dragonbane
Member
Too bad. Even I admitted that this would be a killer feature.
-
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
cicero
Member
Not when limited "sharing" meant the complete loss of control over the product you pay for, and the 24 hour logging on requirement it inherently required. That was no glorious superior tradeoff, it was the further encroachments of a monolithic company which has always tried to remove control of the products they sell out of the hands of the end consumer so they can do whatever they want without concern about people opting out or choosing other alternatives. This was typical MS behavior for anyone who has lived through their many many other similar actions.
The backlash against them was entirely deserved and quite refreshing.
BomberMouse
Member
Bummer but the price was not worth it anyway.
I just hope Sony keeps a similar game sharing policy to next gen. It was so awesome when it was 5 consoles per account.
I just hope Sony keeps a similar game sharing policy to next gen. It was so awesome when it was 5 consoles per account.
John Caboose
Member
A "family" would be a group of up to 10 people. Think clan. No the original owner of the game would always have access. Xbox One Games are using save-states now [IIRC] so you would lose zero progress. It's as if you had pressed the start button.
Seriously, people believing it would work out like this is without a doubt the most moronic thing I've read all week on the internets.
I can literally not wrap my head around how these people envision the games market (doesn't) work.
shinra-bansho
Member
Microsoft probably couldn't find a way that this would work that would actually be an improvement on current lending - that wouldn't result in even more "lost sales" than the used market.
Publishers wouldn't go for it, I imagine.
Publishers wouldn't go for it, I imagine.
Marty Chinn
Member
The policy read that the primary owner would always have access and then one instance of each title would be available to your remaining people that you've put on a white list. This would be the digital version of passing a disc around with the bonus that it was possible that two instances would be available. The family sharing thing sounded like it was turning out to be one the shining aspect of this debacle.
Why is this bad?
Virtua Ben
Member
How would that affect publishers? Genuine question.
It's the same concept as before. Now there is no incentive to buy digital besides the convenience of not a.) not going to the store or b.) not having a disk. It would only seem to fair to be able to re-sell and share digital games just like you can physical games.
Alx
Member
For me it was. Good for you if you appreciate that the next generation model will be exactly like the current one. I don't. And I especially don't appreciate how a proposition of something new got torn down by public opinion alone (based on incomplete information, even). I'd rather have watched MS go on with their plan and fail, than witness the current situation. It's very sad indeed.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I only need a few words to describe Steam:"You can buy games for 5-10 euros, that cost 30 or more on console"
That's all, more people than you think understands the reestrictions than come with the digital era. But that wasn't gonna happen with Xbox One. People keep saying we could have had steam prices but not even MS said that was gonna be the case.
Deputy Moonman
Member
Oh heaven forbid!! I still think half the people on gaf don't even know why their angry. They just saw other people freaking out and joined in. Conformity at its greatest.
darkwalker
Neo Member
The higher ups at Gamestop are probably ecstatic right about now.
chrominance
Member
As someone who neither deals a whole lot with used games nor really shares games very often, I'd much rather have the current setup than have to deal with the byzantine DRM restrictions just so I can share games with ten of my friends. Never mind that we never got full details of how the family sharing system was supposed to work (or at least I missed it if it was explained in full). Remember the PS3 gamesharing system that wasn't really supposed to exist, and ended up being curtailed from five activations to two?
Trading in a used game is simple and straightforward: take it back to the store, get store credit or moneys, walk out. Dealing with a family sharing system is inherently more complicated, even if it had been explained fully before being axed. Assume the most liberal system you can think of. Now think of what everyone was hoping to use the system for: "oh man, now instead of buying all my games, I can split the cost between my ten friends!" Who pays for the games? Will each person send their portion of the cost to the buyer each time? And are you going to set up a rotation system so that one person isn't stuck buying everything? What happens if eight of you feel like buying a game and two of you don't? What if one of your ten friends stops being your friend and revokes your access to their games (or vice-versa)? etc. etc. etc.
I think that for many people on this board, the benefits of being able to share a game with up to ten people with potential restrictions failed to outweigh the costs of giving up the ability to resell or trade in a physical disc. And for anyone not on this board, Microsoft did such an awful job of explaining what family sharing was or why you'd want it that most of the general population won't even care if Microsoft brings this up later as a "you could've had this awesome thing but you BLEW IT, gamers."
Trading in a used game is simple and straightforward: take it back to the store, get store credit or moneys, walk out. Dealing with a family sharing system is inherently more complicated, even if it had been explained fully before being axed. Assume the most liberal system you can think of. Now think of what everyone was hoping to use the system for: "oh man, now instead of buying all my games, I can split the cost between my ten friends!" Who pays for the games? Will each person send their portion of the cost to the buyer each time? And are you going to set up a rotation system so that one person isn't stuck buying everything? What happens if eight of you feel like buying a game and two of you don't? What if one of your ten friends stops being your friend and revokes your access to their games (or vice-versa)? etc. etc. etc.
I think that for many people on this board, the benefits of being able to share a game with up to ten people with potential restrictions failed to outweigh the costs of giving up the ability to resell or trade in a physical disc. And for anyone not on this board, Microsoft did such an awful job of explaining what family sharing was or why you'd want it that most of the general population won't even care if Microsoft brings this up later as a "you could've had this awesome thing but you BLEW IT, gamers."
Moral Panic
Member
All disk games were Digital games. See a cool game in a bargain bin - boom. Theres a digital copy of the game for cheap. Unless you are saying that retail stores never have steam-like sales for retail games then that's something else.
cicero
Member
haha, you "have a feeling". Oh, bravo.
Well, your "feeling" trumped all the other historical evidence against MS and their well known efforts to push draconian DRM schemes or cloud based computing, where everyone rents services instead of buying physical copies that could be used long after MS would have forced everyone to pay for an update to access a newer and much more bloated "update". Anyone with any knowledge or experience with MS as a company would find this laughable. Word 6 anyone?
Steam is in no way comparable to what this was going to be. Valve hasn't created a console that requires logging in every 24 hours, or that breaks backwards compatibility with old purchases, or that requires a monthly fee for increased access to online services. You are comparing apples and oranges. MS has no trust in this area, Valve does. Both have come to their positions through years of intentional effort. One has shown itself to be pro-consumer, the other hasn't had that focus whatsoever.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
The only hard confirmation we had on same-game sharing at the same time was a NO. Every time else it was mentioned it was vague either way. The facts are there, if you want to believe it or not.
Maybe people should have really thought this through
before pressuring MS to change their stance.
Its not like every console was offering the restrictions.
Imagine you could have two consoles. One where you can
save money and share the games, the other where you could
keep physical media to trade with.
before pressuring MS to change their stance.
Its not like every console was offering the restrictions.
Imagine you could have two consoles. One where you can
save money and share the games, the other where you could
keep physical media to trade with.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
it will be back. It will be the carrot + $10 cheaper games to lead the general public into the all digital age.
shinra-bansho
Member
Microsoft couldn't get it's story straight on this "feature." Every interview something different was said. And often didn't match their online policy document.
Because in all likelihood they were making it up as they went along, as they tried to thrash out a workable policy behind the scenes. And couldn't. Since this was obviously a reactionary move due to the PR backlash rather than an intended well-thought out policy.
You are close I think they would come up with something and the publishers would tell them hell no and they would back track on it. This sharing with 10 people was never going to happen. I said since day 1 it is way worse than used games and no publisher would allow it. Best case would of been first party and XBLA games.
Moral Panic
Member
Were 100% of the features sorted out? No.
Was a fairly concrete plan being sold to the audience? Yes.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=591751
Microsoft were trying to clarify and sort out the exact features, but what they announced was an unparalleled move a very cool feature and a reason to get the console. Now we have nothing.
Alx
Member
The policy document was clear enough, and it was the only document you should consider. It was official, someone took the time to write it based on first hand information, it has probably been proof read several times by their lawyers and project managers...
People in interviews can get confused, make mistakes, misunderstand a question. That's why we had conflicting opinions on the details of that project. You can ask people about anything and you'll never have a 100% coherent report.
Anyway, there's no need crying over spilled milk now. That project is dead. Thanks internet.
Marty Chinn
Member
It can co-exist. There's no reason it can't.
Quadraphonic
Member
Don't forget, at a friend's house you had a ONE HOUR window for online check instead of 24. There's a lot of complicated shit.
ioriyagami
Member
I just don't get why they can't make it so Digitally-downloaded games behave as before the backpedal move (sharing, re-selling...), AND still offer the option of having the Xbox360 behavior. You just need to have the option of choosing which of those two types of games you are buying.
And then, that WOULD BE the best of both worlds, not this. Seriously, Microsoft, is not that hard.
No need to be pointing fingers to consumers saying "This is what you wanted". What consumers wanted, and will always want, is to have the freaking option to choose what's best for them. Period.
And then, that WOULD BE the best of both worlds, not this. Seriously, Microsoft, is not that hard.
No need to be pointing fingers to consumers saying "This is what you wanted". What consumers wanted, and will always want, is to have the freaking option to choose what's best for them. Period.
Marty Chinn
Member
How is it any different than you loaning your disc to ten friends?
Kill Your Masters
Member
Maybe publishers pressured Microsoft to can family sharing. The only positive feature in this drm fiasco which is a publishers nightmare.
Would've been much worse if they only changed this policy and left everything else intact.
Would've been much worse if they only changed this policy and left everything else intact.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Yeah, was just about to post this. I hope it comes back, even if it's just for digitally purchased titles or maybe they do some kind of DRM opt in.
Moral Panic
Member
So you think Microsoft just came up with the feature, wrote up a policy document and advertised it without ever talking to publishers? Really? Like really?
cicero
Member
It "sounded" like many things though. We had no hard set statements detailing how things were going to work, and certainly no evidence that publishers were ready to go along with whatever MS had planned. All I have is the MS attempt to take control of the products I purchase out of my hands to increase their profit margins. Not to increase my access, enjoyment, or ability to play games better than I did before, it was their bottom line. Period.
This is typical MS. I have directly experienced their behavior since the early 90s and nothing has really changed. They have been going down this road for a very long time as a basic part of corporate policy, because restricting access and further their own COMPLETE control over the products they sell allows them to charge what they want when they want, and remove pesky problems like third party used sales or use of older products instead of people migrating to whatever new product/services they are pushing. This was merely the video game console extension of their normal modus operandi when it comes to their OS and other software.
LittleJohnny
Banned
Huh? Last I checked I was able to sell, borrow and trade games, in fact I could do it with my friends in Florida instantly without having to travel 1500 miles or paying for shipping both ways.
Wish I could modify that Sony game sharing tutorial, Step 1 share the game... Step 2, get in your car and drive 1500 miles in traffic to get your butt back home to play. With Xbone I could've just dropped the games in my share section and instantly give friends access to games I wanted to share and viceversa.
SAD
Its kind of sad, I would have been happy to deal with DRM with this feature in place. I know I'm not the majority though, and I'm glad to see Microsoft do what it needs to do to make this a more competitive generation.
Alx
Member
Who knows what MS had/would have negociated for that ? Maybe getting a share of the used market was worth it. Maybe MS would have shared some of the Gold income, since it would have been an incentive for it. Maybe it was a condition to get access to free Azure servers.
You need to watch the big picture. Each feature doesn't exist by itself, they're linked to each other. And what's happening today is another proof of it.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Whatcha gonna do brother when the fanboys run wild on you?
Similar threads
- Poll