Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
More precisely: speak to the developers and ask them why they can't offer you the ability to play your purchase without being forced to update it to a version that may no longer work for you.
Any change here will have to come from the side of the developers and publishers to put pressure on Valve to change Steam's update delivery process, as they are the most direct analogue to the concept of an actual customer of this update service that Valve is offering.
Valve itself traditionally has a hands-off point of view on this kind of thing and likely won't budge until legislative measures crop up to force them. The EU is dangerously close to it with their new directive on sale of digital content and services, but it still lacks precedent and thus by extension agency and push. Until something happens in that field, your best bet is still the developer/publisher angle.
And, as retired community moderator Tito was also want to say in such matters:
be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
(Though in this case I agree with OP that from a consumer perspective the ability to at least postpone an update would be highly desirable.)
Dead Cells and Hearts of Iron IV are two games where the developer uses version choice.
RThough I suspect the answer would be. "Why would we want people to be using an objectively inferior version of our product?"
Developers and publishers push updated changesets to artefact repositories on Steam, to either the main branch or any other branch.
Steam's infrastructure is arranged such that any updates pushed to a branch are instantly delivered to all users subscribed to that branch, which encompasses the main release branch or any other branch that is publicly reachable - i.e. accessible to normal users.
The devs/pubs decide when the update starts to be available; but the way Valve engineered the system decides it is immediately forced on users at that time. And branches are not an escape from mandatory updates. Any update to a branch is also mandatory to be taken by any user subscribed to that branch.
You are simply wrong on both counts.
Developers force updates as confirmed and seen in the image.
The developer uploads the update and Steam delivers it as per the developer request.
Secondly developers choice RIO and i utilise said choice for both Dead cells and Hearts of Iron IV. I am not on the latest build of either and i am not pushed updates. Oddly as a claimed developer you seem adverse to developer choice.
Version choice after all is Valve's version of rollback on GOG so if i updated to the latest version of Hearts of Iron IV and it breaks i can rollback.
And finally tell Bethesda who forces said updates and are blamed for said update breaking mods (3rd party, not applicable to official updates) on the Skyrim forum by Skyrim players.
Oddly they spend their time in a fantasy world and understand the reality of updates and who is responsible - Bethesda.
Yes, the fact that Steam forces updates is a big problem. For multiple reasons, including:
* mods, including things like fan translations
* limited internet
* limited time to play games
* unwanted content changes
* newer versions requiring newer hardware
And I see that the "talk to the devs" card has already been played. Well, game devs can't change the behavior of the Steam client. They can't make the Steam client not lock out launching the game when an update is pending.
Furthermore, the only things game devs can do not reach the entire Steam playerbase the same way as an update does, or require even more extra manual setup from game devs. For example, not all players see alternate branches, which means either some people get stuck with updates on the main branch or not all players are notified of updates on the alternate branch. Furthermore, branches don't actually let a player keep playing what they have already installed -- mods will get overwritten, for example, on a branch switch.
Asking game devs to fix this is asking them to fix someone else's problem -- namely, a problem caused by Valve's design team.
Also, OP, before anyone tries to claim that you're somehow alone or in a "tiny minority" -- this suggestion has been requested many times before on this forum. Each time by different users. It's quite a popular suggestion -- it's just that a handful of dedicated opponents (ironically an even smaller minority) just like to rag on it.
Anyway here's my usual list of stuff you can try to get around Steam's forcing updates:
0. Set the game to only update on launch. (Do this before other steps.)
1. Run the game without Steam running. (This may require tweaking.)
2. Run the game in Offline Mode. (This may be more successful if you run the game executable or a shortcut to it.)
3. Modify appmanifest files (or maybe their permissions, or permissions to the game files themselves) to prevent updates, possibly by making Steam think that the updates have already been applied. (Look up guides for how to do this.)
4. Back up your game files elsewhere -- or just rename the install folder. Uninstall the game in Steam...then launch the game from the folder.
5. Back up your game files elsewhere. Then let the update apply. Then paste the old files back into the game install directory. (Won't help you save on data transfer, but will at least preserve your old files.)
6. Get an older version via a Depot Downloader. (Might not work anymore.)
7. Get a version of the game on a platform that doesn't force updates. You can automatically trust DRM-free versions to not force updates, but some other DRM implementations also don't force updates either.
Do you honestly believe that is going to get a rise out of me or is going to get me to dox myself by revealing what things I work on in a professional capacity? Stop embarrassing yourself, and come back when you have actual arguments that don't reek of ad hominem, please.
As for an honest answer:
Pro-consumer policy can be a good selling point and a powerful asset. I mentioned Factorio before, right? There's a reason it has managed to keep its Overwhelmingly Positive review rating straight through three review-bomb controversies. And that's consumer good will.
Of course, it is also possible there is some weird legal thing I'm not aware of that prevents Steam from doing this. I'm not sure what would though. From my perspective it just seems as if Steam doesn't want users to choose. I shouldn't have to do a bunch of weird stuff to play my games in an outdated version. I mean, at least I can play in offline mode, but it is an inconvenience. Honestly, this one negative of Steam makes me want to use Epic Games Launcher instead sometimes. This is a big deal to me.
You work you fix and so on, and then someone comes by insists they got the latest and they got an issue after 5 trying to detect the issue they found the issue was already fixed in a later update, and they were not at the last one
Valve for the most part did pick to make the default options always the most up-to-date version, developers can pick to allow access to older versions if they so wish to do
There is up and downs for allowing someone to update, at least at the current time dose seem Valve decide its better to work on the default of keeping users up to date over letting them choose if the developer did don't set that option there own
The Devs of Steam have already added and allowed for multiple ways for the game devs to allow for varying degrees of update control. Ie. Feature already exists. The Game devs have to use them.
In case you didn't notice, Valve almost never tells devs how to do their ♥♥♥♥. They provide the platform, and the tools and let the game devs decide what is best for them and their community. Some do. Some don't.
Not really. It could be that the PS4 lacks the ability for devs to enforce mandatory updates. WHy? Because I dunno, not everyone has their consoles hooked up to the internet...Consoles are still designed around the fact that the owner might never ever plug an internet connection into them.
Steam works with the opposite assumption. And reasonably so.
No m8. Devs choose whether to enforce mandatory, or use branches, or any of the other optional update deployment models available to them. They choose the one that best suits their needs. And for many. Yeah they prefer people to be on the latest version. Saves their support staffg a few headaches. And for most people...that's fine.
You can't paint someone else's house on your own whim. Simple as that. The games are the property of the dev/pubs. Steam can make suggestions at best, and offer tools and options. But unless there is some overarching law or mandate Valve cannot legally force devs to use a particular update method. Well technically they can but that sort of action would have the anti-trust lawyers banging on their doors.
Yeah because that's an edgecase scenario. You can ask the game/devs. They are the ones with the pwoer to decide what STeam features and settings they use.
Sorry to hear M8. But as said. you can always speak with the game/devs. Thats basically the way you get stuff like this changed.
When you signed up for Steam, Bought the game on Steam, and installed the game, you agreed that it would be the dev/pubs that would control the versioning and update. You agreed threed different times. Kinda weird that you have an issue with something you signed in triplicate.
You know this is the suggestion forum, where people post how they want steam to change?
The Problem is this isn't a change for Steam/Valve to make. As said. they cannot force developers to use Steam features they do not wish to. This is why there are games that don't even use Steam as a DRM. That's been one of VAlve's core tenets since the start. Dev/Pubs get to choose.
Hence my counter suggestion is...speak to the dev/pubs. They are the ones whod ecide what features to use with their products and they are the ones that can nudge Valve to adding more options.