680

Steam :: Introducing Steam Families (steamcommunity.com)

submitted 9 months ago by Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

178 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Valve announced a replacement feature for both Family Sharing and Family View. Currently in beta.

Features:

up to 5 members
game sharing
parental controls
- allow access to appropriate games
- restrict access to the Steam Store, Community or Friends Chat
- set playtime limits (hourly/daily)
- view playtime reports
- approve or deny requests from child accounts for additional playtime or feature access (temporary or permanent)
- recover a child's account if they lost their password
child purchase requests

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

You can avoid this by bringing one of them off the Internet but it's a real pain. It's not so bad on the Steam Deck but bringing a desktop offline intentionally seems crippling. No Streaming music, no email alerts.

Either way I'm excited for the change. It makes way more sense.

There's no reason Pajama Sam from 1997 can't be played at the same time as Stardew Valley on 2 separate PCs.

[-] Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Simply blocking steam in your local firewall was enough with the old system, if the last thing the account saw was the library being open to play on or being the owner of the game.

There are a lot of weird, convoluted tricks you could do with the old system to get around most of the issues. For example: I've recently managed to play Outlast: Trials with my brother despite only one of us owning it by turning on the firewall between sending the invite and accepting it and then accepting the invite and launching the game before the invite receiving account (who has to be the owner of the game) sees the invite sending account as offline.

We've discovered this firewall trick relatively soon after Valve fixed the offline mode "exploit", but we never shared it publically so it wouldn't get fixed too. I have seen a few people talk about it over the years though.

[-] bitwaba@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I feel like this is how it should work all the time for account related "exploits".

If you're willing to fuck with your firewall settings every time you want to play the game just to pay for one game license instead of two, fine. You payed for the game with intelligence and frustration instead of money.

[-] Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

I definitely paid with some time investment, but you bet I wrote a short script to automate toggling that rule on/off. It's also not like I had to run that script every time I wanted to play a game. Only to play a game in my brother's library while he was playing something else or when I wanted to play one of my games and he was already in one.

Summing up the time investment vs. the cost of games, and using a time-money conversion rate that assumes I had a well paying job in my field and wasn't still a student, it was definitely profitable.

You're definitely right on the frustration front though: I bought many games just to not have to deal with this. It was mostly used for games one of us was on the fence about. Or (like in the Outlast case) only one of us really wanting to play a game and the other just playing along because playing together is fun no matter the game.
Now, in the former case, it might be back to sailing the seas.