| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 35 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 29:43:00 |
| Calls: | 333 |
| Files: | 990 |
| Messages: | 84,638 |
Honestly, I wouldn't have expected this from Nintendo. While they're
best known for their unique style of games, but they are probably
second-best known for the tightness of their grip around their
properties.
So, learning that you will soon be able to share your games with
others on the Switch (and soon-to-be-released "Switch 2") seems
incredibly out of character with them.* Essentially, every game will
have a 'virtual card' associated with it, and if you drag that card to
a friend's Switch, they'll be able to play that game. It's a digital equivalent of yanking a cartridge out of your console and handing it
over to your buddy to take home from the night.
Obviously you won't be able to play it in the meantime, but that's
only fair, right? There are some other restrictions too (for instance,
you can only transfer within your 'family group', which can contain a
maximum of 8 members, and there's a limit on how often you can add or
remove people, but still, it's an admirable concession...especially
for families with children that don't want to have to buy the same
game for each kid.
I personally adore the visual simplicity of the method too. It
re-captures the feel of 'cat ridge games that adds an almost tactile
feel to the sharing. I've used library sharing for family on Steam,
but it's much less personal: "Here, have access to this huge list of
games." Being able to virtually hand over a game I think is good and
worth playing to somebody has an appeal all on its own.
But it does raise the question: if it can be made so easy to share
games between family members... shouldn't it be just as easy to SELL
those games? Because, ultimately, all you are doing is transferring
licenses, and if all of a sudden it's okay to move licenses between a
select group of people, why can't I do it with anyone... and maybe get
a fee for the privilege? Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from
these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
I'm not sure Nintendo has considered this, but I do hope that this new
scheme of theirs sets precedent that can one day be used to give
gamers back their rights to sell their games again.
* here's more details about it https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-switch-virtual-game-cards-will-let-you-share-digital-games/1100-6530424/
Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from
these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
Honestly, I wouldn't have expected this from Nintendo. While they're
best known for their unique style of games, but they are probably
second-best known for the tightness of their grip around their
properties.
So, learning that you will soon be able to share your games with
others on the Switch (and soon-to-be-released "Switch 2") seems
incredibly out of character with them.* Essentially, every game will
have a 'virtual card' associated with it, and if you drag that card to
a friend's Switch, they'll be able to play that game. It's a digital equivalent of yanking a cartridge out of your console and handing it
over to your buddy to take home from the night.
Obviously you won't be able to play it in the meantime, but that's
only fair, right? There are some other restrictions too (for instance,
you can only transfer within your 'family group', which can contain a
maximum of 8 members, and there's a limit on how often you can add or
remove people, but still, it's an admirable concession...especially
for families with children that don't want to have to buy the same
game for each kid.
I personally adore the visual simplicity of the method too. It
re-captures the feel of 'cat ridge games that adds an almost tactile
feel to the sharing. I've used library sharing for family on Steam,
but it's much less personal: "Here, have access to this huge list of
games." Being able to virtually hand over a game I think is good and
worth playing to somebody has an appeal all on its own.
But it does raise the question: if it can be made so easy to share
games between family members... shouldn't it be just as easy to SELL
those games? Because, ultimately, all you are doing is transferring
licenses, and if all of a sudden it's okay to move licenses between a
select group of people, why can't I do it with anyone... and maybe get
a fee for the privilege? Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from
these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
I'm not sure Nintendo has considered this, but I do hope that this new
scheme of theirs sets precedent that can one day be used to give
gamers back their rights to sell their games again.
* here's more details about it https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-switch-virtual-game-cards-will-let-you-share-digital-games/1100-6530424/
On 3/28/2025 7:15 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:36:37 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from
these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
I think Steam now allows simultaneous different games playable from the same shared library. So long as the sharing party isn't playing the particular game you want to play, you can play their other games. IIRC
Don't remember when it happened. Not sure if I'm remembering correctly. I do know that I don't get "Hooray! Lemonhead's* games are available to
play now!" messages any more.
Sort of. I just did this with the kids. You have to add them as a
friend first, then add them as family. They can play any game that
neither of the other of us are playing that one of us owns. If you want
to play say something together (which I did want to do with my daughter
and dark souls,) then you still need to have them actually buy a copy
though. (Ended up not doing this as it was obviously way too hard for
her even with my hints and she quit before she even got to a spot we
could play together.)
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Honestly, I wouldn't have expected this from Nintendo. While they're
best known for their unique style of games, but they are probably second-best known for the tightness of their grip around their
properties.
So, learning that you will soon be able to share your games with
others on the Switch (and soon-to-be-released "Switch 2") seems
incredibly out of character with them.* Essentially, every game will
have a 'virtual card' associated with it, and if you drag that card to
a friend's Switch, they'll be able to play that game. It's a digital equivalent of yanking a cartridge out of your console and handing it
over to your buddy to take home from the night.
Obviously you won't be able to play it in the meantime, but that's
only fair, right? There are some other restrictions too (for instance,
you can only transfer within your 'family group', which can contain a maximum of 8 members, and there's a limit on how often you can add or remove people, but still, it's an admirable concession...especially
for families with children that don't want to have to buy the same
game for each kid.
I personally adore the visual simplicity of the method too. It
re-captures the feel of 'cat ridge games that adds an almost tactile
feel to the sharing. I've used library sharing for family on Steam,
but it's much less personal: "Here, have access to this huge list of games." Being able to virtually hand over a game I think is good and
worth playing to somebody has an appeal all on its own.
But it does raise the question: if it can be made so easy to share
games between family members... shouldn't it be just as easy to SELL
those games? Because, ultimately, all you are doing is transferring licenses, and if all of a sudden it's okay to move licenses between a select group of people, why can't I do it with anyone... and maybe get
a fee for the privilege? Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
I'm not sure Nintendo has considered this, but I do hope that this new scheme of theirs sets precedent that can one day be used to give
gamers back their rights to sell their games again.
That would be good. When I visited Ant in the hospital he had a bag of
games some of them from 1985.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:24:24 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant wrote:
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/28/2025 7:15 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:36:37 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from >>>>> these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
I think Steam now allows simultaneous different games playable from the >>>> same shared library. So long as the sharing party isn't playing the
particular game you want to play, you can play their other games. IIRC >>>>
Don't remember when it happened. Not sure if I'm remembering correctly. I >>>> do know that I don't get "Hooray! Lemonhead's* games are available to
play now!" messages any more.
Sort of. I just did this with the kids. You have to add them as a
friend first, then add them as family. They can play any game that
neither of the other of us are playing that one of us owns. If you want >>> to play say something together (which I did want to do with my daughter
and dark souls,) then you still need to have them actually buy a copy
though. (Ended up not doing this as it was obviously way too hard for
her even with my hints and she quit before she even got to a spot we
could play together.)
Interesting. Oh, let's start a family to share our Stea games. ;)
Sure thing step-bro!
However, you can't -without a lot of work- only share specific games
between family members. You give them access to your entire library. I
don't think that's necessarily /bad/ but I do like Nintendo's 'virtual
card' method where you can share /specific/ games with people. It adds
a more personal touch.
Mostly, I just wanted to post it here so I'd have a record to remind
me in case I ever forget in the future. ;-)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:46:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/28/2025 4:14 PM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:24:24 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant >>> wrote:Step-ant!
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/28/2025 7:15 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:36:37 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Steam's "you're only sharing the entire
library" method adds a certain distance to this that shields them from >>>>>>> these questions, but by allowing single-game license-transfers,
Nintendo opens themselves up to this next step.
I think Steam now allows simultaneous different games playable from the >>>>>> same shared library. So long as the sharing party isn't playing the >>>>>> particular game you want to play, you can play their other games. IIRC >>>>>>
Don't remember when it happened. Not sure if I'm remembering correctly. I
do know that I don't get "Hooray! Lemonhead's* games are available to >>>>>> play now!" messages any more.
Sort of. I just did this with the kids. You have to add them as a
friend first, then add them as family. They can play any game that
neither of the other of us are playing that one of us owns. If you want >>>>> to play say something together (which I did want to do with my daughter >>>>> and dark souls,) then you still need to have them actually buy a copy >>>>> though. (Ended up not doing this as it was obviously way too hard for >>>>> her even with my hints and she quit before she even got to a spot we >>>>> could play together.)
Interesting. Oh, let's start a family to share our Stea games. ;)
Sure thing step-bro!
You joke, but that's actually a possibility. The different family
members don't even have to be in the same vicinity as one another;
they can be an ocean apart and still have access to all your games.
Nor does Valve do any real checking to ensure that 'family members'
are actually related.
The main restrictions are that
a) you can only add so many people to your family group*,
b) you can only add or remove people so often and so many times*,
and
c) shitty behavior by somebody playing games in your libray can
reflect badly on you (so if little Jimmy gets caught cheating
playing your copy of Counterstrike, it could be YOU that gets
the VAC-ban).
Also, if games have other onerous DRM/account requirements (e.g., 'you
must have a Ubisoft account to use this game') they won't show up on
the shared library. Which means an increasingly large number of
triple-A games are excluded from sharing.
* again, too lazy to check for the specific numbers