Family share should add back the option to kick another person off a game

[Netsu]

In the old family share, if the game owner wanted to play a game, it would simply kick the other person playing that game off. This was fine, as we did it often without conflicts. Now, you buy a game, and if someone else is playing it, you simply have to either wait it out (which sucks a lot if they're just in idle and not actually playing the game at the moment), or go offline, which is not the end of the world, but still a drag. We just feel, as the person who purchased the game, you should have primary access over it before any beneficiaries of family share. This is especially annoying if your whole family wants to play the same game that only 1 person owns, so someone will constantly be on the game, keeping you from playing. Steam should add back the option for an owner of a game to kick someone off of the game, or switch them to a different copy of the game that someone else owns (if applicable).


And while it is possible to simply ask the family member to skoot so you can play, if there comes a day you are just not in the mood for socialising, or if you've had conflict with the member recently, then talking to them may not be something you're willing to do

[76561198407601200]

Originally posted by Netsu:

In the old family share, if the game owner wanted to play a game, it would simply kick the other person playing that game off. This was fine, as we did it often without conflicts. Now, you buy a game, and if someone else is playing it, you simply have to either wait it out (which sucks a lot if they're just in idle and not actually playing the game at the moment), or go offline, which is not the end of the world, but still a drag. We just feel, as the person who purchased the game, you should have primary access over it before any beneficiaries of family share. This is especially annoying if your whole family wants to play the same game that only 1 person owns, so someone will constantly be on the game, keeping you from playing. Steam should add back the option for an owner of a game to kick someone off of the game, or switch them to a different copy of the game that someone else owns (if applicable).


And while it is possible to simply ask the family member to skoot so you can play, if there comes a day you are just not in the mood for socialising, or if you've had conflict with the member recently, then talking to them may not be something you're willing to do

The last paragraph is essentially what you would need to do.

[BJWyler]

If you are unable to ask a member of your family to log off so you can play the game so frequently as it to be a problem, I would say that you have other issues that need to be resolved instead of Valve implementing something just so you can avoid conflict.

At the end of the day, Family Sharing is an unrequited convenience that Valve and the devs allow to exist on Steam. If your family enjoys playing a game so much, the right thing that you should be doing is everyone buying a copy for themselves so that the devs can be paid for their time and effort into making the game.

[Netsu]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

If you are unable to ask a member of your family to log off so you can play the game so frequently as it to be a problem, I would say that you have other issues that need to be resolved instead of Valve implementing something just so you can avoid conflict.

At the end of the day, Family Sharing is an unrequited convenience that Valve and the devs allow to exist on Steam. If your family enjoys playing a game so much, the right thing that you should be doing is everyone buying a copy for themselves so that the devs can be paid for their time and effort into making the game.

Fair enough, in this hypothetical scenario it would be a you issue only

Thing is, in many third world countries, buying multiple copies of a $70 game within the same month or two is often simply not feasible to many people, especially with games pumping up priceses more and more, ignoring recommended pricing for a country
Also, the feature has already been implemented before, would it really be such a big ask to just re-implement it?

Not having the feature isn't the end of the world, but it does, however, provide a lot in terms of convenience, especially when you take into consideration what I said about people that might leave their computer on idle while they're in the game or forget to turn off their computer, while it's still in the game leaving everyone else locked out of the game until said person is back at home or whatever to exit the game

[Netsu]

Originally posted by The Living Tribunal:

The last paragraph is essentially what you would need to do.

Yes, it was simply an example scenario, albeit not a good one

[76561198407601200]

Originally posted by Netsu:

Originally posted by The Living Tribunal:

The last paragraph is essentially what you would need to do.

Yes, it was simply an example scenario, albeit not a good one

No scenario given would be a good one. Family sharing has its rules and limitations, families having disagreements or other conflicts is not Valve's concern. People simply know need to be conscience of which family members they invite.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Netsu:

Thing is, in many third world countries, buying multiple copies of a $70 game within the same month or two is often simply not feasible to many people, especially with games pumping up priceses more and more, ignoring recommended pricing for a country

Well, at the end of the day, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Gaming, despite being more affordable today than it ever has been (comparitively speaking with inflation and the cost of living), it is still a non-essential luxury hobby. Developers and publishers deserve to be paid for their work. They still need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Not everyone is going to be able to afford to play computer games in every place in the world. That's just the facts of life. Heck, I live in America and can't afford all the things I want and would like to have. So I make choices based on what I can afford. I don't ask for handouts. I accept the fact that there are things that are going to be out of my reach financially. It's unfortunate that it seems the gaming community has this very strange obsession with being entitled to play video games, to the point where they even bend over backwards to justify stealing them.

Originally posted by Netsu:

Also, the feature has already been implemented before, would it really be such a big ask to just re-implement it?

Honestly, not really. To me it's not that big of a deal. I can theorize on why they made this change. Perhaps it's another method of combating fraud via library renting. I would imagine that no longer being able to kick someone out who you are sharing your library to when you want to play a game will discourage people from renting out their accounts to others who are not family.

Originally posted by Netsu:

Not having the feature isn't the end of the world, but it does, however, provide a lot in terms of convenience, especially when you take into consideration what I said about people that might leave their computer on idle while they're in the game or forget to turn off their computer, while it's still in the game leaving everyone else locked out of the game until said person is back at home or whatever to exit the game

And again, if being used properly, one should be able to access the computers to which one is sharing and simply log off any idle session that may be locking out others from playing the game. In all reality, the only ones this feature would negatively affect are the ones who aren't really using the Family Sharing feature in the way it is intended to be used - by members of the same family living under the same roof.

[Netsu]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Well, at the end of the day, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Gaming, despite being more affordable today than it ever has been (comparitively speaking with inflation and the cost of living), it is still a non-essential luxury hobby. Developers and publishers deserve to be paid for their work. They still need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Not everyone is going to be able to afford to play computer games in every place in the world. That's just the facts of life. Heck, I live in America and can't afford all the things I want and would like to have. So I make choices based on what I can afford. I don't ask for handouts. I accept the fact that there are things that are going to be out of my reach financially. It's unfortunate that it seems the gaming community has this very strange obsession with being entitled to play video games, to the point where they even bend over backwards to justify stealing them.

I don't even understand where're you're coming from lol, never did I say I don't want to pay developers or steal games, I just said I wanted to kick others from games I purchased and want to play lol, like telling your sister to get off the xbox so you can play your new game instead, don't know why you're being this hostile about a simple feature request

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Honestly, not really. To me it's not that big of a deal. I can theorize on why they made this change. Perhaps it's another method of combating fraud via library renting. I would imagine that no longer being able to kick someone out who you are sharing your library to when you want to play a game will discourage people from renting out their accounts to others who are not family.

I can understand that, I primarily think it's something they just didn't get around to rather than not implement it to combat something

Originally posted by BJWyler:

And again, if being used properly, one should be able to access the computers to which one is sharing and simply log off any idle session that may be locking out others from playing the game. In all reality, the only ones this feature would negatively affect are the ones who aren't really using the Family Sharing feature in the way it is intended to be used - by members of the same family living under the same roof.

No? My older sister doesn't live at my house, like most adults, we still have family, and just like how I'd give access to my younger sister, while she still lives with our parents - it's "family share" not "in the same house" share

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Netsu:

I don't even understand where're you're coming from lol,

Really? Because I quoted what I was responding to:

Originally posted by Netsu:

Thing is, in many third world countries, buying multiple copies of a $70 game within the same month or two is often simply not feasible to many people, especially with games pumping up priceses more and more, ignoring recommended pricing for a country

Originally posted by Netsu:

never did I say I don't want to pay developers or steal games, I just said I wanted to kick others from games I purchased and want to play lol, like telling your sister to get off the xbox so you can play your new game instead, don't know why you're being this hostile about a simple feature request

No hostility on my part. I just tell it like it is, and don't sugar coat the details.

Originally posted by Netsu:

I can understand that, I primarily think it's something they just didn't get around to rather than not implement it to combat something

There's usually reasoning to why Valve does, or does not do something. Sometimes it's not always good reasoning, but it's there.

Originally posted by Netsu:

No? My older sister doesn't live at my house, like most adults, we still have family, and just like how I'd give access to my younger sister, while she still lives with our parents - it's "family share" not "in the same house" share

Yeeeaaaahhhh ... perhaps you should have read the Steam Family support page first:

Originally posted by Steam Family FAQ:

Who can be in a Steam Family?

While we know that families come in many shapes and sizes, Steam Families is intended for a household of up to 6 close family members.

To that end, as we monitor the usage of this feature, we may adjust the requirements for participating in a Steam Family or the number of members over time to keep usage in line with this intent.

My sister lives in a different country, which prevents us from using the feature in the same Steam Family, and we are OK with this limitation because we know why it is there.

[Netsu]

Ahh sorry, didn't mean to interpret it as hostile then

Originally posted by BJWyler:

While we know that families come in many shapes and sizes, Steam Families is intended for a household of up to 6 close family members.

I stand corrected

I would still love to have this feature, but if Valve thought that this better sharing system requires this to help prevent abuse, then I'll accept it - thanks for clearing things up mate