I think what people are failing to understand is people weren't upset at Microsoft introducing this method of sharing, I think a lot of people liked the news, but the fact it was the digital restrictions put in place which meant they had to put the system in place. PC Games have been digital for so long, with an audience that is used to this, and in an eco-system where games are cheaper as a result and that's why it seems like it's being accepted more.

Has it been said that borrowers can receive cards from borrowed games? Don't remember reading anything about that on the info page.

Also, Valve does not take 15% of card sales. I think 10% of that goes to the developer.

Different platforms, different plans, different markets, different players. What Microsoft wanted to do was to completely remove the option of selling used games from its system, and the account sharing stuff only worked locally. Are you saying you honestly can't see the difference between that and Steam's approach? We know you hate PC gaming, but, come on... it's something so basic and obvious that it goes beyond your blind fanboyism!

ok no need to be a jerk about it guys. He actually has a perfectly valid point, Microsoft were trying to emulate Steam with their policies very directly.

I think the real point of contention is that people still trust Valve... they had an extremely bumpy controversial time launching Steam. Valve however weren't launching their own hardware platform and could afford to push through all the negativity and earn the trust they now have. Microsoft on the other hand have not earned anyones trust over the way their digital distribution methods work. Games on Demand prices are still absurdly high compared to retail prices and the confusing profile system still in effect on the 360 doesn't help matters.

Its not that Microsoft didn't have some good ideas they just went about communicating them very badly and haven't put the work in to earn the consumer trust that would allow them to go ahead with these kinds of policies. They backed down as a bumpy launch for a console along side its competitor would have been suicide... shortsighted on their part really.

It's really strange that people's primary complaint is that you can't share a game with someone and continue playing a different game.

Let's look at the issue for Valve here:

1. Valve needs money to operate

2. If no restrictions on access to games that other users haven't purchased exist, Valve and other publishers are going to lose money, because one person is charged, and 9 others are given a free, unadulterated game.

3. ???

4. Profit... or lack thereof.

You can't just say "Well I want all these rights to play these games", when you just don't own those rights, for better or worse. It's a little depressing, but Valve is kinda being generous by allowing non-purchasing users to play the entirety of the game for essentially free - even if that player is not earning cards or achievements for their own account.

Except this was the one and only good idea MS had for their bs online stuff. A tiny miniscule gleam of sunlight amongst a sea of liquid shit. And then they dropped the feature, and now Valve is doing it, and on PC no less. It's almost hilarious.

Which is funny again because Microsoft was implementing Steam in all but name until people booed it off the system entirely. Truly odd.

What's the point of sharing it in the first place.

"Yeah sorry, dad/niece/friend/etc., I know I said you could play that Call of Duty game, but I really need to play Prison Architect, so yeah, go buy your own CoD or just wait couple of hours until I finish my sessions."

There really isn't a difference between being locked out and deciding to stay off. If you're not a complete asshole, you know you wont just kick your family members from the games just so you can play.

So yes, it's pretty much the same as it is now, when someones logged to your account, you can't do shit with all the 200+ games you have on it, when you log in, the other guy is kicked out and you take over the control of the library.

Where the hell is the difference if they allow per-game selection of sharing and letting you play other non-shared games in that library or the whole library and making it inaccessible in the mean time.

Developers/Publishers wont get more money either way, I bought the games already, the one whos playing them wont spend a penny.

All this is, is an easier way to share your account, without Steam Guard annoying you with emails with codes to unlock it, it's not like people are not sharing their accounts now.

Exactly.

Steam introduces.... pregnant controllers!

What? I can't believe you don't understand what the difference is. The difference between locked out and not locked out is that when you are locked out you cannot access your games and when you aren't you can. It's not rocket science. I share my games with my friends and they can try out whatever I have or play it. When I log in, they're booted out and I play. If I shared my password, they could do with my account whatever they want, they would unlock achievements I didn't earn, they would add game time that isn't mine and most importantly, if I wanted to play I need to ask them nicely to log out so I can log in.

What the difference is? Everything. I'm not giving anyone my password and change my stats in the process, not to mention having to trust them with it. I would totally share my library though and it would be awesome to try out the games someone else has bought.

I almost can't believe you think this is a bad thing.

So how long until someone starts a cross-globe buddy finding thread on the forums where people list the GMT times when they're likely to be using Steam?

The answers to your persecution complex can be seen throughout this comment thread. It wasn't the same, it isn't the same, and the thing people like here is something they liked in the One.

You don't have to share your account information and CC, essentially. Otherwise, not much. Just makes it a little easier.

@katelyngadd said:

I wouldn't say it makes it useless, but yeah, this is a nice idea that has some way to go. Digital lending is in its infancy, though, give it time.

Now all I need is a license trade-in program and I'll be happy. I have a lot of stuff I no longer play or want, and would love to get out of my Steam library. If I could get a little something back towards something new, that would be awesome.

Now all I need is a license trade-in program and I'll be happy. I have a lot of stuff I no longer play or want, and would love to get out of my Steam library. If I could get a little something back towards something new, that would be awesome.

lol, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the xbone version was way better. Only issue people had with that was that all games were considered digital downloads even if you bought the disk. Only reason i put up with steam is because i don't know anybody with a computer decent enough to even trade games with anyway, they all console game.

@joeyravn: indeed it is. hopefully gta V comes to the pc!

How do you sign up for the beta....?

I'm more curious to see what other company is going to adopt this same policy later. Valve always feels like it's dipping it's toe into something too scared to fallow through, but recently they don't seem that conservative with their policies and programs.

It sounds like just a more secure way of sharing your account. It's not much, but better than sharing your password. Will we ever get something closer to what Xbox One was supposed to have? Maybe in the future, but not yet.

Still no clarification on whether sharing different games from the same library simultaneously is possible?

Nobody's tried contacting Steam?

I can still play my Bioshock Infinite, while my brother can play my SpaceChem or SMB

Which is funny again because Microsoft was implementing Steam in all but name until people booed it off the system entirely. Truly odd.

@alexglass: You share the whole library or nothing. One player at a time per library. So if you share to 10 friends only one of you can play from your library at once.

This is just another sales approach, nothing more. You can try your friends games however if you want to play something full time you need to buy it. That is it. Nice "buy and try" with social aspect as you want to play with your friends.

I honestly doubt that you will be allowed to share the library without being locked out. It would violate many licensing agreements. Valve being what it is still is to small to battle top production studios.

I'm confused...right now you can install Steam on as many computers as you want, but it can't run at the same time...okay, I guess that's what this is dealing with then, you can still install it wherever you want, and this is something different...

Not bad, so long as you the account holder can deauthorize someone!