Killing_Joke
Member
Why would anyone believe Aaron Greenberg? If there was no time limit why are you getting rid of it? No more 24hr/1hr babysitter = no more family share. The facts are there. No way to spin it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbone PR: the 60 Minute Family Plan Revelation
- Thread starter koryuken
- Start date
SwiftDeath
Member
Please read OP so you can understand what the rest of us are talking about
I don't think there is anything fishy about CBOAT's version, but I don't think you can use that part in their documents as some proof towards it. It is about an entirely different thing where the only connective tissue is the fact that it says "one hour".
I mean this whole thing is a pointless argument now anyway.
John Caboose
Member
Yes the original start of this rumor was from pastebin. CBOAT checked in and said it was a 60 min thing. Then one dude (now dubbed "Xbone detective" by the mods) took an out of context quote describing you accessing another persons console and declared it to be about family sharing. THAT is what I'm describing as completely inaccurate.
Haha, so easy for MS to just say "oh no, it was totally going to be super-great" now that they've nixed the feature. No way to disprove this, so might as well just lie to the utmost.
"Not only can you play your friends' games without limit or consequence, but you'd be paid 1 MS dollar for every hour you played. And Kinect would analyze your blood to see if you have cancer. And you'd lose weight. And some other stuff. Aw, too bad that the feature had to be yanked because of you whiny gamers, right?"
"Not only can you play your friends' games without limit or consequence, but you'd be paid 1 MS dollar for every hour you played. And Kinect would analyze your blood to see if you have cancer. And you'd lose weight. And some other stuff. Aw, too bad that the feature had to be yanked because of you whiny gamers, right?"
SwiftDeath
Member
Ah ok then I agree full-heartedly and apologize for my other comment
The 1 hour friend online check in policy has nothing to do with the family share thing
John Caboose
Member
Thank you. It's very refreshing to see posts like this. Stay awesome SwiftDeath.
Killing_Joke
Member
Is there any quote from MS where they said you can play the WHOLE game? In every interview I read they said the same stuff:
- Doesn't have to be a family member
- Must have XBLG
- 2 people can play at one time but not the same game (this was the most confusing part)
- Share with 10 people
It seems like everyone forgot to ask the one key question. Can you play the whole game? lol
It's obvious they tried to spin a lackluster feature into something it really wasn't.
- Doesn't have to be a family member
- Must have XBLG
- 2 people can play at one time but not the same game (this was the most confusing part)
- Share with 10 people
It seems like everyone forgot to ask the one key question. Can you play the whole game? lol
It's obvious they tried to spin a lackluster feature into something it really wasn't.
John Caboose
Member
I'm sort of guessing here but I think the family share feature was supposed to replace disc-lending, something that would've been impossible with the old system since the disc would be tied to your account. Now that disc lending is back they're getting rid of it.
EDIT: It might be back in some form at a later date for titles purchased on the marketplace. That's what has been hinted at during post 180 interviews anyway.
Interesting development, taken from another thread. Who to believe?
He might as well say "it's exactly as we described PLUS it'll deliver rainbow-shitting unicorns at the same time!". It's a moot point now, it's not happening, so they can say whatever the hell they want to!
SwiftDeath
Member
Yep doing something like that only weakens the original argument/complaint in my opinion
Personally I think MS probably did have a time limit on it as that's how they could possibly sell publishers on it but after/during E3 they may have actually been planning on going unlimited with it
I would absolutely love someone to ask publishers about the X1's Family share plans because if someone like ubisoft or EA weren't aware of the "unlimited" nature of it then it hadn't been finalized and everything was pretty much BS
Still could've been a cool feature but doubt it
My trust in MS is running pretty low these days
DragonSworne
Banned
If you are logged into a system, why is it not treated as the primary system? Why have a different time interval at all?
What is the difference between being offline and logged in on one system compared to being offline and logged in on another system? Why does MS make the distinction?
Well they don't anymore so it really doesn't matter what they were going to do except in this one case where they were possibly repeatedly lying about the utility of this Family Sharing feature.
I was suspicious of that feature from the beginning, as it was too blatant of a "loophole" in all of their strict DRM policies. I assumed the 'catch' would be in the form of leaving the feature up to the publishers' choice(which they would gladly dismiss). Or, a bait-n-switch - canceling or severely limiting the feature just weeks after purchasing of the console. While I knew there was a catch to this feature - and assumed it would come to light much later - I had no idea that it was this lame and deceptively cloaked from the very start. Gamers dodged a bullet there, yikes!
I guess the sympathizers can stop crying over this feature now.
I guess the sympathizers can stop crying over this feature now.
King Beyond the wall
Member
There is no chance that the family sharing plan would have allowed 10 people to buy one game and have a go at completing it each freely. It would have been a major exploitation that was contrary to the purpose of The Xbox One in reducing used game sales.
My opinion is that because MS have scrapped the program indefinitely, they can say what they want about it with little consequence. Indeed, the actual presser they released announcing the 180 came over to me as kind of saying 'well you can have your physical games but now the glorious digital revolution is gone, and its all your fault!'
By supporting the notion that the family share plan could have been exploited so heavily they are not only reinforcing their narrative, but also strengthening their fan base who now see Microsoft as a misunderstood innovator and the actual victim in all this.
My opinion is that because MS have scrapped the program indefinitely, they can say what they want about it with little consequence. Indeed, the actual presser they released announcing the 180 came over to me as kind of saying 'well you can have your physical games but now the glorious digital revolution is gone, and its all your fault!'
By supporting the notion that the family share plan could have been exploited so heavily they are not only reinforcing their narrative, but also strengthening their fan base who now see Microsoft as a misunderstood innovator and the actual victim in all this.
John Caboose
Member
I understand. The trust/leeway people are willing to give MS these days is pretty low and understandably so. Their communication has been piss-poor and a lot of things have been said by the likes of Mattrick that is completely out of touch with the gamers. Were it not for his letter reversing the policies I could completely see him getting fired.
It would be interesting to get some insight from people speaking on the record, I agree.
When (or if) MS implements the sharing for their digitally purchased games on Xbox One we will see exactly the limits of the family sharing feature.
Seriously. After what we've seen from MS over the past several weeks, it would be foolish to take whatever they say at face value.
Marty Chinn
Member
Because the primary system allows access to the content by anyone. A secondary system requires an account logged in to access it. It's just like how the Xbox 360 works now.
Theonik
Member
cboat has a much better track record.Interesting development, taken from another thread. Who to believe?
And there is no way MS will say anything different to this. Since it's canned they can lie about it all they want now.
If we follow the money, then as a shareholder for MS, Greenberg would monetarily incentivized to lie. Bad word of mouth = stock prices go down = less money for him.
Theonik
Member
Which is precisely why you shouldn't believe anything he says on this matter.
But with that exact same logic there was no reason for them to lie so consistently about the actual nature of the share plan when it was going to be an actual part of their system.
Theonik
Member
They simply avoided sharing specifics about the plan when it was going to be part of their system, they are only clear about it now after the fact.
And they tried to use it as a form of redirection on their PR to try and detract from DRM complaints.
Permanently A
Junior Member
So, cboat says one thing and the microsoft figureheads say another.
Are there any articles or quotes from BEFORE the DRM policy change that mention Family Sharing being limited?
Are there any articles or quotes from BEFORE the DRM policy change that mention Family Sharing being limited?
Penguins&PolarBears
Member
Maybe with only one other person playing the library at a time (remotely), region locking each "family" by country, and probably a gold subscription requirement with no simultaneous multiplayer access. Not to mention the inability to change "family" members frequently. The more people you actually added to your "family" the more restrictive access actually became.
It sounded like an attempt to get consumers off of their physical media dependence so it would be understandable to come up with something really enticing.
It was like they were trying to create a "virtual console" with all the same limitations of sharing the console and games inside of your home. The idea was probably to help a family with kids away at college or a split family where custody of kids might be shared between homes. I don't think the intention of the plan was to help people share free games with their online friends across continents as some people took it. Yusuf Mehdi even mentioned sharing "3,000 miles away" which just happens to be the length of the United States, so I'm pretty sure this was going to be region locked sharing.
googleplex
Member
One would have to be a very foolish to believe anything Microsoft says now.
Very foolish indeed.
Very foolish indeed.
There are so many people and blogs (like Thurrott's article) confusing different XBone ex-policies together that it's hard to get a legit discussion going.
Here's my take on wading thru the PR talks. First, listen to the Angry Joe's Major Nelson interview starting at 3:20 regarding family share policy. Keep in mind that Major Nelson used the "library" analogy, and "check it out" was the exact phrase he used multiple times. As a few people already mentioned in the thread, "check it out" can mean either "check it out of a library" or "test it out", but both of these meanings imply a time limit. You should also keep in mind that people in Public Relations positions like Major Nelson choose words very carefully, even more so than executives.
Then the pastebin:
This description is consistent with Major Nelson's analogy of a "library". You can "check a game out" of the shared library, with a time limit, just as you can check out a book out of a real library. And on top of that, you can do this multiple times, but the difference is the XBone policy had a limit. Also the fact that they hadn't settled on the exact way of "handling it", it allows Greenberg to basically say whatever he wants without being a liar.
Regarding CBOAT's 60 minutes information, it's likely he's getting a rough number from multiplying each play session's time limit and the number of times that you can check out a game, ie. 15min*4, 30min*2, 60min*1, etc. This would be consistent what the pastebin says.
And then finally, the official MS PR:
It doesn't specifically mention a time limit, nor does it have any words that imply "full game". However, the word "library" is here again. They could've used a less ambiguous word like "collection", but they didn't.
All the sources are consistent with each other from what I can see, so the time limit was definitely real, but the exact terms were still be worked on when the DRM was pulled.
Here's my take on wading thru the PR talks. First, listen to the Angry Joe's Major Nelson interview starting at 3:20 regarding family share policy. Keep in mind that Major Nelson used the "library" analogy, and "check it out" was the exact phrase he used multiple times. As a few people already mentioned in the thread, "check it out" can mean either "check it out of a library" or "test it out", but both of these meanings imply a time limit. You should also keep in mind that people in Public Relations positions like Major Nelson choose words very carefully, even more so than executives.
Then the pastebin:
This description is consistent with Major Nelson's analogy of a "library". You can "check a game out" of the shared library, with a time limit, just as you can check out a book out of a real library. And on top of that, you can do this multiple times, but the difference is the XBone policy had a limit. Also the fact that they hadn't settled on the exact way of "handling it", it allows Greenberg to basically say whatever he wants without being a liar.
Regarding CBOAT's 60 minutes information, it's likely he's getting a rough number from multiplying each play session's time limit and the number of times that you can check out a game, ie. 15min*4, 30min*2, 60min*1, etc. This would be consistent what the pastebin says.
And then finally, the official MS PR:
It doesn't specifically mention a time limit, nor does it have any words that imply "full game". However, the word "library" is here again. They could've used a less ambiguous word like "collection", but they didn't.
All the sources are consistent with each other from what I can see, so the time limit was definitely real, but the exact terms were still be worked on when the DRM was pulled.
koji kabuto
Member
Every time Microsoft try to explain the "Family Plan" i ends up being more confused about it.
What a mess.
What a mess.
John Caboose
Member
No. The Microsoft post describing the two forms of family sharing (playing on your console & playing on another console but accessing your library) never mentions any timer restrictions. They liken it to lending someone your disc, something that works today and gives you full access to the game.
[my bold]
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Are you all still running with CBOAT's one-word "confirmation"?
Dave Meltzer
Banned
If we've lost the family sharing as it was advertised it's the biggest travesty in the history of entertainment.
If it was just a lie than MS are dicks.
I don't know who to believe.
If it was just a lie than MS are dicks.
I don't know who to believe.
No offense Caboose but every single press release regarding Xbox One features since its reveal was intentionally worded in a misleading way so as always to not show consumers the full horror of what was behind the curtain.
That you believe that their explanation of it is at all clear, given the outs that have already been described by various people, is your right, but I think pretty stubbornly wrong considering how Microsoft proved themselves to act this past year.
I'll take the word of the guy who has a 90%+ track record over the company who was trying to fuck consumers for a year and was caught in a twisted web like eighteen different times this past month.
That you believe that their explanation of it is at all clear, given the outs that have already been described by various people, is your right, but I think pretty stubbornly wrong considering how Microsoft proved themselves to act this past year.
I'll take the word of the guy who has a 90%+ track record over the company who was trying to fuck consumers for a year and was caught in a twisted web like eighteen different times this past month.
Marc Whitten denies it as well and calls the rumor silly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/notwen/status/348092374842474497
As skeptical as you guys may be, its kind of hard to argue when the people running Microsoft shooting down the rumor. If it was true, they wouldn't comment on it at all. They made a point to refute it.
Mark my words, it will return without a time limit for marketplace content.
https://mobile.twitter.com/notwen/status/348092374842474497
As skeptical as you guys may be, its kind of hard to argue when the people running Microsoft shooting down the rumor. If it was true, they wouldn't comment on it at all. They made a point to refute it.
Mark my words, it will return without a time limit for marketplace content.
If it was true and the policy still existed, they would keep quiet. Now that the policy is dead either way, they can freely deny all they want because there is no harm.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
I don't see why it will return when they don't need a selling point.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Not if they're planning on reintroducing that in another fashion - which I believe they are. It's one thing to scrap it at launch, but eventually introducing it makes sense, whether it's the rumored gimped demo version or the "magical" one we all had hoped for.
It is a selling point for getting people to go 100% digital which seems to be Microsoft's goal. I have a feeling it will make a come back in a year or so.
I just don't see any incentive whatsoever in allowing full game access remotely to a bunch of people. It does nothing to boost their income because it means less game sales which means less profit from those sales.
So it forces everyone to go digital only but overall game sales take a 30% nosedive?
So it forces everyone to go digital only but overall game sales take a 30% nosedive?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Well the incentive is a slow burn, banking on peoples' impatience. Say 2 of my pals have Borderlands 2 and I can't share at the same time. Then my balls itch, and it's time for me to "just buy the goddamn thing" so I don't have to wait anymore.
But that's one genre. A policy like this would decimate sales of some other genres.
John Caboose
Member
I completely understand and I take no offence. I agree that Microsoft's entire PR campaign for the Xbox One has been a colossal failure and they failed in almost every way conceivable. They also tried to enforce a lot of restrictions without properly explaining why. And since they couldn't explain why, they shouldn't have them.
I do however think that there were nuggets of progress in their policies and several features that I would have liked and will miss. Specifically selling digital games in stores (as well as on Xbox Marketplace) and allowing these games to be shared over the internet (just like lending someone your disc today, except for the digital age). I hope both of these are resurrected somehow, preferably by retailers being able to sell game codes redeemable on Xbox Live and re-implementing the Family Sharing system (as described by MS) for games bought this way or directly from the marketplace.
I would like to think that is a more reasonable stance than "pretty stubbornly wrong".
I dunno man, that's reaching very hard...
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah. They'd be forcing devs to offer more multiplayer interaction to keep people playing more, but it's definitely a slow burn.
And it is reaching. I don't pretend to understand how the industry works, so I wouldn't know if that's absolutely insane or not, but I know how WE would use it is different than most people. Most of us have our friend lists capped at 100, but the average was something like 7 friends. I don't think it'd be the same scenario for normal folks.
But hey, we'll never know.
Neuromancer
Member
Occam's Razor = MS are dicks.
Marty Chinn
Member
Ya, but devs are already doing this anyway. Look how many games in their sequel got multiplayer tacked on. It's been happening as an incentive to create value.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
pretty much. Like joe said they're angry and want to take their ball home. I doubt it was the full game with no limit but if it was the only one to get angry at is MS. They could have still implemented it.
Yeah. They'd be forcing devs to offer more multiplayer interaction to keep people playing more, but it's definitely a slow burn.
And it is reaching. I don't pretend to understand how the industry works, so I wouldn't know if that's absolutely insane or not, but I know how WE would use it is different than most people. Most of us have our friend lists capped at 100, but the average was something like 7 friends. I don't think it'd be the same scenario for normal folks.
But hey, we'll never know.
Well the thing is, Sony already had something like this for digital games years ago to share on 5 machines. Publishers created a shitstorm and Sony dropped it down to 2 machines.
Not sure how things have changed 6 years later if Microsoft seriously was offering the same thing for 10 people.
This sharing thing is not a new concept for consoles. Microsoft is not pioneering anything here. And without a policy of a time limit, I can't see how publishers would be onboard.