Global option to opt out of updates and allow me to play the game I bought

[Gun Tech.]

We've all been there. Endless updates, development takes 4-10 years, and you're fine with the game in its current shape and you want to play it, maybe you're even on a schedule to stream it. Especially if you're a strong supporter of Early Access as I am. But some dev teams are very small and take ages.

Most recently, a 31GB update dropped for a game I wanted to play, but I couldn't. Steam BLOCKS the Play button with an Update button, and HIDES the update size. (Not that anyone can opt out - hence my post.)

Together with OS updates, driver updates, and app updates for general computer use it can render a computer completely useless for hours.

Can Steam do something about this by allowing players to play the current version of a game until the opt-IN to update it?

Now, that would be something sane in this insane world. Please let us launch the game from Steam without updating it first.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

M'Dude. Look up 'False Equivocation' sometime
Then again don't bother. Your current and previous arguments have already made it impossible to be charitable. YOu know that the use of the word 'version' there has nothing to do with the software build.

Please just stop. You're as bad at False Equivocation as you are at every other falllacy you use.

As said. Devs have used this method . To distribute patches and fixes. Typicallly for edge case issues that they can't work into a full patch.

You are speaking non sense, as per the usual. Fact remains, the dev/pubs cannot advertise through Steam the existence of off Steam patch. So it makes it pointless to do that.

STatment was already shown to be false. Move on. Repeating the lie just makes you look sillly. About as sillly as your attempt to play shelll games wityh the context of words.

And again, none of that matters because it is unethical to force software updates onto people who don't want it.

Its not Forced. Force implies that one gave neither consent nor agreement to it. Ever User on steam grants that consent 3 times.

1.) When they create their Steam accont.
2.) The second when they have to agree the SSa when purchasing.
3.) When installing the games.

Three times m8. Every user grants Valve and the dev/pubs the right and permission to do those updates. 3 times.

And to everyone else, notice how not a single person has stated why it would be bad for consumers to choose to get updates or not.

At this point we cold juust point to any of the other times we've aready expllained that in previous threads. WWhich would kinda show that you are aware that those argments exist.

PPub/Devs can choose whether or not they deem an update important enogh to exercise the permissions and consent granted to them by the user, or not. Surprise...many choose not.

Notice how they only make statements about how things are, and talk about "options" that are far more inconvient, and potentially costly, for developers, and inconvient to purchasers of the game.

Yup. Which is why most pbs choose to go the atomated mandatory route. And as of yet you have yet to illustrate why its bad fopr the dev/pubs to do so. Funny neh?

Now, think about it, why would people fight against a choice that has zero effect on them, why would they fight so hard against a good change for Steam.

You have yet to show that it would be a 'Good' Cchange. Yes for a subset of the userbase it would be good, and for another suvbset it cold be potentially harmful. It can also be potentially harmful and troublesome to the dev/pubs. So basically it exposes some users to potential harm, and creates an inconvenience for dev./pubs

[qiote]For many if them they have a history of fighting against good suggestions to improve Steam...fighting against improvements that would not negatively effect them at all. Why is that?[/qote]
Do you reallty want to bring up other people's History Eisberg? Really?

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Like I've said before, Steam ought to include an option to decline updates, but doesn't, so your best bet is to buy DRM-free games rather than buying them on Steam.

And hope they don't start making mandatory patches as well. Because youu know, they do reserve the right to do so in their ToS/EULLA/SSA's. Just becase they don't <<yet> enforce or make se of them doesn't mean they won't.

Messaggio originale di <Insert Kazoo Circus Music Here>:

The refusal to allow pre-patch playing can be boiled down to multiplayer games, patches stop bots/cheats. If OP wants to play a game without patching, and it's multiplayer. Then ten to one, he wants to be able to abuse a glitch or use cheats.

There are a huge number of single-player games on Steam, but updates are forced on them too.

I mean, you can say "well, Steam just uses a one-size-fits-all solution", but that doesn't mean it's a good solution.

Singlle Player games gave terible bugs too. i mean just look at CP2077.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

And again, none of that matters because it is unethical to force software updates onto people who don't want it.

Its not Forced. Force implies that one gave neither consent nor agreement to it. Ever User on steam grants that consent 3 times.

"Its not forced" only in the sense that the user can choose either "don't play game" or "update and play game". There is no option that combines "not update" + "play game".

Given that the whole point of having a Steam account is to get games to play, "don't play game" does not count as a meaningful choice.

You can grandstand on nonsense like this:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

1.) When they create their Steam accont.
2.) The second when they have to agree the SSa when purchasing.
3.) When installing the games.

Three times m8. Every user grants Valve and the dev/pubs the right and permission to do those updates. 3 times.

...but no matter how many times you do it, that doesn't change the actual situation.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Like I've said before, Steam ought to include an option to decline updates, but doesn't, so your best bet is to buy DRM-free games rather than buying them on Steam.

And hope they don't start making mandatory patches as well. Because youu know, they do reserve the right to do so in their ToS/EULLA/SSA's. Just becase they don't <<yet> enforce or make se of them doesn't mean they won't.

You can't make a mandatory patch for a DRM-free product.

Or, technically, you can call a patch mandatory, but you can't force people to install it.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

There are a huge number of single-player games on Steam, but updates are forced on them too.

I mean, you can say "well, Steam just uses a one-size-fits-all solution", but that doesn't mean it's a good solution.

Singlle Player games gave terible bugs too. i mean just look at CP2077.

Did I ever say they didn't have bugs? No, I did not.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Its not Forced. Force implies that one gave neither consent nor agreement to it. Ever User on steam grants that consent 3 times.

"Its not forced" only in the sense that the user can choose either "don't play game" or "update and play game". There is no option that combines "not update" + "play game".

That's one llayer of choice. There was also,. 'Choosing not to prchase the game under the stated conditions in the first place". And there was also "Choosing not to create A Steam Account nder those conditions". As said. Every user gives explicit consent 3 times.

Given that the whole point of having a Steam account is to get games to play, "don't play game" does not count as a meaningful choice.

But not creeating a Steam account is still a meaningful choice. So again at some level yo and every other user granted EXPLICIT CONSENT. Ergo it is not 'forced'.

I know you and Eis will probably keep using that term because it is emotionally charged and god forbid yo constrain yourself to rationale and logic as opposed to twitch emotion.s you can build narratives around, bt we can at least have it shown here that the idea that this is in any way 'Forced' is juust a falsehood.

You can grandstand on nonsense like this:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

1.) When they create their Steam accont.
2.) The second when they have to agree the SSa when purchasing.
3.) When installing the games.

Three times m8. Every user grants Valve and the dev/pubs the right and permission to do those updates. 3 times.

...but no matter how many times you do it, that doesn't change the actual situation.

You mean that the user had 3 chances to say 'No Idon't want/like this and chose to instead say 'Yes I'm Okay with this'/I Grant permission/consent for this'.
I concur.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

And hope they don't start making mandatory patches as well. Because youu know, they do reserve the right to do so in their ToS/EULLA/SSA's. Just becase they don't <<yet> enforce or make se of them doesn't mean they won't.

You can't make a mandatory patch for a DRM-free product.

You actually can. Since patching has no relation to Digital-RIghts-Management./ Irt doesn't requuire a check of ownership, or verification of purchase. Only that the game is/isn't a certain build.

Or, technically, you can call a patch mandatory, but you can't force people to install it.

Steam kinda already does this. Mandatory jst means its requuired. And it is possible to 'never update a game" Yo just won't be able to play it since the update is required .

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Singlle Player games gave terible bugs too. i mean just look at CP2077.

Did I ever say they didn't have bugs? No, I did not.

Then you acknowledge that there are valid reasons for a single player game to push mandatory updates where possible then. Glad we agree.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

"Its not forced" only in the sense that the user can choose either "don't play game" or "update and play game". There is no option that combines "not update" + "play game".

That's one llayer of choice. There was also,. 'Choosing not to prchase the game under the stated conditions in the first place". And there was also "Choosing not to create A Steam Account nder those conditions". As said. Every user gives explicit consent 3 times.

It's actually implicit if that's a tag-along condition that isn't even the point of the choice.

Also, you've underscored my point that this is not actually a meaningful choice. People are here to play games. Steam sells games, and in many cases, Steam is the only store that sells a given game. So the "choice" you grandstand on is actually "don't get the game" or "use Steam to get the game", and the first option between these two is not a meaningful option when the objective is to be able to play the game.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Given that the whole point of having a Steam account is to get games to play, "don't play game" does not count as a meaningful choice.

But not creeating a Steam account is still a meaningful choice. So again at some level yo and every other user granted EXPLICIT CONSENT. Ergo it is not 'forced'.

Congratulations, you discovered it's possible to include a variety of whatever terms and conditions by burying them into fine print. You have made a great discover that no lawyer has ever discovered before...wait, no, they have.

Also, the "EXPLICIT CONSENT" you speak of so loudly is actually just someone clicking through a page on their way to buy a game. It is very much not "explicit", unless you actually, as a practical matter, expect people to thoroughly read and then thoroughly weigh the potential consequences of every single line in every single time they click through one of these things. Not everyone is wealthy enough to hire a lawyer just to advise them of the agreement they are about to click through as they're buying a videogame.

In short, the world doesn't work the way you think it does.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

You can't make a mandatory patch for a DRM-free product.

You actually can. Since patching has no relation to Digital-RIghts-Management./ Irt doesn't requuire a check of ownership, or verification of purchase. Only that the game is/isn't a certain build.

How would such a check work? The game would have to contact some server to verify whether it is an allowed version. If the patch is mandatory, that means if such a check fails the user is not allowed to play the game. And thus you have implemented DRM.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Or, technically, you can call a patch mandatory, but you can't force people to install it.

Steam kinda already does this. Mandatory jst means its requuired. And it is possible to 'never update a game" Yo just won't be able to play it since the update is required .

And since access to the game -- which is the whole point of buying a game in the first place -- is gated by acceptance of the update, the update is forced.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Did I ever say they didn't have bugs? No, I did not.

Then you acknowledge that there are valid reasons for a single player game to push mandatory updates where possible then. Glad we agree.

That would be a valid reason to release an update. Note the absence of "mandatory".

[Leonardo Da Pinchi]

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Like I've said before, Steam ought to include an option to decline updates, but doesn't, so your best bet is to buy DRM-free games rather than buying them on Steam.

For games that are already unfortunately tied to your Steam account, there may be ways to play them without running Steam, though they are inconsistent and vary from game to game, if they exist.

Messaggio originale di <Insert Kazoo Circus Music Here>:

The refusal to allow pre-patch playing can be boiled down to multiplayer games, patches stop bots/cheats. If OP wants to play a game without patching, and it's multiplayer. Then ten to one, he wants to be able to abuse a glitch or use cheats.

There are a huge number of single-player games on Steam, but updates are forced on them too.

I mean, you can say "well, Steam just uses a one-size-fits-all solution", but that doesn't mean it's a good solution.

Perhaps not, but it's not necessarily a bad one either. For example Cyberpunk's bug causing savefile bloat until inevitable save corruption/deletion. Sorta needed to force a patch there.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

That's one llayer of choice. There was also,. 'Choosing not to prchase the game under the stated conditions in the first place". And there was also "Choosing not to create A Steam Account nder those conditions". As said. Every user gives explicit consent 3 times.

It's actually implicit if that's a tag-along condition that isn't even the point of the choice.

Also, you've underscored my point that this is not actually a meaningful choice. People are here to play games. Steam sells games, and in many cases, Steam is the only store that sells a given game. So the "choice" you grandstand on is actually "don't get the game" or "use Steam to get the game", and the first option between these two is not a meaningful option when the objective is to be able to play the game.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

But not creeating a Steam account is still a meaningful choice. So again at some level yo and every other user granted EXPLICIT CONSENT. Ergo it is not 'forced'.

Congratulations, you discovered it's possible to include a variety of whatever terms and conditions by burying them into fine print.

If it is stated in text, it is EXPLICIT. The clauses and terms are clearly stated. You not reading them before agreeing does not make them Implicit. It juustt makes you careless and lazy.. Also the body font used in these document is all uniform so there's no 'Fine Print'.

Also steam sells licenses for games. Not games. There is a small difference. Also whether or not Steam is the only place that sells the game is irrelevant. A retailer is under no obligation to selll a luxury item under the terms you want.. You agree, or you do without.

Thats how choices work in the grown up world. Decide whats's importyant to you and choose accordingly.

Also, the "EXPLICIT CONSENT" you speak of so loudly is actually just someone clicking through a page on their way to buy a game.

After clicking the clearly labelled text box, Okay, or I agree Button.
As said. you or someone not bothering to read the clearly stated terms does not make them implicit. It just means you're lazy...and kinda daft since anyone who can recognize a contract knows enough to ready the damned contract. before agreeing.

It is very much not "explicit", unless you actually, as a practical matter, expect people to thoroughly read and then thoroughly weigh the potential consequences of every single line in every single time they click through one of these things.

I know. How silly to expect that a person READ the legal contract they are agreeing to. How sily a thought. Also the fact that the Steam SSA seldom changes makes it more o f a read once every few months kinda thing. You also learn how to speed read those documents with practice due to the fact that thety generally follow a standard format and flow and are itemized and indexed so youu can quickly go to any specific heading or subsection you feel is important.

Not everyone is wealthy enough to hire a lawyer just to advise them of the agreement they are about to click through as they're buying a videogame.

Doesn't require a lawyer uunless youu're particularly paranoid. Just the ability to read at a 12th grade level. Now if you can't do that, well I'm sure you can find a friend or guardian to help youu with that as they must with all the other trying life decisions that require *gasp* reading.

In short, the world doesn't work the way you think it does.

It actually does m8. Whether you take the time to a read a contract before agreeing to it is irrelevant. You agreed to it and thusly have no one to blame but ye self when the other party exercises the rights and powers you consented to grant them.

Welcome to life in the grown up worlld where power and rights go hand in hand with responsibility and consequences.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

You actually can. Since patching has no relation to Digital-RIghts-Management./ Irt doesn't requuire a check of ownership, or verification of purchase. Only that the game is/isn't a certain build.

How would such a check work? The game would have to contact some server to verify whether it is an allowed version.

Nope.
I mean it can be done that way. And even if it did that still wouldn't be a form odf DRM. It's just comparing two strings. THe hardcoded build number against the build number stored in the meta-data of certain files, (say the exe file).

Or simply checking the checksum of certain files against the hardcoded or database stored checksums.

There are many other ways but checking for ownership or license alidation is not an intrinsic function of a patch. I mean how do you think patches worked before Digital distribution and the internet were a thing?

If the patch is mandatory, that means if such a check fails the user is not allowed to play the game. And thus you have implemented DRM.

No. it is simply a patch. DRM is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. The main issue is that DRM will verify ownership and the validity of a license. If those elements are missing then guess what . Its not DRM. Now some devs can and do buuild some validation,, checks into their patches. But thats an added function.

And since access to the game -- which is the whole point of buying a game in the first place -- is gated by acceptance of the update, the update is forced.

No. You are simply presented with the choice to update, or not play the game. And don't assume everyone buys games for the same reason you do. Especially on Steam.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Then you acknowledge that there are valid reasons for a single player game to push mandatory updates where possible then. Glad we agree.

That would be a valid reason to release an update. Note the absence of "mandatory".

Unfortunately it is kinda on the pub/dev to make it mandatory. They can be held liably for not ensuuring that you're running the best version. There are games that hae had some pretty nasty bugs in them. And by Nasty I mean in the 'What happened to my MFT?' kinda nasty.

So there's good legal reason for them to want an update to be mandatory if the system allows it. They have th muultiple options to make uupdates not mandatory if they so choose (some even do) Devs have the tools they need to accomplish their goals. And it may surprise you that devs and pubs aren't as lazy about doing these things as you seem to be about reading.

Go fig. The people who have the education required to code games generally have little issue in taking a few different steps if they desire different outcomes for their actions...

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

So, still absolutely no one giving any type of valid reason why it would be bad for them if there was an option to not update a game.

Qestion: Would you actuually acknowledge a reasoning that goes against your narrative and argument as Valid. Your track record leaves a lot of room for doubt on this.

Reasons have been proposed. and keep in mind the simple truth is. 'Becauuse the devs dun wanna.' is as much a valid reason as any. Valve isn't going to interfere on a matter thats between the dev/pubs and the users. Dev/Pubs have ways to make updates optional (7 in all). If there's a demand on their part for Valve to implement more then Valve likely will.

So talk to the dev/pubs get them to start using the currently avaiable tools and that will be the dfirst step.

[Nx Machina]

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

So, still absolutely no one giving any type of valid reason why it would be bad for them if there was an option to not update a game. Not a single one. The fact that absolutely no one has given a valid reason for forced updates. That is very telling that the suggestion is an objectively good suggestion, and shows that Valve having that kind of control is unwarranted. It shows forced updates are unwarranted. It shows that the consumer should retain the right to determine if they want an update or not.

Valid reason?

1) Not an option on Steam as it is an auto-updater - 16 years later you are just realising.

2) Developers own the game you own a license.

3) They are updating a game not a license .

4) Control - https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/updates

5) Mods are not part of official updates - your major issue.

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

Beatsaber. Everytime the game updated, I couldn't play the game in the way I wanted to till the mod creators updated their mods, which has prevented me from enjoying the game the way I wanted to at the time I wanted to. If there was an option to not update the game, I could have enjoyed the game the way I want to while I wait for the mod creators to update their mods..

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

Well because of the Steam ultra fans, this suggestion of having an option to not update will never gain any traction. For years I have reserved myself from buying games from GOG who have real and proper support for modding, and only buy Steam versions of games when there is no other choice for any other version. At this point GOG, Epic, are the only 2 store fronts that I use that have proper mod support, and it is sad that Steam cannot get on board with doing proper mod support.

And repeated again:

When someone INSISTS and PUSHES for the suggestion they literally are telling everyone else on the thread they know what is best for everyone and to ignore others by shifting the onus elsewhere.

If they CANNOT handle DIFFERING opinions, stated FACTS then they are the ones NOT open to other OPINIONS, DO NOT want a discussion and should AVOID discussion forums.

You do not want to listen when valid points are raised nor acknowledge facts.

[MoogleMcGee]

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Qestion: Would you actuually acknowledge a reasoning that goes against your narrative and argument as Valid. Your track record leaves a lot of room for doubt on this.

Reasons have been proposed. and keep in mind the simple truth is. 'Becauuse the devs dun wanna.' is as much a valid reason as any. Valve isn't going to interfere on a matter thats between the dev/pubs and the users. Dev/Pubs have ways to make updates optional (7 in all). If there's a demand on their part for Valve to implement more then Valve likely will.

So talk to the dev/pubs get them to start using the currently avaiable tools and that will be the dfirst step.

Developers have nothing to do with it. An option to not update is a consumer choice that does not affect the developers continued support of the game and releasing patches.

So no, that isn't a valid reason at all, because it isn't up to them, it's my right to make that choice, not theirs. It is Valve that is being unethical and anti consumer by taking away my rights.

And still, you nor anyone else could not come up with any valid reasons why that right should continue to be taken away.

Not a single reason given why it's bad for the consumer to choose to uodate or not update a game they purchased.

This has remained true for years. The idea always fought against by those notorious for hating on pretty much any suggestion to improve Steam for the consumers. These same people are known to always try to protect Valve from any critisism... With no logical reason at all.

Simple. Because you DO NOT OWN the GAME you do not have any right or say in updating. You AGREED to updates by purchasing a LICENSE to the game in question.

Would I like the option to delay or skip updates in a single player game? Sure, options are good. But I am not under the delusion that I have any RIGHT to an unupdated version of any program.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

If it is stated in text, it is EXPLICIT. The clauses and terms are clearly stated. You not reading them before agreeing does not make them Implicit. It juustt makes you careless and lazy.. Also the body font used in these document is all uniform so there's no 'Fine Print'.

Just because you can stick something in a user agreement does not mean it is at all a meaningful consideration during the purchase of a game.

Heck, the most important part of it is the fact that a person buys a game because they intend to play it. But, here you are, prattling on about whether forcing updates is an "EXPLICIT" choice, yadda yadda...

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Also steam sells licenses for games. Not games. There is a small difference.

The same can be said about retailers that sell games in forms that don't force updates.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Also whether or not Steam is the only place that sells the game is irrelevant.

You are focusing the decision on the user choosing to use Steam, when Steam is actually the only possible means through which someone has to go in order to get to something else, which is a game that's only on Steam. It's quite relevant.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

A retailer is under no obligation to selll a luxury item under the terms you want.. You agree, or you do without.

By that same reasoning, Steam itself has no reason to exist in any given form, as all it does is sell luxury items.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Also, the "EXPLICIT CONSENT" you speak of so loudly is actually just someone clicking through a page on their way to buy a game.

After clicking the clearly labelled text box, Okay, or I agree Button.

A monkey can click a button.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

As said. you or someone not bothering to read the clearly stated terms does not make them implicit. It just means you're lazy...and kinda daft since anyone who can recognize a contract knows enough to ready the damned contract. before agreeing.

Just because you can write up a contract and withhold someone's access to something unless they sign it doesn't mean that the contract is enforceable, moral, or even meaningful.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

It is very much not "explicit", unless you actually, as a practical matter, expect people to thoroughly read and then thoroughly weigh the potential consequences of every single line in every single time they click through one of these things.

I know. How silly to expect that a person READ the legal contract they are agreeing to. How sily a thought.

Indeed, because in the real world people don't necessarily have the practical means to read through every single user agreement for every single thing that they use because there are so many of them, literally one for every web service and technology product. Not to mention not having a lawyer next to them to thoroughly discuss it with them. Though that might also introduce them to the fact that some parts might not even be enforceable in a court but are just thrown in by the company that wrote it up in order to cover their own butt.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Not everyone is wealthy enough to hire a lawyer just to advise them of the agreement they are about to click through as they're buying a videogame.

Doesn't require a lawyer uunless youu're particularly paranoid. Just the ability to read at a 12th grade level. Now if you can't do that, well I'm sure you can find a friend or guardian to help youu with that as they must with all the other trying life decisions that require *gasp* reading.

The funniest thing is that you're grandstanding on criticizing others for not reading while neglecting how generally inapplicable those agreements actually are.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Welcome to life in the grown up worlld where power and rights go hand in hand with responsibility and consequences.

Welcome to the real world where your obsession with grandstanding about "power and rights" only deludes yourself about the whole picture of what's going on.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

How would such a check work? The game would have to contact some server to verify whether it is an allowed version.

Nope.
I mean it can be done that way. And even if it did that still wouldn't be a form odf DRM. It's just comparing two strings. THe hardcoded build number against the build number stored in the meta-data of certain files, (say the exe file).

Or simply checking the checksum of certain files against the hardcoded or database stored checksums.

There are many other ways but checking for ownership or license alidation is not an intrinsic function of a patch. I mean how do you think patches worked before Digital distribution and the internet were a thing?

I'm not sure whether you're too stupid to realize or too sly to admit that you've changed the topic to patching itself, rather than getting the data for verifying whether a given version is the allowed version. If the game never checks whether there's a new version, it would never know. It needs to check in the first place.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

If the patch is mandatory, that means if such a check fails the user is not allowed to play the game. And thus you have implemented DRM.

No. it is simply a patch. DRM is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. The main issue is that DRM will verify ownership and the validity of a license. If those elements are missing then guess what . Its not DRM. Now some devs can and do buuild some validation,, checks into their patches. But thats an added function.

And if that validation has failed, what happens? Does this game prevent the player from playing it? If yes, then that is DRM.

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

And since access to the game -- which is the whole point of buying a game in the first place -- is gated by acceptance of the update, the update is forced.

No. You are simply presented with the choice to update, or not play the game. And don't assume everyone buys games for the same reason you do. Especially on Steam.

People buy games on Steam (and elsewhere) in order to play them. This is a fundamental fact of the entire hobby and industry of video games.

(And no, we are not talking about those cases of people buying games to resell them, because that's not why people ultimately buy video games anyway, and because Steam doesn't even allow resale of games registered to one's Steam account anyway.)

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

That would be a valid reason to release an update. Note the absence of "mandatory".

Unfortunately it is kinda on the pub/dev to make it mandatory. They can be held liably for not ensuuring that you're running the best version. There are games that hae had some pretty nasty bugs in them. And by Nasty I mean in the 'What happened to my MFT?' kinda nasty.

You conveniently forgot about the parts of those agreements -- which you so highly tout -- where they indicate that the publisher is warrants no fitness for any particular purpose and thus cannot be held liable for damages.

So much for your grandstanding. Would explain why you don't want people to bring up your post history:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Do you reallty want to bring up other people's History Eisberg? Really?

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Messaggio originale di MoogleMcGee:

Simple. Because you DO NOT OWN the GAME you do not have any right or say in updating. You AGREED to updates by purchasing a LICENSE to the game in question.

Would I like the option to delay or skip updates in a single player game? Sure, options are good. But I am not under the delusion that I have any RIGHT to an unupdated version of any program.

Frankly speaking, in contrast to what some people are arguing about, it's not even about "rights". The practical question is simply about whether it's possible to play a game without having an update forced onto oneself, and more specifically, how much of a pain is required to be able to do so.

[MoogleMcGee]

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Messaggio originale di MoogleMcGee:

Simple. Because you DO NOT OWN the GAME you do not have any right or say in updating. You AGREED to updates by purchasing a LICENSE to the game in question.

Would I like the option to delay or skip updates in a single player game? Sure, options are good. But I am not under the delusion that I have any RIGHT to an unupdated version of any program.

Frankly speaking, in contrast to what some people are arguing about, it's not even about "rights". The practical question is simply about whether it's possible to play a game without having an update forced onto oneself, and more specifically, how much of a pain is required to be able to do so.

And that's fair. I understand that there are Speed Runners that play on older versions of games for various reasons, and I understand that modders would love to be able to freeze program versions. I personally went out of my way to revert updates for the sake of mods in the past but that hasn't been possible in Steam for at least 7 years. (used to do it with Star Wars KOTOR 2)

I was just addressing the silly notion that because a person has a license to something that they have a right to do what ever they want. I may argue for change or additional options, but never that I have a right to something.

[Nx Machina]

Messaggio originale di Eisberg:

Developers have nothing to do with it. An option to not update is a consumer choice that does not affect the developers continued support of the game and releasing patches.

Developers OWN the game you OWN a LICENSE or do you continually need to overlook that they can without recourse to you update the game they OWN and have control via.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/updates

or from the Witcher 3 EULA.

https://store.steampowered.com/eula/292030_eula_0

2. WHAT YOU GET WITH THE GAME

We (meaning CD PROJEKT RED) give you the personal right (called a 'LICENCE' legally) to download, install and play The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on your personal computer as long as you follow these Rules. This LICENCE is for your personal use only (so you can't give a sublicense to someone else) and DOESN'T GIVE YOU ownership rights.

At all times WE continue to OWN all of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, ALL IN-GAME CONTENT, ANY UPDATES or additional content for them, manuals or other materials about them and the intellectual property rights in them, including all copyright, trademarks, patents and legal things like that (all of this together we call the ‘Game’).

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

...snip...

YOu know Quint. Its never a good sign when you start arguing against your own headvoices. The only thing you've consistently demonstrated is a lack of willingness to read /comprehend SSA's and thuslly filling the gaps with whatever requires the least effiort for you toi imagine.

That's all welll and good but it makes for poor intelllectual discussions.

So lets rund down the facts.

1. Users agree in no ess than Three(3) places tio grant Vallve and the dev/pubs the right to mandate updates in as strict a manner as they deem reasonable. These clauses are explicitly stated in the documents and thus any agreement to those docyuments is explcit acceptance of those terms.

2. Developers have reasons to oprefer the mandatory model. Your agreement with these reasons is not required nor is it consequential, due to the aforementioned agreements.

3. What you fail to read, or fail to comprehend has no bearing on the second party. You indicated your acceptance, and that you had read the agreement, ataking propercare to comprehend. If this was a misrepresentation on your part. There are legally prescribed penalties.

4. Devs/Pubs have Multiople options to make updates optional, if they so desire. Some actively use these options. Most choose not to.

5. If you want this to change you have to get the dev/pubs to start using these optional update delivery methods, and to request more tools for doing so from Valve.

6. You do not purchase games on steam, or any other platform. You purchase licenses. The Licensor reserves the right to define the subject of the license and alter it . In short the devs get to say which build you have the license to play. This was something the user agreed to. See point One(1).

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di MoogleMcGee:

Messaggio originale di Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Frankly speaking, in contrast to what some people are arguing about, it's not even about "rights". The practical question is simply about whether it's possible to play a game without having an update forced onto oneself, and more specifically, how much of a pain is required to be able to do so.

And that's fair. I understand that there are Speed Runners that play on older versions of games for various reasons, and I understand that modders would love to be able to freeze program versions. I personally went out of my way to revert updates for the sake of mods in the past but that hasn't been possible in Steam for at least 7 years. (used to do it with Star Wars KOTOR 2)

I was just addressing the silly notion that because a person has a license to something that they have a right to do what ever they want. I may argue for change or additional options, but never that I have a right to something.

FUnny thing is. the Speedrunning community generallly will work with the dev/pubs for such things. They will if necessary reach out to the devs and request access to specific versions and in many cases the devs will find some way to grant it.

A lot can be accomplished by actually engaging in diaog with devb/pubs as opposed to trying to go around them.