Civilization 5 Steamworks questions/concerns for inclusion in the FAQ

[isndl]

MP combatibality isn't the only reason, its also ensures any bugs with earlier versions are fixed, you don't as a support team want to fix a bug only to have 90% of your consumer base not bothering to update their game and continue to post bug reports on a bug that is fixed. I continue with more examples if need be.
I have a single player game currently I played a few times and then stopped because of an annoying bug crash, hopefull this bug is eventually fixed so I can play again, if I never updated this game again that would not be the case.

The problem with forced patching isn't fixing bugs, it's introducing new bugs that were not present before the patch and breaking compatibility with existing mods and saves. Yes, I'd like to patch my game when a patch is released that fixes bugs that I've had issues with, but I'll still hold off on installing it if it means losing progress in my current game and I'll definitely want to be able to revert if I end up crashing frequently for whatever reason.

Reducing erroneous customer support calls because of unpatched games is well and good, but that's their issue, not mine. I would much rather have a game that I know is functional and I can keep functional; forced patching doesn't allow that.

Fact is though, if you want to play an old version you have this choice by turning off automatic updates and playing the game in offline mode.

No. Have you been paying attention to what I said earlier? Going into offline mode doesn't solve anything if Steam detects a patch available, because it won't let you play until the patch is installed, even in offline mode.

I have seen issues with Steam and Steam servers before, but I don't think they were caused by updates. Unless they were very poorly done updates which may of caused problems, if an update isn't bug riddled, it usually just solves problems and not create them. Which isn't really the point, as automatically updated or not, the problem would still exist when the game is updated, and its dumb founded to segregate players in MP over who has or hasn't updated, even if this is just "for support's benefit".

I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore. Your statement about Steam and the Steam servers is nebulous enough that it could mean anything, the sentence about bug-riddled updates doesn't add anything, and I don't know what 'problem' you are referring to in the last sentence. The last half of the last sentence seems to contradict your earlier statements (any segregation isn't "for support's benefit", it's for the player's benefit).

No, I can give you the example why very easily because without noticing it, as its supposed to be, a game updated today.

Thier is a button showing you downloads/ipdates in progress, and completed updates/downloads you just made.

That is the time when I turned my PC on, I went to get some food and a drink after that, I just woke up at midnight, yes I am a strange creature and am giving you too much information, anyway, so half an hour later I came up here and have been on firefox for nearly 2 hours doing my daily routine's. Now say I decided I wanted to go play LFD2 right now, If I has the option that you wanted me to have I would have to wait after clicking play now for the game to update so I could shoot zombies online, by Steams current method of updating it was done without my knowledge or concern minutes after I turned my PC on. If however you don't wish to have it update automatically then you can turn this feature off and update before playing the game wasting your time.

That's why there's an automatic updates feature for people like you. That's also absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be a confirmation dialog for people who don't want their game updated as soon as a patch is available. Please don't cloud the issue.

As for the "more single player games than multiplayer games" on steam statement.

Most of the games in the "multiplayer" search - showing 1 - 25 of 651, also have single player modes so will also come up in the "single player" search, showing 1 - 25 of 1546. Also thats to say nothing of how many people play what game type.
I don't think I can find a "how many people play multiplayer / single player statistic." But I can find a "how many people are playing what game right now" And you can see the top of the list is predominatly multiplayer games. Though it could very well be that tomorrow is the day that 50 million single player civ fans all play the game and dont do so on any other day .

Heres a list of the top 100 games played today, the top of the list are all multiplayer games. Though quite a lot of the multiplayer games have singleplayer options so you cant be sure they arent all playing single player, but meh you can be fairly sure most people are playing multi player, especially with the counter strike games .

[...]

So this goes part way to my "guess" as thats practically what it is, that Steam is full of gamers playing multiplayer, after all it is Steams focus.

Steam is a digital distribution, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform developed by Valve Corporation after all.

There are over twice as many games listed as 'Single-player' than 'Multi-player' in the Steam catalogue. Even if you assume that every one of those multiplayer games also have a single-player component, that's over 600 games that are single-player only.

As for statistics about what games are currently being played online, those are inherently flawed in this case due to selection bias. You're looking for single-player users (which does not require being online) amongst online users. There's an unknown number of users outside of your sample that you cannot account for.

As for "thou shalt not have your own opinion" as Bello decided I said, its not that thou shalt not, but rather thou is wrong to do so. You may have the opinion that the moon is made out of blue cheese, your welcome to your opinion, it doesn't make it right however.

[...]

To clarify, if you were under the impression that I was ordering you not to have certain opinions you were misinterpreting what I say trying to say, I was only saying that your opinion was misguided.

By the same token, that doesn't make your opinion right.

Actually saying you asked a question was wrong on my part, actually what you did was make an incorrect assumption and then I corrected it. It seems I will have to repeat this process again

"Disabling automatic updates doesn't prevent forced updates, it just defers them until a later time."

No, Wrong. If you permentally disable the automatic update process then you never have to automatically update. Unless you choose to update.

Who's the one making incorrect assumptions? Automatic updates and forced updates are not the same thing. A forced update cannot be reversed, and whether or not the update is automatic is irrelevant to this.

You can tell Steam not to download the update when it first sees it, but that doesn't mean Steam will let you play your game when you haven't installed it.

"The mod-makers don't exist at your beck and call. Maintaining that mod may become a job of its own."
Note: I did say "IF, a mod maker wishes to improve his mod, or have it work on an updated game then he will update it eventually." To be honhest, a mod maker shouldnt have to update his mod because an update screwed it up, the updates to a games core should be done in such a way that mods are not affected if this is at all possible.

You're assuming that the mod-maker has the time to work on his mod. Here's a morbid scenario: the mod-maker dies in an accident. I'm sure he'll just pop out of the grave to finish updating that mod, then?

Sure, changes to the game's core files should be done in a way to allow forward compatibility. The thing is, not all mods can be done in such a fashion.

You must not have read what I wrote. When I say you need to log back in, I mean you need to log back in. Because Steam relies on that ClientRegistry.blob file to see whether or not you can play that game, and sometimes you have to delete it because Steam bugged out. Which means you need to log back in, because that's where your user credentials are stored.

Actually I did read it, and read it again after reading this, and then read this again. I came to the conclusion you did not say what you meant to say.
But now you have I can answer efficiently.

If you go around deleting Steam files yes then it may very well "bug out" or "stop working" in which case you will need to either log in because you did a little damage to your files but not enough to stop it loading, or replace the Steam folder with a new download of the Steam app. Which will probably require re-installing all your games. Possibly. Which will require you to log in. Also replacing the Steam.exe will cause you to log in to online mode by default till you choose "go offline" again.

I'm not deleting files before it bugs out. I'm deleting files because it bugged out. Because that's the official fix to certain problems that may crop up while using Steam (I'll grant that technically they say to rename it, but as long as I don't empty the Recycle Bin it's functionally equivalent). I'm not so naive as to assume that deleting files at random won't cause problems.

Also I would like to ... not appologise per say, but state, I may of called you a "whiner" after only scimming your response because the post seemed rather whiney. Not that you commented on my remarks, it was bello who did that. However after reading the response properly it seemed to actually contain things I could make a response too, I did consider removing the whiner comments at that point but it seemed like too much work so I left them in .

If that's not supposed to be an apology, then I suppose it's supposed to be an excuse? For what it's worth, it's not much of one: not only are you insulting another person, and you're not even bothered to correct it when you realized that when the board rules are against such behavior.

edit: What a great way to start the top of the page!

 

[12agnar0k]

The problem with forced patching isn't fixing bugs, it's introducing new bugs that were not present before the patch

Yes, well this isn't Steam's fault, the developer should release patches that work and don't cause more problems, I'm sure if a game patch is released that completely mucks everyones Games up, Steam could remove the patch from its "list" of patches to update to your game, and a quick re-install of your game would fix it, or maybe an "un-patch" if one was designed. All you need do is bring the faulty patch to thier attention.

No. Have you been paying attention to what I said earlier? Going into offline mode doesn't solve anything if Steam detects a patch available, because it won't let you play until the patch is installed, even in offline mode.

Have you been paying attention to anything told to you, staying in offline mode, keeping "don't auto update" on in online mode, or even going so far as to block Steam on your firewall will stop it detecting the patch in the first place. If it starts to update then yes its a unstoppable reaction, like setting alight to thermite.

I don't know what 'problem' you are referring to in the last sentence.

I was reffering to the fact that If an update stops a mod working, whether you automatically update or do it on your own, the end result is the same. I.e Mod doesn't work anymore, turning off auto updating just delays the inevitability. Unless you never update your game.

Any segregation isn't "for support's benefit", it's for the player's benefit.

I was reffering to Bello's notation on my earlier post that Segregating "is only for the support staff's benefit" I disagree with this comment, but I said even if its only for the supports benefit, thats reason enough for it to exist, and he agreed it wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

That's why there's an automatic updates feature for people like you. That's also absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be a confirmation dialog for people who don't want their game updated as soon as a patch is available. Please don't cloud the issue.

Again, thier is the option to not automatically update, why are you blind to this fact, and you do have a "confirm to update button" its also called "play game" when in online mode.

There are over twice as many games listed as 'Single-player' than 'Multi-player' in the Steam catalogue. Even if you assume that every one of those multiplayer games also have a single-player component, that's over 600 games that are single-player only.

Doesn't really mean more people are playing them, infact the 600 single player only games could have sold 0 copies, who knows , or they could be indie games with very few sales.

There's an unknown number of users outside of your sample that you cannot account for.

Yeah thats true, I did say I could only summerise a guess, not enough information is given to quantify a sufficient answer, but we know it is designed for multiplayer and digital distribution. The fact that now lots of single player games are using it to distribute copies doesn't change the fact it has great multiplayer and community features.

Automatic updates and forced updates are not the same thing. A forced update cannot be reversed, and whether or not the update is automatic is irrelevant to this.

Actually automatic and forced mean the same thing in the context that "the updates are automatically updated without user confirmation/choice/involvement" forced can be used in that definition, "it automatically forces updates".

What I think your talking about here is the fact that the updates once installed are forceably kept, i.e the updates are irreversable. This can indeed lead to problems when updates are bug riddled and make the game worse, you can't simply un-update it.

You're assuming that the mod-maker has the time to work on his mod. Here's a morbid scenario: the mod-maker dies in an accident. I'm sure he'll just pop out of the grave to finish updating that mod, then?

Again i'd rather not repeat myself for a third time but here goes.

IF!!!!!!!!!! a mod maker wishes to improve his mod or fix problems caused by updates to the game he will do so.

If he is dead he will no longer wish to do so, a dead man is incapable of wishing.

I'm not so naive as to assume that deleting files at random won't cause problems.

Good to know .

 

[PieceOfMind]

You know, this argument between you two would most likely not be happening if 2K Greg had posted the FAQ by now.

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -Douglas Adams

 

[Commander Bello]

Not true, if you don't wish a game to update without your permission then go to game options and choose "do not automatically update this game", (...)

Fact is though, if you want to play an old version you have this choice by turning off automatic updates and playing the game in offline mode.

Which one of the both now applies?

It seems I will have to repeat this process again
"Disabling automatic updates doesn't prevent forced updates, it just defers them until a later time."
No, Wrong. If you permentally disable the automatic update process then you never have to automatically update. Unless you choose to update.

And what now about the so-called "offline mode" having been mentioned above by you?

Yes, well this isn't Steam's fault, the developer should release patches that work and don't cause more problems, I'm sure if a game patch is released that completely mucks everyones Games up, Steam could remove the patch from its "list" of patches to update to your game, and a quick re-install of your game would fix it, or maybe an "un-patch" if one was designed. All you need do is bring the faulty patch to thier attention.

Once again you want to put the responsibility upon the shoulders of the customer.
In addition to that, your proposed procedure is very unlikely to work, as this would mean that the Steam support guys would have to check your description of why the patch is faulty against an unpatched installation to ensure that infact unwanted behaviour of the software is needed.

All of this could be avoided by simply adding the chance to have notifications about pending updated without the necessity to install them right away.

Have you been paying attention to anything told to you, staying in offline mode, keeping "don't auto update" on in online mode, or even going so far as to block Steam on your firewall will stop it detecting the patch in the first place.

What now?
For avoiding auto-updating it would be sufficient to
a) stay in the so-called "offline mode"
b) stay in "don't auto-update" while still being in online mode
c) block Steam via firewall settings?

Actually, the more of your "explanations" I read, the more I get the impression that it really requires to block Steam completely via firewall settings to be safe (and that does not only include forced updating)

turning off auto updating just delays the inevitability.

What does that mean in the context of having been online and wanting to go back to the so-called "offline mode"?
In that scenario the Steam client knows about the update being available, yet has not yet downloaded it.
For activation of the so-called "offline mode" 100% patch status is reported (by Steam) to be necessary.

So, what does "delays the inevitability" mean?

Again, thier is the option to not automatically update, why are you blind to this fact, and you do have a "confirm to update button" its also called "play game" when in online mode.

You understand the difference between "play game" and "update the game"?

****

However after reading the response properly it seemed to actually contain things I could make a response too, I did consider removing the whiner comments at that point but it seemed like too much work so I left them in .

This - at the very least - shows an enourmous amount of disrespect for others. Shame on you, Sir.

 

[isndl]

Yes, well this isn't Steam's fault, the developer should release patches that work and don't cause more problems, I'm sure if a game patch is released that completely mucks everyones Games up, Steam could remove the patch from its "list" of patches to update to your game, and a quick re-install of your game would fix it, or maybe an "un-patch" if one was designed. All you need do is bring the faulty patch to thier attention.

You might not consider it to be Steam's fault if buggy patches are released, but that's irrelevant. A bad patch is released, what can you do? Nothing. That's the problem. All of your "solutions" boil down to 'wait until someone at Valve deals with it'. Until then, you can't play your game.

Have you been paying attention to anything told to you, staying in offline mode, keeping "don't auto update" on in online mode, or even going so far as to block Steam on your firewall will stop it detecting the patch in the first place. If it starts to update then yes its a unstoppable reaction, like setting alight to thermite.

And I'm saying that you cannot honestly expect people to stay in offline mode forever. I have other games on Steam, friends I talk to on Steam, and I'm supposed to ensure that I'm always in offline mode before starting Civ5? Assuming that Steam won't prevent me from playing in offline mode because it detected a patch while I was online?

You're not even looking at the context of the problem. I've stated why your solution doesn't work, and you continue to repeat it.

I was reffering to the fact that If an update stops a mod working, whether you automatically update or do it on your own, the end result is the same. I.e Mod doesn't work anymore, turning off auto updating just delays the inevitability. Unless you never update your game.

Yes, turning off auto-updates is akin to delaying the inevitable in Steam. I've already said as much. If you haven't noticed, I'm also saying that it's problematic because it's inevitable. And guess what, if you could choose whether or not you had to update? It wouldn't be a problem.

Again, thier is the option to not automatically update, why are you blind to this fact, and you do have a "confirm to update button" its also called "play game" when in online mode.

'Play game' is not a 'confirm to update' button. Do you know why? Because you aren't given any options to choose from. There's no 'Yes' or 'No' buttons to click, it just starts doing its thing. It's not a confirmation dialog if there's no dialog.

You might describe it as a 'check for updates, apply any that are available, and then start the game' button, but obviously it's still not a confirmation dialog. You don't even know if there are updates available when you click Play.

Doesn't really mean more people are playing them, infact the 600 single player only games could have sold 0 copies, who knows , or they could be indie games with very few sales.

Then the number of games available on Steam is completely irrelevant to the reason why people use Steam. You brought it up as support for the argument that Steam is predominantly used for multiplayer, but now it's clear that it doesn't support your argument at all.

Yeah thats true, I did say I could only summerise a guess, not enough information is given to quantify a sufficient answer, but we know it is designed for multiplayer and digital distribution. The fact that now lots of single player games are using it to distribute copies doesn't change the fact it has great multiplayer and community features.

As a multiplayer and community platform, Steam does have advantages over its (currently few) competitors. The fact that it offers relatively good multiplayer and community features doesn't change the fact that it offers terrible support for single-player games.

Actually automatic and forced mean the same thing in the context that "the updates are automatically updated without user confirmation/choice/involvement" forced can be used in that definition, "it automatically forces updates".

What I think your talking about here is the fact that the updates once installed are forceably kept, i.e the updates are irreversable. This can indeed lead to problems when updates are bug riddled and make the game worse, you can't simply un-update it.

You've been needlessly mixing terms, and you're confusing the issue because of that. Let's take a step back and define our two main terms:

Automatic updates means that when Steam detects an update, it will attempt to download the update without user prompting.

Forced updates means that when updates are available, you cannot play the game until you are updated. Implicitly, this also means that you cannot remove an update.

Right now, Steam allows you to disable automatic updates. There is nothing the user can do about forced updates, except prevent Steam from ever learning there are updates available.

The important thing here to note is that these key words are independent. They don't rely on each other, and they're not mutually exclusive. I've been careful to use them as appropriate to say exactly what they mean. I understand that you may not have picked up on the nuances when I began using these terms, but hopefully this should make things perfectly clear.

Again i'd rather not repeat myself for a third time but here goes.

IF!!!!!!!!!! a mod maker wishes to improve his mod or fix problems caused by updates to the game he will do so.

If he is dead he will no longer wish to do so, a dead man is incapable of wishing.

I'll pass on debating the nature of the afterlife, I think. Your argument certainly smacks of arrogance however, along the lines of 'If a homeless man wishes to make enough money to buy his own home, he will do so'. I'm sure most of them do, it's just that circumstance is making it a little difficult. I guess your answer is that they aren't wishing hard enough?

You know, this argument between you two would most likely not be happening if 2K Greg had posted the FAQ by now.

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -Douglas Adams

At the rate this is going, we would probably be arguing about something Greg said in the FAQ instead.

 

[12agnar0k]

1. Once again you want to put the responsibility upon the shoulders of the customer.

2. So, what does "delays the inevitability" mean?

3. You understand the difference between "play game" and "update the game"?

1. Actually I said the responsibility to make a patch that works is the developers, not the consumers.

2. If you read the rest of the sentence you might of understood,

"turning off auto updating because you don't want to break a mod, is just delaying the inevitable breaking of the mod till you choose to update, unless you don't ever update your game."

3. Steam only allows you to play fully updated games in online mode, so choosing "play the game" in online mode you are actually choosing "check for / download & Install any updates and then play the game"
Understanding the difference between playing a game and updating a game won't change the fact that Steam updates the game before you can play it.

...

1. And I'm saying that you cannot honestly expect people to stay in offline mode forever

2. And guess what, if you could choose whether or not you had to update? It wouldn't be a problem.

3. 'check for updates, apply any that are available, and then start the game' button,

4. doesn't change the fact that it offers terrible support for single-player games.

5. Forced updates means that when updates are available, you cannot play the game until you are updated. Implicitly, this also means that you cannot remove an update.
I understand that you may not have picked up on the nuances when I began using these terms, but hopefully this should make things perfectly clear.

1. Yes I can, it is a solution to a problem, personally I would rather ignore the problem and the solution and just take full advantage of Steams online mode, whatever the consequences, but thats just me.

2. Wrong, choosing whether or not to update, and choosing whether or not automatically update is the same thing, both "choosing not to" options invenitably will lead to the same consequences as the "choosing to" options, unless you never choose to update.

3. Yes this is what the "play game" button does. In short it "checks for updates".

4. I disagree, I find Steams single player features just fine. You still get achievements, can access the online community, friends lists, ingame browser, you get hassle free auto updates, It is awesome.

5. Actually that is not the definition of "Force Updates" its just the definition you made up for the word/phrase. The definition of "forced" is "to not have control of". So forced updates would be defined as "Updates without the need for user consent/control" Which is the same definition as Automatic Updates.
Now what you describe in your false definition is "when updating has started, it must be finished and can't be cancelled."

The correct word to define this process is "Irreversible". So what you should be saying when you say "Forced Updates" is actually "The Irreversible and Un-removeable updating of your game". You may call it "Irreversible Updates" for short, the lack of the ability to remove updates is implied. Thank you for exaplaining what you meant by your faulty definition. Please use Irreversible in the future as it better explains your point.

You are right however in that the irreversible nature of the updating process is cause for concern when say an update breaks a mod or indeed the entire game, or if you accidentally start an update but dont get to finish it and then don't have internet access for months as it will stop you playing the game till its complete.
Their is no way to reverse the process so you are stuck.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Let's go back to basics, because I'm incredibly confused now.

Let's explain in simple terms what I would need to do in order to ensure my game does not get updated unless I tell it to i.e. consent to it. A reason for wanting to do this could be that I'm using a mod and I'm a long way into a fun game. For the sake of argument/discussion, assume that I don't know how to use a firewall to block steam and that running Steam permanently in offline mode is not an option (because I play mp games on Steam every now and then).

 

[Mark Havel]

Well, right-click on the game icon, properties, updates, and choose 'do not update this game automatically'.

 

[Commander Bello]

Well, right-click on the game icon, properties, updates, and choose 'do not update this game automatically'.

And which consequences does this have for going to the so-called "offline mode"?

 

[Mark Havel]

None that I'm aware of. But since I'm always connected to the net, I don't use the offline mode that much. Maybe I'll tell you in a few weeks if I happen to move and if my ISP is a bit slow to set-up my connection (but so far, it hasn't been the case).

 

[mjs0]

Well, right-click on the game icon, properties, updates, and choose 'do not update this game automatically'.

What do you think this tells Steam to do/not do???

 

[Mark Havel]

I never had the need to not automatically update my games in Steam, so I have never tried this option. It exists and it's explicit enough to work as advertised I think.

 

[ori]

you forget he is playing mp games every now and then
this is actually one more point: Steam will not let you play an unpatched game online - if you play a mod that might be broken by a patch AND you play the normal (or modded) game via a MP method that requires online use of the game (which by the looks of it will be all MP options available at release time - and promises about other modes not withstanding, no one knows whether there actually will be an "offline" MP option) - you'll have to choose between the mod or MP gaming - both will not be possible*.


*unless they change the automatic patching policy currently employed that is...

 

[isndl]

1. Yes I can, it is a solution to a problem, personally I would rather ignore the problem and the solution and just take full advantage of Steams online mode, whatever the consequences, but thats just me.

So your solution to not being able to stay offline forever... is to stay offline forever. Thanks, you're a real help.

2. Wrong, choosing whether or not to update, and choosing whether or not automatically update is the same thing, both "choosing not to" options invenitably will lead to the same consequences as the "choosing to" options, unless you never choose to update.

What's wrong with waiting until a newer update is released that fixes problems with the update I'm avoiding? You seem to think that a bad patch would have to be installed regardless, but that's not the case, unless you're going to now start digging into technicalities of how patches are applied.

3. Yes this is what the "play game" button does. In short it "checks for updates".

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.

4. I disagree, I find Steams single player features just fine. You still get achievements, can access the online community, friends lists, ingame browser, you get hassle free auto updates, It is awesome.

That's starting to blur the distinction between single-player and multiplayer. I'll stop here because this is a topic broad/deep enough to warrant its own thread, but I'm more than willing to continue this elsewhere if you are.

5. Actually that is not the definition of "Force Updates" its just the definition you made up for the word/phrase. The definition of "forced" is "to not have control of". So forced updates would be defined as "Updates without the need for user consent/control" Which is the same definition as Automatic Updates.
Now what you describe in your false definition is "when updating has started, it must be finished and can't be cancelled."

The correct word to define this process is "Irreversible". So what you should be saying when you say "Forced Updates" is actually "The Irreversible and Un-removeable updating of your game". You may call it "Irreversible Updates" for short, the lack of the ability to remove updates is implied. Thank you for exaplaining what you meant by your faulty definition. Please use Irreversible in the future as it better explains your point.

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

The proper definition of 'force' in this context means to impel. Using "to not have control of" is inaccurate, as a person may not have control of something but is not actually being forced; e.g. I might not have control over my pets, but that's not because someone came along and took it from me.

"Updates without the need for user consent/control" is therefore an inaccurate description, as it doesn't properly reflect the relationship between the user (who is being forced) and Steam (who is doing the forcing). "Updates regardless of user consent" is a much better description of what's actually going on.

Automatic updates are "Updates with minimal human intervention". There's nothing about consent involved here, just intervention (i.e. whether or not the user needs to do something for it to work).

Do you see the difference now? One is about whether or not you can choose to not install an update, and the other is about whether or not you need to do anything for the update to be installed.

Irreversible, while accurately describing the end state of an update, fails to include the lack of user consent involved. Therefore, while it is a valid word to use when describing updates (and I believe I've used it in the past to describe Steam updates, though I'm not certain), I'll use the term 'forced' to better reflect the issue of user consent when it's the crux of the matter at hand, such as right now.

 

[mjs0]

I never had the need to not automatically update my games in Steam, so I have never tried this option. It exists and it's explicit enough to work as advertised I think.

My research into the 'Do not update this game automatically' option:
As best as I can tell this option was not designed to allow users to prevent patching (or make it optional) but to provide a little more control over the timing of one part of the patching process - how and when the download happens.
All the official information I could find on this flag suggests Steam introduced it to allow users to control when patches get downloaded not if.
So, basically, the focus of the option is the word 'automatically', not the phrase 'Do not update this game'.

• If the flag is not set Steam is free to automatically download patches when it finds them.
  (This caused trouble for people on broadband plans that limited the amount of data they could transfer in a fixed period, especially when large patches were released for older/rarely used games.)
• If the flag is set Steam will not download patches automatically but will instead wait for you to initiate the download, giving you control over when the download occurs.

Unfortunately what is not made clear from the name of the option is that running the game when online counts as a manual request for the patch, so the flag does not prevent patching by itself; it merely provides control over when the patch gets downloaded by disabling automatic (anticipatory) downloads.

Use with offline mode:
There are conflicting anecdotal reports of how well setting this flag for Civ5 and playing in offline mode as a way of avoiding patches would work in certain situations; Specifically it is unclear how this approach is affected by playing other games online then remembering to always switching back to offline mode to before playing Civ5, or indeed whether playing in offline mode is enough versus physically disconnecting from the net.

There is no official statement on this general approach from Valve (or 2K) and so I don't think there is enough evidence to decide if this will work effectively in all situations.

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.

 

[PieceOfMind]

So if I don't want my game updated, and I'm usually using Steam in online mode (which I of course do) then I have to check with civfanatics or some such literally every time before I try to launch an MP civ game. And if I want to play a sp game put it in offline mode first.

So if you're a regular MP player and also a mod player, you have to be extremely paranoid about each time you attempt to log onto the game for some mp action.

 

[mjs0]

So if I don't want my game updated, and I'm usually using Steam in online mode (which I of course do) then I have to check with civfanatics or some such literally every time before I try to launch an MP civ game. And if I want to play a sp game put it in offline mode first.

So if you're a regular MP player and also a mod player, you have to be extremely paranoid about each time you attempt to log onto the game for some mp action.

That is exactly the way I read the situation based on the current evidence.
I asked about this in this very thread way back in May.
Hopefully there will be an answer in the FAQ (soon/eventually).

 

[PieceOfMind]

Not to mention, if there is a patch available and I know about it, I can't play MP anymore. Either I patch and break the mod, or I don't patch and I can't play MP. Either way, I'm excluded from one. Disappointing considering both those options are where I spend most of my time playing (maybe not in the first few months though, where I'll be playing standard game).

What happens to PBEM games and their players (and so also how PBEM is even implemented - e.g. does it require online mode?) is an even messier problem.

 

[mjs0]

Not to mention, if there is a patch available and I know about it, I can't play MP anymore. Either I patch and break the mod, or I don't patch and I can't play MP. Either way, I'm excluded from one. Disappointing considering both those options are where I spend most of my time playing (maybe not in the first few months though, where I'll be playing standard game).

What happens to PBEM games and their players (and so also how PBEM is even implemented - e.g. does it require online mode?) is an even messier problem.

Incidentally one suggested solution to this (credit to Tom2050) is to install Steam twice on separate windows user accounts and use one for online play and one for offline play.
I guess you could even configure logon/logoff scripts for the offline account that either disables your network adapter (or maybe reconfigures your firewall) to avoid accidents.

 

[Commander Bello]

Incidentally one suggested solution to this (credit to Tom2050) is to install Steam twice on separate windows user accounts and use one for online play and one for offline play.
I guess you could even configure logon/logoff scripts for the offline account that either disables your network adapter (or maybe reconfigures your firewall) to avoid accidents.

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.