Family Library Sharing Adjustment Request (Better Limits)

[Ice Cole]

Family Library Sharing Limits are painful for families. I feel like Steam can't decide if it's for the individual (with achievements), or for a family to share an account. Maybe sharing is there just to pretend it's family friendly? Is Valve just trying to make Steam sound good? "You can share your library!" While at the same time trying to milk every penny from us? I'll give the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to assume Valve really does want to provide a way people can share their games with family. The balance can't be easy. Maybe they're just trying to keep their publishers confidence, and their customers happy at the same time. What a concept.

If we're being totally honest, Steam is not the only platform and we can always use other options. But if Steam is aiming to connect us all and be a one-stop solution, this system MUST change. Especially if the aim is to allow families to connect (just as friends can) and be able to play, and communicate at the same time. If Steam does not fix this, someone else will. And I think they'll overtake Steam eventually. We like having things in one easy place, and being able to share our passions with family is important.

The problem:

I have hundreds of games on Steam (and some other software). My wife, and three kids all have Steam accounts. We have four computers we share. If any one of us is using anything in my library, no one else can use anything in the library. Period. This limit is fine for single people. Who it really hurts is families; ironic, since it's the "Family Library Sharing" feature. It would have been fine in a household with one computer. Technology has come a long way, though. I understand this limit is to keep people from taking advantage of the system, but it's a step backward technologically. Most households have more than one device.

With four Playstations and 300 games, the only limit is who has the disk. With Steam and four computers, only one of us can use Steam at a time. One family limited to one game at a time, no matter the setup.

This limit is imposed any time I use a product in my library. It doesn't matter if it's free. It doesn't matter if no one else ever uses it. It doesn't matter if it's a game. Barring the purchase/installation of every product for every account, this limit gets in the way. Even if I'm using software no one else ever uses, they cannot use any product in my library. We'd have to spend thousands of dollars for each account remove that limit.

I can't use Gimp or RPG Maker while my kid plays a game. Skyrim's mod tools? Nope. Using anything tied to my library means no one else can use anything else. This hurts Steam's ability to service our needs.

The only fool proof work-around is for the library owner to be offline. This allows two people to use the library. This still means of the 300 games available, only two can be used at a time. Yuck. Leaving two computers unable to play anything at all. (In addition, the communication features are disabled for the library owner.) You can log into one account in offline mode on four computers, but it defeats the purpose of having more than one account for a family. It also takes away Steam's communication platform. Achievements are also moot in this case. In short it works fine if you have one device, but few households do these days.

I thought Steam's main goal is to connect people through their passions on one platform. In the case of families playing together, this system does the opposite.

I get that some companies want to limit each copy to be used by one person at a time. (Despite being able to use up to ten of them offline... just saying.) I don't even object to this idea, really. If that's a limitation the game dev wishes to impose, so be it. I'll buy multiple to play multiple at a time, when appropriate. (Though I am more likely to buy games like Starbound and Stardew Valley, with no DRM.) The part that's a problem is that the whole library is tied to this. Even if the library owner is using a free game tied to Steam, the library is in use, and therefore off limits to everyone else.

The biggest issue is that with kids going to school, and parents working, most our chance to play overlaps. Hence 4 computers. Limiting the library makes it much harder, if not impossible, for a gaming family to library share with Steam. And, I think, to use Steam as intended.

What do I think needs to happen?

Tie the limit to the games, rather than the library. This way we can take turns (like with any other platform or console.) My son could play BTD 5, my wife can play Zuma, and my daughter can play Spore, while I play Skyrim. It's like having four consoles and one copy of each game this way. Much like I grew up with. Really, this is the way I think it should be. There's already a limit of 5 accounts (plus the owner) and 10 devices. Plus, you have to physically log in to the computers you want to share on. Why limit the library to one account at a time? Again, it's not family friendly.

Band-aid Solutions:

1. Allow offline mode for everyone who's authorized on the library (perhaps with a monthly requirement to verify they're still authorized, by going online).This would limit our ability to communicate through Steam, but actually leaves room for a household to share. A trade off. I'd rather the game impose the limit, but this would at least make "family sharing" feasible.

2. Exempt free games from this list. So if I'm playing a free game, it doesn't tie up my library. Then, at least I can play War Thunder through steam while my kid plays Fate. It's still very limiting, but not as ridiculous. At least the paid-for library wouldn't be off-limits when a free game is in use.

I hope Valve is listening and finds a way to make library sharing more family friendly. As I said, I think the best solution is to remove the limit from the library and impose it on games instead. (While keeping a limit on devices and connected accounts.) It would make it a little easier for some people to abuse the system. However; it would also allow those of us who want to share with our household to do so. As is, family sharing doesn't work as intended.

[Ice Cole]

Messaggio originale di 999999999:

Try using the search function as this has been discussed to death many times over the years. We even had a few the last 2 weeks.

tl;dr... It is working as intended and not a a way to play free games across multiple accounts simultaneously. That would be more heavily abused than the system already is.

I did use the search function. I'm sure you're right about this topic being discussed many times over the years. I didn't find any posts that held quite the spirit of what I was trying to say. Many of the ones I found were asking how the function works (or asking for tech support) rather than putting in a request to Steam to change it. Though, many were in other languages, so maybe I missed them.

More importantly, since Steam Support themselves directed me to ask in this way, I am doing so. Perhaps hundreds of threads on this topic is exactly what they want before making a change? I won't presume to know what they are thinking, but I will share this in the manner they've asked.

To address the way the system functions: As stated in my original post it seems to me Steam made the "family library sharing" to allow families to share games. I'm suggesting it doesn't properly provide this function.

[76561198001062896]

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

Messaggio originale di 999999999:

Try using the search function as this has been discussed to death many times over the years. We even had a few the last 2 weeks.

tl;dr... It is working as intended and not a a way to play free games across multiple accounts simultaneously. That would be more heavily abused than the system already is.

I did use the search function. I'm sure you're right about this topic being discussed many times over the years. I didn't find any posts that held quite the spirit of what I was trying to say. Many of the ones I found were asking how the function works (or asking for tech support) rather than putting in a request to Steam to change it. Though, many were in other languages, so maybe I missed them.

More importantly, since Steam Support themselves directed me to ask in this way, I am doing so. Perhaps hundreds of threads on this topic is exactly what they want before making a change? I won't presume to know what they are thinking, but I will share this in the manner they've asked.

To address the way the system functions: As stated in my original post it seems to me Steam made the "family library sharing" to allow families to share games. I'm suggesting it doesn't properly provide this function.

nobody ever promised a full on no limit sharing though when they introduced family sharing.

Good luck convincing devs and publishrrs to jump on board with such idea.

[Ice Cole]

Messaggio originale di 999999999:

How it was intended...

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3784-QLBM-5731#faq

Yeah. I've read it. Thanks, I guess.

I suppose I could argue this doesn't actually say what the intent of the feature is, just the way it's set up. But that's really neither here, nor there. Things don't change without discussion. So, I discuss. Feel free to read my original post if you'd like to know my thoughts on the matter.

[Ice Cole]

Messaggio originale di Zetikla:

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

I did use the search function. I'm sure you're right about this topic being discussed many times over the years. I didn't find any posts that held quite the spirit of what I was trying to say. Many of the ones I found were asking how the function works (or asking for tech support) rather than putting in a request to Steam to change it. Though, many were in other languages, so maybe I missed them.

More importantly, since Steam Support themselves directed me to ask in this way, I am doing so. Perhaps hundreds of threads on this topic is exactly what they want before making a change? I won't presume to know what they are thinking, but I will share this in the manner they've asked.

To address the way the system functions: As stated in my original post it seems to me Steam made the "family library sharing" to allow families to share games. I'm suggesting it doesn't properly provide this function.

nobody ever promised a full on no limit sharing though when they introduced family sharing.

Good luck convincing devs and publishrrs to jump on board with such idea.

I never said they did. I did say I suspect the intent was so families could share their games. I'm also suggestiong it doesn't do a very good job of it.

Also, thanks! I may well need luck on that front.

I know there are quite a few developers who see it in a similar light. There are also many who want every penny they can grab. Many can't see past the greed to understand their customers appreciate a little respect and consideration. I'm hoping we reach Steam, and sway devs in the same direction. Even if it's an opt-in thing.

Blizzard is a great example of providing tools for their customers. That's why Starcraft and Diablo allowed clones. Awesome system, that. I'd just love it if devs and platforms like Steam had a similar level of consideration. Imagine if your Steam account could have little clone accounts. With their own passwords, like some weird alien babies spawned between the love of Steam and it's clients. And those little clone accounts could access what you allow them to access, but they don't share achievements. That'd be sweet.

[76561198001062896]

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

Messaggio originale di Zetikla:

nobody ever promised a full on no limit sharing though when they introduced family sharing.

Good luck convincing devs and publishrrs to jump on board with such idea.

I never said they did. I did say I suspect the intent was so families could share their games. I'm also suggestiong it doesn't do a very good job of it.

Also, thanks! I may well need luck on that front.

I know there are quite a few developers who see it in a similar light. There are also many who want every penny they can grab. Many can't see past the greed to understand their customers appreciate a little respect and consideration. I'm hoping we reach Steam, and sway devs in the same direction. Even if it's an opt-in thing.

Blizzard is a great example of providing tools for their customers. That's why Starcraft and Diablo allowed clones. Awesome system, that. I'd just love it if devs and platforms like Steam had a similar level of consideration. Imagine if your Steam account could have little clone accounts. With their own passwords, like some weird alien babies spawned between the love of Steam and it's clients. And those little clone accounts could access what you allow them to access, but they don't share achievements. That'd be sweet.

business exist to make money, thats all theres to it. They arent your best friends nor should you treat them as much.

companies explicitly crack down on license sharing because it makes them lose cash, in the same vein as why secondhand game market is being killed off more and more.

customer goodwill and respect in itself doesnt pays the bills or puts food on the table.

Its easy to tell how someone should do business when its not your income on the line with it.
You talk about greed but would you happily give up a chunk of your revenue for the sake of trying to win over people who would have bought your games anyway plus a small percentage WHILE losing a considerate amount of money by basically giving up on copies you would have sold? because (at the risk of sounding strawman), by definition it almost makes it sounds like devs and publishers are greedy expecting to make revenue of their intellectual property they made.




Also this would open up a huge can of worms and giving ppl plenty of tools to game the system which is amother reason why this wont happen.


You are free to vote with your wallet just dont be surprised that most companies dont do such, for a very good reason

[Ice Cole]

Messaggio originale di Zetikla:

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

I never said they did. I did say I suspect the intent was so families could share their games. I'm also suggestiong it doesn't do a very good job of it.

Also, thanks! I may well need luck on that front.

I know there are quite a few developers who see it in a similar light. There are also many who want every penny they can grab. Many can't see past the greed to understand their customers appreciate a little respect and consideration. I'm hoping we reach Steam, and sway devs in the same direction. Even if it's an opt-in thing.

Blizzard is a great example of providing tools for their customers. That's why Starcraft and Diablo allowed clones. Awesome system, that. I'd just love it if devs and platforms like Steam had a similar level of consideration. Imagine if your Steam account could have little clone accounts. With their own passwords, like some weird alien babies spawned between the love of Steam and it's clients. And those little clone accounts could access what you allow them to access, but they don't share achievements. That'd be sweet.

business exist to make money, thats all theres to it. They arent your best friends nor should you treat them as much.

companies explicitly crack down on license sharing because it makes them lose cash, in the same vein as why secondhand game market is being killed off more and more.

customer goodwill and respect in itself doesnt pays the bills or puts food on the table.

Its easy to tell how someone should do business when its not your income on the line with it.
You talk about greed but would you happily give up a chunk of your revenue for the sake of trying to win over people who would have bought your games anyway plus a small percentage WHILE losing a considerate amount of money by basically giving up on copies you would have sold? because (at the risk of sounding strawman), by definition it almost makes it sounds like devs and publishers are greedy expecting to make revenue of their intellectual property they made.




Also this would open up a huge can of worms and giving ppl plenty of tools to game the system which is amother reason why this wont happen.


You are free to vote with your wallet just dont be surprised that most companies dont do such, for a very good reason

Of course businesses exist to make money. Of course publishers crack down on license sharing because it can lose them cash not to. Of course good will and respect ALONE don't pay the bills. I touched on it briefly in the original post. It's a basic concept I didn't think I needed to state that expressly for people to understand the point of it.

You act as though I said these companies need to give up their livelihoods just to make customers happy. Not even close. I'm not asking them to allow us to share copies with everyone who wants the game. The opposite really. My kids and wife aren't going to buy a game if I already have it (with rare exception). There's no lost sales because my family uses mine. Steam allows a way to track individual progress. They LIKE to have their own account access it, so we take turns. No sale regardless. Before Steam, we just had multiple copies on multiple computers without issue. No one knew how we set things up and it didn't matter. With Steam, we have our own profiles, but have to schedule with each other. Our public faces can make a mark on the games online presence. Now, people can know how many of us play a game. My kids can play, showing how much they love the product, because they can access it on Steam. Or, they can only play on my account. Leaving no trace of their own footprint to help bolster it's success. What looks better, one person playing a game, or five?

Moving on.

Yes! I would give over a chunk of my revenue to foster rapport with customers. So would every successful business. There are two obvious ways this works: Marketing and customer service.

Marketing first:

Commercials for TV cost a lot to produce. Companies still spend millions on Super Bowl commercials. "In last year’s game, companies had to shell at an average of $4.5 million for a half-minute commercial." See this article for more: https://doyouremember.com/65627/10-expensive-super-bowl-commercials-ever

They do this because image is greatly important. Not just the presence of the company, but how people see it.

Humble bundle exists because of this principle. https://www.humblebundle.com/about On their "about" page, Humble bundle advertises 12,000,000 customers. Twelve million customers. 131,000,000 to charity. That's one hundred thirty one million dollars to charity since 2010. Companies donate billions of dollars to charity because we prefer a company that gives a crap about people. Every company who has games on Humble Bundle does so for two reasons. First, because more exposure for their game is good. Second, because they understand being tied to charities is worth it. Many games on Humble Bundle get put into bundles and sell for a fraction of their regular price.

Every direct sales company (companies who do word of mouth or door to door, like Rainbow, ACN, Kirby, Cutco)... Every direct sales company I know expressly states in their sales pitch they donate to charity. Some focus hard on how "a portion of your money goes to charity". Why? Again, because we want to do business with companies who care.

By the way, marketing includes giving away free copies of games. Yes, companies already give away keys to people who might otherwise buy the game.

Customer service:

Companies boast about great customer service. Why? Why even make this claim? Respect doesn't pay the bills, right?

Customer service is all about respect. There is a whole industry built on outsourcing customer service. (Which means companies hire other companies to talk to their clients. For those who don't know what "outsourcing is".) Customer service is such a big deal, there are whole companies who do nothing but provide customer service for other companies.

Customer service is such a big deal, Amazon, and Google Play are built on this too. Go on the ratings sections for any game with massive downloads. You'll find someone who's dissatisfied and put up a bad review. Know what else you'll find? The company often responds directly to these bad reviews. Sometimes offering help, sometimes offering compensation, right there on a review. Why? Because they know, even if they've lost one customer, being responsive like that can gain more customers. Because respect won't pay the bills, but it can secure the business of people who do.

Steam itself offers a refund on games under certain circumstances. They're known for some of the most strict requirements, but defended by many as being reasonable. Why even do that when they could pass the whole burden to the publisher? Again, customer service. Steam is trying to help be an intermediary and keep customers happy.

Clearly (if you pay ANY attention to business) it pays to treat customers with respect. It pays to leave a good image with clients. And it can destroy a company to fail in doing so. There are companies who stand outside these figures. Those are the outliers though, not the norm. Without a monopoly, any company who isn't willing to give it's customers some respect, fails.

Games and developers fail all the time because they treat gamers terribly. Not all, sometimes the product is good enough, we gamers are willing to put up with a jerk publisher. This industry is still in early stages, though. It used to be easier to keep a strangle hold. When there were a handful of companies who could afford to make games, it was a different matter. Now, any schmuck can make a game. The trick is doing a good job, and having a fan base. As things progress, we'll be seeing more companies fail, and more companies realize they need their fans to appreciate the company, not just the product.

Steam is in new territory. The difficulty here is finding a balance while treading new water. This post is just requesting Steam find a way to do this particular thing sooner, rather than later.

Why do people feel a need to shoot down the idea before Steam even weighs in?

[Spawn of Totoro]

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

Steam is in new territory. The difficulty here is finding a balance while treading new water. This post is just requesting Steam find a way to do this particular thing sooner, rather than later.

Why do people feel a need to shoot down the idea before Steam even weighs in?

The current system is the balance between three parties, the user, Valve and the developer/publisher.

Developers: They don't want shared games as they feel it will cut their sales.
Users: Want to share all their game, just like a console game.
Valve: Wants to please both parties as much as possible, but also prevent abuse of their system.

We have the ability to share our library to one person at a time. This make it to where multiple copies of some games will need to be purchased. It also creates a road block from users trying to rent out their games/accounts to others.

All three are balanced. They may not be what some users want (being able to share multiple games at a single time) or what the developers want (no sharing, wach account has to buy it's own), but it works if you make it work.

Steam is a software platform, not a company.

Valve reads these forums and consideres things in them. They will not respond in them, so you won't see them weighing in on the issue. These forums are for users to discuss suggestions/ideas for Steam and it's services. A discussion will have two sides, not one, so yes, there will be people disagreeing with you and your idea.

Your idea isn't new and has been discussed many times, evern since Steam Family Sharing has been around. The majority of users seems to be fine with it the way it is.
-----
I share my library with my wife and son. Each has their own games as well and duplicates so we can all play together. It has worked out quite well for all of us like this, with everyone having access to eachothers games and the ability to play them.

Yes, I have to run in off-line mode if I want to play my games while he is using my library, but that isn't an issue for me. It also helps we have games on other platforms, so we are not stepping on each others toes and have alternatives we can play.

This may not be true for everyone, but I find it to be an acceptable compromise over not being able to share and having to violate the SSA (and security of the account) by letting my son use my account.

[Ice Cole]

Messaggio originale di Spawn of Totoro:

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

Steam is in new territory. The difficulty here is finding a balance while treading new water. This post is just requesting Steam find a way to do this particular thing sooner, rather than later.

Why do people feel a need to shoot down the idea before Steam even weighs in?

The current system is the balance between three parties, the user, Valve and the developer/publisher.

Developers: They don't want shared games as they feel it will cut their sales.
Users: Want to share all their game, just like a console game.
Valve: Wants to please both parties as much as possible, but also prevent abuse of their system.

We have the ability to share our library to one person at a time. This make it to where multiple copies of some games will need to be purchased. It also creates a road block from users trying to rent out their games/accounts to others.

All three are balanced. They may not be what some users want (being able to share multiple games at a single time) or what the developers want (no sharing, wach account has to buy it's own), but it works if you make it work.

Steam is a software platform, not a company.

Valve reads these forums and consideres things in them. They will not respond in them, so you won't see them weighing in on the issue. These forums are for users to discuss suggestions/ideas for Steam and it's services. A discussion will have two sides, not one, so yes, there will be people disagreeing with you and your idea.

Your idea isn't new and has been discussed many times, evern since Steam Family Sharing has been around. The majority of users seems to be fine with it the way it is.
-----
I share my library with my wife and son. Each has their own games as well and duplicates so we can all play together. It has worked out quite well for all of us like this, with everyone having access to eachothers games and the ability to play them.

Yes, I have to run in off-line mode if I want to play my games while he is using my library, but that isn't an issue for me. It also helps we have games on other platforms, so we are not stepping on each others toes and have alternatives we can play.

This may not be true for everyone, but I find it to be an acceptable compromise over not being able to share and having to violate the SSA (and security of the account) by letting my son use my account.

Thanks for the input. Love the name, by the way.

I have no issue with people giving differing opinions. I rather welcome diversity. Thinking more about it, I suppose it just feels like the other responses were pretending I didn't give this any thought. Opening with a jab like "try using the search function" really doesn't help. It's also hard not to take the bait when someone declares companies don't need to respect their customers. We (companies included) are all just trying to do things the best we can. I know everyone is working from their own perspective though and I try to keep it civil. Call me crazy for wanting respect in a conversation? :) I really am just trying to keep it pleasant and light.

I guess I see community moderators as basically Steam's weigh in. You're exactly the voice (community moderator) I was hoping would be present in the conversation. Maybe it's false perception, but I would think being a moderator means you have to have a better idea than most of us what the company is thinking. So, while not exactly speaking for Steam, we can generally take your word as Steam's. I keep referring to Steam as an individual business entity, I know Valve is the company. I guess it's just easier to treat them as different entities; Steam being the platform we're talking about. My apologies for any confusion on that front.

Just to get it out there. I really do appreciate what Steam has accomplished. There are a lot of services tied to Steam that we couldn't do before. Yes, there are kinks in some of those, but for the most part, Steam does a great job of tying community and gaming together.

As we've both said, it's a balance. I get that. I also get the impression Steam's aim is to be a one-stop option. Having multiple platforms works for my family too. But that means sales Steam misses out on being part of. It also means we're not as present on Steam as we could otherwise be. If the aim really is to connect all our computer gaming use, it's not doing so for us, or others I know. That's my ultimate point.

I don't want companies to lose sales either. Losing sales means losing opportunity to stay in business or improve. It's why I keep talking about balance. I want companies who do good work to stay in business. I think most of us realize if our favorite companies aren't paid, they can't survive. In the days when software pirating was at it's peak, companies still stayed afloat because the majority of us would buy what we pirated if we liked it. There are also companies like Chucklefish who provide their games DRM free and still manage. I don't expect every business to do the same, but their example shows a little trust in customers can work.

And again (as you know) with Steam, we're not able to share like we can with other options. If it was one copy of the game running we were talking about, it wouldn't be an issue for us. It's the whole library. "Sorry, I'm using the kitchen, you can't be in the house." We have multiple copies of Portal, Portal 2, Dungeon Defenders, and some others because we want to play multiplayer, or use them enough to run two at a time. I'm only suggesting locking the entire library because one game is in use is overkill. We can and do work around this. I'd rather not.

I'm not suggesting a free-for-all. I'm not suggesting every game needs to be DRM free. I'm not even suggesting major changes to the system. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow the six people already allowed in a family circle access to separate games at once. I actually know several families who have never joined Steam for this very reason. Frankly, I wouldn't have if Skyrim didn't require Steam when I bought it. Now, I have hundreds of games on Steam, largely because Humble Bundle gives Steam keys with most purchases. Some I even figured "I have a Steam account already, might as well get this key." Aside of Skyrim, every penny I've spent with Steam would not have happened if not for Humble Bundle. In many way's I'm glad I joined Steam.

I agree. The way it works is an acceptable compromise. That's why we use Steam at all. I'd prefer an optimal one, though. I think Steam could do better. If not simply allowing the 6 people family circle access to any game not in use, maybe we find a different way. Perhaps making a more permanent family bind on accounts (like Amazon does). Offshoot children accounts, maybe? Perhaps it also means being more restrictive about having friends access your games. Maybe talking about it, we'll even come up with something we haven't thought of before. Of course Valve/Steam have the final say.

In my family's case, we could violate the SSA, and that would solve most of the issue. We'd all be able to play what we want, when we want. But none of my family wants to do that. We'd rather use our own accounts. We'd rather use Steam as intended. We'd also like to borrow from each other without penalty. I know that's not the intent, but it feels like a penalty for using Steam, when without Steam we could just dual install.

If Valve feels the current standing is the best way to keep it, then no, it won't change. But again, here's me weighing in to say it's not optimal for us. Making it so we could all use different items at the same time would solve it in our case. The same is true of others I know. It wouldn't cut into sales at all for us. We'd still buy the games we want to play. We'd buy more than one to play at the same time and only borrow titles we wouldn't otherwise buy again.

[Spawn of Totoro]

The issue is you are looking at it as a physical object, when it is not. It is as digital license that is bound to a single account.

You are looking at it just form a consumer's point of view.

Think of the diffences between a console and pure digital service.

Allowing it on a per a game basis means that I can rent out my library to X people with minimal interference among them, anywhere in the world. While a physical copy (ie: console) you are limited in doing so.

Do other digital service on PC allows the sharing of games like Valve does on Steam, with the exception of the DRM free games on GOG.com (even then, some are not fully functional with out GOG Galaxy and an account) and even then, there is a limit to the license and what you can do with the game.

That one sale, shared among 6 people, is views by the developer as 5 sales lost. They made 1/6th of what they otherwise would have. Even if only two others purchased it, that would have increased their profit by 200%.

Also, if Valve steps on the devleoper's toes or pushed them, you could see all their game removed from Steam (as happened with EA and Origin) and they most likely won't allow you to share the games at all.

What you may see as fair, other may veiw as taking from them, reguardless of your intent.

We were allowed something that other platforms don't (official) allow on Steam. I honestly don't see a more fair way to create such a system, then the way it is set up. At least not with out pushing more to one side or the other.

We Moderators never speak for Valve, so I so suggest you not take what we say as such. Valve will speak for themselves if they feel a need to, but more often then not, they work through their actions and not their words.

Messaggio originale di Ice Cole:

If Valve feels the current standing is the best way to keep it, then no, it won't change. But again, here's me weighing in to say it's not optimal for us. Making it so we could all use different items at the same time would solve it in our case. The same is true of others I know. It wouldn't cut into sales at all for us. We'd still buy the games we want to play. We'd buy more than one to play at the same time and only borrow titles we wouldn't otherwise buy again.

It would though. If 4 people want to play and you buy one copy and all 4 can play, that just cut into sales. The only wayt for it not to cut into sales is if you buy 4 copies, despite being able to share a single copy.

No matter how you try to do it, it cuts into sales. You wouldn't still buy a copy, but that doesn't translate into 4 sales.

By only allowing the library to be shared and one person allowed at a time, that at least encourages more sales, because if multiple people want to play it enough, then you would buy multiple copies.

This alllows for sharing and reduces the loss that the developer/publisher feels will happen.