Civilization 5 Steamworks questions/concerns for inclusion in the FAQ

[mjs0]

At that point I feel intrigued to raise the question whether software shall serve the user or the user has to serve the software?
I wouldn't say that you have painted an apocalyptical picture, but a quite dystopical one.

Hey...I'm not suggesting walking through minefields is fun I'm just trying to help people stuck in the middle of one!

 

[Blue Smarties]

@12agnar0k: Thanks for the flip side of the argument for/against Steam; I'm getting the distinct impression that Steam has been designed to run in the background on a computer plugged into a broadband, unlimited (or at least substantial Gamer-spec) download link. I'm not arguing against the system, just the implementation of it.

Effectively, if Steam is running in the background during daily running, then by the time you may wish to play any games you've registered with it, they should be patched and ready. The problem seems to be that Steam cannot/will not differentiate between a system that's always plugged in, and one that is only occasionally online, and so assumes that as soon as you log into Steam, you wish to update. I do not have Steam start running as soon as I log in as I don't always want to be on the internet and I have a limited (mobile broadband) plan therefore I am careful with what I download/patch/etc.

As far as I understand things now (and please correct me if I am wrong), even if I do have multiple games installed on Steam and although they will automatically patch the first time they are authenticated, so long as I do not wish to play that game while Steam is online and I have selected the 'no automatic updates', I can choose to patch at a convenient time simply by going online and selecting to patch?

If so, you've managed to sell me on that point. My two remaining problems are:
1. Why can't you skip that initial authentication patch for a more convenient time too? Especially if it's an older game and it's a massive patch. My example: Dawn of War 2, released 2009. I installed it early May 2010 on my laptop, after the Chaos Rising expansion was released though I didn't know this, and I got hit with an unskippable 2.4Gb patch (basically the entire expansion contents, though I couldn't actually use any of it until I brought the game - complete with DVD containing 2.4Gb of duplication). As I am restricted to 3Gb per month, so that kinda restricted me on what I could and couldn't do for the rest of the month, as well as taking many hours to download when I wanted to be playing My Shiny New Game...
2. For a franchise with such a large modding community, how will Steam handle multiple mods? I'm assuming that anything released onto Steam will be automatically patched into all the authorised games (therefore it's much more important that each mod is checked out so it doesn't break the game. This does happen, right? ) therefore every mod will be available to each gamer. Provided no mod breaks the game, that's a good feature. The problem is then that those individuals who are limited on bandwidth/downloads are being hammered for downloads they may not ever use or even want, especially given the activity of the Civ community. Can Steam handle 'optional downloadable content' without penalising someone opting out by preventing them from playing the game? Does it even allow optional content?

I'm guessing this thread would be very much shorter if that FAQ was released... C'mon Valve!

 

[Senethro]

Bello, I'm not sure a video game updating system should be compared with the world ending or malicious government.

Blue Smarties: The various Source mods that Valve offers for free download are not downloaded automatically. But like many things we don't know if things will be the same in Civ5.

 

[Blue Smarties]

Hey...I'm not suggesting walking through minefields is fun I'm just trying to help people stuck in the middle of one!

Hey, I've done minefield clearance It's easier and more fun than Steam.

 

[CommandoBob]

Blue Smarties: The various Source mods that Valve offers for free download are not downloaded automatically. But like many things we don't know if things will be the same in Civ5.

(I may have missed this answer; don't shoot me if I did. )

So, Valve is/will be the only source of Mods?

 

[Donkeyman]

(I may have missed this answer; don't shoot me if I did. )

So, Valve is/will be the only source of Mods?

No, Valve won't have anything to do with Civ 5 at all apart from providing the Steamworks features. Mods will either be downloaded through Firaxis's ingame mod browser or by the same method everyone got their Civ 2/3/4 mods by.

 

[Mark Havel]

(...)
What is clear is that there is no 100% guaranteed way of avoiding patches...for example if you need to reinstall your copy of Civ (e.g. when you upgrade your PC) Steam forces you to download and install all current patches before you can play the game.

What I understand it that as soon as a patch is released, the "master" copies on Steam are also updated so you automatically get the updated version if you reactivate your game through Steam.
On the other hand, cutting and pasting your games directories to save them works flawlessly in Steam, oh, wait, not, once you'll install them, its pretty sure it'll look for a new patch to install before.

@12agnar0k: Thanks for the flip side of the argument for/against Steam; I'm getting the distinct impression that Steam has been designed to run in the background on a computer plugged into a broadband, unlimited (or at least substantial Gamer-spec) download link. I'm not arguing against the system, just the implementation of it.

(...)
2. For a franchise with such a large modding community, how will Steam handle multiple mods? I'm assuming that anything released onto Steam will be automatically patched into all the authorised games (therefore it's much more important that each mod is checked out so it doesn't break the game. This does happen, right? ) therefore every mod will be available to each gamer. Provided no mod breaks the game, that's a good feature. The problem is then that those individuals who are limited on bandwidth/downloads are being hammered for downloads they may not ever use or even want, especially given the activity of the Civ community. Can Steam handle 'optional downloadable content' without penalising someone opting out by preventing them from playing the game? Does it even allow optional content?

I'm guessing this thread would be very much shorter if that FAQ was released... C'mon Valve!

That's exactly how it was intended to work I think. Most of the time, I don't play my games as soon as I get back from work, so while I'm browsing the Internet, the games updates themselves and suddenly, it tells me that it finished downloading some patch.

I'd like to mention an interesting thing about Steam and the mods, more precisely, the Source mods: these mods actually count as games and are mostly independent from the game they are based on. So as long as you have a game with the right version of the Source Engine, they do appear and mostly work as a full-fledged game. The only drawback is that you have to manually delete the mod directory to uninstall it. So Maybe one of the surprises of this Civilization V regarding mods will be something like that: the major mods will be handled mostly like a normal game and therefore, be spared the pains of a breaking patch.

By the way, does Firaxis has such an habit of release mod and save breaking patches? You guys seem to be fretting quite a lot about what's an accepted feature of Steam since its beginnings...

 

[diligence]

No, Valve won't have anything to do with Civ 5 at all apart from providing the Steamworks features. Mods will either be downloaded through Firaxis's ingame mod browser or by the same method everyone got their Civ 2/3/4 mods by.

If this is true then why not provide the updates there as well and tell steam to expect the Multiplayers and Civ 5 downloaders comeing their way. And leave the Retail single players alone.

I am dreading updates via steam, as they seem to have an on off connection for downloading with my system. Off more than on. it will take easily a few hrs to download a couple of hundred MBs when my confirmed 10MBps download rate, steam likes to use 10MBphr with 30 minute coffee breaks every 10 mins.

Steam seems to be what it runs out of like an overweight BMI 50 jogger

 

[12agnar0k]

@12agnar0k: Thanks for the flip side of the argument for/against Steam; I'm getting the distinct impression that Steam has been designed to run in the background on a computer plugged into a broadband, unlimited (or at least substantial Gamer-spec) download link. I'm not arguing against the system, just the implementation of it.

Yes Steam is designed to run in the background, not take up much system resources and not bother you.
Its primary function is to act as a digital distrubtion facility, digital rights management, multiplayer and community platform.
These are all heavily online processes, so users with high speed and unlimited broadband will most benefit from the platform.
Steam is ultimately designed for Gamers.

Effectively, if Steam is running in the background during daily running, then by the time you may wish to play any games you've registered with it, they should be patched and ready. The problem seems to be that Steam cannot/will not differentiate between a system that's always plugged in, and one that is only occasionally online, and so assumes that as soon as you log into Steam, you wish to update. I do not have Steam start running as soon as I log in as I don't always want to be on the internet and I have a limited (mobile broadband) plan therefore I am careful with what I download/patch/etc.

In that case you can make use of the "turn off auto-updating" so you don't download stuff you don't want to. Steam is basically an "online game playing community" and well "limited download" Internet doesn't really fit into this category. But you can still use Steam if it won't pull you over your limit.

As far as I understand things now (and please correct me if I am wrong), even if I do have multiple games installed on Steam and although they will automatically patch the first time they are authenticated, so long as I do not wish to play that game while Steam is online and I have selected the 'no automatic updates', I can choose to patch at a convenient time simply by going online and selecting to patch?

Yup.

If so, you've managed to sell me on that point. My two remaining problems are:
1. Why can't you skip that initial authentication patch for a more convenient time too? Especially if it's an older game and it's a massive patch. My example: Dawn of War 2, released 2009. I installed it early May 2010 on my laptop, after the Chaos Rising expansion was released though I didn't know this, and I got hit with an unskippable 2.4Gb patch (basically the entire expansion contents, though I couldn't actually use any of it until I brought the game - complete with DVD containing 2.4Gb of duplication). As I am restricted to 3Gb per month, so that kinda restricted me on what I could and couldn't do for the rest of the month, as well as taking many hours to download when I wanted to be playing My Shiny New Game...

Yes this is a flaw, it helps to make sure everyone stays up to date, but its not really beneficial for you if you can't download it because you would go over your limit. Which means you can't play your game at all till the next month.
However you don't "have to" finish downloading the update, you can pause the update and continue it at a more convienient time, just with the limitation of not being able to play your game till your finished.

2. For a franchise with such a large modding community, how will Steam handle multiple mods? I'm assuming that anything released onto Steam will be automatically patched into all the authorised games (therefore it's much more important that each mod is checked out so it doesn't break the game. This does happen, right? ) therefore every mod will be available to each gamer. Provided no mod breaks the game, that's a good feature. The problem is then that those individuals who are limited on bandwidth/downloads are being hammered for downloads they may not ever use or even want, especially given the activity of the Civ community. Can Steam handle 'optional downloadable content' without penalising someone opting out by preventing them from playing the game? Does it even allow optional content?

Well we do have some information on how modding will work,
What has been said is that.
In the ingame mod browser you will be able to browse mods, pick and download any mod you want, it will automatically install into the correct directory, then you can load it without leaving the game.
So as far as i'm aware Steam will not autodownload all mods, you will need to choose "get this mod" or w.e from the Mod Browser before it downloads.

I'm guessing this thread would be very much shorter if that FAQ was released... C'mon Valve!

I don't know about that, a lot of people get hung up on the disadvantages of Steam and have ranted about them for many pages, I answer their queries just as effectively as a FAQ would but they are upset about Steam and still want to rant.

 

[Mark Havel]

(...)
I am dreading updates via steam, as they seem to have an on off connection for downloading with my system. Off more than on. it will take easily a few hrs to download a couple of hundred MBs when my confirmed 10MBps download rate, steam likes to use 10MBphr with 30 minute coffee breaks every 10 mins.

Steam seems to be what it runs out of like an overweight BMI 50 jogger

That's my main grip with Steam since a few months. I don't know why it has become so hard to download at the advertised bandwidth of my DSL line, which is more than able to reach 1.7 MB/s. Instead, most of the download, including newly released games as well oldies such as the complete Civ IV pack took now hours to download since, as you've so well said it, it seems to prefer to download games at a paltry 50 kb/s. What more baffling is that starting any game in Steam might result in pausing the download, for whatever reason. Once they found a way to solve this problem, it'll be certainly a far more better experience.

 

[12agnar0k]

Bravo, you've managed to pull part of a sentence out of context. Did you forget what your original point was? I don't know why you're bothering to say this.

So you want to turn this into a game of semantics, then?

Actually, I was agreeing with you on "point 3." as I called it. The rest of the sentence was just saying how I was wrong to call it something other than what you called it which Is what I quoted, And I agreed, that you were correct.

Do I want to turn this into a game of semantics, not particularily. Atleast not when you think thier is a difference between "to not have control of" & "regardless of user consent". Which is the same thing. So no I will not play semantics with you .

 

[12agnar0k]

That's my main grip with Steam since a few months. I don't know why it has become so hard to download at the advertised bandwidth of my DSL line, which is more than able to reach 1.7 MB/s. Instead, most of the download, including newly released games as well oldies such as the complete Civ IV pack took now hours to download since, as you've so well said it, it seems to prefer to download games at a paltry 50 kb/s. What more baffling is that starting any game in Steam might result in pausing the download, for whatever reason. Once they found a way to solve this problem, it'll be certainly a far more better experience.

Well thier can be several reasons why you don't get the speed you think you should, many of them nothing to do with Steam.

I get 700kb's download on Steam which is the maximum i've seen from any other site/service too on my connection, so for me it works to my maximum capability.

 

[Commander Bello]

Greg, I have a new question for you.

A lot of people in this thread (DLC segregation and multiplayer) are expecting that all DLC will be automatically downloaded to each and everybody, may it be a purchaser of that DLC or not.
The theory behind is that such action shall ensure compatibility between purchasers of DLC and non-purchasers - a heavily debated possible mp issue.

• Can you confirm that Firaxis/2K is planning to make users download unneeded data (in the case of pure single players, who haven't bought such DLC) in unknown quantities?
• And if so, will there be a warning sign on the packages or on the advertising webpages that such undesired downloads (and according to the spread theories, unavoidable downloads) are going to happen?

 

[isndl]

Actually, I was agreeing with you on "point 3." as I called it. The rest of the sentence was just saying how I was wrong to call it something other than what you called it which Is what I quoted, And I agreed, that you were correct.

If that is your actual sentiment, then it's not clear from the original sentence. Nowhere in that sentence is there acknowledgment of being incorrect previously; given your habit of ignoring statements I already made, I assumed this was more of the same.

Do I want to turn this into a game of semantics, not particularily. Atleast not when you think thier is a difference between "to not have control of" & "regardless of user consent". Which is the same thing. So no I will not play semantics with you .

Then there's nothing more to be said. You've clearly shown yourself to be unwilling to acknowledge that your definition is incorrect, even when presented with a dictionary definition.

 

[bjbrains]

Greg, I have a new question for you.

A lot of people in this thread (DLC segregation and multiplayer) are expecting that all DLC will be automatically downloaded to each and everybody, may it be a purchaser of that DLC or not.
The theory behind is that such action shall ensure compatibility between purchasers of DLC and non-purchasers - a heavily debated possible mp issue.

• Can you confirm that Firaxis/2K is planning to make users download unneeded data (in the case of pure single players, who haven't bought such DLC) in unknown quantities?
• And if so, will there be a warning sign on the packages or on the advertising webpages that such undesired downloads (and according to the spread theories, unavoidable downloads) are going to happen?

Bello, you still haven't addressed how allowing compatibility for MP players is 'unneeded' or 'unavoidable' (of which it is neither).

 

[Commander Bello]

Bello, you still haven't addressed how allowing compatibility for MP players is 'unneeded' or 'unavoidable' (of which it is neither).

You quote my text including this line

unneeded data (in the case of pure single players, who haven't bought such DLC) in unknown quantities

and ask the above question?

 

[bjbrains]

You quote my text including this line

and ask the above question?

If you're patching the game, then you'll have the same version as everyone else in case you want to play MP and/or because there's no reason to support/make multiple releases.

 

[tom2050]

I think the concern (which I don't believe has been addressed by 2K yet) is that if the patch Adds Problems (which has happened) or if the patch makes mods unplayable (has and does happen), then a player (who may play offline single player only) may have no immediate desire to have the patch at that time.

The player may wish to continue to play the mod and patch later. It is possible that this is impossible to avoid. AFAIK, no answer yet. But the whole thing stinks to high heaven if this is the case, let the player decide if they want a patch or not. Doesn't make sense.

DLC may or may not add to the problem; depending on if DLC is kept as locked content or unlocked if it has been purchased or not. Hopefully they have a working solution.

 

[12agnar0k]

If that is your actual sentiment, then it's not clear from the original sentence. Nowhere in that sentence is there acknowledgment of being incorrect previously; given your habit of ignoring statements I already made, I assumed this was more of the same.

Then there's nothing more to be said. You've clearly shown yourself to be unwilling to acknowledge that your definition is incorrect, even when presented with a dictionary definition.

1. I used the commonly worldly recognised sign of agreement which was, "Yes."
I don't ignore your statements for the record.

2. Both definitions are correct as they mean the same thing, "not in control" "without your control" this is just rephrasing the same sentence, where as I used the past tence, "forced" with definition as this was the word you used, and you defined present tence, "force". Which ultimately doesn't make much difference, however you seem to think thier is one, which is most troubling.

Irreversible Updating Process, is the best way to describe what happens after Steam see's the update. The whole process is best described by "Consented Irreversible Updating Process", The thing your getting hooked up on is that after the original consent the updating process continues without your control. You then describe this as "forced" which only describes the "lack of control" aspect of the "Irreverisble Updating Process". Which actually isn't the case because before this stage of the process you get to choose whether or not to go ahead with the rest of the process, so the process itself is not "without your control".

I'm probably wasting my time explain this but meh.

 

[12agnar0k]

download data thats not needed

Will there be a warning sign on the packages or on the advertising webpages that such undesired downloads are going to happen?

Its not uncessary, if you wish to buy the DLC you then only need click buy, and you wouldnt need to wait to download it as its already in the last patch.
Also what goes into patches is decided by the developers, thus its not up to you to decide what is or isnt uncessary.

Why would they warn you that the game will be patched, it is obvious that it will have patches, thats how games are improved upon. Again, desire is entirely opinionated, if the developers desire it to be so, the the downloads are desireable.