Version Control (let us downgrade to a older version of the game with limits of course)

[Honor Guard]

Simply let us choose the version for most games (live service games & such not included for obvious reasons)

can use the current beta system as a base

Uses ; Downgrading games such as Skyrim to allow easier access to older mods,incase a game is currently having a game breaking issue,and simply going back to a version of a Single player game you enjoyed more as afew examples

Limitations ; If on a downgraded version you should only be able to do MP with others on same version ,doesn't work for live service games (Rainbow 6 Siege,ESO,Destiny 2,Warframe and etc) and will require steam to keep a backlog of older game versions to let people download & Install

Another thing could be let us not be forced to update & play a current version without it forced to update (So have update be beside/below play)

[Nx Machina]

Todd wants you on that latest patch and gamers on the Skyrim forum always blame Bethesda.

Secondly, that can already be done by developers if they choose to. Bethesda choose not to.

Motion Twin - Dead Cells - https://ibb.co/dW5HSXg

Paradox - Hearts of Iron IV - https://ibb.co/vwKwjyT

And finally it is not on Valve to keep a backlog of older 3rd party game versions, that is on the developer of that 3rd party game to implement and supply them via the system Valve provided.

[Crazy Tiger]

Valve is firmly in the "always up-to-date camp", so I don't think Valve will ever change how updating by default works, unless some major forces make Valve change it. Major forces being: laws changing and actual lawsuits to enforce it, developer/publishers en masse dropping Steam, players en masse dropping Steam or some mixture of those.

In the meantime you can choose to use other platforms that don't utilise auto-updating or that offer DRM-free games.

[Chungo Beepis]

Devs have the power to make versions available and they don't force updates, and that's all through steam, so definitely petition your fav games devs to make versions of their game available. But yeah Steam isn't interested in doing much these days, hey have a real opportunity to build an incredible platform but they're just coasting, happy in the knowledge that all other platforms are garbage and they only need to be garbage +1. Well lets be honest they're garbage + 7, I can't think of a distribution platform that's even close. Maybe we need to tease Newall relentless or something, making him wanna show us what a big man he is by re-developing this creaky old bird, move on from single threaded monolithic app design and embrace the world of ___literally____ anything else Gabe, for cryin' out loud, did ya ever hear of WINDOWS m8? RUB YR TUMMY N PAT YR HEAD MUCH M8?!!?? NAH NOT MUCH EH.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

For someone with a 19-year-old account, you should know that this is the exact reason or one of them, why Steam was created in the first place. To make it easier to update games. I can't see any viable reason why they would allow us to downgrade versions of games.

[Mailer]

Valve cannot force developers to retain access to older versions of the their games as it is.
On the other hand, I do wish more developers voluntarily utilized the Beta Build/Branch feature for exactly this purpose.

The best we can hope for is for Valve to add a sidenote to their Steamworks page that users generally enjoy having old versions available as branches and that this is a recommended practice, or something...

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/application/branches

[Chungo Beepis]

Because the game industry / culture moved on dude, now it's modding / version locking / hacking the dll's so the bastard WONT update etc etc, you don't spend 100 hours procuring the perfect experience only for a platform to ignorantly blast all your config files away, that's sick, cruel, unforgivable, there is a world of magic out there and these grovelling wareshovels of yore can't even see it for all the cash and doomed side projects they keep inventing as a way to take their mind off the great responsibility that comes with being at the pinnacle of your industry but yearning for mummies basement.

For Steam to be ignorant of all that going on is typically what we should expect of the rich and disinterested, we made them rich and fat and complacent, despite being the best of them now they're the least innovative of creatures, terminally sedentary and growing less composed by the moment until they eventually slush off into a wobbly slime before finally turning into a noxious gas. I won't make an argument for Tim Sweeney because i'd like to punch all his teeth out but sometimes i would like to see Gabe get a soft, encouraging slap in the chins just so he wakes up and takes it all to the next level, because only he can.

"Valve cannot force developers to retain access to older versions of the their games as it is."

Nobody should have to force developers to do anything, developers should WANT to because that's the trade being made, we fund them, they entertain us, understand the industry and actively contribute towards it. Also why i think huge companies like Square Enix and EA should be burnt down / chased out of this planet and to the moon, gormless rentiers producing vapid barely animated veneers to worlds so charmlessly void of personality and with pricetags thousands of times more exuberant but only in a way that makes me want to steal everything from them, they couldn't give a flaming toss if the industry was headed towards a wonderful era of democratised gaming, they still have cheap upskirts to peddle and some lootboxes to put them in.

[WolfEisberg]

Valve should be more pro-consumer like their competitors are, GOG/Epic for an example, and not force updates. At the very least they could do the same thing as Epic in that going into Offline mode can still be played even if there is an update pending, unlike Steam where most of the time offline mode doesn't work on a game if an update is pending. Valve not forcing updates would be a huge plus to this store, roll back to previous versions of all games would be a bonus. Valve simply needs to add an another option that people can choose on a per game basis, but keep automatic updates at the default.

GOG does it the best through GOG Galaxy. No forced updating, though Automatic updates are set by default in which you can change, plus GOG keeps the last 5 updates of all games that ever had an update on GOG since or after early 2015 available for everyone to roll back too.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Chungo Beepis:

For Steam to be ignorant of all that going on is typically what we should expect of the rich and disinterested, we made them rich and fat and complacent, despite being the best of them now they're the least innovative of creatures, terminally sedentary and growing less composed by the moment until they eventually slush off into a wobbly slime before finally turning into a noxious gas. I won't make an argument for Tim Sweeney because i'd like to punch all his teeth out but sometimes i would like to see Gabe get a soft, encouraging slap in the chins just so he wakes up and takes it all to the next level, because only he can.

They aren't ignorant. They just know their boyundaries. THey built their system to prioritize keeping things up to date which is the optimal scenario for the vast majority of vgames and users thereof. Dev/Pyubs are left to choose whether or not they want their customers to access the older versions. SOme do. most don't.

Originally posted by Chungo Beepis:

"Valve cannot force developers to retain access to older versions of the their games as it is."
Nobody should have to force developers to do anything, developers should WANT to because that's the trade being made, we fund them, they entertain us, understand the industry and actively contribute towards it.

Clearly many devs see a different puicture.

Originally posted by Chungo Beepis:

Also why i think huge companies like Square Enix and EA should be burnt down / chased out of this planet and to the moon, gormless rentiers producing vapid barely animated veneers to worlds so charmlessly void of personality and with pricetags thousands of times more exuberant but only in a way that makes me want to steal everything from them, they couldn't give a flaming toss if the industry was headed towards a wonderful era of democratised gaming, they still have cheap upskirts to peddle and some lootboxes to put them in.

So basically you want to punish the companies that...are actually good at what they do?. You want to punish the companies that manage to be successful?

That's like rewarding the gold medalists be shot.

You want version control for a game. Talk to the dev/pubs.It's they're game. YOu're technically just leasing it for use.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve should be more pro-consumer like their competitors are, GOG/Epic for an example, and not force updates.

They are pro-consumer, they are not "anti consumer" by not giving version control. You've been told numerous times that not every company has to do the same thing, especially when those 2 places have almost zero protections for games making people easily pirate them which is something Valve does NOT want to be known for. Also that those 2 stores are not a good example of success especially since one is on life support from an engine & fortnite, whereas GOG is just GOG and is still doing very poorly especially due to the lack of protections for the games.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve not forcing updates would be a huge plus to this store

The Developers choice is reflected upon the client. If you want different versions available; contact the Developer. Whatever they select or allow is what you get pushed through the client.

You're more than aware of this by now.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve not forcing updates would be a huge plus to this store

The Developers choice is reflected upon the client. If you want different versions available; contact the Developer. Whatever they select or allow is what you get pushed through the client.

You're more than aware of this by now.

Pretty much.
It seems the one thing people of this mindset don't want to do is talk to the actual devs. More interested in trying to go over the heads of the devs, or around them.

Valve ain't like that and Yeah GoG's not even worth mentioning since GoG lacks the feature for mandatory updates. o do most other platforms. Steam is a I think the ONLY platform that allows dev/pubs to choose.

[WolfEisberg]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve should be more pro-consumer like their competitors are, GOG/Epic for an example, and not force updates.

They are pro-consumer, they are not "anti consumer" by not giving version control. You've been told numerous times that not every company has to do the same thing, especially when those 2 places have almost zero protections for games making people easily pirate them which is something Valve does NOT want to be known for. Also that those 2 stores are not a good example of success especially since one is on life support from an engine & fortnite, whereas GOG is just GOG and is still doing very poorly especially due to the lack of protections for the games.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve not forcing updates would be a huge plus to this store

The Developers choice is reflected upon the client. If you want different versions available; contact the Developer. Whatever they select or allow is what you get pushed through the client.

You're more than aware of this by now.

Actually it is anti-consumer to force updates, objectively anti-consumer. Why are you against customers, and pro-valve only?

- People are prevented from playing the games they paid for because there is an update pending, and they don't have the data cap available to download it yet.
- People are prevented from playing the game when they want to because they have to wait for an update, this is especially painful for people with little time and/or slow internet
- People are prevented from playing the modded game, that has mod support, while they wait for their mods to be updated. This means they cannot play the game until the mods are updated, if they could wait to download the update until they want to and still play the game, that is better for them
- It is known that the update have broken important things, and people would like to not update to the broken update and keep on playing the already working game on their PC.

that is some examples of how anti-consumer Valve forcing updates onto customers really is.

Steam's DRM is broken in a few minutes, so don't go pretending that Valve's DRM means anything. What is funny is that CD Projekt literally stated that it was the Steam version of Witcher 3 that was pirated by far the most, and not the GOG version. So your excuse using GOG is invalid.
Epic Games Store is doing fine, their losses are planned losses, and therefore not on life support at all. So that is an invalid excuse too.

Lets also talk about how the consoles also do not force updates like Valve does. You going to claim those are not success at all? lol Or how about Oculus, Quest 2 being massively successful, also doesn't force updates at all.

Valve is the one that created the forced updating system, so it is Valve that is forcing the updates, and it is Valve that needs to fix the problem they created in the first place. Developers cannot change how the default branch works, and it cannot be expected of them to do the extra work to cover up for Valve's mistake.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Actually it is anti-consumer to force updates, objectively anti-consumer. Why are you against customers, and pro-valve only?

Because mandatory updates do have measureable conveneicne and benefit to the consumer.
Unless you're saying that keeping the user on the most feature rich, refined, and stable version of the software is a bad thing for the gamer.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve is the one that created the forced updating system, so it is Valve that is forcing the updates, and it is Valve that needs to fix the problem they created in the first place. Developers cannot change how the default branch works, and it cannot be expected of them to do the extra work to cover up for Valve's mistake.

Valve created the tool. It is the developer's choice as to how, when and even *if* they use it.. If the dev pubs choose to use the tool in a manner that forces updates. Then that's their choice and their action.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Actually it is anti-consumer to force updates, objectively anti-consumer. Why are you against customers, and pro-valve only?

You've attempted to speak of others positions as if it's anti-consumer for a while on both of your accounts when they do not align with your repeatedly debunked positions.

The reality is the Steam store is successful as-is, always has been, by being a platform meant to keep games updated; where the Developers can choose to allow version access - which is pro customer, and allows their decision to pass onto the consumer

Being realistic of a businesses choices which keeps almost all customers happy, and allowing them to operate in a positive manner is not "anti consumer" or "pro-valve only".

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

People are prevented from playing the games they paid for because there is an update pending, and they don't have the data cap available to download it yet.

Temporarily.
If you have an issue with game updates being pushed through the client and want version access, Contact the Developer

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

People are prevented from playing the game when they want to because they have to wait for an update, this is especially painful for people with little time and/or slow internet

Temporarily.
Those are not the demographic, and those extremely few people have a habit of not managing their limited connection very well.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

People are prevented from playing the modded game, that has mod support, while they wait for their mods to be updated.

The realistic answer is "Get over it"
You've been told numerous times a game can be made incredibly mod-friendly, or some games (like 7DTD) can break dependencies with updates. The modding users must understand and accept these facts, as they should not complain. Modders may update their mods in order to be compatible with the latest version, though most that complain are using skyrim which almost never gets an update and thus is really nothing to complain about. Mods being updated can also break other mods, which users typically blame the Developer rather than realizing sometimes mods have conflicts, a user recently had such a thread on that kind of scenario where clearly everything was fine until a bunch of mods were slapped on and conflicted with each other.

You either accept the reality, or you do not join in using mods until EOL for the game if it's that inconvenient to have a sliver of patience.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

that is some examples of how anti-consumer Valve forcing updates onto customers really is.

Not giving a vocal minority does not equate to "anti consumer", you also seem to forget that Steam is DRM, GOG is realistically not a DRM but may allow games with such, and epic is also a joke in regard to protecting most games. Most people used to consider basic DRM as "anti consumer" but forget it's to drive sales, make distribution easier, and prevent piracy - something GOG and Epic miserably fail at.

Their customers are Developers, and the Developers customers are those making purchases. Valve considers both parties, and Valve even did what users suggested which was detrimental to their business; accepting crypto payments which was removed. Thus, showing they will consider and even implement bad suggestions in attempt to be consumer friendly, even if it bites them and had high fees involved.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Steam's DRM is broken in a few minutes, so don't go pretending that Valve's DRM means anything.

That varies per game and you know as much.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Lets also talk about how the consoles also do not force updates like Valve does. You going to claim those are not success at all? lol Or how about Oculus, Quest 2 being massively successful, also doesn't force updates at all.

You always move to consoles, this is PCs, with many multiplayer popular games needing updates not only for the games, the content, but also bug fixes/crashes needing to be ironed out by countless configurations that can cause issues with the game itself and even other software.

Again, something you're more than aware of as Consoles have nearly no configurations in comparison.

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Valve is the one that created the forced updating system, so it is Valve that is forcing the updates, and it is Valve that needs to fix the problem they created in the first place.

If it isn't broken, you don't "fix" it. This is not an issue whatsoever, and it still ultimately just like prices; comes down to the Developers choice being pushed through the client onto the customer. If you don't get what you want here, you may shop anywhere you wish that does what you want. Though successful places often don't mimic failing examples of shops or those that redirect all of their funds to keep it afloat. Valve has a working model, and it clearly works well.


You've repeatedly made your stance known on such subjects - debunked each time. It's time you let go of the wildly inaccurate "anti consumer" narrative.

[WolfEisberg]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

You've attempted to speak of others positions as if it's anti-consumer for a while on both of your accounts

if you want me to take you seriously and actually read everything else you say, then don't make up BS lies like that.

[Satoru]

Valve already provides devs with basically as many previous versions they want to provide. Paradox games have like 2 dozen previous versions for many of their popular games like EU4/HOI4/Stellaris

If a dev doesn't provide this, then you're free to go scream at them about it. Devs have the tools to provide it. If they don't want to, they don't want to.