Family sharing, one-game-at-a-time limit doesn't make sense

[sbiggy]

I experienced it first time. The fact that I cannot play my game while my family plays theirs is pure nonsense. I know there has been similar discussion 2 years back, but this is nonsense indeed.

[EDIT - some rationale]

1. When you buy the game on Apple App Store you can use the same game on all your family computers at the same without any restrictions. The only limitation observed is that you cannot multiplayer between family computers with the same game instance.

2. When you play one of the games purchased on App Store on one computer you still can play another game purchased on App Store on other computers - no questions asked.

Ergo - Steam Family is indeed a flawed option comparing to what you get when you buy the same game from other distributors.

And my ask to Steam team - pls. look into this.

[sbiggy]

Publicado originalmente por ReBoot:

Publicado originalmente por sbiggy:

Because it's poor customer experience.
And because Valve could do it right making the service useful?

This certainly isn't the first thread about this. Hint: this "discussion" has been going on for a decade or so, without things changing.

What makes you think that you asking would change what countless others asking didn't?

We are all customers and we all can expect that our games distributor listens to us and improves.
It's normal practice.

Especially in the second decade of XXI century.

[ReBoot]

Publicado originalmente por sbiggy:

Publicado originalmente por ReBoot:

This certainly isn't the first thread about this. Hint: this "discussion" has been going on for a decade or so, without things changing.

What makes you think that you asking would change what countless others asking didn't?

We are all customers and we all can expect that our games distributor listens to us and improves.
It's normal practice.

Especially in the second decade of XXI century.

That answers the question why you think you have a case. That doesn't, however, answer the question that I asked, namely what makes you think you got more of a case than countless others before you. Mind answering that?

[sbiggy]

Publicado originalmente por brian9824:

People have no clue what a monopoly actually is. The fact that there are stores like Epic, Ubisoft, battle.net, etc and that steam even facilitates games to be sold on other sites proves that.

I mean the only way Steam could be a Monopoly would be if Epic's store is not a viable store, as well as every other store selling games.

Well I think what they mean by "monopoly" is actually "significant market power" i.e. someone with dominant market share.

For example:

1. Microsoft has been significant market power in operating systems and because of that has been forced to allow non IE browsers on the platform
2. Google is a significant market power in search and has been fined for abusing their market position

[sbiggy]

Publicado originalmente por Ice Mountain:

Publicado originalmente por Satoru:

Stop defending the use of anti-consumer use of DRM.

I will never understand why there are people who are always on the side of Valve and are always against the consumers. The industry has convinced these people that DRM is actually needed, and they took it hook line and sinker despite the evidence showing DRM isn't needed.

There is a way to do the Family Sharing right, without abuse.

I don't believe people are allowing other people into family sharing on Apple to rent them games and icloud space.


To help Valve:
1. You limit number of accounts that can access the library to 5
2. You can require all people using the account to be in the same physical location (verified via IP or GPS)
3. You can integrate with apple ID system and ride on their "family sharing" as an enabler.
4. You can ask for ID documents to verify if this is family


There are tens of ways to validate that - others have figured out. God even Netflix figured that out and will crack down on account sharing across multiple locations.

@Valve - you are a software distributor. You should be able to crack it in consumer friendly way.

What is now - is poor customer experience and I see it as anti-customer practice.

[Tito Shivan]

Publicado originalmente por Paratech2008:

I seriously can't imagine GOG doing better if the revoke DRM free games.

They'd be able to get the additional revenue of selling and having sales for the big sellers on their store. Battlefield, Call of Duty, et al.

Publicado originalmente por Paratech2008:

GOG isn't going to do better if Steam wasn't a competitor.

Because since GOG's policy is to be a niche market (DRM-Free products only) they'll never be able to compete with ANY generalistic store.

Publicado originalmente por ice Mountain:

Steams monopoly does prevent a higher market share for GOG

GOG not wanting to sell Call of Duty is what prevents GOG from having a higher market share.

Publicado originalmente por Satoru:

GOG dips their toe in and they immediately get slapped back into reality having to re-learn all the lessons Steam has learned over 2 decades of having their systems utterly exploited 24/7/365

Indeed. GOG is the embodiment of the 'What would happen if Steam did X' in regard abuses.

[sbiggy]

Publicado originalmente por ReBoot:

Publicado originalmente por sbiggy:

We are all customers and we all can expect that our games distributor listens to us and improves.
It's normal practice.

Especially in the second decade of XXI century.

That answers the question why you think you have a case. That doesn't, however, answer the question that I asked, namely what makes you think you got more of a case than countless others before you. Mind answering that?

If enough customers support the case then there are 2 ways of solving it:
1. Engage Valve in discussion and help them become better service
2. Engage EU Customer Protection in the discussion and work the case of abuse of market power.

Summarizing the case:
1. I purchased multiple games from my games distributor using Steam
2. I would like to use one instance of each game on my separate machines. i.e. play XCOM on one and Civilization on other without restriction
3. Steam service prevents me from using games I purchased in spite of me paying in full for my games.
4. Steam is a significant market power in game distribution and is using its power in anti-consumer practices

My ask is for the Valve team to fix that.

Now. Do you believe this is a valid case you would support?

[Crazy Tiger]

Publicado originalmente por sbiggy:

Publicado originalmente por ReBoot:

That answers the question why you think you have a case. That doesn't, however, answer the question that I asked, namely what makes you think you got more of a case than countless others before you. Mind answering that?

If enough customers support the case then there are 2 ways of solving it:
1. Engage Valve in discussion and help them become better service
2. Engage EU Customer Protection in the discussion and work the case of abuse of market power.

Summarizing the case:
1. I purchased multiple games from my games distributor using Steam
2. I would like to use one instance of each game on my separate machines. i.e. play XCOM on one and Civilization on other without restriction
3. Steam service prevents me from using games I purchased in spite of me paying in full for my games.
4. Steam is a significant market power in game distribution and is using its power in anti-consumer practices

My ask is for the Valve team to fix that.

Now. Do you believe this is a valid case you would support?

You forget option 3) Valve dismisses it, the EU approves the way the system works since family sharing isn't obliged on a personal license and nothing changes.

Yes, that too is a very possible outcome.

The EU would have to rewrite how licensing works before they can change anything about this, mind. As it is, they can't even get digital stores to allow resale of their games. And changing such licensing laws is such a slow moving vehicle, by the time they've done so things have changed anyway.

That said, if number of people supporting some suggestion would actually have a meaning, there would have been things like:
- different update options;
- an XP only client;
- mandatory free trials on all games;
- apparently no playing hours for refunds, so you can finish games in 2 weeks and refund them;
- etc.
Amount of people supporting something doesn't actually do much. After all, people saying something on a forum and actually doing something outside of that, are a whole different beast.

[sbiggy]

Now. Do you believe this is a valid case you would support? [/quote]
You forget option 3) Valve dismisses it, the EU approves the way the system works since family sharing isn't obliged on a personal license and nothing changes.

Yes, that too is a very possible outcome.

The EU would have to rewrite how licensing works before they can change anything about this, mind. As it is, they can't even get digital stores to allow resale of their games. And changing such licensing laws is such a slow moving vehicle, by the time they've done so things have changed anyway.

That said, if number of people supporting some suggestion would actually have a meaning, there would have been things like:
- different update options;
- an XP only client;
- mandatory free trials on all games;
- apparently no playing hours for refunds, so you can finish games in 2 weeks and refund them;
- etc.
Amount of people supporting something doesn't actually do much. After all, people saying something on a forum and actually doing something outside of that, are a whole different beast. [/quote]


Again:
Valve not allowing me to use all games I paid for at the same time (1 instance per game) may fall under EU regulation of unfair contract terms.

Would you support such a case?

[sbiggy]

Here are terms of service:

"Subject to these Terms, Rec Room Inc grants you a nonexclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Game for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay."

So I would like to use one copy of the Game foe my personal non-commercial use for gameplay.

Since I have purchased multiple licenses for multiple games I would like to use all of them at the same time on my several gaming machines.

[Ogami]

But you cant use your account on more then one machine at the same time. Even without playing games.
Because its one account in use at any given time. If you log into multiple PC with the same account you get logged out of the others till only one is online.
So a digital license that is attached to the account is bound by the same rules.
When you play a game on your account that account is "in use" and cant play any other games.

Its that simple in the end.

[sbiggy]

Publicado originalmente por Ogami:

But you cant use your account on more then one machine at the same time. Even without playing games.
Because its one account in use at any given time. If you log into multiple PC with the same account you get logged out of the others till only one is online.
So a digital license that is attached to the account is bound by the same rules.
When you play a game on your account that account is "in use" and cant play any other games.

Its that simple in the end.

These are the terms:

"Subject to these Terms, Rec Room Inc grants you a nonexclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Game for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay. "

This is EU regulation:

Under EU law, standard contract terms used by traders have to be fair. This doesn't change if they're called "terms and conditions" or are part of a detailed contract that you actually have to sign. The contract is not allowed to create an imbalance between your rights and obligations as a consumer and the rights and obligations of sellers and suppliers.

Contract terms must be drafted in plain, understandable language. Any ambiguities will be interpreted in your favour.

Last point: "Any ambiguities will be interpreted in your favour.".

So conjunction of terms of service I agreed to and legal system applicable to me as consumer. I have right to use each game license at the same time.

Steam is in the wrong.

Thanks for the discussion. I will make a complaint to steam and let's see what happens.

[Crazy Tiger]

Nothing you indicated shows that the terms Steam has violate any EU directives or is in the wrong. Your interpretation doesn't somehow grant you special rights. You are assuming the terms to be unfair, but so far all you're indicating is that you don't like them. I can understand the latter, but you'll need more than that to actually have a case.

You're, of course, free to contact your local consumer agencies and see whether something can be done about it. Complaining to Steam won't get you anywhere, though.

[Brian9824]

Funny how the OP keeps complaining and thinks he's caught steam breaking some law.... Especially as Steam and the developers can opt out of family sharing all together whenever they want...

[Kick]

Publicado originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Publicado originalmente por Kick:

Steam has always sucked at letting you play games you "own" on multiple devices, even from the same household. Makes absolutely no sense, except as a greedy tactic to sell more unnecessary product.

Compare it with how other services ( GOG, Origin, Uplay, BNet) fare in that regard.

Best in the bunch is GOG and its the service where you won't find a lot of games.

GOG is the best, I always shop on there when possible due to Steam DRM.

[Tito Shivan]

Publicado originalmente por Kick:

GOG is the best, I always shop on there when possible due to Steam DRM.

And here it is why I brought the specific example of GOG.

Publicado originalmente por sbiggy:

So conjunction of terms of service I agreed to and legal system applicable to me as consumer. I have right to use each game license at the same time.

Steam doesn't forbid you from launching as many games as you want.