1) There is now a split between a physical copy and a digital copy. Previously, it doesn't matter where I bought the game (retail or digital), it all got put into the same library that was shareable to anyone in my family group. This loses a lot of the appeal right away.
2) The removal of the connection requirement even for digital games means that this would easily be exploitable. Start playing a game, unplug, and the service doesn't know if the sharing license is in use or not. You could then play offline permanently assuming you don't leave the game. Since MS is now unable to force this, there's no way publishers would want their games to be able to be shared, with the potential they could lose out on a lot of sales. Previously, there was a limit as to how many people could play at a time, and you could know that someone would have to get back online within a day and the license could be refreshed.
God damn internet whiners bitching about DRM... Might as well stay with the PS3 and 360 because the next Gen now advances NOTHING. Leave it to GAF to cut off its nose to spite its face.
The idea that the sole point of "next Gen" "advances" or worthwhile merit to the Xbox One was MS's draconian DRM and the vague non-concrete promise they held out as a pacifying olive branch because of it, is an interesting theory you seem to be proposing. I would like to hear more if possible.all progress is not inherently positive. The newness of something doesn't inherently give it increased merit. Increased draconian DRM schemes aren't a superior plan to enable gamers to play games better than they did before. The 360 was a step UP from what they planned for the Xbox One. You just want to view what MS had planned in a positive light because you obviously could care less about losing access and control to what you purchase. MS's draconian DRM wasn't draconian for you. MS held out a pile of crap and called it a carrot, and you lunged for it completely.
You don't have to buy the console.
BS. Gamers would've cried no matter how they "presented" it. They always do.
i feel bad for them. they cant win
they really 100% cant have this feature without the other
I was actually looking forward to the Family Sharing feature. Is there an answer on if buying a disc copy will add the game to your Cloud library? Or has that been eliminated too? I prefer having physical copies of my games, but I really liked the idea of going on a friend's console, logging into my account, and have access to all my games without the disc. Or do you have to double dip in order to do this (like it is today)?
That isn't what Microsoft was offering.
They weren't adding rights and freedoms to digital, they were simply imposing the restrictions of digital onto physical.
They were in fact adding further restrictions to digital in a 24-hour authentication.
Because regardless of the PR platitudes, it wasn't about your cloud library or letting you share anything.
It was about controlling what you do with your physical purchases after you purchase them. And by consequence controlling "lost revenue."
And now that they can't do that, there's no point in doing any of the other stuff to try and make the control more palatable.
Again, if Microsoft still wanted to implement cloud libraries etc. they would. If they had a well-thought out plan for digital sharing and really wanted to implement it, they would. If they really wanted to sell the equivalent of install discs alongside status quo console retail games, they could. But none of that was the intention.
Yea but thats not how it was gonna work on XB1. It was going to be when you brought home your physical game that will get tied to your account and the disc forever after is useless. This was only a stepping stool to get people hooked in digital so that later this gen or next gen they can go completely disc-less. The only reason they imposed all this shitty DRM was to cater to both digital and physical demands. If they took one step more and went ALL digital we would not have seen any physical games but they didnt because they knew it was too soon.
Oh quite a few would have, don't get me wrong. But their main fanbase, they lost a lot of them with how they did it. From the second MS released that Q and A they were done. They made no real effort to try to sell their digital future, and started on a bad note. Fact is we knew NO specifics of their family plan, we knew really jack and shit. People would be willing to deal with SOME of the digital restrictions, maybe if they were getting enough in return. Steam has proven that. The problem is MS didn't even try to give a carrot to everyone. Or better said, they promised a carrot was going to come sometime down the line. It was idiotic, and they should have fucking well known better.
What do your personal desires have to do with the basic concept of consumer rights and draconian DRM schemes that treat consumers like criminals? MS didn't conceptualize "Family sharing and disc free installs" from altruistic motives. The DRM and attempts to restrict control to the end user always came first, as it has for their OS, software, and other services and products. They are always about limiting control over the products and services they sell.You don't have to buy the console. You can get a PS4 if that mattered to you. Personally, I have a great, stable connection, I don't care about selling my games back, and I don't buy used. Family sharing and disc free installs were awesome features that only worked with some type of verification to prevent abuse.
How on earth are you downplaying what would have been an awesome feature? Regardless of whether or not people could play it at the same time, it would have enabled MASS game sharing. How many games do you own? How many do you play at any one time? Probably a small percentage right? Well the entire rest of your library could be played by somebody else and likewise you would have access to 10 other people's libraries with access to any of their large percentage of games they're not playing.I get the feeling that people that were so overly excited about the family sharing plan most likely had false notions in regards to it.
I'll clear the common misconceptions in regards to it.
2 people cannot play the same game at the same time, unless of course they're playing splitscreen on the same console at once (Larry Hyrb confirmed this to Angry Joe). So yeah, Person 1 can play Game 1, Person 2 cannot play Game 1, but can play Game 2. There was no "2 people can play one copy of the game at the same time" not multiplayer modes, not single player modes, not anything.
Only 2 people could access the shared library at once. So even if 10 people are on the plan, the other 8 CAN NOT access the games when 2 people are. So If person 1 and 2 are playing from the library, and there are Games 3-10 in the library as well, Persons 3-10 cannot access any of those games while Persons 1 and 2 are playing.
The ONLY real advantage to this system was that digital games could be accessed from anywhere (but they would have to be downloaded entirely, not as fun and magical as MS made it sound that it's all up in the cloud for instant access). So if you had a family member across the country or across the world even, and you bought Halo. He could download and play it too (when you weren't playing it) at no extra cost.
It was their attempt at trying to quell the physical disc restrictions but it wasn't good enough as with physical discs you can lend your games off to as many people as you want, you're only limited by how many games you have to give out.
ALSO, Microsoft NEVER said that you would be able to sell your digital download titles. the participating retailer trade-in was only in regards to disc based purchases.
Not 100% sure what you're saying here?
Are you implying that the game sharing thing was never actually going to happen? I think thats plausible. It did seem too good to be true, like I said. But thats just speculation and will only ever be speculation at this point. We'll never know the full story behind it.
they really 100% cant have this feature without the other
Uhh, who's "not ready" for this? No one was asking for family sharing to be cut. MS made the decision to keep on swingin' the axe after they cut DRM.Kind of a bummer, some of the features that XBO was offering looked pretty cool to me, maybe they will implement them some where down the road when the world is ready.
How on earth are you downplaying what would have been an awesome feature? Regardless of whether or not people could play it at the same time, it would have enabled MASS game sharing. How many games do you own? How many do you play at any one time? Probably a small percentage right? Well the entire rest of your library could be played by somebody else and likewise you would have access to 10 other people's libraries with access to any of their large percentage of games they're not playing.
C'mon now man, that shit would have been sweet.
May the world never be "ready" for the draconian DRM schemes these features seem to demand, at least according to anti-consumer companies like MS.Kind of a bummer, some of the features that XBO was offering looked pretty cool to me, maybe they will implement them some where down the road when the world is ready.
How on earth are you downplaying what would have been an awesome feature? Regardless of whether or not people could play it at the same time, it would have enabled MASS game sharing. How many games do you own? How many do you play at any one time? Probably a small percentage right? Well the entire rest of your library could be played by somebody else and likewise you would have access to 10 other people's libraries with access to any of their large percentage of games they're not playing.
C'mon now man, that shit would have been sweet.
MS hadn't even revealed all the restrictions that would be tied to the family plan.
You don't have to buy the console. You can get a PS4 if that mattered to you. Personally, I have a great, stable connection, I don't care about selling my games back, and I don't buy used. Family sharing and disc free installs were awesome features that only worked with some type of verification to prevent abuse.
They could have implemented this for digital games, but lets face it, Sony tried that experiment years ago. Game sharing will never go well with developers.
I don't care if it was byproduct. The concept is the same, you can easily share your library. I am well aware Microsoft's implementation is a bit different, but it is pretty damn close. The only change is that for a single game, only 2 can play at a time, but the other 9 people can play other games in the shared library all at the same time. It seems amazing to me you don't think this will be abused.Sony didn't try this experiment. It was a biproduct of another feature. Microsoft imposing a limit of a single instance of the game can exist on the shared list makes a significant difference to how it would work. You can't say what Sony did was the same with what this was shaping up to be.
I don't get the complaints (though frankly for DD games they should have kept sharing in since you can't fucking trade or gift them either...)
Just give the disc tothe person who wants to play it, like you've always done.
They'll thank you for not having to download 20-40 GB as well...
Farewell family sharing, we hardly knew ye.
I think it was an announcement just to get some positive feedback. I think it sounded too good to be true and Microsoft was just throwing shit at the wall and hoping something would stick.
Was the family plan ever confirmed to be cold hard truth the way people are describing it? It wasn't even announced at the E3 presser was it?
I know you're pretty upset right now, but you have to turn a huge blind eye to a lot of things to thing next gen is advancing 'nothing'.
Publishers would've killed that feature pretty quickly anyway. Just look at what happened to the PSN share feature that ended up being reduced because publishers were getting upset about people being able to buy one copy of a game and then spread it out to multiple people for free.
That is what it comes down to. The internet was on fire and gamers wanted nothing to do with the X1. Too many people were saying "I'm not going to buy this thing" and Microsoft had no choice, but to change their gameplan.
Personally I'm more bummed about not having the instant access to my games. I would have liked being able to queue up things like multi and hop in and play or play a different game and get queued up and go right into the game I queued up for now I have to go put a disc in...looks like I'm going digital this time around.
Hopefully that feature still works. If not ill be very displeased.
I don't care if it was byproduct. The concept is the same, you can easily share your library. I am well aware Microsoft's implementation is a bit different, but it is pretty damn close. The only change is that for a single game, only 2 can play at a time, but the other 9 people can play other games in the shared library all at the same time. It seems amazing to me you don't think this will be abused.
You're right... I should have clarified. The "nothing" was in reference to the medium. Obviously there is a performance increase and "cloud" computing.
We accept DRM for so many things, it's a shame that we can't be willing to advance console gaming.
They never fully detailed the plan, so it's hard to say what we've missed. Personally, I think they made it up after the backlash, so they never had said details. And there's no way it wasn't going to be "at the publisher's discretion", in any case.
What do your personal desires have to do with the basic concept of consumer rights and draconian DRM schemes that treat consumers like criminals? MS didn't conceptualize "Family sharing and disc free installs" from altruistic motives. The DRM and attempts to restrict control to the end user always came first, as it has for their OS, software, and other services and products. They are always about limiting control over the products and services they sell.
Very true.To be honest, I thought these features were pretty interesting. Those who didn't care about the DRM had the PS4 as alternative.
I don't believe this. Not one iota. Why would publishers be OK with this when they spew fire and brimstone over used games?How on earth are you downplaying what would have been an awesome feature? Regardless of whether or not people could play it at the same time, it would have enabled MASS game sharing. How many games do you own? How many do you play at any one time? Probably a small percentage right? Well the entire rest of your library could be played by somebody else and likewise you would have access to 10 other people's libraries with access to any of their large percentage of games they're not playing.
C'mon now man, that shit would have been sweet.
i feel bad for them. they cant win
they really 100% cant have this feature without the other
we don't blindly accept DRM. we accept it where most people feel the positives outweigh the negatives (like say, Steam) but we don't accept it in other places, like say, iTunes where public opinion got Apple to remove DRM from the music on the store. DRM has never been *blindly* accepted.
You do understand that the "family plan" was merely a sugar coating on the shit sandwich they were trying to cram down our collective throats, right?