So, I'm getting my son a computer, and I was planning on setting up his own account, and using the Family Share option so he could play the games that I bought on my account for him to play (because we only had one computer)
This Family share thing sounds great except, we can't play at the same time. Even if we want to play different games, only one person can access the library and play a game, and the other person is completely locked out.
So, obviously this policy isn't going to change, and I'm not going to buy second copies..
Now, I know why people hate Steam.
Is there anyway I can play SD games that I purchased completely outside of the Steam environment?
I haven't received the new computer yet. Ill definitely let everyone know what happens when I set it up.
You made a number of excellent points! Thanks!
Is it working?
Fascinating legal issue (although I'm sure there is something about it in the Steam Subscriber Agreement that says users have no rights whatsoever about anything anywhere). I wonder if me reading book1 from shelf3 prevents another household occupant from reading book7 from shelf2, simply because they are in the same library? Are we heading in Digital Age tyranny?
How are two occupants of the same household, playing two different - paid for - games (from the same account\library), hurting publishers/developers? Are they hurting publishers/developers because they didn't buy multiple copies for household occupant #1, #2, and #3? When did it become normal to buy multiple copies of - insert entertainment product (e.g. Book, Movie, Board game, Toy, etc.) - for the same household? Doesn't anybody share with their family members anymore? How does a "Family Share" option promotes sharing when they lock you out of our account if somebody from your household is playing a different game than the one you want to play? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow multiple accesses to the same account\library if said accesses share the same physical address (or credit card, or IP, or something along those lines)? I find it hard to believe that there isn't a more reasonable solution than locking out the original owner of the account. I also find the almighty dollar argument unconvincing and somewhat vile in this context.
yeah... but how do they know it's 2 people in the same house, etc... if they don't require more verifiable id info off you... something that people will howl about... and goes back to the bit where if it's reasonable for them to ask some and someone willing to give them, eventually it'll be asked from all. would you be happy with that?
like.. how would they distinguish a couple with 2 computers sharing games with one of them periodically going overseas (travelling, whatever)... and say, 2 relatives who live in 2 different countries permanently.. or even 2 friends who live in different countries. in all 3 cases, 1 account buys all the games and sharing it to the other one.
of course, you could then ask why digital distribution ain't cheaper than physical media.. outside of nutty sales (provided the physical media ain't just a disc for steamworks/uplay/origin, etc)
This brings up a good point. Just what is the value of a game? The answer of course is "whatever the market will bear".
Clearly value for games is very flexible. Why else would a developer be willing to sell a fairly new game for half off...
I think a more interesting question would be - what is the minimum price a game developer would be willing to sell their game for. That of course depends on their cost structure and the ROI they wish to achieve. (The lenders or financing partners may have specific ROI requirements..but I digress)
Traditional cost structure includes three main components: Labor, material and overhead. With digital distribution, material is no longer part of the equation, and at least one aspect of overhead (inventory holding cost) no longer applies. So the cost of "producing" one more copy of a game is close to zero.
But with the constant churning out of games, followed by aggressive discounting, and then on to the next game, I wonder if the developers (as a whole) place much value on the games.
And what constitutes a complete game anyway? A common practice is to release a game, and then slowly feed off it with additional content (DLC's). The advantage is that the low price point encourages people to spend more for the game, and by the end of the products life cycle, you've effectively paid double or more for the game. But how do you decide what content should have been included with the base game, and what is truly above and beyond?
Well I'm starting to ramble. Just one squeaky wheel here. The majority will continue their predictable buying patterns.
Familysharing is a nice feature Valve implemented. Somebody else can use your account when you're not. Simultaneously though I have to take Valves side here.
You got one license for a game, not two.
The likening with moves, books and boardgames is clearly false and you know it. Physical != digital.
Now your son gets to experience Steam Sales The Christmas sale starts in 5 days. Time to teach him how it works
Where are you going with that? How is it relevant to playing different games concurrently using Family Share?
Quoting Campaigner, reply 29The likening with moves, books and boardgames is clearly false and you know it. Physical != digital...
Actually, I don't. Enlighten me with something beyond an opinion?
_________________________
LH Mods by Primal
XtraDeconstruct
XtraDeconstruct Canons
I never said I wanted to play the same game simultaneously. I just want to be able to play a game like LH at the same time my son is playing a game like Rome Total War.
He's getting a computer for Christmas. He'll have to buy his own games...
@Campaigner Like I already said, show me where you can add an extra license to a Steam library. There's a bargain to be struck somewhere, if Steam makes it possible.
That's just too funny.
Movies are digital, just like Steam purchases. If you're implying that the purchase method is important here, there are two fallacies to consider. First, one need not buy a game off Steam, to be locked into Steam. Second, if a download purchase is a lesser item than a boxed copy from the store, we shouldn't be paying just as much for them.
Board games I'll give you, but books are low cost reproductions of a high creation cost item. Books take months or years to create, and can be replicated in the thousands at a minute fraction of the cost.
If I buy a DRM free game, I can install it wherever I want, whenever I want, and play it in the same fashion. If I buy it off Steam, I'm cornholed into their controls. This isn't some anal retentive position he's taken, it's a completely unreasonable stand for Steam to take.
If you buy ten games on one account, one person can play at a time, if you buy ten games on ten accounts, ten people can play. The system is fucking stupid, it accomplishes nothing for him because he's already got all of the games on one account. He could have accomplished the same results without family share.
The amount of argument against his complaint is hilarious.
The movie argument (against) only works if you purposely ignore the initial method of movie distribution: theaters. You don't buy one ticket for your entire family and friends, you buy each individual a ticket so they, too, may be able to enjoy that bit o' entertainment.
When main-stream movies become digital it is after being purchased by secondary and even third/fourth/fifth parties to be distributed. It is THAT which allows them to distribute it in such easily accessible manners: they've already paid for it, you're just paying THEM.
You see the same exact behavior with video-games, such as the distributors Steam and GOG. Steam is the "main-stream" release of games while GOG narrowly focuses on older games that either they have wholly purchased or been given permission (through monetary means, usually) to distribute in a more easily accessible manner.
Sneaking in a friend or twelve into the back doors of movie theaters is extremely bad form and, while you personally don't see how that can hold much effect on sales you should then take a wider world-view and consider the impact if/when more and more people are doing such things.
Comparing books with video-games in regards to distribution, use and their creation is patently false.
Where are you going with that? How is it relevant to playing different games concurrently using Family Share? Ok, I can agree to different games.
Moves, books and boardgames are physical things that can be borrowed around as much as you want.
Digital things cannot.
I never said I wanted to play the same game simultaneously. I just want to be able to play a game like LH at the same time my son is playing a game like Rome Total War.He's getting a computer for Christmas. He'll have to buy his own games...
Missed that. Your position is more reasonable then
How can I show you something that doesn't exist..?
Dematerialization has not yet created and enforced exclusive DNA-bound incomplete property rights and eliminated borrowing.
At first I thought this topic was silly, of course you only have one account so it makes sense that only one person can use it. But reading through the thread really convinced me it wasn't silly. In terms of convenience the digital retailers are miles ahead for most consumers. I can shop around, get the best deal, automatic updates if I want them and so on. But in another sense, digital retailers are miles behind on matters like this. Why can't I borrow my game to someone? Why can't I sell my license to someone?
Sadly, physical retailers seem to be emulating digital retailers more and more with "multiplayer passes" and so on. It'd be nice if digital retailers emulated some of the better features of the physical alternative.
Can't someone else use your account when you're not anyway? Why do we need this special 'familysharing' thing?
If, in the realm of absurdity, one were to have ten games on ten accounts, family sharing would let you combine those ten accounts into one combined library on ten different systems. Ten different people could then each play a different game at the same time.
Without family sharing, you could have ten accounts on each system, but you'd have to log in and out of them to switch games and it would drive you insane.
In Borg's case, family sharing and just having his account on every computer is a near identical circumstance.
of course.. there's probably some currently unenforcible t&c that doesn't like multiple persons using 1 account..
So what I'm still reading is:
You want X
Steam is giving you Y
So you're upset at Steam for not giving you X
So you're saying the consumer doesn't have the right to express disappointment with a product or service?
Are you effectively saying that the actions and choices made by the gaming industry is beyond reproach?
If that view is commonly held, it would seem that the gaming industry has an entitlement issue of its own... which is ironic considering how often the term entitlement gamer is used in this forum.
It seems to me that the gaming industry is taking the position that every customer is a potential pirate, and that's just sad.
It took that stance years ago.
As for what The_Gear is saying, Steam is offering a service that does X. People are upset that it doesn't do Y or Z, even though it is only stated to do X. Now, adding the ability to do Y or Z would be great, but those features are not in the current scope of X.
Would it be nice of features Y and Z were available? Sure. However, I'm sure they would come with their own caveats. Just opening up your entire library to someone without restrictions, probably will not happen any time soon. Why? Because there are too many people out there that would take advantage of that, and those people are why we can't have nice things.
A big part of the problem here is that feature X is kind of useless.
Oh no, by all means express disappointment if it's valid. But Valve put limits on family sharing for a reason. Perhaps you can ask them why or find it somewhere in their ToC, EULA, etc. I don't know the reason and I don't have the answers you're looking for. But I don't think what's being complained about is valid. That's my OP, you're free to disagree. You're asking for X but they only have Y, then you're complaining they're not giving you X.
An example for you to consider:
I want a Ferrari from Valve who's only offering Fords.
Valve says, we only have Fords.
But I should be able to get a Ferrari, not just a Ford.
---
Really not sure where you're going with your second question, but please don't read into what I said so deeply, as it was a basic breakdown of what's happening. If you want to suggest something to Valve, nobodies stopping you.
Let me try to put some perspective on this (perhaps then everyone will disagree with me!). Back in the day you bought a disk and if you had the disk you could play. Anybody who had the disk could play. I remember there were a very few games where multiplayer (only) could be done with one disk - the idea being that if someone played a couple times they would go out and buy their own disk so that they could play with other people. The whole business here though is that the use rights (I don't think anyone EVER technically owned the software) were DISK BASED. Thus if I wanted my son and I to play different games at the same time, no problem. Same game - need to buy another disk in most cases.
Now we have Steam. Steam use rights is ACCOUNT based. Practically speaking, making the user rights game oriented sounds downright impossible, unless the following method is implemented.
At work (research) we bought special programs that could be bought in several ways. It was a question of licenses for number of seats and number of concurrent users. Different prices for different needs. If you got a program with X seats and 1 concurrent user you could only have one person use the program at a time, etc. X seats and 2 concurrent users cost a bunch more.
It sounds to me that Steam put out this family share thing but perhaps wasn't very clear about what it actually meant. They may not have a workable method to monitor concurrent users (although companies have been doing this, as above, for years so ---), but that is no excuse for not making things Xtal clear. If they do I wouldn't argue that they don't have a right to charge a little something for it. This all revolves around the idea that it is concurrent use of the ACCOUNT, not the programs.
So my question is, what did you pay for "family share" ?
Peace...
I think it's more about figuring out the downsides of the digital retailers. There's nothing wrong with discussing it. Seems to me Stardock employees are taking a very negative stance in this topic. Instead of trying to shoot other people down, why don't you join in the discussion?
This is what's actually happening:
I want to buy a ferrari that is blue
Valve only lets me rent blue ferraris, and if I buy two blue ferraris one has to be turned off for the other to work. If I buy two hundred blue ferraris then I can only turn on one at a time
I used to buy red ferraris from a physical car store around the corner and they never cared about how many cars that are driven at the same time
This is an incredibly loaded question. "What did YOU do to get raped?"
A far more appropriate question would be "Why can't I resell my steam games when I am legally entitled to do so?"
Thats not really a good analogy. My request is not the equivelent of asking comany A to sell me a product from compamy B. Rather, I'm asking company A to change a feature on one of its own products.
And yes, I did bring this issue up on a Steam forum. When I did a seach, I found a number of threads that were already discussing the exact same topic and expressing disappointment with it.
I brought the issue up on this forum as well because I felt it would be relevant to a lot of people here.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
