Civilization 5 Steamworks questions/concerns for inclusion in the FAQ

[Aramel]

I recently received a survey request with steam that asked me some information about my computer and then retrieved some of my system spec information. It was totally voluntary. It even had a link to the results of the survey that everyone could see. If that is what you guys are talking about with Steam "stealing information" I wouldn't worry about it.

Edit: link

 

[3 EMS]

I don't think anybody is complaining about taking a survey.

 

[Aramel]

I don't really know what they are complaining about, information-wise. It is not like they are going to steal your soul or sell your credit card number to Nigerian businessmen.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I recently received a survey request with steam that asked me some information about my computer and then retrieved some of my system spec information. It was totally voluntary. It even had a link to the results of the survey that everyone could see. If that is what you guys are talking about with Steam "stealing information" I wouldn't worry about it.

Edit: link

We appreciate the help, but actually that is far far away from what people are taking issue with.
What is more in contention is the information or data that Valve or others collects silently as permitted (consented to) in the Steam Subscriber Agreement.

I don't really know what they are complaining about, information-wise. It is not like they are going to steal your soul or sell your credit card number to Nigerian businessmen.

The right to privacy is something some people care about more than others. Everyone draws the line at some point. As an example, some people object to video surveillance in public spaces.

"Steal your soul" is strawman rhetoric and I would suggest avoiding it. As for credit card numbers, actually Valve might be allowed to pass on that information to some people if the conditions are right, but someone who understands the SSA a lot better than I do could probably comment on it. Certainly "selling it to a Nigerian businessman" is an exaggeration.

 

[Aramel]

Okay, I understand. But if it's still the same kind of information I can't say I'm very concerned. Who are they going to sell information on how many gigs of ram I have to?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Okay, I understand. But if it's still the same kind of information I can't say I'm very concerned. Who are they going to sell information on how many gigs of ram I have to?

You ask that like it's a rhetorical question but actually there are lots of companies who would gladly pay money for such aggregate information (note: not individual information). Of course, Valve don't necessarily need to sell that info - it would be useful to themselves being a games developer and all. That said though, it appears they report that information publicly so I'm not sure they could sell it if they tried.

And yes, as I said, some care more about their privacy than others. There's nothing wrong with not being bothered about it.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Again, your ISP is probably doing the same thing...are you outraged about that? The top 5 on this list do. I didn't look any further.

 

[Aramel]

I'd agree that privacy is very important, especially in the twenty-first century when there are so many ways to bypass it, but it seems to me that a lot of people are really exaggerating the danger here. I mean, I can understand worrying about companies having access to your private conversations or other personal information, but to obsess about Steam potentially (I have never seen evidence that they are actually doing this) collecting information about your computer specs without your consent just seems like a distraction from legitimate concerns in an information-based society.

Or are people worried about some other kind of information being collected? I don't really know.

 

[isndl]

Is the fact that other companies also collect user information for data mining supposed to justify Valve's actions? Just because others do it doesn't make it right - we would not be permitted any privacy at all otherwise.

Like many other companies, Valve understands that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission: they're relying on user apathy to permit them to continue. This is one opportunity to make it heard that not everyone accepts this willingly; even if nothing happens as a result, you cannot say nobody tried.

 

[RagnorIronclad]

Unfortunately I've gone from really excited about this game to wondering if I'll even purchase it now that I've found out it's a Steamworks (lol oxymoron) game. I purchased Dawn of War 2 on the weekend, then when I got it home and started installing I realised it needed Steam to function. Unfortunately I'd already opened it so couldn't return it (without a lot of hassle anyway) so I thought I'd give it a try anyway, despite my trepidation.

Half an hour and much Google searching later, my game's finally starting to install. After going through all the authentication/registration and getting to the part where it's supposed to install from the CD, it can't contact the servers so instead starts downloading the entire game from the web instead. WTH? Because it can't contact the internet, it will download from the internet.

DRM is becoming more and more of a hindrance for paying consumers, while piracy is still the same difficulty as it always has been. With some of my latest purchases, legitimate installs are more difficult and time consuming than if I'd chosen to pirate the game so the arguments about including DRM to make it harder for pirates are bold faced lies. Combining draconian DRM with disgusting regional price gouging and I'm starting to see why so many people go down the piracy route.

Definitely no longer preordering Civ V, and will make my mind up on release whether to even purchase it or just stick with Civ IV.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'd agree that privacy is very important, especially in the twenty-first century when there are so many ways to bypass it, but it seems to me that a lot of people are really exaggerating the danger here. I mean, I can understand worrying about companies having access to your private conversations or other personal information, but to obsess about Steam potentially (I have never seen evidence that they are actually doing this) collecting information about your computer specs without your consent just seems like a distraction from legitimate concerns in an information-based society.

Or are people worried about some other kind of information being collected? I don't really know.

This is the whole point. We don't know what information is being collected. The SSA seems to be intentionally ambiguous when it comes to stating what information is collected. It's exactly why people are asking the simple question - what information is collected. We don't know whether to be bothered or not by it before we even know what it is they're collecting.

And actually, logs of chat is almost certainly something that gets recorded.

Again, your ISP is probably doing the same thing...are you outraged about that? The top 5 on this list do. I didn't look any further.

Spoiler :

This is TPG’s privacy policy, which outlines our commitment on your use of TPG products and services.



1. TPG will use the personal information, you provide us with, to:

i. Verify your identity;
ii. Provide and develop the services that you require;
iii. Administer and manage those services including charging, billing and instigating any debt collection;
iv. Inform you via email, fax, phone and by other means of communication of service charges, new products, advice and other ways the service provided to you could be improved;
v. Conduct appropriate checks for credit worthiness and for fraud;
2. TPG will not release any information in relation to your subscription, to any 3rd party Company or individual.
3. The only exception to Clause 2 is if the law requires us to, such as by law enforcement agencies when they are required to investigate offensive and/or illegal activities under State and/or Federal Laws.
4. As part of administration, TPG may record a summary of the calls fielded from clients and the usage clients accumulate - this may include log on time, length of connection and amount downloaded. These are not on-sold or disclosed to others, except as may be required in Clause 3.
5. TPG wishes to ensure that any personal details are always correct and up-to-date, and will amend any inaccuracies or changes to details on request.
6. We do not retain client’s personal information longer than is necessary for the purposes of compliance with the law and routine administration.
7. TPG is constantly trying to improve and enhance its products and services to our clients, and we may update this policy from time to time. Any changes to this policy will be updated on this page on the TPG website.

and

5. Your Private Information
5.1. As part of your application and in connection with the provision of service to you, we may obtain from you private information about you.

TPG Soul is required by law to collect certain Personal Information about you, including your name, address and telephone service number to provide it to the operator of the Independent Public Numbering Database (IPND). Information in the IPND is used to develop directories and to assist emergency service organisations.

5.2. We use our best endeavours to comply with a privacy policy which is available on our website or by contacting us. This policy governs the information we collect on you, how we use it and your rights to access it. You consent to us to collect and disclose your personal information including any unlisted telephone number and address from or to:

(a) any credit providers or credit reporting agencies to use the information for all purposes permitted by the Privacy Act (1988) including to obtain a credit report about you or your registered business, maintaining a credit information file about you, or notifying a default by you;

(b) any law enforcement agencies to use the information to assist them in the prevention or prosecution of criminal activities;

(c) to conduct ongoing credit management of your account;

(d) any of our shareholders, related entities, suppliers, agents or professional advisers for reporting, accounting, product supply and service, marketing and audit purposes;

(e) any upstream supplier to us to use the information for any purposes connected with the service or your use of the service; and

(f) any person who provides us with your username(s) or password(s).

5.3. From time to time we will update you on our services, news, promotions and offers including those from related or affiliated organisations. You consent to us contacting you at any time (including after you have terminated the agreement), for this purpose through any available contact methods. You can withdraw your consent at any time by contacting us.

Honestly, compared to Steam's subscriber agreement, this looks pretty good.

 

[Svip]

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.

This is only speculation on my behalf as a developer of sorts. I think the solution would be far more simple than that; a 'build in' backwards compatibility system. Basically, a mod should itself describe which version of Civ5 it works best on (or rather tested with), and each version of Civ5 would support up to 5 versions prior so the mod creators had some time to upgrade (even if it was just changing the number).

One thing is creating a mod, another is maintaining. And just like software, you better keep it up to date! Personally, however, I don't mind this 'force' upon modders to upgrade their mods. It is a good encouragement, even if it is just making minor tweaks.

Also, as I am not entirely knowledgeable on the subject of Civ4 modding, was new versions breaking mods a common issue there? I know other games have some clever systems to avoid breaking mods. However, as you might expect, if the mods are simply too old, they will break, but that's like attempting to run old games on modern operating systems, a lot of system calls have changed, my friend.

 

[ori]

all Civ4 mods that did any DLL work broke with each patch. This was a major hassle since even the well maintained mods needed a few weeks to catch up and in the meantime all mods that did any significant alterations were dead for anyone patched to date.

 

[Svip]

Oh right, DLLs. I had almost forgotten why I hate Windows so much. Hm, yeah, well, I too hope they are considering this issue this time around, to make the engine far wiser to interpret older syscalls. Maybe they could make a version trick like Microsoft did for MS-DOS with malloc() and SimCity, and check what version is being requested in the DLL files. Yes, it will make bigger library files, but hey.

 

[tom2050]

Okay, I understand. But if it's still the same kind of information I can't say I'm very concerned. Who are they going to sell information on how many gigs of ram I have to?

Consumer demographics would be the most likely thing they would pursue... IMO. Newell of Valve has said that beating piracy requires that they use their Steam to be able to do things such as offer superior service, etc. This is a no-brainer that they should be trying to do this, but other interviews have mentioned what sounds like using Steam members information to be able to know what products to advertise to them, etc... Nothing bad about that, and we all know if they do collect info they would use it to make money.

So, although demographics aren't confirmed in any way, it only makes sense from a common sense point of view.

Again, your ISP is probably doing the same thing...are you outraged about that? The top 5 on this list do. I didn't look any further.

If my ISP is doing that, why would I want another program (a Digtial Rights Management Program at that) on my computer doing the same thing?

 

[gazzahk]

I have just read all 35 pages of this thread.

I have the following observations:

1. 2k Greg has not managed this community very well at all; he has created discontent which is palpable from all the comments; he could so much better have managed expectations and kept everyone calm by being more direct and there is no problem to provide target dates, provide updates and as has been begged provide some interim information - to date this sounds like an exercise in prevarication which seems to have no reason - a bit more honesty could be helpful.

2. All this fuss about Steam seems overblown - the manufacturer of the game has decided to undertake purchase verification along with a partner that also delivers significant patching, modding and community advantages - if people don't like this you don't have to buy the game, worries about data privacy and data mining are all very well but this goes on all the time in most online activities (e.g. Gmail, Hotmail IE, Safari, Firefox etc); so the complaints and worries seem overblown to me.

3. Elizabeth at 2K was most helpful then she seems to have disappeared; come back and help.

4. I think the FAQs (without answers) could be provided so that the community can be sure that the FAQs are what people expect; the answers could be published as they are signed off by the relevant departments - this at least would calm down the very real anxiety of the community - why can't this be done?

Besides the above I do think people should remember this is just a game and this whole thing should be treated as such; it is not life threatening.

 

[12agnar0k]

Well the issues people have with patches become obsolete when the game is patched to perfection, (i wish they came that way in the shops like the old days) because then no further patches are given out, such as our current BTS version, it is true however it will take a while to get there, if you dont want auto-updating affecting your game you could always wait to buy it till the last and final patching is released.

 

[tom2050]

Well the issues people have with patches become obsolete when the game is patched to perfection, (i wish they came that way in the shops like the old days) because then no further patches are given out, such as our current BTS version, it is true however it will take a while to get there, if you dont want auto-updating affecting your game you could always wait to buy it till the last and final patching is released.

That logic just doesn't make sense to a civilization fan to wait untold months or years for a final patch to be released to get around Steam auto-patching.

Now, if auto-patching is turned off... but something happens to where it auto-patches anyways, others have stated it is impossible to revert back to a previous version with Steam. Is that the case?

 

[12agnar0k]

No idea, I always update , when you install it will be in online mode, but if you turn auto-updates off it shouldnt try to update even in online mode. If you leave it in offline mode it certainly won't auto-update anything so your mods will be unaffected... but in offline mode who knows if the mod browser will work.

 

[Commander Bello]

but in offline mode who knows if the mod browser will work.

That's actually a very good question.

Under the assumption that a patch might break mods, this could very well lead to something like this:

Game is released (24th of September)
Mod is created and released (say, 15th of October)
Patch is released (say, 22nd of October)
User checks for mods (24th of October)
Steam updates client and game (24th of October)
Mod [found by mod-browser] doesn't work anymore due to incompatibility (24th of October)