Concurrent gameplay

[The Big Cap Kidd]

Steam Support told me to add this discussion here.

When my kids were younger and didn't play games often, I purchased several games for them to play. Now that they are older and able to play more often, we are constantly having conflicts when trying to play games.

I can understand not being able to have 2 instances of the same game going at the same time, but not being able to play 2 different game concurrently is a problem. If I purchased hard copies of 2 separate games, we would be able to play both of them on separate machines at the same time; however, because I purchased them digitally, I can't.

If I were able to transfer those purchased games to a new account set up for my kids, this problem would be solved, but I can't.

Would it be possible to be able to have concurrent games available as long as each machine is at the same IP?

As a side note: I was told to sign up with a shared library, but this doesn't help because shared libraries still cannot have concurrent play. If I was able to have shared and non-shared games AND was able to play one title from each category concurrently, this problem would be solved. (i.e. If LEGO Batman was shared and Elite: Dangerous was non-shared, my kids could play LEGO Batman while I play Elite: Dangerous.)

[Crazy Tiger]

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

Messaggio originale di Crazy Tiger:

If they have Steam codes and you redeem them on the same account, yes, same problem.

Well obviously if I have to link them to my Steam account, I would have the same problem as if I bought them on Steam. It should have been obvious that I wasn't talking about that.

You'd be surprised how many people forget that obvious thing, hence why I point it out.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

What is the problem with a used market?

Ask the publishers, they've been trying to kill of the secondhand market for decades now. Due to digital licensing, they also succeeded in killing the second hand PC market. Consoles still have that market, though it's shrinking.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

Is it really that much different from someone waiting until the game is on a deep discount?

Yes, because the publishers don't see money from those.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

The devs make so little during one of these sales that it may as well have been at a used market.

Making a little still is more than making nothing

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

In fact, it wouldn't be all that difficult to allow people to sell their "used" licenses for games they don't play any more and give a portion of that to the devs.

Except that there is no actual point to doingthat AND to keeping deep sales.

Let alone how you leave accounts open for abuse. Say you have a brainfart and click a wrong link, your account gets hijacked and when you get it back, all your games are sold. We already get threads from people who had their accounts hijacked and got an empty game list, because the hijacker used the permanently hiding feature through the support pages to remove all the games.

There is no actual upside for Valve and the developers/publishers to change it.

[Gwarsbane]

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

That's kind of my point. A digital used market would not have any real overhead for the devs and they could have a portion of the sale price.

They already have a portion of the sales price. Do you really think they would accept less than 70% of the sale price and Valve would accept less than 30%?

Out of 100%, that leave 0% for the user to get.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

Do you know why they got their way with locking games to accounts and would get away with forcing subscriptions? Because people put up with it. If they lost sales due to trying to force subscriptions on people, they'd stop forcing subscriptions. Same goes for forcing account linking.

BAHAHAHHAHAA you think users would actually do anything about this? No they won't, how do I know this? Just look around at all the crap that they are putting in games that is REALLY REALLY bad for consumers yet people just don't care, buy it up and they keep coming up with more ways to screw the people. Case in point Doom Eternal and Denuvo DRM and now putting in the Denuvo Anti-cheat which both open up security issues and general performance issues but well people don't generally care. The anti-cheat stuff will be over and forgotten by most by the end of the month.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

How is this any different from the devs getting a small portion of a license resale?

Because the devs/publishers set the price, they get 70% of that price and Valve gets 30%. Why would either one of them settle for anything less than the price that they set things at.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

You really can't think of any way around that? Like maybe a predetermined resale value? (i.e. I no longer want my copy of Dishonored. I decide to put it on the Steam used market. Steam places it on the market for the predetermined resale value. If/when someone want the game, they can buy it for the reduced price and I will get my small percentage of the resale. When there are no used licenses available, you can only purchase an unused one. Dishonored currently sells for $10, I bought it at about $3 on sale a while back. If Steam set a used license of Dishonored at $5 and $3 went to the dev, it would be the same as them putting it on a severely limited sale.)

They would never allow you to sell it for more than you bought it for and they would never let used copies be sold for more than what ever the lowest price its been on steam for.

And if you bought it outside of Steam on some 3rd party site they have no idea if you got it for free or some other price so anything bought outside of steam (if they allow such things after this) would be considered worth 0 dollars as they have zero ways to actually prove you paid what you claim you paid for it.

And yet again, they currently get 70% of what ever price they set, and Valve gets 30%, why would they settle for less?

So since they should not allow it to be sold for more than the lowest price, a week or so after it first goes on sale it they put it on sale for 3 cent for 20 minutes during the daily server reset at 10am PST when the servers are in chaos and people have issues buying stuff so less people can actually get their hands on it. But because Valve lets developers sell the games for what ever price they want, the 3 cent for 20 minutes is now the lowest price its ever been on sale for, so all the used prices will be no more than 3 cent. They know most people won't bother selling their game just to get 1 penny so that means far less of those games on the used market.

And yes, this would be totally legal for them to do and no Valve would not stop them because they would prefer to get 30% of the new sale price.

How do I know this would happen? Just look at the crap DRM they are putting in to games.


If for what ever reason Valve did say no to the 1 cent 20 minute sales, which they can't unless they put it in new contracts they sign for new game, you can pretty much kiss sales goodbye and because the devs set the sale price for the used stuff, they would set it higher than the new price just to make sure they get the price that they want. So if you get 5 bucks, they will set the price of a 60 dollar used game to something like 65, you get the 5 bucks, they get 70% of 60 and Valve gets 30% of the 60.

They will find a way to make the used market not worth it and legally no one will be able to stop them.

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

They could also have time locks for newer games, like they do with movies in the theater vs when they are available on Blueray. You can't resell your new release game for a certain amount of time after the launch. By that point, there would be a negligible loss in sales.

They will set that time as high as they can for it. If they can set it for 2 years, they will set it for 2 years. If there is no time limit, most will more then likely set it for like 5 or 10 years. Again as long as there is no law &/or nothing in the contract saying they can't, they will.

[Crazy Tiger]

Consumers have the power by voting with their wallet. Very few consumers have the spine to actually do that.

[Brian9824]

Messaggio originale di The Big Cap Kidd:

That's kind of my point. A digital used market would not have any real overhead for the devs and they could have a portion of the sale price.

So i'm a developer. I have a game I sell for $60, why would I sell a "used" digital copy that costs the exact same as a "new" digital copy and take $20-30 instead of $60?

Why would I sell 10,000 used copies costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Why would Steam let you do this and lose money off their cut?

Your only looking at it from the perspective of how YOU profit, and not looking at the entire industry.

[Happyphreak]

As a father, I too have this issue with my children. What seemed like a good idea at the time, will end up costing me extra in the end. I have no desire to play KSP or Universe Sandbox, but my son does, so I bought the games and added to my account.

Where I think STEAM could make a difference, would be to allow parents to add child accounts and then purchase games and assign to these accounts, then once the children are old enough for their own accounts, they would then have the ability to break free from the chains of Parental controls. In addition, the children could play their games and the parents could play theirs simultaneously. IF the parent wants to play the same game, they buy another copy. SIMPLE. BUT STEAM is preoccupied with the masses and family options are not at the top of their priorities (which I understand). BUT, because of this limitation, my kids prefer not ask for steam games anymore because sometimes daddy wants to play and they can't, so ROBLOX, or XBOX it is. Too bad.

[Brian9824]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

Where I think STEAM could make a difference, would be to allow parents to add child accounts and then purchase games and assign to these accounts, then once the children are old enough for their own accounts, they would then have the ability to break free from the chains of Parental controls.

You have that now. There is absolutely no reason you can't make an account for your kids and then put the games on there. Many people do so, and when my kids are a little older that is what I will be doing. When the kids are old enough you give them the login credentials and they can change it.

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

In addition, the children could play their games and the parents could play theirs simultaneously. IF the parent wants to play the same game, they buy another copy. SIMPLE. BUT STEAM is preoccupied with the masses and family options are not at the top of their priorities (which I understand).

Again, already works that way, create them their own account as that is the goal.

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

BUT, because of this limitation, my kids prefer not ask for steam games anymore because sometimes daddy wants to play and they can't, so ROBLOX, or XBOX it is. Too bad.

Make their own account.

[Happyphreak]

Messaggio originale di brian9824:

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

Where I think STEAM could make a difference, would be to allow parents to add child accounts and then purchase games and assign to these accounts, then once the children are old enough for their own accounts, they would then have the ability to break free from the chains of Parental controls.

You have that now. There is absolutely no reason you can't make an account for your kids and then put the games on there. Many people do so, and when my kids are a little older that is what I will be doing. When the kids are old enough you give them the login credentials and they can change it.

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

In addition, the children could play their games and the parents could play theirs simultaneously. IF the parent wants to play the same game, they buy another copy. SIMPLE. BUT STEAM is preoccupied with the masses and family options are not at the top of their priorities (which I understand).

Again, already works that way, create them their own account as that is the goal.

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

BUT, because of this limitation, my kids prefer not ask for steam games anymore because sometimes daddy wants to play and they can't, so ROBLOX, or XBOX it is. Too bad.

Make their own account.

Good idea, BUT THEY AREN'T 13 YRS OLD. This is the point. There is an age limit to accounts. This is what caused most parents to buy games for their kids on their own accounts. Sometimes when you follow the rules you get steamrolled. I could make accounts for the kids and LIE about their age and locking with a PIN under family settings. BUT, I don't understand why all the kicking and screaming from everyone when all that we want as PARENTS is a better way! One that is more manageable. For instance, Microsoft (though FAAAAR from perfect) has family settings that lets me manage the accounts from within my own. It works pretty good. I can buy games for them, I can limit screen time, I can do all sorts of things. STEAM is a gaming community and has tons of games for people under the age of 13. So why not try and do better.

That's all.

[Brian9824]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

Good idea, BUT THEY AREN'T 13 YRS OLD. This is the point. There is an age limit to accounts.

There is an age limit to CREATE the account

The minimum age to create a Steam User Account is 13

Nowhere does it say someone UNDER 13 can't use an account you created.

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

STEAM is a gaming community and has tons of games for people under the age of 13. So why not try and do better.
That's all.

Hence why they can use an account you made, they just can't create their own until they are 13.

Steam even TELLS you to make an account for your children
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5149-eopc-9918

We encourage you to create a Steam account with your child. If there are features of Steam that you would like to exclude from the experience, you can restrict access using Family View.

[Gwarsbane]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

Messaggio originale di brian9824:

You have that now. There is absolutely no reason you can't make an account for your kids and then put the games on there. Many people do so, and when my kids are a little older that is what I will be doing. When the kids are old enough you give them the login credentials and they can change it.




Again, already works that way, create them their own account as that is the goal.



Make their own account.

Good idea, BUT THEY AREN'T 13 YRS OLD. This is the point. There is an age limit to accounts. This is what caused most parents to buy games for their kids on their own accounts. Sometimes when you follow the rules you get steamrolled. I could make accounts for the kids and LIE about their age and locking with a PIN under family settings. BUT, I don't understand why all the kicking and screaming from everyone when all that we want as PARENTS is a better way! One that is more manageable. For instance, Microsoft (though FAAAAR from perfect) has family settings that lets me manage the accounts from within my own. It works pretty good. I can buy games for them, I can limit screen time, I can do all sorts of things. STEAM is a gaming community and has tons of games for people under the age of 13. So why not try and do better.

That's all.

The age limit is to make an account. Since you are the adult you are the one making the account. You are also suppose to be overlooking your kids while they play games so you will have full control.

I believe there is even parental controls for those accounts too.


By allowing transfer of games from one account to another people will abuse it to sell games to others. Even if you have to connect the accounts and log into the "child" account from the "parent" account, can only transfer from the parent account to the child account and you can't disconnect them after that point leaving the parent account in full control of the child account, you're going to have people doing that and then we'll be seeing LOTS of complaints about losing access to their account, and people begging steam to let people disconnect these child accounts from the parent accounts, why? Because people are stupid and Valve can't fix stupid.

Then you have the legit reasons to disconnect a child account from a parent account and thats because the parent thinks the child is old enough to look after the account themselves and/or they turn 18 (adult age in most of the world) and the parent account no longer wants/requires the child account connected to their parent account.

I know I would not want my children's accounts connected to my account if they are adults.

So if you have legit accounts able to disconnect, it means you're going to allow people trading/selling games to each other to do the same.

And having a minimal time before they can disconnect seems pretty pointless if the parent creates a new account for the kids connects them up, then wants to disconnect them again.

Again it opens up huge opportunity for scammers to scam money out of other people, take their accounts. It will cause a HUGE in flux of spam of people whining on the steam forums and to steam support who are busy enough with actual important stuff.

And if you do it one way, people are going to complain, and if you do it another way, people are going to complain, and if you don't allow it at all people are going to complain. Valve is going to pick the way less people are going to complain and thats to not do it at all.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

As a father, I too have this issue with my children. What seemed like a good idea at the time, will end up costing me extra in the end. I have no desire to play KSP or Universe Sandbox, but my son does, so I bought the games and added to my account.

Where I think STEAM could make a difference, would be to allow parents to add child accounts and then purchase games and assign to these accounts, then once the children are old enough for their own accounts, they would then have the ability to break free from the chains of Parental controls. In addition, the children could play their games and the parents could play theirs simultaneously. IF the parent wants to play the same game, they buy another copy. SIMPLE. BUT STEAM is preoccupied with the masses and family options are not at the top of their priorities (which I understand). BUT, because of this limitation, my kids prefer not ask for steam games anymore because sometimes daddy wants to play and they can't, so ROBLOX, or XBOX it is. Too bad.

It's probably a good lesson to them to learn that buying from places that use DRM authenticators like Steam causes a hassle.

Basically Steam wasn't really built with the parent gamer in mind. It was built with the idea that every person has their own set of games and the most they do is to let their brother or sister play for a little while, basically playing on their computer, because you can't use the same library at the same time.

It's honestly best to pick up the games DRM-free when possible. (KSP and Universe Sandbox do happen to be on GOG (at least, I haven't checked other DRM-free stores), but I'm guessing you've already bought your children second copies of the games already, so this might be moot for you. But at least you know for future reference.)

(That said, I wonder if you can run the Steam versions of KSP and Universe Sandbox without starting Steam. It works for some games. Could help if you're already stuck with Steam copies.)

[Crazy Tiger]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

Messaggio originale di brian9824:

You have that now. There is absolutely no reason you can't make an account for your kids and then put the games on there. Many people do so, and when my kids are a little older that is what I will be doing. When the kids are old enough you give them the login credentials and they can change it.




Again, already works that way, create them their own account as that is the goal.



Make their own account.

Good idea, BUT THEY AREN'T 13 YRS OLD. This is the point. There is an age limit to accounts. This is what caused most parents to buy games for their kids on their own accounts. Sometimes when you follow the rules you get steamrolled. I could make accounts for the kids and LIE about their age and locking with a PIN under family settings. BUT, I don't understand why all the kicking and screaming from everyone when all that we want as PARENTS is a better way! One that is more manageable. For instance, Microsoft (though FAAAAR from perfect) has family settings that lets me manage the accounts from within my own. It works pretty good. I can buy games for them, I can limit screen time, I can do all sorts of things. STEAM is a gaming community and has tons of games for people under the age of 13. So why not try and do better.

That's all.

As per usual, any situation you can think of can and will be abused. Yes, you want to do it with your kids. Other people will do it with their friends, where one will act as the parent and the others as the children. Hey look, free games.

I simply made an account for my daughter, had a good talk with her about responsibilities and did not add a payment option to her account. Any game she wants goes through me, as I simply gift it to her. Works pretty well, actually.
I wish it was different, I really do.

[Happyphreak]

"Steam is an online service offered by Valve.

You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by completing the registration of a Steam user account. This Agreement takes effect as soon as you indicate your acceptance of these terms. You may not become a subscriber if you are under the age of 13. Steam is not intended for children under 13 and Valve will not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 13."

I agree, there are far too many people that would rather argue then work together. All I want is a system that is easier to manage. And as you see from the T&C's, steam is not intended for children under 13. So be it.

Steam DOES not recommend creating accounts for your children under the age of 13. Which I guess is fine, it's not meant for kids, therefore why create the tools for kids. I get it.

I also disagree with transferring games and also used game markets. My original scenario of purchasing the games for the child accounts makes the most sense, once they are of age the accounts can be split with no issues of licensing. All I ever wanted was an easier way to manage the kids. Steam does not currently allow children under 13, I personally would like the age lowered, but I understand. At no point was I complaining, just asking.

Cheers,

[Happyphreak]

I simply made an account for my daughter, had a good talk with her about responsibilities and did not add a payment option to her account. Any game she wants goes through me, as I simply gift it to her. Works pretty well, actually. [/quote]

This surely is an option for everyone, but it goes against the T&Cs, which not many people actually read anyway. lol

[Crazy Tiger]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

Steam does not currently allow children under 13, I personally would like the age lowered, but I understand.

That age of 13 is related to COPPA, nothing more and nothing less. Steam most certainly allows kids under 13, as long as it's supervised. There are parental controls with a reason.

[Brian9824]

Messaggio originale di Happyphreak:

"Steam is an online service offered by Valve.

You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by completing the registration of a Steam user account. This Agreement takes effect as soon as you indicate your acceptance of these terms. You may not become a subscriber if you are under the age of 13. Steam is not intended for children under 13 and Valve will not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 13."

I agree, there are far too many people that would rather argue then work together. All I want is a system that is easier to manage. And as you see from the T&C's, steam is not intended for children under 13. So be it.

Steam DOES not recommend creating accounts for your children under the age of 13. Which I guess is fine, it's not meant for kids, therefore why create the tools for kids. I get it.

I also disagree with transferring games and also used game markets. My original scenario of purchasing the games for the child accounts makes the most sense, once they are of age the accounts can be split with no issues of licensing. All I ever wanted was an easier way to manage the kids. Steam does not currently allow children under 13, I personally would like the age lowered, but I understand. At no point was I complaining, just asking.

Cheers,

If you don't want to listen that's fine, but steam DOES tell you to create accounts for your kids. Again its right here - https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5149-eopc-9918

The section you typed that details 13 year olds is under - 1. REGISTRATION AS A SUBSCRIBER; APPLICATION OF TERMS TO YOU; YOUR ACCOUNT ⏶

As its been said under 13 they can't register for an account, but they can still use it.