Opinion on sharing in the Steam Family Library and viewing content together with family members
Opinion on sharing in the Steam Family Library and viewing content together with family members
Hello. We're a group of six, with me (M34), my wife (F30), W (M8), B (M7), N (M4) and M (M0.5). Playing games is a normal part of family time, whether it's video or board games, and it seems likely to continue, though costs are rising and that can be tough for anyone. Until now, our main game was Minecraft Bedrock on Xbox, with W on iOS, me on PC, B and W on iPhones, and N mostly on W’s iPad. That’s six people enjoying games across two devices, sharing just a couple purchases. For non-physical games, I think it’s fair since everyone is part of the same household. Recently, W received a gaming laptop as a birthday gift, sparking interest in PC games for the kids. Now they’re eager to try other titles on my PC, still staying together as a unit. Sure, most of my games work on Xbox, but I own over 300 titles on Steam. I found out about Steam’s Family Library Sharing feature—perfect! We just need to set up accounts for the kids ASAP. The main hurdle is that Steam doesn’t offer true family organization like Xbox or Apple; it has a “Family View” for parental control, which isn’t ideal. It feels like they’re forcing play through my account, limiting access to only certain games. That defeats the whole point of getting them onto PC and Steam. So, “adult” accounts are our best bet, without any real parental oversight. This shouldn’t go wrong, right? The second issue is that Steam’s family sharing doesn’t actually support true sharing—just a confusing name that doesn’t match what it does. It would be great if W or the kids could borrow a game from my collection and keep it safely stored, so I’m not stuck with multiple copies. All this while Steam calls it “sharing,” which doesn’t fit the actual concept. Who knows what family really means here? Maybe it’s just someone else’s idea. It could be your child, a neighbor, or even a friend’s relative helping out without any notice. Is that really family? If so, I’m worried about having to buy several extra copies of a game just to spend a few hours together before the kids (or W) get bored. Am I the only one thinking this is unreasonable? It seems Microsoft probably doesn’t care as much as Apple, which is understandable given their business model. But even for indie developers on Steam, they still want revenue. This situation feels unfair, especially with only eight months left before W returns from parental leave and we have more budget available.
the very implementation of sharing that steam has, is as close to 'the days of physical media' as we can get. there isnt much argument to be made about playing a multiplayer game together on a single copy, if not for something like splitscreen. you can share your library, and the other person can play a game on your license, but that means you cannot also use that license at the same time. in the same way you cant have someone borrow your super mario SNES cartridge, while you're playing it as well. there's annoying hurdles about steam's sharing thing, but being able to use the same license together is an argument that you cannot reasonably defend as an expected feature. your definition of 'sharing' is also fairly flawed, because it would imply that 'sharing a bike with your spouse' also means you can both ride it at the same time, then. as for my 'solution' to the matter: buy splitscreen / shared screen co-op games. there's A LOT of really fun games you can play off of one license, either around a single display, or with screen share trough steam. here's just a quick example from my own steam library for games that support some form of local multiplayer: - tricky towers - speedrunners - stardew valley - overcooked (1 and 2) - nidhogg - human: fall flat - golf it - the escapists 2 - duck game - unrailed
In fairness, the sharing option functions only when connected to a device you've logged into your account while trying to access your library. Unless you're using Steam on someone else's computer—like your uncle’s cousin’s wife’s best friend’s brother-in-law’s stepsons gaming PC—they won’t be able to play your games. The feature works fine as it stands, but it’s frustrating when it blocks access immediately after starting a game. That’s quite annoying. We’re part of a gaming family; my wife and two daughters (ages 5 and 7) enjoy various titles. Each of us has a personal PC that can handle most games we want. I’ve set up Steam and Microsoft accounts for them, though they’re restricted by default. My Microsoft accounts are secured with family monitoring and two-factor authentication tied to my phone.
Steam, Ubisoft, Epic all have issues when it comes to creating accounts for kids. They either don’t think a child account is possible (like Ubisoft) or they let it but don’t offer restrictions. It’s really frustrating. How can I manage multiple games without buying them? Free-to-play titles help a lot—Warframe, Destiny 2, etc. Warframe is especially popular with my daughter, and even though it needs an account, I track their profiles using Dashlane, keeping everything linked to their emails. The only downside is reinforcing the “no strangers” rule, reminding them not to play online without us, and sticking to single-player games unless we’re all together.
Games that run on one PC, like Wizard of Legends, are great too. Humble Bundles are a solid source for keys—especially if you’ve bought many before. You’ll build up a good collection over time. If you start tracking them now, you’ll have a nice stash eventually. Otherwise, wait until sales come along and buy games then. My girls also love Minecraft, which is a must-have. Any other titles like Spyro or Sonic are usually found during Steam discounts, teaching them patience.
*EDIT* I should mention GOG too. Games bought there don’t require DRM or a client—GOG Galaxy is optional. I own hundreds of titles there, some classics and others newer releases.
There’s a method to bypass the library sharing restriction—disable your Steam account after installing the games you wish to play, ensuring they’re not online. I often share my library with my partner because I own significantly more titles than she does. When we both use the service simultaneously, I switch it off and enjoy without limits. The main drawback is that it turns off several built-in features, such as tracking game time and preventing achievements for certain titles.
In reality, when you tap the "to have or use alongside another" option (or click this link: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...sh/sharing), you'll see the official Cambridge definition. This makes it hard to imagine sharing a single license for multiple people. The idea of "Family Library Sharing" is clear, but it seems unlikely anyone expects full collaboration with just one license. Several well-known companies handle this scenario, as noted earlier—two major ones allow such setups. When you look at the wording, it’s tied to the concept of sharing, which is important. If Valve had phrased it differently, especially with "family" included, that expectation wouldn’t have existed from the start. It’s possible some clever developers could have created a more fitting name, but so far, this isn’t happening.
I’m just repeating what I said before. Regarding your point about physical media, buying digital copies avoids the hassle of cartridges or disks—no risk of losing keys, no fading text, and you can switch games easily. The main issue is still with non-physical formats: they need some randomization to work, or risk permanent loss like with my old StarCraft titles or Photoshop versions.
Physical copies are tougher than we thought. I’ve lost games like *StarCraft: Brood War*, *Diablo 2*, and several titles due to damaged prints or missing serial numbers. Even my older software—Adobe Photoshop 4.0, Visual Basic 6, Lotus suite—wasn’t safe. Buying digital is better, but it still feels restrictive compared to owning a physical copy.
Multiplayer is another hurdle. Digital games usually cap at four players locally, which isn’t ideal for family fun. I’d prefer playing physical board games or paper RPGs instead. LAN play works for some, but it’s limited to four people and still requires separate copies.
Some titles like *Golf it* or *The Escapists 2* are okay with two players, but not many support simultaneous local play. *Nidhogg* is only two-player, and *Stardew Valley* is great for one person. *Limited to two players* feels too narrow for a family activity.
I don’t think we’re close enough to physical media anymore—LAN still needs individual copies, and local multiplayer is capped. For us, digital feels more practical, even if it’s not perfect.
If you want something closer to real media, maybe stick with games that have physical versions or at least strong emulation options. Otherwise, digital is the best we can do right now.
You can't imagine two riders sharing a bike at once. The idea behind steam's sharing feels like trying to recreate the thrill of physical media in a digital space. Regarding locking everyone’s library, it’s mostly a practical necessity, though I don’t fully support it. Still, I understand its origins. Despite its flaws, this approach has helped build communities that focus on a single game license for many players. Beyond that, PC gaming as a whole doesn’t naturally fit the idea of a complete family experience. The games I’ve talked about show developers trying to deliver top-notch experiences, but they’re still limited to one screen and controllers. I recommend exploring free-to-play titles, open-source projects, and other options designed for shared enjoyment rather than just discussing game licenses without expectations.
You just need to purchase more copies of the game. If you wish to play with others, you require the right number of licenses. I understand how you described playing Minecraft with more players than licenses, but this isn't a reliable setup for most users. With the rise of streaming services, especially in video, companies are becoming stricter about content sharing, as it affects their income. It makes sense that game developers are pushing for multiple purchases if you want to play together.
It's frustrating when you have to buy the same game repeatedly just to enjoy it with your family. While it might work on one device, playing across six different ones means a separate license is needed. You seem to be focusing on console rules where everyone uses the same machine, but on PCs, people usually play on individual devices, which requires a dedicated license.
I think you're getting too caught up in the details of "library sharing." It's debatable, but it won't change anything. Valve can enforce restrictions if someone plays just one game from their collection, since lending a physical copy still leaves others available. In reality, it should be easy enough for them to manage based on what you're playing.
If this bothers you, the best place to talk is directly with Valve. This forum isn't the right spot for complaints—just share your thoughts and they'll explain what's possible.
If you truly read my message, you should notice how I already acknowledged the situation when I clicked submit. It’s quite clear from the parts mentioned: however, personally, I’m not the one choosing what “word sharing” entails. If you have concerns, address them with the major academic organizations. Regardless of your opinion, Valve still misuses the term, which is my main concern. This can lead other parents—especially those with less experience or lower income—to misunderstand completely. While I see it as unreasonable within a single household, the issue remains about how it’s presented. Unless you provide a clear definition, changing the wording won’t help much. One voice isn’t enough; just sharing my thoughts could make a difference. People, particularly families, need to recognize this. Sure, the settings describe it well, but what I found confusing was the results from my research. If only family sharing lets everyone use their apps and games together across compatible devices, it would be more inclusive. Of course, that hasn’t happened. But the changing demographics and culture in my area are important. Many of us who grew up with consoles now have kids who want to play together. When I was younger, gaming was seen negatively, just like it is for some older generations. Now, as we age and start families, we try to involve everyone to make it more normal. This shift could benefit the industry by making gaming a shared experience. Adapting it to suit families might attract non-gamers who hadn’t considered it before. My wife hasn’t played much, but I know others who never thought of gaming beyond their phones—often influenced by partners or kids. Some of them have huge libraries compared to mine. But my goal was never to persuade anyone; I’ve already made it clear. If I’m upset, I wouldn’t waste time writing this. I don’t have the energy for such discussions (to be honest). I’m currently working at full capacity, but there’s some planning happening at higher levels so I can spare a bit of time now.
It means having something together with another person simultaneously. Yes, that’s usually not how “sharing” is understood. So you lend your car to me (thanks!) which lets us both drive it in opposite directions, possibly even across countries? You really need to think carefully here, because just because some upset online sources claim otherwise doesn’t mean it’s correct. Then you’ll say wiki is a trustworthy source—absolutely, if it aligns with your perspective, otherwise anyone can post whatever they like. I actually respect your view; five people could play the same game while only paying for one copy. Sure, that sounds great, but why would a store allow this? You only paid once. Still, Steam does let it in offline mode. Though I’m not sure what the library’s “sharing” limit is. P.S.: Here’s the German definition of “sharing”: “Teilen ist das gemeinsame Nutzen einer Ressource.” In material things, the item or time must be divided among users, allowing cultural items like knowledge to be exchanged fully together. From an economic perspective, sharing reflects reciprocity—something expressed through gift or barter systems in various ways.”
The concept comes from Cambridge University definitions, not any other source. Sharing valves seems to contradict their own ideas of sharing, as illustrated here: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.c...sh/share_1. This approach fits well with the idea of a "Family Library Sharing," which makes sense for households in the early to mid-90s when only one computer was available and multiplayer was rare. The name feels fitting for that era, though it might now seem outdated. Some platforms let you play together with a single license—like Xbox or even iOS devices—but they often require valid usernames and can be tricky to set up. Games such as Factorio don’t block this, but you’ll need to turn off username checks and disable pirated access. It’s clear the company recognizes sharing among friends, though they strongly warn against it for security reasons. On PlayStation, you can share a single license, but only within PS5 or PS4 consoles with cross-play enabled. Still, PS supports multiple copies from one license, which is different from Xbox’s model. Overall, it’s a nice way to enjoy games together, especially with family, and the Minecraft board games are really fun!