[Mongoose]

I would much rather have the "patch file hell" than be forced to update games like Steam does. Many people have talked about the mod payment providing incentives for mod creators to keep supporting their mods when they get broken by game updates (common with Bethesda games), but this problem is artificially created by Steam itself as far as singleplayer games go.

I could see that as being an issue in some cases, though I don't think I've ever had a game that I wanted to stop from updating (well other than Minecraft anyway, which is its own ball of wax).  Honestly the situation Vrets describes sounds like it's much more on the developers: no fully-released game should be getting patches that completely break savegames from prior versions.

[Vrets]

I disagree. If I were allowed to control which updates were being installed, then I could simply choose when I want to install the save-breaking updates (maybe after I finish my current game). Save-breaking (or otherwise disruptive) updates can be justified by the addition of cool new content. Mandatory save-breaking / disruptive updates are never going to be okay.

edit: deleted pyschotic rant

[X3N0-Life-Form]

I don't know, I'd probably install new updates as I find them without asking too much questions anyway, and find out way too late that these updates break stuff.

Call it being irresponsible or lazy, but honestly, I've grown a bit tired with the update dependency chain a while ago, with early days counter-strike and DotA being the main culprits. Point is, while there's a fair bunch of things I disagree with regarding Valve's business practices (hello Steam games Quality Control), I'm still willing to accept a resonable amount of services they provide I'm OK with, automatic updates being one of them.

Anyway, it all comes down to individual tastes, and while I'm getting a bit tired by the whole "steam is ebil" line of thought, I can understand where it's coming from, so I won't argue any further in any direction.

[CP5670]

I would much rather have the "patch file hell" than be forced to update games like Steam does. Many people have talked about the mod payment providing incentives for mod creators to keep supporting their mods when they get broken by game updates (common with Bethesda games), but this problem is artificially created by Steam itself as far as singleplayer games go.

I could see that as being an issue in some cases, though I don't think I've ever had a game that I wanted to stop from updating (well other than Minecraft anyway, which is its own ball of wax).  Honestly the situation Vrets describes sounds like it's much more on the developers: no fully-released game should be getting patches that completely break savegames from prior versions.

Saved games are one thing (for the rare games that even allow you to save anymore), but the developers can't be expected to check compatibility with third-party mods. This is a problem created by Valve, not the developers. If Steam auto-updates were merely an option instead of forced on you, there would be no issue. In a few cases, I had to get cracks for Steam games just so that I could keep using my mod configuration without worrying about an update breaking it. I often return to a game after not playing it for a long time but leaving it installed, and it's really irritating to find that things I spent a lot of time configuring are suddenly broken, especially when I can't even figure out what the update was for besides breaking stuff.