安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
With games.. nowadays, the updates, contrent additions, etc are given as part of the service.
Yes because there are business arrangements between the sofware dealers and the plugin creators. But that relationship is not there with devs and mods for the most part. SOme Mods and devs have a tight relationshjip and are even given consideration, others are not. The user is in charge of keep their mods up with the software.
Game devs can put the newest version on a new branch instead of the main branch. That then means that not all players are notified of the update.
And again, it is Valve that's responsible for designing the Steam client, and it's the Steam client that's locking out launching the game when an update is pending. Game devs aren't responsible for this.
No; game devs pushing an update onto the main branch just means the update becomes available to the players on the main branch. It does NOT mean the update needs to be forced onto the players on the main branch.
And so that means the update isn't made available to players.
And right now "don't" is a pain.
Your whole schpiel was at leaset half nonsensical and went through a totally irrelevant aside about how password screens need an input.
Steam's handling of updates isn't a "placeholder". The Steam client, when it senses that there's an update on (whatever branch of) a game (one currently has installed), prevents the game from being launched until the update is applied. This is just how it works. It's not just the default; it's literally the only way it works.
Your philosophical rambling about what constitutes choice doesn't matter to the practical implementation of things.
Perhaps you haven't gotten to know things well enough but this is a common feature for software that doesn't require people to pay for updated versions. Your cynicism is misplaced.
And the user can't manage things when an update can just swoop in and break everything.
There's room for options on both sides, except if you apply close-minded thinking assuming it to be a zero-sum game where the game dev has to "control" everything.
Yeah. but what we have here where there can be only one. Only oneside can have that power. The enfiorced mandatory updates are an optioon the dev/pubs have. if you'd rather they not use that option talk to them and convince them not to use it instead of trying to get someone else to effectively remove the option from dev/pubs.
And frankly speaking, it's the better way of doing things, because software developers have no way of tailoring their software to all individual users' needs even they wanted to.
Also, remember that Steam's forcing updates does not do, nor can it substitute for, version checks. It's not version enforcement. It's just bothering people with updates.
Depends on the software and the oprescribed usecases.
Sure you can never get to 100% but, yeah 95% is close enough.
I don't devote memory to remembering things that are demonstrably untrue,. I mean if steam were forcing the updates. How come there are dev/pubs that offer the very features you want... The two statements don't mesh.
Now if it was just an options the dev/pubs choose...then that would explain why you see some devs using it and others not. As said. Valve just makes the tools. Dev/pyubs choose how to use them. There's no forcing. . It is a choice. That's reflected in the documentation,, that's reflected in the usage by devs.
Your calling it a "choice" is like how Henry Ford remarked that you can have any color of Model T as long as that color is black. There's literally only one way the Steam client knows to handle the situation when an update is pending on a game, and that's to prevent the game from being launched through Steam until the update has been applied.
And again, if game devs need version compatibility they implement their own version checks. Even on Steam. This lockout doesn't actually do any version enforcement. It's just there to annoy anyone who wants to keep playing what's already installed on their computer.
And this 95% is a statistic you pulled out of thin air to justify ignoring whatever use cases you want to ignore in order to make your argument work, regardless of impacts on actual users.
At this point, your refusal to distinguish between the Steam client forcing updates and the Steam platform offering variously imperfect workarounds can no longer be chalked up to your ignorance but is pretty conclusively willful on your part.
So basically the only way for you to continue that line of argument is if things like 'truth', 'Reality', and 'Fact' mean nothing to you and all that matters is your rhetoric.
And since that is the case here . The discussion is pretty much over.
all evidence and observable reality points to it being a choice. And the only argument you have for it being 'forced' by Valve is that is the only explanation you can conceive for dev/pubs not choosing to do things your way.
Also for some reason you quoted Kitten instead of me for the rest
Non-issue.
Dev makes the choice, it reflects upon the customer through the client. Seen a lot of fairly serious bugs in games including full save deletion be fixed in updates, so its usually best to not try holding a specific version.
Others I've seen huge performance updates, why someone wouldn't want that as well seems counter productive.
Your whole schpiel was at leaset half nonsensical and went through a totally irrelevant aside about how password screens need an input.[/quote]
That's one of your issues; all you do is claim "nonsensical" each time you run into logical responses, unable to admit when you're incorrect. As for the password screen portion; thats PART of the example which you're aware of which does not give a reason to brush the whole aside.
Twisting words as usual to things that were never said again.
The Options available for user input usually has something rather than nothing. That's just a placeholder until a user gives input which is then submitted when they are complete with the task.
So?
The fact your responses become increasingly uncivil and you often resort to twisting peoples words goes to show you do not have any logical counterpoint.
Lots of software requires upgrade payments. Some will allow you to update for free for a year and you can keep the version you end up with when said amount of time expires; then either you get locked out until paying OR you pay to upgrade to the newest version.
This is especially true for higher end software or subscription models.
Though as usual, it's up to each company to decide if you have to pay to upgrade, if you only have a license for an amount of time, if you can keep the version at the expiration of the time, or if you can access previous versions.
That's not a Valve/Steam problem.
Modding communities have been used to this for at least two decades, it's only a temporary "issue" if the updates are absurdly frequent, though that's still up to the modder to fix if the game hasn't been made friendly enough to not break dependencies, as you've been told in probably a dozen of these threads by now.
It is their property, thus it is their choice how it deploys and any associated options or lack thereof.
It amazes me how much of a sticking point this is for some people.
But then as I said. it seems that the only way he can account for other people making choices he doesn't agree with is that they are forced to do so because why else would any rational being not align with his choices.
Devs adding extra branches does not mean that Steam has a way for them to make the Steam client not lock players out when an update is pending on the branch the player is already on (especially if it's the default branch).
The only argument you have is that devs can do something different and therefore it's a choice. Except simply having a workaround doesn't mean it's a choice available on the Steam client itself. Heck, I posted workarounds that players can use. Except you of course go on to neglect this completely because you claim "The dev doesn't have to control everything, but they do by virtue of being the makers and owners. They can choose to exercise or cede certain rights but that is still their choice."
Look yourself in the mirror and say this again.
And no users will know about it unless the dev then goes out of their way to tell players that there's a new version available on a branch.
It's not the same as the Steam client automatically indicating that there's an update available, and available to be downloaded at the click of a button -- which is how it is. And even when a game dev does announce it, it's still not on the main branch. This convenience, which is what makes Steam attractive to users, is lost.
My apologies for quote attribution errors.
When the client only handles pending updates in one way, that's not game devs making a choice.
The vast majority of game updates aren't critical issue fixes.
And I am not arguing that updates are bad in and of themselves. The fact that they become available to players is a great thing. However, there are a variety of use cases where players would benefit from not being forced to update, including:
* mods that become incompatible with the new version (especially ones that may involve changing the game data directly)
* preferences for older versions of the game content, including but not limited to keeping certain bugs in the game (e.g. for speedrunning purposes)
* maintaining an older version of the game for system compatibility
* being on a poor, unreliable, or otherwise limited internet connection
* having limited time during which to run Steam and play the game
These aren't things that game devs can or should have to plan around. But without forced updates, users can handle these use cases on their own without burdening the devs with needing to make extra acccommodations such as put up branches.
If game devs really need version compatibility -- such as for connecting to their own servers -- they make their own version checks anyway. Even for games on Steam.
Make your example relevant if you want it to be considered in the conversation.
That's the problem.
And this is not how game updates work on Steam. Unless you count things like DLCs under a broader definition of "updates", which is inapplicable here since DLCs (particularly paid ones) aren't forced by the Steam client. Updates that Steam forces are updates to the main branch, which are delivered for no new payment.
And it's games that require things like servers run by the publisher that have expiration dates. But those have their own version checks anyway.
The fact remains that the publisher/developer can break things unilaterally and leave players up the creek without a paddle until a modder (who, for better or worse, is often unpaid) gets around to fixing it.
The functionality of the Steam client isn't even an option modifiable by game devs. So this whole argument about whose "property" it is isn't even relevant.
I'm someone who has a data cap, and on multiple occasions I got hit with Valves anti consumer forced updating that prevented me from playing a game that is already installed on my PC, because I couldn't afford the data needed for the update. Valve preventing me to play an already installed game because they are forcing the updates is not acceptable, a customer should never have a moment where they can't play a game they bought.
As for modding, I miss the old days of modding.
- Mod game
- Developer decides to release update for the game
- we see that our mods are not updated for newest version yet, so we choose to not uodate the game yet
- continue to play the game without getting the newest update.
- Mod makers update their mods to newest version of the game
- we update the game, and then our mods
- we continue to play the game
But with Valve forcing updates, that has all been ruined.
Now it's
- Mod game
- Developer decides to release update for the game
- we see that our mods are not updated for newest version yet, but Valve forces update on to us
- our game is no longer playable until the mods are updated, or we remove the mods. So our choice is either not play or play with a lesser experience, latter isn't the lesser of the 2 evils there.
- mod makers update mods
-we update the mods we have installed
- we can finally play the game again.
Clearly Valve forcing updates creates a subpar experience.
Automatic loss. If you can't take on the subject without an ill-faith claim of others positions on a subject, there is nothing to discuss as there is no good faith being shown to have a discussion.
You're free to use any store that aligns with what you want out of it. Not every store is going to give everyone what they want, especially in limited scenarios.
Oh, can you show the class where he lays down the fact of Valve's own documentation showing that devs have the option to put updates in branches besides the default branch? Even going so far as to instructing devs how to do so.
Or how about the part where people are against customer choice? Considering developers are customers, do they no longer have a choice of if they want to push and update as required?
You know what they say, not all heroes wear capes
As usual, people that wouldn't be harmed at all by such option are here opposing it. What a surprise, eh?
Apparently, many people are unaware of the various problems that updates can bring with them, including save files not working, perhaps the worst of them. Until devs fix their mess, you can't play the game... I mean, you can but why would you if you lost all progress?