Todas las discusiones > Foros de Steam > Suggestions / Ideas > Detalles del tema
shaggytoph 1 OCT 2024 a las 3:20
Publishers Intentionally Disabling Family Sharing After Launch, Despite It Being Available at Release
Since Steam is leaning heavily on their new "Family Sharing" as a service, I think they should hold publishers accountable when they release games with Family Sharing enabled & after a few months, the publishers decide to disable Family Sharing. This is basically false advertising from publishers; now we cannot share the game anymore which we previously bought specifically with the intention of sharing.

Examples:
In both cases I was able to share those games with friends for some weeks, they got some achievements, but now they cannot play anymore.
Since refunds are always denied if you play more than 2 hours, I just want a solution for this in the future if this happens again. Implementing guidelines for publishers or consequences for such actions would protect consumers from losing access to features they relied on when making their purchase.
Última edición por shaggytoph; 1 OCT 2024 a las 3:27
< >
Mostrando 31-45 de 45 comentarios
William Shakesman 1 OCT 2024 a las 7:32 
Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on the PSN integration in Helldivers 2, as it presents a similar issue. Many of the counterarguments being used regarding the removal of Family Sharing can also apply to the sudden requirement for PSN accounts in Helldivers. Seems like a double standard.
Well if people read the store page that was required since Day 1, so that's not comparable.

However due to backlash, they removed it.
That doesn't really matter. There is lots of false requirements and information on the store pages. Up until the requirement was enforced, it was not required when people played, so people were right to assume it was just another false bit of info. The users were completely justified in that measure.




Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:

The solution is to remove family share to avoid legitimate customers being banned for the actions of those they put misplaced trust in.
Exactly, I'm completely fine if games are marketed as "not available for family sharing" from the very beginning. But if it already has family sharing, don't go out of your way as a developer to disable it 1 year later (Chivalry 2) for no apparent reason and without giving any explanations.
It kinda sucks to learn the lesson that family sharing is arbitrary and can be removed after the fact after you already made your buying decisions based on it but I think you have to price it in from now on. It is a difficult question. "I bought it because it had X feature and for arbitrary reasons they removed X feature" is the platonic ideal case of deserved refunds, but family share is not just an X feature. Making it happen is complicated and the use and abuse cases muddy it up further. Devs have a justifiable reason to remove it and there really is no disclaimer or warning anywhere about those things nor could there be. Two totally justifiable needs intersect here and it is a tough situation to really defuse. Sometimes you just get screwed in these edge cases.
#31
Mad Scientist 1 OCT 2024 a las 7:39 
Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:
Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:
Well if people read the store page that was required since Day 1, so that's not comparable.

However due to backlash, they removed it.
That doesn't really matter. There is lots of false requirements and information on the store pages. Up until the requirement was enforced, it was not required when people played, so people were right to assume it was just another false bit of info. The users were completely justified in that measure.
If we're being truthful about it, the requirement was listed, and they did inform people there was an issue with implementing it at the moment and it would be required in their announcements. Until of course, the backlash as it'd affect people in areas PSN is unavailable, likely an important detail Sony left out.

Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:
It kinda sucks to learn the lesson that family sharing is arbitrary and can be removed after the fact after you already made your buying decisions based on it but I think you have to price it in from now on.
Most Devs use it due to the abuse causing their legitimate customers to get banned. It should be treated like demo access, nothing more, as that will put a realistic thought into peoples minds that it can be removed since they did not pay for the product. People feel overly entitled in regard to access when they paid nothing, so seeing it and treating it like a demo will make them more humble about the fact they even get most features without paying subject to change.

Even some MMOs would give you a time-limited or level-limited demo in the past, else, a friend invitation which gave a limited amount of time at either limited or unlimited features, but then you'd have to pay. Never buy a product solely because it has family sharing unless you completely understand that it is subject to change, and should be treated only like demo access.

People need to be realistic about these things especially for Multiplayer.
#32
Brian9824 1 OCT 2024 a las 7:46 
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on the PSN integration in Helldivers 2, as it presents a similar issue. Many of the counterarguments being used regarding the removal of Family Sharing can also apply to the sudden requirement for PSN accounts in Helldivers. Seems like a double standard.

Completely different. Family sharing from Day 1 has always been known that developers could opt out of it at anytime for any reason.

Helldivers 2 change made the game unplayable for people in many regions and prevented what they bought and had been using from working. Removing family sharing doesn't make the game unplayable.

Again yeah you are mad that you thought it would always have family sharing, now you know that your assumptions were incorrect and just because a game might have family sharing doesnt mean they will always have it.

If you want to know why it was removed i'd post in the forums and email the developers and ask them. For all you know it was removed because they felt it was costing them sales, and whatever the reason its their right to do so. Developers only agreed to family sharing in the first place because they have the option to opt out.
#33
CANCELCULTURE 1 OCT 2024 a las 7:55 
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Since Steam is leaning heavily on their new "Family Sharing" as a service, I think they should hold publishers accountable when they release games with Family Sharing enabled & after a few months, the publishers decide to disable Family Sharing. This is basically false advertising from publishers; now we cannot share the game anymore which we previously bought specifically with the intention of sharing.

Examples:
In both cases I was able to share those games with friends for some weeks, they got some achievements, but now they cannot play anymore.
Since refunds are always denied if you play more than 2 hours, I just want a solution for this in the future if this happens again. Implementing guidelines for publishers or consequences for such actions would protect consumers from losing access to features they relied on when making their purchase.

Get a lawyer. Claim bait and switch. Removed Functionality, Discontinued Feature. Have your lawyer read and explain to you any SSA or EULA, that states that they are protected from engaging in any unethical bad business practices of switching, removing, discontinuing features after they have taken your money. You own nothing, you control nothing.
Última edición por CANCELCULTURE; 1 OCT 2024 a las 7:58
#34
Brian9824 1 OCT 2024 a las 8:12 
Publicado originalmente por CANCELCULTURE:
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Since Steam is leaning heavily on their new "Family Sharing" as a service, I think they should hold publishers accountable when they release games with Family Sharing enabled & after a few months, the publishers decide to disable Family Sharing. This is basically false advertising from publishers; now we cannot share the game anymore which we previously bought specifically with the intention of sharing.

Examples:
In both cases I was able to share those games with friends for some weeks, they got some achievements, but now they cannot play anymore.
Since refunds are always denied if you play more than 2 hours, I just want a solution for this in the future if this happens again. Implementing guidelines for publishers or consequences for such actions would protect consumers from losing access to features they relied on when making their purchase.

Get a lawyer. Claim bait and switch. Removed Functionality, Discontinued Feature. Have your lawyer read and explain to you any SSA or EULA, that states that they are protected from engaging in any unethical bad business practices of switching, removing, discontinuing features after they have taken your money. You own nothing, you control nothing.

Yes please get a lawyer and keep us informed on what he says once he stops laughing.
#35
Mad Scientist 1 OCT 2024 a las 8:14 
Publicado originalmente por CANCELCULTURE:
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Since Steam is leaning heavily on their new "Family Sharing" as a service, I think they should hold publishers accountable when they release games with Family Sharing enabled & after a few months, the publishers decide to disable Family Sharing. This is basically false advertising from publishers; now we cannot share the game anymore which we previously bought specifically with the intention of sharing.

Examples:
In both cases I was able to share those games with friends for some weeks, they got some achievements, but now they cannot play anymore.
Since refunds are always denied if you play more than 2 hours, I just want a solution for this in the future if this happens again. Implementing guidelines for publishers or consequences for such actions would protect consumers from losing access to features they relied on when making their purchase.

Get a lawyer. Claim bait and switch. Removed Functionality, Discontinued Feature. Have your lawyer read and explain to you any SSA or EULA, that states that they are protected from engaging in any unethical bad business practices of switching, removing, discontinuing features after they have taken your money. You own nothing, you control nothing.
This suggestion would be extremely harmful and detrimental to the individual even financially devastating and should not be suggested whatsoever.

The person buying the product gets the product. As what you sign states things can be subject to change, and the other person does not get a license, no license is guaranteed nor is extended access via another person having a license promised to remain.

I wouldn't recommend giving harmful advice.
#36
William Shakesman 1 OCT 2024 a las 9:31 
Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:
Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:
That doesn't really matter. There is lots of false requirements and information on the store pages. Up until the requirement was enforced, it was not required when people played, so people were right to assume it was just another false bit of info. The users were completely justified in that measure.
If we're being truthful about it, the requirement was listed, and they did inform people there was an issue with implementing it at the moment and it would be required in their announcements. Until of course, the backlash as it'd affect people in areas PSN is unavailable, likely an important detail Sony left out.

Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:
It kinda sucks to learn the lesson that family sharing is arbitrary and can be removed after the fact after you already made your buying decisions based on it but I think you have to price it in from now on.
Most Devs use it due to the abuse causing their legitimate customers to get banned. It should be treated like demo access, nothing more, as that will put a realistic thought into peoples minds that it can be removed since they did not pay for the product. People feel overly entitled in regard to access when they paid nothing, so seeing it and treating it like a demo will make them more humble about the fact they even get most features without paying subject to change.

Even some MMOs would give you a time-limited or level-limited demo in the past, else, a friend invitation which gave a limited amount of time at either limited or unlimited features, but then you'd have to pay. Never buy a product solely because it has family sharing unless you completely understand that it is subject to change, and should be treated only like demo access.

People need to be realistic about these things especially for Multiplayer.
It is not a question of entitlement to things for free as OP literally bought games expecting this feature only for it to be removed. If the product can change freely, the renumeration absolutely should be able to too.

That said practically addressing the actual issue, the devs can turn off sharing and have a legitimate practical reason to. It is an annoying intersection where you have to "just know" this feature is conditional despite nothing formal being written about it. Businesses shouldn't be encouraged to take advantage of those loopholes but they have to exist and this case is justified. Just a tough question all around. OP got screwed but there is no way to really meet all the needs at play and create a system where people like OP do not get screwed.



Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:
Publicado originalmente por CANCELCULTURE:

Get a lawyer. Claim bait and switch. Removed Functionality, Discontinued Feature. Have your lawyer read and explain to you any SSA or EULA, that states that they are protected from engaging in any unethical bad business practices of switching, removing, discontinuing features after they have taken your money. You own nothing, you control nothing.
This suggestion would be extremely harmful and detrimental to the individual even financially devastating and should not be suggested whatsoever.

The person buying the product gets the product. As what you sign states things can be subject to change, and the other person does not get a license, no license is guaranteed nor is extended access via another person having a license promised to remain.

I wouldn't recommend giving harmful advice.
Read to the end. He says a lawyer would tell you you cannot do anything
Última edición por William Shakesman; 1 OCT 2024 a las 9:33
#37
Brian9824 1 OCT 2024 a las 10:04 
Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:
It is an annoying intersection where you have to "just know" this feature is conditional despite nothing formal being written about it.
False
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/593110/view/4605582245626919823

Family Sharing is a feature that developers may opt their games out of for technical or other reasons at any time.

They even explicitly tell you they can opt out of sharing at any time
#38
Start_Running 1 OCT 2024 a las 13:04 
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:
By that logic, if the game didn't launch with Family Sharing, a dev shouldn't go out of their way to enable it. CIOnsidering the policy of Family Sharing has changed, why would you expect dev/pubs to be alright with it?
Do you have any examples of publishers enabling Family Sharing in games where it was previously disabled? I haven't seen that happen. I just want them to leave it untouched as how they released.
Can't say that I do. It's not a feature i pay attention to in my purchasing or shoping. But irt stands to reason. Every other feature is something devs can add our remove.
Multiplayer, Co-Op, Online Multiplayer, COntroller Support, Trading cards, cloud support, etc,

Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Publishers determine which tags appear on their game pages, such as 'Single Player,' 'Steam Achievements,' and so on. 'Family Sharing' is a feature they can choose to include or remove. If they list it on the store page at launch, they are essentially marketing their game with that feature. Removing it a year later feels disingenuous.
No more than netflix removing a show from their catalog, or your cable company dropping a channel

Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
If it’s a case of oversight, that’s irresponsible, considering the multiple confirmation steps involved in publishing a game. This creates a loophole that Steam should address to prevent more games from taking advantage of it.

No loophole to be addressed. Thje feature is like any other feature. Subject to change.. The dev'
s responsibility is to make sure that the featureset listed on the store page matches their current offering.
#39
shaggytoph 1 OCT 2024 a las 16:43 
Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:
No loophole to be addressed. The feature is like any other feature. Subject to change.
Do you guys know that on consoles, publishers can't opt out of family sharing? All games are shared across 2 consoles by default, it’s a policy they have to follow on consoles, so it wouldn't matter for them to do the same in PC, we're paying the same as them.
When I made this post, I was thinking of a similar rule for Steam — where publishers wouldn't be allowed to suddenly 'opt out' of Family Sharing without having a consequence. Right now, they can disable it anytime & it’s essentially taking away a feature that was advertised at launch in the store page.

Since Valve is putting so much effort into Family Sharing, I believe there should be a policy change to prevent publishers from removing it after a game has been advertised with the feature. Just like there’s currently a cooldown for Family Sharing groups since last update, there should be a similar cooldown for publishers who want to disable Family Sharing, such as requiring a 365-day waiting period before they can turn off the feature if it was previously enabled. This would give consumers more security when making purchase decisions.
That's all, I just want security as a consumer that publishers aren't gonna screw me over disabling features after I made my purchase decision based on them. At the moment, Steam isn’t providing that security with Family Sharing. It’s frustrating to buy a game expecting to share it, only for the feature to be removed later. Why would Steam market such a feature if they cannot enforce it & there's a loophole Publishers can exploit?
#40
Brian9824 1 OCT 2024 a las 16:52 
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Do you guys know that on consoles, publishers can't opt out of family sharing?
Did you know that consoles are completely different then PC's and Microsoft has complete authority. Unlike on PC Microsoft can tell developers do what we want or you can't access the Xbox market.

Steam can't do that as developers have other options to access the PC market. Not to mention Microsoft is willing to take losses in sales because getting users to buy an xbox locks them into buying their games. That doesnt work with steam as your not locked into Steam.
#41
Start_Running 1 OCT 2024 a las 17:01 
Publicado originalmente por Brian9824:
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Do you guys know that on consoles, publishers can't opt out of family sharing?
Did you know that consoles are completely different then PC's and Microsoft has complete authority. Unlike on PC Microsoft can tell developers do what we want or you can't access the Xbox market.
Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony and all the othger own real monopolies on their respective console eco systems and that's basically how it has been since forever... of course thats why there are fewer and fewer console exclusives. Devs ain;'t plaing that game and have flipped the script.
#42
Crazy Tiger 1 OCT 2024 a las 23:11 
Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Why would Steam market such a feature if they cannot enforce it & there's a loophole Publishers can exploit?
Valve will markrt it because it's a feature. One that is optional, even.

Valve *can* enforce things, but that's not how Valve works. They never forced such features on devs, they're very pro dev-choices, so to speak.

It's not a loophole either, mind.

The mistake here is that you think you have a right to an optional feature. You don't.

If you think otherwise, you can go to your local consumer agency or go the legal route.
#43
Malfunctioning Robot 1 OCT 2024 a las 23:24 
You, the purchaser, lose nothing if they disable family share. Nor is family share something you are promised or guaranteed upon purchase.
#44
cSg|mc-Hotsauce 2 OCT 2024 a las 0:02 
It is on by default at release, except for games with 3rd party account/launchers.

By default Family Sharing is enabled on all games and DLC on Steam.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/families

Publicado originalmente por shaggytoph:
Examples:

And MWII was disabled 3 days after the official launch (October 28 release and October 31st sharing is disabled).

https://steamdb.info/app/1938090/history/?changeid=16559027

Mainly because people were sharing the campaign Advanced Access and MP after release and Activision forgot about sharing being a thing.

It is also why Activision stopped Advanced Access for BO6.

:nkCool:
Última edición por cSg|mc-Hotsauce; 2 OCT 2024 a las 0:09
#45
< >
Mostrando 31-45 de 45 comentarios
Por página: 1530 50

Todas las discusiones > Foros de Steam > Suggestions / Ideas > Detalles del tema
Publicado el: 1 OCT 2024 a las 3:20
Mensajes: 45
Comenzar una nueva discusión

Normas y directrices sobre discusión