this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
413 points (99.3% liked)
Steam
10190 readers
44 users here now
Steam is a video game digital distribution service by Valve.
Steam News | Steam Beta Client news
Useful tools:
SteamDB
SteamCharts
Issue tracker for Linux version of Steam
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This bit is a bit fucked up:
Not sure I agree, how else are they meant to prevent the ocean of "It wasn't me, it was my brother" excuses from hackers smurfing accounts?
I'd recommend (to everyone) that if you're unsure -or have even the slightest doubt about the person you're going to give access to your Steam account- to politely decline and play it safe.
It is not different from how the previous shared libraries worked. I guess it's there to stop cheaters from buying a single copy of the game and sharing it with throwaway accounts.
I guess it's to prevent creating family members for the purpose of cheating
I think it's a great rule. If you're sharing your library with others, don't be am asshole and cheat. If you do you'll be a disappointment to them too. More social pressure to not cheat is only a positive in my opinion, but also I will never cheat and I only share my library with people I'm confident won't cheat as well. I don't associate with people who want to ruin other's fun. If you do then that's on you. It's your choice to risk getting banned.
It also stops people from buying a game, sharing it to themselves on an alt account and using cheats. Then just spinning up a new alt account at no cost when the first one gets banned.
Steam Families is not just used by families.
Sounds like a great life lesson to be taught by a responsible adult to a 24 year old discovering cheats.
Not sure where you're going with this - I was implying that there are consequences for cheating, like losing access to a game library even if temporary.
Well it'd be just the one game that they cheated in. That's where you can sit the kid down and tell him that cheating has consequences. Ideally this talk would've happened before you share access though - I'm thinking of it as making sure the kid knows how to drive before you let them borrow the keys to your car.
I mean, someone should get banned from cheating. I can see why this happen though, since the account playing does not own the game the account which has the game linked gets banned instead. If the account cheating has the game they are instead playing on their copy and that gets banned instead (i assume).
However the ban should be linked to the account and not the copy of the game. I do not understand why this isnt the case. Maybe because someone could just make a new account and link that to play on instead, therefor never having to buy more than one copy of the game while cheating.
Yeah, it's most likely to prevent someone from using the family feature to get away with cheating.
As it stands now, if you get caught cheating you must create a new account and repurchase the game. So the main deterrent is the full cost of a game.
With the steam family function you could potentially create 5 new accounts per year, and simply remove them when they get caught cheating. The only deterrent would be the wait period.
So I agree with their decision. The downside is that you must trust someone before adding them to your family. If your cheating son gets you kicked off counterstrike, then just remove him from your family. They're never too old to drop off at the fire station.
This is indeed the appropriate reaction to being banned on counter strike. Joke aside you could just lock the entire functionality of adding an account to your family if someone got caught cheating though.
I'm not sure that would be the best solution. A cheater could still get caught cheating 6 times before requiring a repurchase, and it's still a pretty harsh penalty for someone who didn't cheat. You keep your game, but you can no longer share your library if your family situation changes.
'Sorry, son, you can't play my games on your computer because daddy made a bad decision when he was 21.'
The ultimate solution is probably an online identity when playing any game. Imagine if cheating got you banned from all online games for 5 years.
My question is, when there are 5 people with 5 copies of a multiplayer game in the pool, and the 6th member without a copy gets banned, which of the other 5 members gets banned?
They send their enforcement squad to all houses involved.
when you play a game that multiple people have, you can choose which copy is being used. The owner of that copy and the one playing get banned
Thanks, that explains it. So there is a pop-up when you try to play a game from the common pool and you have to choose who you are borrowing from?
Best guess? Whichever account gave account 6 permission to play their game.
Either account 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 will be the user that gives 6 the permission to play their game, so it follows they're the one that (I'm assuming) will get banned also. It's a good question you raise and I'd be interested to know for sure myself.
Nobody is giving anybody permission any more than anyone else though. Account 6 creates a family and 5 accounts with a game join the family. There are now 5 copies of the game in the family pool. Account 6 can play and get banned. In this situation nobody even invited account 6 to the family.
Just hide those games from your shared library and you will be safe