Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Questa discussione è stata chiusa 
L'autore della discussione ha indicato un messaggio come risposta alla propria domanda.
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
It also has zero impact on users who want to keep everything up to date.
The only thing it does is help people with internet data limits, many of them in the third world. And people who have limited time to game after a days' work and don't want to waste valuable time patching a single player game before a session when they could just play the game and update it overnight instead.
This is a convenience feature, nothing else, and the idea that this somehow negatively impacts developers is frankly absurd. Are we going to pretend modding negatively impacts developers as well? Because guess what. the people modding games aren't running what the developer intended either.
When the devs update the "licence" you own you would have a point but in fact they are updating the game game they own.
Yes, also let's not forget some people play heavily modded games. It's not just one mod or two. Having to reinstall all of them can be a pita. If you get lucky you can simply copy-paste files but not always.
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’).
This info does not help your point at all. Your interpretation skills must be improved.
Irrespective of its update status, a game can work in offline mode indefinitely unless the game developer has somehow set it up not to. If he has incorporated any kind of online check then yes, it will obviously ask to go online.
But the point of this request is that the Steam client allows us to start a game without installing the update and that can already be done by default. Whatever checks happen after this are part of the game, rather than the Steam Client's behavior and thus not pertaining to this discussion. What does this mean? That many many single player games that do not implement draconian DRM will work indefinitely.
As for this:
It would have been a decent point if you had made it a year or two ago, because then it would ring true. But it is moot now because the client does not work like you think any more. You can go online, play or update any other game you want, and then go back offline and play that one game you do not want to update. Then you can go back online, do whatever you want, and back offline and play the non-updated game again. And so on ad infinitum. This is the current behavior of the Steam client.
In a few words... unless the developper specifically implemented a DRM that calls for online check at some point, you can skip updates. That is what the OP asked. And it is already available and answered on the very first post. This is why I said that this argument is moot nowadays. Finding out the feature exists might be not very a straightforward process, but it is there.
Yet this thread (and many future ones_ will stilll go on with people still arguing as if it still does not exist. Funny, isn't it?
Heck, the fact that they can differ is the source of one of PC gaming's greatest strengths -- customizability. Which includes moddability.
Game devs are not the dictators you imagine them to be.
Basically, a ton of games are unplayable in offline mode. This is not a solution.
If that works for the OP, great. But that doesn't eliminate the problem for all Steam users.
The point is, if Steam didn't force you to use offline mode in order to avoid updates, things would be better.
Irrelevant.
These same licenses exist on consoles and other PC platforms as well and the ability to skip an update was never a problem. You are grasping at straws.
You could of course be correct. I have not tested every game out there to see if it works with offline mode.
So if you could give me even one example of a single player game of those "tons" that you mention where the Steam Client itself stops you from starting the game, I would be happy to admit defeat.
By the way, a game where the developer himself implements an online check is not an acceptable answer, as at that point it is the dev himself forcing you to go online and update. That is not Steam's default behavior and at that point the developer is actively trying to force you to stay up-to-date. That is not something Valve can do anything about.
So if you give me as an example Rise of the Tomb Raider, it will be wrong. Because as I found out when I tried to launch it in the past without updating, the game launched. Its executable ran. But then the dev had his own online check implemented which popped up its own window and asked you to go online and update. So essentially Steam allowed you to run the game. But the dev then put his foot down and tells you, "no, go online and update if needed". Valve is not in a position to tell a dev to not do that, unfortunately. They can do whatever they want with their game files.
Finally... yes, I agree with you that if there was a toggle that allowed you to do what you want without going in offline mode, it would make things easier, ease of access-wise. But it would not allow you to run any more games that a persistent developer like the one I mentioned above does not want you to. They would just implement a version check instead of an online check upon their game launch and they would not allow you to go forth without updating.
The mere ability to launch a game doesn't mean it is fully playable, please keep that in mind. People with low specs know that very well lol.
So, if I want to avoid an update, I can use offline mode to launch games but the DRM will stop them, right?
If I didn't need to use offline mode in order to avoid the update, this problem wouldn't exist. That's what I meant.
Yes, Steam allows you to run the game... for some minutes? In order to be able to perform the online checks, Steam forces users to update their games. Why can't I go online and do the checks, without updating the game? That's how it works in other platforms, right?
Naturally, we're talking about SP games here, just in case.
I think that answering this would essentially consist of repeating myself.
So, I might as well give you a practical example. The other day, I had a big update pending on Dying Light. I went offline and played the game (single player mode) with no issue at all. And the day before that I wanted to play some Half Life 2 but there was a pending update of a few MBs. However, my left leg was itching me and therefore I decided I did not want to update. Guess what. I changed over to offline mode and played it.
Upon switching to offline, the play button was there and clickable, instead of the update button. At no point did Steam decide to do an online check. I did not have the time restraint of a couple of minutes to play.
And I have tried this with many more games. If there is a game where this does not work, it is because the dev has implemented his own checks to not allow you to do it. Even if steam allowed you to launch non-updated games while online, this type of dev would still not let you play his game because he would just implement a version check (and there I go repeating myself).
Well, these games don't use draconian DRM as you mentioned. I said a ton of games before because a ton of games use it, and a lot more are released every year (I know, with time they may remove this).
Now, if we think about it, there's no indication that devs demand updates installed in order to play their games, they simply require you to be online for checks. It's a different thing. Then you go online and Steam pushes updates. Are the updates a requirement from the devs too? Then why this doesn't happen across all platforms? Doesn't that insinuates Steam is the one behind this decision?
I have yet to test the same game in different platforms to verify this, but that's the information people here provided: only Steam will block you from playing the game *when you are online*, by making the update mandatory. It would be really interesting to confirm that, but I don't have the means to do it.
Qyuint seems to feels that having an option.choice means there is an obligation to use it. As pointed out many dev pubs on steam do indeed have fine grain control over their update policies. So the fact that such examples can EASILY be pointed to shows him to be wrong...again.
And if you agree to a lefgal term in means you found them acceptable and fair.
And when/if contracts are changed, you are given a chance to retify your previous acceptance, or cancel the contract.
Heck you can cancel a contract with steam at any time. JUst delete or cease using your account ...course you lose all your games buuuut hey. That's how things work in grown up land.
Is it that the allow it, or they lack the ability to enforce....oh right. I forgot the sort of folks I'm dealing with Quint is well known for his 'if they can't stop m, then its alright for me to do it.' logic.
That's not how the world and laws work.
Simple truth is STeam provides the option, dev pubs choose to use it. If they were fine with optional update they wouldn't be using mandatory. If they were fine with optional, they wouldn't change that stance when they go to a platform that actually allows them to enforce mandatory updates. The fact that more than a couple devs have been seen to do this says all that needs to be said. WHen the choice is there...dev/pubs chopose mandatory.
When its not there, they make do with whatever is available.
No matter how you slice it, this is a battle of options. Devs/pubs like having the option of to enforce mandatory updates at their discretion. SOme players want the ability to decline or defere updates at their discretion.
Sadly these two options are mutually exclusivbe, and Valve, being developers sides with developers because they have seen and experienced the headaches that resuldt from leaving it uyp to users.
EGS does not lack that functionality. Their MP games will force updates, why couldn't they force updates for SP games too? Think about it... yes, they can.