Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
이 토론은 잠겼습니다. 
토론 규칙 및 지침
게시글 신고
For digital copies (not the console game disk) both PSNow and Xbox systems need you to designate a home console. Other people logged in on your home console can play the games you own there. If you want to play anywhere else, you(they) need to log in with your account. It's slightly better as it allows two people to play the same library. It's slightly worse since lending a digital copy of a game to a friend means lending your account, or designating their console as your home console.
The reason it doesn't work this way with physical disks (yet) is because Sony saw more value in upstaging Microsoft than doing this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
Since you're not agreeing to Steam's terms, now that you've (hopefully) read them, start using them...
Lets take a look at the lifespan of a movie:
1st release: Theater (often earns back it's production costs here)
2nd release: Bluray/DVD, rental streaming services like Google play, expensive movie channels
3rd release: Prime time TV slots
4th release: Streaming services like netflix, regular TV Channels.
A movie (or TV show) has several levels at which it earns money and drops to ever lower levels of exclusivity. By the time it reaches netflix, the cost to show it are so low, there's no real harm in multi device usage. Games sort of mimic this by repeatedly dropping prices and sales to reach different audiences, but to less effect, because it's all the same channel.
It doesn't work for purchased disks, it's just that the backlash to change that on the consoles meant, that when Sony didn't get onboard, the xbox one would lose the console war before it even begun, but both have now primed the users to accept limitations on digital copies, and are highly likely to just phase out the disks.
Look, at the end of the day, the industry is in a position to dictate these terms. Digital ownership rights are poorly established in law, so they can do what they want within limits. If you want these sort of things to change, you're knocking on the wrong door. You need to lobby with politicians to update the rights to include the 21st century reality. Just don't be surprised if the industry responds with dropping franchises and entire genres because they're no longer financially viable.
Just because you don't read the terms, doesn't mean they aren't there. Every game and every consumer level movie comes with a statement it's for personal use only.
For someone banging on his rights, you sure are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ poorly informed.
they do not even need to print it for you to read somewhere. every piece of art in the case and the content on the media is the intellectual property of someone else and they set the rules how it is allowed to be used and for the most part, personal use only.
You know that video stores also rented video games? Clearly such a profitable business that video stores are still around renting video games thus no one bothering to buy the games. And video boxes also can rent out video games, and that's so clearly stopping people from buying the games that most of their inventory is video games and not movies.
Or could it be that renting games were most peoples way of either, temporarily for a event enjoying a game they wouldn't have bought anyway, or trying out a game and determining if it was worth buying.
We should also shut down movie theaters, their renting movies to the public is cutting in on selling movies for ownership. Damn evil movie theaters. And those evil Cable companies offering movies on demand and cutting into movie theater profits, evil cable companies. Those evil Red box and copiers, cutting into movie on demand profit, And the evil Neflix people cutting into video on demand and Red box profits.
And the evil Steam cutting into disk sales profits. Oh right, we don't have to worry so much about that, foolish policies and restrictions keep their sales down, as Valve knows best to keep its own sales down and you customers know best to protect Valves self limiting of sales.
It is also possible that more sales are good and more freedom to the customer means more sales and thus more profit, but don't listen to those delusional idiots because the SSA is like the bible in all matters of what is profitable, and what isn't. And the SSA doesn't tell us this suggestion is profitable.
I mixed a fair amount of sarcasm in this post as a way of demonstrating my points, like easter eggs. I trust I made it easy enough to spot though.
You are mistaken.
Also, put yourself in the developers shoes. Would you like it if people were account sharing so that 2, 5, 10 or more people were enjoying the game you made, but you had only sold 1 copy?
Fletch, please read my previous post. Especially the bit in big blue underlined and the text before that.
But fine, I'll humor your bogus statement a second even though it ignores many of the points I have been making in this thread throughout. With my suggestion, you can still only use one copy at a time. If you own 1 copy of Pong, someone else still could not play Pong when your playing it. So getting 10 people to time share Pong is a pretty ludicrous idea.
In fact, since one can just play a couple of a game on multiple systems simultaneously with offline mode anyway, as mentioned by others in this thread in accidental support of my suggestion, such restrictions only really apply to online games.
And the whole point of online games is multiple people being online at the same time, and since this suggestion requires a digital copy right for each instance of simultaneous play, if you have customers buy additional copies to share with others to play online, how in Gods green earth does that equal reduces sales????????????
You seem to not understand this also doesnt just affect online games, if I may drop my 2 cents into the donation box here:
Usually, with story heavy games (Life is Strange, for example), people play them once and never give a ♥♥♥♥ about them again. Theres little replayability etc.
This means that someone could buy one copy of the game, and over time "lend" 100 people that game. The real difference here is that 100 people have played that game, gotten that experience, and that same enjoyment for the price of 1. This is where sales are hurt.
Applying this gameshare idea means that *every* game would have to have this sharing concept attached, which would hurt the industry as a whole. It would hurt the devs, it would hurt Steam, and eventually it would hurt the end user.
If someone wants to, using multiple accounts and offline mode they could lend out the copy to a hundred different people to patiently wait to play their turn, assuming they knew that many people, since you can't really do it with strangers either currently or with my suggestion.
Actually scratch that, with how it is now, they could all play that one copy simultaneously, just ignoring the SSA they probably never read in the first place. Only with my suggestion would they be forced to take turns.
It is very stupid idea. 1 account for 1 person is okey. You can't trust 9 people with your account someone will get VAC ban and other 9 complain asking lift VAC etc.
THIS IS VERY STUPID IDEA/SUGGESTION THAT WILL CREATE MORE TROUBLE TO STEAM COMMUNITY, CLOSE THIS TOPIC ASAP OR DELETE IT NO MORE REPLY TO THIS TOPIC IT IS CLOSED NOW
For starters, your suggestions would give people a ♥♥♥♥♥ ton more access to the semi-legal piracy that sure, can happen now, but usually doesnt as its a pain in the ass.
However, after looking at a couple of teutep's posts, I've realized that either you are inefficient at describing your problem, or my mid-afternoon drink set in a bit too early.
1. I don't believe duplicates are possible on Steam. If they are, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
and
2. Just make a new account...
Seriously. Make a couple accounts. Write their infos down somewhere, or set the PC's to auto-login. It's not that hard, and steam probably wont implement a messy, risky, and otherwise redundant system for sharing licences that have already been independently bought (as you're implying) that most users won't make use of.
1. You're wrong about the PSN/XBONE allowing you too thing, I've seen people get kicked from games just because the same account logged on.
and.
2. Why would you do this anyway? You can only play one game at a time...
Unless of course you're sharing these games with other people. In which case they need to buy their own.
TL;DR
You wouldn't trust 9 people, that in itself would limit this use to friends and family. So hundreds of people or whatever is out of the question (ignoring that this suggestion doesn't change the 10 limit) Besides, if it came to something like that, you simply tell people that any sharing you do, the results are on you, Steam won't fix the results of your misplaced trust.
Nezumi, the main issue is each digital copy be treated just the same as if you had bought the disk from the store, whether that be through account sharing or library sharing. Imagine for example if you could verify a friend account by going to their device and logging in, You could share any copies you have, or instantly create people to play a online game with by having multiple digital copies of said game. Would sharing a title mean they one time play this game that you aren't playing anymore, and thus won't buy it themselves? Maybe. But it will also mean more purchases in general.
Besides
So Nezumi, it's not about the means to the end, it's about the end result itself. Any trouble you imagine, if it really exists as a possibility, can be remedied with a combination of using a different method and Valve telling customers they are responsible for their own choices.
Remember, Steam has competition from physical copies, physical copies with hacked diskless exe's (very useful with legit purchases for not having to deal with disk spin up and juggling) other Steam clones, rented physical games from Red box's, and straight up pirate copies and downloads. It's not reasonable for Steam to thumb their noses up at at customers and expect it not to negatively effect sales.
1 account = 1 person. not one account shared by 8 people