安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1456350/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1456350/discussions/0/3185740024689561767/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1456350/screenshots/
See how the screenshots don't lineup with what the developer has pushed out in the latest update?
It's not only a possibility - it has apparently actually happened.
Let's not be willfully ignorant or gullible enough to believe that this isn't a possibility here.
And which point are you even saying "has never happened in the history of Steam"?
If we're just referring to
"A Magical High School Girl" is an example that comes to mind of that happening.
However, keep in mind, every word counts, & I included these words in that statement of mine which you were responding to, for a reason : "& not expect there to be some mishaps".
I am certainly not claiming that this will happen with every game that is published.
Certainly not.
However, with a sample size large enough, rare things will become common.
Steam publishers are now both, permitted to publish items without every single item & developer change being heavily reviewed at the time of publishing (or restricted in many regards) AND we have a sufficiently massive amount of publishers on Steam now.
It's only logical that there will be some publishers that don't manage their products well (which is bad for the customers / Steam users) or just do strange things (like bricking the game) like the one from Girl's Lovecast, linked above, seemingly did.
It might not be logical for them to do this but it is logical that such outliers will exist (& with enough publishers, they will become a common minority - so small in terms of percentage but large in terms of quantity of publishers doing this).
I'd like to add to this, that this affected more than just Russians.
This extremely shortsighted decision to turn open-source software into an attempt at cyber-warfare had the side-effect of causing anyone using a VPN that happened to connect to a Russian IP address (perhaps because it rotates automatically) to have all of their content erased.
There were many comments on Twitter about lost family photos & pet photos & the like.
Basically, because Steam could do better but (as of now) it (still) doesn't.
You've already heard the so-to-speak conventional wisdom that Steam was made to push updates, and that the Steam Subscriber Agreement says that it can force updates on you, and go bother the game devs to set up branches, yadda yadda yadda.
Note that that doesn't actually mean they should. What they should do is to implement it as an option, defaulting to leaving updates on, but allowing people the convenience natively in the Steam client to choose to decline updates indefinitely. No need to bother game devs one by one to set up branches. All it needs is just an option to continue lauching the game as is already installed on the player's computer.
And it's not just updates potentially breaking the game that's the problem. Other problems:
* Updates that remove or alter content in ways that players consider undesirable
* Updates may be impractical to download due to poor internet connections
* Updates may be impractical to download because the players might have limited access to time when they are even able to play games
* Updates may interfere with mods that people have installed
All of these issues have been brought up here on this forum before, as reasons for suggesting a way to not update one's games. These aren't just dreamed-up hypotheticals.
If there were an option to not update the game, defaulting to update, everyone who likes updates and everyone who doesn't care either way would continue to get updates. Just that everyone who doesn't want them and was unhappy under the current system would be happier about it. It's a win-win, even though there are some regulars on this forum who just have to insist that it's a bad idea. It's like they don't understand the idea of options, enabling different people to do things differently.
Anyway, in the absence of Steam actually providing a way to do this conveniently, here are my usual suggestions for how to avoid Steam's forcing updates:
1. Set the game to only update when launched, then run the game without running Steam. Try running the game's executable directly. If it forces Steam to launch or if it errors out, you'll know that didn't work. If it launches, it's one of the various natively-DRM-free games on Steam (which are scattered around the platform inconsistently). (Note that some games may be DRM-free but just have Steam API calls that force Steam to launch, so removing the Steam API dll file from your Steam install folder for the game may make them work right.)
2. Set the game to only update when launched, then only play it in Steam's Offline Mode. Not guaranteed to work, and I've heard that this might not work unless you launch the game from a shortcut file rather than from Steam itself.
3. Set the game to only update when launched, then back up the game files yourself. Then let Steam download the update, then put your backup back into the Steam game install folder. You're essentially modding the game yourself, just that your "mod" is literally the actual game, just an older version of it.
4. Modify appmanifest files to make Steam think that the update has been installed. Or, modify file permissions on game files/appmanifest files to prevent Steam from being able to install updates. (There are some guides for this that you can look up.)
5. If you're specifically trying to go back to an older version of the game that you no longer have, you can try to use a "Depot Downloader" to get the old version of the game from Steam. However, I've heard that this functionality was removed from the Steam Client Beta, so I don't know if it's still possible.
6. Just get the game from some source that doesn't force updates. Easiest way to avoid forced updates is to buy from DRM-free sources, which often even give you standalone installers that you can use anytime anywhere. Though some other places might also give you options for avoiding updates.
Followed by:
And then argue against "version choice via branches" which is a "feature" Valve offers to developers.
Thanks for quoting me. Like I said, the game devs don't get to force updates onto people.
It's the Steam client that's doing the forcing. Game devs can release the same update to other platforms and other platforms may or may not force that same update. The only difference is what the platform itself does. In Steam's case, it forces the update onto players, by way of removing the player's access to using Steam to launch the game without accepting the update, and making it very inconvenient to not update.
What do you mean by "argue against"? I never argued that this feature should be removed.
In fact, a player-side option on Steam to decline updates can coexist with the ability for game devs to set up branches.
"Quint" did not "argue against version choice via branches" - Quint posed having a convenient, & easy to use, user-controlled option as an alternative to the pre-existing developer-controlled branches.
How do you not see that these 2 methods can co-exist?
Speaking favorably of one idea isn't arguing against the other in this scenario.
How do you not understand this?
I have. And even if I didn't, that still wouldn't prove anything. I have also never been in a car accident but that doesn't mean that others haven't experienced it either, or that it could never happen to me.
And frankly speaking, as I mentioned, if Steam offers such an option and defaults to keeping the updates active, then the default behavior ends up being the same as it's always been for anyone who expressly wants to keep the updates coming as well as for anyone who doesn't care either way about updates. It would be an entirely painless transition for them and one they wouldn't even need to pay any attention to, if it's designed that way. Which it should be. (Even GOG Galaxy does it this way.)
The only people who are "affected" by such a change would be the ones who actually want to turn off updates for some of their games. And they'd be more satisfied with the Steam platform because it'd afford them a convenience it didn't previously provide.
Ask me again how I know you have not read anything on the subject matter.
There is literally reverse burden of proof, placing the burden on the trader. When a consumer claims non-conformity and demonstrates the issue to exist, the trader is required to prove that the problem originates from the client's system. The actual nitty-gritty of it is also arranged such that the trader cannot take another system, install the game there and claim "works on my machine, it must be you" - they have to actually prove that there is a problem on the consumer's own system and point out what that problem is.
To that end the consumer is required to comply with investigation from the trader's end such as giving access to memory dumps; log files; and other non-invasive measures that are within reason. (E.g. they can't ask you to bring in the machine for an on-site inspection.) To ensure fairness burden of proof goes back to the consumer if they refuse to comply with such investigation. I.e. you cannot make a bogus claim and give the trader no recourse to prove it false.
The right of withdrawal from a distance sale and the built-in option of the trader asking the consumer to wave it, has absolutely zero to do with the right to a proper product which conforms to contract, which cannot be waived.
Also; your profile is private so I cannot confirm it - but the fact that you're cheesed whenever I bring up an alternate perspective of relevant laws from another major market that Steam is operating on, probably means you're American. Well... the world doesn't revolve around the US either, buddy.
... except in the EU, where the liable entity that is legally responsible to fix things when they end up in a broken situation, is the trader; and not their supplier or the manufacturer. And the trader would be Steam.
"Might" and "ifs" are the correct terms if your interest is an option to be given control over updates, because you do not want to risk updating to a version that is potentially broken.
And that is what the opening post requested.
Certainty of a product actually being broken after an update comes into play if your interest is an option to roll back, or as has been brought up through discussion in this thread: a reimbursement if roll back turns out to be impossible from the consumer's end.
... except for consumers who reside in the EU. As I explained before.
Additional legislation applies there to curtail what they can do.
(Though technically you are correct: the developer or publisher can still update the content without recourse to anyone else. It's the trader which is simply not allowed to push those updates to the consumer if they violate the legislation.)
Which isn't good enough if you happen to get stuck with one which doesn't.
Case in point: after the update patch that prepared for integration of its first DLC, Super Robot Wars 30 was stuck with a game breaking bug that corrupted the roster of playable characters. That same patch also introduced major stability problems causing the game to crash when accessing certain menus related to game mechanics that are core to the game's gameplay.
It took Bandai Namco a month and then some to have the first issue fixed. And the second issue wasn't even officially acknowledged. As far as the playerbase is concerned; it might have even just have been fixed as a side-effect of something else.
That's just the most recent example I have where things went off the rails.
But certainly there are more. It still happens too often to be called truly incidental.
You're lucky if you're playing a game that has active devs still working on the game and who are responsive to player feedback.
And even then, you're depending on the issue being reproducible and thus analyzable by the devs. If they just can't reproduce it on their end, then even if they really care about you, you're still out of luck.
That's not gonna happen.
Especially since the industry has kinda already seen what happens when users are given the responsibility.
Devs already have a myriad of choices for granting users full control. If they wish. Very few do when provided with an actual choice in the matter.
Yeah but then you have to ask yourself 'why?' and then the answers become muddy. Especially when you consider that people do exaggerate and outright lie to make their points.
The point stands though, devs define the software, devs deciden when and if an update is mandatory. They can grant that choice (many do) to users. And history has shown that its best to leave that matter up to the people smarty enough to write the software.
Ubisioft is a french company that grants you licences to access their games. Seems Ubisoft did not get the memo about not updating their games.
Secondly the EU clarified that anyone wanting to remain on a specific version cannot expect support, nor complain when a bug stops progression that was fixed in the next patch they do not want you update to. As i have explained before.
You should not try to be selective when talking about EU law and missing off relevant facts, nor that EU law has relevance to the rest of the world.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
Is not applicable to the rest of the world.
And finally do not forget Valve gives the EU refunds VOLUNTARILY because the right of withdrawal removes refunds.
But there's no shortage of EU developers that did not get that memo. Heck even CDPR forces updates for their products on STeam. They dn't do it on GoG because GoG has no way of enforcing a mandatory update. Steam is one of the few platforms that does offer the developer that choice.
You can make it mandatory, or you can make it optional. Spoiler. Most dev/pubs seem to prefer mandatory.
The update also only added about 3 MB[steamdb.info] of actual new content. It did modify a very large 22 GB file, so a 18 GB download is certainly possible, but the change in that large file is so small (it got smaller by 180 bytes) that it doesn't seem very likely that any major changes were made to it.
A contemporaneous forum post says that the update was 5.2 MB, not 18 GB.
If the OP is seeing an 18 GB update, the most likely thing I can think of is that Steam thinks the install is corrupt and is trying to fix the damage. The issue of if updates should be forced or not aside*, I can't see any possible future in which Steam lets you play a game that it thinks is corrupt.
* Personally, I think that Steam should let you play games which have pending updates. Should there be an irritating warning message you have to click through? Yes, definitely. Should devs have an option in Steamworks to override that force updates anyway? Yeah, probably, for the purposes of multiplayer games if nothing else.
Post history tells a different story.