Why can't my son play Spore while I play Stellaris?

[tsteele93]

I have a Steam account and two children. I purchased Spore on Steam. I purchased Spore Galactic Adventure. He is playing Spore GA on his computer.

I also purchased Stellaris on Steam. I want to play Stellaris.

Steam tells me I cannot do this.

I'm an old fart, but this reeks of everything that we said would be wrong with cloud gaming and such.

WHY can I not play Stellaris while my son plays Spore GA? I saw some thread here about something similar where some apologist player said something stupid like, you couldn't play two games at the same time IRL so why should Steam let you do that here? Or, "its to keep people from stealing and taking advantage of Steam." Someone else said something about abuses on "Family Sharing," I assume referring to Apple which I have and use family sharing and do not abuse it and it seems to work fine.

All that said, my question: Can I REALLY NOT PLAY two different games that I legally purchased on two different computers in my house at the same time?

If that is the case, then I'm pretty sure this just presents a pretty strong sell for buying from Amazon and not dealing with this nonsense.

Please someone tell me that I'm just doing it wrong and there is a way to do this, or lacking that, please tell me why I shouldn't just buy games on Amazon and install them on my computers and play them when and how I want to play them? I'm kinda frustrated right now as you can probably tell... ;-)

Signed,
Old Fart Gamer

[Godis]

well , with current implementation and limits. I'd say that I would create a new account for each game I buy. It be a hazzle Id like to avoid but if this is how the world rotates I do it.

[Zefar]

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

Meanwhile, stupid software companies tried every form of DRM known to man to try and stop piracy and we were educated about how piracy was not a victimless crime, etc...

When it came to gaming the invention of CD keys pretty much killed off the used PC game market in a year. So it was quite effective at that.
The reason for this was because so many people would scam others by selling the copy but not supplying a CD key and it didn't take long for people to figure it out.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

I don't know what some of you are talking about with the problems that Steam faces with sharing, but I find it hard to imagine that there aren't ways to spot the blatant cheaters. How exactly is Netflix still in business? Using the logic I've been hearing, they shouldn't be in business! But they are...

Cheaters constantly update their cheats to be harder and harder to detect. If there was a sure way to remove them you'd be a very rich man by selling this to all the major companies.

But sharing accounts would happen and it would cut profits quite a lot for Valve and the developers that are on it. Console gaming has a used game market and it makes Gamestop about 2+ billion a year and all that money goes to Gamestop.
These are just from local stores spread out over USA. Steam is global with far far more customers and it would mean a far larger sum of money not being used to buy games.

Netflix is different because they have more customers than what it costs them to keep up the service. All of the costumers pay a monthly fee as well.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

No, digital distribution would be me buying a game and downloading it (distribution) and playing it when and how I wanted to play it. This is NOT distribution. It is almost anything BUT. I suspect you cannot even play some of these games if the internet is down or steam is down. If you cannot play a game because someone else is playing a DIFFERENT game, then it hasn't been distributed to you - it has been turned on for you when they want to and turned off for you when they want to.

You can play Steam in offline mode but then Multiplayer games won't work but that shouldn't be a surprise. Some games that needs online connection won't work that well either.

But vast majority of the SP games will still work in offline mode. Even when Steam goes down.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

Or more accurately, I will try to use it like a brick and mortar store to shop, and then if I want to buy, I will attempt to purchase in some other way that doesn't require me to ask permission to play a game I paid for and doesn't check to see if my kids are playing another game that I paid for in another room on another computer and tells me I can't play the game I paid for because they are playing a different game that we paid for on a different computer.

The difference is that console games are not bound to accounts. Where as on Steam it is.

Also the reason Steam got so popular was because most gamers only needed one account and where all of their games are on. They didn't need a shelf full of games to pick from.

Developers also learned that due to the restriction they could be guaranteed to sell to 1 customer and not 1 customer that shares it with 20 people.
Developers liked this because on Console it sells once and then Gamestop just re sells the same copy several times and encourage people to buy the used version because it's cheaper and still the same. This is why microtransactions happened and why some games had an online pass system.

For PC this meant that gaming could grow so much and Steam has shown proof of this.
Go back like 7 years or so and you'd see that the max number of active people on Steam were around 1 to 2 million and now it's up to 18 million.


Oh and I started playing PC games with an P2 333Mhz or something. It was a long time ago and I don't recall the exact specs but it worked for PC gaming. But I don't miss the old times on how you could share games. If that where to come to Steam it might mean more developers ignore the PC market.

[tsteele93]

Автор сообщения: Forcen

First of you are allowed to be unhappy about this, I guess I would be to if I bought games for someone else on my account not know this would be a problem.
At least now you know and you got away with workaround for the game you bought your kid which is great.

Still, please understand that Steam didn't start being more permissive before. Steam started out as a one account online at a time only thing, your account and all games tied to it are yours and yours alone since they are tied to your identity in online games and that stuff.
This made sense when Steam basically had about 10 games that valve made themselves.

Now there are thousands of games on Steam so Steam went generous in one direction but not others. Instead of xbox one does it where you can only have one console that others can use your games on Steam lets you share to 10 other computers to 5 other accounts. Xbox also only lets you change what console is sharable 3 times per year and Steam.
Steam also doesn't really care if they aren't family members, you can just go to your friends house and they can play all your games when the library isn't used.

This isn't just a toggle they can flip and they don't feel like it, it's tricky to get this right. It can't just be total freedom since that will be abused.
If you have ideas how games could be shared in a reasonable way to you then share it with valve and us. They lurk these forums.
Maybe make a new thread on the suggestion forums or search for one and present alternative solutions.

What would be reasonable to you but how would it stop users from never buying games for themselves ever and share one account between two people forever since they can play two games at once?

I appreciate your attitude.

I'm not a programmer and don't know exactly how to make it right, but I DO know that Apple seems to make it work. Family sharing means we have an ungodly amount of devices along with a fixed number (5 or 6 maybe) of ACCOUNTS that are linked to one Family acount.

Any app we buy on those accounts can be shared with all the accounts.

If I download "Spore for iOS" (made up as an example) for my iPad, everyone in my family can download and play "Spore for iOS" on any of our devices at any time, even if we are both playing the same game at the same time.

Perhaps it is a greed thing? Maybe they just wouldn't make as much money.

I don't know. I'm not even asking for that. I'm not asking to play the SAME GAME at the same time. I just want to have access to all my games.

As I said, I really appreciate your attitude, because you respect that just because something works ok for you doesn't mean it is right or the best way or that it works for everyone else.

I'm not here to argue with people. I came to ask for help (which I really appreciate that I got) and to hopefully find that I was mistaken about the policy.

After finding out the policy, my purpose is to let any Steam lurkers know that I (and how many less vocal people who are also affected by this) will not be likely to purchase much more on Steam if I can possibly find a way around it.

I've been gaming on iOS a lot and just got a Surface Book 2 that is actually capable of gaming on a very mobile device. I kind of hit a limit on iOS gaming and was playing Sid Meiers Starcraft 2 or whatever it is, and I was looking for a Master of Orion type game and decided to come here and search for one. I found Stellaris and downloaded it and was having fun. I also saw an ad for Witcher 3 and bought it.

I was kind of like a kid in a candy store. I saw Spore GA and downloaded it for the kids.

That's when the ride came to a grinding halt.

My point is very simple if Steam is lurking. Those were my last purchases if this is the policy. It doesn't make logical sense to me. If someone could explain why I _shouldn't_ be allowed to play games that I have purchased the license to on two separate computers in my home at the same time, I might be more understanding - but it doesn't make moral or logical sense to me and it RUINS Steam for me.

We just bought Oculus Rift for the kids for Christmas this year. Last night I saw the Steam VR experience and thought, "Not gonna do that - my kids will want to play games on the Oculus and I won't be able to play Stellaris (or Witcher 3 or whatever) while they are playing with the Oculus. So I just went to the Oculus store instead.

THAT'S my point. Their policy is costing them money. I know I'm a tiny, microscopic cog in the machine and they could care less. But I cannot be alone. How many other people have kids that face this?

I could buy my kids their own accounts, but

A. I lose the games I already purchased. I dont' play Spore. So it is just wasted money. My son has a dozen other games on here that are basically just money down the drain if I start a new account for him.

B. Why on earth would I or anybody else want to let Steam tell me how and when I can play my games? I purchased a license to play them from the gaming studio. Adding Steam to the mix seems stupid now since they don't seem to have my best interests in mind. So I got some collectible digital cards? I'm lost as to why people accept this so readily.

Thanks again. I'm not here to try and start a war or a "resistance" or get people behind me on this. I'm not trying to create a group. I just asked my question and said my piece.

Happy New Year!

[tsteele93]

Автор сообщения: Godis

well , with current implementation and limits. I'd say that I would create a new account for each game I buy. It be a hazzle Id like to avoid but if this is how the world rotates I do it.

This had not occured to me. Interestnig idea... Thank you. Not perfect and I still have a bunch of games that will create conflicts, but could be an option going forward.

The more I think about this and the more I read, the more it seems like greed. Apple manages to do family sharing and devs survive. This is a greed-based policy that doesn't care if people get screwed over.

If any of you have Apple products with family sharing, you will see what I am talking about. They are MUCH LOOSER with the rules, and I can even play the same game at the same time as someone else on my family account.

Steam is just trying to capitalize on making as MUCH money as they can from each sale - even thought it isn't reasonable in many cases.

I cannot see how it creates a problem to allow two DIFFERENT games to be played at the same time on an account. Someone said something about abuse where people could use a stolen accound or something to play your library, but that doesn't seem realistic or problematic in the big picture.

What it boils down to is this - Steam would rather protect itself from a small segment of scammers vs treating a segment of their customers fairly. There is no logical, ethical or moral reason that I shouldn't be able to do what I'm trying to do - I purchased Spore and Stellaris and I want to let my 10 year old son play Spore one one computer while I play Stellaris on another computer. Only in a bizzaro world would someone try to support the idea that I shouldn't be able to do that. So instead you have to try and imagine how someone could abuse the policy as a way to justify not letting someone do a perfectly reasonable and rational thing.

I'm sure that is someone sits down and looks at the current policy (I don't have the time or desire to do this) you could come up with a dozen ways it is able to be abused.

As Godis says, its the way the world is rotating so I will find my ways to roll with it - but I think in addition to trying to create new accounts for every game, I will also try to buy around Steam.

For instance, I've done some looking and I'm pretty sure that I could have purchased Stellaris directly from Paradox. I've TRIED to switch to their launcher but every time I try to verify my purchase from Steam, Steam sends back an error message. So that isn't working...

Next time I buy a game, I will go to the website first and see if I can skip Steam.

If not, I'll create a new account to buy the game.

Thanks everyone!

[Tito Shivan]

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

I'm not a programmer and don't know exactly how to make it right, but I DO know that Apple seems to make it work. Family sharing means we have an ungodly amount of devices along with a fixed number (5 or 6 maybe) of ACCOUNTS that are linked to one Family acount.

Any app we buy on those accounts can be shared with all the accounts.

If I download "Spore for iOS" (made up as an example) for my iPad, everyone in my family can download and play "Spore for iOS" on any of our devices at any time, even if we are both playing the same game at the same time

In two words: Locked hardware.
iOS devices run locked software on a locked hardware all managed by Apple, not the user.
Computers don't run that way. Users can tamper and alter the hardware and interact at the operative system level.

You can't pretend a iOS device at the other side of the world is a 'family device' Apple won't let you. I can make a computer at the other side of the world behave exactly as if it was operating inside my home.

That's why different devices operate under different rules.

[tsteele93]

Thanks for explaining that. I have (for now) resolved the issue by going to Paradox's home page and using their launcher. It doesn't make Steam ideal for me and I will still be very wary of purchasing via Steam in the future, if at all - but for now I can play Stellaris (with MODS!) and not kick him off of Spore.

I appreciate the time and effort that some of you made in explaining this to me. I believe that making a new account for each game is a good idea, or maybe making a separate account for me and my kids - but that still leaves me in a bad spot on previously purchased products.

I shall proceed warily and slowly going forward. Steam certainly has the right to run their site the way they see fit, and now that I understand how they run it, I have the right to use their site as a preview site and then try to make my purchases directly from the dev or some other outlet so that I can play the games whenever I want to play them.

Happy New Year!

[Godis]

just imagine microsoft saying to its customers, "well you bought every product in our office-365-suit, but actually running both word and excell at the same time or having several documents open , preposterous is just the begining puny human"

[Forcen]

Автор сообщения: Godis

just imagine microsoft saying to its customers, "well you bought every product in our office-365-suit, but actually running both word and excell at the same time or having several documents open , preposterous is just the begining puny human"

Imagine if microsoft let you install your personal cheaper 1 PC licence of office 360 on a friends PC and he could use all the programs when you didn't use them with no extra cost?

I'm not saying that Steam is better about this than microsoft and office but there are upsides and downsides, that's one of the upsides of Steam.

To it's credit, Steam has never changed their game installation/playing restrictions to the worse from what I remember. It started real strict but got more permissive over the years.

[Satoru]

Автор сообщения: Godis

just imagine microsoft saying to its customers, "well you bought every product in our office-365-suit, but actually running both word and excell at the same time or having several documents open , preposterous is just the begining puny human"

A nice straw man

Ms office only allows ONE person to use office suite at any time. This is the license you get. You cannot install office on more than one computer. If you do that’s a license violation. Consumer license of office DO NOT allow “concurrent” usage.

do you want to run multiple copies of the office suite?

It’s called office 365 which legally allows you to install and run 5 instances of office

Install normal office on 2 computers with one license? That’s a violation. Period. You can’t install office on more than one computer as per the license.

[Tito Shivan]

Автор сообщения: Godis

just imagine microsoft saying to its customers, "well you bought every product in our office-365-suit, but actually running both word and excell at the same time or having several documents open , preposterous is just the begining puny human"

Wrong analogy.
You can run word and excel at the same time, just like you can run multiple steam games at the same time.

Running them on different machines simultaneously is another subject though.

[tsteele93]

All of this is fine and dandy. I'm just saying that you guys and gals can excuse thie behavior, accept it, defend it and even like it. I don't mind.

I'm just saying I'm not going to play ball.

I throw stupid money at software/games but I also am aware that one person makes no difference to Steam or any software company.

I'm sure there must be others like me who were shocked that they had to do all these workarounds to use their software licenses in very reasonable ways. And I got some good advice on here - Godis had one of the best tips I got.

But all I'm saying is tha I'M NOT going to be spending much on Steam the way it is structured right now. Maybe when my kids get older and can open their own accounts with their own money. I just look for games that can be purchased without Steam telling me when and how I can run it.

Stellaris is actually playable without Steam through their own launcher. So that is what I have found is one option for me now. I have trouble with some mods though, so I play via Steam some as well.

Have fun. I'm just surprised that the gaming community let this slide so willingly when it is perfectly reasonable to want to use the software the way I am wanting to use it.

Cheers!

[Washell]

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

All of this is fine and dandy. I'm just saying that you guys and gals can excuse thie behavior, accept it, defend it and even like it. I don't mind.

At the heart of it, it is this way because they can, and there are plenty of historical precedents of other industries to try such stuff, until laws came in. That said, here's what we get out of it now:

Production costs vs paying audience is heavily skewed in the game industry, compared to TV, movies, books, and similar stuff. A game like Rise of the Tombraider is financially viable because I and my friends each buy our own copy, rather than one friend buying it and all of us taking turns playing it. Single player, story centric games with great (expensive) graphics partly exist because of this restriction.

Because there's no second hand market or heavy lending in place, various demographics are now available to the publishers to sell to at various life stages of the game, and various (deep) discounts. You're complaining about not being able to share Spore and Spore GA but in all likelihood, the price you would have paid for 2 copies on sale on 2 separate accounts now, would be the same or less than you would've paid for a single copy you can use everywhere. They're going to get their money one way or the other way round. And because the other way round is more open to abuse, there are less honest paying customers to carry the load, so profits go down and prices go up.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you'd be paying the same price if and when this system changes.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

If I download "Spore for iOS" (made up as an example) for my iPad, everyone in my family can download and play "Spore for iOS" on any of our devices at any time, even if we are both playing the same game at the same time.

Perhaps it is a greed thing? Maybe they just wouldn't make as much money.

The iOS setup is also a "greed" thing. Their business model is consumer data collection, ad support, and in-app purchases, so having more people playing their game and using their apps is a good thing. Let's see how excited you are about that when this scenario happens to you.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2017/12/29/best-value

[tsteele93]

I'm not complaining about not being able to share Spore. I'm complaining about not being able to use a license for software that I paid for in my home with my family.

This isn't loaning a copy to a friend. This is my ten-year old son not being able to play Spore while I am playing Stellaris.

Here's the correct analogy that people seem to overlook.

Suppose I had two Playstation 4's or Xbox Ones or whatever. I actually DID have two PS3's at one point because someone gave us an old one - so lets go with real world.

I had two PS3's. I had multiple games for PS3.

I could play ANY TITLE I WANTED on one PS3 while my son played ANY OTHER TITLE HE WANTED on the other PS3.

This is the same. I have multiple PC's in my house. I have purchased (PAID FOR) Stellaris and Spore.

I want my son to be able to play Spore without knocking me off of Stellaris.

HOW is that not logical and how is that unreasonable?

People can argue all they like, but in the end I see Steam as a gatekeeper telling me HOW and WHEN I can play software that I have purchased. I don't need that. What seemed like a neat way to help me out by keeping my updated and logging silly achievments now rears its ugly head as what it really is - MORE DCMA / COPY PROTECTION garbage. And as usual, legal users get swept up in the attempt to keep illegal users from abusing the system.

I choose not to play. I'll use workarounds or not buy software as a result.

I just bought Oculus for Christmas and I had loaded up the Steam VR store until this happened. At that point, I quit going to the Steam VR store and instead we just shop on the Oculus store. I don't trust Steam. I don't have any reason to trust them - they've treated me poorly and I've done nothing wrong. What I want to do is reasonable, legal and logical. And I cannot do it because of some imaginary bad elements or something... which I'm not one of them.

I still find it sad and disheartening how easily the gaming community sold out to Steam and accepted all of this - my generation wouldn't have gone down so quietly. You guys folded like a deck of cards. LOL

GD&R

[Tito Shivan]

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

I'm not complaining about not being able to share Spore. I'm complaining about not being able to use a license for software that I paid for in my home with my family.

Your license purchase is tied to the license terms, as with every other software there. A license does not offer free reign on how you use it.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

This isn't loaning a copy to a friend. This is my ten-year old son not being able to play Spore while I am playing Stellaris.

From a technical standpoint, you letting your son play Spore at the same time you play another game and me renting the games of my library on a illegal cybercafé look exactly the same.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

I could play ANY TITLE I WANTED on one PS3 while my son played ANY OTHER TITLE HE WANTED on the other PS3.

Consoles are closed systems. Sony decides what how and when runs on their consoles. PCs are open systems. The user decides what how and when run in their PCs.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

This is the same. I have multiple PC's in my house. I have purchased (PAID FOR) Stellaris and Spore.

No it's not... See the point above. I can make a PC fake being a PS3, I can't make a PS3 fake being a PC.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

I want my son to be able to play Spore without knocking me off of Stellaris.

And thousands of people want to live off renting their Steam libraries illegaly. These restrictions comes from people abusing former liberties.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

HOW is that not logical and how is that unreasonable?

It IS logical and reasonable. But it's also a door to allow huge ammounts of abuse.
It's also wanting to change the game rules mid match.

Автор сообщения: tsteele93

I see Steam as a gatekeeper telling me HOW and WHEN I can play software that I have purchased.

And that's true for every software licensed. Even the one from the Occulus store. You might want to read those terms more throughly than you read the Steam ones. You can't do what you require from Steam on Occulus either.
https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/46667/using-multiple-oculus-rifts-in-the-same-house-questions
And Occulus doesn't have a feature similar to Steam Family sharing either.

[flower]

As someone who has also had issues in this area (big family, multiple computers etc.) I thoroughly enjoyed reading both sides of this discussion. Initially I was fully on the side of the OP, seeing that any counter-arguments presented did not actually apply to the point he was raising. Then when moderators jumped in, everything but the OP's main point was answered for; that point being that he should not have any problems playing a different game at the same time as his son.

Then this last comment finally shed light (for me, at least) on why steam's policy is how it is in that regard, which led me to this conclusion:

I believe this is a common issue experienced by many steam users and am glad that there is rhyme and reason behind it. I just hope that steam devs are working on or even just keeping in mind finding a way to safely allow members of the same household or family to enjoy the same freedom offered by other purchase methods/platforms while still retaining the ad-free environment that steam currently enjoys.

TL DR
After hearing both sides I understand that this is an issue that is being dealt with in the best manner currently viable, and am glad for the freedom that steam is able to allow its users. I just hope that this is seen only as a temporary solution until a better one is found.