Marty Chinn
Member
You realize both systems don't need to download the full game before you can play right?
-
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.
MS eliminates its best new feature: 10 person, 60 min Family Sharing plan for Xbone
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
You realize both systems don't need to download the full game before you can play right?
bearlabored
Member
Omg, are you seriously comparing wiiu and origin based on features?
You talked about competition in digital market, and how there is non in closed console. But it is worst way of thinking ever. Xbox One and its digital model have competitors - PS4, Wii U and etc.
Don't like steam policies - use gog. Don't like xbox one policies - use ps4.
So, they must win your opinion, because? How exactly iPad win consumers in Africa?
Yeah, and this is really bad decision in my opinion. And look now at other people which agree with me. They just not been as vocal as whiners before it.
How exactly steam better that xbox one policies? As you can see in my post earlier, you can't actually play your steam games without internet connection.
Curious why the "Gamers would have never bought the game anyways" argument doesn't apply here.
Maybe Publishers were fine with this? Maybe they were hoping most users wouldn't be down for making complicated schedules to play a game free, and most gamers would rather buy said game themselves then wait for someone else to finish playing so they can play there friend's copy for free. Maybe they're hoping gamers play it, think "WOW THIS GAME IS GOOD. I'LL FOR SURE BUY THE SEQUEL NEW FOR MYSELF." or maybe think "WOW THIS GAME IS SO GOOD, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR JIMMY TO FINISH PLAYING HIS GAME BEFORE I CAN PLAY IT AGAIN. I'M GONNA BUY IT MYSELF!"
Family Sharing had so much potential.
Has. Mattrick said it wouldn't be hitting "at launch," which would imply that it isn't dead and that it's coming later.
And this is the second time I've said that in this thread, so I'm out of it.
LukasTaves
Member
How can you be sure? Perhaps now that they offer no drm and don't restrict used sales anymore publishers simply said no to the feature. Perhaps the time they will have in hand after the OS is finished wouldn't allow them to implement an hybrid solution (that needs to be thought all the way through otherwise you might leave room for exploits), so they had to stick to the same tested policies they had on 360...
There lots of legitimate reasons for them to not to be able to implement that feature at launch.
tokyostomp
Banned
I think the games will still require a mandatory install however you'll need the disc in the system as a check.
EleventhDoctor
Banned
Curious why the "Gamers would have never bought the game anyways" argument doesn't apply here.
Maybe Publishers were fine with this? Maybe they were hoping most users wouldn't be down for making complicated schedules to play a game free, and most gamers would rather buy said game themselves then wait for someone else to finish playing so they can play there friend's copy for free. Maybe they're hoping gamers play it, think "WOW THIS GAME IS GOOD. I'LL FOR SURE BUY THE SEQUEL NEW FOR MYSELF." or maybe think "WOW THIS GAME IS SO GOOD, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR JIMMY TO FINISH PLAYING HIS GAME BEFORE I CAN PLAY IT AGAIN. I'M GONNA BUY IT MYSELF!"
Family Sharing had so much potential.
You cannot be this delusional.
Curious why the "Gamers would have never bought the game anyways" argument doesn't apply here.
Maybe Publishers were fine with this? Maybe they were hoping most users wouldn't be down for making complicated schedules to play a game free, and most gamers would rather buy said game themselves then wait for someone else to finish playing so they can play there friend's copy for free. Maybe they're hoping gamers play it, think "WOW THIS GAME IS GOOD. I'LL FOR SURE BUY THE SEQUEL NEW FOR MYSELF." or maybe think "WOW THIS GAME IS SO GOOD, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR JIMMY TO FINISH PLAYING HIS GAME BEFORE I CAN PLAY IT AGAIN. I'M GONNA BUY IT MYSELF!"
Family Sharing had so much potential.
Because if their intention is to collude to buy less games, they're not going to impulsively buy more games.
The no DRM thread has an article in the OP stating that this feature is dead.
LukasTaves
Member
Curious why the "Gamers would have never bought the game anyways" argument doesn't apply here.
Maybe Publishers were fine with this? Maybe they were hoping most users wouldn't be down for making complicated schedules to play a game free, and most gamers would rather buy said game themselves then wait for someone else to finish playing so they can play there friend's copy for free. Maybe they're hoping gamers play it, think "WOW THIS GAME IS GOOD. I'LL FOR SURE BUY THE SEQUEL NEW FOR MYSELF." or maybe think "WOW THIS GAME IS SO GOOD, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR JIMMY TO FINISH PLAYING HIS GAME BEFORE I CAN PLAY IT AGAIN. I'M GONNA BUY IT MYSELF!"
Family Sharing had so much potential.
My take on how it would work out for the publishers: Ms would track game usages from all the users in the family group (they were doing online check ins, so that's a piece of cake). That feature was probably going to be Gold only... All Ms needed to do was give a percentage of every user's subscription to the publisher based on how much they spent playing shared games. If the only one user at a time restriction in place they wouldn't lose anything they wouldn't already lose with a shared game disc, plus they would be receiving extra revenue from the same copy of the game.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
IrishNinja
Member
what? no, you were the one who compared them, in your very last post!
you're misunderstanding venues and entirely different devices. there is no competition for MS on an XBONE when they lock you into their system & control resale; this is quite literally the opposite of PC. you're kinda proving my point on why these things are polar opposites/not comparable.
...because every device/item ever sold has to win a consumer's opinion? if you think it's just my opinion & not that of others: why did MS go back on this wonderful plan?
also, i don't follow ipads or the consumer markets in africa any better than i do the price of rice in china, so i can't really speak on that.
a handful of actual whiners vs the majority of the net (thankfully)'s opinions. again, pretty easy to see this when a company with so much invested in the market - known to do a ton of research before making such decisions - took back a plan before it cost them more marketshare than they were already standing to lose.
it's fine if others agree with you on wanting a bad idea, but it doesn't change the nature of that.
for one, after initially verifying, i've never had a problem playing in offline mode. do you use steam yourself? have you tried this? honest questoin.
as i said before, steam rewards its community with free online, huge sales that even devs appreciate, and a growing list of features to trade off for resale rights/etc. MS offered none of this, only vague details on an elaborate form of gamesharing that i honestly can't imagine why anyone thinks most publishers would've been down with anyway.
i'm still a little thrown off by where i'm losing you with closed markets: PC gives me options if i don't like steam's DRM, xbone didn't. i can play PC games from amazon, green man, gamefly, literally tons of other places; MS was telling me to fly a kite if i didn't want to take all the negatives of their DD scheme with no promise of any positives, and no incentive for them to offer them later, just the likelihood of more paywalls.
again, it's fine if you and a few others thought this was somehow good/progressive, but the mental gymnastics it takes to try to sell it to others should kinda tell you something. i didn't buy it when sony was pushing $600 blu-ray in '06 as important at the time for gamers, either.
yeah, kinda assuming this myself too...i'm fine with that, personally. i always install when given the option; better speeds, less wear & tear on the drive etc
Alx
Member
Do you really think they just threw away a whole business model out of spite ? If it could have been done in time for the launch, they would have. But changing your distribution model 5 months before launch is probably not realistic. All they could do was fall back on their existing model for the 360, and they're probably losing a lot of money doing that already.
Marty Chinn
Member
Choice? What choice do I have when often games utilize Steam DRM with no other option? How do I play Dishonored on a PC without Steam?
Why do people keep saying this when they announced it at the same time they confirmed the (previous) restrictions?
Marty Chinn
Member
Because it fits their argument.
Because offering 10 person share groups made no sense.
IrishNinja
Member
that limitation is placed on the pub's end though, and if i'm not mistaken, you could freely purchase the game and likely play a cracked version lacking said DRM, if not use a tool to strip it out/play the game itself, as i'm told in certain instances.
i acknowledge this isn't necessarily ideal, but it still doesn't make a strong analogy to what MS was pushing with that mess.
bearlabored
Member
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.
petran79
Banned
if you bought it already, you simply pirate it if you plan playing it offline. Though Steam works offline too without major problems.
Even on PC, the worst digital distributor is Microsoft. GWFL Windows PC shop has outdated games, expensive prices, region locked countries, strict and unpractical PC authentification, outdated GFWL client that crashes frequently and dozen more.
Even with competition, they sit so high on their arses from the Xbox and WIndows monopoly, that they can only change to the worse
Why not?
It's funny how much people are saying "it was all fake" now.
VERY EASY to say now that it's gone due to MS keeping physical the same as it was this gen.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'm saying let's not excuse Steam in all this. They have a similar restriction on policies but they tend to get a pass. Let's also not pretend that there are a ton of games that are only available via Steam DRM so you don't have a choice either. Suggesting cracking games is a questionable practice and probably no more valid than telling someone to mod their console to circumvent the DRM. Neither is ideal.
Alx
Member
We didn't even know all the conditions of that service on the user's side, let alone any deal done between MS and the publishers. Saying "it makes no sense" is just refusing to think about it, while we have definite proof that it was a real project.
Many things on that market "made no sense" when they were announced, and still worked.
POWERSPHERE
Banned
I do love they kill their best feature to shut people up and giggle behind their backs. Microsoft are real assholes.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Where has Microsoft ever suggested this?
Im good. Id rather own the data on the physical disc that I purchase.
petran79
Banned
you are allowed to crack the game if you bought it yourself.
Provided you keep it in your home for yourself.
Steam even allows cracked games to run or mods.
Try that on a console.
even if you dont like Steam, a lot of games are also available from other vendors.
Steam's DRM allows offline play.
No a console has it worse. Much much worse. They are better off with discs really.
IrishNinja
Member
sounds good! if you felt your semi-literate struggle was in vain, at least it made you an internet celebrity, man
keep fightin' the good fight, of origin/WU, PC & console DD nature and african ipads, it's all so very compelling stuff
granted, i don't really disagree with anything here. and again, i fully acknowledge your latter statement, though i personally value the format making such an option capable, however unsavory.
regarding the pass, though...i know it's talked to death here but the sort've quid-pro-quo tradeoff nature of these things is pretty central to DD setups, i think. steam did well to push the carrot before the stick, so the resulting situation you lament - valve's policies being the default for many desired titles - i can at least say if it strikes you/others as somewhat monopolizing, there's a strong difference in my mind between that being a consumer-chosen compromise/monopoly for sorts (really not the idea word here, but you get my meaning) vs the nature of MS' plan. i think that bears merit.
again though, i do appreciate the greater point of your post.
also a point, i don't get into this much as i have little experience with it firsthand.
1) i spend weeks trying to download Viva Pinata bought on a sale because the storefront crashed/would tell me i didn't buy anything in the download screen most times
2) Batman AC took me way longer to setup/link with my live account, but thankfully that's not something i share with roommates/loved ones like stumpkapow ran into with netflix singing out for his significant other when he signed into play games (pretty sure that's how it went down)
i'm told it's pretty shit. with what little i saw of it, at the very best GFWL didn't justify its existence at all for me.
CadetMahoney
Member
They will also not cut the price of digital version so as not to annoy retailers and partners making it pointless unless you like paying more for the disc-less convenience.
Marty Chinn
Member
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.
Because it could have potentially - at least, as it was envisioned by optimists - let 10 people access a game with 1 purchase. That would be very damaging to software sales.
Also, there were many people that responded to your thread about the share feature ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=586971&highlight= ), that said they thought it was "fake" and expressed skepticism about it, and that was before yesterday. I had a post in there too, but I won't gloat by linking it!
Oh, I know that we didn't know all the conditions. That's what I tried to remind people who assumed it would allow you to share purchases with all your buds. "Wait! We don't know what constitutes a family member!" I would say. When I say it made no sense, I meant that it didn't make sense for them to allow it to be (ab-)used in this way. I along with many others was expecting some ip address/cc restriction - the share feature would have made sense in that context.
If you can't handle the Irish heat...
He's right about your tone as well, stop being so condescending, talking to people like that won't get you far in life nor GAF.
Oppo
Member
Yeah. But I always believed it. Faker than Milo.
It was the sugar wrapped around the bitter DRM pill and sadly their M.O. says there would have probably been some catch or wrinkle that made this much less valuable or useful. Yes that is the cynical view but I see no real reason to doubt it on the whole.
I find it highly doubtful that family sharing was ever going to be implemented in the manner that had been suggested. If that was really the plan, Microsoft would have touted that feature front and center at their E3 press conference to take control of the DRM messaging.
The way it came across in interviews made it sound like it could be promising, but also that there was no final decision made on exactly how it would work.
The way it came across in interviews made it sound like it could be promising, but also that there was no final decision made on exactly how it would work.
You would still own the data on the physical hard disk of the XBOne.
EleventhDoctor
Banned
Absolutely. It boggles my mind that people cannot grasp this.
Marty Chinn
Member
It's silly to put the spotlight on it though. The plan really is aimed at making it easy for your family members to have access to your games. The problem is there's a way to exploit it. You don't shine the spotlight on the exploit because then people will definitely do it. If you don't, then most people will use it as it was intended with the minority exploiting it.
It's similar how Amazon let's you share Amazon Prime with your family but the trick is they don't have to be in your family and they can be anyone who has an Amazon account. Amazon doesn't go and show the spotlight on this fact so that everyone can split the cost of Amazon Prime.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
No I own the hard disc. Not the data on it. It can removed or my access to it could have been blocked at any time. I could not take the data out, put it on a shelf and sell my system.
I could not remove the data if that hard disk failed
I could not share the data between two x1 consoles without access to the internet.
I could not sell that data without going through Microsoft.
I wouldn't own it. I would be renting it. No thanks.
malboroking
Banned
Dude, Sony had game sharing years ago, this isn't something new. It got chopped from 5 accounts to 2, but its till there. I do it all the time with my friend with digital purchases. I just find it very hard to believe that after instituting some very strict DRM in terms of used games (30 day friends list, having to switch licenses for disc based games etc.) that they were going to turn around and let you just share your entire library with 10 friends. At best one person would be able to access the library at a time and everyone else would be locked out, and what's the damn point of that?
But when did they announce that "family sharing" actually meant the mythical "share with whatever 10 people you choose"? The impression we were given at the initial conference was that family sharing would be the necessary compromise/work-around to allow for sharing between multiple users in a single home despite each game being tied to a specific account.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding of the chronology:
- XBone unveiled, DRM policies revealed, including "family sharing"
- Backlash
- More backlash
- "Family sharing" is suddenly said to be any 10 people of your choosing, a feature that really should have been promoted all along if it actually ever existed
- Days later the entire system is withdrawn, anyone who had actually gotten hyped about family sharing is left tremendously disappointed
Come on, Marty. You're a smart guy. You can't honestly believe what you're saying here. You're suggesting that family sharing, at its conception and as of the initial conference, was intended to be for *any 10 people*? Intended to make it easier for the family... but the limit is TEN people? Without any restrictions as to who those 10 people are?Marty Chinn said:
I think there would have been a balance. Since first, it would have been 10 people max vs. an unlimited # when it comes to sharing a disc (obviously). Second, not everyone would have been able to benefit from the feature since many still don't have Internet connections to download full Blu-Ray games in a reasonable amount of time.
I thought it sounded too good to be true too in some cases but (as I said previously) it was what MS stated ever since confirming the original restrictions.
It was stated/inplied many times that a "family member" could have been anyone just as long as they had XBL.
It made sense to me since fewer people would have benefitted from it in comparison to the number that would benefit from discs staying the same as this gen since (as I said before) the majority of people still don't really have an Internet connection to be able to benefit from the features of the share plan (I.e.: getting full digital games).
Yes, it would have been silly to tout something positive for their system. It made much more sense to let the backlash get out of control and end up scuttling their own policies, rather than let people know about a feature they'd actually be better off with.
John Caboose
Member
So A LOT of people are saying "just buy digital". I already responded to why it's not that simple earlier but I'll do the short version again. I know many people jump in threads just reading the OP or maybe only the thread title and thus miss every single previous point made by anyone in the thread. Basically everything in my post has been said by me and others before. There are a few other points in the above quotes answered by this text as well.
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.
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.
LOOKING AT THE FUTURE
Microsoft could implement a system where they sell codes for games in stores and I would be very happy, I would be able to get the digital copy from a retailer engaging in competition with other retailers and MS Marketplace. The family sharing might come back at a later date but as it is now I'm sad to see it go.
There was a family sharing plan thread here on GAF after it was originally announced with the other restrictions; it was basically a "lets set up some groups" thread. Spencer mentioned the thread recently.
So yeah, it was pretty much stated/implied from the get go that it could just be 10 friends.
Marty Chinn
Member
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.
The thing is, as the program was intended for if you push it as intended, it doesn't sound like a big deal. It's only a big deal when you realize it's potential. The problem is you can't point out the potential exploit. Again, look at my Amazon Prime example. Amazon Prime allows you to add family members but the exploit is you can add anyone. Amazon doesn't point that out.
It does make me wonder about something. Your friend list could potentially be a lot bigger than you family sharing list. I wonder if your selection of people was a permanent thing and could never change, or at least there would be heavy restrictions placed on how many times you could change it.
If there wasn't, what would stop you from constantly changing the people in your family group? If lets say someone in your friends list had a game you wanted to play, but none of the people in your family group had it. If you did that, the amount of people you shared your games with could be much, much larger. There would have to be restrictions on that.
Anyway, it was a good feature, but then I wasn't going to buy the Xbox One anyway, so it's not like it really mattered. It wasn't a must have feature to me.. A lot of my family and friends live close enough that I can actually borrow a game if I want to. Imagine that!
I did notice that there are quite a few people in this thread that are genuinely disappointed that Microsoft have ditched their anti-consumer 'features'. I kind of wish they went through with it now. There is a very good alternative, so it was of no consequence to me. In fact, if the PS3 is anything to go by, I think it will the better console in every way. The reason I want them to go through with it is simply because I want to see if they're able to pull it off without any issues for a whole generation. I don't think they could do it personally. I think something was bound to go wrong at some point.
I'm sure there would have been comments on these forums at some point that were more specific to the individual as well. That would have been an interesting read.
Not something I wanted to deal with really. Maybe it wouldn't have happened that often, but then you can't foretell what might be. The fact remains though, that it was a console dependent on an internet connection, and that needs to be working on both ends flawlessly for a generation. I kind of saw it, in a way, like it was an extra subscription on top of the price of the Xbox One itself. Internet costs money of course. Can't ever stop paying for it or else your $500 console is just a brick. Kind of like paying for cable to watch a DVD (lol). Of course we all want the internet. In fact I hate not having it, even for a day. Don't know what the future holds though.
If there wasn't, what would stop you from constantly changing the people in your family group? If lets say someone in your friends list had a game you wanted to play, but none of the people in your family group had it. If you did that, the amount of people you shared your games with could be much, much larger. There would have to be restrictions on that.
Anyway, it was a good feature, but then I wasn't going to buy the Xbox One anyway, so it's not like it really mattered. It wasn't a must have feature to me.. A lot of my family and friends live close enough that I can actually borrow a game if I want to. Imagine that!
I did notice that there are quite a few people in this thread that are genuinely disappointed that Microsoft have ditched their anti-consumer 'features'. I kind of wish they went through with it now. There is a very good alternative, so it was of no consequence to me. In fact, if the PS3 is anything to go by, I think it will the better console in every way. The reason I want them to go through with it is simply because I want to see if they're able to pull it off without any issues for a whole generation. I don't think they could do it personally. I think something was bound to go wrong at some point.
I'm sure there would have been comments on these forums at some point that were more specific to the individual as well. That would have been an interesting read.
Not something I wanted to deal with really. Maybe it wouldn't have happened that often, but then you can't foretell what might be. The fact remains though, that it was a console dependent on an internet connection, and that needs to be working on both ends flawlessly for a generation. I kind of saw it, in a way, like it was an extra subscription on top of the price of the Xbox One itself. Internet costs money of course. Can't ever stop paying for it or else your $500 console is just a brick. Kind of like paying for cable to watch a DVD (lol). Of course we all want the internet. In fact I hate not having it, even for a day. Don't know what the future holds though.
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.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
game sharing with 10 people is a pipe dream.
i can't believe anyone expected that to stay in any form.
if you seriously think about it, microsoft was just trying to get people to "accept" drm by throwing this idea to people to see if it would stick. it didn't. not to mention developers/publishers would just be pissed off at microsoft in the end anyway.
hell, sony's 5-then-only-2 game sharing plan got some ire from developers. 10 people is laughable.
i can't believe anyone expected that to stay in any form.
if you seriously think about it, microsoft was just trying to get people to "accept" drm by throwing this idea to people to see if it would stick. it didn't. not to mention developers/publishers would just be pissed off at microsoft in the end anyway.
hell, sony's 5-then-only-2 game sharing plan got some ire from developers. 10 people is laughable.
cicero
Member
Yeah, how backwards is it to want pro-consumer policies being the determining factor on if I actually control the products I buy or not. It's so much easier to just lay back and consider anything more convenient as having more merit than something that is less convenient. True progress is losing as many consumer rights as possible as long as it makes something slightly more convenient!
Yours are the backwards sentiments, not those desiring less draconian DRM instead of more. You don't even bother to question the vague promises of something they didn't even bother to describe in detail. When did MS suddenly become so trustworthy as to make that a reasonable assumption to make in regards to their vague PR releases?
Similar threads
- Poll