default, which I haven't seen nor heard of any developer opting out of it at all.

And Valve do not dictate to developers on Steam - version choice is available on Steam.

I know i have played all versions of Dead Cells because the developer enable it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Makes sense for them to have such a stipulation given they have the game GWENT on GOG, which is an online game, and updates are required for the online game, so it makes sense for them to have mandatory updates and force the update. And if they are going to allow other similar games to their store they would need that stipulation there. But here is the thing, they don't apply that to single player games.

Does it state anywhere it is for GWENT only? No, it is applicable to all CDPR games.

https://regulations.cdprojektred.com/en/user_agreement

6. PATCHES, UPDATES AND CHANGES

6.1 Occasionally we may need to patch or update CD PROJEKT RED >>"games"<< and services (for example to add or remove features,to resolve software bugs or to balance our >>"games<<"). This may result in MANDATORY and/or AUTOMATIC PATCHES and older, non-updated versions may become unusable over time. We need these rights in order to keep our >>"games"<< and services running efficiently.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Nothing I said is incorrect. Not even sure why you are even talking about GOG Downloader, unless you are trying to imply it had version roll back feature, which it did not have version roll back feature.

Did i talk about version rollback? No i did not, i specifically used the word PATCHES.

And OP is talking about whether the player is being compelled to update the game in order to play it. And the player is not compelled to update games on GOG.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Witcher 1 and 2 never had version roll back on GOG Galaxy, no game that released before GOG Galaxy and had no patches after GOG Galaxy got version roll back. You are also wrong about GOG Galaxy not having version roll back for Witcher 3:

Again Witcher 1 and 2 had PATCHES on GOG Galaxy which CDPR removed. You can only download the last ever version of each game, in other words CDPR removed version choice for players.

CDPR did not force people to update Witcher 1 or Witcher 2.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

CDPR also forced everyone who used the program onto version 2.0 of GOG Galaxy.

That's not a game.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Again we are not talking about version rollback we are talking about people putting CDPR upon a pedestal that Valve should aspire to yet numerous games on GOG Galaxy do not allow you to download specific versions nor rollback versions which is something the developers can enable.

No, you are talking about "people putting CDPR upon a pedestal" and arguing against a strawman while missing the point of the thread, which is to be able to play a game without being forced to update it.

GOG Galaxy doesn't force people to update their games. (With the possible exception of Gwent, which I haven't played and which is an online game.)

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Most likely the developers are not deciding anything, they simply stick to the default settings like what most humans do automatically without any thought going into it. Steam's default setting is forced updates.

The developers are deciding, it is their product or are you assuming Valve brainwashed them.

You should tell the developers to stop creating updates, uploading them to Steam and instructing Steam (a program) to patch your games.

The developers don't decide how Steam works.

The game developers aren't the ones forcing the updates. The game developers are the ones making the updates and releasing them.

Steam is not a pure expression of the will of the game developers. You seem to think this for some reason, but that's not how Steam works. Steam is designed to work in certain ways and game developers have no choice as to how that works. They can only circumvent it by...

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Are you going to ignore Dead Cells and Hearts of Iron IV which i linked have version choice enabled by those developers and ignore those other developers who do not enable version choice because do not want to give you choice.

...putting things into beta branches, which doesn't directly make updates to the trunk branch optional, but just enables a workaround to let people play another branch without being forced to update.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Does it state anywhere it is for GWENT only? No, it is applicable to all CDPR games.

Yet for some reason they don't force updates on their games.

[Tito Shivan]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

People really need to stop putting CPDR on a pedestal

It's just a matter of time actually. Happens with every business and corporation. Eventually the honeymoon phase runs out and people face the ultimate truth:Business are gonna business.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

People really need to stop putting CPDR on a pedestal

It's just a matter of time actually. Happens with every business and corporation. Eventually the honeymoon phase runs out and people face the ultimate truth:Business are gonna business.

That's a truth about general trends, but it's not putting CDPR on a pedestal to note that it offers better service in a certain respect.

If you pay attention to what Nx Machina has been saying, he's doing things like moving the goalposts to talk about whether GOG offers version rollbacks, when the thread is actually about simply not updating an existing game install, and then trying to make CDPR look bad by pointing out its hypocrisy. This makes sense if the argument he's responding to is one of pedestalizing CDPR, except it's not. (Well, it seems he thinks it is, which is why he's responding to this idea.) But it's not pedestalizing -- it's just stating a fact -- to note that GOG doesn't force updates while Steam does. And his focus on trying to make CDPR look bad in various ways, no matter how true those arguments may be on their own, just completely misses that point.

[Nx Machina]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Only provided you had the previous patches that you downloaded in the past. Prior to GOG having version rollback, and it still true today for their offline installers, there would only be the patch available to download that would get you to the current version of the game. GOG Galaxy changed all that with the Rollback version feature.

You have never used the GOG "downloader" so how would you know how it functioned.


Those PATCHES on Galaxy 1 were in the same location as the offline installers.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

You are wrong. GOG Galaxy never had any of the previous versions of Witcher 1 and 2 available. If you want to continue to claim that there was version rollback for Witcher 1 and 2, then provide proof for it.

Witcher 1 - https://ibb.co/N7yrvV8

Witcher 2 - https://ibb.co/zRbz7Pc

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

You are wrong, and my images show you are wrong. GOTY only ever had 3 versions, which were 1.31, 1.31A, and 1.32(current version). Witcher 3 non GOTY shows it having the previous 4 updates for that game being available to rollback to, which is the normal function of GOG Galaxy.

You are correct, just got home - i had the auto update box ticked for my versions of Witcher 3 and GOTY.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

What Valve should aspire too, is provide at least have #1 below that GOG does, but #2 would also be very nice to have thought:

1- Do not force updates, every customer gets to decide if they want to update a game or not and still be able to play it without updating it. This is how it is for all games on GOG except for 1 game which is the only online only game they have, GWENT.

2- Version rollback automatically for all games

Valve does not need to transform it's business to fit criteria you set.

You on the other hand could stop using Steam and delete your account.

More importantly Valve time has no limits.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

I don't think you quit understand the human nature of just not changing anything away from defaults without even making a conscious thought about it. That is what is meant about them not really deciding, they simply stick to the default of Steam without actually making a conscious decision of providing a beta branch or not.

i understand human nature very clearly - "i want, need , desire this and Valve must comply".

Secondly according to you developers are zombies, make no decisions regarding their products, stick to the status quo etc and yet they choose to remain on Steam and not go to the Utopia that is GOG.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

IDidn't ignore anything at all, it's great that a very rare amount of developers actually make the conscious decision to provide beta branches. But they are a very rare bunch that do that, which is not acceptable. What is acceptable is that Valve at the very least stop with the force updating by allowing customers to choose to update a game or not and not be stopped from playing the game if unupdated.

Unacceptable?? - Developers choice whether to use version choice via branches. Your licence gives you no rights over decisions they make especially when you do not even own the game.

Acceptable?? - Basically - "i want, need , desire this and Valve must comply".

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

What really is being asked her is for the customer to have the ability to simply choose not update a game, which would not change what Steam is providing through their download service. While version rollback would be nice to have, the real issue here is the forced updating functionality of Steam that Valve chose to have for all games on Steam.

Which can be stopped by developers enabling version choice via branches or developers never patching games and i am sure that will not go down well with those who have broken quests etc.

TIP: developers patch games for the many not the few who feel their rights are been violated.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

A customer choosing to not update does not effect the developers ability to keep on updating their game and having those updates available, and does not change what version they want to have distributed through Steam.

How generous of you to allow developers to patch the games they own.

Secondly the version they are distributing is either the latest version assuming you have not downloaded it or the patch bringing the game to the latest version.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

But GWENT is the only game with forced updating which again makes sense for an online game. Nobody is asking for no forced updating or online games, it is well understood that all users of an online game be on the same version, so it makes sense for online games to have forced updating.

It very clearly states GAMES three times in the wording.

https://regulations.cdprojektred.com/en/user_agreement

6. PATCHES, UPDATES AND CHANGES

6.1 Occasionally we may need to patch or update CD PROJEKT RED >>"GAMES"<< and services (for example to add or remove features,to resolve software bugs or to balance our >>"GAMES"<,). This may result in MANDATORY and/or AUTOMATIC PATCHES and older, non-updated versions may become unusable over time. We need these rights in order to keep our >>"GAMES"<< and services running efficiently.


It also states very clearly MANDATORY and/or AUTOMATIC PATCHES which means CPDR could override the setting in Galaxy and resolve software bugs.

[Nx Machina]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Tito Shivan:

It's just a matter of time actually. Happens with every business and corporation. Eventually the honeymoon phase runs out and people face the ultimate truth:Business are gonna business.

Exactly - GOG does this, GOG does that etc - Steam does not, Steam should etc.

Did you also notice this quote was ignored which is exactly the same as me stating not all games have version choice on GOG. Version choice is picking the exact version of the game you want to download, yet that is not available for all games on Galaxy.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Paratech2008:

GOG is the only store I know where you can download older versions of games but even that is limited, IIRC.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

Only provided you had the previous patches that you downloaded in the past. Prior to GOG having version rollback, and it still true today for their offline installers, there would only be the patch available to download that would get you to the current version of the game. GOG Galaxy changed all that with the Rollback version feature.

You have never used the GOG "downloader" so how would you know how it functioned.

And it doesn't matter how it functioned since one could download standalone installers anyway.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Valve does not need to transform it's business to fit criteria you set.

It does not need to, but it could. Meanwhile, you, evidently, don't like it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

You on the other hand could stop using Steam and delete your account.

And so can you. How is this relevant to any of the conversation here? Why would you suggest that someone who enjoys their games differently than you do leave the platform entirely?

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

More importantly Valve time has no limits.

What does this even have to do with anything here? lol

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von grovercleavland0:

I don't think you quit understand the human nature of just not changing anything away from defaults without even making a conscious thought about it. That is what is meant about them not really deciding, they simply stick to the default of Steam without actually making a conscious decision of providing a beta branch or not.

i understand human nature very clearly - "i want, need , desire this and Valve must comply".

Apparently, "human nature" also includes your tendency to completely misinterpret what other people say.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Secondly according to you developers are zombies, make no decisions regarding their products, stick to the status quo etc and yet they choose to remain on Steam and not go to the Utopia that is GOG.

You are blatantly strawmanning at this point.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Unacceptable?? - Developers choice whether to use version choice via branches. Your licence gives you no rights over decisions they make especially when you do not even own the game.

No one is demanding that developers not update their games; you are strawmanning to argue against such.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Acceptable?? - Basically - "i want, need , desire this and Valve must comply".

Why does the world work in your head on the basis of people forcing each other to do things? It's like you don't understand the idea of options.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

Which can be stopped by developers enabling version choice via branches or developers releasing broken products, charging money for them and never patching them.

Or developers can release update and players can have the choice whether to download the updates. You forgot this possibility.

Or, you ignored it because you don't want it to exist because it doesn't fit into your mantras.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

TIP: developers patch games for the many not the few who feel their rights are been violated.

TIP: Not all copies of a game need to be patched.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

How generous of you to allow developers to patch the games they own.

TIP: Not all copies of a game need to be patched.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nx Machina:

It also states very clearly MANDATORY and/or AUTOMATIC PATCHES which means CPDR can override the setting in Galaxy and resolve software bugs.

So why don't they?