Game Sharing In Steam?

[johnace01]

So then guys, I am sure that some of you have seen some news surrounding the code in the latest beta of Steam.

[Andrewr05]

I don't foresee every single game allowing this, but I really like this idea.

[ClayMeow]

I think it's cool, but I hope it's either certain games (like Andrew said), or you have to set up a "circle" a la what MS was going to do with XBO. Open sharing of any game will ruin the industry.

[Guest_Jim_*]

I think it's cool, but I hope it's either certain games (like Andrew said), or you have to set up a "circle" a la what MS was going to do with XBO. Open sharing of any game will ruin the industry.

Perhaps a combination of a circle of anytime access and explicit permission would work. Meaning, I could say let my family have access to my game library anytime they want (though naturally with some limitations so we are not playing the same game at the same time) but if I have a game that Andrew that wants to play (either one of you) I can lend that one game to him, even though he is outside of my circle. Just throwing that out there as an alternative to open sharing and limiting only specific games to being shared.

Could definitely be an interesting and useful feature, regardless of how it is designed. Not sure how much it would affect me though, since I'm the only person in my family with a Steam account.

[rivalary]

I think it's cool, but I hope it's either certain games (like Andrew said), or you have to set up a "circle" a la what MS was going to do with XBO. Open sharing of any game will ruin the industry.

Ruin the industry, how?  Sharing games (in physical form) has been around as long as consoles have been.  

 

For me, I hold on to the good games as they are worth keeping.  Maybe it's a quality issue, hmm?

[ClayMeow]

 

I think it's cool, but I hope it's either certain games (like Andrew said), or you have to set up a "circle" a la what MS was going to do with XBO. Open sharing of any game will ruin the industry.

Ruin the industry, how?  Sharing games (in physical form) has been around as long as consoles have been.  

 

For me, I hold on to the good games as they are worth keeping.  Maybe it's a quality issue, hmm?

 

The physical-copy business is different than digital.

 

If sharing has no restrictions other than not having two people playing at once, it'll reduce game sales, at least for single-player games. For example, I beat FC3: Blood Dragon and it's a great game I recommend anyone picking up. But if I could just share it with friends, why should they spend money on it? I know bp9801 is interested in it, so I'd definitely give it to him to play. That's one less Steam sale. And that's just between two people and one game. Now multiply that by a few million.

[rivalary]

You make a good point.  I suppose the gamers that really support the gaming industry aren't like me, where I tend to pick up a game and play it extensively.  They need people to buy every game that comes out.

 

Blood Dragon looks awesome, but I didn't pick it up as it seems to be one of those games you beat then drop for the next game that comes out.

 

I have quite a few games that are either just too linear or lack replayability so they just sit there now.  I think it's mostly sandbox games or multiplayer games that keep you entertained.  There are classics that are fun to play through multiple times too, though.

[Guest_Jim_*]

It stinks writing long, detailed posts, because then other people can post before you're finished, making whatever you say pointless.

 

At least this I can share:

When Amazon introduced the Kindle Lending Library to Kindle self-publishers (the literary equivalent of independent game developers) it kept the rules about how often a specific title can be shared, and how many titles can be shared within a given time period. Amazon also added a pot of money, at first $500,000, then $700,000, and now it is at a flat $1,000,000 for each month. That money is divided amongst the different shared titles, so even if people were to have a book shared with them and finish it before having to give it back, meaning they do not need to purchase a copy, the publisher/author still get something out of it. Not sure if Valve could do the same, but that's how Amazon encourages self-publishers to use the library.

[johnace01]

I think it is a great idea, there are lots of games my friends have that I would love to try but am not willing to pay for just in case I don't like it, things like Tomb Raider. I think it could boost the sales of games people like and maybe stop people torrenting their games.

Although I do see how it could 'ruin the industry' with people buying less games potentially and this could cause PC games (or at least Steam games) prices to get higher, I still think that it is a great thing for them to try.