There are other games that don't. And really, why should they? I fail to see a reason they should be forced to let up to 10 accounts have access to a game that was paid for one a single account.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are not forced to do that as you are not forced to put your game on Steam, but you can at least say that on the store page.
Some games already do that: vast majority (the one I know) are blocked because there are other platforms (and accounts) that are not sharable, like uplay.
Btw you can only share with 5 accounts, the access is limited to one per time and is a feature already discussed and approved by devs.. if this is not the case Valve should rethink completely how the system works because is not clear how it's intended, nor will be more clear in the near future if devs starts applying their rules without noone knowing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most games don't say it outside of the Enhanced Steam addon to my knowledge, and that just goes from the DRM given.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here is an example from Resident Evil 5
Both the note about the DRM and family sharing are from the addon, not Steam.
Steam doesn't warn you, Enhanced Steam does. But they only have included it on the pages for games that have DRM.
Comment has been collapsed.
This should be noted by Steam like they did for Third party DRM. Anyway the game isn't listed as a game that doesn't support SFS, so it's possible it will never be added either by the addon.
p.s. I use Enhanced Steam, but not all users do, so it's not fair to just write it there (I mean, the SFS restrictions part).
Comment has been collapsed.
p.s. I use Enhanced Steam, but not all users do, so it's not fair to just write it there (I mean, the SFS restrictions part).
The point I'm trying to make is that Steam doesn't tell anyone that SFS works for a game or not. The addon has nothing to do with Valve. And the addon creator only gives information he has.
Now, please stop complaining that Steam / Activision is a bad guy for not letting you have a game you didn't pay for. Its pointless and stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Delta you are completely missing the point. I can live without the game without any issue, heck if I have known it wasn't possible to use it with SFS I will not even tried. Activision is acting like a douchebag with all his consumers, if you cannot see that, I'm sorry for you. I was trying to make a point about their shady ways of acting, because I think this is the case.
And no, I was not trying to play a game without paying it (I can still do that, just log with my cousins account and play as it is, so really, no). I'm not that kind of people and you assuming that, I think it's a bit more stupid (and probably pointless too). In fact I was talking light hearted but seeing that kind of answers from someone I esteemed a lot, is a big let down. And I'm not even talking about your aguments, wich I can relate and talk, but about your assumptions about me.
I hope you are only a bit tired like I am, I think it's just better we end up here just to avoid more pointless discussion. Hope to have another one a bit less flammy next time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Activision is acting like a douchebag with all his consumers
Consumers pay money. SFS is about getting free access to another library.
I see this entire topic as pointless. Its complaining about not getting a game for free. This did not deserve a topic on how Activision is evil. There is nothing wrong with this. They want money for their game, just like everyone else on Steam. Be happy with the games you can share, rather than complain about the ones you can't. Its a nice feature for cheap skates, but its horrible for people selling the games.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not, it really isn't. It's not about a game for free. You are lending the game, like you do on consoles. You are not getting the game for free. The access can be revoked anytime, you cannot use the same library on the same moment with 2 accounts. You can be disconnected by the game at anytime by the owner of the library. You should use that with family members and strict friends and they should enter on your pc with their accounts, and since account is nominal, only the owner can access with it. So, from a legit pov, it's in fact a way of lending digital software. It's approved by steam, and since devs and consumers sign a contract of subscription, it should be by them too. The feature faq actually lists that only games with technical limitations cannot be accessed by SFS. It's because you are going to use another third party software that cannot have a similar feature. CoD games to my knowledge should not be in this case, and the fact that steamDB doesn't list a specific tag for locked games for CoD, should be a confirmation of that. The point of the topic is: Activision is doing this without letting anyone know, also it's an exception for the series AND for the limitations set up by Valve; since we are talking about a matter that is in a grey area (lending of digital software) that haven't really clear rules, what you think about this way of acting? What will be the consequences of this on the SFS? Do you know that actually last CoD doesn't let this (and maybe you that want to try, reading this thread, can avoid trying to getting it work for a night)? Have you tried this by yourself? Is working for you, like some users (really few) are reporting? What is your opinion about SFS (yes that too)? And many more that can generate trough discussions.
I don't think it's a pointless topic, but if you think it is, why answer? You are not forced to reply.
Activision isn't evil. I never said that, but I don't like their way of acting. CDproject isn't good, but I like their way of thinking. Today I wanna discuss about Activision. Next time maybe I will talk about CDP.
SFS is not meant to not getting money, also Valve is a company and works for money, but guess what, they still have made that feature, either they are crazy or they know more flexibility doesn't mean less profits. In my particular case they will had 2 more copies sold if I had the opportunity to try the game. Many people want to play online with friends so it's not easy to abuse the system that much. I am actually really happy with steam and I like to use their features as they are meant to be used.
If you still see that as a way to play free games and be cheap and nothing else, probably SFS isn't meant for you and that's fine. But for me, for my family, is a nice feature that we want to keep the way it's meant by Valve.
As I said before, there are ways of playing game for free the same way you share a library, so this isn't really a good point. If someone is going to abuse a system, it will do it anyway, it's not a log-out / log-in to scare him from playing a new game. And that's your way of thinking anyway, it's not so horrible for people selling games, or suddenly are all other devs on steam masochists? Just try out the system by yourself if you haven't already, you will find out that is not so easy to abuse the system in a larger scale.
Comment has been collapsed.
You really are a ing idiot. Fine, I'll stop responding to you from here. It would be more productive to just call you a wit, since you keep claiming this has nothing to do with you not being able to play a game for free (yes, it ing is) and that they are evil for doing so (no, they ing aren't). They are not required to just let a bunch of people share a game. Deal with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol
If there was a way to vote for this as the "best answer" to the topic, I would do so. Some folks will take any opportunity to whinge and moan about something that the act of buying a game simply doesn't entitle them to. It's a non-argument.
Since the dawn of time, the majority of games have included a prohibition on lending in the terms and conditions of the cassette/cartridge/disc sleeve. While widespread, it was not something that was ever encouraged, and was rarely a statutory right granted by law to buyers of the software.
I'm the first to complain against the erosion of customer rights, and there are plenty of cases where Steam's operations accomplish exactly that, but this is not one of them, and reeks of bone-headed "entitlement", of the type which is not backed up by law, common sense or any sort of defensible logic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I just want play for free a game, because there isn't any other way to play it outside of SFS, and I haven't money to buy it at all. I just come here, making a topic just because I cannot play it, someone that never have talked to me surely know that better than everyone else. Oh, and Activision is not greedy at all, they have been a respectable company since ever and never have screwed over consumers. Oh, and if this isn't enough, just keep insulting someone because he thinks and acts in ways I don't even consider. Rainbows, unicorns and fluffy things.
Really mature, clap clap. Seriously tho, what the fuck is wrong with you uh? Just get over your frustrating life and stop harassing others with your words. I'm over this already since the start of the topic that I've made either for:
a)discussing
b)inform others about a game locked from SFS.
What I don't deal with is your arrogance and your way of thinking that should be universal. You don't know a shit about all the people out there, stop assuming it. But thank you for letting me know the kind of person you are behind the nice guy who does a lot of giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fine, one more response, since you seem to be unable to think.
Do you understand that yet?
You might not like it, but you do not have any rights towards the game. You don't own the game, they don't owe you anything.
You are acting like an entitled brat. Understand this. You have access to everything you own. You don't own that game. We don't need a topic complaining that you don't have access to a game you don't own.
Also, with my attitude, I'm treating you with all the respect you deserve. Pretty much **ing none. This topic existing is the reason I'm treating you this way. Its a **fest about you not getting a game that isn't yours. It doesn't deserve kind words and agreement, all it needs to to point out is that you are acting like it is wrong you don't have the game for free. It isn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again I don't want the game for free. Keep thinking that if you are happy with this and you think I don't deserve respect about an opinion totally created by you and only you. I don't want to go further, you seems to not even tried reading what I've wrote, you keep telling me this shit story of the game for free. I'm starting thinking about buying it just to let you see it's not really that problem, but I think we're already at the point where everything is just done to throw shit on other people.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it wasn't about not having this game you don't own, this topic wouldn't exist. Don't say it is because they are being mean to customers, because you aren't one. There is nothing else for it to be about.
As for you buying it, great. Since you want it, go ahead.
Also, in reference to the question below asking if I'm an employee. Nope. Could use the money though. I'm unemployed at this time. Don't think they hire around here anyway, and I have no skills they would want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously my other reply was sarcastic but whatever.
I was a customer since I have bought any game and I was screwed. My cousin bought the game so He is a customer and he is the one complaining that he cannot fully share the library, so it's not just me.
I DON'T WANT THE GAME. I just had interest in trying it to be sure if I should buy it, and if that the case, buy a copy because yes, I buy copies of the games and yes, I wanna play the game with my cousin, which will be impossible trough SFS in any case.
Also my first sentence was a provocation about what I've seen the other years when I was a regular customer, so I know what I'm talking about, at least more than you that doesn't have the game and very likely don't know when and where they screwed their customers.
You haven't fully understood how SFS works and by what you are saying, the entire thing should not exist because you already can "play games you didn't pay for" trough it. The fact that steam and the devs agree on SFS should be enough to trace it as a legal way to play them. If this bugs you, it's your problem. Also SFS sets strict rules for the use of the library and this is what change from playing a game for free. And anyway I was not going to do that to abuse the system but whatever. The only exception to this rule is represented bu the faq and you tell that is written months ago. And so? Constitution of a nation should be bashed because it's old? These are the current rules and these should be the rules applied. Apparently CoD doesn't have a technical limit (but just to be sure I've reached support) to be excluded from the thing. There isn't anything refering on devs/publisher, maybe they have signed a contract with steam where they should provide the service if they want their game sold by steam. This is it. It's something that is currently not following the rules and rules are there for a reason. I just want to understand if this is something that is related to Activision past way of acting, a bug or whatever else can be. So yeah this topic exists for informing people about and hear what they say. You are not magically going to let work the SFS with CoD, so why should I have posted this on sg if it was for complaining about having a "free" game? If this is the case I probably have put this on steam forums where would be more appropriate. But actually I was just going to hear what people think about this way of acting. I don't have any issue with the game at all. I've discovered is not sharable, fine. I would like to know WHY, but that's all. You keep telling that I made a topic for a reason that is nowhere near what I was and am thinking. You don't have to trust me if you don't want, but please, stop putting words on my mouth that I've not ever spoke. I was trying to use a legal system to do a legal thing that is fully endorsed by Steam. If you have experencied people abusing the system, I'm sorry for you, this is not the case. If you dislike the system because you think it's dangerous for devs or publisher money, I'm again sorry for you, but I cannot do anything.
I ask this again because maybe it's not sufficent clear: can you stop saying I was trying to get a game for free when in fact it's not? If you understood that, you have misunderstood. That's all, try reading again with cold mind.
I'm actually really relaxed and fine, I'm not really upset about this thing at all.
What really saddens me and also make me embittered, is this discussions that we cannot have nicely and friendly. I really don't get it.
I hope at least to come to a partial solution, but for heaven's sake, just try to understand what I'm trying to say. If you want a proof of my honesty just tell me what I should do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyway this is still the case where the issue is due to technical limitations.
Here is what steam say about that: link
They specifically refers to titles that uses other account services like uplay or wlg, because you cannot access another account library like you do in steam. To my knowledge, activision doesn't provide anything like that.
At the moment, they don't have really an excuse to not provide the feature, what I'm trying to say here is: they should have. An excuse, that is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
SFS was made because PC players noticed you can borrow your console discs to friends and they can play it, while you can't do the same on PC, which means Steam Console would be useless from start.
Blocking SFS for Steamworks games is like making discs being linked to one console account (not even one console).
Ps.: Talking in general, not about this OP situation, as who knows if he doesn't have other-region game. If that's the case, shame on him.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I've already said, publishers have wanted to block game discs being shared. For some reason, a bunch of people sharing one game isn't profitable. Now, in the case of physical discs, it has limitations. You won't get a bunch of people in different countries sharing the discs, for one.
Now, on to this game not working with Steam Family Sharing. They aren't required to. They have no reason to want to. Why the hell must they let people share their newest game?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because - for example - I have brother who lives with me and wants his own profile.
So, you tell me there are two options: pay $120 for two cd-keys at Steam, or buy one DVD for console...
If more AAA Steamworks games will not allow SFS, Steam Console will be dead even before it starts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to be clear, if many people abuse the system doesn't mean all the people are abusing it. I don't abuse it and was just trying to lend a digital game from my cousin who lives in my same country. Other than that, I've never used it before, and I share my library with my girlfriend like I'll share my phisical cds. I don't have any other game because I like to buy them for myself in the first place. But this topis is an Assumption Fest (probably also my fault) so it's not really easy to let other understand things.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not locked from sharing.
Did you possible trade for it? If you traded for "tagged" copy from another region, you can't family share it (outside region it was bought in, even if there's nothing preventing from playing).
Edit: Little clearer expalanation
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to be share you aren't sharing outside Italy (well, it's likely EU)?
But if others have this too, it's likely other problem :/
Just to elaborate: It's according to who you share with. Ie. If you buy Italian copy that has tag EU, you're very likely unable to share it outside EU. Family sharing lock is based on 'purchase' countries on SteamDB.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I know that, in fact it's one of my cousins sharing it with me, he lives like 50km from me and yes, it's still in Italy ;)
I have checked trough steamDB and see that it doesn't appear there where are games locked from sharing, but it is still for me and other users (also a friend of mine that have a similar case to mine).
I start thinking they just have set this as a bug just to boost sales during this period, and fixing it months later. But maybe I'm just a bit paranoid.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know about that but it's the most greedy video game company that exists. The biggest discounts on Steam of COD games (not counting 1 and 2) were 50% off even so many years after release.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is EA or UbiSoft greedy? They have great and fast discounts on Origin and UPlay plus they offer free games from time to time. Not to mention EA bundle. They used to be greedy but they're not anymore IMO. Activision is the most greedy. Oh and Blizzard.
Comment has been collapsed.
Phoenix games was. They had 5 times the marketing and staff than they had actually making their 'games'.
Comment has been collapsed.
With what Delta said above, this really isn't something that is up for complaining, even if you did only want to "try" it. Though for me I do appreciate family sharing because it lets me play skyrim even though i played it already on PS3. There are already a few groups who are made just for family sharing making a lot of devs lose money.
Comment has been collapsed.
And that's wrong, but this is abusing the system, like it is pirating or re-selling digital games. This should not concern people that use it following the rules, and if some devs are pissed off, they really should just let the world know and it's fine. Maybe they should put something on the store page to let users know that game doesn't support SFS. This is not the case, nothing seems to pointing out that devs don't want this game to be shared (on steamDB the game entry doesn't have the tag reserved for games locked from sharing).
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't care, I never use it.
I like AW, it's fun.Trust me, I haven't paid for it and I think it's good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Family sharing is a benefit available to gamers through Steam. It's not a privilege! No one is screwing you. Not sure why anyone things publishers should have to lose out on revenue just because Steam offers the family sharing option.
Comment has been collapsed.
The argument for this is the same as piracy, just because the person wants to play a copy they didn't buy (either legally through borrowing a friends copy or illegaly through piracy) doesn't mean they would have bought it in the first place so exactly no money was lost. Preventing piracy and even game sharing doesn't magically make them more money, it does however lose them money from people who would buy it if they were able to try it first.
Comment has been collapsed.
Traditionally, the trade-off to the convenience of digital distribution is that you couldn't share. SFS allows for that option, which is great. However, it's up to the publisher's discretion. If Activision were to allow sharing, that's a nice thing for them to do. If Activision does not allow sharing, it does not mean they've screwed over purchasers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, I don't think you fully understand how SFS really works. It's not about losing revenue if it is used as Steam ordered. People pass cd games on consoles all the time, this should be the same exact case. More strict if you think an entire library is locked, more flexible if you think you should not phisically borrow the game (altough you are forced to log from the same machine you wanna use for the feature).
It's not a privilege, but it should be at least clear. I don't want the game to be shared. I wanna know it before doing 3hrs of setup because there isn't a single place telling me this isn't supported.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, it's not a privilege; it's an OPTIONAL benefit that's offered (or not offered) by the publisher. But I do agree that if publishers have discretion, then SFS will be implemented inconsistently, which means Valve needs to step up and clarify whether SFS is enabled for any particular game. I'd put the onus on Valve -- not Activision -- on the lack of clarity. I suspect someone at Valve just didn't think about this and it will get fixed soon enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't look for any reason. I've bought Ghosts trusting them when they have said they were going to implement servers. They never done that. I've never come here complaining about that. This is just an example of the many times I was screwed by a company, which most times was Activision. If you just see that as a reason to complain about Activision, there are plenty of reasons better than that, which I probably have chosen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Activision actually weren't responsible for that decision with Ghosts (as far as we know), but that doesn't even matter. This thread is all about AW and how horrible Activision are for not letting you use the most popular Steam feature ever created (not).
Just stop.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect it's SFS is disallowed as it could be used to have someone too young play a volient and bloody game (most games that don't have SFS enabled are the sorts to have such things as far as I can tell)
Comment has been collapsed.
Where were you when Valve prevented users on-selling their used games, right from the very inception of Steam?
That's a far larger "screwing over" of customers, and anyone with their head on straight should be much more upset about that than a single publisher opting out of family sharing...
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think Valve is a saint, and there are MANY things I don't like about Valve or others companies. It's perfectly normal, I think. I've reported that just because yesterday I have seen that and over the internet there wasn't a properly discussion about that. Also, Activision haven't stepped back from SFS and the question is really unclear. This is what bugs me. I think the confusion is more on the Activision part than Valve, more on that on the reply to Peroxide's post.
Anyway being "upset" about something, doesn't mean you are not "upset" about large screwing overs. I made it into quotes because I'm not really upset, just a bit bitter and worried about.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I'm complaining about lack of transparency by Activision and shady marketing practice about them."
What games on Steam clearly state whether they have Family Sharing or not? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see it from any developer or publisher.
"Please, read carefully how SFS works before replying"
Taken from the FAQ.
Can all Steam games be shared with friends and family?
No, due to technical limitations, some Steam games may be unavailable for sharing. For example, titles that require an additional third-party key, account, or subscription in order to play cannot be shared between accounts.
What was the purpose of this thread again?
Comment has been collapsed.
The key word here is "Technical limitations". Tecnhical limitations examples from steam are the games that require an external log-in to a Third party service, account or something along these lines. Valve clearly states that game unavailable from sharing are the ones that have Technical limitations. Apparently CoD isn't among them, because have a way of working similar to the previous ones, and the previous games are all sharable. So CoD AW is currently representing an exception to the general rule. I don't mind if this is the case and it was stated somewhere on the faq (like: Beware, game sharing is a feature that will be implemented by discrection of the devs/publishers) or by the publisher on the Steam store. It's not currently stated anywhere and faq at the moment don't cover this thing (it's not a third party key, it doesn't have a subscription not a proper account). So at the end of the story, it's something that don't work as intended.
I've made this topic to let other know this and discuss because I haven't found another place where this thing was discussed. I start understanding why it's not.
Comment has been collapsed.
The FAQ was written how long ago? Things change. They shouldn't need to give you a game you didn't pay for.
Comment has been collapsed.
The technical limitation is that Activision told them not to allow it. Just because a previous title in the series was capable, you should not assume that they all will be.
I think Google would have been an excellent place to search for an answer to your question and would have served you a lot better. A search of "call of duty advanced warfare family share" gives me two useful links, the first is a discussion on the Steam forum about it and the second is a link stating that the game also doesn't allow Share Play on the PS4. I highly doubt that the same game is "bugged" and unable to be shared on both platforms so I feel it would be safe to assume that sharing is disabled.
As you seemed to miss or ignore my question, I will also ask it again, "What games on Steam clearly state whether they have Family Sharing or not? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see it from any developer or publisher." I don't see why you expect something telling you it's not able to be shared if no other games do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is part of Enhanced Steam. and only shows on games with DRM that are known to prevent it.
Comment has been collapsed.
HELLO
Call of Duty Advanced Walrusfare has sharing. If bought via Steam only.
Comment has been collapsed.
22 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Ezrile
35 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by pb1
6 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by Tcharr
846 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by sensualshakti
2,026 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by pripkun
73 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by adambiser
24 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Chad78
169 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by pb1
6 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by SkeetSurfer
1,151 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by Gelweo
76 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by neyel8r
2 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Carenard
354 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by drschnell
176 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Tasnek
So, apparently, our folks at Activision decided to screw over consumers again. This time seems that the Steam Family Sharing feature will not work with the new CoD iteration. In fact, when you try to access it from a library shared with you, you don't get the entry at all.
You can try to force install it on the machine, but it will show as a game that you don't own (with a link to buy it).
I'm not upset about this thing in particular (ok, maybe a bit, since I was thinking about trying it out before buying it) but because that create a dangerous precedent for the feature, and eventually more games will join this (without informing the consumers prior the purchase).
I wanna know your opinion about this particular issue (don't say cod is shit, cod is a lame game, we already know that) and if someone have experience with this (apparently, some users are able to share the game... I don't know how to do that because discussions around the web and the steam forums are really confused).
Thank you for reading, here's a small gift for you.
EDIT: I'm not complaining about playing the game without spending a cent (I've bought every CoD since BO, so it's not really the case) and SFS is not meant to be abused. Please, read carefully how SFS works before replying, also I'm complaining about lack of transparency by Activision and shady marketing practice about them.
Comment has been collapsed.