Support NeoGAF

[Steve Youngblood]

That's the only difference you see? Steam plan is one user in the library at a time. Nowhere near as useful as what MS proposed.

You mean that proposal they're not implementing?

 

[NinjamicWZ]

This is adding new functionality only, we aren't losing anything. It's the subtraction of existing functionality that cost MS.

Plus nobody was objecting to being able to share games on X1 (which, if I remember correctly, was later revealed to only be 60 minute game trials)... they were objecting only to the stuff they didn't like: always online, no used etc

 

[Bgamer90]

The "1-hour demo" could easily be the same thing as Valve's approach to the moocher in this scenario. When the owner starts playing their library, the moocher has a certain amount of time before they're kicked off. Wouldn't surprise me if that's what those old 1-hour demo rumors refer to.

Good point I never thought of.

 

[Marty Chinn]

if you're a 4 and you improve to a 5, that's a good thing

if you're an 8 and you publicly float reducing to a 6*, that's a bad thing (* could be any score since no one ever needed to substantiate any details about the policy or ever even implement it)

This always struck me as a bit weird too that one would praise something lower rated. Yes it sucks to go down, but it's weird that you still some how praise something lower scored than something higher score when you compare the two together.

game = borrowed: You can't play offline
game = yours that you bought: You can play offline
Seems like a good place to start

I'm sure we'll know the actual details a week from now

So what's to stop you from playing a game in your library offline, and then someone you authorized from playing a game in your library at the same time?

 

[Nabs]

If it's a real sharing plan, and not their 1-hour demo nonsense, then sure.

Also, Valve, please rip off Origin's return policy and you'll officially be perfect.

Origin's return policy only allows you to return EA games. EA doesn't put games on Steam anymore, so what's the use?

 

[uncledonnie]

The "1-hour demo" could easily be the same thing as Valve's approach to the moocher in this scenario. When the owner starts playing their library, the moocher has a certain amount of time before they're kicked off. Wouldn't surprise me if that's what those old 1-hour demo rumors refer to.

Wow, yeah that actually makes a ton of sense.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Bravo!Dis gun b gud.

 

[Interfectum]

So what's to stop you from playing a game in your library offline, and then someone you authorized from playing a game in your library at the same time?

My guess is you'll have to be online for your library to be share-able.

 

[Melted77]

Wonder if this will let people play games that are region locked. Doubt it.

 

[uncledonnie]

You mean that proposal they're not implementing?

Unless you've heard some major announcement the rest of us haven't, what other proposal would I mean?

 

[YianGaruga]

You're still misreading. When it says 'Your' in that quote it means the sharer, not the sharee.

The answer is for the person who wants to share games. It says, I can remotely respond to a request to share "my previously installed games". That means games I previously installed on the device I want to share my library with.

 

[GetemMa]

You could do this on XBL in 2006.

Hate to say it, but this isn't earth shattering news by any stretch.

 

[Necromanti]

My friends have yet to realize just how fortunate they will be once this rolls out. Maybe we can share the burden of a glorious backlog together.

 

[Grief.exe]

Wonder if this will let people play games that are region locked. Doubt it.

Check the FAQ, I put it in the OP. The answer is no.

 

[Marty Chinn]

My guess is you'll have to be online for your library to be share-able.

That's what I was suggesting too. I was replying to someone saying Steam games will be offline and I was saying, I don't think they will if you use this.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

The devil's in the details.

 

[Caronte]

You can basically do this on PS3 now. It's just giving your account details to someone without worrying about them taking it over.

This. And you could do this already on Steam. This is just making "official" something that a lot of people have been doing for years (myself included).

 

[marrec]

The answer is for the person who wants to share games. It says, I can remotely respond to a request to share "my previously installed games". That means games I previously installed on the device I want to share my library with.

No no no, the games you've previously installed on the device you want to share FROM. So games that haven't been installed cannot be shared.

This is not limited to local sharing, I can share with 10 gaffers if I want.

 

[YianGaruga]

.

 

[Interfectum]

My friends have yet to realize just how fortunate they will be once this rolls out. Maybe we can share the burden of a glorious backlog together.

I hope you and your friends all play at completely different times.

 

[mrklaw]

entire library is very limiting. that's weird because if it were physical goods I could lend you game A while I play game B, and both are still only being played by one person at once.

Anyway, baby steps.

 

[Damaniel]

This would actually be useful for someone like me. I have over 500 games in my library, but I rarely play them. My sister is poor/unemployed, and she's always asking about the games I own and mentioning how she'd like to play them. This way, she could play my games while I'm off at work or wherever. Since I'm not actually playing games through Steam so much these days, the odds of her gameplay colliding with mine would actually be pretty low.

 

[Nightengale]

The devil's in the details.

Always.

 

[Gamerloid]

The "1-hour demo" could easily be the same thing as Valve's approach to the moocher in this scenario. When the owner starts playing their library, the moocher has a certain amount of time before they're kicked off. Wouldn't surprise me if that's what those old 1-hour demo rumors refer to.

Here's your answer

Hi Lady Jade, borrowers will have access to full content, for an unlimited time.

Originally posted by Lady Jade:
Does the borrowing player get full content and unlimited time? Or do they get a few hours of play and then they have to buy?

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/familysharing/discussions/0/846964363934331891/

 

[Ikuu]

Hopefully they change it so you can't play the game you're lending, but can play anything else.

 

[Cartman86]

My guess is you'll have to be online for your library to be share-able.

That's possible, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me if Valve just didn't care. They've done a pretty good job at essentially ignoring their offline feature so far. At some point this is a selling point because of ease of use and putting too many restrictions will just make it less attractive. But yeah you are probably right.

 

[zainetor]

the fact that only 1 person at time can play, makes this useless.

 

[Finalizer]

Origin's return policy only allows you to return EA games.

Fair point, forgot about that.

So then broaden it to include all games, then it'll be perfect.

Or just keep it at Valve games only. So I can angrily return Half Life 3 when it inevitably doesn't live up to my ridiculous expectations.

Spoiler

I will never even have this opportunity ;_;

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Unless you've heard some major announcement the rest of us haven't, what other proposal would I mean?

I want to get this out of the way up front -- I honestly have no ax to grind against Microsoft. And in many of these threads, I feel that the forum can be unnecessarily harsh in regards to any piece of Microsoft news. But I was always kind of baffled at the people that praised Microsoft's Family Share plan to the extent that they feel that the detractors ruined this awesome piece of functionality for them. They were getting credit for something they never actually did.

And that's all I'm getting at here. It just seems bizarre to compare Steam's implementation to some vaporware proposal that Microsoft has abandoned for now. Maybe Microsoft's plan was so awesome that it would have cured cancer and unquestionably have been the greatest thing that's ever happened. But ultimately, who cares? For now, they're not doing it. Stating "Steam's thing isn't as awesome as that idea Microsoft abandoned" strikes me as a rather bizarre criticism of Steam's implementation.

 

[Zoned]

Fuck yes.

Thank you based Valve and Gaben Sir.

 

[YianGaruga]

No no no, the games you've previously installed on the device you want to share FROM. So games that haven't been installed cannot be shared.

This is not limited to local sharing, I can share with 10 gaffers if I want.

That would make no sense. Why would I have to have had my games installed before?
We will see in a few days, but I'm 90% sure that I read it right.

 

[luxarific]

So if you're playing any shared game you'll get booted if the original owner starts up some random other game? That kind of limits how useful this is.

Yeah. Would be much more useful if two family members could play two different games from the same library at the same time.

 

[Helmholtz]

I'm having trouble understanding what's so great about this. Couldn't I just allow my family to access my library all along? Or is it because they'll have different save files and stuff now?

 

[soul creator]

You could do this on XBL in 2006.

Hate to say it, but this isn't earth shattering news by any stretch.

if you gave someone your password, I suppose you could have "shared" games that way in 2006. Or some elaborate "we both share a dummy account, you buy games on your console and be able to play offline, and I'll log in to play those games". That's not really the most convenient or secure way to do things though...

 

[Necromanti]

I hope you and your friends all play at completely different times.

12 hour time difference right now. But even then, I doubt we'd all play the same game at the same time.

if you gave someone your password, I suppose you could "share" games that way. That's not really the most convenient or secure way to do things though...

Yeah, it doesn't seem like a useful analogy.

 

[DaBoss]

This would require the borrower and lender to be always online wouldn't it?

 

[Stone Ocean]

That's the only difference you see? Steam plan is one user in the library at a time. Nowhere near as useful as what MS proposed.

They never proposed anything, they just said they'd do something but never ironed the details.

People still believe that was going to work even remotely like Steam's plan?

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

Man, fuck consoles. Time to build a badass PC for my house. Next gen starts when I say so.

 

[theytookourjobz]

Got super excited then I read the fine print. I guess it's better than nothing. :/

 

[Dmented]

The idea is great and all, but this is really falling short IMO. So weird that you have to have the game installed that someone is borrowing and that you cannot play 2 different games at the same time. I really hope they can do something about this.

 

[Interfectum]

12 hour time difference right now. But even then, I doubt we'd all play the same game at the same time.

Sharing is based on library, not game.

 

[The Cowboy]

Good luck co-ordinating with her when you want to play TF2 and she's playing L4D2.

Yeah just read the FAQ and well, its pretty useless for me really and not as good as I 1st thought.

 

[shysaursoft]

the fact that only 1 person at time can play, makes this useless.

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.

 

[Omega]

Hopefully they change it so you can't play the game you're lending, but can play anything else.

why would they do that? It's called family sharing. It's not meant to be abused by moochers who want the same experience as other gamers, without having to pay the money to do so.

You know there's times when people say gamers are entitled, and everyone gets outraged but this is the perfect example of that.

You people are asking them to basically let up to 9 people play games for free. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

[theytookourjobz]

12 hour time difference right now. But even then, I doubt we'd all play the same game at the same time.Yeah, it doesn't seem like a useful analogy.

It reads like you can't access ANY shared games if the sharer is playing on his account.

 

[Timeaisis]

I'm having trouble understanding what's so great about this. Couldn't I just allow my family to access my library all along? Or is it because they'll have different save files and stuff now?

Different saves (on steam cloud) and steam achievements. That's pretty much it. I really don't know why everyone is so excited. I've been doing this for years with my wife. Now it'll just be slightly easier.

 

[Necromanti]

It reads like you can't access ANY shared games if the sharer is playing on his account.

Yeah, I glossed over that nugget.

Sharing is based on library, not game.

I don't really care. Tough titty for my friend, then.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

You could do this on XBL in 2006.

Hate to say it, but this isn't earth shattering news by any stretch.

Multiple TV's and Genesis (Genesi?) could probably also use Sega Channel via a splitter in 1994.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I want to get this out of the way up front -- I honestly have no ax to grind against Microsoft. And in many of these threads, I feel that the forum can be unnecessarily harsh in regards to any piece of Microsoft news. But I was always kind of baffled at the people that praised Microsoft's Family Share plan to the extent that they feel that the detractors ruined this awesome piece of functionality for them. They were getting credit for something they never actually did.

And that's all I'm getting at here. It just seems bizarre to compare Steam's implementation to some vaporware proposal that Microsoft has abandoned for now. Maybe Microsoft's plan was so awesome that it would have cured cancer and unquestionably have been the greatest thing that's ever happened. But ultimately, who cares? For now, they're not doing it. Stating "Steam's thing isn't as awesome as that idea Microsoft abandoned" strikes me as a rather bizarre criticism of Steam's implementation.

That's fair that we'll never know what Microsoft's complete details were, but what strikes me odd in all this is how similar plans are met with different reaction. One is praised, the other is pissed on. Neither are out right now. Everyone is going based on the basic info we have. Sure part of it is in the messaging, and Microsoft was definitely doing some shady shit, but when you compare the same comparable feature, the reaction is different when the concepts are pretty similar. So for me, it's not about what would have been, it's about how the reaction is different for similar announced functionality.

 

[Baleoce]

Actually, I'm guessing Steam press accounts are exempt from this, right? Wouldn't really make sense allowing those accounts to share the games out, when the sole purpose of them is to allow reviewers to do their job.