It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
jamyskis: Not a bad idea in itself, but I reckon Valve should retain right of veto over releases in case a dev majorly fucks up a patch release and breaks a game entirely. I could otherwise foresee a situation where a dev breaks a game and then doesn't fix it, taking in all the revenue nonetheless.

It should also give users the right to revert to an older version and keep patching optional.
Well Valve couldn't veto an update(about to go live) with the way the new system is set up, but I agree they should implement a rollback feature for patches(If one chooses/needs to rollback to a prior version for some reason.) & keep new patches optional.
The next step would be letting the community do the (unofficial) patching through Steam workshop. Or has this happened with Skyrim?
avatar
Catshade: The next step would be letting the community do the (unofficial) patching through Steam workshop. Or has this happened with Skyrim?
We'd still need a rollback feature or else people would have to delete and redownload/reinstall games when they wanted to change patch versions.
avatar
jamyskis: Not a bad idea in itself, but I reckon Valve should retain right of veto over releases in case a dev majorly fucks up a patch release and breaks a game entirely. I could otherwise foresee a situation where a dev breaks a game and then doesn't fix it, taking in all the revenue nonetheless.

It should also give users the right to revert to an older version and keep patching optional.
avatar
GameRager: Well Valve couldn't veto an update(about to go live) with the way the new system is set up, but I agree they should implement a rollback feature for patches(If one chooses/needs to rollback to a prior version for some reason.) & keep new patches optional.
Publisher can roll back update via Steam if they find its broken - Shogun 2 has such update and it took only around 10-15 minutes to roll back to previous version.
avatar
GameRager: Well Valve couldn't veto an update(about to go live) with the way the new system is set up, but I agree they should implement a rollback feature for patches(If one chooses/needs to rollback to a prior version for some reason.) & keep new patches optional.
avatar
Rebel44: Publisher can roll back update via Steam if they find its broken - Shogun 2 has such update and it took only around 10-15 minutes to roll back to previous version.
I'd rather they allow users to do it themselves whenever they want so they don't have to wait for Steam/publishers to do it.
Very good news. Updates to indie games sometimes were halted for a long time, only because of Valve's approval process.

It's nice to hear that Steam is evolving in some very good ways. First Greenlight, now this :-)
Post edited July 13, 2012 by keeveek
avatar
Catshade: The next step would be letting the community do the (unofficial) patching through Steam workshop. Or has this happened with Skyrim?
That is certainly how GOG is handling a lot of their support...
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: So has anyone tried this "Source Filmmaker" mumbo-jumbo that just went into beta or something? I got an invite but am finding surprisingly little on it on the interwebs.
I've got this movie of me and two transsexual hookers. Yet Steam has not approved it for some reason. I guess I should have taken that gimp too, ah well, maybe next week.
Post edited July 13, 2012 by SimonG
Some music to celebrate this change in Steam's policies(It would be better held off until they allowed users to keep their games forever[Even after/if Steam ever went out of business/etc.]/play them without the client, but whatever.).

Hallelujah
avatar
GameRager: Some music to celebrate this change in Steam's policies(It would be better held off until they allowed users to keep their games forever[Even after/if Steam ever went out of business/etc.]/play them without the client, but whatever.).

Hallelujah
Well, they left a promise in their TOS (probably just to avoid lawsuits) that they will make games playable without steam in unlikely event of Valve winding up.
avatar
GameRager: Some music to celebrate this change in Steam's policies(It would be better held off until they allowed users to keep their games forever[Even after/if Steam ever went out of business/etc.]/play them without the client, but whatever.).

Hallelujah
avatar
keeveek: Well, they left a promise in their TOS (probably just to avoid lawsuits) that they will make games playable without steam in unlikely event of Valve winding up.
Unless Valve only allows games to be sold on Steam if the devs/publisher agree that their games can be separated from the client upon Valve's/Steam's closure, I don't think Valve can realistically make that kind of agreement with it's users beyond maybe applying such statements to it's own IP.
avatar
Goatbrush: When you consider pre-Steam gaming you also have to remember that the games were for the most part down to the choice of the user as to which patch they wanted to play at, which is all most of the people voicing concerns want to be able to do. If Steam is going to force the latest patch on players without a rollback option, then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to actually test that the patch is safe and functional before application.
Yeah, sorry, but I don't buy into that "forcing to patch" BS I hear in regards to Steam so often.

In the twenty years of PC gaming I always used the newest patch available. Apart from the fact that you can't "cherry pick" patches and always only avoid the newest one, there simply was never an instance were I didn't want to patch a game.

And GOG is also forcing you the newest patch when they update their installers. Sure, you might have the old installer backed up, but not many do this.