Family share should allow family's to share and play the game all at the same time...

[Kaioatdee]

I think it's just one huge scam to force people to buy multiple copies of a multiplayer game just so I can play with my kids and or whife.. family libray sharing only allows sharing up to 5 other pc's/mac's.. but if i want to play any game when there going to play a game from my shared libray it kicks them off the game and tells them I'm play a game... That's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.. I should not need to buy a ♥♥♥♥ ton copies of a game just so I and my family which mind you is me my whife and 4 kids should not be forced to buy 6 copies of a game just so we can play together that's a ♥♥♥♥ing scam... At the price point of some games that's 100's of $$$ just to play and with the early access scene being what it is I can't in all good consxiousness sink tons of money buying multiple copies of a game that might just get abandonded and never see enough updates to even make it worth all that money.. let me share and play one copie of a game with my family all at the same time that's my suggestions / idea..

[Hextravert]

First of all, the world doesn't revolve around you and your big family.

Besides, there are plenty of games that allow you to play together via split screen.

Your whife and 4 kids should leave someone who can barely spell. That's my suggestion/idea.

Wolfe a écrit :

I think it's just one huge scame to force people to buy multiple copies of a multiplayer game just so I can play with my kids and or whife.. family libray sharing only allows sharing up to 5 other pc's/mac's.. but if i want to play any game when there going to play a game from my shared libray it kicks them off the game and tells them I'm play a game... That's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.. I should not need to buy a ♥♥♥♥ ton copies of a game just so I and my family which mind you is me my whife and 4 kids should not be forced to buy 6 copies of a game just so we can play together that's a ♥♥♥♥ing scam... At the price point of some games that's 100's of $$$ just to play and with the early access scene being what it is I can't in all good consxiousness sink tons of money buying multiple copies of a game that might just get abandonded and never see enough updates to even make it worth all that money.. let me share and play one copie of a game with my family all at the same time that's my suggestions / idea..

[Gwarsbane]

I'm really getting tied of all these "One person should be able to share their games with as many people was we want" threads.

ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

If you think its as scam as you say, then go report it to the police who will laugh at you.

Its called game companies trying to make money. If I could share all my games with my friends, then why would any of them ever buy any of the same games I have ever again? That would be a lot of lost income for both Valve and the game devs/publishers.

If Valve allowed, this, all the game companies would go to some other place and sell their games there, as long as it restricted the games like Valve does now.

Family share was designed for families with 1 computer in the house, with parents sharing their games with the kids a significant other.

If you can afford to have a computer for every person in the house you can afford to buy the games for those people too.

[Kaioatdee]

There are less and les split screen games made each and every year and I'm sure other familys have the same and or similar complaints.. But thank you for your unhelpful opinion.. And oops I put a space in where I shouldn't have my bad..Guess that makes my opinion automatically wrong go away grammar Nazi.

[Kaioatdee]

Nope never said as meany people as I wanted I"m perfectly fine with the five they already aloud. Just wanted to actually be able to play the game with the people I'm sharing it with.

[wuddih]

Wolfe a écrit :

Nope never said as meany people as I wanted I"m perfectly fine with the five they already aloud. Just wanted to actually be able to play the game with the people I'm sharing it with.

they need an own copy then. period. makes no sense that you buy for one license and use it multiple times.

[Black Blade]

Wolfe a écrit :

There are less and les split screen games made each and every year and I'm sure other familys have the same and or similar complaints.. But thank you for your unhelpful opinion.. And oops I put a space in where I shouldn't have my bad..Guess that makes my opinion automatically wrong go away grammar Nazi.

Its a come and go i think, but with Xbox adding there games to Windows, and Steam pushing to the living room, i think will start seeing a rise of them..

On any case if you mean to play 2 players, you only need 2 copys (That can be shared with everyone else in the family so 2 copys are always out there)

And as said it will be a huge lost for Devs and Pub if they allow every one to play in the same time using Family Sharing, even more when some use it to share with friends and not family

Its like having one console at home that is active to share, only one player can play at a time on these games, but get the games twise for each console and 2 players can play in the same time

And just by the way, its libary sharing, and only one user per a libary, so if you have 3 accounts where there named 1, 2, 3
1. Owns game W
2. Owns Games D
3. Owns Games W and F

If 2 playes W shared from 3 and 3 plays D shared from 2, then that will work in the same time, as its a one user per a library (if i got it right)

[Kaioatdee]

Steam already has sharing for up to five pc's.. So saying that it would be bad for dev's would be saying the dev's can't get more then a few people to buy a game so let's force them to buy ton's of copies to make it look like our user base is bigget then it really is.. If a game is good it will sell. Forcing people to buy more then one copie just so they can play with there kid I feel is wrong! let's all rember back when we all use to buy games on disk as we could install it on any pc we wanted as meany times as we wanted to play at the same time.. If the game doen't sell well I shouldn't be told I have to buy more then one copie so dev can eat or whatever not my fault they cant sell there game nor is it my fault there eyes are bigger then there teath.. I can't even play a different game well I share a game it will kick them off that's only one copie of 2 different games runnging at the ame time and that's not alloud why?

[Black Blade]

Wolfe a écrit :

Steam already has sharing for up to five pc's.. So saying that it would be bad for dev's would be saying the dev's can't get more then a few people to buy a game so let's force them to buy ton's of copies to make it look like our user base is bigget then it really is.. If a game is good it will sell. Forcing people to buy more then one copie just so they can play with there kid I feel is wrong! let's all rember back when we all use to buy games on disk as we could install it on any pc we wanted as meany times as we wanted to play at the same time.. If the game doen't sell well I shouldn't be told I have to buy more then one copie so dev can eat or whatever not my fault they cant sell there game nor is it my fault there eyes are bigger then there teath.. I can't even play a different game well I share a game it will kick them off that's only one copie of 2 different games runnging at the ame time and that's not alloud why?

You share librarys not games

Its only 10 PCs and 5 people
And you say the Devs have big eyes?
For you it will be to buy 5 copys of a game
For them that is losing 1000000 sales of games, as users will have them shared...
Who here has the big eyes?

You are not the only one that will use it, and if Steam will have limited it to only Family, i think it may have been possible, maybe, but clearly, they cant really do that... to the point when Family Sharing started you where able to share to 10 PCs and 10 Users, for me that was great, we are a family of 7 and i have also few alts i can use the share to test stuff
But it jump down to 5, why? users shared with friends

Now think abut it, 1 copy, 5 (or even more 10 players) now double that by 100 people... lets say its a 60$ game
For each user that will cost 300$
To Dev that will be a lost sales of 30000$

And that is dropping down the scale wayyy down, honestly i am surprised they even allow the share at all, as Devs can disable it if they so wish, but most did not cancel it..
Now you asking for even more then that?

[Kaioatdee]

Dev's shouldn't look at one person and then think tons of sales for there one game because that person have some kids.. Money doen't grow on trees after all.. It's greedy dev's at that point..

[Space Coward]

Family Sharing in and of itself is a massive benefit, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The point is that you can share your games, but this removal of restrictions for one copy per player would essentially mean taking your "disc," ripping it in half, and playing said split disc on two different devices. Aside from being physically impossible (the major stab that many have had towards digital DRM to begin with was how "retail didn't have these restrictions), it's a massive punch in the wallet for games that make their sales entirely based on multiplayer.

I wish it were just greedy devs, that would mean the ones worth respecting could do it perfectly. The truth? Game development is expensive. We're talking hundreds of thousands towards top-tier 3D artwork, engines, and optimizations for a wide variety of different CPU/GPU combinations (or licensing fees for mainstream engines such as CryEngine V, Unreal 4, and Unity3D 5.4). That's just a low budget, too; your average AAA release will shoot well into the ten-million range and I'm sure some cutscenes in the yearly Call of Duty games could be $500,000+ in costs alone.

You say that they're singling you out, but the unfortunate truth is that if they were to make an exception for you, that means an exception for anyone. Soon enough, Windows 95 has been installed millions of times in Russia and Microsoft didn't make a cent from any of it-- the restrictions exist for a very good reason.

As it stands, I'm happy with the current system. Back when I first started using Steam, it was on an entirely different account because a separate account meant no access to others' games. Family Sharing changes this, I played all of Batman: Arkham Asylum and City as well as Psychonauts without needing to buy it again. I can buy Cities Skylines or Civilization VI for my brother and instead of paying for my own copy, I can just buy him more DLC and play his version of the game.

The only restriction I want to see removed is the full library lockout, where playing ANY game will lock everyone else out of your entire library. If I'm playing Dying Light or Vermintide, why can't my brother play Dawn of War or Fallout 4 when I'm not even touching it?

[76561198001062896]

Wolfe a écrit :

Dev's shouldn't look at one person and then think tons of sales for there one game because that person have some kids.. Money doen't grow on trees after all.. It's greedy dev's at that point..

businesses exist to make money, thats how CAPITALISM used to work for years.
if this makes them geeedy then you really need some reality check.

gaming is not a basic human need or right.

[Kaioatdee]

Moss a écrit :

The only restriction I want to see removed is the full library lockout, where playing ANY game will lock everyone else out of your entire library. If I'm playing Dying Light or Vermintide, why can't my brother play Dawn of War or Fallout 4 when I'm not even touching it?

Fixing that would be a great start. I was tryint to play Portal Knights and my son was playing Super Indie Karts and he was kicked off when Portal Knights started up and the message that poped up for him told him he can't play any games from my libary when I am that's steam being gready.. How would you feel if you where buying a movie and you where asked at check out how meany people where going to be watching it with you and after you said more then just yourself you where then charged a lot more money and there excuse was your not watching it alone.. All it sounds like is steam is trying to get one person to pay for the same game as meany times as they can get that person too.. The dev's of Don't Starve Together have the right idea because when I bought that game it came with a second copie at no extara charge and although that's not a perfect fix even they can see the sharing system needs to be improved. Oh and for the recored the reason my original post was so angary is because I was asking steam support how I could play a multiplayer game that I bought with my son without him getting kicked off and not only did it take them 3 weeks to respond to me but they weren't all that nice and basically just told me that's not how sharing works go buy another copie and then pointed me here and told me to suggest an idea. I bought him a steam controller for christmas and now I have to tell him that all the multiplayer game we bought we can't play together because steam said so. GOG doesn't treat people like money they treat them like people.. just wish I bought these games there.. And I will for all multiplayer games because they have no restrictions. I'm not asking to play my one copie with the wrold just my immediate family and one copie per house hold can play a multiplayer game together sharing on the same internet connection sounds more the fair to me.

[Gwarsbane]

Wolfe a écrit :

Dev's shouldn't look at one person and then think tons of sales for there one game because that person have some kids.. Money doen't grow on trees after all.. It's greedy dev's at that point..

ya them greedy devs, wanting money so that they can make other games, and pay their workers, and pay for buildings/offices they are in. Wanting to have food on the table and be able to pay for a home, and send their kids to school.

They are very greedy for wanting all that money from people. They should just giveaway all the games they make! They don't need offices and computer equipment to make games for people to play! They don't need food and shelter for their families. Making games free for everyone should be what they do!!!!

[Kaioatdee]

Oh and let's not forget how fun it was to play Super Smash Bro's or Halo or Mario Kart and countless other games we all gathered around one copie of a game and all played together.. Before steam came about and said "internet".. Now you have to buy another copie to play with anyone else peroid no exceptions. I have to buy a seconed copie of Super Indie Karts just to play with the person sitting next to me in my own home.. Although to be fair that dev is working very hard to add local multiplayer but a lot of dev's won't because like everyone keeps saying they can squeeze another copie out of us.. I get it the dev's need to pay rent and eat but that should not be used to guilt anyone into buying another copie of a game. Just make a dam good game and it will sell well.

[Black Blade]

Wolfe a écrit :

.. I get it the dev's need to pay rent and eat but that should not be used to guilt anyone into buying another copie of a game. Just make a dam good game and it will sell well.

Really? you say that should not use when a few posts before you said:

Wolfe a écrit :

... because that person have some kids.. Money doen't grow on trees after all.. It's greedy dev's at that point..

Do we need a movment for 'Devs are human too'?

First lets start with these, GOG dose not allow sharing at all:

GOG User Agreement a écrit :

3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else. Your access to and use of them is subject to GOG’s rules which are set out here, as updated or amended when necessary.

Source: https://www.gog.com/support/policies/gog_user_agreement

Been able to do something dose not mean you are supposed or allowed to do it (I do think GOG can close your account on sharing your account/games)

Steam allow you some form of sharing, by legal term as well

I am lucky for Family sharing to be great for me, i love games and buy a nice amount of them, even that i bearly got time to play them
Yet at these time my family plays my game, ending up to be much cheaper then how it used to be of buying a copy for each player

If you want more local Co-Op demand it, that is in no way Valves fault, even more there own game L4D2 has local co-op as much as i remmber

Whats the reason there not that many co-op on PC? my guess theidea that users got small screen, and a K/M and no controller, if PCs come with multi keyboerd support or a Controller by defult we where likely to see more local co op, that may happen with Steams push to the living room

and the Dev is just as 'greedy' as the user is 'greedy'