Around AOTF ×
Platforms
More

Valve Announces Steam Family Sharing

| September 11, 2013

Valve Announces Steam Family Sharing News PC Gaming  Steam

Steam players will soon be able to share games across computers through a new family sharing plan. It will allow close friends and family members to share libraries of games for the PC, Mac, and Linux. The feature is due to hit beta next week.

This family sharing features allows these authorized accounts access to game libraries, as well as the functionality of storing personal saves via the cloud and earning personal achievements for the titles.

“Our customers have expressed a desire to share their digital games among friends and family members, just as current retail games, books, DVDs, and other physical media can be shared,” explained Anna Sweet of Valve. “Family Sharing was created in direct response to these user requests.”

Family Sharing will open to 1000’s of Steam accounts in mid-September.

Become a contributor and write about games at AOTF!
Say Something
  • Crapgamer

    Are we pretending that this is a good thing? Or maybe it’s only a good thing because it’s not Microsoft offering it? I think it’ll be interesting to see peoples reaction to this since people complained so much about this when Microsoft announced it.

    • Jonny Hercock

      In all fairness, people complained about Microsoft’s version because console gamers aren’t used to DRM and sharing like this. They didn’t think the system would work for consoles.

      I never had a problem with it, and still don’t, but I’m not sure it’s necessary.

      • Crapgamer

        I never had a problem with it because I saw great sales like on Steam but on my Xbox One. Of course you’ll need DRM check in if you’re lending digital titles to friends or family. Otherwise they can just unplug their internet and steal the game. People complained because it was Microsoft.

        Mark my words, when Sony’s “backwards compatibility” service through Gaikia is online only, you buy a game and can only play it while constantly connected to the internet, nobody will give two craps about it.

        • James

          Obviously Gaikai service will be online only cause you’ll be streaming the games. Its like you are expecting people to complain that you need internet to use PSN or Live.

          This is an added service by Sony, you’re not obliged to take it.
          MS wanted ALL its games to be online. You could not play anything if you didn’t have internet. Thats the difference.

          • Crapgamer

            Added service or not, when you buy a game from that service, shouldn’t you have the ability and right to own the game and play it even offline? Seems that’s what people were complaining about with the Xbox One originally.

            Xbox One had a 24 hour check in, which granted might have been a bit much, I would have been fine with a check in every couple of weeks or something. As for this Family Sharing program from Steam, it’s the same thing Microsoft was offering but it’s getting a much different reception.

            Don’t suppose I’m surprised though, this generation has really shown me the most hypocrisy of any other.

          • James

            Again, how do you play a streamed game offline? Just doesn’t make sense. Its like you’re complaining that you can’t play a mmorpg offline. Sorry but your example is irrelevant.

            Also I don’t think the family sharing was something negative and what people was against. It was all the things that was announced previously, (DRM, no sharing/trading, used games fees, selling only through MS’s partners…)

          • Crapgamer

            My point is that you buy a game off the service right? Yet you don’t own it. Most of Microsoft’s next gen games were supposed to be highly online, and take use of the Cloud. If you look at where gaming is going as a whole with Destiny, Titanfall and The Division, you see that games are going online only anyway.

            You actually would have been able to share games with people, there would have been absolutely NO used game fee. And it’s funny that so many people care about their rights, but abuse the industry by supporting used games. It cripples developers, small ones in particular. I guess it’s okay though, eventually we’ll only have a handful of AAA developers shoveling sequel after sequel down our throats, but as long as we can buy them for $5 less used we have our rights!

          • James

            You buy the right to play a game through their online only service. Nobody is forcing you to do so. You know what you are paying for.
            Being in a major city I don’t have problems with always online, but what it did was it made the X1 totally useless as a game console for people with poor/no internet or for those who go on holidays to places with no internet connection.

            There would have been a used game fee as people had to sell your license to certain retaillers (MS’s partners) and if you wanted to get a used game you’ll need to pay some indirect fee to MS!!

            Oh please don’t get me started about used games. Yes, I support the fact that i can sell games. I won’t sell games that are I like and are worth it. But how many present games are worth the 70€(~90$) for some 7-10 game play? Games are overprices as it is. I’m sorry but if I don’t like a game I want to be able to sell it at the price that I want and not what some MS partner wants to pay for it.

            Second hand markets have never in the history of any product that has existed harmed an industry. People has been buying and selling used games and trading for 30 years and the industry NEVER had a problem before. If you see its not the “small” developers or indies that complain about used games but the major companies like EA or Activation.

            People who buy used games either can’t afford to pay the overpriced new game or are just buying it because they would have never bought the game otherwise. When I sell my games up I mostly use it to buy new games. Gamestop’s president said 70% of trade in credit goes towards new game purchases.

            In my case, if used games was not allowed or controlled, I would have sold less and bought A LOT less new games. And in many people’s case they would have simply not bought games. Less people would be into console gaming. Games would be less popular and that would lead to the slow death of the industry.

            Used games is actually a good thing for the industry and specially for us gamers. And its not because EA, Activation, Microsoft, Sony says its a bad thing that its necessarily true.

            The game industry is the only one that wants to be paid twice for a product sold.
            MS wanted a cut of the used game industry. Personally I don’t mind paying few bucks to developers(not publishers) but I will always be against MS (or Sony) getting anything of it.

            LOL this takes me few months back.

          • GK15

            Well MS wasn’t going to take any fees at all from the sale of used games. They officially stated that on Xbox Wire. It was completely up to devs.

            And the used games retailers would have been any retail store that registered (Gamestop, Best Buy, EB, any mom and pop store, etc.). This was to prevent people from selling copies of games illegally or outside of a retail store. The end result was that you most likely would have had an extra $5 – $10 added to the price of used games, with some money going back to the devs that make the games.

            2nd hand games sales didn’t seem to become extremely popular until Gen 6 (PS2, Xbox), now everyone does it. The devs lose millions, used game stores make millions, and the answer will be more Indies and F2P micro transaction type games.

            I suppose congratulations are in order?

          • James

            Yeah so selling and trading outside retailers is such a bad thing?
            I like how you say some of the extra 5-10$ will go to developers. No idea what is going where. This is not taking money from retailers like gamestop but taking it from gamers. Meaning it is us the losers in the story and the winners are publishers (like EA, MS) and retailers (like gamestop) wins. I just love how big coorporates make us gamers go against each other for THEIR benefits.

            Used games stores make millions then why not try to get a share of THAT? Taking from the gamers is sooo much easier right? Dev lose millions? Not really. Most people buy second hand because they can’t afford overprice games. They would have never paid to money to get the game. Plus the money got from selling is mostly reinvested in new overprice games.

            Good games will sell. Crap that cost developers huge to make will fail. Its so simple if you intend to make bad games, cut production cost or don’t even bother.

          • GK15

            At the end of the day, it wasn’t the right time for an all digital/DRM model. It would have worked for me as I’m always online (ethernet) and I if I buy or sell used games 99% of the time, I do it at a retail store. I’ll trade buying and selling outside of retail for having my entire games library with me at all times and sharing my games digitally any day of the week.

            I also have faith in the laws of demand, the “invisible hand” as it were. That is what forced MS to change their policies in the first place. And much the same way that MS changed their policies because of bad PR, poor pre-orders or whatever, the laws of demand would have dictated that we would have seen reasonable prices for digital games, much like we do on Steam.

            As far as buying and selling used games on XB1. The fact that MS said they wouldn’t take a fee and leave it up to devs, the Gamestop CEO promising seamless transition of buying and selling used games, and again the laws of demand, I suspect that devs would have been taking a cut of the used games sales, but the difference would not have been unreasonable. Again, they would have had to have been reasonably priced in order for people to buy them and I don’t think retailers like Gamestop would have been willing to eat all of the cost, so I am assuming a $5 – $10 mark up.

            I don’t think MS went about it the smartest way, but we wouldn’t have known exactly how it worked until we saw it in practice. I also think that most of the backlash was unwarranted. Many people think that they were going to destroy gaming and that is just simply not true.

            There are also articles flying around that MS is trying to strike up deals with ISP’s like Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Sky, etc. for a partnership offering a subsidized XB1. This would explain a lot. Imagine getting an XB1 for $199 from (I guess the pound equivalent and Sky if you live in the UK) an ISP and signing a 2 year contract with the ISP. This is much like how cell phone plans work. You would be virtually guaranteed to have the internet and at that price point, the XB1 would be as common as a cable box. Would add a lot of value to digital sharing and being able to take your games library anywhere right? Imagine being able to Skype virtually anyone just by telling it to. Also explains why the XB1 is made to work so closely with your cable box, why MS was willing to have an “online” (24 hr check in) console and why they are all in with Kinect.

            Things haven’t quite lined up yet, but there is a lot of potential for the future and DRM might not be such a bad thing eventually.

          • James

            Yes totally agree. It wasn’t the right time for DRM although I think MS could have made it work with better PR, communication and given a bit more to gamers. It was very difficult to put in place and may have thought Sony would do the same. As soon as Sony didn’t they were screwed.

            I know that you would always pass through retailers but not everone does that. I hardly ever sold directly to retailers since the price they are offering is so small compared to what they will sell it from. Also buying second hand directly from people is mostly always cheaper.

            Blocking such type of transaction just benefited big companies like Gamestop who would have the monopole of the market. It would obviously be good for them and bad for us.

            Well for me the backlash was justified. I was against it because I thought(and think) it would have harmed us gamers and in the long run the gaming industry.

            I think the problem is that they were simply not ready themselves. The communication and PR was horrible. They just fed us small information here and there, often contradicted previous statements and rumoured deals should have been sorted out long before the launch date. They used to come with statements like “more details will be available later”. Not going with a clear straight forward strategy was a big mistake.

            They could have made it work if they worked better. Blaming gamers for its failure is really unfair. I think.

          • GK15

            The hypocrisy, rage and slander were outrageous when the XB1 was announced. I just don’t think people understood well enough.

            Admittedly though, MS could have made things much simpler with the option to be able to play offline if you had the disc. That would have solved and justified a lot.

          • James

            Ok why hypocrisy? I mean after the May 21st reveal I was against these policies. There were so many contradicting statements that we didn’t really know where we were heading. I was clearly saying at the time if Sony does the same then hell with the PS4 too. In fact many people were saying the same. It was more than just a Sony-MS silly fanboy thing. It was a about where gaming was heading.

            Also the much simpler option makes a lot of sense except that MS wanted control of the used games market. Thats the reason why I never understood why they didn’t keep the DRM and family sharing for digital version.

          • XBOXsucksUknowIT

            You have 167 comments on Disqus and I don’t agree with a single one of them. You are a pathetic moron, spewing disinformation everywhere to try and make your pathetic ass look and feel better.

            You should crawl in a hole and just stay there. Don’t come out, you are hideous, you are unwanted, you are a troll. Stay the fauq away from me you leper.

          • Crapgamer

            So I’m the fanboy when your user name is XBOXsucksUknowIT? Seems legit!

            I don’t make comments for people to agree, I forge my own path and don’t really care who agrees with me. I don’t really give a damn what some random people on the internet think. I pity you if you actually do. I enjoy gaming, do reviews and write for a couple of sites, mostly opinion pieces because I love games and gaming in general.

            I always love it when people read my past comments and can’t come up with valid rebuts and instead resort to angry name calling. I consider that a debate win for myself.

      • James

        If you are going to implement DRM and steam-like digital only then the price of the games should have naturally come down, yet MS were greedy and kept the same price as disc based games.

        What pissed of a lot people is
        1) MS greedy in keeping the same price for digital copies
        2) inability to resell or trade off your digital (60$) games
        3) inability buy used games without passing through MS

        People felt they were losing a lot of the stuff they had on previous systems without getting much in return. And it was not just a MS thing. The #NoDRMPS4 twitter movement was the proof of that.

        • Crapgamer

          First of all, Microsoft couldn’t implement cheaper prices for digital until they went digital only. It was possible a couple of years down the road, it’s not greed. It’s business, you have deals with retail in place, you can’t have them boycott your products because you undercut them.

          In what world right now can you sell or trade digital games? Also Microsoft is actually going to introduce reselling digital games down the line for Xbox One, it’s a feature that would have came a bit later on.

          You would have been able to go into a Gamestop and buy a used game, same as now. There would have been no difference. People fear change and I get that, but in 5 years when the new consoles come out and we don’t even get the freedoms and features Microsoft offered with the Xbox One, idiots wont have anyone to blame but themselves. We are obviously headed towards a digital future, and the only way to prevent pirated games is to implement some sort of DRM.

          I think people were blind to what they were actually getting.
          1.Ability to play any game without switching discs
          2.Ability to share games with people with no discs
          3.Instant game switching
          4.Cheaper games via digital download
          5.First console to allow digital re-sale

          The no DRM Twitter movement wasn’t what stopped Sony from adding DRM, the fact is that the time just wasn’t right and Sony saw an opportunity to try and be the white knight. Problem is, now that Microsoft has all the same features and more, and in my opinion a much stronger launch lineup and appealing 2014 lineup, how long can Sony live off those same old digs on Microsoft? They might have been able to scare some people into buying a PS4 instead, but when Xbox One owners are playing legit next gen games on dedicated servers, some people who opted for the PS4 out of fear might regret their choices.

          Just glad I got in on the Xbox One ground floor. As a gamer I care about games, not propaganda.

          • James

            Err! Manufacture cost would obviously be reduced. You are not paying for the support, the bluray and transport…

            Retail won’t boycott your products. I don’t see it happening for steam. Or for stores competing with cheaper internet sites.

            Either way it was up to MS to set the price. They could have decided to set it at a lower price which they didn’t. They could have really hurt Sony by going at the PC games prices but they didn’t. For me its greed. I think for many people also.

            No, you can’t resell digital games. People resell and buy second hand because games are overpriced in the first place. Yes, there are rumours that MS want to introduce reselling digital games. And if its true why would they do that? So they can take a share it and make some money. What they want is keep selling it expensive and get more money on resell. Keep high price while taking control of resell prices and second-hand market. All that making them look like the nice guys.

            The simple and logic solution is sell it at a reasonable rate, get in more sales and no resale like whats been done in PC and steam. Again thats greed.

            No its not the same, I would have not been able to sell it off directly to an ebay buyer or to my local (non-MS partner) retailer.

            First of all 5 years from now I would probably still be on the same gen. I would expect it to be 7 years gen. Next all that you are talking about the next-next generation is pure speculation. We will see when the time comes. The reason why MS didn’t implement their DRM policies is mainly because of poor pre-order sales as compared to the PS4.

            Ok, people are blind?
            1. Neat feature. But needs a much bigger HD than the 500GB. Still Good feature.
            2. Many things not clear about this digital sharing. Had rumours that these were limited timed versions games… Either way it was nice feature (if true)
            3. repeated the same point as 1.
            4. Thats false. Price were the same. People may say what they want about how it would have decreased in the future. The fact is price was the same.
            5. Well it was only recently talked about. Plus it was only a rumour that you are trying to pass as a fact.

            Anyway I knew about these at the time and was still against it. Not switching discs and digital sharing sounds cool but I still prefer what I have this generation and what Sony was offering with the PS4. See Im not blind I just made a CHOICE.

            And then your last para about PS4 v X1 is just blah blah about the console war which was clearly not the topic. We were talking about why people hated MS’s DRM and online only features…

        • GK15

          I agree and disagree here. Yes, digital games need to be cheaper before they will be highly acceptable. But to your points,

          1.) The XB1 hasn’t even come out yet so we don’t know what type of sales models they would have had. Simple economics indicate that they would have been reasonable (people don’t buy them at a high price and they get lowered. If they are being bought, they must be reasonable)

          2.) Completely false. You could’ve bought or sold used games as well as lent games digitally and have your library with you at all times.

          3.) Complete misconception. I think you actually believe that MS would only allow 2nd hand sales through MS stores where they would take a cut. Wrong. Any retail store could have become a registered vendor. This was to prevent illegal copies being sold or selling outside of retail. Also, registered retailers would have had to transfer the license of the game. This was in line with everything else they were doing.

          The market may not be ready for all digital just yet, but I still think people just grossly misunderstood was MS was trying to do.

          • James

            1) They announced that games (digital or disc-based would cost 60$. They announced it on June 15th. We wouldn’t know what their future sales model would have been but thats not the point. They announced the price and most people were expecting a cheaper price tag due to the DRM restrictions.
            Can’t post link but a simple search on “Xbox one games 60$” will show the news.
            2) Ok I don’t this. Can you prove this? No where I can find the part where you could trade or sale games your digital games. Can you provide a link or at least tell me what to search on google to get the information?

            3) You do understand that it was MS themselves who talked about fees initially. And had all sort of contradicting statements about this. And what Im talking about is what angered people. What I meant was you had to pass through a retailer meaning I could not sell my game through ebay or sell/trade a game directly to someone else. I HAD to accept selling my games at ridiculous prices. People HAD to pay retailers some money. This is like saying you can only sell your car through a retailer. You cannot sell it directly to your neighbour or your some guy who is willing to buy it for more than what retailers are giving you.

            I think you are underestimating people’s abilities to understand. True MS’s was VERY poor in communicating their message with plenty of contradicting statements and change in policies but we understood a lot of what we would and wouldn’t get and compare it to what Sony offered.

          • GK15

            Well,

            1.) Yes they announced that digital games would be $60 upon release, but that was probably to be expected. They’re aren’t going to come cheaper than retail games on a games launch day. What we don’t know, and can only assume, is that they would have incentivized us to buy digital by emulating an already successful sales model like Steam’s. Mostly speculation, I know, and we’ll never know now, but based on Steam’s success and the laws of demand, one can logically infer that the prices would have been reasonable.

            2.) I didn’t say buy and sell digital games. I said buy and sell retail games and lend them digitally (via the family share plan). I heard rumors about 2nd hand digital sales, but I still don’t see how that would work.

            3.) Yes, all of this would mean no selling to people or on ebay, but I have never really done that anyway and don’t plan to. You could gift it to a person digitally and charge them if you really wanted to.

          • James

            1) Unfortunately, like you said its just speculation. MS could have hit back at critic and won a lot of people over if they gone for cheaper prices. They could have gone cheaper than retails. Retails don’t boycott products because digital copies are cheaper on the net. That is not happening with steam or with digital copy of movies.
            2) Well I initially said “resell or trade off your digital games”. To which you replied “Completely false”. The rumours of 2nd hand digital sales only came out recently, And since I was talking of the critics at the time, my comment is still 100% relevant.
            3) Again, if it doesn’t affect you or me is not the point. I was only mentioning what pissed people of. About gifting the game digitally you know there were restrictions like that person would need to be in your friend’s list for 30 days…

          • GK15

            You make some valid points and that’s fine.

            To be fair though, even games on Steam are priced at $60 at launch until they come down (fairly quickly) after a Steam sale. I’m a huge fan of Steam sales. We agree that $60 is too much to pay for every single game you want to play. Maybe it’s ok for a few weeks for those that absolutely can’t wait to play, but $10 – $40 is much more reasonable.

            Sorry for the confusion on point 2. I don’t really know about about buying and selling digitally. But you could still buy and sell used copies at retail. And also lend digitally or even gift.

            Point 3, fair enough.

    • jaskdavis

      Well it has to be DRM for steam, but don’t even think about doing that on a console that is disc based! lol, but really it makes more sense (NOW) to do it on an already DRM based service like steam, but I still give MS credit for trying to push it ;)

      • Crapgamer

        It was brilliant on Microsoft’s part because that’s where the industry is going and they were going to be innovators. Now when the next generation happens and Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are DRM and digital only, we wont have nearly the freedom as we would have had with Microsoft’s plan.

    • Country Boy Lucifer

      Guess what, when M$ offered a “similar” service it gave you no option and made you do it at a high price even with a physical disc….Steam doesn’t do that.

      I’m a steam user and it’s nothing like what M$ proposed with their DRM policy

      • Crapgamer

        Your fanboy shows when you use the $ sign instead of an S. At least try and be mature about your comments. Microsoft had to offer both physical and digital for the time being, they have deals in place with retail. They in fact wanted a more Steam like service and I think they would have released an Xbox One down the road without a disc drive at all.

        • Country Boy Lucifer

          Never denied being pro sony, i hate M$ as a company but it doesn’t mean i don’t think they made some decent games and some decent hardware

          M$ ALWAYS should offer physical and digital the point is they tried to force DRM onto the consumer instead of saying “if you want to buy discs go ahead but we have great deals on downloads”

          THAT is what steam does and THAT is why steam is successful

          They do not charge you $60 for a disc that you never actually own, which is what was proposed by M$ it was a horrible idea taking all the negatives of steam and none of the positives.

          • Crapgamer

            Steam is a fully digital service, Microsoft was trying to appease both the people who like digital and the people who like physical. I know more people this upcoming generation that are going all digital than are going with physical media. What do you think the generations beyond this are going to be? It’s obviously going to be all digital and forced DRM of some sort.

            You seriously cannot hate on one and not the other.

          • Country Boy Lucifer

            are you high? steam is a service on the PC format, you can still get physical discs for the pc format it’s not like “PC” is trying to force you into DRM and steam people use it becasue it’s fast, easy, cheap and fun!

            Xbox is a format, they forced you into DRM regardless you had no choice that is the BIG difference. not only that they charged you full physical disc price for the privilege!

            Like i say they took all of the negatives from steam and none of the positives it’s easy to hate that and not steam. they were nothing alike

          • Crapgamer

            Steam is a 100% digital format guy, yes you can buy physical PC games, but not that work with Steam. If you use Steam, it’s all forced DRM and people seem fine with it.

            Xbox One was simply going where the industry is obviously heading right now, as obviously digital is going to be the standard going forward, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we do see an Xbox One in the future with no disc drive.

            There is no choice with Steam and DRM either, if you use Steam you agree to their TOS, which clearly state they can disable any game you buy at any time, and furthermore you are subjective to any changes of policy they make regarding a check in.

            Also, I think the eventual price break in a year or two’s time, as well as sharing digital media, re-selling digital games and not having to switch discs to play are all very, VERY positive things.

            I wanted more of a leap this gen, but because of crybaby internet fools, we get the same thing as last gen, but with slightly better graphics.

          • Country Boy Lucifer

            lol you must be trolling because no one can be this dumb

            Steam is not a format it’s a service on the PC format understand?

            I’m going to assume you do and continue.

            If xbox one used DRM players of the xbox FORMAT would have no choice but to use the service, even if they wanted to buy physical discs they would still be forced into DRM and have no option AND pay full price. that is not the same as the PC format.

            If xbox wanted to do DRM right they should have allowed physical format to continue and create a steam like service on there FORMAT that people wanted to use.

            This is exactly what ps4 is doing, the indie titles, free games, free to play mmo’s, all are part of the formula which make steam work. they want DRM just as much as much as xbox difference is they think of the consumer when they implement it hence still offering the physical discs without the silly policies.

          • Crapgamer

            Steam is a format obviously, and the games are a service. That’s economics 101 my ill informed friend. Xbox One was going to have games on both disc and digitally released formats…to start with. Eventually phasing out discs I assume at some point of the Xbox One’s life.

            So PS4 is doing it right eh? Indie games, which Xbox One has as well. They just aren’t shoving it down people’s throats because they have actual real games to launch with. Free games you say? So like how they’ve been doing with Xbox 360 and will continue with Xbox One?

            I always get a kick out of people who think Sony is so pro-consumer. Real pro-consumer to release a $600 console and tell us to get second jobs, real pro-consumer to release an expensive handheld and format the memory and jack up the price and then not give any software support. Real pro-consumer to take away free features and promised features like backwards compatibility and then make people re-buy all their games over again, sort of like they’ll do with PS4 and Gaikai if/when they ever get it working.

            They were so pro-consumer they were the only ones to use Online Passes from a first party perspective, they even released DC Universe Online on PS3 and each copy of the game only worked in the first console it was used on. Don’t give me pro-consumer BS. Sony is after money like everyone else, and I think a lot of people are going to be upset now that Sony doesn’t allow PS4 games to be uploaded to Youtube (another great pro-consumer job huh?) and the fact that you will have to pay to play games online on PS4 now as well. A lot of people missed that part of Sony’s E3 show, they snuck it in pretty well. I expect quite a bit of backlash come launch time. Not everyone is on the internet of views forums, in fact a very small amount of gamer’s actually do this.

          • Country Boy Lucifer

            lol i can’t even bring myself to reply to everything you’ve said.

            Xbone is actually trying it the right way now, after the 180 they are doing what ps4 is unfortunately for the indie developer not quite as well.

            it’s pointless arguing with such a huge fan boy because you ignore any valid point i make.

            Sony are just after money, they don’t care about me anymore than M$ cares about you however they are pro consumer because it’s smart business. M$ are notoriously bad when it comes to the consumer, everything costs extra, forced peripherals, supplying sub Standard hardware so you buy there upgrades (battery packs for example)

            DCUO is an MMO, totally different model and you are actually wrong, that’s what people thought initially it was in fact incorrect you just didn’t get your free month if you used the disc again. showing a bit of lack of knowledge there bud.

            Sony doesn’t allow games to be uploaded to youtube?? it’s one of the massive features of the console ha ha ha you get worse man

            EDIT

            Just checked the RUMOUR about the youtube thing, even if you can’t share the video direct (which i doubt) you can still save it send it to pc then upload to youtube lol you’re an idiot man

          • Crapgamer

            I’m the fanboy yet you use $ instead of an S and basically think Sony can do no wrong. I’m sure you’re one of those Sony fans that think they invented gaming and haven’t ever done anything to hurt gaming.

            The fact is that Microsoft has done a lot to push the industry since they entered the gaming market, Xbox Live, including a high speed modem right out of the box, first HDD in a console, analog triggers and buttons. All of these firsts, including Achievements which Sony quickly copied this past generation.

            I still have my original Xbox 360 controllers from 2005 and they work well, I have a charge pack which has allowed those controllers to hold up very well, so while you might not like the idea of a battery pack, I prefer it. I’ve had to buy 3 DS3 controllers because the batteries inside died and wont hold a charge. It’s too big of a pain to try and remove and get it all back together, so I’d say I saved money with that.

            And you haven’t made any valid points, just spouting typical Sony biased. I admit I never liked the 24 hour check in idea, thought once a week or once a month would be fine, and since 80% of gamer’s game online anyway, it’s not going to really be such a large push, but I clearly remember people complaining that Microsoft didn’t include a dial up modem in the original Xbox. People eventually got over it, and now Xbox Live is the standard by which online console gaming is measured.

            To each their own, but just so you know…indie’s can publish completely free on Xbox One as well, including updates to their games. I think Microsoft has gone out of their way to accommodate everyone, and considering they moved so fast to do this, they are actually the fastest to listen to consumer feedback, it took Sony an entire generation to reverse what the PS3 brought on us.

            The funniest thing I see now is when Sony fanboys say “PS4 is taking it back to the PS2 glory days!”. I find it funny because this entire generation I’ve heard how superior the PS3 was, and now all of a sudden it’s something everyone wants to forget, and now hope the PS4 is more like the PS2. So which is it? Was the PS3 so great?

            Get outta here!

          • Country Boy Lucifer

            lol ok now i know your trolling me, no sane rational person could spout that crap

  • jaskdavis

    Well MS your Idea was a good one, but it looks like Steam beat ya to it!

  • GK15

    When the PS4 adds TV and all the other features the XB1 has, all the PS fanboys will love them.

    • Country Boy Lucifer

      The ps3 has TV so i’m guessing the ps4 will.

      In fact I can’t think of anything really that the xbone does that ps4 isn’t capable of.

      Yes there are features such as the NFL thing (only really valid for north america and fans of the NFL so a tiny portion) but nothing at all of any real significance.

      • GK15

        Tbh, I thought that all the new features of the XB1 were great ever since the reveal. The instant switching and Skype are two highly underrated features that are going to be awesome. Also, I am going to enjoy using my XB1 to watch TV with the Xbox Guide. These were all buried under all the complaints from not showing enough games at the reveal and followed by the unpopular DRM policy. It was forgotten that this is actually going be an awesome console.

        I got in many arguments with people saying that the TV features were useless, the XB1 is just a glorified cable box, etc. When the whole time I was saying that, no it’s a good feature and Sony will most likely do the same thing. I didn’t realize that the PS3 does live TV. Is there an app for that in their marketplace?

        The NFL deal was very smart as the NFL is absolutely huge in the US. All the bars are full on gameday, most people I know at work are in fantasy football leagues (I’m in two this year) and the NFL dominates conversation on ESPN. The amount of football fans in the US is greater than the amount of gamers. The amount of cable watchers in the US dwarfs the number of gamers. It’s a smart play by MS. I imagine if it is successful they will do something similar eventually for football in Europe/S. America.

        Also, whoever strikes a deal first with a major ISP for a subsidized console and a contract is going to have a major advantage. I predict it will be XB1 as they have obviously placed a major emphasis on this through things like HDMI in, Xbox Guide and the NFL deal, but I’m not discounting Sony’s relationship with ISP’s. They may have this on their radar as well, but it’s a smart play for either.

        • Country Boy Lucifer

          It’s not something i ever used but PSTV was available through the ps3 and here in the UK we get all the catch up channels as well itvplayer, bbc iplayer etc..

          The NFL deal may be a big deal in the states but it’s not even on the radar in europe, in fact the service is only being provided to the north american market, as are many of the x1’s services.

          I think the TV features of the xbox are ok but even on release are a little redundant, over this gen TV/cable/satellite technology will incorporate everything that the x1 offers. I already have a voice and motion activated tv (and honestly i just use the remote lol the novelty wore off fast) and most TV’s are smart tv’s now.

          I’m not sure how the xbox one will be used in the UK when it comes to TV services but my satellite box/TV guide/on demand etc etc works fine i just think they’re adding unnecessary features to what at its core should be a gaming console.

          Sony have already struck deals with some of the largest ISP’s in the UK and europe for broadband deals for gamers so they’re half way there.

          • GK15

            Yeah I saw that Sony struck a deal with Viacom to offer their channels online through the PS4.

            Imagine tho, a subsidized deal for either a PS4 or XB1 through an ISP. This would help cable companies that are losing ground to streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc., help consumers to get cheaper hardware (like buying a $600 iphone for $199) and help MS and Sony to push more consoles.

            I would expect mass adoption and remote play and family sharing would be huge if games consoles were as common as cable boxes, right? I could pick up at my mom’s house in Fla right where I left off gaming at my place. My wife would kill me if I was playing games on vacation, but that’s another story.

            Maybe MS got a little ahead of themselves initially, but a future like that would be very bright indeed. Consoles will have to evolve to keep up with smartphones and tablets and a console that does cable, instant switching, multi-tasking, awesome games, Kinect, apps, web browsing, Skype someone just by telling it too and remote sharing and digital library looks pretty desirable no? It’s a far cry from the consoles of yesteryear, but it would still play amazing games.

            This is why I like the XB1 even though they had a horrible PR reveal and appeared like they didn’t know what they were doing. I think the console is good as is, but I also see a lot of potential for the future.

          • Country Boy Lucifer

            I’m not sold on the all in one box, If my satellite box breaks at least i have my console etc etc.

            I’ve never said that the x1 won’t be a neat piece of hardware it will, and it has some features i consider to be ok (i consider them to be just ok on ps4 as well, no better) but i want a gaming console.

            I use my ps3 for movies, youtube, catch up TV and most importantly gaming i’m not sure i want my next gen console to do a great deal more than that i just want it to do those things faster and better with cooler features (the ps4’s os is really a step forward for example)

            I can see the subsidized deal thing being an ideal way to deliver the consoles for Sony and M$ but i can never really see it happening, you have any idea the sort of money companies like Sky (uk) make off set top boxes? i just don’t see it being financially viable for satellite/cable companies.

          • GK15

            There is an article on CNET posted yesterday where Time Warner Cable announced that you can now access all of their channels through an app on Xbox, Roku, etc. No longer a need for a cable box.

            Plus if they can sign people into a contract, they can count on that revenue. Good for the balance sheet and share price. Also attract new customers and retain them. Maybe they will even work the cable rental fee into the contract, who knows? I’m not saying for sure that they would and you always have the option to buy a full priced console from a retailer if you don’t want a contract at all.

            Who knows what type of stars would have to align between the two companies for this to happen, but I think it is a very real possibility and there have been a number of articles about this. There was one a few months ago about a rumor for a potential MS/Sky deal in the UK that would have offered a subsidized XB1 with a subscription.

            I also think that if they are going to do this, it makes zero financial sense to do it at launch. Die hard gaming fans and early adopters will pay full price to have the consoles right away. Wait 1 -2 years, sell as many full priced consoles as you can, let costs come down and then make a play for mass adoption.

            People have a habit of only comparing XB1 to PS4 (and maybe a little Nintendo), but there is a problem with that. Smartphones and tablets present a very real threat to the console gaming that we like so much. A developer recently said that he thinks that soon you will be able to plug your phone into the TV and play with a controller, things like that. Also Google has made a play for the console market with the Ouya, Valve is getting in the game with the Steam box, etc.

            If XB and PS don’t evolve, they will be surpassed and left behind.

  • Allen

    Wow crapgamer is one biased son of a bitch.

    This is amazing. To all the xbots this is nothing like Xbox 180.

    1. X180 was not going to have cheap games like steam.

    2. X180 required constant online even for disc content.

    3. X180 was console & game region locked.

    4. Steam has had DRM for a very long time.

    On consoles a compromise should be made. Take into consideration physical media holders rights & offline play.

    Not force feed and be an ass about it.

    • EP1C

      Silly ^

  • Country Boy Lucifer

    OK so steam is NOTHING like what M$ was proposing before the 180

    You could choose between buying a physical disc and purchasing via steam or a similar service on PC

    Steam’s prices are very low, M$ was still going to charge you $60 for disc and implement DRM on it.

    Steam’s free games and indie games policies are nothing like what M$ proposed even after the 180.

    I’ve said it before if you want to implement DRM on console (and both Sony and M$ do) you do it the right way. You still allow gamers to buy physical discs if they wish and provide a good, fast, cheap online service like steam AS WELL.

    If you look at what the ps4 is doing with indies etc.. this is exactly how they are approaching it, it’s one of the biggest selling points of the ps4 that hardly anyone talks about.

    At launch you have 5 or 6 free games drawing you to the psn store, you have you’re instant game collection on PSN (more free games) and you have better prices on downloading AAA’s.

    That’s how you do it right without alienating the consumer.

    By the way if M$ had stuck to their guns the Xbone wouldn’t of sold, it would have failed so they did the right thing with the 180.

Related Popular Steam Content