Steam Beta Update Hints at Borrowing Steam Games from Friends

[ríomhaire]

For anyone participating in the current Steam client beta, their steamui_english.txt file has been updated with some interesting new strings hinting at the possibility of Steam allowing users to borrow games from their friends. The strings in question are:

1. "SteamUI_JoinDialog_SharedLicense_Title" "Shared game library"
2. "SteamUI_JoinDialog_SharedLicenseLocked_OwnerText" "Just so you know, your games are currently in use by %borrower%. Playing now will send %borrower% a notice that it's time to quit."
3. "SteamUI_JoinDialog_SharedLicenseLocked_BorrowerText" "This shared game is currently unavailable. Please try again later or buy this game for your own library."

There's no more information on this system, but it could be a response to the game loan and family accounts systems that Microsoft had previously announced for the Xbox One, which have since been cancelled and removed from the console. Whatever it involves, we're sure it'll be a great new feature for Steam.

 

[AzureNinja99]

It seems that every company is allowing game sharing now just to bash Microsoft. But I don't have a problem with that.

 

[ríomhaire]

My guess is this is partially to keep Valve's console thing competitive with other consoles. Current consoles allow you to have multiple accounts logged in at once on a single machine and play any game that any of the accounts bought. My guess is you'll be able to designate one machine per account to have a shared library with all other accounts on that machine.

 

[amtherik]

Oh, looks like this week video is gonna have more info than just dota updates .

 

[Sonic]

I wonder how VAC will work with it.
Not that I am worried about it but I am interested in what is their idea about that.

 

[KKiONI]

Well this is certainly interesting. I like the idea of it too. Based on the dialogue, it seems that both users can have access, but only one can use it at a time. Wonder how this will work exactly; I would expect it to have some sort of time limit.

I wonder how VAC will work with it.
Not that I am worried about it but I am interested in what is their idea about that.

VAC status is per-profile. So theoretically, if you let a friend borrow a game and he uses cheats in a VAC-enabled game, the ban will be on his profile. That is to say, with the current system. Who knows, maybe they might throw a minor penalty to the account that authorized the borrow.

 

[Sonic]

Well this is certainly interesting. I like the idea of it too. Based on the dialogue, it seems that both users can have access, but only one can use it at a time. Wonder how this will work exactly; I would expect it to have some sort of time limit.


VAC status is per-profile. So theoretically, if you let a friend borrow a game and he uses cheats in a VAC-enabled game, the ban will be on his profile. That is to say, with the current system. Who knows, maybe they might throw a minor penalty to the account that authorized the borrow.

Hmm probably, my second wonder is that, what happens with cd key based games? Because if you get the cd key from your friend, some cd keys don't allowed to be activated 2 times, if it's given a different cd key, it can be used in a product, not downloaded from steam, example: Call of Duty 4, or GTA IV and such.

 

[KKiONI]

It's likely that only a selection games will support it. The feature has the possibility to either boost game sales or intrude on them, so it can definitely be make or break depending on the circumstances. I would expect this to be up to each developer to choose. Makes sense that way.

 

[AzureNinja99]

If anyone is looking for it, C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\Public\steamui_english.txt

 

[Sonic]

It's likely that only a selection games will support it. The feature has the possibility to either boost game sales or intrude on them, so it can definitely be make or break depending on the circumstances. I would expect this to be up to each developer to choose. Makes sense that way.

Yeah most probably.
Because knowing EA and Activision as greedy as they are they won't accept it.

 

[Vegeta897]

It's likely that only a selection games will support it. The feature has the possibility to either boost game sales or intrude on them, so it can definitely be make or break depending on the circumstances. I would expect this to be up to each developer to choose. Makes sense that way.

It's funny, because any game developers that lose sales due to gamers being able to lend their games out to someone only have themselves to blame, for making overly cinematic and linear (and non-mod-friendly) games that have no replay value. The same concept applies to game devs getting upset for people posting videos on youtube of their games. If you actually made your game have player freedom and actual gameplay value outside of the step-by-step carefully engineered cinematic experience you designed, people would want to buy your games after seeing them played. DayZ is a great example. People who see a DayZ video see nothing but possibility and freedom. They want that experience for themselves. They don't see what every other player is going to see, like in so many singleplayer 'games'.

 

[ríomhaire]

It's funny, because any game developers that lose sales due to gamers being able to lend their games out to someone only have themselves to blame, for making overly cinematic and linear (and non-mod-friendly) games that have no replay value.

This is not just a response to you in particular Vegeta but just an outpouring of feelings from all the times I've seen this sentiment online: Oh **** off. Not every game needs to be playable for 500 hours. Not every game needs replay value. I don't need to be able to sit down and rewatch Blade Runner two thousand times for it to be a good film, I don't need to read The Left Hand of Darkness for a hundred hours for it to be a good book. I like my linear, tailored, isolated experiences. A suggestion that devs should focus on trying to make people play their game for as long as possible should be the focus of development is quite aggravating for me, especially when you're suggesting they should do it just for monetary reasons.

Edit: Especially when we're in the comments section of a news post concerning the series that pretty much inspired the whole overly cinematic and linear shooter thing.

 

[KKiONI]

Good point, however, games are not movies. Watching movies in theatre or purchasing them on DVD are also cheaper (typically) than buying brand new games. While games don't necessarily have to have hundreds of hours of gameplay packed into them, they should at least allow for various experiences to be had.

 

[Vegeta897]

This is not just a response to you in particular Vegeta but just an outpouring of feelings from all the times I've seen this sentiment online: Oh **** off. Not every game needs to be playable for 500 hours. Not every game needs replay value. I don't need to be able to sit down and rewatch Blade Runner two thousand times for it to be a good film, I don't need to read The Left Hand of Darkness for a hundred hours for it to be a good book. I like my linear, tailored, isolated experiences. A suggestion that devs should focus on trying to make people play their game for as long as possible should be the focus of development is quite aggravating for me, especially when you're suggesting they should do it just for monetary reasons.

Edit: Especially when we're in the comments section of a news post concerning the series that pretty much inspired the whole overly cinematic and linear shooter thing.

1. Games are not movies or books. Not sure what you're trying to prove with that comparison.
2. I never said devs should focus on gameplay length, nor did I say they should be doing it for monetary reasons. These are conclusions you're drawing that I was not implying.
3. Half-Life, even though a story-based linear game, still has a shit ton more variety to offer the player than most singleplayer games today. And plus, it's one of the most modded games in history.

I do not understand why you interpreted my post as being about the amount of time you spend with a game. I'm talking about diversity of experience. I'm talking about the game offering value that can't be conveyed through video footage.

Edit: Obviously not every game needs to follow this pattern, but I'm sick of seeing $60 huge budget games that are so on-wheels that developers get angry about people posting gameplay videos. I don't mind paying 10 bucks for a cool indie game that doesn't offer much in the way of variety, because it's a small game at a small price, and usually has a lot more creativity.

 

[Skyace65]

for anyone not up to date with the latest console news. Microsoft removed the always online from xbox1, and in turn now no longer has game sharing. so it looks like this won't put steam on level playing field anymore, its going to put it ahead

 

[Xewt]

Skyace65

for anyone not up to date with the latest console news. Microsoft removed the always online from xbox1, and in turn now no longer has game sharing. so it looks like this won't put steam on level playing field anymore, its going to put it ahead​

What do you mean by game sharing? With getting rid of the 'online check-in' DRM they also decided to change the sharing model back to its original form. I'm not sure if the internet connection's 'unnecessary' status is a new thing to Xbox1.

An internet connection will not be required to play offline Xbox One games – After a one-time system set-up with a new Xbox One, you can play any disc based game without ever connecting online again. There is no 24 hour connection requirement and you can take your Xbox One anywhere you want and play your games, just like on Xbox 360.
-Official MS Statement

If you read the article on Kotaku you'll also find that none of the digital sharing changes Microsoft planned on implementing will come to fruition. Is that what you were referring to?

Regardless, I find the XB1 news interesting. There is speculation as to how much freedom a Steam user will get with advances in digital sharing on their platform of choice, but digital sharing in a limited form is still a leap forward in the industry. With MS not allowing digital game sharing as it was before (not sure in what capacity) they're still clinging to the monkey bars after the bell has rung for lunch. They aren't allowing themselves to access new levels of customer respect through allowing them wholly new experiences. One of these experiences for purchasers is finding new levels of value in their goods, something Valve understands.

Xbox1 will be superior to its predecessor in a few keys ways, no doubt, but there is no redefining of the fundamentals of the platform, something that could be extremely beneficial to them. The new system is Xbox Shiny.