I thought I read some where that it would be released about a month before G&K was to be released. Is this still true or am I completely mistaken?
I thought I read some where that it would be released about a month before G&K was to be released. Is this still true or am I completely mistaken?
That was a guess some people made. Others suggested a week. Others suggested a day or so. Some suggested the same day. I've not heard anyone suggest it will be later than the expansion.
Has Greg said anything about it? Or just "sometime before the expansion"?
Last edited by stethnorun; 05-11-2012 at 12:29 AM.
There's no timetable that I'm aware of. If I recall correctly, the patch was projected to land sometime before the expansion came out. Possibly the day of. But not any later than that.Originally Posted by stethnorun
But probably not much before either right? Like maybe a week before launch, but not, say, next week.
Yes, I wouldn't expect any earlier than the week before the expansion's American release. June 12, no earlier.
What is the patch for ?
For me? It's all about the MP animations!
I mean, do we know what the patch is about ? I don't see any patch notes.
Hasn't come out yet....
But essentially the AI will be better. Changes to combat. MP animations. General re-balance and the general things needed to support G&K I'd assume.
I'm pretty sure I remember Greg saying (in the PAX stream) that the patch that's back-porting things like MP animations, etc. is coming out around the release day of the expansion (if not the same day).
The only thing I hate about Civ5 using Steam is that you are forced to download patches as soon as they are released.
The new patch will break existing mods, so I cannot continue my game until those mods are updated.
And if these mods are not updated, I can't play them anymore... bleargh
Ugh. You can select to not download these patches. I don't personally know the exact steps to get to it, but you could have bought the game day 1 and not get any of the patches.
No, it doesn't work. There is a Steam option to "do not automatically update this game" but Civ5 does not support it. This has been confirmed by 2K and it's also my personal experience, I tried many times.
The only way to not be forced to install the patch is staying in Offline mode, but that also means that you can't chat with your friends in Steam, and you can't install patches or play multiplayer for all the other games you have on Steam.
And it's really a shame. I still have 4 different versions of Civ4 installed on my PC, because some awesome mods only worked with a particular patch level. This is not possible with Civ5, you can only have one installation. And, even more important, you can't choose what version of the game to play. Let's say that the next patch makes the game unplayable for you, it doesn't launch anymore, you can't rollback the patch, no way. And even if you know in advance that you don't want that patch because you don't like it and you prefer Civ5 how it is now, you are forced to download it.
Shame.
"Don't automatically update" does work, as long as you never start CivV while in online mode, IME. You can go back online to update other games, then go back offline again. The auto update prohibition is overridden when you try to start the game - if online, it will check for new versions and download. IME.
Nope
1) "Don't automatically update" should mean that Steam won't download patches as soon as they are available but it will only download it the next time you launch the game. But it's broken, last time I set Civ5 to not automatically update 2 days before the new patch came out, yet it happily downloaded the patch during the night...
2) Your suggestion about going offline before launching the game makes sense but..... already tried, it doesn't work, somehow Steam knows that there is a patch that you didn't apply and the game won't launch anymore because it's not up to date
The only way to avoid forced patches is staying in offline mode forever (which is impossible anyway, I have been able to stay offline for 6-7 months at most, then Steam requires you to authenticate again).
Well, it's worked for me before - so perhaps it just doesn't work reliably.
Are you sure it worked for you ? There was a bug in the Steam Client that made it impossible and it only was fixed 4 months ago
(http://store.steampowered.com/news/6953/) but apparently it's still bugged for some people (http://forums.steampowered.com/forum....php?t=2618164)
By the way this is a Steam problem, 2K/Firaxis have nothing to do with it. There are literally dozens of thousands of threads on Steam forums about this (http://goo.gl/LRqAH). Hopefully Valve/Steam will do something in the future but for now users are screwed. And of course people who pirated the game don't have to deal with any of this.
One solution (workaround, really) I note from that steam forum thread, the publisher can create an open beta for the 'up to date' version, and sync back to the main release with it far less often - potentially a separate open beta category for every release they want people to be able to choose to play on.
Oh, and in case people buy in to the "no reason to force updates for people who play single player" thing, there is one good reason - it makes support a damn sight easier.
If there is a new patch available and I choose not to install it I am not eligible for support, I am ok with that.
I also accept that if I don't have the latest patch installed I cannot join multiplayer servers.
What I don't accept is that someone else decides what to install on my computer, because this is what it is. I purchase the game and then I am forced to install a patch I don't want or lose the possibility to play the game. I don't like that. But as I said it's not a problem introduced by 2K/Firaxis, it's a Steam problem.
I think they might be able to work around it using open beta repositories, but I don't know if Valve would object to a dozen open beta repos for each game
Rarely is it even a "problem". Unless the company is so inept that they release a patch that does more harm than good, you should always want the latest patch. Unless you are one of those "I hate new things and change" people, which I've never been able to relate to.
I already said the reason why I don't want the patch immediately. I don't like vanilla Civ5, I play with a mod that is a complete overhaul of most game rules. When the patch comes out that mod will be broken and I won't be able to play the game until the modder releases an updated version of the mod (which could be a week, a month, a year, or never).
This is probably the most common reason for Civ players, mods. But there many other possible reasons for different people and different games. If you read some of the dozens of thousands of threads about this problem on the Steam forums you will see that someone had the game broken (unplayable) by a patch, someone spent months developing his own mod and he just want to play it he doesn't want to rewrite it for the new version of the game, someone just wants to finish his current game that he's being playing for weeks before installing the patch that will make the save not compatible, many people have monthly bandwidth limit and they can't afford to download every single 10GB update that game companies release, many communities developed their own multiplayer mods or even have dedicated multiplayer servers for persistent games and they need time to adapt their code. I could go on for a while, but saying that it's rarely a problem just because it's not a problem for you is very shortsighted in my opinion.
It's a real problem for a lot of people. AND it's also a matter of principle. Why am I not allowed to decide which version of the game I purchased I want to have on my computer ?
The version of the game you purchased is version 1.0. Since then through inaction or acceptance updates have been automatically installed as part of a selling feature advertised at the point of sale (requires steam to play, steam's ToS). These updates are provided in good faith (with the intention of creating a happy community and generating more sales and as a general 'warranty' grey area of product support), however it could be said the updated code is not your 'property' and as such you have no right to gain the benefit of it.Why am I not allowed to decide which version of the game I purchased I want to have on my computer ?
To me I have never personally had any aversion to steam and view it as a system more along the lines of games where there is a persistent online presence (MMOs, MMOSP and cloud based games). Its benefits to the larger community (one version to rule them all, social network, online access and backup) in my opinion far outweigh the occasional frustration caused through what appears to be a authoritarian enforcement of conditions, but in most cases is either a bug or user inaction/error.
Back to the patch I can't wait, my hope is it drops sometime well before the expansion but I know it will most likely drop the week of or even the day of I'm sure Greg could/would/should help us out with this info. But at least Diablo III will be out to tie me over.
He already has. He said, during PAX, the patch will be released around if not the same day as the expansion.
Chances are you don't 'own' a single piece of software, unless you wrote it yourself, none of it is your property in the same way the PC of yours it resides in is.
What you have paid for is a 'license' to use it and therein lies the rub.
You're just an End User who has signed a License Agreement. Go and read it if you're angry.
I am not angry, I am pointing out a flaw and suggesting an improvement that would benefit many users and harm no one.
You assume it would harm no one. That's what every government thinks when it creates a new law. They are always, always wrong...by a lot.
Well this isn't law it is a video game. Although we all like to play pretend like we are the ruler of a civilization, we are not.
Civ V is a game. A game that you don't own but one where you purchase a license to play. The base game is the developer/publishers to do whatever they want with. If you are so concerned with the changes that the patches may add then the creators of the game have allowed us to Mod. So go for it.
What is the possible harm of letting users choose when to install an update to the game ?
It's how it has always been since the beginning of computer gaming and it has never been a problem.
In the license agreement there are many many things that you agree not to do, and if you do any of those you will lose your right to play the game, but nowhere it says that you must download all future updates. In fact it says that an active Internet connection is only required "the first time you play Civ V".
I am not concerned with the changes, changes are irrelevant for me because I play with a mod that is a complete overhaul of most game rules. The new patch will break that mod and I won't be able to play the game until the modder releases an updated version of the mod (which could be a week, a month, a year, or may never happen).
Boh, it looks like I am the only one here who thinks that allowing users to choose when to install an update to a software is a good idea. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7LjVCj50Y)
I don't know what the possible harm, if any, could be. Maybe there isn't any. But that's sort of my point. You don't know and I don't know. But you assumed there isn't any harm. I don't make any assumptions.
Are you really saying that something that has been standard practice for every kind of software in the world since software exist should not be introduced in Steam because of some possible harm that you can't see and that by your own admission could very well not exist ?
Just look at your PC, every software asks you for permission before upgrading: Firefox, Adobe Reader, Windows itself. They give you the option to decide if you want to install every update automatically or choose when to install. It's how every single software works and has ever worked.
I am playing an offline single player game, why should Valve or 2K care what patch I installed and when ?
Liability issues. Stressing their own customer support staff. My point is, and you don't seem to want to grasp this, there are tons of unintended consequences to any action or lack of action. Why do you think Apple treats its customers like slaves, not allowing them to even OPEN their devices with a normal screw driver? It's to avoid people holding them responsible for their own idiocy. Yes, I find that business model abhorrent, but most people don't seem to. I agree with you that we SHOULD be able to do anything we want with our games and possessions. I'm simply saying that the statement "there would be no harm" is not accurate. There probably would be some harm, somewhere down the line. I think that Valve should ABSORB that harm on behalf of their customers, but I don't deny that the harm exists.Are you really saying that something that has been standard practice for every kind of software in the world since software exist should not be introduced in Steam because of some possible harm that you can't see and that by your own admission could very well not exist ?
Just look at your PC, every software asks you for permission before upgrading: Firefox, Adobe Reader, Windows itself. They give you the option to decide if you want to install every update automatically or choose when to install. It's how every single software works and has ever worked.
I am playing an offline single player game, why should Valve or 2K care what patch I installed and when ?
Harm is relative, in a case like this. Essentially, the question becomes "what is the down-side", to put the point in less emotive terms. There are several down-sides to allowing version plurality, and I'm sure some of them have been discussed.
Using an out-of-date version sacrificing any right to support isn't really practicable - people will still report bugs, and you end up having to ask everyone reporting bugs or contacting support to provide their version number, which then causes extra delays, confusion, and consternation to people who are told they can't have any help with anything until they update, even if the problem is in no way related to the version being old.
Several downsides ? Please elaborate, I would like to hear them
Well, we've elaborated on one. Another would be the extra bother for the majority of people who want to play with the most up-to-date version. Another is the dev time to implement any solution for pegging version. I don't doubt there are more. I'm not going to go to huge efforts to enumerate every possible downside.Several downsides ? Please elaborate, I would like to hear them
Because it's the only one, and it's very weak.
On the other side there is a VERY long list of serious downsides for users.
No extra bother, default option would still be automatic updates, like it is now.
There is no dev effort at all, nothing changes for developers, it's just a Steam setting.
I was sure of that
Mind listing the VERY long list of downsides for the others now?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote