Add an option to disable updates for particular games as long as it's installed on my hard drive

[Charember]

Title. Would be very helpful for modders who don't want their entire modlist being rendered useless because of some random update from the developers breaking some dependency mod in the stack. Having to search the game id then go into the steam manifest files and read-only locking every single one is not very fun.

[Nx Machina]

Developers have choice to use versioning but it remains their choice not Valve's.

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

New: Steam APIs For Switching Game Versions & Beta Branches making it easier to manage game updates, and move audience in or out of beta branches

Recently released Steamworks APIs help solve some common challenges to switching game versions on Steam. With these new tools, developers can now offer players a choice in-game to join a beta branch for testing or to switch back to an older version of the game.

For released games that make frequent updates, these tools can give players more clear choices in how they want to engage with the game. Some players want to be part of your beta branch where you are testing out the latest updates, while others may want to play on an older stable build that they know works well with their save file.

New version support:

Many games on Steam already have multiple build branches available to players; different builds of the game, either historical versions or forward-facing test builds with the latest pending updates. Previously, accessing these alternative build branches has been fairly obscure, done by players through the Steam 'settings' panel for a game. However, new Steamworks APIs now allow developers to offer players this choice from within the game itself.


The developers force updates as they are the ones who create the update, push the update to Steam which then delivers the update they require for the game they own, so it is really odd when people state Valve are forcing the update when Valve did not create any update for 3rd party games.

Paradox used versioning before the changes Valve announced. I have an old build of Hearts of Iron IV running compatible mods from Steam Workshop. I also have access to any of the builds for Dead Cells because Motion Twin just like Paradox used versioning before the announcement for Valve, so yes it always comes back to developers choice, not Valve's.

As for 3rd party mods they are user installed, they are not part of official updates.

Creative Assembly warn about 3rd party mods for Total War Warhammer every update as did Larian for Baldur's Gate 3. Fatshark is also known for warning about 3rd party mods.

[pckirk]

using mods, is not the games developers problem, and the whole point of the steam service, is the "Keeping all games up to date automatically"

Using mods is a player choice, and understanding that some game updates will stop modded games from working till the modders update those game mods.

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by pckirk:

using mods, is not the games developers problem, and the whole point of the steam service, is the "Keeping all games up to date automatically"

Using mods is a player choice, and understanding that some game updates will stop modded games from working till the modders update those games.

Precisely. Everyone knows mods break on updates, except of course for Valve. So any smart user knows not to update when using mods. Unfortunately, Valve does not have much experience with gaming or their customer base's needs and does not offer users that option.

[WolfEisberg]

Originally posted by pckirk:

using mods, is not the games developers problem, and the whole point of the steam service, is the "Keeping all games up to date automatically"

Using mods is a player choice, and understanding that some game updates will stop modded games from working till the modders update those games.

A modder running the game un-upated is also not a developer problem either. Just like its player choice to use mods, it should also be players choice to run the game un-updated. Running the game un-updated is no different than a game with mods, there are "risks" either way.

[rawWwRrr]

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Originally posted by pckirk:

using mods, is not the games developers problem, and the whole point of the steam service, is the "Keeping all games up to date automatically"

Using mods is a player choice, and understanding that some game updates will stop modded games from working till the modders update those games.

A modder running the game un-upated is also not a developer problem either. Just like its player choice to use mods, it should also be players choice to run the game un-updated. Running the game un-updated is no different than a game with mods, there are "risks" either way.

And as is often ignored or misunderstood, when a developer updates the main branch depot for their game on Steam, they are expecting Steam to follow through with ensuring everyone who has a copy of that game gets theirs updated to the latest version.

That's part of the 30% cut they pay Valve for Steam distribution. Devs are just as much customers and users of Steam like the rest of us.

Steam provides the necessary tools to allow for a developer's playerbase to remain on specific versions. Modders need to convince the developers to make use of those tools.

[WolfEisberg]

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

A modder running the game un-upated is also not a developer problem either. Just like its player choice to use mods, it should also be players choice to run the game un-updated. Running the game un-updated is no different than a game with mods, there are "risks" either way.

And as is often ignored or misunderstood, when a developer updates the main branch depot for their game on Steam, they are expecting Steam to follow through with ensuring everyone who has a copy of that game gets theirs updated to the latest version.

That's part of the 30% cut they pay Valve for Steam distribution. Devs are just as much customers and users of Steam like the rest of us.

Steam provides the necessary tools to allow for a developer's playerbase to remain on specific versions. Modders need to convince the developers to make use of those tools.

I have seen zero evidence that developers even care if someone is running un-updated or not, other than Valve.

If what you are saying is true, they would be calling out for Valve to create a system to disallow mods to be ran on the games, since running a game with mods is really no different than running the game un-updated, an un-updated game is effectively a modded game.

This is purely a Valve thing, its Valve that wants that kind of control for some strange reason.

[rawWwRrr]

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

And as is often ignored or misunderstood, when a developer updates the main branch depot for their game on Steam, they are expecting Steam to follow through with ensuring everyone who has a copy of that game gets theirs updated to the latest version.

That's part of the 30% cut they pay Valve for Steam distribution. Devs are just as much customers and users of Steam like the rest of us.

Steam provides the necessary tools to allow for a developer's playerbase to remain on specific versions. Modders need to convince the developers to make use of those tools.

I have seen zero evidence that developers even care if someone is running un-updated or not, other than Valve.

If what you are saying is true, they would be calling out for Valve to create a system to disallow mods to be ran on the games, since running a game with mods is really no different than running the game un-updated, an un-updated game is effectively a modded game.

This is purely a Valve thing, its Valve that wants that kind of control for some strange reason.

I have seen zero evidence that Valve wants to exert this level of control.

If what you are saying is true, why doesn't Valve develop a system to prevent mods from being used?

This is purely speculative and with no supporting documentation. There is, however, instructions from Valve to developers for how to use the depots for version control.

edited to add:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/4547039255696769966

With these new tools, developers can now offer players a choice in-game to join a beta branch for testing or to switch back to an older version of the game.

For released games that make frequent updates, these tools can give players more clear choices in how they want to engage with the game. Some players want to be part of your beta branch where you are testing out the latest updates, while others may want to play on an older stable build that they know works well with their save file.

Odd given we're told Valve wants some draconian control over user's game files.

[76561198407601200]

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

And as is often ignored or misunderstood, when a developer updates the main branch depot for their game on Steam, they are expecting Steam to follow through with ensuring everyone who has a copy of that game gets theirs updated to the latest version.

That's part of the 30% cut they pay Valve for Steam distribution. Devs are just as much customers and users of Steam like the rest of us.

Steam provides the necessary tools to allow for a developer's playerbase to remain on specific versions. Modders need to convince the developers to make use of those tools.

I have seen zero evidence that developers even care if someone is running un-updated or not, other than Valve.

Well, i mean other than the developers being the one pushing the updates out.

"Hey Nibisco made some lower-fat cookies, they're having a distributor ship them to your local stores"

Said stores stop selling the higher fat cookies, customers complain "Why did you remove those cookies?? If Nibisco wanted them removed they would've done so themselves!"

Same logic here.

How about you complain to the mod creators, maybe tell them to keep up with the game updates as they are supposed to, or is it just easier to give us a performance here?

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by The Living Tribunal:

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

I have seen zero evidence that developers even care if someone is running un-updated or not, other than Valve.

Well, i mean other than the developers being the one pushing the updates out.

"Hey Nibisco made some lower-fat cookies, they're having a distributor ship them to your local stores"

Said stores stop selling the higher fat cookies, customers complain "Why did you remove those cookies?? If Nibisco wanted them removed they would've done so themselves!"

Same logic here.

How about you complain to the mod creators, maybe tell them to keep up with the game updates as they are supposed to, or is it just easier to give us a performance here?

The developers are not pushing them out. Valve is in charge of the distribution of updates and can choose the timing and manner in which they are offered.

As is often the case, real world analogies to digital goods once again lead people to erroneous conclusions and confusing misinformation

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

The developers are not pushing them out. Valve is in charge of the distribution of updates and can choose the timing and manner in which they are offered.

As is often the case, real world analogies to digital goods once again lead people to erroneous conclusions and confusing misinformation

The developers force updates as they are the ones who create the update, push the update to Steam which then delivers the update they require for the game they own, so it is really odd when people state Valve are forcing the update when Valve did not create any update for 3rd party games.

Todd Howard is very grateful to modders for keeping Skyrim and Fallout 4 alive BUT despite that gratitude Bethesda forces you to have that update because they do not use versioning and why posters on the Skyrim forum and Fallout 4 forum rightly point the finger where it belongs - Bethesda.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

The developers are not pushing them out. Valve is in charge of the distribution of updates and can choose the timing and manner in which they are offered.

As is often the case, real world analogies to digital goods once again lead people to erroneous conclusions and confusing misinformation

The developers force updates as they are the ones who create the update, push the update to Steam which then delivers the update they require for the game they own, so it is really odd when people state Valve are forcing the update when Valve did not create any update for 3rd party games.

Valve is in control of the sytem. The main branche has one option: Forced updating.

So yes, it's Valve who pushes it. Which is fine, they even say in their own Steamworks docs that Steam is build around that.

But it's Valves choice to have a main branche with only forced updates. Not the developers choice, not the publishers, not the players, but Valve.

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

The developers force updates as they are the ones who create the update, push the update to Steam which then delivers the update they require for the game they own, so it is really odd when people state Valve are forcing the update when Valve did not create any update for 3rd party games.

Valve is in control of the sytem. The main branche has one option: Forced updating.

So yes, it's Valve who pushes it. Which is fine, they even say in their own Steamworks docs that Steam is build around that.

But it's Valves choice to have a main branche with only forced updates. Not the developers choice, not the publishers, not the players, but Valve.

Precisely. Valve is the one in charge of the updates and the paradigm in which they are distributed, and they made the decision in this manner.

As such it is fine, legitimate, and justified to ask them to change it as well as this decision causes a pain point for several of their users.

[Truth]

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

As such it is fine, legitimate, and justified to ask them to change it as well as this decision causes a pain point for several of their users.

It's fine to ask, its also fine for the users to mention that from even before Valve existed, its sole intent was to be a service that ensured games were always kept up to date. So expecting them to change it now is unlikely as it goes against their vision for what the platform should be.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Truth:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

As such it is fine, legitimate, and justified to ask them to change it as well as this decision causes a pain point for several of their users.

It's fine to ask, its also fine for the users to mention that from even before Valve existed, its sole intent was to be a service that ensured games were always kept up to date. So expecting them to change it now is unlikely as it goes against their vision for what the platform should be.

Well whatever their vision may have been twenty or so years ago, will have to change with the times. Which makes plausible sense.

That's why we continually get updated TOS, even interrupting our games in the middle of the night prompting us to sign something that may have not been the case, 20 years ago.

Mr Newell tried a venture in adult entertainment. That is now having to be changed, if not by him, others.

There is nothing wrong with giving people options as to what to update, as they do on gaming consoles with digital entertainment and games.

[Truth]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

That's why we continually get updated TOS, even interrupting our games in the middle of the night prompting us to sign something that may have not been the case, 20 years ago.

A change to the TOS that 99.999% that doesn't effect 99.999% of users has nothing to do with this thread.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Mr Newell tried a venture in adult entertainment. That is now having to be changed, if not by him, others.

It is not having to be changed, a fraction of a % of titles not being approved or being removed is hardly a big deal, over 99% of the adult titles are unaffected by this change. You seem to be confusing small normal changes and thinking they are a grand sweeping modification to the platform.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

There is nothing wrong with giving people options as to what to update, as they do on gaming consoles with digital entertainment and games.

Nope, but gaming consoles are a very different beast and they have to design them around the concept that people won't always have internet, where as steam is designed exactly the opposite of it being safe to assume to overwhelming majority of the time people will have an internet connection.

The result is developers like knowing that their games will always be kept up to date, and for games with mods steam provides options dev's can use, that many do, to allow users to prevent their games from updating.