Sharing Steam games with friends and family

[Silent_Buddha]

In my opinion (and I know Joker will kill me again for it ) MS never exactly detailed and explained their plan and it is really not necessary to bring MS sharing up again and again as MS canceled it (at least for the moment)...so there is nothing to see here.

As I said: Steam sharing seems plausible and realistic to me in contrast to some interpretations of MS sharing that floated around in this forum. I openly stated that I could not believe the way MS sharing was interpreted due to it being financially risky. And the Steam way at least does not contradict my point.

Furthermore of course sharing is nice...why Brit do you think someone is against it? Sharing is nothing new. PS3 introduced it for its digital PSN content already this gen in such a liberal form that they had to bring it down to two members because everyone loved it and did it...again, huge financial risk.

I really hope not all of your thinking is in terms of black and white in the sense of 'the Microsoft haters'...this seems to be a common pattern in your latest posts...forcing me to learn that I cannot put a B3D mod on my ignore list.

Let's compare and contrast what Microsoft had planned...

Microsoft - Family plan up to 10 people. Shared library. Multiple people can't play the same game at the same time. Availability for sharing is on a game by game basis depending on what the developer/publisher will allow.

Steam - Sharing plan with up to 10 people. Shared library. If the owner is playing a game no one can access any game in the library. Availability for sharing is on a game by game basis depending on what the developer/publisher will allow.

Microsoft - Can sell physical copies but cannot sell digital only copies at launch. Selling of digital copies will come some time after launch.

Steam - Can't sell any game, period. Not the physical copy of the game. And definitely not the digital only version of the game.

Vocal minority... Microsoft bad, Steam good.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I really don't get the consensus here. Most seem to love this sharing plan by Valve. I compare what Valve announced and what Microsoft had announced and Microsoft plan seems significantly better. Of course people hated the Microsoft plan. Are people truly that blind and biased by brand names to react solely off of company names?

No one was ever against the Microsoft plan because of the ability to share games.
You know this. Everyone knows this.

I think you're being disingenuous. You do not have [selling games] with Steam and yet everyone loves it.

For the last time:


Xbox One (under the old rules)
- XBox Marketplace is the exclusive digital content distribution for the xbone
- Lack of competition in XBox Marketplace allows it to perpetuate high prices for every title that still sells well, which it does, and always did.
- Retail games could not be freely re-sold, diminishing their value.
- Which would hinder the 2nd hand market for console games, which is HUGE.
- Games could not be played offline.
- Killing off retail was obviously, transparently within their plans.
- If the xbox marketplace already does crappy deals with games, one can only wonder how bad it'd be if microsoft saw itself with no competition from retail.


PC
- Steam is not the exclusive digital content distribution for the PC. Steam has competition from other digital stores.
- Competition within the PC market drives Steam and other digital stores to practice spectacular prices during sales periods. We can get 8-month-old AAA titles for as little as 7.5€. Something we've never seen in the xbox marketplace.
- Retail games bought for the PC can be sold, shared, given at any given time, under any condition.
- All Steam games can be played offline, with exception to MMOs, MOBAs and derivatives.
- Steam is not the exclusive content distribution for the PC. Steam has competition from retail.
- There are no plans from the PC Gaming Alliance to kill off retail in order to "embrace the future". That decision is left to the customer, not an imposing vendor.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Xbox One (under the old rules)
- XBox Marketplace is the exclusive digital content distribution for the xbone
- Lack of competition in XBox Marketplace allows it to perpetuate high prices for every title that still sells well, which it does, and always did.
- Retail games could not be freely re-sold, diminishing their value.
- Which would hinder the 2nd hand market for console games, which is HUGE.
- Games could not be played offline.
- Killing off retail was obviously, transparently within their plans.
- If the xbox marketplace already does crappy deals with games, one can only wonder how bad it'd be if microsoft saw itself with no competition from retail.

And misinformation rears its ugly head again.

You could freely resell retail physical copies of games. At launch this could only happen at authorized retailers. It was planned that sometime after launch you would be able to sell your own games both physical and digital.

Games could be played offline. You just had connect online at least once within a 24 hour time period.

PC
- Steam is not the exclusive digital content distribution for the PC. Steam has competition from other digital stores.
- Competition within the PC market drives Steam and other digital stores to practice spectacular prices during sales periods. We can get 8-month-old AAA titles for as little as 7.5€. Something we've never seen in the xbox marketplace.
- Retail games bought for the PC can be sold, shared, given at any given time, under any condition.
- All Steam games can be played offline, with exception to MMOs, MOBAs and derivatives.
- Steam is not the exclusive content distribution for the PC. Steam has competition from retail.
- There are no plans from the PC Gaming Alliance to kill off retail in order to "embrace the future". That decision is left to the customer, not an imposing vendor.

And more misinformation.

You cannot resell the majority of PC games sold on physical medium (Retail) as their serial code is one time use only. Once that serial code is used and registered, that physical copy of the game is now 100% useless to anyone but the person who installed the game. Unless they also want to sell their entire Steam/Origin/UBIsoft/etc. account along with the game. Even if Microsoft never implemented the ability to sell physical copies of the games without going to a retailer, that was already way better than what exists on PC.

Retail has for the most part already been killed off on the PC platform. Already greater than 60% of all PC games are sold via digital distribution. Some analysts saying that over 75% of PC games are sold digitally. And most projections have that trend accelerating.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And actually after having posted that and thinking about it.

How much you want to bet that any game on Steam that requires you to sign into another service (Uplay/Origin/whatever) won't allow the game to be shared? Or if it does allow the game to be shared, the other person won't be able to play it anyway as their account on Uplay/Origin/whatever, if they have one, won't be authorized to play that game. Although I guess some of them still allow you to play with an offline account (I know any games that sign into Windows Live allows it, but not sure about Uplay or Origin). So that's going to be hit and miss.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 13524]

You could freely resell retail physical copies of games. At launch this could only happen at authorized retailers.

Freely:
a : of one's own accord
b : with freedom from external control
c : without restraint or reservation

But please, share with us any proof that the customer would eventually be able to sell the game anywhere.
The latest info I got was that the game could only be re-sold twice.

Games could be played offline. You just had connect online at least once within a 24 hour time period.

You think being able to keep playing in case of a short connection failure is the same as being able to play offline?
Well.. too bad it's just you and a handful of others.

As for the rest of the world, I guess Microsoft eventually had to change their "being able to play offline" definition accordingly.

You cannot resell the majority of PC games sold on physical medium (Retail) as their serial code is one time use only.

We'd better call ebay and tell them we found over 75000 illegal sales, then.

When was the last time you purchased a PC game in retail?
FYI, Black Ops 2 brings both a Steam key and a cd-key in case the person doesn't want to bind the game to a Steam account.

And misinformation rears its ugly head again.

Already with the flamebaits.. Let's keep it civil, shall we?
In the end, I presented over 20 arguments. You counter-argued 3 and thought that would be enough to call my post as "misinformation".

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Are people truly that blind and biased to not have noticed that no one was against sharing, people were against not being able to sell their games.

Atleast in B3D we can talk about it, hence I dwell here. In other forums there's an army of X360 owners ready to strike you if you like to keep your rights of ownership intact and don't bow and kiss the feet of MS when purchasing games. I, for one, have no idea why people want their rights surrendered to any corporation. You buy with your money, you don't get your money back from them , then why should they own your game? why the brand affiliations? Marketing works, I guess. After all we had Sony defense forces and Xbots spewing hatred in comments sections all over the internet. Similarly, those Apple vs Android people.

The corporations are dying to please you, to sell stuff to you, yet you fall in the trap of pleasing them !
The MS policy change was the best consumer win on internet ever. Gamers won ! otherwise everyone else would have followed, including sony.
All is IMHO.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

But please, share with us any proof that the customer would eventually be able to sell the game anywhere.
The latest info I got was that the game could only be re-sold twice.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Boy that was hard. That was their official stance. There is an unlimited amount of times a title could be sold by going through an authorized retailer. Oh wait, but Microsoft were trying to put retailers out of the console business. Ummm. You, personally, could give away a game (or sell it) to someone on your friends list, but that was limited to one time.

We'd better call ebay and tell them we found over 75000 illegal sales, then.

Oh sure, a nice list of very old games before most publishers started tying them into online registration with online accounts. Like this disclaimer for Crysis 2 on your Ebay list.

THERE IS A CODE SUPPLIED WITH THIS GAME FOR INTERNET REGISTRATION AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW THIS HAS NOT BEEN USED. THEN AGAIN IT MAY HAVE, SO IF YOU JUST NEEDED THE CODE, PLEASE BEAR THIS IN MIND WHEN BIDDING.
OTHERWISE THIS IS FINE IF YOU HAVE LOST OR DAMAGED YOUR PHYSICAL COPY OF THE GAME.

In other words, we don't guarantee you'll actually be able to play this game if you buy it. You might be able to and you might not be able to.

Regards,
SB

 

[Davros]

Not impossible to sell your games, yes some of them now require you (because of the tied to an account thing) to take some extra steps if you buy a game with the intention of selling it at a later date keeping the game on its own separate account for example.

 

[fbomber]

Please talk about the monoply MS was trying to create for the XBOX one, and how it would affect prices. Steam is not a monopoly (far from it). That is the most important argument against the comparison between steam and MS´s plan.

And misinformation rears its ugly head again.

You could freely resell retail physical copies of games. At launch this could only happen at authorized retailers. It was planned that sometime after launch you would be able to sell your own games both physical and digital.

Games could be played offline. You just had connect online at least once within a 24 hour time period.



And more misinformation.

You cannot resell the majority of PC games sold on physical medium (Retail) as their serial code is one time use only. Once that serial code is used and registered, that physical copy of the game is now 100% useless to anyone but the person who installed the game. Unless they also want to sell their entire Steam/Origin/UBIsoft/etc. account along with the game. Even if Microsoft never implemented the ability to sell physical copies of the games without going to a retailer, that was already way better than what exists on PC.

Retail has for the most part already been killed off on the PC platform. Already greater than 60% of all PC games are sold via digital distribution. Some analysts saying that over 75% of PC games are sold digitally. And most projections have that trend accelerating.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Not impossible to sell your games, yes some of them now require you (because of the tied to an account thing) to take some extra steps if you buy a game with the intention of selling it at a later date keeping the game on its own separate account for example.

Sure, going by that, you can resell any and all Xbox One games, as the digital versions are tied to your account and not your console. I'm assuming it's the same way with the PS4.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Please talk about the monoply MS was trying to create for the XBOX one, and how it would affect prices. Steam is not a monopoly (far from it). That is the most important argument against the comparison between steam and MS´s plan.

Yes, and that's why Microsoft wasn't selling retail disks. Oh wait they were. And that's why Microsoft worked with publishers to make sure games could be resold.

Hmmm, going by that, then Apple and Google are already monopolys correct? Since you can ONLY get apps through their stores? And far more of one that Microsoft or Sony with their digital stores.

Oh wait, I see you only singled out Microsoft for having a digital online store that was the only way you could get digital versions of games. Sony and Nintendo, I guess, gets a pass since they aren't Microsoft?

So, it's only bad if Microsoft does it?

Regards,
SB

 

[fbomber]

First thing: I´m a xbox360 owner. So please stop the bias talking about MS.

Back to the conversation: no, the plan was, for MS, to go digital only long term. That would make their online store a monopoly to sell xbox one games.

Sony didn´t demonstrate anything that would imply they are going this route.

Apple and google are not selling gaming consoles, at least yet. So they are out of this discussion.

I can give you a concrete example of how steam is different than Live: my steam library has a bunch of games I bought with large discounts. My xbox 360 has no games I bought from Live, and that´s because there are not good sales there. This with them having the competition from retail; imagine what would happen when Live gets to be a monopoly.

Yes, and that's why Microsoft wasn't selling retail disks. Oh wait they were. And that's why Microsoft worked with publishers to make sure games could be resold.

Hmmm, going by that, then Apple and Google are already monopolys correct? Since you can ONLY get apps through their stores? And far more of one that Microsoft or Sony with their digital stores.

Oh wait, I see you only singled out Microsoft for having a digital online store that was the only way you could get digital versions of games. Sony and Nintendo, I guess, gets a pass since they aren't Microsoft?

So, it's only bad if Microsoft does it?

Regards,
SB

 

[zupallinere]

imagine what would happen when Live gets to be a monopoly.

I believe when that happens the MS faithful will be Raptured away leaving all the anti-MS FUD-meisters or other heathen to perish in flames

 

[RenegadeRocks]

MS said you could resell only through MS certified resellers. THat simply capturing the market by force. its my game, I sell it to anyone I want. They would buy back games from me $5 (and I wouldhave no option but to abide) and resell them for $30 and then ask ppl to pay a unlock fee again when they tie it to their accounts. Its forced rules for no one's benefits. and we are talking about physical games here!

As for family sharing of digital games, we had that on the psn for 5 ps3s since PSn launched,and they too had to tone it down to 2 systems. There was no way MS would have let you play full games at 10 XBones at all. Wishful thinking.

As for Steam, the only reason ppl love it is because it keeps our libraries organised while giving us $60 games $5. Humble Bundle is already making Steam Sales redundant as we get games for even cheaper and that too with Steam codes if you want, and even DRM free. We don't love steam for tying the games to our accounts.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Back to the conversation: no, the plan was, for MS, to go digital only long term. That would make their online store a monopoly to sell xbox one games.

How about some proof of that as that was not anything that Microsoft said. And you just thinking it is going to happen doesn't mean it is going to happen.

Apple and google are not selling gaming consoles, at least yet. So they are out of this discussion.

Huh? You cannot buy ANYTHING, games-apps-whatever for iOS or Android without either going through the Apple/Google store or hacking the device.

And somehow Microsoft is worse by allowing you buy games through retailers and allowing you to resell your games? In other words, exactly the same as Sony and Nintendo.

Oh and cornering the market? You do realize that while over half of the launch games for PS4 are DIGITAL ONLY, all of the Xbox One games are available both through digital and retail packaging? So who is screwing over the retailers?

Oh, and I never said Steam doesn't do some things better. I do after all use Steam exclusively on the PC for a reason. But their sharing plan is rather pathetic compared to what Microsoft were implementing.

MS said you could resell only through MS certified resellers. THat simply capturing the market by force. its my game, I sell it to anyone I want. They would buy back games from me $5 (and I wouldhave no option but to abide) and resell them for $30 and then ask ppl to pay a unlock fee again when they tie it to their accounts. Its forced rules for no one's benefits. and we are talking about physical games here!

Again interesting that you know all this stuff that Microsoft is going to do when none of it was announced or finalized yet with regards to retailers and publishers.

It's amazing how much people "know" about what Microsoft was going to do when even then didn't know all the details yet.

Regards,
SB

 

[Sulik]

Who cares about sharing! Just make Half Life 3 already so we get something to share!

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Again interesting that you know all this stuff that Microsoft is going to do when none of it was announced or finalized yet with regards to retailers and publishers.

It's amazing how much people "know" about what Microsoft was going to do when even then didn't know all the details yet.

Regards,
SB

And how do you know it won't happen? Do you know their plans? Do you work for MS?Isn't it amazing how much you know about MS without them finalising anything. No offence, but I think thats the end of discussion here.
Why would they limit retailers to "authorised" retailers if not to capture the business of resale? Who are they to "authorise" anyone in a business where they don't even exist?

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Who cares about sharing! Just make Half Life 3 already so we get something to share!

I think it should be named Half Life 3: Hell Freezes Over

 

[eastmen]

Please talk about the monoply MS was trying to create for the XBOX one, and how it would affect prices. Steam is not a monopoly (far from it). That is the most important argument against the comparison between steam and MS´s plan.

Steam doesn't allow the sale of games. So if you did want to move to another platform you would end up paying for games twice.

Now its nice to believe that steam actually gives you $60 games for $5 but its not true. IT takes a very long time for games to get to that price and also that normaly happens a few times a year for special sales.

 

[Davros]

But the point is there is another platform. On the xbone there wouldnt be