That was the original intent, sharing games with family in the same household, which was a very cool idea incidentally. But exploitation of it has limited that feature now for those that did want to use it that way which is a shame. But it's for reasons like this why Steam does what it does, they know people will try to abuse the system so they start smaller so as to not piss off their partners, and go from there. I mean take your app store game for example that you made. Let's say a dude bought it and liked it, told his 5 friends about it and they all bought it as well as a result. But instead what if that original dude that bought it instead just "shared" it with his 5 friends and his five friends as a result never paid for it, are you cool with that? If you told other developer friends that people were mass sharing your game rather than buying it, would they be cool with that and consider developing apps for the same service or would they go elsewhere? There's a line Valve (and others) have to walk so as not to piss off the development community on which they so depend. We're in this situation now where yeah drm and some of it's limits suck, but anytime they try loosening that people exploit it en mass and ruin it for everyone else. One day someone will figure out an acceptable middle ground but we're gonna have to crawl there at a glacial pace. So is Steams new family sharing ideal? Definitely not, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Sharing Steam games with friends and family
- Thread starter joker454
- Start date
That was the original intent, sharing games with family in the same household, which was a very cool idea incidentally. But exploitation of it has limited that feature now for those that did want to use it that way which is a shame. But it's for reasons like this why Steam does what it does, they know people will try to abuse the system so they start smaller so as to not piss off their partners, and go from there. I mean take your app store game for example that you made. Let's say a dude bought it and liked it, told his 5 friends about it and they all bought it as well as a result. But instead what if that original dude that bought it instead just "shared" it with his 5 friends and his five friends as a result never paid for it, are you cool with that? If you told other developer friends that people were mass sharing your game rather than buying it, would they be cool with that and consider developing apps for the same service or would they go elsewhere? There's a line Valve (and others) have to walk so as not to piss off the development community on which they so depend. We're in this situation now where yeah drm and some of it's limits suck, but anytime they try loosening that people exploit it en mass and ruin it for everyone else. One day someone will figure out an acceptable middle ground but we're gonna have to crawl there at a glacial pace. So is Steams new family sharing ideal? Definitely not, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Billy Idol
Legend
Hm...the argument you bring up now, is exactly the argument I brought up back when we discussed the X1 game sharing, where I argued that it would have never been the way some people think...in fact, I also brought the PSN sharing argument as you did, how easy it is to exploit and no publisher will accept it...when Steam released their detailed info...I posted that this is a confirmation of what I thought and that this should put the idea of certain X1 variants to rest.
Some people still think, even on this forum, that X1 would have allowed you on a game by game basis to share the games with up to 10(!) people...although I argued the same as you just posted.
PS3 sharing shows that this is not going to happen, as you say. Steam sharing plans shows a possibility...so at least, it seems that we agree now on this subject
Although it seems limited what Steam offers, from a realistic point of view...it is very good imo and quite a feature.
I'll be brief since I don't really want to go into MS's family share on the pc forum. But long story short, the always online requirement on the X1 made abusing what they had in mind significantly more difficult, if not impossible. It was likely mandated by publishers as a minimum requirement to go along with their family sharing idea, which no publisher in their right mind would go along with on any other platform as it's just too ripe for abuse. Once always online went away so did family share as MS had intended as there is really no way to stop abuse without it. That's why I don't expect it to ever come back without the always online requirement. My guess is it may make a more gimped return on the X1 at some point, but we'll have to wait until their next always online console for it to return as originally planned.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's possible, I suppose that it could make a return if it's specified that any Family Share games must be always online in order for anyone who isn't the owner to play them. If the owner's machine is offline then all family shared titles owned by that person then become offline and unplayable for all family group members. Likewise, if you aren't the owner, when you go to play it, you must be online or you cannot play the shared game.
And since it doesn't affect the owner's ability to play offline, then they can just make it an absolute requirement that you must be online to be able to share games in your library, with maybe a 5 minute grace period allowed for occasional internet spikes of high latency which would normally cause a disconnect in standard multiplayer games. Since it's only the "sharing" that is affected, then people shouldn't feel "entitled" to play games they don't own when offline. Still more restrictive than the original Xbox One plan, but would make publishers happy about potential abuse as well as allow the sharing of games.
It'd probably require a separate "Terms of Service" form for a user to sign off on if they want to participate, however, as that would be different than a standard "Terms of Service" for gaming on the console.
Regards,
SB
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Exactly what I am saying. I am not saying sharing should be like its on PSN right now, I am saying sharing will not be open like that ever again since now everyone knows how it gets abused. Sony also has reigned it in on the ps4. Its existence and abuse on PSN is a clear deterrent for MS or steam to let it happen. And if people are hoping it would happen, it won't, it will always have some strnigs attached, like timed demos or ability to play only once for a limited time. Or the solution Silent Buddha is suggesting.
