• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

werks
Banned
(06-22-2013, 04:54 AM)
AHAHAHAH

Name one Dev or Pub that was on board with 1 for 10 sharing. Please...

Somebody, anybody let us know that they agreed to this "family sharing" from MS. LOL.

What a fucking joke. The most restrictive used game DRM to date, but free for all with digital sharing.
GetemMa
Banned
(06-22-2013, 04:58 AM)
What is more likely?

That the Xbone, a system that is supposed to rid the industry of the "scourge" that is used games, would have allowed 1 person to buy a game, and let 10 more people fully play that 1 copy entirely for free. Not just that, it makes it extremely easy for people to do this.

or

They made a system that blocks used games and set up a lame Demo sharing system to eventually get more people going to their marketplace to pay full price for games.

Use your heads guys. Look at History. Look at the past action of MS and their down right refusal to unequivocally declare what their plans were.

The first thing Cliffy B does after the Xbone turned in the Xbox180 was to go to Twitter and continue his crusade against used games, which he clearly has a problem with because the publishers don't receive a dime for it.

So how did the former XBone solve this problem if it is facilitating the distribution of 10 free copies of every game that a gamer puts in the system?

No logical person can conclude that the family sharing plan was what the those hopeful people thought it would be.
tafer
Member
(06-22-2013, 05:19 AM)
tafer's Avatar

Originally Posted by SenjutsuSage

As much as people like to say everything out of their mouth is a lie, it's still good and necessary to have both sides of a story. Because what's ironic is that when they say absolutely nothing at all, refusing to speak out against negative rumors on their platform, they get a lot of shit for that as well. People say things like "If this wasn't true, why wouldn't Microsoft immediately come out and put these rumors to rest?", but when they actually decide to answer the rumors directly, the comments are more or less "don't believe their lies."

And don't get me wrong, they have every reason to potentially lie or paper over things that can portray their platform in an unfavorable light, but it's ridiculous to treat literally everything they say that way. It's almost like why are people even interested in hearing anything they have to say in the first place then if that's how we're going to react when they actually engage with people and attempt to say anything at all? Microsoft in laying out their policies prior to E3 actually gave us a few details on the various restrictions. Sure, that didn't mean that there weren't still questions that required answering, but barring a few important details that people like myself were dying to know some more about, Family sharing seemed like the most straightforward amongst all of those policies. Maybe it might not seem that way because it got the most positive attention, and the negative stuff just took on a whole new life of its own, but thurrot is correct that Microsoft described the family share as being unlimited access to your games. The hour time limit that people are referring to, and trying to use to make it look like Microsoft hinted at this limit on family sharing all along has nothing to do with family share, or, to be more precise, is loosely connected to what family share was, or at least as it was presented by Microsoft.

If you're playing your games at a friend's house over the cloud, you have to access the internet every single hour instead of the 24 hours if you're on your own console at home. With family share more or less working the same exact way as accessing games over the cloud, it's no surprise if there was some kind of internet check every hour for that, too, because why in god's name would family share users have even less restrictions than people playing at home on their own console, and who actually own the games being shared? I take this whole negative focus now on family sharing as some people who legitimately see that in the process of all the consumer outrage, we actually lost a legitimately cool sounding feature on the Xbox One that a lot of people wanted. I know 4 people that canceled Xbox one pre-orders over the loss of family share. It was a pretty big fucking deal to them. But rather than acknowledge we lost a cool feature, and that maybe in the process of "winning" we actually lost (or killed) something in the process, people much rather retroactively attack it and say "See? You guys really didn't lose anything at all! The feature was absolute shit anyway!" Whatever form it does return in, if it does at all, it may be seriously gimped.

Hopefully I can't be banned for this comment. Just expressing my opinion.

The problem people have believing MS's position is simple: They had countless opportunities to explain this plan and they refused to do it: They evaded the subject, they kept it under extremely ambiguous terms, they contradicted themselves, etc. And now that it is death, they came out trying to defend it? I find perfectly natural if most people won't believe your words now that it doesn't matter.
SenjutsuSage
(06-22-2013, 05:29 AM)
SenjutsuSage's Avatar

Originally Posted by GetemMa

What is more likely?

That the Xbone, a system that is supposed to rid the industry of the "scourge" that is used games, would have allowed 1 person to buy a game, and let 10 more people fully play that 1 copy entirely for free. Not just that, it makes it extremely easy for people to do this.

or

They made a system that blocks used games and set up a lame Demo sharing system to eventually get more people going to their marketplace to pay full price for games.

Use your heads guys. Look at History. Look at the past action of MS and their down right refusal to unequivocally declare what their plans were.

The first thing Cliffy B does after the Xbone turned in the Xbox180 was to go to Twitter and continue his crusade against used games, which he clearly has a problem with because the publishers don't receive a dime for it.

So how did the former XBone solve this problem if it is facilitating the distribution of 10 free copies of every game that a gamer puts in the system?

No logical person can conclude that the family sharing plan was what the those hopeful people thought it would be.

Well, the position that some seem to be clinging to is that Microsoft was simply lying about the feature as they described it, and if that's truly the case, then there's really nothing to defend and, in that case, screw MS for misleading us. However, I can conclude and agree with everybody else that Microsoft's entire messaging on their new platform was fucked up, and, yea, they sometimes tried their best to soften the blow on what they thought were controversial policies, but I haven't somehow come to the conclusion that literally nothing they say can be trusted. And here's the silly part about thinking like that. They were largely being criticized for policies they themselves spelled out via their own official website, or in interviews. Yea, they tried to damage control some of the more controversial stuff, but they eventually had to come clean, no matter how slippery they tried to be.

Why is it okay to take them at their word regarding stuff that we deem negative, but not okay to do so when the subject is something a little more on the positive side of things, such as family sharing? I know, for example, there's a lot of bs in the cloud talking points being put out there. I know that just as much as anybody else, but if it ends up meaning dedicated servers for all games, or at least all the major releases,with online play, then I say bring on the cloud! Either way, I've said my piece on this subject. I'll move on now.

Wow, new site design is hot shit (in a good way). I got nervous for a second, thinking the site looked different cause a mod dropped the hammer on me. :P
Last edited by SenjutsuSage; 06-22-2013 at 05:33 AM.
koryuken
Member
(06-22-2013, 05:46 AM)
koryuken's Avatar
Additionally, it is not just CBOAT saying this. Did you guys see the Verge quote from the OP? Here it is again.

It's impossible to verify that these are the words of an Xbox engineer, but sources familiar with Microsoft's Xbox plans have revealed to The Verge that the company was discussing the idea of limiting each Family Sharing session to one hour and that game progress would be saved so you could play through the hourly caps or purchase the full game to continue uninterrupted.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/44...mored-features
MogCakes
Member
(06-22-2013, 05:51 AM)
MogCakes's Avatar

Originally Posted by SenjutsuSage

Wow, new site design is hot shit (in a good way). I got nervous for a second, thinking the site looked different cause a mod dropped the hammer on me. :P

You were probably banned for misconduct the last time :P a lot of people were banned until E3 was over. I retract my accusations of shill-dom on you, you're an alright guy. Also apologies for going full-on assault in the lead-up to E3.
SenjutsuSage
(06-22-2013, 06:04 AM)
SenjutsuSage's Avatar

Originally Posted by MogCakes

You were probably banned for misconduct the last time :P a lot of people were banned until E3 was over. I retract my accusations of shill-dom on you, you're an alright guy. Also apologies for going full-on assault in the lead-up to E3.

Haha yea, I actually think my ban was wise. I honestly would've probably got permed during E3. Woulda been my first E3 actually participating instead of just lurking, and so I might have crossed a line or two in the process without realizing what the limits were. Yea, you're an alright guy as well. Apologies from me as well for snapping at ya in one of my responses also in the lead-up to E3.

I actually planned on editing it out, but after people saw it and quoted it, I figured it was too late lol.
eastmen
Banned
(06-22-2013, 06:10 AM)

Originally Posted by koryuken

Additionally, it is not just CBOAT saying this. Did you guys see the Verge quote from the OP? Here it is again.


http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/44...mored-features

unless their sources were CBOAT on neogaf.


The thing is even with unlimited playtime if its just for one person out of 10 your going to have a logistic nightmare and thus after playing a bit a lot of people would end up buying the game , esp if there is some type of multiplayer.

Developers were most likely counting on that. Also lets not forget that having 10 friends share a game is better than having a disc that can be bought and resold hundreds of times during a systems life.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
(06-22-2013, 06:11 AM)
Salvor.Hardin's Avatar
If the family plan was just a one hour demo, why in the world did MS scrap it following the change of DRM policy?
koryuken
Member
(06-22-2013, 06:18 AM)
koryuken's Avatar

Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin

If the family plan was just a one hour demo, why in the world did MS scrap it following the change of DRM policy?

Because it got overhyped to the point of no return. There would have been a public lynching if they released their full plan as the justification for the DRM.
longdi
Member
(06-22-2013, 06:21 AM)
longdi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin

If the family plan was just a one hour demo, why in the world did MS scrap it following the change of DRM policy?

Well they never publicly announced it was a 1hr demo...yet, only led people to think it will be for full games. Scrapping the DRM and family plan together is a win-win for them. Good PR for them "listening" to gamers' cries against DRM, good PR for DRM because you cannot family share if you dont have DRM. And it even makes some feel angry towards Sony for forcing MS to scrap their DRM policy.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
(06-22-2013, 06:34 AM)
Salvor.Hardin's Avatar

Originally Posted by koryuken

Because it got overhyped to the point of no return. There would have been a public lynching if they released their full plan as the justification for the DRM.

Originally Posted by longdi

Well they never publicly announced it was a 1hr demo...yet, only led people to think it will be for full games. Scrapping the DRM and family plan together is a win-win for them. Good PR for them "listening" to gamers' cries against DRM, good PR for DRM because you cannot family share if you dont have DRM. And it even makes some feel angry towards Sony for forcing MS to scrap their DRM policy.

Fair enough, but wouldn't it have been a more successful strategy to announce that in light of the DRM policy change, Family Planning would not allow entire game sharing, but instead would be curtailed to one hour demos? That way people can still try out the demo model which would be in MS's best interest.

Kind of ridiculous to scrap something that consumers, developers, and the manufacturer would all benefit from. Especially when it is only tangentially linked to DRM.
MogCakes
Member
(06-22-2013, 06:35 AM)
MogCakes's Avatar

Originally Posted by SenjutsuSage

Haha yea, I actually think my ban was wise. I honestly would've probably got permed during E3. Woulda been my first E3 actually participating instead of just lurking, and so I might have crossed a line or two in the process without realizing what the limits were. Yea, you're an alright guy as well. Apologies from me as well for snapping at ya in one of my responses also in the lead-up to E3.

I actually planned on editing it out, but after people saw it and quoted it, I figured it was too late lol.

I was in witch hunt mode after the discovery of shills and whatnot, so I share some of the responsibility for pushing you over the edge. Not something I would do in real life. I've noticed that I get way heated when I start arguing, if I keep on like that it will be my turn to be banned, haha. Here's to having a healthy debate in the future.
call_kotaku
Member
(06-22-2013, 06:36 AM)
call_kotaku's Avatar

Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin

If the family plan was just a one hour demo, why in the world did MS scrap it following the change of DRM policy?

It's like everything else that got offered along with the DRM and then scrapped with the DRM, it was just the bread on a shit sandwich. If they were actual features MS wanted to implement instead of half-solutions to problems that wouldn't exist without DRM, MS would be extremely petty and pretty ill-advised to hold them back after the controversial portions of their online plan were scrapped, especially now that they're absolutely desperate for good PR.

Somehow there's an effort (though a pretty unsuccessful one) to turn the narrative into "MS just needed rigorous authentication so they could implement license sharing" instead of "MS brought out vague promises of game sharing in order to validate their DRM". It's on par with SimCity cloud computations.
Platinum_D
Member
(06-22-2013, 06:39 AM)
Platinum_D's Avatar
Cboat was correct :D Kudos
Reallink
Member
(06-22-2013, 06:40 AM)
Reallink's Avatar

Originally Posted by watership

We'll never know. Unless it gets released in another form later and works the way MS said it does.

Here is the issue with this. Anonymous source dude is a hero of leaking. He is trustworthy to gaf because he was right about some stuff. Non anonymous people in high positions at Microsoft and are saying "No, it is not true" are considered liars. Why would MS lie about a service they cancelled? Why respond?

You can never win a fight with a popular anonymous source. Especially if you're a very well know entity in a position to actually KNOW about the subject. Such is the idiocy of the internet.

Good old fashioned common sense is a more reliable source than MS Exec's and CBOAT combined.
blinkz
Junior Member
(06-22-2013, 06:56 AM)
blinkz's Avatar
This whole thing was very vague from the start so the 60 minute limit makes sense...

Although I have to ask myself which a dev would be more upset about sharing a game digitally with 10 people which probably could have been exploited or unlimited sharing of a physical copy.

Either way the devs couldn't be thrilled.
BladeoftheImmortal
Junior Member
(06-22-2013, 07:39 AM)
BladeoftheImmortal's Avatar

Originally Posted by ShinUltramanJ

Yep. How many more times does Microsoft have to rub it's fans faces in feces for them to wake up and stop supporting this company and their Xbox?

Some people are into scat.
BigDug13
Member
(06-22-2013, 07:49 AM)
BigDug13's Avatar

Originally Posted by blinkz

This whole thing was very vague from the start so the 60 minute limit makes sense...

Although I have to ask myself which a dev would be more upset about sharing a game digitally with 10 people which probably could have been exploited or unlimited sharing of a physical copy.

Either way the devs couldn't be thrilled.

Unlimited sharing of a physical copy is simply not as easy to do. It becomes more cumbersome than just telling your friend to login and play. So I'm sure this new solution is still better than what was proposed.
Vinnk
Member
(06-22-2013, 07:50 AM)
Vinnk's Avatar

Originally Posted by eastmen

Developers were most likely counting on that. Also lets not forget that having 10 friends share a game is better than having a disc that can be bought and resold hundreds of times during a systems life.

No game gets resold hundreds of times. Discs, cases and manuals are not that durable. Also many people still keep game collections. Most games you get at a used games shop for near retail price have only had 1 or 2 owners before you (maybe more if its an insanely short game). As games age and a generation or two goes by and they are now "retro" (think Dreamcast titles now) they might get into the 2 digit numbers of owners, but unless those people took great care of the games, they will have scratched discs and wrinkles manuals at this point.

I can't even imagine a scenario where a single copy of a game has passed thought 100 owners much less hundredS. And during the life of a single system it would need to be resold every few weeks (and kept in pristine condition) to get into the hundreds.

I understand this was hyperbole but I keep seeing this "hundreds of times" FUD and its just not possible. A game is lucky if it makes it to 5 during the time a publisher is supporting the game.
Last edited by Vinnk; 06-22-2013 at 08:32 AM. Reason: Changed the word developer to publisher
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
(06-22-2013, 11:56 AM)
Rebel Leader's Avatar

Originally Posted by koryuken

Additionally, it is not just CBOAT saying this. Did you guys see the Verge quote from the OP? Here it is again.


http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/44...mored-features

and a potential loss of $540 in sales?Doesn't sound right
Last edited by Rebel Leader; 06-22-2013 at 12:12 PM.
CTLance
(06-22-2013, 12:07 PM)
CTLance's Avatar
Looking back it all makes sense.

Man, I kind of wish we hadn't risen in defiance against the used games stuff*. The rage resulting from a very late family sharing reveal would have ended Microsofts gaming division and probably traveled back in time to punch Allard in the dick to facilitate that. It would have shaken the very foundations of reality.

But yeah, even for a carrot in a world of sticks this was simply too good. Ten game licenses for the price of one, that's just not feasible no matter how you look at it.

(* not really)
Last edited by CTLance; 06-22-2013 at 12:14 PM.
QaaQer
Member
(06-22-2013, 12:09 PM)
QaaQer's Avatar

Originally Posted by werks

AHAHAHAH

Name one Dev or Pub that was on board with 1 for 10 sharing. Please...

Somebody, anybody let us know that they agreed to this "family sharing" from MS. LOL.

What a fucking joke. The most restrictive used game DRM to date, but free for all with digital sharing.

Exactly. Why would any publisher sign up to such a ludicrous deal?

Originally Posted by Reallink

Good old fashioned common sense is a more reliable source than MS Exec's and CBOAT combined.

yup. But your conclusion that MS execs don't lie is still wrong.
Last edited by Untalkative_Bunny; 06-22-2013 at 12:28 PM.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
(06-22-2013, 12:09 PM)
Rebel Leader's Avatar

Originally Posted by CTLance

Looking back it all makes sense.

Man, I kind of wish we hadn't risen in defiance against the used games stuff. The rage resulting from a very late family sharing reveal would have ended Microsofts gaming division and probably traveled back in time to punch Allard in the dick to facilitate that. It would have shaken the very foundations of reality.

But yeah, even for a carrot in a world of sticks this was simply too good. Ten game licenses for the price of one, that's just not feasible no matter how you look at it.

even if this plan goes to digital only, remember sony tried a similar thing. Didn't work out well with them.
Justin
Member
(06-22-2013, 12:16 PM)

Originally Posted by Rebel Leader

even if this plan goes to digital only, remember sony tried a similar thing. Didn't work out well with them.

Did they though? Wasn't it really just a work around to Sony giving multiple downloads so if you have several systems you could play it on any of your systems and not have the game locked to the system it was purchased on. I find it hard to believe that Sony intended people to create dummy "share" accounts between multiple people. When they found out an increasing number of people were using it that way it got decreased to 2 downloads and Sony turned a blind eye, least they be seen as removing a 'feature".
firehawk12
Subete no aware
(06-22-2013, 01:56 PM)
firehawk12's Avatar

Originally Posted by Justin

Did they though? Wasn't it really just a work around to Sony giving multiple downloads so if you have several systems you could play it on any of your systems and not have the game locked to the system it was purchased on. I find it hard to believe that Sony intended people to create dummy "share" accounts between multiple people. When they found out an increasing number of people were using it that way it got decreased to 2 downloads and Sony turned a blind eye, least they be seen as removing a 'feature".

CAG has a sticky quote from Jack Tretton or someone saying explicitly that people are allowed to share games. lol

And like I said, even with 2 PS3s, people are still doing it to this day.
Meus Renaissance
Member
(06-22-2013, 02:00 PM)
Meus Renaissance's Avatar
Perhaps the 60 min restriction was merely discussed rather than being decided upon?
SPE
Member
(06-22-2013, 02:08 PM)

Originally Posted by Jason Raize '75 - '04

Perhaps the 60 min restriction was merely discussed rather than being decided upon?

That's still fucked though, considering the cat was out of the bag and MS execs and PR were selling the Family Plan as a benefit of the DRM / always online systems of the Xbone. Selling it as one of the few benefits that come with all the anti-consumer trade offs. Without mentioning the fucking massive caveat that it could end up just a glorified demo system.

If they were still deciding on it by E3, they should have shut their big cake holes, or used their usual line of 'we aren't ready to announce our plans yet' as they did about DRM after the May reveal.
eastmen
Banned
(06-22-2013, 02:15 PM)

Originally Posted by Vinnk

No game gets resold hundreds of times. Discs, cases and manuals are not that durable. Also many people still keep game collections. Most games you get at a used games shop for near retail price have only had 1 or 2 owners before you (maybe more if its an insanely short game). As games age and a generation or two goes by and they are now "retro" (think Dreamcast titles now) they might get into the 2 digit numbers of owners, but unless those people took great care of the games, they will have scratched discs and wrinkles manuals at this point.

I can't even imagine a scenario where a single copy of a game has passed thought 100 owners much less hundredS. And during the life of a single system it would need to be resold every few weeks (and kept in pristine condition) to get into the hundreds.

I understand this was hyperbole but I keep seeing this "hundreds of times" FUD and its just not possible. A game is lucky if it makes it to 5 during the time a publisher is supporting the game.



Why ? This isn't the psone era , discs aren't constantly accessed. They are a piece of plastic that is installed once and spun up for a few seconds to make sure its in the drive.

A game disc can last decades like that. Hell my parents have cds from 30 years ago that still play the music perfectly.


Regardless , if I get titanfall and your on my list of friends and you play it and enjoy it a lot chances are your not going to want to wait for one of my other 8 friends or myself to stop playing so you can then play again. Chances are also good that since your my friend we would share some of the same friends and some of us would like to play the game at the same time with each other.

So a single copy could end up selling multiple if the game is good. It wouldn't help games like madden or cod much but newer series can benefit from it.
WAR recon zero
Member
(06-22-2013, 02:18 PM)
WAR recon zero's Avatar
People are still in denial
Elvin Atombender
Member
(06-22-2013, 04:08 PM)
Elvin Atombender's Avatar
Who would have made any money from sharing complete games like this?

Developers? Publishers? Microsoft? Stores?

If the only ones making money from it are customers who would use (and abuse) it, it doesn't look very likely, does it?
Jake Tower
Banned
(06-22-2013, 04:09 PM)

Originally Posted by GetemMa

What is more likely?

That the Xbone, a system that is supposed to rid the industry of the "scourge" that is used games, would have allowed 1 person to buy a game, and let 10 more people fully play that 1 copy entirely for free. Not just that, it makes it extremely easy for people to do this.

or

They made a system that blocks used games and set up a lame Demo sharing system to eventually get more people going to their marketplace to pay full price for games.

Use your heads guys. Look at History. Look at the past action of MS and their down right refusal to unequivocally declare what their plans were.

The first thing Cliffy B does after the Xbone turned in the Xbox180 was to go to Twitter and continue his crusade against used games, which he clearly has a problem with because the publishers don't receive a dime for it.

So how did the former XBone solve this problem if it is facilitating the distribution of 10 free copies of every game that a gamer puts in the system?

No logical person can conclude that the family sharing plan was what the those hopeful people thought it would be.

Occam's Razor is all you need.
Vinnk
Member
(06-22-2013, 05:08 PM)
Vinnk's Avatar

Originally Posted by eastmen

Why ? This isn't the psone era , discs aren't constantly accessed. They are a piece of plastic that is installed once and spun up for a few seconds to make sure its in the drive.

A game disc can last decades like that. Hell my parents have cds from 30 years ago that still play the music perfectly.
.

This is exactally my point. Your parents have had their CDs for 30 years. Their CD have not had hundreds of owners. Yes they can last a long time but that doesn't mean games are on a nonstop tour if the world. Most copies of games (or DVDs or CDs) will reach very few people.

As for the rest of your post, I agree. If I am really into Titanfall and I have to constantly wait to play it, unlocking the game will be very tempting. I agree with that point.

But I am sure you can also agree that the vast majority of games are not resold hundreds of times or even dozens of time. For most games they will not even teach that magic number of 10 until they are no longer relevant to the publishers.

Thread Tools