Family Library Sharing - why?

[Username]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when using the Family Library Sharing feature, the second any member of your family accesses ANY game in your library, the ENTIRE library becomes locked (not just that one instance of that one game).

Does that seem insane to anyone else?

That would be like if you bought two movies (physical DVDs), and every time a member of your family took one disk to their room to watch it, ALL the media in your house stopped working. What?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply limit the sharing to one purchase, one instance? If you're playing "Game A", why restrict somebody else in the house from playing a completely different "Game B" (both of which are bought and paid for)?

Also, doesn't this kinda punish people for having large Steam libraries? If you ever plan on sharing your games with a large family, it seems like we should all be creating multiple accounts and spreading our collection across many libraries. Technically possible (and totally free), it's just a needless pain in the ass.

Am I missing something here?

[ShelLuser]

Makes perfect sense to me... your Steam library is personal; the license only allows for single user access. Ergo... only one person can access the library at any given time.

Another reason for this is to prevent abuse. If just anyone can access anything then how long will it take before people start renting out access to their libraries?

[Username]

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

your Steam library is personal; the license only allows for single user access

So what you're saying is, we're better off just not using Steam, and instead we should purchase direct from the publisher. Well, at least we know you're not a Steam spokesperson...

As for preventing abuse, that's an easy fix. They already have a total sharing limit (10 I think). They could even restrict it further (a registered credit card to prove the accounts all belong to one household).

The "omg they'll lose so much money from the abuse" argument is almost as insane as the current policy itself.

[Ogami]

Originally posted by Username:

Am I missing something here?

You are missing that this system was the only one Valve could get all the publishers to agree to.
Family Share is a voluntary system and publishers can opt out of it at will.
If they had a system like you want then the majority of publishers would have opted out of the Family Share system because it would lose them money.
Its that simple. Only with the strict regulations in place did Valve get the majority of publishers to accept Family Share.

[Username]

Originally posted by Ogami:

You are missing that this system was the only one Valve could get all the publishers to agree to.

I don't know if it's all the "mean publishers fault", but you're right, ultimately I think it does boil down to greed. Both Steam and the publishers would love it if you felt compelled to buy multiple copies of a game.

But I highly doubt anyone is worried about losing any significant amount of money from a perfectly fair one purchase/one instance rule. Just how it worked back in the days of physical media, but even better because now there's no pre owned market.

The sad thing is, the current policy has a workaround, it's just annoying for everyone involved. Simply spread our collection across multiple accounts. If you ever plan on sharing a game with any member of your family, you should just create a new account for each purchase. But why create such a miserable experience for your customers?

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

if you want to play a game with a family member then you will have to buy 2 copies of the game.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by SnakeFist:

if you want to play a game with a family member then you will have to buy 2 copies of the game.

Unless the game supports Remote Play Together.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Originally posted by Username:

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

your Steam library is personal; the license only allows for single user access

So what you're saying is, we're better off just not using Steam, and instead we should purchase direct from the publisher. Well, at least we know you're not a Steam spokesperson...

As for preventing abuse, that's an easy fix. They already have a total sharing limit (10 I think). They could even restrict it further (a registered credit card to prove the accounts all belong to one household).

The "omg they'll lose so much money from the abuse" argument is almost as insane as the current policy itself.

If that game is on Steam, and even if you buy directly from the publisher, that key is still going to be a Steam key. In most cases anyway.

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by Username:

Does that seem insane to anyone else?
Am I missing something here?

Yes, it's insane. You lend a cart to a family member or a disc (or even a digital copy on Switch) and the rest of your games are not locked out from you. But Valve are exceptionally anal about their walled garden.

Yes, you are missing something. As the owner of the library, you can put Steam into Offline mode and play all of your games while a family member is using your library. Only the person borrowing the library needs to have Steam in online mode to play.

[Username]

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

As the owner of the library, you can put Steam into Offline mode and play all of your games while a family member is using your library. Only the person borrowing the library needs to have Steam in online mode to play.

Ok but if two family members both want to access a different unique game on that one library, only one person would be able to play?

So like I said, doesn't that incentivize us to split our collection across multiple libraries? Maybe different libraries for different game genres or age groups? That way there's at least a CHANCE that two people won't lock each other out when they go to play a game.

A stupid and unnecessary solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, but it would "work" right?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Username:

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

As the owner of the library, you can put Steam into Offline mode and play all of your games while a family member is using your library. Only the person borrowing the library needs to have Steam in online mode to play.

Ok but if two family members both want to access a different unique game on that one library, only one person would be able to play?

So like I said, doesn't that incentivize us to split our collection across multiple libraries? Maybe different libraries for different game genres or age groups? That way there's at least a CHANCE that two people won't lock each other out when they go to play a game.

A stupid and unnecessary solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, but it would "work" right?

The options are the current restrictions or no family sharing at all.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Also keep in mind, that developers had a huge say in these decisions. It wasn't just Valve.

As said, it's the whole library or nothing.

And yes, family sharing didn't always exist.

[Kargor]

Originally posted by Username:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when using the Family Library Sharing feature, the second any member of your family accesses ANY game in your library, the ENTIRE library becomes locked (not just that one instance of that one game).

Does that seem insane to anyone else?

...

Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing something.

While this makes the "family sharing" essentially useless for, well "family sharing", it's also the ONLY option that Steam has that won't get rejected by publishers. While some still block it, family sharing is basically a slightly improved account sharing, which is something Steam can't prevent anyway.

Remember, publishers and Steam want to sell games, not enable a lot of people to play for free. Back in the old days, with games on CDs or even cartridges, you could put all of these into a large box and whoever wanted to play something would just that one CD or cartridge out of the box. With family sharing, you're taking the whole box.

But, at the end of the day, modern gaming does allow that to happen, so both publishers and Steam agree that they can sell more games that way.

Originally posted by Username:

So like I said, doesn't that incentivize us to split our collection across multiple libraries? Maybe different libraries for different game genres or age groups? That way there's at least a CHANCE that two people won't lock each other out when they go to play a game.

There have always been wannabe-experts claiming to buy each game on its own account, so they can sell it afterwards. That kind of stuff never really took off. And, neither will your idea.

Also, "age groups" don't really work, because games aren't clothing: children grow out of their clothes -- but, anyone can enjoy games that are technically rated for a higher or lower age. These are just suggestions. In fact, at 50+, I always play games that are rated MUCH lower :-)

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by Username:

Ok but if two family members both want to access a different unique game on that one library, only one person would be able to play?

Two people can play. The library owner, who is playing OFFLINE, and one family member borrowing the library playing ONLINE. You can't have a third, fourth, fifth, sixth... If you could, that would just lead to even more account selling -- it's already a problem with the current limit of one person playing online.

If you want less restrictions, then I'm afraid you're going to have to start either playing on Switch digitally, or on any other console with physical releases, or move to buying exclusively from GOG (technically, you don't have permission to share there, either, but it's the nearest to sharing physical you're going to get).

But don't expect anything to change (for the better on Steam). Valve aren't that sort of company.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

It's library sharing, not account sharing.

[inƒamy nΣxus]

Sounds to me like you trying to find away to use 2 accounts with the same game in the same location for exploitation purposes. Obviously you have no money or you would simply tell your family member to make their own account and buy their own version of the game. Do you even have a family? What are you like ten years old and trying to manipulate a game because you suck at it? I WANT THE TRUTH!