Support NeoGAF

[SparkTR]

so true. lol

Why do people keep saying this? People on GAF liked the idea:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=585726
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=596681

It was everything else that Microsoft was doing that they hated.

 

[Crub]

so true. lol

Xbox One would've had the restrictions of Steam without any of its benefitss.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Microsoft is the proprietary owner of the XBOX platform, Valve does not own PC Gaming. If you can't understand this, and the implications of this essential difference, you can't even hope to understand why it wouldn't be the same thing even if Microsoft and Valve offered the exact same sharing scheme.

 

[TheD]

so true. lol

So...... FALSE!

Game sharing was not the problem, (one of) the problem(s) was that you had to check in every 24 hours no matter what! Even if you did not share games!

Unless valve has majorly fucked up, this system should still allow people to play offline without any type of time based check, it would just need the lender and the lendee to both be online at the same time for the lendee to play the games.

 

[duppolo]

Guys get ready to fight a war. be strong and boycott ubisoft and ea games until we can have family share with steam also for their game. im already angry i cant have cards for rayman cause ubi want me to unlock some wallpaper in their own platform, but this will require a fight from us. stay together and boycott!

 

[Sentenza]

Guys get ready to fight a war. be strong and boycott ubisoft and ea games until we can have family share with steam also for their game. im already angry i cant have cards for rayman cause ubi want me to unlock some wallpaper in their own platform, but this will require a fight from us. stay together and boycott!

Hum? That's a bit extreme, isn't it?
I'm never big into deliberate, willpower-fueled boycotts, by the way.
The other side of the coin is that if I don't like the service tied to the game (i.e. Origin or Uplay) that makes pretty easy for me to ignore it unless I consider it an absolute must have (which doesn't happen often)., while on services I like (Steam, GoG, Humble Store) I'm more than willing to try "exploratory purchases" if the price is right.

 

[mclem]

To all the leeches in this thread: I suspect that anyone you know with a large number of games is instantly going to get bombarded with sharing requests, and it's going to make them resent those people and also feel like they're only being talked to because they have cool toys. Unless you want to alienate people, don't ask them to share their library with you.

I have a large library (but, before anyone gets too excited, also ample friends to share with!), and I'm actually pondering how, if I share with two people, to ensure they, uh, share their use of my library fairly. I can easily boot them off if *I* want to play, but I wonder if there's a nice way I can gently say to one that it's probably time to let the other play now, without actually having to monitor them constantly.

Key factor from my perspective: When I'm on WoW, I'm not on Steam. When I'm on a GoG game, I'm not on Steam. When I'm on my consoles, I'm not on Steam. When I'm asleep, I'm not on Steam. There's an awful lot of crossover where other people could use my library without fear of me interrupting them.

All this really is, is instead of giving out your login/password to someone else's computer, they can just use their own. It'll just be like Steam is now where you can only login to your library from one computer at a time with an auto log out elsewhere. Very little has changed other than not needing to give out your credentials to a limited number of computers.

Mechanically, yes, but it's worth noting that giving out your login/password to someone else is probably legally iffy (Fraud?), while this is authorised and legitimate.

Besides, there is absolutely no way I'd give my Steam password to another. Basic password safety



Edit: One thought that springs to mind. Consider the situation that I want to play game A, my friend wants to play game B. I own game A and B; he owns game A. Would it not be possible for him to play B from my library while I play A from his library? Since I'm not playing from my own library, I don't *think* that should block him from playing B; since he's not playing from his own library, I don't think that should block me from playing A.

I guess the key component is whether libraries are clearly distinguished from one another in the UI, so me attempting to play A can be 'I want to play his A' rather than 'I want to play my A'.

 

[duppolo]

Hum? That's a bit extreme, isn't it?
I'm never big into deliberate, willpower-fueled boycotts, by the way.
The other side of the coin is that if I don't like the service tied to the game (i.e. Origin or Uplay) that makes pretty easy for me to ignore it unless I consider it an absolute must have (which doesn't happen often)., while on services I like (Steam, GoG) I'm more than willing to try "exploratory purchases" if the price is right.

the fact is i want those game to use all of the advantage of steam.

 

[Haunted]

No, I think everyone forgot that Ms announced that you'd be able to share digital games with other accounts on the same physical box.

This is the same thing as Steam just announced.

Or am I wrong?

Last Hope
Banned
(Today, 06:08 AM)

Mmh, love it. Stupidity is bannable again.

so true. lol

ruh roh!

 

[immortal-joe]

Yeah this really seems to be a better fit for machines in a single household.

No way my friends will find the time to play my games since we would play at the same time.

Funny thing is, I already "share" my PS3 games with two friends by loading my account on their machines and downloading games from my list.

Still, such a system would be abused easily.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

Eh, it's still moderately useful in my specific scenario.

 

[EXPotemkin]

This is glorified account sharing and IMO it sucks. Way too limited to be of much use to most people. This is coming from a pretty big Steam supporter.

 

[AdmiralPain]

This is very clearly a prelude to the Steam console. Now Steam needs the ability of multiple simultaneous logins for local co-op and multiplayer and its feature set is mostly complete.

 

[cacildo]

Baby step towards digital reselling?

I hope so, but i want nintendo to do it.

Ah, who em i kiddin? Nintendo will never do something like digital reselling! They see the Steam prices and say "meh, we will never lower our prices!"

 

[TechnicPuppet]

How many people said publishers would never allow this when MS said they were going to do it.

Looks like publishers have no issue whatsoever. The whole it's only one hour thing was nonsense after all.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

How many people said publishers would never allow this when MS said they were going to do it.

Looks like publishers have no issue whatsoever. The whole it's only one hour thing was nonsense after all.

The whole "let's compare reactions to this to reactions to Microsoft's plan" discussion is very tedious because nobody is on the same page. I don't think anyone necessarily doubted that some sort of sharing would be possible, just the kind of share plan that people thought it would be. Granted, we kept getting different answers from Microsoft (they clearly didn't have all the details ironed out), and users were operating from their own set of assumptions. Let's look at some of the assumptions:

1.) Unlimited sharing of the whole library. I don't feel like digging for examples, but I'm pretty sure some just thought the entirety of the library could be shared without limitations. Meaning, I buy the game and my friends list can all play it with me. Obviously, this wasn't going to happen.

2.) Unlimited sharing of the whole library, but the same title can't be used simultaneously by different users. This is slightly more plausible. Although it still seemed like a bit of a stretch. After all, aside from the "we all want to play the hot new launch game" or "we want to play multiplayer," this does allow for quite a bit of leeway in terms of not needing to buy a game as long as a friend owns it. My suspicion? This also was never going to happen.

3.) The system that Steam is using. I don't see any reason to argue that Microsoft wasn't going to do it. Ultimately, I have no idea what their final plan is, but I really don't see much of a reason to suspect that this type of library sharing -- especially with the limitations that come with it -- was too hostile to publishers. But this implementation is a far cry from scenarios 1 and 2 above.

4.) You were just going to be able to play demos of full games that your friends owned. Do I think this is what they were going to do? Eh, I have no idea. Again, I think that a lot of the confusion was just a result of them hastily throwing together a plan in order to score a win to counter the avalanche of backlash they were getting. I think this plan was certainly feasible from a "will publishers allow it?" front. But I don't care to speculate whether or not I think this was absolutely their plan, as I'm not convinced even Microsoft was absolutely sure of their plan.

 

[PFD]

The present for the last 7 years on console :x

That's funny. You're funny

 

[Epic Drop]

Apologies if this has already been addressed (read through the first 10 pages and didn't see any mention of it), but can someone let me know if this is a "loophole" in their strategy?

Person A shares their library with Person B.
Person B likely has to remain in online mode in order to access Person A's Library
If Person A logs into Steam, it boots out Person B.

But what if Person A plays games in Offline Mode while Person B is using the shared library? How would Steam know to boot off Person B?

 

[soul creator]

I think this comment I saw on Ars could provide some insight into why it's "library" sharing and not "game" sharing. Just speculation most likely, but seems to make sense to me:

I think this "workaround" is due to the fact that Steam contracts were probably signed with no path for sharing games digitally. So, Valve has to get creative with what gets shared (sharing an account is Valve's rights to do, but sharing individual games is the right of the publisher). So, rather than re-negotiating every contract with every game on steam, this is the "block" workaround. Valve can argue that the one account that bought the game is still the only owner, but that account can be passed around.

I'd imagine at some point in the future, items that can be shared individually will be marked as such, kinda like the cross-platform marking now that exists on games, once some contracts get negotiated with the idea of sharing in place.

Microsoft would've had the benefit of starting from scratch since it would obviously only apply it to new Xbox One games, so the contracts or whatever would all be fresh. But of course, since all that stuff was probably still being negotiated and hashed out, they could never provide 100% of the exact details, and instead only provide general goals.

 

[Grief.exe]

 

[Louis Cyphre]

This isn't really comparable to the XBone's family plan. Steam has the infrastructure and the multi-device functionality to make it worthwhile. Microsoft doesn't. They tried to prematurely implement it to incentivize their overall horrible "always online" restrictions. Additionally, there were those rumors regarding the XBone family plan actually being timed demos to encourage purchases, rather than actual sharing.

And I also feel the need to remind people that Microsoft didn't have to pull the family plan. They could have (re: SHOULD have) restricted it to digital download titles only when they did a 180 on their other policies... rather than the half physical half digital bullshit that they were planning at the start.

You're right. Microsoft didn't need to pull it, however it wasn't going to be ready for launch anyways. The big difference between what Valve is doing on Steam as opposed to Microsoft's original plan was you didn't have to be logged off on XBox Live while sharing. To me that is a huge advantage because when people are sharing your games on Steam they get notified to either buy the game or they will be logged off that account when the original owner logs on.

Why do people keep saying this? Were there a lot of people down on this specific feature for the Xbox One? If I remember right, its the feature everyone liked.

This is true, it was one of the few things people actually praised. They just didn't like all the other baggage and restrictions that came with the disc copies.

 

[jediyoshi]

Probably safe to assume they'd follow through on their FAQ

 

[Drkirby]

CS:Go is the only one that seems to be an outlier, I bet it is to prevent idiling for the cosmetic items they added recently, which actually go for some money.

 

[Cels]

i can understand the defiance, batman, and bulletstorm, being excluded but why cs:go?

 

[MechaZain]

This is glorified account sharing and IMO it sucks. Way too limited to be of much use to most people. This is coming from a pretty big Steam supporter.

Glorified account sharing > account sharing.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

If the Batman games switch over to Steamworks - wouldn't they then be shareable?

 

[morningbus]

If the Batman games switch over to Steamworks - wouldn't they then be shareable?

Yes, most likely. But as it stand currently, the games do require external keys to function properly.

 

[NullPointer]

Glorified account sharing > account sharing.

Yep. Most of my gut thinks this is mostly about reducing customer support issues. Giving people an official and secure alternative to account sharing.

 

[Cronen]

So just to confirm, you're not sharing your games but your account? If a friend is playing one of my games, I can't play any of mine without him/her having to quit out beforehand?

 

[AdmiralPain]

So just to confirm, you're not sharing your games but your account? If a friend is playing one of my games, I can't play any of mine without him/her having to quit out beforehand?

Correct. As soon as you start a game, your friend will be prompted to quit or buy the game.

Edit: to clarify, he doesn't have to quit beforehand. You have full access to your games at any time, he is the one that has to quit.

 

[cyberheater]

Correct. As soon as you start a game, your friend will be prompted to quit or buy the game.

Edit: to clarify, he doesn't have to quit beforehand. You have full access to your games at any time, he is the one that has to quit.

So I can't play game a on my account whilst my mate plays game b using my account?

 

[Burekma]

So I can't play game a on my account whilst my mate plays game b using my account?

Yes. If you start one of your games, your pal gets kicked out of his after a time.

 

[Dusk Golem]

So I can't play game a on my account whilst my mate plays game b using my account?

Correct, but there are still questions, such as if I am playing games in offline mode, can my friend still be playing games, or do I have to be online, what if a family member and a friend both want to play games I my library at the same time, etc.

I want to do this, it comes at a wonderful point as I'm trying to get my brother more into Steam (I have a game library of over 800 titles on Steam so he'd have a lot to choose from), but a lot of things to see, test around with, and undoubtedly be changed through the course of experimenting with it.

 

[Gruso]

I hvae no interest in sharing games with others (heh, that sounds awful), but this might be a roundabout way for me to jump between my main rig and my HTPC running Big Picture, without the login/logout routine. Excellent.

 

[Ushae]

obviously its only a one hour demo

 

[cyberheater]

Yes. If you start one of your games, your pal gets kicked out of his after a time.

Correct, but there are still questions, such as if I am playing games in offline mode, can my friend still be playing games, or do I have to be online, what if a family member and a friend both want to play games I my library at the same time, etc.

I want to do this, it comes at a wonderful point as I'm trying to get my brother more into Steam (I have a game library of over 800 titles on Steam so he'd have a lot to choose from), but a lot of things to see, test around with, and undoubtedly be changed through the course of experimenting with it.

Well that's just stupid. What's the point of that.

This could get ridiculous. The end user solution is of course to create a new account for every single game you buy so that you can share them without issue.

 

[Enco]

Baby steps I guess.

I'm not terribly impressed with the way it's going to be implemented, unless they change it during the beta.

Nothing to be impressed about right now.

Really really shoddy implementation. Such a shame. It could have been such a great feature if done correctly.

Lets hope they fix it up by release.

 

[AdmiralPain]

Well that's just stupid. What's the point of that.

The point is the sharing of a library between different users in a family. As in, if four people are using the same computer in the household, they now get separate saves and achievements without having to buy four different copies. It also allows up to ten people to gain access to your library and play games when you're not.

 

[cyberheater]

The point is the sharing of a library between different users in a family. As in, if four people are using the same computer in the household, they now get separate saves and achievements without having to buy four different copies. It also allows up to ten people to gain access to your library and play games when you're not.

Okay. That's some good points you raised there. That would be good in my household.

 

[AdmiralPain]

It's a neat feature and it's more than we had before.I was also disappointed at first because this system is not as flexible as the current status on my 360 with physical games, but then I put some thought into it and I realized that it would be very hard to stop people from abusing the hell out of a per-game lending system.

I did read an interesting suggestion on the Steam forums. A user there recommended the creation of lending "slots" according to a user's Steam level or game library size. So a Level 5 user wouldn't be able to lend games, a level 15 user would be able to lend out one game at any one time and so on. Kinda like Redbox.

 

[cyberheater]

I did read an interesting suggestion on the Steam forums. A user there recommended the creation of lending "slots" according to a user's Steam level or game library size. So a Level 5 user wouldn't be able to lend games, a level 15 user would be able to lend out one game at any one time and so on. Kinda like Redbox.

I'm not keen on that idea. A new start on Steam should have the same sharing privileges as a seasoned Steam user.

 

[Haunted]

So just to confirm, you're not sharing your games but your account? If a friend is playing one of my games, I can't play any of mine without him/her having to quit out beforehand?

You share your library, yes.

He doesn't have to quit beforehand, he'll get a notification that you want to play and he has a couple minutes (presumably to get to the next save point and stuff).

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Apologies if this has already been addressed (read through the first 10 pages and didn't see any mention of it), but can someone let me know if this is a "loophole" in their strategy?

Person A shares their library with Person B.
Person B likely has to remain in online mode in order to access Person A's Library
If Person A logs into Steam, it boots out Person B.

But what if Person A plays games in Offline Mode while Person B is using the shared library? How would Steam know to boot off Person B?

Both parties have to be online when you are sharing AFAIK

 

[MRORANGE]

someone requested this:

Steam Family Sharing OT- a thread for people who want to share or request games to play.

Steam Family Sharing allows you share games from your steam account with other users. This thread is for letting gaffers share their games.
The Beta is open to the first 1000 users during mid September, but more invites are coming soon. For more info click here.

Spreadsheet of all Gaffers who want to share or want to play a game.
​

Rules:

- Please share as much as you request in the spreadsheet, It's unfair if others just leech games while not letting others play their games.
- Do not share games which can cause a VAC BAN.
- For more information read the FAQ at the bottom of the page.

​

 

[UnluckyKate]

Both parties have to be online when you are sharing AFAIK

Can you share the entire library of specific games ? I have no one to share/try this at the moment I have 200+ games. Anyone wants to try ?