Support NeoGAF

[John Caboose]

Yeah, I can see the utility of scenarios like this as well. Really, it's a cool feature. It may not be the gamechanger that some hoped Microsoft's now-abandoned Family Share plan would be, but certainly useful all the same.

It's absolutely a cool feature. Hopefully this will put pressure on MS to re-introduce the family sharing like they have hinted that they would. Also this Valve announcement proves that publishers are on board with this feature as long as it is only 1 (or in edge-cases 2) concurrent player(s) per game library.

Who knows, maybe Sony will jump on board the family sharing train too, the feature is huge for those who want to share games with their friends (who aren't geographically close).

 

[aeolist]

Wasn't this what Xbox One was doing?
People love this, but people hated when MS did it?

yes it is all the same people who hated ms for doing exactly the same thing as valve

you nailed it

 

[emag]

The problem from Valve's end in those scenarios is that you could just as easily be offline playing all your Steam games in offline mode.

There would have to be some sort of modification to the Steam client such that while family sharing is enabled, Steam will not function in offline mode (and such that family sharing settings can only be modified while online). That would still allow for the account owner to power off their machine and go on vacation without allowing for abuse of the system.

 

[Einbroch]

Wasn't this what Xbox One was doing?
People love this, but people hated when MS did it?

Pretty sure a vast majority of people liked MS's idea of sharing. It was everything else that people hated.

 

[Derrick01]

Wasn't this what Xbox One was doing?
People love this, but people hated when MS did it?

MS was never able to clearly explain how it was going to work. It was another thing that each of their 4 executives and PR people would say different things each day on it.

Plus it wasn't one of these vague promises by MS like "it won't be there day 1 but trust us it'll be there someday, just buy the system even though we can't clearly explain the feature to you".

Why couldn't MS just give the FAQ sheet that Steam just did for their Family Sharing? If they had explained it and it worked exactly like this, way fewer people would have complained about DRM.

My only guess is that it wasn't going to work anything like this?

We have a winner!

 

[Jomjom]

Why couldn't MS just give the FAQ sheet that Steam just did for their Family Sharing? If they had explained it and it worked exactly like this, way fewer people would have complained about DRM.

My only guess is that it wasn't going to work anything like this?

Can't wait to share my games with family and friends on Steam!

 

[epmode]

Also: PC games that can be played directly from a CD have been dead for a decade so it's not really like Microsoft's plan which was going to change EVERYTHING about console games.

Not only that, signing up for Steam family sharing (which presumably disables offline mode) is optional, unlike Microsoft's forced 24 hour checkin.

 

[studyguy]

Oh god

 

[jrcbandit]

yes it is all the same people who hated ms for doing exactly the same thing as valve

you nailed it

Huh? This is the one feature people loved about the Xbone, everyone just hated the rest of the draconian DRM scheme.

 

[Lucifon]

yes it is all the same people who hated ms for doing exactly the same thing as valve

you nailed it

To be fair though it is probably alot of the same people which use Steam in online mode 99.9% of the time.

 

[The Iron Yuppie]

Nice. Good way to let my more casual game friends try out my games on their rig to see if it'll work for them. Have a bud who's been dying to try Skyrim after hearing me rave about it.

 

[Krusenstern]

Wasn't this what Xbox One was doing?
People love this, but people hated when MS did it?

What people hated was everything else MS did: removing ownership of physical games by tying physical games to accounts to prevent direct resale and forcing periodic 24h online checks.

Huh? This is the one feature people loved about the Xbone, everyone just hated the rest of the draconian DRM scheme.

To be fair though it is probably alot of the same people which use Steam in online mode 99.9% of the time.

Guys, he was being sarcastic with his response.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

So the entire library is locked if one is playing? Interesting.

Yeah. Even if its a different game, Two people can't access the same library even if they want to play different games. Its restrictive, but things like this have to be implemented otherwise it would be abused to shit.

 

[Hellsing321]

Beating Microsoft to the punch once again.

 

[ThroneZwei]

Wait, so if I'm playing one game and they try to play a differed game, I'll get booted?

 

[eot]

Seems like it has very limited use cases. I was hoping for a proper family sharing plan.

 

[Einbroch]

Nice. My library dwarfs my brother's, so there's a good chance whatever he would want to play wouldn't be the same thing I'm using anyway. Can't wait to try this so I can bully him into playing cooler games!

But if he plays any game, even one you are not borrowing, at the same time you are kicked and must wait until he stops playing.

Wait, so if I'm playing one game and they try to play a differed game, I'll get booted?

Yes.

 

[AzerPhire]

So I take it you need to be online to do this? What happens if I play a shared game and I get disconnected or purposefully disconnect from the internet? Will the owner then be able to play while I am still playing offline?

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

Nice. My library dwarfs my brother's, so there's a good chance whatever he would want to play wouldn't be the same thing I'm using anyway. Can't wait to try this so I can bully him into playing cooler games!

It doesn't work like that. If he's accessing your library of games, he would get booted off if you try to access your library even if you were playing a different game than he was.

 

[ultron87]

So I take it you need to be online to do this? What happens if I play a shared game and I get disconnected or purposefully disconnect from the internet? Will the owner then be able to play while I am still playing offline?

I'd bet good money that disconnecting while playing a shared game will have the same effect as when the owner starts playing it. You get a few minutes warning then get booted.

 

[ThroneZwei]

But if he plays any game, even one you are not borrowing, at the same time you are kicked and must wait until he stops playing.


Yes.

Eh...ehhhh...considering I'm on steam quite alot, while the plan is nice for some it won't be for me.

 

[ridethepiggy]

Bleh both systems will most likely require some sort of always online check when sharing. Really don't see the difference. I understand if you prefer your console to be the system that can re-sell games and be offline whenever, but when comparing these sharing features I don't see how that factors in.



As others have pointed out I really disagree. Every bit that came out about the Xbox One Family Sharing said at least one other person could be playing one of your games even while you were. That is better. Maybe it was all bullshit, but I only have what i've read to go on. This one user in the library at a time thing for Steam might be a misprint too. We'll see.

It's not about always online when you share it's about requiring always online even when you're not sharing. Valve offers a fully working offline mode, Microsoft wasn't going to. THAT is the difference.

 

[zainetor]

It makes it useless for people who wanted to play the same game together, sure, but not useless for everyone - like families. Dad's at work, Son can now play Dad's library without Dad handing over credentials. Couples who work/play at different hours, no longer have to double-buy games, or can try out games the other has bought, etc.

Far from useless. It's just not going to suit *everyone's* exactly demands, which was an unrealistic expectation to begin with.

What Steam Family Sharing is, is convenient. Not earth-shattering, not ground breaking, not gaming-changing. Just plain convenient.

the owner should not be penalized. the limitation should be only for other people, so if the owner is playing, only 1 person can access his library.

 

[YianGaruga]

Seems like it has very limited use cases. I was hoping for a proper family sharing plan.

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family? Why do people think they should be allowed to do more than that?

EDIT: Made a mistake, it isn't.

 

[FtHTiny]

Sounds great. Would be even better if more than one person could play different games at the same time out of one library.

 

[Flunkie]

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family? Why do people think they should be allowed to do more than that?

Yeah, one user at a time makes sense, but it would be cool if it was multiple at a time.

 

[aeolist]

To be fair though it is probably alot of the same people which use Steam in online mode 99.9% of the time.

statements like this are worse than useless since you have absolutely no way of telling whether they're true unless you want to do a whooooooole lot of cross-referencing everyone's past posts

in which case, go for it i guess

 

[Einbroch]

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family?

No, it's like sharing a physical copy that doesn't work if the person who shared it with you plays any other game at the same time.

If you keep all your discs in a big box, and only pass the entire box to your family members, then yes, exactly the same.

I like this analogy, except you can steal back your box at any time.

 

[Pillville]

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family?

If you keep all your discs in a big box, and only pass the entire box to your family members, then yes, exactly the same.

 

[The Cowboy]

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family?

Not really, if you have 20 disk based 360 games, this would be lending 1 (Halo 4) and not being able to play the other 19 while they have it and having to take it back as soon as you want to play something else (GTA 5).

 

[Sullichin]

This is cool.
What's the difference between this and having a friend just log into your account?

 

[inm8num2]

This is cool.
What's the difference between this and having a friend just log into your account?

This allows separate "profiles", cloud saves, achievements, etc.

 

[Goon Boon]

This is cool.
What's the difference between this and having a friend just log into your account?

You don't have to trust them with your login details, meaning them getting hijacked won't mean you get hijacked for instance.

 

[Shambles]

This is cool.
What's the difference between this and having a friend just log into your account?

Steam gets to advertise that it has game sharing when it really doesn't.

 

[YianGaruga]

No, it's like sharing a physical copy that doesn't work if the person who shared it with you plays any other game at the same time.



I like this analogy, except you can steal back your box at any time.

If you keep all your discs in a big box, and only pass the entire box to your family members, then yes, exactly the same.

Not really, if you have 20 disk based 360 games, this would be lending 1 (Halo 4) and not being able to play the other 19 while they have it and having to take it back as soon as you want to play something else (GTA 5).

Yeah I didn't think this through. Sorry

 

[Pillville]

This is cool.
What's the difference between this and having a friend just log into your account?

From what I understand:
you don't have to share password
you can take away access at anytime
you can kick them off at anytime
they earn their own achievements

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

This is cool.
What's the difference between this and having a friend just log into your account?

In regards to playing games...Essentially...nothing. This has a lot of restrictions, but its still a nice step in the right directions.

 

[kmg90]

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family? Why do people think they should be allowed to do more than that?

This is nothing like sharing a physical copy of a game, since when you share a physical game it doesn't entail losing the ability to play OTHER games you own (unless you are sharing the system/computer etc to play shared games on)

 

[Ulrik]

"a shared library may only be accessed by one user at a time"

So...is just replaces giving login of your account to family and everybody is happy, because its Valve? Its not revolution, not even evolution...

 

[Dragon]

Isn't this exactly like sharing a physical copy among your family? Why do people think they should be allowed to do more than that?

This is like handing a disc of DmC to a friend and when you boot up Lost Planet 3 it prevents him from playing DmC any longer.

It's not like sharing a physical copy at all.

 

[Moral Panic]

Family Sharing, 10 people, No game resales, No complaints.

MS must be pissed.

LOL at all the people who said it wasn't possible, this sounds exactly like MS's plan.

 

[Willy Wanka]

One user at a time makes this completely useless for me. Still it's hopefully a first step to something better along with the rumoured digital trade-in service.

 

[Dragon]

Just to put this into perspective, not that eBooks cost as much as games. But you've been able to lend books with the Nook for years. You lend it to a person for 14 days and after 14 days it's returned to you. Not sure if that's changed recently with BN's financial woes but man that'd be a billion times better than this.

 

[Bravocado]

Just in time for Steam's 10th birthday!

My god, has it been that long already? Feels like just yesterday I was griping about getting used to this new way of playing TFC.

 

[Einbroch]

Family Sharing, 10 people, No game resales, No complaints.

MS must be pissed.

LOL at all the people who said it wasn't possible, this sounds exactly like MS's plan.

Except it's not. Did you even read the FAQ or this thread?

MS's idea was very much up-in-the-air, but it was nothing like this.

This is very limited, and while it may be okay for some, is limited in it's use to someone who uses Steam as their main platform for gaming.

 

[DryvBy]

Am I reading this right? So if a family member is on my PC they can play my games?

I think I've already had this feature enabled for 8 years.

 

[Dark Octave]

Cool, now the wife can dig into my library.

Edit: Nevermind. This isn't any different than giving her my login information.

 

[polychron]

But if he plays any game, even one you are not borrowing, at the same time you are kicked and must wait until he stops playing.

From the FAQ on the announcement page:

When I authorize a device to lend my library to others, do I limit my own ability to access and play my games?

As the lender, you may always access and play your games at any time. If you decide to start playing when a friend is already playing one of your games, he/she will be given a few minutes to either purchase the game or quit playing.

Am I reading this right? So if a family member is on my PC they can play my games?

I think I've already had this feature enabled for 8 years.

The change is that you can now have people using different accounts on different PCs playing your library as long as you aren't playing it.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Am I reading this right? So if a family member is on my PC they can play my games?

I think I've already had this feature enabled for 8 years.

No, you're not reading this right. If you're not currently using your library, users that you have authorized for game sharing will be able to play/install a game that you own. So, they neither need access to your machine nor your credentials. But the limitation is that the entire library can only be used by one person at a time, with the owner having priority.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Love all the people jumping to conclusions that you have to share your entire library and thus boot all your friends off whenever you want to play any game. If it actually works that way I'll eat my hat.