Support NeoGAF

[spekkeh]

I feel like I stepped into some kind of other dimension. People actually believed that MS would just let you share your games with ten others? So that you could buy three games, get thirty, and be done for the cycle? Thus implementing a system that would completely nullify every DRM practice they laboriously put in place, and immediately destroy the entire games market?

Waityoureseriousletmelaughevenlouder.gif

They have always been deliberately vague, saying you could log in and 'access someone's library'. Could be anything from copying savefiles to simply watching their achievementslist.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

So what exactly are people clinging to with Family Sharing?

Do we know how it works? The restrictions, and etc? For example Sony allowed digital sharing (do they still now?), is it better than that?

They basicaly know nothing but still is awesome!

 

[Papercuts]

There is little reason to put sharing on a pedestal now, we never got the vital details to clarify how good it would be.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

We may never know what would have been, but I'd have bet a dollar to your dime that this policy was never going to be anywhere near as awesome as people hoped. Even if you assume simultaneous playing wouldn't have worked, it was way too unrealistic sounding to be plausible without tons of fine print.

 

[nillapuddin]

Makes sense that Microsoft would backpedal on this: people could exploit the system to the extent that only 1 person would buy a game and then ten others could play it freely.

The whole system always came over as a quick response to criticism that they never completely thought through. There is no reason that MS could not have maintained this policy.

You misunderstand the way it works, They were never allowing simultaneous play, it was just so that your friends and family could experience the games you like, when you are not playing it

Its not like I could have my own BTB team in Halo just based off of Friends and Family who never bought the game

 

[Raziel]

you had to be crazy to think they would allow 10 person share groups

shout out to bgamer

 

[Sheroking]

Now I can share my game with a 100 family members.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

This feature was never going to happen the way you guys envisioned it. You didn't lose anything.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'm pretty pissed it's gone. I thought they should've held their ground on this stuff, to be honest. I really do. People might have thought people were shilling before because they liked this stuff, but I liked the idea of some forward thinking ideas that while they wouldn't be embraced immediately, would be over time and grow from there.

Still, it does make things easier for a lot of people, so I suppose that's always good.

You would've still been able to play a game after you let a friend "borrow" it through family share. That's something you can't do today with the current system unless your friend also has the game bought.

 

[Poimandres]

I don't think the sharing plan was ever going to work. There was too much money to be lost, probably more so than physical lending!

Besides, you can sort of do this stuff already anyway. Set up your xbox account on multiple systems, and anyone can play the games as long as they are signed in as you right?

 

[John Caboose]

Yeah it does, it's called physically passing the game.

No reason why Microsoft couldn't have kept the family plan for digital games.

What we have confirmed right now (from the announcement) is that digital games will not be able to be shared or anything. The post announcement interviews say no family sharing "at launch".

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Wait, so is everybody that was against Xbone's DRM now going to catch shit over a feature that we never even got full clarification on?

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

I'll take it, no problem and they could still add it later so no problem.

We first dealt with drm that was more important

 

[Lucifon]

So there's literally nothing from a gaming perspective that puts the Xbone over the PS4 now (unless you like the exclusives more, but that's all opinion). Instead, it's a weaker, more expensive console with a camera I can't just toss in a closet.

Why did Microsoft go back on this again?

My thoughts exactly. They had some genuinely cool 'next-gen' style features which are now defunct and we're left with a more powerful box for £430.

 

[kaching]

You think you just have to whine to get what you want ? Things don't come for free. Family plans were a compromise, they couldn't probably be set up if they didn't promise to the publishers the control of the used market as a counterpart. You can't have it all, if you want to win something, you'll have to lose something else.

If you think I'm talking about whining, there's your first problem. There are many ways to compromise here. MS didn't really compromise, for example, they just capitulated and went back to square one.

 

[FlyFaster]

@ All of you saying you've grown up and now live far away from your friends.


I'm 30 yrs old. Sure some of my friends have moved, I've moved a few times too.

But are all of you really saying that where you currently live/work/ect you haven't made ANY new friends? There is NO ONE new in your guys lives since you've moved? It's just the old friends and that's it?

From my experience this isn't the case. As I've moved through life I've always been able to find others like me who love gaming/share similar interests. All up and down the West Coast in the US and in Germany.

Make new friends! ;p

 

[TheOhrenberger]

You guys make it sound like you can't share games anymore, just lend your physical copy to your friend.

that's so much less convenient than just letting him have access to my entire library digitally though. Can you seriously not see that? If you and I wanted to share games, we'd have to mail them to each other or find some place to meet up. With old Xbone policies I'd be able to just let you play any of my games.

And yeah, we know that only one person would be able to play it at any given time, but that's exactly the same scenario we're in now, only one person can have that disk at any given time.

 

[dem]

No, it really wouldn't have been. How would that even work, who gets booted while two people are playing at the same time? Does the original owner control who gets what game, or do the 10 people in your "family" just have access to your library. or do you give them certain games.

The entire thing just unravels when you think of the logistics if everyone can't play the same game at the same time. And I highly doubt publishers would be okay with that. You really think they want 10 people playing the same copy of Halo 5? Just have two people do it cuts your sales in half.

The Owner of the game gets to play all the time.
The family group gets shared all of your games.

Owner>Family group
If a Family group member is playing a game.. no other family group members can.

How is that complicated?

 

[chubigans]

I'm surprised how many angry comments there are on the Nelson blog regarding this.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

Wait, so is everybody that was against Xbone's DRM now going to catch shit over a feature that we never even got full clarification on?

Since when does it take full clarification on anything before people formed a hard line opinion on anything? It sure didnt happen here in the last couple of months.

 

[King Beyond the wall]

You misunderstand the way it works, They were never allowing simultaneous play, it was just so that your friends and family could experience the games you like, when you are not playing it

Its not like I could have my own BTB team in Halo just based off of Friends and Family who never bought the game

No, I understood this. There is no reason why 1 person could buy Quantom Break and then 10 friends could play a week of it each. Sony had a similar policy a couple of years which they had to back down on because It was being exploited so much.

 

[OryoN]

Folks are just as delusional as Microsoft were about their 'adorable' DRM policies if they think publishers(who b!tched endlessly about used games and helped pushed for DRM) would let you share their games to multiple people for free.

The fact that it was such a huge contradiction within their policies(like one gaping loophole) should have raised a red flag. It was merely a lure designed to lighten the blow of their strict policies, curiously backed up by their explicit rights to cancel or change any policy at will. The fact that it's gone should be proof enough that it was never something they wanted to commit to.

Of course, they were never obligated to offer such 'too-good-2-b-true' features in the first place, so I'm just happy that they've ran out of lame reasons to support their other crazy policies. Perhaps now they can finally stop pretending like all these cloud-based features were only possible because of their DRM.

 

[Nafai1123]

I don't really get why people are pissed about losing something we knew fuck-all about.

 

[Jomjom]

The Owner of the game gets to play all the time.
The family group gets shared all of your games.

Owner>Family group
If a Family group member is playing a game.. no other family group members can.

How is that complicated?

I dunno but it apparently was too complicated for MS to give an explanation of how it was going to work. Everything you just typed there is all speculation passed off as fact.

 

[Conflict NZ]

I couldn't give two shits about the loss of family sharing.

What we got in exchange is a million times better.

For those of us that never trade in games and don't buy used games it isn't. Family sharing would've allowed you to share with 10 people almost simultaneously, sure only two people could play at once but when one of those jumps off another jumps on straight away without having to worry about where the disk is. It would've been so much easier than it is now but people can't deal with change so now we're stuck in 2005. Thanks internet.

 

[Daylight]

They really need to offer a disk-less drive version console, now. Make it cheaper, and encourage people onto digital.

This is a good idea. Only sell them through their website, not at retail as to not cause confusion. This would allow them to cultivate a gropu of people who want always connected that has extra features like sharing and such. Obviously not now, but down the road. Their job this generation is now to try and move away from physical discs.

 

[Spasm]

Problem Solved.

Thank you very much for using, Bitter Counseiling.

Welp, guess I have no choice. It's too bad, cause I really do like physical, tangible collecting. Also, it'll be interesting to see how badly this fucks over retail.

 

[soldat7]

There is no way publishers would have ever backed such a system.

 

[MrGreencastle]

I don't understand why this can't still exist for digital games at least. It's a good feature.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

@ All of you saying you've grown up and now live far away from your friends.


I'm 30 yrs old. Sure some of my friends have moved, I've moved a few times too.

But are all of you really saying that where you currently live/work/ect you haven't made ANY new friends? There is NO ONE new in your guys lives since you've moved? It's just the old friends and that's it?

From my experience this isn't the case. As I've moved through life I've always been able to find others like me who love gaming/share similar interests. All up and down the West Coast in the US and in Germany.

Make new friends! ;p

Hey why play online against your friends you no longer live near, just make new friends and play locally.

It sure would be nice to share games with the people ive known for 20 years opposed to the new ones i barely know.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't really get why people are pissed about losing something we knew fuck-all about.

Because people were overly optimistic about how it was going to work. That's how it looks anyway.

I don't understand why this can't still exist for digital games at least. It's a good feature.

Because its just as *bad* as used games?

 

[Jomjom]

For those of us that never trade in games and don't buy used games it isn't. Family sharing would've allowed you to share with 10 people almost simultaneously, sure only two people could play at once but when one of those jumps off another jumps on straight away without having to worry about where the disk is. It would've been so much easier than it is now but people can't deal with change so now we're stuck in 2005. Thanks internet.

You sure dream vividly.

 

[besada]

I'm surprised how many angry comments there are on the Nelson blog regarding this.

People who were fine with the Xbone the way it was have been keeping their heads down due to the frenzy of the "we must have cheap games" crowd.

 

[Moral Panic]

You sure dream vividly.

That's pretty much exactly how Microsoft described it was going to work, so I don't know why you're trolling.

 

[cicero]

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.

Laughable. I love how you assume it would have worked the way you wanted it to, without restrictions, when MS has always been about restricting access and complete cloud based computing where total control of the product was removed from the end consumer. Not to mention how MS would have to have had the complete approval of the publishers for each title, which wasn't even likely.

 

[Alx]

I don't really get why people are pissed about losing something we knew fuck-all about.

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.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

The Owner of the game gets to play all the time.
The family group gets shared all of your games.

Owner>Family group
If a Family group member is playing a game.. no other family group members can.

How is that complicated?

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?

 

[Quadraphonic]

By never explaining the limitations of the 10person-sharing, it will forever be something people wanted. Essentially a martyr. You'll never know how terrible it would have been.

 

[Mononoke]

We may never know what would have been, but I'd have bet a dollar to your dime that this policy was never going to be anywhere near as awesome as people hoped. Even if you assume simultaneous playing wouldn't have worked, it was way too unrealistic sounding to be plausible without tons of fine print.

Agreed. Doesn't make sense why Publishers would allow this without there being more to it.

 

[spekkeh]

That's pretty much exactly how Microsoft described it was going to work, so I don't know why you're trolling.

They didn't describe it at all really. It was a vague statement in some interview when Mattrick was probably still high on what he snorted a few minutes before.

 

[Conflict NZ]

That's pretty much exactly how Microsoft described it was going to work, so I don't know why you're trolling.

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.

 

[Owzers]

By never explaining the limitations of the 10person-sharing, it will forever be something people wanted. Essentially a martyr. You'll never know how terrible it would have been.

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.

 

[Chaos17]

They never got around to the nitty gritty details.

So true, people were overhyped for this feature without knowing any real details about it.

 

[Spasm]

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.

God, this COULD have been as close to a Steambox as we're likely to ever get.

 

[ChimpBottle]

I don't get the upset. If I understand Major Nelson correctly, originally only one person in the family plan could have been playing at a time. Now you don't have to worry about not being able to play the game you payed for because a friend is playing it. And you can share your disk with more than 10 people

 

[Storm360]

Good, the longer we keep the physical market alive the better.

Digital Game prices are a joke

 

[GodofWine]

GAF would have had the best game sharing thread and spreadsheet and plan ever...oh well. I *think* this is a win overall.

 

[Quadraphonic]

I don't get the upset. If I understand Major Nelson correctly, originally only one person in the family plan could have been playing at a time. Now you don't have to worry about not being able to play the game you payed for because a friend is playing it. And you can share your disk with more than 10 people

Has Microsoft done a SINGLE THING to a consumer's benefit this generation? Everything has an ulterior motive.

 

[someday]

This feels like "oh, you don't want forced online checks and drm?.. fine! then you also can't have this awesome family plan feature" *sticks out tongue*

This is the way I see it too. You can still do all the cool online stuff with those that want it. Just require an internet connection from all involved and make them buy it digitally. Done. That would have still allowed the XBone to have the cool new features but allowed others to stay within their own comfort zone. It would have been a complete win for MS and consumers. Shows again that they really don't give a shit about consumers.

Can any of you guys even explain what the vaunted "family sharing" plan was? Was it sharing with 9 people and 9 people could all play, 1 person including online, 1 person not including online, 2 people within a 500 mile radius but only if they were both facing west?

The way I last understood it, only one person (not including the "owner") could access the library at a time. So at most, two people could be playing any of those games but the other 8 would have to wait for the other family member to exit the library before playing any of those games.

 

[Jomjom]

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.

No go ahead get me to understand. Show me anything official that said that was exactly how it was going to work. If I remember correctly one Major Nelson was supposedly working on a blog post or something that was going to explain it, maybe you got access to that post early?

Since I know you're just going to post some sort of spoken statement somewhere, please be sure to list all the other "official" statements that contradict everything previously stated.

The way I last understood it, only one person (not including the "owner") could access the library at a time. So at most, two people could be playing any of those games but the other 8 would have to wait for the other family member to exit the library before playing any of those games.

You know why you put it as "the way I last understood it?" Because they never explained how it was going to work so it was left to everyone's interpretation. There's a reason there was a huge thread of people speculating on how it was going to work. Key word: SPECULATING


The only thing that was certain was that a family group was made of 10 members. What members could do was never official. That is fact.

So hey if you guys are really that heartbroken about losing the ability to join some ambiguous group of 10 people, then by all means cry away.