I agree it is clear this person knew that they played and beat it so even if this is allowed still a butthead thing to do.They could have given that chance to someone who has not played it or at least not past the first free episode.I have it but I refuse to play the first episode until I get the rest.
Though since rules state they must not own it I am not sure how this will play out but the winner should just have it re-rolled anyhow imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know.. I've beaten some games through family sharing but I don't have access to some of them anymore. If I planned on playing one of those sometime soon, I'd definitely enter a giveaway for it. It's a weird scenario but if they're not just doing it for the +1 (which can happen whether or not the user played the game before hand) and actually plan on playing the game then I don't really see a problem
Comment has been collapsed.
no advice to give really. you did all you can do, now it's just the waiting game on response time.
the update reflecting the changes did however slowdown response time on the issue due to it being a bump in the ticket and most support members work for oldest unbumped ticket to newest. so there is that, but not really any advice, sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
I figured that would be the case re moving the ticket to the bottom of the pile. :p
I considered adding a comment to the ticket instead but thought that might make it more confusing. Thought it was better to put all the info together in the request itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
We had a discussion on the giveaway page and they say they understand my concern about playtime but are pretty firm in their right to receive the game. They didn't acknowledge my stated concern about having beaten the game, as demonstrated by the achievements.
I understand their position from a technical perspective and just communicated that I'm still waiting on the reroll request.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think support will accept rerolling. And I don't think they should, and the sole facts you mention.
You think he got achievement through Family sharing.
But it could even have revoked game, just to activate back once he wins it... but that is only speculation.
As long as user has not a past fraudulent behavior history, I don't think you should care about a public giveaway you have done.
If you want to apply specific rules and carefully check what winners are doing with your gifted game, you may enter in any group focused on playing won game or that require little backlog.
Or make invite only gifts and send link to those whose have wishlisted your game prior to your event.
At least you are giving you game to someone who enjoyed the game ! On Steamgifts, we win games more than we can possibly play, or may ever play...
He wants to own his own copy, so why not. :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting. I'd say that it should be up to the giver, if they want to give the game in such a situation, but that's just my personal opinion.
You should have the chance to refuse him anyway though, as he already owns "parts of the bundle". ;)
That would be a far stretched interpretation of the rules, though one that this winner probably deserves.
Comment has been collapsed.
I considered closing the current ticket and resubmitting the request under a different reason. It's currently "Previously won the game or already on account" but maybe "other" or "majority of bundle exists in their account" is more appropriate now. But I think I'll just wait.
One other concern I didn't specify in my post above is that the user may not own episodes 2-5 but they still have access to them through library sharing. Again I don't really know the rules on that, but when someone's played 20+ hours and unlocked achievements for beating the whole game it just doesn't feel right.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aaaaaas far as I understand it, bumping it just puts it back at the top of the queue (with it sorting tickets by the timestamp of the last comment in a support ticket, rather than by the timestamp of the original post alone). So closing it and opening a new one would just put you back at the top of the queue yet again, so it'd only slow things down further. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
We ask users not to enter giveaways for packages if they already own the majority of the games. This allows for winners that will receive the most value out of their gift. In the end, the giveaway creator has the final say, and if they believe the winner owns too many of the packaged games, we'll allow them to request a new winner.
Well you gave away the Complete season and the winner already owns the first episode.
Your giveaway description doesn't matter at all. So if you now (after the end of the giveaway) think that Episode 1 is too much and although it is available for free, you can just ask for a re-roll. Your request should be approved.
I get, that with this "free episode", it is (in a way) a grey-area and that in other cases support might decide that a gifter should give a package to the winner although that gifter feels that their winner doesn't "receive the most value out of it", but in this case the idea of the rule - that someone who already experienced most/all of the game can be re-rolled - should be clearly weighted in, too.
I would just point that out to support, IF they have trouble to decide if that mentioned rule is applicable for your case.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not solely for a DLC.
Episodes are DLCs. And regardless, it utilizes the exact same premise.
If it was a giveaway for Episode 2-5 my reasoning would be harder to apply.
The 2-5 sub hasn't existed since episode 1 went F2P, so that's an invalid point.
SG staff simply hasn't been informed that they need to remove the outdated entry from the giveaway list.
Either way, plenty of F2P games include their base game in their subs (typically a leftover from when purchasing the sub gave beta access), so again, not a valid consideration.
Comment has been collapsed.
Jeah, I... agree: Episodes are DLC's - and...?
The winner gets the right to "own" Episode 1-5 with this giveaway. But he already owns a part of it: Episode 1. It is in his steam library, because he owns it. So jeah, if it's too much for OP then they could be eligible for a re-roll.
That stuff about Steam-IPs and subs is all great, but I solely wanted to point out to the OP, that there is a squishy-formulated rule on this site, that says, that a giveaway creator has the ability to ask for a potentially successful re-roll, if they think a winner owns too much of a certain package. I wanted to point out to the OP, that they can call upon that rule, and thus have a base to argue with. Since this rule - in my opinion - also has the "spirit", that a winner, who already experienced most/all of the game can be re-rolled, OP might have a chance that support grants a re-roll in this case: a rule is there.
If you were support, the ticket apparently wouldn't have a chance, but since you are not and the giveaway creator does still seem to have a problem with giving his game to their winner, I wanted to point out a way to deal with this.
Well I read that gain:
The 2-5 sub hasn't existed since episode 1 went F2P, so that's an invalid point.
SG staff simply hasn't been informed that they need to remove the outdated entry from the giveaway list.
Either way, plenty of F2P games include their base game in their subs (typically a leftover from when purchasing the sub gave beta access), so again, not a valid consideration.
All I actually said was: I couldn't have made my argument (that this rule could be applicable), if this giveaway was only for episodes 2-5. So... we agree in a weird way or something, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, what I said is, that we both probably agree on, that the "2-5 edition" is not important here.
Just regarding your first reply to me:
By that logic, you could reroll on every DLC for any F2P game.
Again, it's a complete edition, that OP is giving away. You compared my statement to a sole DLC for a f2p game. A DLC without any content in it that a winner could own. I mean we could argue about my logic, but right now you are just misrepresenting my statement.
I totally agree that - because of the now free status of episode 1 - it can be difficult to decide this case for support and that's why I also think that they might have different approaches for different cases for this problem, but they have the ability to decide in this case based on that mentioned (squishy) rule. I don't know of any other rule that could be applied here and if there is no other rule, then OP would probably not receive a re-roll - since there is also no mentioning about family-sharing in the guidelines.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a game with practically no replay value; picking different decisions actually change nothing. So in this sense I'd go forward with the reroll and hope the winner will actually play and experience the story.
(Not to mention that if someone in the family already has a single-player-only game and can library-share it to you, what would be the point of getting the same game for yourself?)
Comment has been collapsed.
On the one hand, just having played it isn't likely going to matter to SG staff, on the grounds that "a user may want the freedom to replay the game at any time". On the other hand, family sharing is by definition assumed to be within family, indicating that there is a secondary form of ownership of the game already. As such, it's a bit different territory from the usual considerations (and I personally feel it ought be a valid reroll reason- after all, if you enjoy the game that much, then you can damn well make an effort to support the developers with a purchase yourself. :X)
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't assume that family sharing involves a family member. I shared my library with a bunch of people and none of them were in my family. And library sharing can be deactivated, I lost access to some games that way myself, and I probably would consider entering a giveaway for them if I was planning on playing them again.
I do think that it should be the gifter's decision if they want to give it to someone who's never played it before and you seem to feel pretty strongly about it so I hope you get your reroll
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't assume that family sharing involves a family member.
I wouldn't either. But SG likely ought do so, since that's the intended usage of the function, and would be the approach most in line with Steam policies. But more so, it indicates a reasonably ready availability of the game, which puts it kind of in line with deactivating one part of a game package just to be able to avoid rerolls (on partial ownership of a package). Respectful sentiments are in favor of giving the GA creator right-to-reroll, same as with partial ownership [as it's very much the same general principle, of having partial access to the content in question].
I'm not arguing against entering giveaways for games you already (second-hand) own, on the whole, mind you. But as others have noted, LiS is not a game worth playing more than three times (two routes in full opposition on the binary choices available in the game, and perhaps a third 'ideal' run). It's rather different than entering for a game with high replayability, due to open world, sandbox, or multiplayer elements. I simply feel that allowing a GA creator to have the right to reroll [whether they utilize it or not] in such instances is the only fair option.
Put another way, I regret having activated certain games on my account, due to not being able to easily enter giveaways for full packages of the game. (Borderlands 2 is a major cause of irritation in that regard, as I first bought the base game, then the Humble BTA, and it's still $10 cheaper to just buy the GOTY version a third time around.) But I'm fully on board with the GA creators having full rights to determine entry for such, and don't begrudge them in the least for the scammy approach the publisher took on the game. After all, even though it was due to lack of knowledge, it was my actions that led to the game being activated on my account.
Likewise for family sharing- the individual made the decision to play the game in that manner, not the GA creator. There's nothing on the GA creator's end that's manipulative in such regards, and it's a matter that is easily verifiable. It should firmly be in the rights of the GA creator to determine such things.
But, most notably, there's something you have to consider:
As far as I'm aware (being somewhat unfamiliar with family sharing) there's no way of telling at a glance if a game with recorded time/achievements obtained those through removal of the game from the account (with the intent to win the GA, reverse the game removal, and then sell/trade/activate-on-another-account the win) or if it gained its stats through family sharing.
SG does keep records of game ownership on an account from the account's last sync, but a dedicated user could manipulate those results.
Should the GA creator have to support potentially outright exploitative behaviors just on the chance that they're not such? Heck, should they even have to go through the hassle of verifying the circumstances in question?
Again, these are all decisions made on the winner's end. Much like the decision to use a private account in conjunction with the site, there are certain allowances such decisions must be willing to provide- else it puts undue pressure on the site's functioning and on the GA creators.
It's not that I feel strongly about the matter..
It's that given a choice between "Should someone be respectful toward someone else's considerations" and "Should someone be as selfish as possible about non-essential things" I'm always going to pick the first option.
Comment has been collapsed.
he probably wants to idle cards, like 99% of sg.
just deliver if he doesn't have the pack. unless you want to play with the rules and ask to reroll based on him owning the first free episode (take screenshots now of his library before he decides to remove it, just in case you need proof).
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually you don't(anymore atleast), I had episode 1 already(cause I won it) quite some time before it went free and as soon as it went free I couldn't get the card drops anymore even though the day before it went free i still had 3 card drops remaining, which made me regret not playing it earlier so I'd have gotten the cards but meh I'll get them at some point anyway :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually not really checked the achievements. I only check ownership and simply don't look at achievements (for DLCs). Personally I am fine with winners already played them, even unlocked achievements but actually got from sharing--they want to have their own copies of the game and no need to rely on the sharing maybe. If they want to replay the game that's fine too--of course it's your copy of the game so you can go ahead with whatever your preference is.
You can still get in reach with the winner though, add them on Steam and check with Friends that Play page of any extra episode (for example: http://steamcommunity.com/my/friendsthatplay/329880 ), see if they show up in there as already owned. If you want a re-roll then just wait for support's response, there is nothing much you have to do or can do.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the winner's screenshot for the achievements, they haven't 100%-ed yet so they might pick it up again. They might also want the extra episodes in case they want to check back something in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's certainly an interesting conundrum. Though the site doesn't require you to play the games you win (otherwise a lot of people would be in trouble) so perhaps it's not the most noble entry, but there are a lot more unscrupulous people on this site as well. Technically he didn't break any rules, and having played the game before is no indication of whether a game will be played.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I can imagine him really enjoying the game and wanting to own it. Not sure if he'd ever replay it though. But I can certainly understand you'd want the winner to play it since it's actually a good game (from what I've heard, still need to play it myself). But you ask an interesting question, which never even occurred to me, I wonder what support's reaction will be.
Comment has been collapsed.
I assume they told you about the shared library part, but did they also show you any proof that they don't actually own the whole season and didn't just claim that? I.E. screeenshots of the game page showing their account name and the first episode in their library while steam still giving them the option to buy 2-5
Comment has been collapsed.
He sent a screenshot of his owned DLC tab on the game properties window from the client. I also added him to my friends list, and if I go through the "Send my gift directly through Steam" page the winner is shown as only owning episode 1 (which is free).
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting conundrum! In my opinion it's a dick move to enter for a game you've already completed. I could understand a multiplayer type of game which you could keep playing and possibly would like to play with the person you've been sharing it from but a game with zero replayability... Dick move. okay: if you've previously, especially years and years ago, shared the game from someone whose library you can no longer access and have not completed the game, then the entry would make sense
Very interested to see how this plays out with support! /me bookmarks thread
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I can understand trying out an online shooter or something through sharing then wanting to own the game yourself. However for this game/situation it's a bit different (completing game, achievements, etc.), though I acknowledge it is a gray area regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
He does not own the game. He entered for it and won. Give him the game. If he has broken other rules then reroll based on that . I would encourage a reroll if he is a rule breaker. But entering for a game you don't own is what we are all doing.
Don't reroll because he has played it. That just shows he would appreciate the game more then someone who wants a plus 1. I share out my Library with my niece and nephew. They don't have very many games but play some of mine. They are not on this site but if they did sign up and won something, would you say no to them because they played it from my library. That is not fair.
I understand why you asked for a reroll. You saw the game was played, assumed he owned it and wondered how he entered. Hence the reroll request. Thats perfectly understandable. But now you know he does not own it. Personally I would cancel the reroll request and send the game.
Also remember that a shared library game can't be played if the owner comes online. You get kicked off after 5 min. If I liked a game that I was playing via a shared library I would enter every draw for it I found so I did not get kicked off every time the owner wanted to play a game.
In this case, he has finished the game. I'm not fully on his side in this particular case. But I still think I'd just give him the game. He did play it to completion so he must have liked it.
Thinking about it. There is one game my niece has (its her dads original account) that I want to play. I am entering GAs for it. I have not yet played it but I could. I have to admit that thinking about it. Yes. If I do play it and finish it. I will still enter GAs for it. I want to own any game I've played. I've already bought many games on steam that I've played in the past before steam. I don't have the original media to loan out and this way my family can play from my account if they wish.
I suppose this case is borderline. Is he a level 0 or 1 and just leaching games. Or does he give his fair share. That would likley push me one way or the other into asking for the reroll and seeing what support says or cancelling the request and just giving it to him.
Obviously that would not matter to support, I have no idea how support sees this issue. I'm sure they have a guild line about it.
I am curious to see how this turns out. I'm a bit on the fence on this one but I think I'd give it to him.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I am aware of that. I never worded that very well. And to clarify further, the non owner person gets a popup 5 min warning when the owner starts to play any game in his own library. It does not need to be the game the non owner is playing. You are correct. The owner coming online does not trigger the 5 min warning. Its only when a game is started.
Are you sure about the offline part? I think it worked like that when family sharing was first introduced and was shortly changed afterwords. But I have not tested that. Do you mean the owner can play a game offline without kicking the non owner off. Or do you mean the non owner can still play the game offline when the owner is online. Have you tested this? I thought this was not possible. But I'm getting that from reading about it. Not from trying it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know for a fact that the non owner can play the game offline even if the owner is playing a game, I have a friend who switches to offline whenever I want to play my games and he's already using my library. Never tried the other way around though
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting case -- I hope that the rules on that are much clearer for SG after this one's resolved.
In case you do end up having to gift the game -- trying to look at the bright side for this -- at least the person did get the achievements for the game, in whatever roundabout way, so they (probably) actually did enjoy playing it, as opposed to some winners who might just idle for cards.
I think the concern about the shared lib account would mostly be whether or not it's just an alt, but I'm not sure how you'd determine that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think your reroll is pretty much guaranteed now ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
15,440 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by MarvashMagalli
45 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by ViTALiTY
46,852 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Sh4dowKill
236 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by yannbz
559 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by svecka
822 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by InSpec
3,117 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by Hunf027
82 Comments - Last post 46 seconds ago by Myrsan
94 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by HowDareYou
114 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by cassioht
46 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Patryk0
12 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by icaio
1,194 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by Gelweo
24 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by aklgupta
A giveaway of mine (Life is Strange Complete Season) finished 3 days ago. When I checked the winner's Steam profile I saw that they've played 21 hours of the game and unlocked achievements in all 5 episodes, including the achievements for completing each episode. I thought the winner's entry was a mistake or goof, since other users had mentioned on my giveaway and a previous one that people who own the whole season of LiS can still enter.
I requested a reroll shortly after the giveaway completed based on the above (playtime, achievements, assumed ownership). Today I've learned that the winner played episodes 2-5 via shared library, and they only own the first episode on their account (first episode of LiS is now free). I updated my reroll request with this information and still plan to wait for their response, but I'm still confused.
Has anyone encountered this type of situation before (user beat game via sharing, unlocked achievements, but doesn't actually own the game)? The FAQ only mentions ownership of package contents - not achievements or playtime/completion since those are understandably a gray area. My giveaway description only specified that users should not enter if they own any of episodes 2-5. I did not mention actually playing/beating the game, since this kind of situation would have never occurred to me.
I realize it was probably a mistake to not verify ownership with the winner before my reroll request (assumption was based on 20+ hours playtime and achievement unlocks for completing all episodes). If the only thing that matters is whether the person actually owns the game or not then I would understand. However, I would have preferred the game to go to someone who doesn't own it and hasn't played it (beyond the free first episode). I suppose I can only wait for support's response, and again I updated my ticket with all the information I know.
Anyway, thanks for reading. If you have any advice or thoughts I appreciate it.
Comment has been collapsed.