Support NeoGAF

[supersaw]

I love how people extrapolate some kind of digital sharing golden dawn from a few cryptic sentences of PR drivel that were ever uttered about this feature.

In all likelihood this was some extension of the Live Gold Family pack that was tied to local accounts only.

If you seriously believe that a company like Microsoft would allow you to redistribute a game to 10 randoms on your friends list you need to reduce the dosage of whatever it is you're smoking.

 

[King Tubby]

I love that Dorkly pic. Yeah, neckbearded gamers FORCED Microsoft into not forcing them into their new games model. Sucks what happens when consumers have a choice between two systems and resoundingly decide in favor of the one that isn't yours. Maybe MS should've waited 6 months to see how well it would've gone over on the market, eh?

BUYING 'DIGITAL' NOW VS THEN
So as I said buying the discs would've given you the digital game. This means that by proxy every single retailer carrying Xbox One games would be competing with the Microsoft Xbox Marketplace. Now that they put up the wall between digital and physical again, the only store providing the digital copy is Microsoft's own. I would've been able to buy from wherever I wanted, preferably the cheaper place, and still get the digital copy. This is now dead.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. I think in fact that having both physical and digital may cause MS to make the digital games even more appealing because now you do have that choice. It's clear that MS (and publishers as well I imagine) would prefer that you buy all your games digitally. No used games issues there, no need for Gamestop or the like to cut into profits. So through competition with physical games you may see digital prices go down, or perks added that only apply to digital games. Perks like, say, a family share plan for only digital titles. Making incentives to go digital is a lot better than making the consumers' choices for them.

 

[something fishy]

You can't please everyone.

 

[Socreges]

Some families are bigger than others. I think 10 is probably a safe number to make sure you have good coverage. How they would restrict it would a much bigger problem than just letting you white list XBL accounts. The problem with trying to make it restrictive is you have to account for accounts that already exist. It's not a simple problem to solve to verify family members.

So now, with this assumptions of yours (10 is a "safe number for good coverage"), you fall back on another assumption that this system wouldn't be widely exploited (and therefore, presumably, wouldn't bother publishers)...... based on an Amazon Prime analogy.

And the Amazon Prime analogy is terrible, dude. For one, the limit is four people, not ten. Massive difference. 10 is ridiculously unnecessary if you're just trying to cover the amount of gamers in a family. Secondly, people DO exploit this, but I personally don't have statistics on it and do not believe they exist. Thirdly, and most importantly, the cost of people sharing Prime is taken on by Amazon themselves, who presumably benefit a great deal from encouraging these people to order from them, whether they be friends or family.

So I just got an Amazon Prime membership for free. Stupid Amazon won't get my money! Now let me proceed to spend hundreds of dollars at Amazon each year because I get to save money on shipping!

Sharing an Amazon Prime membership is completely different from sharing multiple (many) video games.

Also, this:

Ah, so the best feature of the console is that it would ship with a loophole that allowed more than one person to play a single copy of a game, this coming from an industry that sees selling used copies of their product as one big loophole that needs to be closed. And as long as not enough people actually used this loophole to make a difference, it would end up being a superior experience for all consumers.

 

[Ushae]

It's not so bad guys. MS can still implement features to incentivise digital downloads post-launch. This is what they should have done initially I think.

But yes, this was an amazing feature

 

[cicero]

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?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64987871&postcount=805

Xbox One was NEVER going to be Steam for the console. The differences are clear if you bother to read up on the comments by Gabe. Steam gives its services away for free, including keys, to developers and publishers and ONLY takes a cut when they are bought directly through Steam itself. There is no possible way that MS was going to do this same thing for digital marketplace type stores online, or brick-and-mortar retailers. You do not know what you are talking about.

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/valves-newell-predicts-shakeup-for-closed-game-consoles/

Newell: I consider Apple to be very closed. Let’s say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins, you can’t exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent, and they don’t care that you only have 7 percent to play with.

Fries: How is Steam different? Because you run your own digital distribution system that has its own tax.

Newell: Yeah, people can use it or not use it. We give away the tools for free. They can be included in people’s products. … We’ll provide server capacity, matchmaking services, product services, and all that’s free for content developers. If a product gets sold through our system, then we take a tax. If it’s sold through retail, or if it’s sold through a developer’s website or it’s sold through Origin or Direct2Drive, then we don’t take anything.
We’re only generating money when we’re directly contributing to a sale. Our tools and services are free to use, regardless of distribution channel. If we were to create a hardware platform of our own, and put our stuff on it, the first people we would want to stand up on stage with us would be people who built competitive distribution signals, so that people understood that we actually value openness and alternatives as being critical to the long-term viability of the entertainment and games industries.

It could have been cool IMO. It could also have been a disaster. The point is that we can't know, and people should talk about it like they have seen the future. They said they wanted to be the Steam of console gaming. I would be on board for that, because Steam is value Steam cares more about my consumer rights than sony, microsoft or Nintendo EVER have.

MS and the Xbox One was never going to be a Valve with its Steam. The vast differences are stark and distinct. The MS corporate culture is not built around innovation when it comes to serving the bottom line. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders which tends to deny it the same opportunities to experiment with sales and revenue options that Valve can do as a private company. By law MS is required to serve the shareholders interests. And that is why you will continue to see them trending towards regressive and draconian measures taken to protect the interests of the company, even after the basic work by the company (Valve) founded by a former MS employee, Gabe, has already been done that shows a distinct alternative to draconian DRM measures.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64987871&postcount=805

 

[leadbelly]

I love how people extrapolate some kind of digital sharing golden dawn from a few cryptic sentences of PR drivel that were ever uttered about this feature.

I did find it kind of funny that people are so disappointed by this, yet they were perfectly fine with the restrictions put in place for used games. They never bought used games anyway. They want to support the developers. However, now they're pissed because they can't exploit a feature that allows them to play games for free.

Maybe they're not the same people that said those things beforehand.

 

[supersaw]

But yes, this was an amazing feature

They never outlined how it would actually work. We don't know what restrictions would have been in place. How can you say it was an amazing feature when we never fully found out what the fuck it was in the first place?

 

[Alx]

They never outlined how it would actually work. We don't know what restrictions would have been in place. How can you say it was an amazing feature when we never fully found out what the fuck it was in the first place?

Let's just imagine the worst case scenario of that sharing feature... well, it's still better than no sharing feature at all.

 

[Doffen]

I did find it kind of funny that people are so disappointed by this, yet they were perfectly fine with the restrictions put in place for used games. They never bought used games anyway. They want to support the developers. However, now they're pissed because they can't exploit a feature that allows them to play games for free.

Maybe they're not the same people that said those things beforehand.

You actually believe those are the same people?

 

[supersaw]

Let's just imagine the worst case scenario of that sharing feature... well, it's still better than no sharing feature at all.

Let's say it was local sharing only? The same as can be done with disc based media... nothing changed, and people should be pissed at Microsoft not at the other people who mad their disapproval of other policies vocal.

Disc or digital sharing?

 

[davepoobond]

They never outlined how it would actually work. We don't know what restrictions would have been in place. How can you say it was an amazing feature when we never fully found out what the fuck it was in the first place?

but microsoft did it first, bro. they did it.


i'm starting the think xbox one is the console we deserved, not the one we needed.

 

[IrishNinja]

i'm starting the think xbox one is the console we deserved, not the one we needed.

the latter half of today ended on this note for me, sadly

 

[malfcn]

I am a bit upset about it. But in the end I think it may be better this way.

Unless MS comes out and says:
Well we wanted to let you share all your games and sell them digitally for $20 and blah blah blah.

 

[not psycho]

But yes, this was an amazing feature

It was fun while it lasted

I don't think anyone thought the free ride would last forever though. We'll always have the memories.

 

[leadbelly]

You actually believe those are the same people?

*looks at my post*

Maybe they're not the same people that said those things beforehand.

I don't know. What I do know is some of them are perfectly happy with those restrictions being put in place and would prefer it if Microsoft continued with that policy.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

They never outlined how it would actually work. We don't know what restrictions would have been in place. How can you say it was an amazing feature when we never fully found out what the fuck it was in the first place?

I agree with this.


They should have had all the details of the systems ready to be discussed before the system was available for pre-order. Once the system was eligible for purchase people expect to know what they are paying for. They should have been able to discuss exactly how the sharing feature would work, how to trade digital games, potential discounts, etc....

I honestly dont believe the system that would have launched in November would be as bad as a lot of the tin foil guys were saying. They just needed to have everything ironed out before E3. There are always going to be people who want to physically own their game, you cant win them over with a digital system. They should have just made sure the people who did want the digital future knew all the details and the benefits.

 

[John Caboose]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. I think in fact that having both physical and digital may cause MS to make the digital games even more appealing because now you do have that choice. It's clear that MS (and publishers as well I imagine) would prefer that you buy all your games digitally. No used games issues there, no need for Gamestop or the like to cut into profits. So through competition with physical games you may see digital prices go down, or perks added that only apply to digital games. Perks like, say, a family share plan for only digital titles. Making incentives to go digital is a lot better than making the consumers' choices for them.

I see your thoughts and they do have merit but I don't think they're at all as powerful as stores competing with each other. Games often drop from 500/600 SEK at launch to 300 SEK within a couple of months. It's hard to find any Games on Demand for less than 300 SEK even though they've been out for years and years.

MS might be more price competitive next gen but it will, looking at past history, still be more expensive to buy digital from Xbox Store than buying a disc. A disc that with the old system would've given me the digital copy.

 

[cicero]

Don Mattrick is pissed.

"But Steam has great sales all the time!" you whine. SO? MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE TOO, IF YOU WOULD HAVE GIVEN US A GODDAMN CHANCE INSTEAD OF CRUCIFYING US 6 MONTHS BEFORE YOU EVEN TRIED THE SYSTEM? CHRIST.

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/valves-newell-predicts-shakeup-for-closed-game-consoles/

Newell: I consider Apple to be very closed. Let’s say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins, you can’t exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent, and they don’t care that you only have 7 percent to play with.

Fries: How is Steam different? Because you run your own digital distribution system that has its own tax.

Newell: Yeah, people can use it or not use it. We give away the tools for free. They can be included in people’s products. … We’ll provide server capacity, matchmaking services, product services, and all that’s free for content developers. If a product gets sold through our system, then we take a tax. If it’s sold through retail, or if it’s sold through a developer’s website or it’s sold through Origin or Direct2Drive, then we don’t take anything.
We’re only generating money when we’re directly contributing to a sale. Our tools and services are free to use, regardless of distribution channel. If we were to create a hardware platform of our own, and put our stuff on it, the first people we would want to stand up on stage with us would be people who built competitive distribution signals, so that people understood that we actually value openness and alternatives as being critical to the long-term viability of the entertainment and games industries.

Amazing what factual evidence does to ignorant sarcasm masquerading as insightful satire. Can you really see Don Mattrick standing up and saying this to a crowd or in an interview?

 

[Nyx]

Thanks Obama!

 

[tafer]

You know, Microsoft is being a dick. If I recall correctly, ALL games have a digital release on day 1. What's stopping them from implementing this feature on ALL digital releases?

Seriously, if the feature was as good as some people thought it was, it would work as an amazing incentive to move the masses to a 100% digital ecosystem. All of this while keeping physical releases with the traditional benefits and limitations.

 

[spekkeh]

Because offering 10 person share groups made no sense.

Why not?

What do you mean, why not?

Microsoft is in the games business to make money out of games being licensed to their system.

They incur a loss on their consoles, but regain this money because the publishers have to give them a set amount for every copy of a game sold.

That is why both the publishers and MS don't want you to sell your games on, rent copies or pirate or lend them, and have put all these DRM restrictions in place (24h checks, selected resellers, etc.). To force a few more copies sold per machine, and make it slightly more profitable (NB MS has been losing substantial money on their xbox endaevor for much longer than making money, so they need to nickle and dime. The same goes for publishers in the untenable AAA market).

Then, when all that is in place, according to you they say okay: let's decimate (literally!) our own income, destroy our relationships with publishers and possibly the publishers themselves. We will make a lifetime loss on any console sold, because fuck it, that's how we run our business.

Yes. Perfect sense.

 

[DEADEVIL]

Sharing with 10 people definitely wasn't better than gaming offline, renting, or being able to trade used games in.


They still could do the opt-in thing, but why even bother at this point.

Eat crow and win is way better than driving head first into a big impending 'L'

 

[Rebel Leader]

Let's say it was local sharing only? The same as can be done with disc based media... nothing changed, and people should be pissed at Microsoft not at the other people who mad their disapproval of other policies vocal.

Disc or digital sharing?

http://i.imgur.com/wPsCqNW.gif[/IMG ][/QUOTE]



Sony tried gamesharing and THAT was exploited in every way possible

 

[miso_Jeff]

Because my closest friends are all over the world and not in the same city as me.



.

Not only that, it makes it so easy to share my game with 10 other people I deem in my "family" that... another 10 could do it and another 10 and another. All these people play games they didn't pay for, how is this benefiting the pubs and devs? actually having to ship it makes it too much of a hassle of you ask me and its less likely that it'll be sold 10 other times. There has got to be a caveat to that family sharing there just has too or the pubs and devs stand to lose even more sales!

I really don't know why Sony/Microsoft can't go and ask GameStop to give them a cut of the used game pie?

 

[EYEL1NER]

You actually believe those are the same people?

I definitely saw someone earlier this morning elsewhere on the 'net state that he welcomed the Xbone's DRM because he felt that developers should be compensated for every sale of a title (he was pretty much parroting the "used games are evil and destroying the industry" shit that pubs try to convince us of). He had come in to the topic to begin with so he could talk about how disappointed he was that the proposed game sharing wasn't going to happen though. He wanted to share games he bought with his friends and vice versa.

 

[M3d10n]

Sony tried gamesharing and THAT was exploited in every way possible

And game sharing required you to pass your actual PSN ID and password around, exposing yourself to a massive security risk. Just imagine how worse it would be if they simply allowed you to add people to a "family" list.

I definitely saw someone earlier this morning elsewhere on the 'net state that he welcomed the Xbone's DRM because he felt that developers should be compensated for every sale of a title (he was pretty much parroting the "used games are evil and destroying the industry" shit that pubs try to convince us of). He had come in to the topic to begin with so he could talk about how disappointed he was that the proposed game sharing wasn't going to happen though. He wanted to share games he bought with his friends and vice versa.

I'm sure there are many of those out there. Preaching "fuck gamestop, used games and poor people!" then turning around and saying "oh, I can share a game with 10 other people! $6 games, here I go!".

 

[jdmonmou]

You know, Microsoft is being a dick. If I recall correctly, ALL games have a digital release on day 1. What's stopping them from implementing this feature on ALL digital releases?

Seriously, if the feature was as good as some people thought it was, it would work as an amazing incentive to move the masses to a 100% digital ecosystem. All of this while keeping physical releases with the traditional benefits and limitations.

I agree. I think they should be able to do this for digital releases. My question to all the people saying that gamers are holding the Xbox One back by making Microsoft reverse it's polices is why wasn't Microsoft out there communicating the benefits that the DRM would provide. My guess is because there were none. They could have demonstrated game share at E3 on stage. They could have come out and explained that the 24 hr check is needed to enable game share. But they did none of that. So gamers aren't to blame for Microsoft reversing its policies, Microsoft is. They realized they couldn't put lipstick on this pig, so they decided to kill it.

 

[dosh]

I really don't get why they're scrapping the few good ideas they had.

Why would replacing online check for retail games by checking if the cd is in the tray means that sharing/selling digital games suddenly becomes impossible to implement? These are not mutually exclusive.

If they really wanted to shape the future, this option should have been kept as their flag policy, something that benefits everyone and is a really great step.

And no, I'm not feeling entitled. Just a bit bummed, because they had something great up their sleeve, but no, they prefer to sulk in a corner like a little kid, basically saying that it's all or nothing.

 

[petran79]

Where does it say you are legally allowed to crack the game if you bought it yourself? That is in violation of DMCA if I'm not mistaken.

A lot of games are not available outside of Steam either. Dishonored is one of many. Let's face it. Steam is by and far the most popular and widely used place for PC games. We can't ignore the fact that people tend to flock to there and publishers/developers do so as well because of the popularity. Let's not forget under the old policies, you could at least sell your game. You can't do that with a physical PC game that you bought.

While Steam has perks that make it better than the old Xbox One policies, they still are a closed platform that has policies in place that limit your consumer rights to what you can do with the content you purchased even in physical form.

depends on where you live. For backup purposes mainly some countries allow it. this goes for DVD movies at least. dont know if the same applies to software. eg applications allow ripping cds to disc. Practical if you own net cafes.

or else AnyDVD or Gamejackal Pro wouldnt be on sale.

trading/selling PC games was usefull when online stores werent established and only solution was retail. PC games were cheaper than consoles, but they were still expensive. So selling games you didnt like was a serious alternative. Now I find a game on a retail store for 30 $ and on Steam its 11 $. No way I'll buy it.
Unfortunately consoles will not follow that route.

Also there was a chance you'd find games that werent available in the shops. I am talking about legal games with boxsets.

Finding a game online for 5 $ (eg Batman AC, LA Noire) beats even console prices. Included are also DLC, something not availble in console second hand games.

 

[JayDub]

MS, you dumb fucks. You had one chance to get this shit right. Really, there are NO alternatives?

How about one-time authentication? "Its been done before and proven to be easily fumbled." You're one of the biggest companies in the world, FIGURE IT OUT.

Put the fucking game in, install, authenticate, do whatever the fuck you want. Only people screwed over would be people who dont have internet connection. Im sure you can do some other form of authentication. Web based maybe?

Whatever.

I want pirates to eat it. I want used games to die. I want a DD future. I just didnt want to check in every 24 hours.

 

[The Faceless Master]

MS, you dumb fucks. You had one chance to get this shit right. Really, there are NO alternatives?

How about one-time authentication? "Its been done before and proven to be easily fumbled." You're one of the biggest companies in the world, FIGURE IT OUT.

Put the fucking game in, install, authenticate, do whatever the fuck you want. Only people screwed over would be people who dont have internet connection. Im sure you can do some other form of authentication. Web based maybe?

Whatever.

I want pirates to eat it. I want used games to die. I want a DD future. I just didnt want to check in every 24 hours.

they still sell the day 1 digital version and you get all of that, except the disk.

 

[Gokurakumaru]

HOW DISCS VS DIGITAL WOULD'VE WORKED
With the old policies you would have complete access to the digital version of the game you bought the physical version of. When you traded the game in at a participating retailer they would've deactivated your digital copy from your account. This is the reason 24h checks were in place. It would stop you from trading in a game and then keep playing the digital copy offline.

We know how it works. Nobody is disagreeing with you on the basis they're confused about the XBox One's DRM mechanism.

BUYING 'DIGITAL' NOW VS THEN
So as I said buying the discs would've given you the digital game. This means that by proxy every single retailer carrying Xbox One games would be competing with the Microsoft Xbox Marketplace. Now that they put up the wall between digital and physical again, the only store providing the digital copy is Microsoft's own. I would've been able to buy from wherever I wanted, preferably the cheaper place, and still get the digital copy. This is now dead.

How is digital not competing with retail? You can't install a retail disc (disadvantage), but you can resell it (advantage). You're assuming everybody values installs the way you do, but they don't. So to the average consumer it's just a game. They can buy it digitally or at a store, so yes, the XBox Marketplace and retail are directly competing. And we saw exactly how that turned out this gen on both Sony and Microsoft's consoles. Publishers don't even both attempting to match retail because there is no incentive to. Retailers have to move stock or they go out of business. There is no such thing as digital distribution stock. It's free and it's infinite. Your assertion this would have changed is pure speculation.

 

[DarkFlow]

I'm done, i'm officially done with you. You don't understand even such simple thing.
Pachter was right about some users at NeoGAF.

Wow, the poster has a rational debate with you, answering all your points in a well thought out manner. You turn around and act like a child and then throw out insults. I don't see why he bothers taking the time to even respond to you, I don't even know why I am...

 

[Seanspeed]

I really don't get why they're scrapping the few good ideas they had.

Why would replacing online check for retail games by checking if the cd is in the tray means that sharing/selling digital games suddenly becomes impossible to implement? These are not mutually exclusive.

If they really wanted to shape the future, this option should have been kept as their flag policy, something that benefits everyone and is a really great step.

And no, I'm not feeling entitled. Just a bit bummed, because they had something great up their sleeve, but no, they prefer to sulk in a corner like a little kid, basically saying that it's all or nothing.

You are definitely being entitled.

The sharing plan isn't something they wanted to do, obviously. Its not good for software sales. They did it as a concession for being put under the always online policy. If they dont have that, then they take out the concession. Pretty simple.

 

[intheinbetween]

You can't please everyone.

/thread

 

[fritolay]

I'm kind of pissed about all of this. I was looking forward to installing a game and being done with the disc, finally! Thanks internet

 

[entremet]

I know it doesn't bother you, that is obvious. Thankfully a large portion of the visible gaming public doesn't agree with your sentiments. Your apathetic or noncaring ilk is why draconian DRM schemes continue to be foisted on the rest of us. Wrap anything in a shiny enough wrapper and there is always someone who will go for it.

Just a get a PS4. That option exist for you and those who care about this stuff. I was excited about full disc installs without disc checking, accessing your library remotely and family sharing.

And in this for games not the politics.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

I'm kind of pissed about all of this. I was looking forward to installing a game and being done with the disc, finally! Thanks internet

Why dont you just buy the Day 1 digital release of a game?

 

[Gintamen]

Don Mattrick is pissed.

So good, in a world where people can't keep their eyes off their smartphone for more than a minute, 24hr checkups during vacations had been the worst possible scenario.

 

[uncledonnie]

Just a get a PS4. That option exist for you and those who care about this stuff. I was excited about full disc installs without disc checking, accessing your library remotely and family sharing.

And in this for games not the politics.

So much this.

So before I could wait and pick up a game on the cheap at a bargain bin sale or (gasp) even used at Gamestop, and still have the digital copy. That copy goes into my digital library that goes with me anywhere. It cannot be stolen, it cannot be damaged, etc. And I can share it with my brother who lives 5 states away.

I think this DRM U-turn is a crappy tradeoff. And I think they are still at a huge disadvantage due to the price so I question whether it was even worth it.

 

[gutter_trash]

MS, you dumb fucks. You had one chance to get this shit right. Really, there are NO alternatives?

How about one-time authentication? "Its been done before and proven to be easily fumbled." You're one of the biggest companies in the world, FIGURE IT OUT.

Put the fucking game in, install, authenticate, do whatever the fuck you want. Only people screwed over would be people who dont have internet connection. Im sure you can do some other form of authentication. Web based maybe?

Whatever.

I want pirates to eat it. I want used games to die. I want a DD future. I just didnt want to check in every 24 hours.

how can you peddle a DD future with a small Harddrive of only 500gb?

wanna be serious about DD future? make it a 1 TB HDD right of the gates

 

[WAR recon zero]

I laugh at the people thinking that you could share the game 3 times.

Devs lost their shit with the PSN Sharing with 5 people

 

[jmdajr]

I'm kind of pissed about all of this. I was looking forward to installing a game and being done with the disc, finally! Thanks internet

Any positives this system had, MS completely failed at selling them.

Some good points from ARS.

Xbox One Eighty: Microsoft fails to sell the future, retreats to the past

Maybe Microsoft could have created a Netflix style "all-you-can-play" deal that gave players access to a large portion of the system's library for a set monthly price. Maybe a more limited, digital GameFly could allow for a rotating, user-selected game downloads that changed every month. Maybe they could have allowed players to loan any of their digital games to anyone around the world for a limited, 12-hour test run as a way to spread the word about an excellent title. Maybe they could have announced a set pricing structure that encouraged downloadable games to drop down to a percentage of their original price months or years after their release.

Here's the problem: Microsoft didn't do any of those things. Any of these benefits remained "imagined," while the benefits that were actually announced were weak tea. Microsoft's "easier roaming" by downloading your games at a friend's house wasn't easier at all—these remote downloads would have actually been much less convenient than just bringing along a disc. The 10-member "family sharing" plan sounded intriguing, but Microsoft couldn't answer extremely basic questions about how it worked. Could two people play two different shared games in your library at the same time? No one at Microsoft seemed willing to say! Being able to play your entire library on your hard drive without having to get up and switch discs is nice, but it's hardly a "killer app" given the drawbacks.

 

[Stone Ocean]

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.

You could just, you know, buy fucking digital then.

 

[Cynar]

I'm kind of pissed about all of this. I was looking forward to installing a game and being done with the disc, finally! Thanks internet

Nothing is stopping you from buying digital. People value discs, ownership and sharing more than convenience.

 

[Gokurakumaru]

You could just, you know, buy fucking digital then.

Or just leave the disc in the machine. Surprised we don't have people bitching about having to pick up the controller. Talk about stone age.

 

[jmdajr]

Biggest loss by far is digital sharing, because true... everything will still be available for digital download day 1. Granted the download will be a lot slower than ripping the disc permanently.

 

[J10]

Or just leave the disc in the machine. Surprised we don't have people bitching about having to pick up the controller. Talk about stone age.

There's Kinect for those people, so they're pacified.

 

[uncledonnie]

Any positives this system had, MS completely failed at selling them.

Some good points from ARS.

Xbox One Eighty: Microsoft fails to sell the future, retreats to the past

Exactly. I don't think they even needed to do all the extra stuff ARS suggests (although it would have been nice). They did a horrible job of messaging the benefits that they did have, and failed completely at explaining how things worked. Hell most people thought there were no used games at all; when in fact in some ways used games were even better because you get a damn digital license.