Support NeoGAF

bearlabored · Jun 20, 2013

IrishNinja said:
bla, bla, bla

PC - Console Market
Steam - Xbox One
PS4 - Disc from retailer
Wii U - Origin
etc.

Is it really that hard to understand?
Also, I don't see answer to my question:
Why you want feature from device, clearly not supported by design, and MS clearly says so. Who forces you to buy it?

It is seems you just against any changes and want to live in static word. You may not trust MS, but Sony don't even trying, how you will get steam with online sharing and discounts, when you don't make even one step towards it?

Evoga · Jun 20, 2013

Just because of the backwards people who wanted to stick with the old physical media. Terrible move, should have kept an option to sign up for 24 hour check-in.

Back to having to put the damn disc in the machine even though i am connected to the internet 24/7.

mavs · Jun 20, 2013

If it was so great why didn't they make it the headline feature for their new console? Why did they even say anything at all about the DRM policies when they could have said something positive?

This and the cheaper games speculation have the same problem. If it was even half that good they would have made sure we knew it was that good. They really could have used some good publicity.

Reallink · Jun 20, 2013

Windu said:
Well it was obviously up to the publishers. Some would do it, some would not. Still better than what we have now.

Then 99% of them would have disallowed it, and you would effectively be in the same spot you are now, only without the ability rent, lend, or sell your physical discs. You're basically talking about letting people set up a free internet rental service here, it absolutely would not have happened. Unmitigated disaster seems insufficient in describing the effects on pub/dev revenues.

GQman2121 · Jun 20, 2013

Windu said:
Well it was obviously up to the publishers. Some would do it, some would not. Still better than what we have now.

How is having the ability to do whatever you want with your games, as we've been doing, oh I don't know, for the last 30+ years, worse than a make believe system that no one could give a straight answer on when pressed?

It was too good to be true because it made no sense. And it made no sense because it never actually existed. But for the sake of argument it is nice to think of what could have been, especially when that pipe dream can be used as a means of justification.

ThoughtsOfSpeaking · Jun 20, 2013

You people must have some razor fast internet. Im on a 60mb unlimited connection and there is no way in hell id go DD only.

troushers · Jun 20, 2013

Vigilant Walrus said:
I don't wanna give money to these people. Gamestop doesn't make my games. Gamestop just has games sitting on the shelf.

I don't understand why people say this. If it is so easy to run a nationwide chain of bricks and mortar, then why aren't EA, Activision or Take Two doing it? Why have there been so many different chains shuttered in the past decade?

I don't object to companies wanted to develop alternate markets to profit off their games. But the way to do it isn't to parasitise Gamestop through some absurd software back door, it's to invest in their own businesses that allow it.

Gamestop make their profits because the publishers have allowed them to develop into a quasi monopoly through their own practises. I have zero sympathy for them when they end up punishing consumers through their own inept business planning.

EvilDick34 · Jun 20, 2013

It is rather hilarious that there are this many people who are saying they want a 24 hour check in so they can get a feature that was only in the planning stages at best. If this had gone through the same lot of you would be bitching if your internet went down or if microsoft's servers went down and you couldn't play any of your games.

Averon · Jun 20, 2013

IHaveCandy said:
That 10 person sharing idea sounds like a nightmare for publishers. Far worse than used games.

Sony had something similar for PSN games and publishers forced them to restrict it. The notion that MS would allow people to give away $60 games to 10 people for free is absurd on its face. The fact that people think publishers would be okay with this--the same publishers bitching and moaning about used games and who try to nickle and dime you every chance they get with DLC--is laughable.

MS goes through all this trouble to try to institute restrictive DRM to limit used games and game trading, and just offer a plan that provides a massive, gaping loophole that totally destroys that initial aim? Just think about that for a second. It doesn't make ANY damn sense.

Alucrid · Jun 20, 2013

Evoga said:
Just because of the backwards people who wanted to stick with the old physical media. Terrible move, should have kept an option to sign up for 24 hour check-in.

Back to having to put the damn disc in the machine even though i am connected to the internet 24/7.

Feel free to buy your games through the XBL marketplace.

GQman2121 · Jun 20, 2013

Evoga said:
Just because of the backwards people who wanted to stick with the old physical media. Terrible move, should have kept an option to sign up for 24 hour check-in.

Back to having to put the damn disc in the machine even though i am connected to the internet 24/7.

So buy your games off the marketplace? Problem solved.....?

Marty Chinn · Jun 20, 2013

Alucrid said:
Feel free to buy your games through the XBL marketplace.

If only digital had the same flexibility and consumer rights as physical....

not psycho · Jun 20, 2013

I have to admit, I was excited to get infinite games for the price of 1, and play every game on the system for a total of $60.

I was planning on buying one game, joining a group where everyone had a different game, and then we would go round the circle playing all the games in the group. After that, join a new group.

I was strongly considering sending a nice thank you note to Capcom, EA, and Activision thanking them for letting me play all their games for free. No money of course, but they're in it for the thanks, right?

StudioTan · Jun 20, 2013

GQman2121 said:
So buy your games off the marketplace? Problem solved.....?

Discs give you a quick install method without using up any of your bandwidth cap.

Alucrid · Jun 20, 2013

Marty Chinn said:
If only digital had the same flexibility and consumer rights as physical....

His only complaint is physical media and having to switch discs. That's easily remedied by buying games through the digital service already in place. It's not like there would have been numerous other options with physical media under the old policies.

Valjean Lafitte · Jun 20, 2013

I really don't get this at all. So you can lend your games to people and you don't have to check in online every 24 hours in order to play your games. Besides the privacy concerns of the new Kinect, isn't this infringement on game ownership half the reason people were complaining about XBox One to begin with? So now that they've changed these ass-backward policies people are complaining?!

nesboy43 · Jun 20, 2013

They can eliminate this feature since they eliminated DRM. I think they did plan in the long run for this DRM stuff to be beneficial but the consumer does not like it.

Canis lupus · Jun 20, 2013

not psycho said:
I have to admit, I was excited to get infinite games for the price of 1, and play every game on the system for a total of $60.

I was planning on buying one game, joining a group where everyone had a different game, and then we would go round the circle playing all the games in the group. After that, join a new group.

I was strongly considering sending a nice thank you note to Capcom, EA, and Activision thanking them for letting me play all their games for free. No money of course, but they're in it for the thanks, right?

I'm sure thats not how it would've worked.

NullPointer · Jun 20, 2013

Evoga said:
Back to having to put the damn disc in the machine even though i am connected to the internet 24/7.

That is lame, but absolutely does not require a 24 hour phone home to enable.

But in the meanwhile you could buy digital and get the very same end result.

GQman2121 · Jun 20, 2013

StudioTan said:
Discs give you a quick install method without using up any of your bandwidth cap.

I know it wasn't your post, but if you're going to complain about old physical media, then you don't get to complain about bandwidth caps. It's one or the other. Or get your ass off the couch if you need to switch games because if I'm paying retail prices for the disc, I want retail value on my money.

Marty Chinn · Jun 20, 2013

Valjean Lafitte said:
I really don't get this at all. So you can lend your games to people and you don't have to check in online every 24 hours in order to play your games. Besides the privacy concerns of the new Kinect, isn't this infringement on game ownership half the reason people were complaining about XBox One to begin with? So now that they've changed these ass-backward policies people are complaining?!

People are complaining about one of the potential benefits from what they were proposing. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation of what you like. You can hate the policies that they had and be happy about the changes they made but still be upset that this one feature will now go away.

nelsonroyale · Jun 20, 2013

Haha this is an impressive reversal! They only announced it a week ago haha.

King Tubby · Jun 20, 2013

Canis lupus said:
I'm sure thats not how it would've worked.

No one is sure how it would've worked, that's what makes this so ridiculous.

I have yet to see anyone address why Microsoft couldn't just institute this policy for digitally purchased titles, if they were really serious about doing this.

ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
You people must have some razor fast internet. Im on a 60mb unlimited connection and there is no way in hell id go DD only.

My connection is FAR slower than that and I still purchase games digitally all the time. I just leave it downloading in the background, after a few hours there's my game.

publicpwnerer · Jun 20, 2013

I truly feel for the deluded people that genuinely thought that Microsoft killed used games, only to then turn around and allow you to share it with 10 people.

The "Family Sharing" plan was conjured up conveniently for E3. Every single person contradicted one another when asked to speak about the "Family Sharing Plan". It was as if it was mysteriously plucked from thin air...or the "cloud" if you will, to try to use as a countermeasure for the negativity surrounding the DRM.

GAMEPROFF · Jun 20, 2013

I dont understand the problems of the people, who hates discs.

MS didnt cut Day One Digital Versions, you dont need discs for them.

Minions · Jun 20, 2013

Canis lupus said:
I'm sure thats not how it would've worked.

If other people bought and shared them with you, it would. (You would have to wait in line though) Publishers would have shut that down quick though.

IrishNinja · Jun 20, 2013

bearlabored said:
Is it really that hard to understand?

still not appreciating your tone here. if you honestly wish to have a meaningful engagement, why not tone that down a bit?

next up:

PC - Console Market
Steam - Xbox One
PS4 - Disc from retailer
Wii U - Origin
etc.

...what? i literally cannot see what you're trying to illustrate here at all.

Wii-U/Origin have little to nothing in common, less so than steam & xbone. you are reaching very far for like things that do not fit, and instead of forming a half-baked argument to illustrate why, you're trying condescension. it's not working.

Also, I don't see answer to my question:
Why you want feature from device, clearly not supported by design, and MS clearly says so. Who forces you to buy it?

i respect that english isn't your first language, but this is a very hard read.
no one "forces me to buy" anything; you entirely misunderstand the relationship between consumer & provider: the onus of why i should want something is on them. they did nothing to justify that purchase/trading off my rights, and it caught up to them.

do you know how i know that? they walked it all back due to the backlash. it's pretty obvious i wasn't alone here. although it's worth nothing whenever you defend anything "you're not forced to buy it!" is about the worst line you can use.

It is seems you just against any changes and want to live in static word. You may not trust MS, but Sony don't even trying, how you will get steam with online sharing and discounts, when you don't make even one step towards it?

this is also a bit've a false dichotomy: while i do fancy physical goods, you shouldn't assume a digital future could only be done in the terrible way MS tried & failed at - again, steam in its current state proves otherwise.

i don't want sony or anyone trying if that's the best they can come up with. i also don't trust any company that thinks i should be excited to pay more for less and happily assume a closed garden will bring steam discounts/pass on the savings to me as a consumer where the nature of their system means they don't have to - and frankly, given MS' pricing for games on demand right now, there's literally no reason for you or any of us to pretend they're in a hurry to deliver on that.

PeskyToaster said:
I laugh every time I see that Sony slide proudly proclaiming their physical disc based system, how backwards. Now a bunch of loud mouths ruined something for the rest of us that were actually excited about innovation with restrictions that didn't matter. We traded a library-wide family sharing plan for used games 5 dollars cheaper than new and checking in your box once every 24 hours when it's already always connected to the Internet. Stop dragging the rest of us behind.

i laugh every time i read stuff like this

ThoughtsOfSpeaking · Jun 20, 2013

Bgamer90 said:
That's actually not true. It was this plan on top of the exclusives.

Again, I was originally going to get the PS4 first (after their, at the time, HUGE E3 announcement) due to the system not having restrictions and being $100 cheaper -- that was before I knew about the family plan.

Now though that the Xbox One and PS4 are the same in terms of restrictions (& the family plan's dropped), it personally breaks things down to just games for me. For 2013-2014, Xbox One has more exclusives I'm interested in so I will still be getting it first.

Like, for example, even though it was weaker, I still would have paid $100 more for the PS2 than the original Xbox/GC since it had better games in my opinion.

So yeah, like I said before, I will still get a PS4 (probably next year). Will just wait for a few more exclusives.

This is bullshit. Im not even going to argue about it with you. 5 mins looking at your post history would show you was always going to get a X1 well before a PS4. You are lying.

LukasTaves · Jun 20, 2013

Gokurakumaru said:
This is a furphy. Single consoles do not have "infinite" amounts of users using them.

The points stands. With PSN sharing all the 5 people could use the game at the same time, it was literally buying 5 copies from the price of one. With the online requirements Ms could be sure that only one user was playing the game at a time.

Alx · Jun 20, 2013

ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
You people must have some razor fast internet. Im on a 60mb unlimited connection and there is no way in hell id go DD only.

That's why the original X1 system was tailored for people like you : by allowing physical support that can be installed and used like digital games, you could have enjoyed the benefits (and drawbacks) of digital distribution, despite your internet limitations. Now you can't.

Averon said:
Sony had something similar for PSN games and publishers forced them to restrict it. The notion that MS would allow people to give away $60 games to 10 people for free is absurd on its face. The fact that people think publishers would be okay with this--the same publishers bitching and moaning about used games and who try to nickle and dime you every chance they get with DLC--is laughable.

The fact that some people only look at isolated feature and claim they're too extreme to be possible is just as laughable. You just said it yourself : editors dislike sharing, but they like getting money from small transactions. Guess what ? The system they just cancelled allowed sharing, and also getting money from transaction (used sale market). That's called a compromise. The discussions about the X1 are full of disbelief of features that are either too good, or too bad. "why would they limite the used market ? it's stupid, users will hate it !", "why would they give free servers to the developers ? things are expensive !", "why would they let users share their games ? It's stupid, publishers will hate it !". Just take a step back.

Sony usually fail in all their attempts because they only half-try everything. It's not about "let's try sharing and see how it goes", but "let's find a deal with the publishers/retailers/consumers so we can offer something new that will benefit everybody".

StudioTan · Jun 20, 2013

GQman2121 said:
I know it wasn't your post, but if you're going to complain about old physical media, then you don't get to complain about bandwidth caps. It's one or the other. Or get your ass off the couch if you need to switch games because if I'm paying retail prices for the disc, I want retail value on my money.

Maybe I should have explained better. The way it was before I could buy retail OR digital download and the result was the same, I wouldn't need the disc. Now you have 2 choices, buy the disc which means it always has to be in the tray to play (and could get lost or damaged), or buy the digital download which requires you to use a large chunk of bandwidth and could take longer depending on your connection speed. Make sense now?

TheLegendOfMart · Jun 20, 2013

Why are people whining, Microsoft already said that of the 10 people you share with only one person other than yourself could be playing at any one time.

I don't know about you but my 30odd year old friends can afford to buy vidya games or already subscribe to game rentals. I've never once lent my games to friends who live locally let alone across the country.

If they can't afford games why are they buying $500 console.

King Beyond the wall · Jun 20, 2013

There seems to be the assumption that there can only be digital or physical games. If you still want to play all your games off the hard drive just buy digitally. There is no reason why MS could not have maintained the family sharing policies as well as allowing us to own our physical games.

TheLegendOfMart · Jun 20, 2013

King Beyond the wall said:
There seems to be the assumption that there can only be digital or physical games. If you still want to play all your games off the hard drive just buy digitally. There is no reason why MS could not have maintained the family sharing policies as well as allowing us to own our physical games.

Exactly, this just smacks of "Don't want DRM? Fuck you, you get nothing", it could have easily been an opt in service.

LukasTaves · Jun 20, 2013

King Beyond the wall said:
There seems to be the assumption that there can only be digital or physical games. If you still want to play all your games off the hard drive just buy digitally. There is no reason why MS could not have maintained the family sharing policies as well as allowing us to own our physical games.

Sharing was possible because of the always online requirements, people using your shared library had to be only at least once an hour so the system could see what were you playing and not allow other people to play the same game.

How would you enforce that security taking the online checks out?

Samyy · Jun 20, 2013

TheLegendOfMart said:
Exactly, this just smacks of "Don't want DRM? Fuck you, you get nothing", it could have easily been an opt in service.

Or it just never existed, was thrown in as a "look whats possible!" and this presents an excellent opportunity to put it to rest

lol)
Its unlikely, but I don't think its all colours and rainbows like some people are suggesting, otherwise they would have championed the shit out of it.

TheLegendOfMart · Jun 20, 2013

LukasTaves said:
Sharing was possible because of the always online requirements, people using your shared library had to be only at least once an hour so the system could see what were you playing and not allow other people to play the same game.

How would you enforce that security taking the online checks out?

Make it an opt-in service?

You know, actually giving consumers a choice rather than an either/or situation.

Jtrizzy · Jun 20, 2013

that's too bad, I was expecting to team up with 9 other people and throw in 6 bucks a piece for the latest AAA single player games. Come on now, they wouldn't allow that or even anything remotely like that. I'm pretty sure the point is to sell more copies of a game, not less.

Miles Quaritch · Jun 20, 2013

zomgbbqftw said:
Decent trade off.

Both consoles now have amazingly similar policies now. Now the difference is the price and mandatory Kinect. I'm not sure that MS will get rid of mandatory Kinect now.

It is possible that they will drop the price though, maybe by $50. I had heard that retailers had been asking for a premium margin on Xbone because of the devaluation of physical discs so this is obviously not an issue now.

For MS it is a decent trade off, but I am a little disappointed to see family share bite the dust. If they could have figured out a way to do without the 24hr check in system and made it optional, it could have been great.

Although I suspect doing it without some kind of regular verification would leave any such policy wide open to abuse.

Will be very interesting to see how Valve tackle it on Steam.

King Tubby · Jun 20, 2013

LukasTaves said:
Sharing was possible because of the always online requirements, people using your shared library had to be only at least once an hour so the system could see what were you playing and not allow other people to play the same game.

How would you enforce that security taking the online checks out?

Keep the one-hour check-in when you're playing a shared game. They were already going to change the check-in from 24 hours to one hour. They could easily just make this the case when you're doing so, and there wouldn't be any backlash because this is just an aspect of a new feature they're introducing. You'd have to be connected in the first place to access the shared title, anyway.

not psycho · Jun 20, 2013

Canis lupus said:
I'm sure thats not how it would've worked.

It would have if people didn't complain. I had it all set up.

ABCDEFGHIJ
BCDEFGHIJA
CDEFGHIJAB
...
JABCDEFGHI

Start off with everyone playing the game they bought. Then everyone plays the game after theirs. Going in sequence, everyone plays all 10 games for the price of 1, and there is never more than one person sharing from any library. Finally, move to another group until you have played all games in existence for the price of 1.

Would have been so good, but no, people had to complain. Publishers were totally into it too, but, the people didn't want it.

Samyy · Jun 20, 2013

not psycho said:
It would have if people didn't complain. I had it all set up.

ABCDEFGHIJ
BCDEFGHIJA
CDEFGHIJAB
...
JABCDEFGHI

Start off with everyone playing the game they bought. Then everyone plays the game after theirs. Going in sequence, everyone plays all 10 games for the price of 1, and there is never more than one person sharing from any library. Finally, move to another group until you have played all games out there for the price of 1.

Would have been so good, but no, people had to complain. Publishers were totally into it too, but, the people didn't want it.

Want to send me a link where it states all the pubs were "totally into it"

Alucrid · Jun 20, 2013

not psycho said:
It would have if people didn't complain. I had it all set up.

ABCDEFGHIJ
BCDEFGHIJA
CDEFGHIJAB
...
JABCDEFGHI

Start off with everyone playing the game they bought. Then everyone plays the game after theirs. Going in sequence, everyone plays all 10 games for the price of 1, and there is never more than one person sharing from any library. Finally, move to another group until you have played all games out there for the price of 1.

Would have been so good, but no, people had to complain. Publishers were totally into it too, but, the people didn't want it.

Yep. That's exactly how it would have worked. You outsmarted Microsoft and all the publishers. Paying $600 for what should have been $6000 worth of games.

SRTtoZ · Jun 20, 2013

Samyy said:
Want to send me a link where it states all the pubs were "totally into it"

I'm hoping and pretty sure thats all sarcasm.

Wait, that cant be real. Can it?

LukasTaves · Jun 20, 2013

TheLegendOfMart said:
Exactly, this just smacks of "Don't want DRM? Fuck you, you get nothing", it could have easily been an opt in service.

Easily? There's the cost and time of developing such system, there area management costs for maintaining two different policies at the same time which includes working out contracts with each publisher and retailers, and then there's the potential of increased consumer confusion because having two policies with very distinct features and restrictions on the same console is not user friendly at all.

It's of course doable down the road, but it's not like that is the most trivial thing ever so there's no plausible reason they can't get this at launch.

ThoughtsOfSpeaking · Jun 20, 2013

King Tubby said:
No one is sure how it would've worked, that's what makes this so ridiculous.

I have yet to see anyone address why Microsoft couldn't just institute this policy for digitally purchased titles, if they were really serious about doing this.

My connection is FAR slower than that and I still purchase games digitally all the time. I just leave it downloading in the background, after a few hours there's my game.

Until the day my connection is so fast that I can download a full AAA in less than 10 mins, Its never going to work for me. I play games on impulse. If have to wait over an hour for a game to download, by the time I can play, ive lost interest and im doing something else. Thats why i love indie titles. Small file size.

Game installs are pain in the ass too. Normally the day I install the game, isnt the the day I play on PS3 for this very reason.

TheLegendOfMart · Jun 20, 2013

LukasTaves said:
Easily? There's the cost and time of developing such system, there area management costs for maintaining two different policies at the same time which includes working out contracts with each publisher and retailers, and then there's the potential of increased consumer confusion because having two policies with very distinct features and restrictions on the same console is not user friendly at all.

It's of course doable down the road, but it's not like that is the most trivial thing ever so there's no plausible reason they can't get this at launch.

Pretty sure it would have been cheaper to implement opt-in rather than just dumping all the time and money they put into developing the DRM system.

Gokurakumaru · Jun 20, 2013

LukasTaves said:
The points stands. With PSN sharing all the 5 people could use the game at the same time, it was literally buying 5 copies from the price of one. With the online requirements Ms could be sure that only one user was playing the game at a time.

The point doesn't stand in light of the real world evidence. After PS3 game sharing was abused Sony restricted it to 2 devices. The used games market shows that people do not care about playing games day one if they can get them cheaper used, so the XBox One "only one concurrent user" restriction is irrelevant to anything but mutiplayer with immediate friends. And even then only if the friends "shared" the game from the same source.

MS was literally offering 11 games for the price of one to anybody who could be bothered to join a sharing thread online, like the ones on GAF which back up these assertions. This was always going to be abused and was never going to last.

Samyy · Jun 20, 2013

SRTtoZ said:
I'm hoping and pretty sure thats all sarcasm.

Wait, that cant be real. Can it?

the way people are acting about this system is rubbing me the wrong way I dont know.
A feature we barely know anything about, and was supposedly not important enough for them to champion in all their damn interviews and highlight extensively in their conference. (they name dropped it-thats all)

Speedy Blue Dude · Jun 20, 2013

Alucrid said:
Yep. That's exactly how it would have worked. You outsmarted Microsoft and all the publishers. Paying $600 for what should have been $6000 worth of games.

Curious why the "Gamers would have never bought the game anyways" argument doesn't apply here.

Maybe Publishers were fine with this? Maybe they were hoping most users wouldn't be down for making complicated schedules to play a game free, and most gamers would rather buy said game themselves then wait for someone else to finish playing so they can play there friend's copy for free. Maybe they're hoping gamers play it, think "WOW THIS GAME IS GOOD. I'LL FOR SURE BUY THE SEQUEL NEW FOR MYSELF." or maybe think "WOW THIS GAME IS SO GOOD, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR JIMMY TO FINISH PLAYING HIS GAME BEFORE I CAN PLAY IT AGAIN. I'M GONNA BUY IT MYSELF!"

Family Sharing had so much potential.

Support NeoGAF

MS eliminates its best new feature: 10 person, 60 min Family Sharing plan for Xbone

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Similar threads