Family Sharing FAIL

[Slagathor]

"Players who share computers can also share their Steam games with Family Sharing" yet, both of us cannot play the same game on two separate accounts on two separate machines, even though i shared my purchased copy of the game to my friends account. This is BS, i just want my friend to play ONLINE WITH ME WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE GAME AGAIN even though i bought the game and approved its access on BOTH machines. The game, btw, is Depth. And i refuse to buy it again so MY OTHER machine can play it as well. I own three PC's and want my friends to play with me by sharing the access between ALL MY (MY) MACHINES. Family Sharing needs to be expanded in such a way as platform game machines that allow a player to log in as, a "guest", and play the same game ONLINE. this can still be done, even if both friends own their own machines and play on separate screens, as long as they are connect via LAN. In which, i have a LAN box to connect ALL MY MACHINES TOGETHER. But still i have to re-buy the game on every machine so my friends can play too !?! I'm sorry but i'm not going to spend $90+ dollars so i can play with my friends

[supertrooper225]

Your friend is not your family. Family sharing is not for you and your friend to play the same copy at once. Tell your friends to buy their own copies.

[Puddles]

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

Your friend is not your family. Family sharing is not for you and your friend to play the same copy at once.

Exactly. When you share a bike, only one person can ride it at a time. That's how steam's game sharing works. It's not designed with multiplayer games in mind, that wouldn't make sense.

[Slagathor]

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

Your friend is not your family. Family sharing is not for you and your friend to play the same copy at once. Tell your friends to buy their own copies.

Irrelevant. As i said, i own three PC's, and i should be able to play the same game with WHOMEVER i wish, regardless of them being family or not. I still own those machines and the copy of the game i BOUGHT. What if my brother and/or father comes over and i want to play with them. They, or myself, still have to buy the same game over and over between machines for us all to be able to play the same game at the same time. I refuse to pay for and/or make them pay for a game i already own, just so they can play with me.

[supertrooper225]

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

Your friend is not your family. Family sharing is not for you and your friend to play the same copy at once. Tell your friends to buy their own copies.

Irrelevant. As i said, i own three PC's, and i should be able to play the same game with WHOMEVER i wish, regardless of them being family or not. I still own those machines and the copy of the game i BOUGHT. What if my brother and/or father comes over and i want to play with them. They, or myself, still have to buy the same game over and over between machines for us all to be able to play the same game at the same time. I refuse to pay for and/or make them pay for a game i already own, just so they can play with me.

Then you won't play the game with them. It is very relevant. If the system worked like you describe people would just transfer their copies to all their friends, abusing the system and taking money out of developers and publishers pockets.

You cannot play one disc on three different consoles. You can't play one digital version across multiple computers. This is the way it has always worked.

[Slagathor]

lokethecheetah님이 먼저 게시:

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

Your friend is not your family. Family sharing is not for you and your friend to play the same copy at once.

Exactly. When you share a bike, only one person can ride it at a time. That's how steam's game sharing works. It's not designed with multiplayer games in mind, that wouldn't make sense.

But, its not a bike. Its a digital object that can be copied and pasted onto multiple machines/devices. I have the game installed on 2 of my machines (making a copy of it) but only one can access it, even though each has its OWN directory and separate accounts. Its not like i am trying to play the same game on the same account on 2 separate machines (your argument makes sense in that instance)

[Puddles]

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

But, its not a bike. Its a digital object that can be copied and pasted onto multiple machines/devices. I have the game installed on 2 of my machines (making a copy of it) but only one can access it, even though each has its OWN directory and separate accounts. Its not like i am trying to play the same game on the same account on 2 separate machines (your argument makes sense in that instance)

If that were the case, then theoretically one person could buy the game and then share it with the entire world. No one else would ever have to buy a copy of the game. Multiplayer games are meant to be bought by each individual player. Steam sharing was never meant for multiplayer games.

[Slagathor]

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

Irrelevant. As i said, i own three PC's, and i should be able to play the same game with WHOMEVER i wish, regardless of them being family or not. I still own those machines and the copy of the game i BOUGHT. What if my brother and/or father comes over and i want to play with them. They, or myself, still have to buy the same game over and over between machines for us all to be able to play the same game at the same time. I refuse to pay for and/or make them pay for a game i already own, just so they can play with me.

Then you won't play the game with them. It is very relevant. If the system worked like you describe people would just transfer their copies to all their friends, abusing the system and taking money out of developers and publishers pockets.

You cannot play one disc on three different consoles. You can't play one digital version across multiple computers. This is the way it has always worked.

But its literally NOT a single digital version. The game is installed on both machines, with their own directories. Making it a separate copy. Also, i am supposed to pay $90+ for a game that i own so my friends or family can play with me ? Corporate greed at its best

[supertrooper225]

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

Then you won't play the game with them. It is very relevant. If the system worked like you describe people would just transfer their copies to all their friends, abusing the system and taking money out of developers and publishers pockets.

You cannot play one disc on three different consoles. You can't play one digital version across multiple computers. This is the way it has always worked.

But its literally NOT a single digital version. The game is installed on both machines, with their own directories. Making it a separate copy.

It isn't separate copies. It is the same game. It is like trying to run one disc on two machines. It isn't going to work and it isn't fair to game makers. What you are trying to do was never the intention of the sharing feature.

Don't talk about greed when you are trying to skip out of paying for what is supposed to be your friends copy. Greed is a two way street.

[MainframeMouse]

I hate it when you get fools like this.
Family sharing has isues, but not letting you play 1 copy of a game on multiple computers at the same time isn't one of them.

As someone said if you have 1 bike you can't expect to race your friend down the hill.

Where SFS fails if you have 20 bikes, the other 19 are padlocked up while you ride.

Some companies do have licenses or code that lets one bike become 2 or more, but thats the choice of the dev/publisher.

[Slagathor]

MainframeMouse님이 먼저 게시:

I hate it when you get fools like this.
Family sharing has isues, but not letting you play 1 copy of a game on multiple computers at the same time isn't one of them.

As someone said if you have 1 bike you can't expect to race your friend down the hill.

Where SFS fails if you have 20 bikes, the other 19 are padlocked up while you ride.

Some companies do have licenses or code that lets one bike become 2 or more, but thats the choice of the dev/publisher.

Still is NOT a physical item. It is DIGITAL. Meaning, with or without the company's permission, i can literally copy the item as many times as i like. Creating a 'new version' of said item in multiple instances. But, it is still NOT a "bike". These arguments in relation to physical items are completely irrelevant seeing as we are talking about a digital item which can be copied in fullness

[ KARR™]

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

But, its not a bike. Its a digital object that can be copied and pasted onto multiple machines/devices.

Which has it's own cd-key that is a tangible thing. Steam just can't give out random cd keys from the publisher for other people to use on an ad-hoc basis.

Let's pretend I am UbiSoft. I give Steam 100 cd keys for a game to sell. 50 get sold and i get the money for those, however everyone has shared with their friends and steam has given my other 50 keys out to them to use temporarily. They can't re-use the keys as they could be used at any time as well as people shouldn't know other peoples cd keys. I don't get paid for those. Result - annoyed publisher. OR, they may not even have seperate cd keys to use for all the people wanting to share.

Your sharing lets your friend use your game and your cd key. You can't all use the same key on-line at the same time as the login service would complain. If it was possible piracy would be rife with everyone using one persons key.

The item may be digital and can be copied, the license AND keys can not.


In database terms, i could create an account with your details multiple times. I just copy and paste it over and over again. However, each record has a unique GUID attached to it, this can't be copied and identifies you as you and each record as a separate entity. Just because one part of it can be copied, it doesn't mean everything attached to it isn't UNIQUE to one person.

[Slagathor]

supertrooper225님이 먼저 게시:

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

But its literally NOT a single digital version. The game is installed on both machines, with their own directories. Making it a separate copy.

It isn't separate copies. It is the same game. It is like trying to run one disc on two machines. It isn't going to work and it isn't fair to game makers. What you are trying to do was never the intention of the sharing feature.

Don't talk about greed when you are trying to skip out of paying for what is supposed to be your friends copy. Greed is a two way street.

A game disk (made of digital data) can be copied item for item. Steam itself, allows a user to access and download their games to multiple machines under the same account. I can take ALL of them to OFFLINE mode, and that ONE game can be accessed on ALL machines at the same time.

[«Gғм» Kid Of The Century]

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

But its literally NOT a single digital version. The game is installed on both machines, with their own directories. Making it a separate copy. Also, i am supposed to pay $90+ for a game that i own so my friends or family can play with me ? Corporate greed at its best

No, no, no, no, no. You got it all wrong. You own a single license which can be used by one user at a time. The number of machines you install it on is irrelevant. You're thinking about games from more than 2 decades ago when they were unable to autenticate the user.

With FLS you can lend it to your friends when you're not playing your games. You can purchase a single copy, play it, then let your friends play it when you're not playing.

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

A game disk (made of digital data) can be copied item for item. Steam itself, allows a user to access and download their games to multiple machines under the same account. I can take ALL of them to OFFLINE mode, and that ONE game can be accessed on ALL machines at the same time.

Again, it's a single lincense. Something that existed for about twenty years, but many shrugged it off because there were no means to avoid people sharing a single license.

[Slagathor]

K.A.R.R.님이 먼저 게시:

The_Barber님이 먼저 게시:

But, its not a bike. Its a digital object that can be copied and pasted onto multiple machines/devices.

Which has it's own cd-key that is a tangible thing. Steam just can't give out random cd keys from the publisher for other people to use on an ad-hoc basis.

Let's pretend I am UbiSoft. I give Steam 100 cd keys for a game to sell. 50 get sold and i get the money for those, however everyone has shared with their friends and steam has given my other 50 keys out to them to use temporarily. They can't re-use the keys as they could be used at any time as well as people shouldn't know other peoples cd keys. I don't get paid for those. Result - annoyed publisher. OR, they may not even have seperate cd keys to use for all the people wanting to share.

Your sharing lets your friend use your game and your cd key. You can't all use the same key on-line at the same time as the login service would complain. If it was possible piracy would be rife with everyone using one persons key.

The item may be digital and can be copied, the license AND keys can not.


In database terms, i could create an account with your details multiple times. I just copy and paste it over and over again. However, each record has a unique GUID attached to it, this can't be copied and identifies you as you and each record as a separate entity. Just because one part of it can be copied, it doesn't mean everything attached to it isn't UNIQUE to one person.

At least you gave a very compelling argument, without calling or implying someone is stupid, and provided legitimate counter-points. I accept this, and resign my issue. Thank you K.A.R.R.

[MainframeMouse]

Physical vs digital.
While you can copy the code and make multiple "bikes" across multiple computers the licensing agreement you have agreed to use the code state it can only be active on one machine at a time.

You own a license, that gives you the right to use the code/game. You can not split or duplicate that license. It is a single license.

Using offline mode to circumvent the DRM restrictions is breaking the DMCA and breaks the EULA of the games.

I can drive at 100mph on a 70mph motorway, but i shouldn't (and dont).

You are mistaking what you can do and you are allowed to do.