Stop automatic updates of games

[Kitanii]

This has been brought up countless times and we still don't have this simple and highly necessary feature. This needs to be addressed. Get your stuff together Valve.

I can't count the number of times new updates for games break the games in question in some form or another and if that happens we're all completely out of luck. All you can do in that case is hope the developers fix it rapidly which doesn't help you right there and then when you have time and want to play something that's currently broken because of an update. This is also in regards to single player games. You know - components in games that don't rely on everyone having the same version...

A lot of games tend to need a lot of tweaking for one reason or another and all that time and effort that might entail is instantly thrown in the basket when and if an update is issued.
I'm sick of it and we need mandatory rollback features for all the times when a game might be working pretty much perfectly only to be broken in a major aspect because of an update.

A rollback feature and an option to not automatically update titles is desperately needed. I want to preview patches and hear what people say about them before actually updating. I can't believe we still don't have this on the leading pc games distribution platform.

Again; Mandatory beta branches for rollbacks and an option to completely stop automatic updates per title. Hope this is brought back to life as a topic because I'm sure most people here tend to experience issues in this regard.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

EVen then better rto have the break, let it be idenfied and fixed .

At the cost of ruining people's gameplay experiences. Thanks for confirming that you don't actually care about people enjoying games.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

They have to use the beta branches or operate their own launchers and their own update servers or link to their own third-party websites or other places to patch stuff.

Yeah. And none of those are particularly difficult or ttime consuming. Heck they can even use steam as the storage for the update patch. There's also the Local content server. They can also put the patches up as Free dlc. Yeah, we're up to 7 differentt ways devs can do this if they want. 7. and that last one doesn't require any more work than a normal update, both in terms of clicks, time, and resources required.

And using Steam to put things up means getting yet another product registered on the Steam store for the dev.

Everything that you've come up with requires additional work on the dev's part. The ideas I've proposed can be implemented entirely without need for the dev to do anything.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

"devs' preferences" does not mean getting to screw up other people's computer data without recourse to them.

Recourse is to file a bug report with the developers.

Unless the developer is paying the players, the players are not meant to serve as bug-testers for the dev. The players bought a product and they mean to be able to enjoy it.

If an update breaks things for them, then that's the update's fault.

[Pooka Mustard™]

you have one zillion options to do X, therefore you don't need proposed option Y to do X

This line of thinking assumes that all options are equal. They're not.

As a quick example: Beta branches are not intended to hold outdated versions. The name even says what they're made for: BRANCHES FOR BETA BUILDS. Therefore even if we entertain it as a "solution" to the version control problem, it's honestly not intended for that.

The proposal to get a toggle to turn off updates is much easier. Just change one setting and all that headache is gone. You don't need to disconnect from the internet, or activate the terrible offline "mode." It just works, and that what makes it stand out from the "one zillion options to do X" crowd.

Each option has its own pros and cons.

A toggle to switch off forced auto-updates has the pro of being the easiest, with zero cons. You want to update? Go to the downloads view and click the up arrow whenever you're ready. The devs won't even raise a finger for it!

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Joe Cool:

It's really quite simple...

If I disconnect my PC from the internet entirely for 5 years... my games will not update = I am playing old outdated versions without the developers having to do ANYTHING at all... No back end support, no tech support, no copyright nonsense, nothing. Then after 5 years I could hook the internet back up and happily update my games.. again no problems at all.

Then you do not need an option to disable auto-updates. You solved it.

...by circumventing Steam altogether. But Steam has an interest in keeping people using its platform -- which is why it ought to improve its convenience. Such as by adding ways to decline and/or revert updates, in this case.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Why did EA choose Steam over GOG?

But they didn't because there are 41 EA games on GOG.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Why did Ubisoft choose Epic over GOG when they left Steam?

Could DRM free and disabling auto-updating be a factor?

If those are factors then why did they leave Steam in the first place? :P

Your logic is, as usual, full of holes.

Also, there are 45 Ubisoft games on GOG. That's 45 more holes in your logic. :)

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Prove you have debunked my points. I am still waiting.

There's nothing to prove to someone who is not making use of logic.

[Start_Running]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

EVen then better rto have the break, let it be idenfied and fixed .

At the cost of ruining people's gameplay experiences. Thanks for confirming that you don't actually care about people enjoying games.

Them coming across an old unfixed bug has the same effect and thats slightly more liokely than them encountering a newly created bug.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Yeah. And none of those are particularly difficult or ttime consuming. Heck they can even use steam as the storage for the update patch. There's also the Local content server. They can also put the patches up as Free dlc. Yeah, we're up to 7 differentt ways devs can do this if they want. 7. and that last one doesn't require any more work than a normal update, both in terms of clicks, time, and resources required.

And using Steam to put things up means getting yet another product registered on the Steam store for the dev.

Not necessarily. It depends on how the devs choose to do it. ANd that only counts for that last one. As said there are 7 different ways. devs can choose which one suits their needs and circumstances best and there's one for just about any circumstance. So again They have the tools to do so...If. They. Want. To.

Everything that you've come up with requires additional work on the dev's part.

Nope. 3 items I mention take exactly the same amount of effort. Three others take LESS effort depending on the developer's situational circumstances. And even the most egregious case only requires a couple extra clicks which is sometthing a dev would find no problem in setting up. If. They. Want. To.

The ideas I've proposed can be implemented entirely without need for the dev to do anything.

Also coicidentally overriding the preferrences and needs of the dev. Yeah. As said, you don't do well in business by overriding the wishes of your primary customers.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Recourse is to file a bug report with the developers.

Unless the developer is paying the players, the players are not meant to serve as bug-testers for the dev. The players bought a product and they mean to be able to enjoy it.

Thats why the devs bother to update games at all. ;--)

If an update breaks things for them, then that's the update's fault.

If its the update that broke it. So how do you tell the difference between an old bug you were just lucky enough not to have triggered before, and a new bug that was created by an update?

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Why did EA choose Steam over GOG?

But they didn't because there are 41 EA games on GOG.

On the contrary that kinda shows that they greatly prefer steam.
They have more than twice that number of game on STeam. In addition to EA Play.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Also, there are 45 Ubisoft games on GOG. That's 45 more holes in your logic. :)

Again quite the contrary. You can say that as Ubisoft putting 45 games on GoGH. Or you can say that as Ubisoft not wanting to put 70 of their games on GoG.. In both cases Steam Has at least double the mount of games form these publishers as compared to GOG which infers double the preference and double the support.

What does it say when your customers bbuy twice as much from your competitor than they do from you?

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

You don't get to set the standards of your own reasoning.

I do - just as you set your own standards.

The audience is more than intelligent enough to set their own standards. And multiple people have pointed out how your logic is bankrupt.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

The topic of this conversation and of this thread is updates to videogames. Not your scenario.

GOG is not relevant to the discussion, remember your point "this is about Steam".

Even if GOG did not exist entirely, Steam making an option to decline/revert updates is still a good idea.

You are now making your argument about GOG, even as you are arguing that GOG is not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, your argument is about picking on what I said, not about the actual suggestion.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

GOG is merely a proof of concept. Even if the proof of concept did not exist, my point stands.

GOG is your crux for your WANT.

Nope, it is not. Steam has been forcing updates long before GOG Galaxy showed this proof of concept.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

And that's why I'm proposing that Steam offer the option to decline and/or revert updates. Because that would solve issues for a variety of people, including many who have posted in this very thread.

Solve your problems. They solve theirs. The end.

Steam can help many people solve their problems.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

So you confirm that you want the world to conform to your preferred way of doing things.

Ditto. And you want Steam and the world to conform to your wants.

Clearly not just my wants, because a variety of other people have posted similar feature requests.

I didn't even start this thread, but you forgot that.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Sounds like your strawman version of me..

You have built enough strawman throughout our conversations your bedroom must be getting crowded.

And the best you have left is "no u".

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Again, not the topic of this thread.

Again you do not get to decide.

You're right that I didn't decide. OP decided that.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

You confuse Automatic and Forced.

Automatic updates = updates delivered without needing to go download something
Forced updates = updates that are mandatory before the person is allowed to access the game at all

Capiche?

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

You confuse NOT an option with a possibility.

Yes, everyone knows it's not an option right now, but the Steam platform is not set in stone, so therefore it is also a possibility at the same time.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

You confuse want with result - zero success so far.

The reason the request exists is because the result does not exist yet. You are putting the cart before the horse as a strawman.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

At the cost of ruining people's gameplay experiences. Thanks for confirming that you don't actually care about people enjoying games.

Them coming across an old unfixed bug has the same effect and thats slightly more liokely than them encountering a newly created bug.

"less likely" =/= "impossible"

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

So again They have the tools to do so...If. They. Want. To.

And every one of those tools requires the dev to go out of their way to do something on purpose, whereas Steam has the capability to handle this automatically for them, without them needing to do extra work.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Nope. 3 items I mention take exactly the same amount of effort. Three others take LESS effort depending on the developer's situational circumstances. And even the most egregious case only requires a couple extra clicks which is sometthing a dev would find no problem in setting up. If. They. Want. To.

Again you neglected things like having to set up an entire website, having to write news/forum posts, having to create things to link, having to create new Steam product store pages, etc.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Unless the developer is paying the players, the players are not meant to serve as bug-testers for the dev. The players bought a product and they mean to be able to enjoy it.

Thats why the devs bother to update games at all. ;--)

Good, then they shouldn't force updates, or they should force updates with a way to revert updates in case those updates don't work right.

Steam can help them meet this goal.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

If an update breaks things for them, then that's the update's fault.

If its the update that broke it. So how do you tell the difference between an old bug you were just lucky enough not to have triggered before, and a new bug that was created by an update?

before update: game runs fine
after update: game does not run fine

Once again, you assume that users are idiots and can't tell the difference.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

On the contrary that kinda shows that they greatly prefer steam.
They have more than twice that number of game on STeam. In addition to EA Play.

You might want to read up on what you're replying to, and consider the relevance of your reply to the topic.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

Start_Running, still waiting for you to provide statements from developers that they prefer their customers to be forced to update the games. Waiting for you to provide statements from developers that they need their customers to be forced to update.

Where is it?

Waiting for you to debunk my points you know the ones you claimed you had.

Where are they?

Waiting for you to actually understand that the proposal of an option will not hurt your ability to continue to receive updates.

Where is it?

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

20 million a day they are not worried.

Users =/= satisfied customers

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

There's nothing to prove to someone who is not making use of logic.

And you have proven nothing yet.

There's nothing to prove when proposing a new feature to decline/revert updates.

You, on the other hand, have been arguing about everything other than that.

[Start_Running]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

@Start_Running, provide statements from developers that they actually want Forced Updating. Right , you can't.

Can you provide statements from devs that say the Don't Like forced updates? No. How strange. Canyou verify that these statements are indeed true? Well first you have to have the statements so thats another no .

Go ahead and prove its a preference of developers to have forced updating. Right, you can't.

Actually i can provide evidence for that assertion. The fact that the overwhelming majority use it. See as said. they have options 7 in fact, that would allow them to deliver updates in a completely voluntary manner. Yet they do not. Clearly that implies a preference. If something is in a state that you find agreeable, you don't generally take actions to change it. If there is a state thatt is disagreeable however then a person will take steps to change that state. So that brings us to at worst apathetic. And if they are well then the fact that neither you nor quint can gett devs on board with such a thing is evidence that its more likely a preference than apathy. If it doesn't matter to them either way but it can score them brownie pointts with their customers then thats all the reason they'd need to do it.

So why haven you or Quint been able to convicne ANY dev of this so fa?
Why are you instead trying to suggest Valve/Steam simply bypass the devs?

Because you likely know they do indeed prefer the current model.
But hey if you can cobnvince some devs to not use the current model and instead use any of the 7 alternate methods then you can count that as proof. We'll wait.

In fact developers have nothing to do with this suggestion, and it doesn't effect them.

It actually does. That much has already been proven. No dev wants their customers to be using an ineferior version of their product.

Also we are first tier customers, without us developers wouldn't even be putting their games on Steam.

As I told Quint. Its the opposite. You , Me and everyone else is here because developers put their games on Steam. A store with no customers can still get developers to put rtheir games up (EGS Proved that). But How does a store with no product attract customers?

Valve only makes money when you spend money on the games sold by developers. So you are second tier.

Customers were using Steam before there were developers putting their games on Steam.

because Steam started with Valves own small stable of games. Steam actually started as an updating tool for those games But not surprisingly, steams customer base has grown as steams publisher suupport has grown. Almost as if the more games they sold, the more customers they ggot...Shocking.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

@Start_Running, provide statements from developers that they actually want Forced Updating. Right , you can't.

Can you provide statements from devs that say the Don't Like forced updates? No. How strange. Canyou verify that these statements are indeed true? Well first you have to have the statements so thats another no .

Devs are on Steam for the customer base.

The fact that many of those same devs also sell their games on GOG and/or Humble and/or itch.io in the form of standalone DRM-free installers shows that forced updates are not critical.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

See as said. they have options 7 in fact, that would allow them to deliver updates in a completely voluntary manner.

And all of those options require them to go out of their way to do it.

Steam can offer a much more convenient solution.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

The audience is more than intelligent enough to set their own standards. And multiple people have pointed out how your logic is bankrupt.

Pointed out? lol...... Proven NO.

Because you declaring things unilaterally makes them true and relevant. Protip: that's not how real life works.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Even if GOG did not exist entirely, Steam making an option to decline/revert updates is still a good idea..

Oh the GOG angle with a twist is still a GOG crux and lynchpin.

You keep talking about GOG then blaming me for mentioning it. Thanks for confirming that your argument isn't about Steam.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Nope, it is not. Steam has been forcing updates long before GOG Galaxy showed this proof of concept.

Steam does automatic-updates. Forced does not exist just word to throw around.

Automatic updates = delivered without needing to go download something
Forced updates = updates that are mandatory before the person is allowed to access the game at all

Your non-recognition of this distinction does not make it not exist.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Clearly not just my wants, because a variety of other people have posted similar feature requests.

I am replying to you, you are one person.

Your argument against me is that this is only about my needs, but you've forgotten that it is not just me requesting it.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Unlike yourself I am not searching for way to continue the conversation, I just throw temptation in your way on know you cannot resist.

You should learn to study your own behavior sometime.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

You're right that I didn't decide. OP decided that..

The OP never once mentioned off topic you have, desperately.

I guess you can't tell when the topic has drifted to something entirely different. Or, perhaps you can, and you willfully ignore it for your own lines of argument, while making hay of it for others.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Yes, everyone knows it's not an option right now, but the Steam platform is not set in stone, so therefore it is also a possibility at the same time.

It is a dream, a fantasy, wake up.

I'm already awake; stop forcing your vision of Steam on other people.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Steam can offer a much more convenient solution.

They do - known as automatic-updates.

Automatic updates are convenient; forced updates are the problem.

[Tito Shivan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

Start_Running, still waiting for you to provide statements from developers that they prefer their customers to be forced to update the games. Waiting for you to provide statements from developers that they need their customers to be forced to update.

Wonder is some venue has actually interviewed developers on this very subject. I've made a small bit of digging but didn't fina interviews or questioning about the subject.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

So once again, provide statements from developers that they actually want forced updating of games.

That road goes both ways. We neither have statements in this thread from developers saying they don't care or prefer their users not to inmediately update their games.

Anything else if the age-old dance this subject has had for years in each and every thread on the subject by the usual suspects.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Solid:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

Therefore the onus of proof is on you.

As it is on you.

STILL waiting for you to debunk my points you know the ones you claimed you had.

Where are they?

There's nothing to debunk in your scenario involving the album cover t-shirt because that is not related to updates to digitally-distributed games.

[Start_Running]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Eisberg:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Start_Running:

Can you provide statements from devs that say the Don't Like forced updates? No. How strange. Canyou verify that these statements are indeed true? Well first you have to have the statements so thats another no .

Nope, you are the one making the claim that it is developer preference. Therefore the onus of proof is on you.

Yes and I provided objectively observable evidence to in support of my claim which also excludes the counter claim. Observation free from any bias or deception,(willful or otherwise).

Oh wait, you can't.

Oh wait. I did. Evidence was provided. You don't get to narrow down the evidence arbitarily. And A statement is only evidence of whatt was said. A person is completely capable of staing something in contradicion to their observed or evidenced acion. See every criminal who said 'I didn't do it.'

Provide proof that developers would even care if a customer chooses to use an older version, especially using an older version due to any of these:

Easy. he clearly observed evidence tha hey choose to use a mehod hat enforces updates, when there are multiple mehods available tha allow such.

Again. Observaion of he world can yield a lo of evidence.

Bu much like a Young Earh Creationistt asking for 'ransiional Fossils' you aren' acually ineresed in evidence tha goes afgains what you want to believe.