dragonbane
Member
Too bad. Even I admitted that this would be a killer feature.
The few information we had was already great. Even if only one person of a group could play at a time, even if that time was limited, even if not all games would have been supported, it would still have been a much better system than no sharing at all.
They never got around to the nitty gritty details.
So I'm playing a game and someone else (that I might not know) boots up the game. Do I just get locked out? Would it even save? Give you a couple minutes like a countdown? What about multiplayer games?
How interconnected are the Family networks? Would Person A and Person B be part of the same network family and have all the same "family members" or would they be able to individually create families, and only be connected through each other?
Seriously, people believing it would work out like this is without a doubt the most moronic thing I've read all week on the internets.And compounded with the fact that PSN Game sharing was hated by developers/publishers and it was pressured to end....and that was only 5 shares before actual retail games were day one digital releases. I'm sure publishers would be cool with every game they make being shared with 10 people per customer.
Not when limited "sharing" meant the complete loss of control over the product you pay for, and the 24 hour logging on requirement it inherently required. That was no glorious superior tradeoff, it was the further encroachments of a monolithic company which has always tried to remove control of the products they sell out of the hands of the end consumer so they can do whatever they want without concern about people opting out or choosing other alternatives. This was typical MS behavior for anyone who has lived through their many many other similar actions.
The backlash against them was entirely deserved and quite refreshing.
Good riddance... if this feature existed in the first place.
Can't have it both ways. They could have kept the feature for DD, but my thoughts are publishers would not have liked this one bit.
Not when limited "sharing" meant the complete loss of control over the product you pay for, and the 24 hour logging on requirement it inherently required.
He's just proving my point that people don't like/understand change. Try explain the steam service to someone who has never used a digital service before, they think it's ridiculous but as soon as you get them onto and using it they enjoy it. I have a feeling this would've been the same situation. I'll still be buying all my games digitally in the hope that the implement this someday.
Oh heaven forbid!! I still think half the people on gaf don't even know why their angry. They just saw other people freaking out and joined in. Conformity at its greatest.This is such bullshit. The sharing and lending feature wasn't even available at launch, by their own small print. Add to that, we have no idea what restrictions would have been placed, and whichever dolt made this has cleverly forgot to include the fact that the people sharing have to download the game first to be able to play it. Given the expected sizes of next gen games, that doesn't sound too fun.
I only need a few words to describe Steam:"You can buy games for 5-10 euros, that cost 30 or more on console"
That's all, more people than you think understands the reestrictions than come with the digital era. But that wasn't gonna happen with Xbox One. People keep saying we could have had steam prices but not even MS said that was gonna be the case.
He's just proving my point that people don't like/understand change. Try explain the steam service to someone who has never used a digital service before, they think it's ridiculous but as soon as you get them onto and using it they enjoy it. I have a feeling this would've been the same situation. I'll still be buying all my games digitally in the hope that the implement this someday.
That's pretty much exactly how Microsoft described it was going to work, so I don't know why you're trolling.
Microsoft couldn't get it's story straight on this "feature." Every interview something different was said. And often didn't match their online policy document.That's pretty much exactly how Microsoft described it was going to work, so I don't know why you're trolling.
Microsoft couldn't get it's story straight on this "feature." Every interview something different was said. And often didn't match their online policy document.
Because in all likelihood they were making it up as they went along, as they tried to thrash out a workable policy behind the scenes. And couldn't. Since this was obviously a reactionary move due to the PR backlash rather than an intended well-thought out policy.
Microsoft couldn't get it's story straight on this "feature." Every interview something different was said. And often didn't match their online policy document.
Because in all likelihood they were making it up as they went along, as they tried to thrash out a workable policy behind the scenes. And couldn't. Since this was obviously a reactionary move due to the PR backlash rather than an intended well-thought out policy.
Similarly, the sharing library [is something] we wont be able to deliver at launch.
Microsoft couldn't get it's story straight on this "feature." Every interview something different was said. And often didn't match their online policy document.
Well, you fuckers demanded it. Can't coexist with everyone's desperate need to sell off their shit to GameStop.
You spoke. Microsoft listened.
The policy document was clear enough, and it was the only document you should consider. It was official, someone took the time to write it based on first hand information, it has probably been proof read several times by their lawyers and project managers...
People in interviews can get confused, make mistakes, misunderstand a question. That's why we had conflicting opinions on the details of that project. You can ask people about anything and you'll never have a 100% coherent report.
Anyway, there's no need crying over spilled milk now. That project is dead. Thanks internet.
It sounded weird though.
Have to be on friends list 30 days...
Cant be playing at same time..
Have to be online...
It sounded like a bit of a fucking mess anyway frankly
Explanation:
Whenever you buy a digital game from the Microsoft's store, only once per game, you get asked the following question:
Do you want to be able to share this game with up to 9 family members and have the option to resell/lend it in the future, and you understand that means you will need to be connected at least once every 24 hours to validate the game to be able to play with it?
If you choose NO -> Xbox 360 behavior. Can't share nor resell, but can play completely offline.
If you choose YES -> Xbox One behavior. Can't play offline for longer than 24 hours, but you can share and resell it.
Your option gets stored in the game FOREVER. So if you share, lend or re-sell a "YES" game, the person that gets it will get a game with the "YES" option above (i.e., always online option).
It would have been killed by publishers. You really think they would have allowed this to happen? 10 people playing their game for free without paying? Really? like really?
This feature is apparently not dead.
It would have been killed by publishers. You really think they would have allowed this to happen? 10 people playing their game for free without paying? Really? like really?
It "sounded" like many things though. We had no hard set statements detailing how things were going to work, and certainly no evidence that publishers were ready to go along with whatever MS had planned. All I have is the MS attempt to take control of the products I purchase out of my hands to increase their profit margins. Not to increase my access, enjoyment, or ability to play games better than I did before, it was their bottom line. Period.The policy read that the primary owner would always have access and then one instance of each title would be available to your remaining people that you've put on a white list. This would be the digital version of passing a disc around with the bonus that it was possible that two instances would be available. The family sharing thing sounded like it was turning out to be one the shining aspect of this debacle.
Why is this bad?
Fair trade off for being able to sell, borrow, and trade games IMO.
Well, you fuckers demanded it. Can't coexist with everyone's desperate need to sell off their shit to GameStop.
You spoke. Microsoft listened.
It would have been killed by publishers. You really think they would have allowed this to happen? 10 people playing their game for free without paying? Really? like really?
At times forums are ridiculous. All we ve read for weeks is 'PS4 day one' 'MS lost my custom' they have listened and there was gonna be
Sacrifices.
I was happy with the new system and the family plan. Now its just cost me more . I share games or buy 2 copies of say COD or FIFA with my kid . Now I Definetly have to buy 2 copies. Give with one hand and take with another . The power of the fanboy strikes again.