Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Changes to Playing Previous Versions of PDS Titles

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
RodDel said:
We are not pointing out a solution here. You have to bear in mind that the previous sentence is merely informative in order to be as transparent as possible. We do not advocate password sharing, if you use a shared password, it is at your own risk. The reason we ask you to have a Paradox Account to retrieve the codes is to ensure you agree with our Privacy Policy and get the opportunity to read it and understand which personal data will be collected from you when you play these old versions.

Thank you for pointing this out, I will update the FAQ accordingly.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the sharing codes, wouldn't using a shared code actually mean that the privacy policy agreement you state would be given then will be null and void GDPR wise as there's no clear an freely given consent, but just an entered code. Unless upon entering the code there's a popup asking you to accept the policy in case you aren't linked.
And hence any data retrieved from a sharer would make you breach GDPR.

Though I'm just a layman so I might be completely wrong, but that at least is what it looks to me based on what I've been told about how the law works.
 
Wagonlitz said:
Speaking of the sharing codes, wouldn't using a shared code actually mean that the privacy policy agreement you state would be given then will be null and void GDPR wise as there's no clear an freely given consent, but just an entered code. Unless upon entering the code there's a popup asking you to accept the policy in case you aren't linked.
And hence any data retrieved from a sharer would make you breach GDPR.

Though I'm just a layman so I might be completely wrong, but that at least is what it looks to me based on what I've been told about how the law works.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your question! If a user decides to use a shared password, the privacy policy would not be rendered null and void GDPR wise. More precisely, it shows that a user has bypassed our best effort to protect his/her personal information and inform him/her about the data we collect.

The key here is to understand that the GDRP is a regulation made to harmonize data protection across the European Union, giving more control to users over their personal information. The goal is also to help companies to be more forthcoming regarding data collection and how it is processed. This is precisely the reason why we had to put old version under passlock, because they did not give you a chance to read and understand which personal data is collected and why.

By circumventing the privacy policy pop-up with a shared password, you knowingly bypass all measures implemented to make sure that you agree with us collecting data. It might not be the perfect solution, but it is the best solution to date. We sincerely wanted to give our community the opportunity to keep on playing their favorite version of our games whilst being upfront and transparent with the measures implemented, hence the question in our FAQ.
 
Wagonlitz said:
Speaking of the sharing codes, wouldn't using a shared code actually mean that the privacy policy agreement you state would be given then will be null and void GDPR wise as there's no clear an freely given consent, but just an entered code. Unless upon entering the code there's a popup asking you to accept the policy in case you aren't linked.
And hence any data retrieved from a sharer would make you breach GDPR.

Though I'm just a layman so I might be completely wrong, but that at least is what it looks to me based on what I've been told about how the law works.
Click to expand...

In that situation a user would have to download the game, never play a new version, install an older version, and then file a GDPR complaint.

In that situation Paradox can respond to the claim with "The approved way to obtain the beta versions is to make a paradox account, where they are presented with the privacy policy as per the GDPR" at which point the GDPR complaint would be rendered null.

The measures aer as much CYA as compliance. Compliance is about process compliance not absolutes. Same with HIPPA in the USA. HIPPA reqiures that health organizations do best effort to protect user's privacy. That's purposefully broad so that not every breach is a HIPPA violation. Like if we encrypt all patient data at rest and in transit, lock down computers like its Fort Knox, have badge readers, biometrics and a Yubi key to log in, but a nurse takes a picture of George Clooney's patient records and posts it on Instagram, the hospital isn't liable for a HIPPA violation while that nurse absolutely totally screwed. Sarbanes Oxley is the same. Its lot of dumb procedural nonsense. It doesnt have to be 'smart' it just has to 'comply'. Which is a big difference.

The point is not it has to be 'absolutely' done. But that reasonable measures are taken to address GDPR compliance. Compliance is simultaneously complicated and stupid and stupefying. Compliance means you have to do things that can make zero sense but because its 'required' you do it. "Why dont we use this simple solution!" "Sorry Section 64 subsection 125 paragraph 3 sub sentence 6a says users must click a red button not a yellow one"
 
Wagonlitz said:
wouldn't using a shared code actually mean that the privacy policy agreement you state would be given then will be null and void
Click to expand...
A lesser company would delete mentions of code sharing "out of an abundance of caution", so the fact that PDX is "referencing" it, we should not poke them about it too much. But I believe the steam account linking requirement was untrue, and the miscommunication caused a lot of... alertness for some of us.
 
While it' is a little bit of a pain, I thank you guys a whole lot for figuring out a way to let us still revert if we wish.
So thank you very much! I was disheartened when I thought I wouldn't be able to return to finish an older game.
 
RodDel said:
We are not pointing out a solution here. You have to bear in mind that the previous sentence is merely informative in order to be as transparent as possible. We do not advocate password sharing, if you use a shared password, it is at your own risk. The reason we ask you to have a Paradox Account to retrieve the codes is to ensure you agree with our Privacy Policy and get the opportunity to read it and understand which personal data will be collected from you when you play these old versions.

Thank you for pointing this out, I will update the FAQ accordingly.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I understand your predicament. It was never my intent to imply you are advocating it, just to point out that your post might contain information of value for people who didn't want to or couldn't link their accounts. I'm very familiar with the tight-rope walk that is legal compliance.

But I guess this is where I have to unequivocally give praise where praise is due, because that discussion has been rendered moot entirely. Making the linking no longer necessary was 100% the right call. Yes, it should have been implemented before roll-out, but I'm still happy PDX saw reason rather quickly and does no longer force us to link our Steam accounts. I never did and I now have access to the previous version passwords as well.

Well done! Requiring just a PDX account is a much more streamlined, user-friendly and less revealing way to get Privacy Policy acceptance. Mandating access to users' Steam accounts made no sense - technically, legally and privacy-wise.
 
Cathsaigh said:
Any idea why the code gives me only versions up to 2.8.2.1, none of the ones between that and 2.8.3.3.?
Click to expand...

As mods will/should either be compatible with 2.8.2.1 or the current patch, i suppose.
 
Cathsaigh said:
So it's the same for everyone, not just me?
Neither 2.8.3.3. (current) nor 2.8.2.1. seems to be working with AGOTmod, which the team says is compatible with 2.8.3.2.
Click to expand...

2.8.3.3 should work fine with AGOT and i saw nothing in AGOT forums suggesting otherwise.
Apart from that, it was just an EU4 Converter update.

Usually just required for manual installation of the zip file:
Delete the mod in the 'mod' folder, delete the seperate cache file "A Game of Thrones" folder
in the CK2 folder in Documents as well, then install the current version.
Ask in one of the mod's subforums if you still get issues.

Besides, this is not a CK2 thread. ;)
 
Last edited:
Cathsaigh said:
Well my original question was about whether getting only certain versions was normal. Somebody else brought up mods. ;)
Click to expand...

You asked about CK2 Beta patches (without even mentioning CK2) in your first post, thus my last sentence.
 
Why not stopping to collect data from older versions?

Anyway forcing people to accept an agreement to continue to provide a service is not complient. (article 7 part 4)
 
Mohreb said:
Why not stopping to collect data from older versions?

Anyway forcing people to accept an agreement to continue to provide a service is not complient. (article 7 part 4)
Click to expand...

Processing the SteamID is required for a game to run on Steam due to how the social functions and multiplayer services they provide work. Even if we turned off the telemetry, we still have to process the SteamID, therefore we still require your consent to do that, as GDPR made the SteamID personal data (which is wasn't legally classified as before).

So, it isn't about removing telemetry, that wouldn't change this situation, it is more about adding in functionality to each version that would get your consent within the game rather than through the website as we have done with this solution. But going back and modifying all those versions, is not viable, therefore the choice was simple, either we do it through the website like this or we remove all of the old versions completely.

We've explored every option here, there is no way around this as long as Steam functions the way it does.

EDIT: Technically, we could remove multiplayer, achievements, trading cards, DLC, etc and then you could have the game on Steam without processing the SteamID. But that definitely isn't a viable solution for our existing games.
 
But the processing of the steam ID as you stated is needed to fulfill the contract. So the problem is really the telemetry (of other things which helps you to provide long term benefits but are not strictly needed for contract) . §7 states that you can not ask for more (obliging to sign up for more then the strict minimum needed for the fulfillment of your contract) and I am pointing it out not to annoy Paradox but to avoid that EU give you a process for misinterpreting the law. (they will definitely look for cases to make a point)
Well there are probably worst cases then Paradox. But by being completely transparent (as saying "we will sell your data if we go bankrupt) Paradox puts itself on a catchy spot.
I personally don't care that much ineeither way (already linked everything and still happy with European laws) .
But would be unhappy if Vicky 3 gets delayed because of some "easy to avoid" fines. Just so you have the metrics "how many people are still playing Stellaris 1.9".
Not that you would use that data anyway.
 
AndrewT said:
GDPR requires that data gathered by us be detailed and given permission to by users. Pre-GDPR game versions (obviously!) did not ask that permission.

There was no EULA put up for the user to agree to for earlier game versions, it was implicit or not even in existence at all. CK2 is over 6 years old, such things were simply not a consideration then!

It is simply impractical to go back and update dozens of old game versions to display GDPR requirements, not to mention being a huge time-sink for developers who should be working on bug fixes and new features instead.
Click to expand...
Sorry - you responded and I didn't realise as I'm not a regular forum visitor. Thanks for answering the question, whilst not ideal, it isn't something Paradox can control and I appreciate the need for a workaround.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back