Optional Updates, Client and Games

[Tally]

Updating the client and games should always be able to be deferred. I'm not suggesting anything so complicated as rolling back updates or selectable versions, but if I could open Steam and play a game directly yesterday, or ever previously, there should be no interference in my doing the same today. If I value 10 minutes of my time over "bug fixes and tweaks", that should be respected. Games not auto-updating in the background make this behavior particularly galling.

This is exceedingly problematic on the Steam Deck, which will gladly sleep unto death if left on but when turned back on, in a moment where I imagine "hey, this device is so convenient and maybe I'll play a game when I rarely can and feel like it," may determine that spending the next 10 minutes updating the client, restarting, and updating the game is vitally important. Of course, I'm assuming that it doesn't stall indefinitely trying to log in on boot.

Of course competitive, online-only games would be an exception, but, for all other cases, if I could run a game the last time that I opened Steam, unless it threatens my health, the law, or national security, then I should be permitted to run the game now also.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Already possible if the game developers implement it...

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/4547039255696769967

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Tally:

Updating the client and games should always be able to be deferred.

That's up to the platform owners and game owners. If Valve doesn't want to offer such options on the main branche, that's fine.

Use platforms that provide the updating features you like. Much better than hoping that a platform will change their core principle (source: Steamworks documentation) for you, which is very unlikely.

[Start_Running]

The client.. unlikely. because an un updated client will generally be a security risk , ...or you know, just not be allowed to connect.

For games.. that's up to the dev/pubs

[Tally]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Already possible if the game developers implement it...

Not what I'm arguing for. Selectable branches are not the same as voluntary updates.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Use platforms that provide the updating features you like.

I do whenever possible; however, it is often not possible to avoid Steam for many games. The specific purpose of this post is to raise the objection to the "platform owner."

Originally posted by Start_Running:

The client.. unlikely. because an un updated client will generally be a security risk , ...or you know, just not be allowed to connect.

Not every update is a security update. Alternatively, prompt to update or change to offline mode. For games, updates, when made available, are mandated by the client. The suggestion is not that developers and publishers just not update their games.

[Tito Shivan]

Optional game updates is the thing that has consistently been suggested in the forums for years with steam not budging an inch. They still keep their philosophy of being an update platform to keep all games up to date.

Delaying client updates is not always possible.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Tally:

Not every update is a security update. Alternatively, prompt to update or change to offline mode.

Most updates however do contain some stability and security patches, even if thety aren't listed in the notes. And since the client is a front end for the backend. yeah the two systems need to be on the same page otherwise you'll have the client calling a function on an object that has either been renamered, removed, or replaced.

Originally posted by Tally:

For games, updates, when made available, are mandated by the client. The suggestion is not that developers and publishers just not update their games.

No they are mandated by the dev/pubs. Dev./pubs have multiple avenues for making updates optional. Multiple. Most choose not to because it just makes their work harder.

[William Shakesman]

This is definitely a problem with PC gaming and the Deck with the incessant update fetishry. But I do not know how one would even deal with it. There is a lot of dialogue on Steam about updating, especially as we have recently seen a couple developers reduce the quality of their games via updates, the sort of trend that threatens the entire moral framework of the always up to date paradigm. So there is a lot of arguing about updates and being able to ignore them. But a use case like yours where "I just want to play, you can update in an hour when I shut down" falls through the cracks in that discussion. I see no reason why the Deck could not offer that, except of course that if you defer now then the previous argument will start up again about indefinite deferrals.

Originally posted by Tally:

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Already possible if the game developers implement it...

Not what I'm arguing for. Selectable branches are not the same as voluntary updates.

Seeing people respond without even reading the OP and disregarding the actual concern is very weird to me but strangely common.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Tally:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Use platforms that provide the updating features you like.

I do whenever possible; however, it is often not possible to avoid Steam for many games. The specific purpose of this post is to raise the objection to the "platform owner."

It has been raised for nearly 15 years now. On a (bi)weekly basis.

There comes a point people simply have to accept that Valve doesn't want to offer it and that this is fine.