Valve does not want you to do mass downloads of games you don't actively play. They don't want you to hoard data because the extra downloads cost them money. It might not be a problem if the userbase is less than a million, but here we are. Valve has 40 million users all wanting to download and play games at the same time.

Any further form of automation would mean that people begin to hoard downloads again.

If Valve has that much of a data problem there's a certain update policy that a lot of folks would be happy to meet them halfway on to reduce pointless data consumption on.

The fact that it's not on the table probably means cost isn't THAT big of a concern.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

Valve does not want you to do mass downloads of games you don't actively play. They don't want you to hoard data because the extra downloads cost them money. It might not be a problem if the userbase is less than a million, but here we are. Valve has 40 million users all wanting to download and play games at the same time.

Any further form of automation would mean that people begin to hoard downloads again.

I can maybe see the concern, but as I see it the ask here is a small UX change, not a bandwidth free-for-all. The idea is simply that clicking an update does not bump the active download; it just lines the next one up. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable ask, I find it’s a slight QOL update worth looking into. Concurrency stays at one download, the user’s existing bandwidth caps and schedules still apply, and total traffic does not increase. It only removes the awkward moment where “Download Now” interrupts the current job and jumps the queue.

So the cost profile is the same, the load pattern is the same, and the user experience is better. This is about not fighting the UI while keeping the network discipline that already exists.

Even if bandwidth and cost were a factor, Valve demonstrates regularly that their pockets are deep enough to deliver a product that empowers players or innovates the field. Trying to speak for Valve on topics in what they are willing/unwilling is as sure as a slot machine. Valve has a history of opening up doors to obscure and costly projects, even if it has nothing to do with improving their main product, Steam. This kind of minor UX tweak to the interface, even if we pretend and assume it does come with a cost, would be negligible and inline with current Valve behavior. I don’t think it’s a bad ask, even if it’s not a big issue to most.

You can drag it to anywhere you want in the queue.

Yeah I just want to do the thing I'm already doing without fighting the interface. Every so often I look at the scheduled updates and fire off the ones that I'm likely to play in the near future so that they're actually up to date when I do. As a long-time Steam user I appreciate the intent and the general functionality of the scheduling system, but it often does not manage to update the game I want before I launch it because it is not psychic.

Also, if Valve/Steam truly doesn't want me to update games that I'm not actively playing then why is it scheduling 6 other games I haven't played in months to collectively download ~250GB worth of updates unless I manually intervene? Ettanin's position is not relevant to the topic of a UI/UX change, and holds no water besides.

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

You can drag it to anywhere you want in the queue.

Please read the text of the original post. It's only 4 sentences.

Originally posted by {FITH}™ Sammitch {FA}:

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

You can drag it to anywhere you want in the queue.

Please read the text of the original post. It's only 4 sentences.

If you have to do this with more than a few games, no you don't.

And if you want to keep your games updated no matter how long it's been since you last played, you should just set them to do that in the properties.

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Originally posted by {FITH}™ Sammitch {FA}:

Please read the text of the original post. It's only 4 sentences.

If you have to do this with more than a few games, no you don't.

And if you want to keep your games updated no matter how long it's been since you last played, you should just set them to do that in the properties.

"You're using it wrong." Got it.

Originally posted by {FITH}™ Sammitch {FA}:

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

If you have to do this with more than a few games, no you don't.

And if you want to keep your games updated no matter how long it's been since you last played, you should just set them to do that in the properties.

"You're using it wrong." Got it.

If you're consistently manually doing the job that an option in the software already does automatically, you are literally wasting your time.

It is REALLY silly that trying to throw stuff in the queue creates this goofy "fishing a button out of the bottom of a sewing kit" experience. Normal usage of the system shouldn't cause it to start and then stop downloads a half dozen times.

Originally posted by {FITH}™ Sammitch {FA}:

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

If you have to do this with more than a few games, no you don't.

And if you want to keep your games updated no matter how long it's been since you last played, you should just set them to do that in the properties.

"You're using it wrong." Got it.

It kind of cracks me up a little that suggestions on silly little inconveniences like this that are fixable in minutes are still met with the same reflexive disagreements as huge complex ideas. To these people I'm pretty sure they'd rather see Ideas/Suggestions get removed altogether.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

It is REALLY silly that trying to throw stuff in the queue creates this goofy "fishing a button out of the bottom of a sewing kit" experience. Normal usage of the system shouldn't cause it to start and then stop downloads a half dozen times.

I wouldn't describe this as a "normal" use. If someone wants their games to stay updated even if they haven't played them recently, they can already set Steam to do that in the game properties. Saying repeatedly to Steam "no, update THIS one first" is not something people are intended to do.

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

It is REALLY silly that trying to throw stuff in the queue creates this goofy "fishing a button out of the bottom of a sewing kit" experience. Normal usage of the system shouldn't cause it to start and then stop downloads a half dozen times.

I wouldn't describe this as a "normal" use. If someone wants their games to stay updated even if they haven't played them recently, they can already set Steam to do that in the game properties. Saying repeatedly to Steam "no, update THIS one first" is not something people are intended to do.

"I see Steam has 9 updates queued. I want these 5 updates to just get handled now. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click." What ISN'T normal about that? Do you have any familiarity with how users use Steam at all? You want people to use a mobile style drag when mobile style download queues ALREADY handle this gracefully how OP is asking?

There are times when I get multiple updates coming, things that I will play over the course of the rest of the day, because I do want to see the updates. Or I've bought multiple things and want to get them all ready. When I start downloading one, it's going through all the process of preparing and starting a download, then I get the next ready . . . but I didn't get it ready, I got it to go through the entire startup of downloading the next bit, and then it will just have to come back for more. The entire SSI D&D set . . . what an experience.

So . . . can I just queue things, please, rather than preempting every download to go to the next, just so the client can go through the process of getting earlier downloads started again? Believe it it or not, one of the biggest hogs in downloads is getting them started, because you have to establish a connection each time.