Please STOP breaking my heavily modified single player games with forced updates. Thank you.

[Scion Dracos]

The title pretty much says it all. If I log on to steam to check the store or look at an item on my wishlist Steam tries to update all of my games including HEAVILY MODIFIED SINGLE PLAYER games, which often breaks them and renders saved games representing hundreds of hours of play unusable.

Please do NOT tell me to use the update settings offered by steam. That works only until you launch the game.

I'm asking STEAM to please offer a viable method to protect our games from forced updates. I am BEGGING for this option. Again. And Again. And Again. Forced updates for multiplayer games is perfectly understandable. But heavily modified single player games are very delicate. Force-updating the game or the mods offered on Steam Workshop can and routinely does break saved games. Thus prompting hate filled screaming from your customers.

Thank you for your time and attention (if you bothered reading at all).

[Joke]

But surely the steam client would be better if it had the option to turn off updates to games?

All you guys quoting eulas and terms of use seems to have missed the point of what this forum is for. This is the _Suggestions_ forum, where us users tell steam how we would like steam to be changed.

If Steam/Valve wants to add this feature, they can. They have full control of the platform.

I fail to see how having this feature would make anyones steam experience worse, but quite a few people would benefit.

So I give my support.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Joke:

But surely the steam client would be better if it had the option to turn off updates to games?

All you guys quoting eulas and terms of use seems to have missed the point of what this forum is for. This is the _Suggestions_ forum, where us users tell steam how we would like steam to be changed.

If Steam/Valve wants to add this feature, they can. They have full control of the platform.

I fail to see how having this feature would make anyones steam experience worse, but quite a few people would benefit.

So I give my support.

It was there in the beginning. Then users spammed support with game issues for games Valve did not make. Support had to keep telling them to update their game.

They removed the no update option.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by r¡sê ºƒ çhaös™:

They need to make it crystal clear that you are purchasing a possibly temporary license to utilize software that may or may not continue to work.

That's how software has been working since day one. I have bought loads of software that effectually no longer worked over the years.

Originally posted by Joke:

But surely the steam client would be better if it had the option to turn off updates to games?

In case you haven't noticed the whole software industry is all moving in the direction Steam started moving years ago. More and more software and software companies move to forced updates. It's unlikely steam take a step back when everyone else is now walking the road they've been walking for years.

Outdated software is an ever increasing liability nowadays. A liability that can cost lots of money to these software companies.
And users are really unreliable in regards keeping software up to date. Hence why the human factor is being ruled out more and more.

No one wants to be the guys that got the blame for opening users computers to hackers through a zero day exploit on their software because users didn't bother updating 'because reasons'
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2475525/cybercrime-hacking/zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-first-person-shooter-game-engines-allow-attackers-to-.html

[Styxs_NL]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by r¡sê ºƒ çhaös™:

They need to make it crystal clear that you are purchasing a possibly temporary license to utilize software that may or may not continue to work.

That's how software has been working since day one. I have bought loads of software that effectually no longer worked over the years.

It doesnt matter how it worked in the past, if you keep looking at the past and not the future then we never go forward.

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Joke:

But surely the steam client would be better if it had the option to turn off updates to games?

In case you haven't noticed the whole software industry is all moving in the direction Steam started moving years ago. More and more software and software companies move to forced updates. It's unlikely steam take a step back when everyone else is now walking the road they've been walking for years.

Outdated software is an ever increasing liability nowadays. A liability that can cost lots of money to these software companies.
And users are really unreliable in regards keeping software up to date. Hence why the human factor is being ruled out more and more.

No one wants to be the guys that got the blame for opening users computers to hackers through a zero day exploit on their software because users didn't bother updating 'because reasons'
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2475525/cybercrime-hacking/zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-first-person-shooter-game-engines-allow-attackers-to-.html

Steam is the one that really gives us the updates, we have Steam installed and though it we us the games, so Steam needs to give us an option to turn off unwanted uploads to our systems, no matter what it is, if we dont WANT any uploads towards our computer at a certain time we need to have an option to turn it off (ALL OF IT, even steamworkshop items).

And putting the blame on the auto update on "No one wants to be the guys that got the blame for opening users computers to hackers through a zero day exploit on their software because users didn't bother updating" is not up to you and doesnt have anything to do with (most) mod updates or any other singleplayer game updates at all.

Its best for the Steam platform to seperate the security updates and gameplay updates in a seperate download, like Microsoft have for years now, this way we can choose to download the security updates without it touching any gameplay features.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Styxs:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

That's how software has been working since day one. I have bought loads of software that effectually no longer worked over the years.

It doesnt matter how it worked in the past, if you keep looking at the past and not the future then we never go forward.

But the future is mostly DRM...

Originally posted by Styxs:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

In case you haven't noticed the whole software industry is all moving in the direction Steam started moving years ago. More and more software and software companies move to forced updates. It's unlikely steam take a step back when everyone else is now walking the road they've been walking for years.

Outdated software is an ever increasing liability nowadays. A liability that can cost lots of money to these software companies.
And users are really unreliable in regards keeping software up to date. Hence why the human factor is being ruled out more and more.

No one wants to be the guys that got the blame for opening users computers to hackers through a zero day exploit on their software because users didn't bother updating 'because reasons'
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2475525/cybercrime-hacking/zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-first-person-shooter-game-engines-allow-attackers-to-.html

Steam is the one that really gives us the updates, we have Steam installed and though it we us the games, so Steam needs to give us an option to turn off unwanted uploads to our systems, no matter what it is, if we dont WANT any uploads towards our computer at a certain time we need to have an option to turn it off (ALL OF IT, even steamworkshop items).

And putting the blame on the auto update on "No one wants to be the guys that got the blame for opening users computers to hackers through a zero day exploit on their software because users didn't bother updating" is not up to you and doesnt have anything to do with (most) mod updates or any other singleplayer game updates at all.

Its best for the Steam platform to seperate the security updates and gameplay updates in a seperate download, like Microsoft have for years now, this way we can choose to download the security updates without it touching any gameplay features.

Kind of obvious to get the updates the same way you download your games...

Also ummm security updates and game updates are seperate... If client gets and update, that's about it, the games wouldn't get an update because of the client update, unless it was coincidence that devs wanted to update the same time which are normally multiplayer games...

[Styxs_NL]

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Kind of obvious to get the updates the same way you download your games...

Also ummm security updates and game updates are seperate... If client gets and update, that's about it, the games wouldn't get an update because of the client update, unless it was coincidence that devs wanted to update the same time which are normally multiplayer games...

No, some game updates contains security updates on that game, and i mean seperate those into an own download list and leave the (modded) singleplayer games unaffected by any of those security game updates.

Also make an option to play the (modded) Singleplayer games on the build you have on your computer without the need to update it when you try to run it.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Ask the developer for a beta branch.

I know I've said that already.

[Styxs_NL]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Ask the developer for a beta branch.

I know I've said that already.

:qr:

even with normal and x64 we can get an popup which ones we want to launch (Grim Dawn for example), make it like that

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Styxs:

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Ask the developer for a beta branch.

I know I've said that already.

even with normal and x64 we can get an popup which ones we want to launch (Grim Dawn for example), make it like that

Again, that is up to the developer.

[Styxs_NL]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Originally posted by Styxs:

even with normal and x64 we can get an popup which ones we want to launch (Grim Dawn for example), make it like that

Again, that is up to the developer.

:qr:

again no, its not, If steam puts in an popup to let us play the game "as is" in its current state without an update or to let us choose to update it and play the game with the recent update.

I am talking about the singleplayer games not the mulitplayer ones.

Steam is the one that takes care of the updates coming towards our computers not the devs

[Pendy]

If you want a bypass, I might have a solultion. Go into your commons folder, locate the game you have heavily modified, then rename it to something like [game] (modified). Then try and play the game on steam. It'll ask you to re-download your game since it no longer can find the file that you renamed. At this point you'll have two copies of the game. Then you simply make a shortcut to the exe in the modded folder and you'll have your game, and the updates pushed by steam won't affect it. They'll go to the now vanilla folder that you created.

It worked for Terraria at least. I've yet to try it with my other modded games.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Styxs:

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Kind of obvious to get the updates the same way you download your games...

Also ummm security updates and game updates are seperate... If client gets and update, that's about it, the games wouldn't get an update because of the client update, unless it was coincidence that devs wanted to update the same time which are normally multiplayer games...

No, some game updates contains security updates on that game, and i mean seperate those into an own download list and leave the (modded) singleplayer games unaffected by any of those security game updates.

Also make an option to play the (modded) Singleplayer games on the build you have on your computer without the need to update it when you try to run it.

Oh you meant that, no that's all devs doing, not Steam really they just do what the devs ask them that's it.

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Ask the developer for a beta branch.

I know I've said that already.

:qr:

^He not kidding, the devs have this option to let you use a beta branches if you don't want to date or anything, they just choose not to do so.

[Zannah]

OP im with you on this one. i understand why they do it with multiplayer games. but for single player ones theres absolutely NO reason why they shouldn't implement an opt out option. if they were getting spammed with support tickets make people update the game before submitting a ticket for it. or just ignore it until they update like they do with half the support tickets they get already. it's easy as hell to pawn it off on the devs but thats a cop out answer. we all know there are dev companies out there that dont give a flying ♥♥♥♥ about the end user and would sooner murder their first born child than offer access to a beta branch of old versions. (im looking at you bathesda. we all know you're never going to give beta branch options for skyrim se because you're too busy pushing a bunch of creation club ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to try to milk every last cent you can out of skyrim before releasing es6.) and this kind of ♥♥♥♥ doesn't just affect modders it affects people with internet data caps as well. if you seriously are going to sit there arguing against the implementation of such an option quoting steam EULAs and support tickets as an excuse for them not to do this you need a kind of help no therapist can give. absolutely mental. my mind is legit blown that some people think like that.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Zannah:

if they were getting spammed with support tickets make people update the game before submitting a ticket for it.

Because they can't force a user to update their game just to send a support ticket.

Originally posted by Zannah:

or just ignore it until they update like they do with half the support tickets they get already.

I need the source of that info you just stated about only answering 1/2 the tickets sent.

Originally posted by Zannah:

it's easy as hell to pawn it off on the devs but thats a cop out answer. we all know there are dev companies out there that dont give a flying ♥♥♥♥ about the end user and would sooner murder their first born child than offer access to a beta branch of old versions. (im looking at you bathesda. we all know you're never going to give beta branch options for skyrim se because you're too busy pushing a bunch of creation club ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to try to milk every last cent you can out of skyrim before releasing es6.) and this kind of ♥♥♥♥ doesn't just affect modders it affects people with internet data caps as well. if you seriously are going to sit there arguing against the implementation of such an option quoting steam EULAs and support tickets as an excuse for them not to do this you need a kind of help no therapist can give. absolutely mental. my mind is legit blown that some people think like that.

Everything for their game ON Steam is up to the game developer themselves. Always has, always will be. Unless you want them all to use their own platform and dump Steam altogether.

[Zannah]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Originally posted by Zannah:

if they were getting spammed with support tickets make people update the game before submitting a ticket for it.

Because they can't force a user to update their game just to send a support ticket.

Originally posted by Zannah:

or just ignore it until they update like they do with half the support tickets they get already.

I need the source of that info you just stated about only answering 1/2 the tickets sent.

Originally posted by Zannah:

it's easy as hell to pawn it off on the devs but thats a cop out answer. we all know there are dev companies out there that dont give a flying ♥♥♥♥ about the end user and would sooner murder their first born child than offer access to a beta branch of old versions. (im looking at you bathesda. we all know you're never going to give beta branch options for skyrim se because you're too busy pushing a bunch of creation club ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to try to milk every last cent you can out of skyrim before releasing es6.) and this kind of ♥♥♥♥ doesn't just affect modders it affects people with internet data caps as well. if you seriously are going to sit there arguing against the implementation of such an option quoting steam EULAs and support tickets as an excuse for them not to do this you need a kind of help no therapist can give. absolutely mental. my mind is legit blown that some people think like that.

Everything for their game ON Steam is up to the game developer themselves. Always has, always will be. Unless you want them all to use their own platform and dump Steam altogether.

:qr:

how much is valve paying you?