Civilization 5 Steamworks questions/concerns for inclusion in the FAQ

[12agnar0k]

that wasnt actually what I was referring too, but yes that is why people are un-sure about whether they will like auto-updates.

What I was referring too was the mod browser which is an online feature to allow you to browse/download/install/play mods without even restarting the game, if you are on offline mode in steam, will you even have access to the mod browser, short of manually inputting mods into the Civ5 folder and creating an .exe file to run the game with the mod running will you be able to even play mods while in offline mode potentially disabling the whole mod browser, We won't know till we get a look at it.

 

[mjs0]

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)

I agree with this...it is one of the most significant issues I personally have with Steam.

I raised this back in May in great detail in this post, hopefully it will be answered when...no I'm not even going to start that.

that wasnt actually what I was referring too, but yes that is why people are un-sure about whether they will like auto-updates.

What I was referring too was the mod browser which is an online feature to allow you to browse/download/install/play mods without even restarting the game, if you are on offline mode in steam, will you even have access to the mod browser, short of manually inputting mods into the Civ5 folder and creating an .exe file to run the game with the mod running will you be able to even play mods while in offline mode potentially disabling the whole mod browser, We won't know till we get a look at it.

...but I hadn't gotten to this line of reasoning. That is a good question, hopefully it is on (or not too late to add to) the list of questions that...oops nearly went there again.

 

[tom2050]

But saying that all CivFanatics should wait until the final patch before using the Civilization 5 program is about as crazy as Valve saying that if a problem is encountered with Steam -> disable all Anti-Virus and security programs to play Steam Games.

It doesn't solve the problem in a reasonable way, and doesn't make any sense. These are problems caused by Steam's programming; in which the consumer has to deal with the craziness and problematic issues of it. They need to fix it for all of us.

If I don't want to update, I shouldn't have to deal with the possibility of Steam updating me and no way for me to revert back in order to play a mod. If Steam updates, I don't believe you can revert back; and then you may not be able to play your game any longer.

To avoid this, multiple installs on multiple user accounts in windows may be needed to keep the current Civ 5 version in tact. And internet will need to be un-plugged in the case one version get's updated against the user's will.

 

[mjs0]

But saying that all CivFanatics should wait until the final patch before using the Civilization 5 program is about as crazy as Valve saying that if a problem is encountered with Steam -> disable all Anti-Virus and security programs to play Steam Games.

It doesn't solve the problem in a reasonable way, and doesn't make any sense. These are problems caused by Steam's programming; in which the consumer has to deal with the craziness and problematic issues of it. They need to fix it for all of us.

If I don't want to update, I shouldn't have to deal with the possibility of Steam updating me and no way for me to revert back in order to play a mod. If Steam updates, I don't believe you can revert back; and then you may not be able to play your game any longer.

To avoid this, multiple installs on multiple user accounts in windows may be needed to keep the current Civ 5 version in tact. And internet will need to be un-plugged in the case one version get's updated against the user's will.

Well said...although the point about avoiding updates becomes worse when you have to reinstall because you have no choice but to patch to the latest level. So much for upgrading your PC part way through a PBEM game or if you have a favourite mod that doesn't support the latest patch level.

I really hope they have a solution for this.

 

[2K Greg]

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.

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to this at this time. That's something that I'll be more likely to have for you near the release of the game. I'll make some inquiries about the current status of these things and find out if there's anything more I can find out for you. Those of you that know my history in the community know that I am very passionate about these sorts of multiplayer features and it's definitely something I want to let you guys know about at the earliest opportunity!

We're going to be revealing a lot more specifics about the multiplayer features (including what exactly is included at release) in the coming months. You will definitely be fully informed about exactly what you will get out of the box.

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.

I definitely understand your concerns here, and we're very aware of it. We certainly don't want to break mods when we release a patch, and we are currently looking in to different methods of preventing this. Right now nothing is decided on for sure, but it is definitely something that we understand is a big concern to you guys.

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.

As Elizabeth said in the other thread, neither of us have any information about future content (DLC or otherwise) right now. And as always, as soon as I do know, I'll let you know here. Hey, at least you expected that answer, right?

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?

You're taking his statement one step too far. He does think all of the steamworks features are great, but that doesn't mean Civ V is using every last one of them. VAC is one example; there are no current plans to use VAC in Civ V.

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.

The bottom line is I really can't speak on behalf of Valve. If you have questions about the specifics of the SSA and Valve's future plans, you'll have to contact them. If you had a question about the privacy policy tied to your GameSpy account used in Civilization 4, I would give the same answer. I realize that this is not the answer you want to hear, but some answer is better than no answer, right? This is the best I can do!

An acknowledgement that these questions have been read and received will be much appreciated. Thanks, PoM

I hope this is adequate acknowledgement

 

[2K Greg]

Hey Bello, I'm going to answer your question from the other thread here, because I'd like to keep the Steam discussion confined to this thread if possible.

You're pretty active around here so I assume you'll see it, but let me know if you don't!

I would like to make it more tangible:
I am sitting behind a WLAN router. This router get's an IP from my ISP.
What will happen if I am playing with my stationary (cable-connected) computer, while my girlfriend would like to play via WLAN (both with different accounts, of course)?

As far as I see it, Steam would detect 2 (two) different accounts sharing the one and same IP address. Will this still work?
In the worst case, would such a thing be regarded as "cheating" by the automatic control within the Steam network?

You absolutely definitely will have no issues with two people playing behind a NAT (meaning you have the same extenal IP address.) There are thousands of people at universities that share IP addresses, so not allowing this situation would be pretty undesirable!

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Thanks Greg for the few MP details and the knowledge that there will be details of what MP features will ship with the game in the comming months before release.

I'l post this info for the MP community at Civplayers, though I'm sure some people don't like to wait for news at least you have confirmed that the news will be covered.

CS

 

[The_J]

that there will be details of what MP features will ship with the game

That should be an easy task, easy to answer, because no MP features will ship with the game. Dennis Shirk said in one of the interviews, that they'll later (a month after release or so) be patched in.

 

[Commander Bello]

You're pretty active around here so I assume you'll see it, but let me know if you don't!

Would have loved to let you know, but unfortunately I have seen it.

Anyway, thanks for the confirmation.

 

[2K Greg]

That should be an easy task, easy to answer, because no MP features will ship with the game. Dennis Shirk said in one of the interviews, that they'll later (a month after release or so) be patched in.

This is absolutely incorrect; Civ V is definitely shipping with multiplayer. Please let me know where this is posted so I can get it corrected right away!

 

[CanuckSoldier]

That should be an easy task, easy to answer, because no MP features will ship with the game. Dennis Shirk said in one of the interviews, that they'll later (a month after release or so) be patched in.

Your confusing the statement that Pitboss/PBEM/Hotseat will be delayed until after the games release. That is not the same as saying there will be no basic p2p MP functionality. This is 2010, shipping a game with no MP at all would be a critical marketing failure.

CS

 

[Commander Bello]

This is absolutely incorrect; Civ V is definitely shipping with multiplayer. Please let me know where this is posted so I can get it corrected right away!

Actually, both of you seem to be partially right.

Dennis Shirk: We're going to have the basics out of the gate. About a month after release, we're going to add Pitboss. Pitboss will be accompanied by two extraneous modes that we weren't originally planning, but the fans keep asking for: play-by-mail and hot-seat.

Edit: As I am just checking the source, Shirk's statement has been updated:

[Update - 6/25/10] Added clarification about multiplayer modes available at and after launch.
[...]
Dennis Shirk: We're not going to be shipping with matchmaking, but it's something that everybody started asking for. That is something we're going to be looking to include with our package in the future.

Now, I am a bit confused. It seems to be unlikely that Mr. Shirk was not aware of what was to be shipped and what not.
On the other hand, the (original) answer was not so complicatedly phrased that it should have been misunderstood.

I would like to ask you, Greg, to double check wether Pitboss, PBEM and hotseat will be available at release.

 

[The_J]

ups, wrong on my side.
This article said at the beginning, that Pitboss, PBEM and hot seat will come later with a patch (cited here).
But it seems, that the article has been corrected.
Sorry for the confusion .
But i can't imagine at the moment, what this basic mode could be.


Edit: X-Post, thanks to the 24 hours reset by my provider .

 

[CanuckSoldier]

I think the original confusion was over what was meant by "matchmaking" though I'm pretty sure that it is clear now that it is refering to console style auto matchmaking not basic MP functions.

Now I'm not sure who Dennis is quoting as " everyone is asking for Matchmaking" as over at Civplayers no one really wants or cares for auto matchmaking, we all much prefer picking our own players in our games. Though if they include matchmaking that is not a big deal as long they are not forcing us to use only that.....

CS

 

[2K Greg]

Now, I am a bit confused. It seems to be unlikely that Mr. Shirk was not aware of what was to be shipped and what not.
On the other hand, the (original) answer was not so complicatedly phrased that it should have been misunderstood.

I would like to ask you, Greg, to double check wether Pitboss, PBEM and hotseat will be available at release.

The correction was issued because the original had promised certain features on a certain time frame, and that is the part that is not confirmed at this point. We definitely don't want anyone to buy the game with expectations (such as "feature X a month after release") that don't end up being true. That is, of course, why I can't give a date right now for when those extra multi-player features will be added.

But Civ V will ship with multiplayer support. And as mentioned above, the exact features that will be available at launch will be announced before release.

 

[PieceOfMind]

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.

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to this at this time. That's something that I'll be more likely to have for you near the release of the game. I'll make some inquiries about the current status of these things and find out if there's anything more I can find out for you. Those of you that know my history in the community know that I am very passionate about these sorts of multiplayer features and it's definitely something I want to let you guys know about at the earliest opportunity!

We're going to be revealing a lot more specifics about the multiplayer features (including what exactly is included at release) in the coming months. You will definitely be fully informed about exactly what you will get out of the box.

Ok. Please protest on behalf of us if development of those features gets pushed so far down the priority list that some exec decides to bin them. I suspect they're not in development yet which is why I'm worried but that's just a guess.

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.

I definitely understand your concerns here, and we're very aware of it. We certainly don't want to break mods when we release a patch, and we are currently looking in to different methods of preventing this. Right now nothing is decided on for sure, but it is definitely something that we understand is a big concern to you guys.

Great to hear. I have a feeling that now you have the conveniences of steamworks, patches are going to come more frequently, making the above issue especially important.

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.

As Elizabeth said in the other thread, neither of us have any information about future content (DLC or otherwise) right now. And as always, as soon as I do know, I'll let you know here. Hey, at least you expected that answer, right?

Ok, so you don't know anything about plans to use DLC. Can I suggest asking Dennis Shirk about it? I'm pretty sure he as some info.

But of course, once you know about it, it's ok if you're not allowed to tell us about it yet.

This is fun.

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?

You're taking his statement one step too far. He does think all of the steamworks features are great, but that doesn't mean Civ V is using every last one of them. VAC is one example; there are no current plans to use VAC in Civ V.

I'll take this as a mostly-confirmation that VAC will not be used. I suspected this anyway and was pretty sure Shirk didn't intend to imply VAC would be used.

Thanks for the info though, and this does cross one off the list of worries about civ5 using steam.

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.

The bottom line is I really can't speak on behalf of Valve. If you have questions about the specifics of the SSA and Valve's future plans, you'll have to contact them. If you had a question about the privacy policy tied to your GameSpy account used in Civilization 4, I would give the same answer. I realize that this is not the answer you want to hear, but some answer is better than no answer, right? This is the best I can do!

Yes, some answer is better than no answer, so thank you for doing that.

Can you recommend the best way to contact Valve about this?

An acknowledgement that these questions have been read and received will be much appreciated. Thanks, PoM

I hope this is adequate acknowledgement

Yes.

 

[Thyrwyn]

@CommanderBello: "matchmaking" is a specific type of MP functionality

Matchmaking allows users to find existing (games via server listings, or to start new games with a group through a lobby

(existing means the game is already started and has room for more players)

It is not an integral component of MP, nor is it necessary for any type of MP: not p2p, not pbem, not hotseat. It is one of the functions that the Steamworks API offers.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

@CommanderBello: "matchmaking" is a specific type of MP functionality (existing means the game is already started and has room for more players)

It is not an integral component of MP, nor is it necessary for any type of MP: not p2p, not pbem, not hotseat. It is one of the functions that the Steamworks API offers.

Well the more common use would be that the game is in "staging" and has room for more players. Not to many hosts that I know want random players joining a game after it as launched just because there is an available AI civ to take. In fact not being able to prevent hotjoining as a host in Civ4 is one of the a few key things that MP players would really like to see fixed in Civ5.(assuming that we don't take a step backwards and Civ5 at least as everying Civ4 did).

One of the many key features that CivPlayers added to our league mod in Civ4 was the ability for hosts to kick players out of a running game, not just a staging room. These may not be core features but they certainly are the "little things" that have a large impact of the social fabric of the MP community.

CS

 

[Commander Bello]

The correction was issued because the original had promised certain features on a certain time frame, and that is the part that is not confirmed at this point. We definitely don't want anyone to buy the game with expectations (such as "feature X a month after release") that don't end up being true. That is, of course, why I can't give a date right now for when those extra multi-player features will be added.

But Civ V will ship with multiplayer support. And as mentioned above, the exact features that will be available at launch will be announced before release.

Sorry for nitpicking.

In the original statement, Mr. Shirk said that three functionalities would be delivered after release:
a) Pitboss
b) PBEM
c) hotseat

In the new statement, a fourth functionality is mentioned, yet the first three aren't mentioned anymore.
d) matchmaking

I do understand your words in such way, that actually it will be all four functionalities which will be delivered at a later point of time.

Is this correct?

 

[trineas]

Can you recommend the best way to contact Valve about this?

Just pick one and write an email:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/people.html