Don't know if this has been posted yet, isn't in the OP so there ya go.
Marc Whitten, Xbox Corp. VP:
Marc Whitten, Xbox Corp. VP:
Don't know if this has been posted yet, isn't in the OP so there ya go.
Marc Whitten, Xbox Corp. VP:
We have no idea what the plan was or what any restrictions there would have been...
Don't know if this has been posted yet, isn't in the OP so there ya go.
Marc Whitten, Xbox Corp. VP:
Right. Why would you believe them after they said DRM is part of the "DNA" of Xbone and couldn't be removed?
Hell, why would you believe them after they spent a year denying that the Xbox 360 wasn't poorly designed and that the RRoD was just a bunch of entitled gamers complaining too loudly on the internet?
What exactly do you expect Aaron Greenberg to say?Interesting development, taken from another thread. Who to believe?
exactly as we described.. So.. barely at all and confusing as all hell?
gotcha.
Didn't he also say Mirror's edge 2 would by at the MS conference? He simply doesn't hit 100% of the time.Also, I'm not sure why people keep citing PoP as some sort of black mark against cboat. Again, Ubisoft have an unannounced title in development.
There is no reason interested parties' consoles couldn't decide to opt-in to the daily checks for a minimum amount of time and do the Sharing with digital copies. They could call it the XBox Digital Advantage Club, where club members can share with each other!
This is the best plan, agree with me.
It just seems that people are so quick to believe, when the mouthpieces have said nothing to earn any of that trust.Fanboys have shown continuously that everything MS does is gold in their eyes. That said, there are a fair few others who are just skeptical about everything and dislike taking sides, so they play devil's advocate.
Oh. The same Marc Whitten who says they wanted to get "the complete story" about their draconian DRM out there, even though they had already planned to reverse these policies privately. That they went to E3 tried to sell all this bullshit for weeks, publicly stated that nothing would change, and with the full intention of reversing it? The one saying this all went according to keikaku?Marc Whitten denies it as well and calls the rumor silly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/notwen/status/348092374842474497
As skeptical as you guys may be, its kind of hard to argue when the people running Microsoft shooting down the rumor. If it was true, they wouldn't comment on it at all. They made a point to refute it.
Mark my words, it will return without a time limit for marketplace content.
Don't know if this has been posted yet, isn't in the OP so there ya go.
Marc Whitten, Xbox Corp. VP:
I'm still confused about how it works or supposed to have worked.
Moving this post here since this seems to be the new thread.
What's funny is that they DID hint at this. In an obfuscated way. We just never noticed.
Remember when the DRM was first revealed? The easiest complaint was "What if I wanted to take it to my friend's house?"
Remember the response?
http://gamerant.com/xbox-one-internet-connection-requirement/
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/07/no-fees-for-xbox-one-used-games-but-24-hour-check-in-required-3832010/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/06/microsoft-details-xbox-one-used-games-always-online
We just glossed over that because we figured, during the PEAK of the "24 hour check" freakout, that 1 hour offline for visiting a friend was just more shit on the cake.
Nope.
That was the max amount of time a friend could play a copy. Period
It was in front of our face the whole time.
We have no idea what the plan was or what any restrictions there would have been. They were so vague about everything. What a joke.
Don't believe everything you read online.. Lol
on the bright side, if they put this feature in again they have to give full access to games due to this twitter bullshit. Those words are marked.
Kotaku article on this makes a good point. What would be the point of limiting access to only 1 of the 10 people at a time if it was just a demo?
Why wouldn't you let all 10 people play the demo at the same time? The pastebin/CBOAT rumor doesn't really make sense in that light.
Kotaku article on this makes a good point. What would be the point of limiting access to only 1 of the 10 people at a time if it was just a demo?
Why wouldn't you let all 10 people play the demo at the same time? The pastebin/CBOAT rumor doesn't really make sense in that light.
The terms of the plan seem ephemeral, MS may have been trying to change the plan into something actually resembling game sharing before they axed it along with the DRM.
Posted?
Paul Thourott
http://m.winsupersite.com/xbox/xbox-one-preview-what-really-happened-family-sharing
Also, the whole idea behind the sharing was to make an all digital system easier to swallow. Why just demos when you could just d/l one from the marketplace?
but hey, "60sigh.."
Kotaku article on this makes a good point. What would be the point of limiting access to only 1 of the 10 people at a time if it was just a demo?
Why wouldn't you let all 10 people play the demo at the same time? The pastebin/CBOAT rumor doesn't really make sense in that light.
Posted?
Paul Thourott
http://m.winsupersite.com/xbox/xbox-one-preview-what-really-happened-family-sharing
Also, the whole idea behind the sharing was to make an all digital system easier to swallow. Why just demos when you could just d/l one from the marketplace?
but hey, "60sigh.."
Share access to your games with everyone inside your home: Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games.
He uses the word unlimited to get his point across but unlimited is only under the Everyone in your home section.
Why would they write unlimited in that section but not in the family share section??
Hmmmm maybe because it was limited.
Thurrott is going off of exactly what we have to go off of, an intentionally vague policy piece and confusing interviews that sound like execs are just making shit up. So I don't see what exactly his (very biased, forward-leaning? eugh) post is supposed to prove.Posted?
Paul Thourott
http://m.winsupersite.com/xbox/xbox-one-preview-what-really-happened-family-sharing
Also, the whole idea behind the sharing was to make an all digital system easier to swallow. Why just demos when you could just d/l one from the marketplace?
but hey, "60sigh.."
Posted?
Paul Thourott
http://m.winsupersite.com/xbox/xbox-one-preview-what-really-happened-family-sharing
Also, the whole idea behind the sharing was to make an all digital system easier to swallow. Why just demos when you could just d/l one from the marketplace?
but hey, "60sigh.."
We'll never know. Unless it gets released in another form later and works the way MS said it does.
Here is the issue with this. Anonymous source dude is a hero of leaking. He is trustworthy to gaf because he was right about some stuff. Non anonymous people in high positions at Microsoft and are saying "No, it is not true" are considered liars. Why would MS lie about a service they cancelled? Why respond?
You can never win a fight with a popular anonymous source. Especially if you're a very well know entity in a position to actually KNOW about the subject. Such is the idiocy of the internet.
He uses the word unlimited to get his point across but unlimited is only under the Everyone in your home section.
Why would they write unlimited in that section but not in the family share section??
Hmmmm maybe because it was limited.
Thourott is a MS tool. The article is laughable.
Unlimited access to library = able to play the whole game. Big fucking reach dude.
Reading some of the comments here leads me to believe that some people actually wanted the Xbox One to have the 60 minute restriction just so they could use it to attack the Xbox One. Reminds me of how it seemed some people wanted the PS4 to have DRM so they could use it to attack the PS4. This is a low, disgusting, and selfish tactic.
Thourott is a MS tool. The article is laughable.
Unlimited access to library = able to play the whole game. Big fucking reach dude.
...including this tweet.
Thurrott is going off of exactly what we have to go off of, an intentionally vague policy piece and confusing interviews that sound like execs are just making shit up. So I don't see what exactly his (very biased, forward-leaning? eugh) post is supposed to prove.
The whole point of all the draconian DRM was to monetize the resale market and reduce piracy to increase revenue. Why then allow a full retail game to be shared amongst eleven people and potentially cost ten sales?
In what bizarre world would publishers be gung-ho about that?
But hey, PR twitters.
The point is to get gamers feeling a little saddened at the "loss" of fake-mily game sharing after they decides to turn off their draconian DRM switch. You cant have the cake and all bhoys. Dirty PR at play here.
Eh, I'm just making conversation. The real fact is that, now that's on the backburner, we will never know for sure (no matter what "insiders" say)
People have to stop posting pics of MS employees tweets. If they werent prepared to fully detail the family sharing plans at E3 or the week after what makes you think they'll give you the real fucking details now?
As much as people like to say everything out of their mouth is a lie, it's still good and necessary to have both sides of a story. Because what's ironic is that when they say absolutely nothing at all, refusing to speak out against negative rumors on their platform, they get a lot of shit for that as well. People say things like "If this wasn't true, why wouldn't Microsoft immediately come out and put these rumors to rest?", but when they actually decide to answer the rumors directly, the comments are more or less "don't believe their lies."
And don't get me wrong, they have every reason to potentially lie or paper over things that can portray their platform in an unfavorable light, but it's ridiculous to treat literally everything they say that way. It's almost like why are people even interested in hearing anything they have to say in the first place then if that's how we're going to react when they actually engage with people and attempt to say anything at all? Microsoft in laying out their policies prior to E3 actually gave us a few details on the various restrictions. Sure, that didn't mean that there weren't still questions that required answering, but barring a few important details that people like myself were dying to know some more about, Family sharing seemed like the most straightforward amongst all of those policies. Maybe it might not seem that way because it got the most positive attention, and the negative stuff just took on a whole new life of its own, but thurrot is correct that Microsoft described the family share as being unlimited access to your games. The hour time limit that people are referring to, and trying to use to make it look like Microsoft hinted at this limit on family sharing all along has nothing to do with family share, or, to be more precise, is loosely connected to what family share was, or at least as it was presented by Microsoft.
If you're playing your games at a friend's house over the cloud, you have to access the internet every single hour instead of the 24 hours if you're on your own console at home. With family share more or less working the same exact way as accessing games over the cloud, it's no surprise if there was some kind of internet check every hour for that, too, because why in god's name would family share users have even less restrictions than people playing at home on their own console, and who actually own the games being shared? I take this whole negative focus now on family sharing as some people who legitimately see that in the process of all the consumer outrage, we actually lost a legitimately cool sounding feature on the Xbox One that a lot of people wanted. I know 4 people that canceled Xbox one pre-orders over the loss of family share. It was a pretty big fucking deal to them. But rather than acknowledge we lost a cool feature, and that maybe in the process of "winning" we actually lost (or killed) something in the process, people much rather retroactively attack it and say "See? You guys really didn't lose anything at all! The feature was absolute shit anyway!" Whatever form it does return in, if it does at all, it may be seriously gimped.
Hopefully I can't be banned for this comment. Just expressing my opinion.