I think this is a valid point - if you guys feel like you aren't involved enough in the conversation, let me or Greg know and we'll work on that for you. I know we're already working on getting Q&As and articles together for some of the topics people have mentioned, but they aren't live yet - but if there's something in particular you want to see, speak up so we don't miss it.
Thanks Elizabeth. This post is me speaking up.
(I am putting this reply in the Steamworks FAQ thread instead as it is more on topic for that thread.)
Numbering is only in hope to make it easier to read or reply to...
Please, for any questions you won't or can't answer, can you please give a very brief reason why? For example.
"Can't say", "Don't know", "Undecided", "in progress" etc.
1. Is there a timeline or timeframe for the release of the MP features that are not beling included at release? Namely hotseat, PBEM and pitboss services, as well as match making. For example, should we expect to wait one month, six months, one year, for such features? While I might appear picky about the missed deadline with the Steam FAQ, it matters a lot less to me than the timeline on which these other
important multiplayer features are released. My biggest fear is that due to unforeseen circumstances, development of these "extras" gets shelved indefinitely.
2. In relation to automatic patching (which is one of steamworks' advertised features) and modding:
There are a number of questions that can be asked on this topic. When a patch for the official game gets released, how will the compatibility of mods be handled? Even if you can't answer any specifics on this sort of thing, can you give any reassurance that this issue is actually high on the priorities list?
An example of how problems with patches breaking mods could be solved is to allow there to be multiple installs of the game, like was possible with civ4.
Once steam automatically updates a game, it's my understanding that usually it's impossible to go back to an earlier patch version. This could prevent someone from playing their favourite mod if that mod was broken by the patch. For example, if the game at release is version 1.0, one month later we get v1.1 and someone makes a mod with that version, and then one month later we get v1.2, that user's game gets automatically updated to v1.2 but seeing the mod broken the user wants to revert to patch v1.1, is there any way that player can go back to 1.1? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it's impossible, either because the only available patch any more is 1.2, or that upon re-installing the game you can only get version 1.0 or if at time of activation of the game the update is forced on the user (meaning unavoidable if wanting to play the game) taking him/her to patch version 1.2. Those were some long and awkward sentences, but I'm sure you catch my drift.
This issue of mod compatibility and automatic patching is probably the highest on the minds of many modders out there. Many of them would be happy to know the issue is at least acknowledged by Firaxis and 2K and that they are taking measures to avoid it being a problem. We've had no such word yet I don't think apart from the standard marketing lines like "unprecendented modding capabilities".
An answer along the lines of "you can disable automatic patching" is absolutely nowhere near sufficient because if one only learns that after finding a broken mod after a patch, then it's useless advice. Also "you can avoid patches by leaving steam in offline mode" is also not sufficient because it's unreasonable (I'd even say extremely unreasonable) to expect people to go to lengths of keeping steam in an offline state or disabling their internet just to maintain the compatibility of one of their mods. It would be one of the most user-unfriendly soltuions I have ever seen for a game.
3. Relates to DLC. Many people want to simply know whether Babylon will be available later as DLC. Others want to know whether there are plans for DLC. I appreciate there are probably reasons this question will be left unanswered. Dennis Shirk has already accidentally hinted at there being DLC in the future by responding to a question about it with an awkward "my lips are sealed". I hope I'm not getting him in trouble but his comment seems to give a good indication that there are plans for DLC. I'd expect an answer to this question being alone the lines of "can't say" but it's your call.
4. A question of minor importance from my point of view, but is there any intention to user VAC-secured servers for civ5 multiplayer games? Dennis Shirk has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "we think all of steamworks' features are great". Am I taking it too literally if I take the statements of Shirk as indicating that Valve Anti-Cheat is one such service that Firaxis are approaching with enthusiasm and implementing?
This question will be particularly important to some people. An example would be people who are already VAC-banned on their steam account. Such people, knowing that VAC will be used in civ5, could make the informed decision of using a different account for civ5.
If you are going to use VAC, will their be both VAC secured and unsecured servers?
5. Concerns about what information Valve/Steam collects as mentioned in the Steam Subscriber Agreement. This is another concern that varies greatly in importance from member to member. Most of the people repeatedly asking for this sort of information understand/accept that some data collection is part of the deal when you buy the game and sign up to the steam account, but they are asking to be informed of what information it is that is collected about them. Dodging these questions or not being upfront about them can lead to suspicions that the data being collected is of an objectionable nature (hope that's the right way to word it). As an example, it's known that in google mail they can analyse your emails so that they can target appropriate advertising at you but that is acceptable to most people using the service because they are getting something valuable in return (a free email service with lots of storage space). It would be nice to know what sort of information is collected by playing civ5 on steam and what purpose that information is put to. If you simply want to use collected information to help make future decisions about products that's fine - just let us know. If you want to use the information for other third parties who ask, then that would probably not be fine to a lot of people and it would be reasonable to let them know before they get into a contractual agreement where they have no option of a refund.
I'm hoping that some info on this issue is presented in the upcoming Steam FAQ because if it isn't you will likely see endless accusations of avoiding the questions. Since Firaxis and 2K have entered into an agreement with Valve in adopting Steamworks, it is reasonable to expect 2K to understand the implications to gamers including how the privacy of their information is handled. Directing us to Valve's SSA or privacy policy are inappropriate so please don't assume that we'd be happy with such a dodge.
With questions about this issue left forever unanswered, you will leave yourselves open to accusations of using the data for nefarious purposes or if not, letting Steam/Valve use it for nefarious purposes. It's up to you (plural you) what to tell us, but keep in mind that so far when questions go unanswered it has been assumed there is a reason for it.
An acknowledgement that these questions have been read and received will be much appreciated.
Thanks, PoM
. I may very well be a little arrogant, I think its one of my more appealing features, atleast to me. 
