-
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.
Aaron Greenberg - Family Sharing was not time limited
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Exactly. Like do people honestly think publishers would be okay with this? Even if you're just letting two people share it, you're risking cutting your profits in half. Microsoft has deep pockets, but I don't even think they could get a big title game signed up for something like this.
The 60 minute trial things make WAY more sense, especially since Sony already does that now with a lot of titles on PlayStation Plus. In what world does any of this benefit publishers unless there is some type of limitation. Even the "only one person can play at a time" stuff is dangerous because people would coordinate to avoid having to pay $60 for a game. At least with the trial, you give people a taste and then they'd have to go pay to get more.
There is just no history or precedent that makes me think that any publishers big or small would let this go down. Sony tried, they had to pull back. We already know that the free games on PlayStation Plus are paid for by Sony by how many people they think will download it. And even those games are usually 12+ months old, after sales have trailed off for a title. But yeah, Microsoft was going to let me share a brand new $60 game with no restrictions. What a magical and wonderful new age of gaming. They're going to be coy about what the deal really was because now it has people begging for DRM just so they can see what was behind Door #1. It's nothing...
Dave Meltzer
Banned
I'm dissatisfied with how dated consoles feel compared to PCs. MS were doing something about it.
I'm sure once MS & pubs had pricing control of the used games market, prices would have lowered. Poor you having to pay the digital tax, would have been so much better if every one was screwed once the same price control that exists of DD titles came to physical titles.
Maybe you should ask yourself why DD on consoles are such a shit value. It's because they control the pricing without competition. Used game DRM would have exerted that same control since pubs would set the "fee".
Incorrect. You're completely forgetting about "authorized resellers." There was still going to be a second hand maket, just on MS's terms.
Yeah they were doing something about it, making it even more dated, taking us back to the days of divx.
reddmyst
Member
They wouldn't admit the 60 min. limitation (after all it sounded like shit and nobody wants to admit that); and of course they're gonna give you an "official" answer and try and make people feel bad to make it the pro-consumers' fault.
A lot of people will eat that up.
Cboat is still legit IMO.
A lot of people will eat that up.
Cboat is still legit IMO.
Kill Your Masters
Member
It was also 100 people, right?
No when he said unlimited, he meant both in time AND the number of users. 100 people is so 2013 man, we're bringing the future!
I was thinking the same thing.
CambriaRising
Member
Not sure why they can't do 60 minute timed trials like Ps+.
Tyrone_Biggums
Banned
LOL at this type of thought. Write everything off that MSFT says unless its been verified by the always transparent hero CBOAT. LMAO!
Pretty much this lol. Proof as they say, is in the pudding.
PetriP-TNT
Member
CBoaT confirmed it, that makes it a #truthfact
reddmyst
Member
Like I said, people will eat it up...like you have. ; )
Tyrone_Biggums
Banned
You're not even worth getting into a meaningful conversation with. You drew your lines long ago.
I can't talk to walls
CBOAT has a better track record than anyone at MS at the moment.
The amount of flip flopping MS has done in the last few weeks is astounding.
All you have to do is the math and google Sony PSN game sharing. This tells you two things that fans of MS are not thinking.
1. Staggering potential loss of profit.
2. Unlike what they want to believe, the idea isn't new, yes, that other company tried it already. After a while, loss of publisher profits followed.
Idea limited based on those results.
Only way this works is higher live pricing for people opting into the plan. MS subsidising pubs or combination of both? (yeah right)How high the price would be? I don't have an idea.
Come to think, if Sony got wind of MS game sharing. They knew it wouldn't fly as MS wanted. Maybe this is one of the reasons their drm stance was the way it is.
Just speculation but Sony may have had a better picture overall on next gen based on PSN game sharing years before. Looks like it anyway. Could write a bigger post, someone will probably do better if they see what I'm saying. Been up all night.
1. Staggering potential loss of profit.
2. Unlike what they want to believe, the idea isn't new, yes, that other company tried it already. After a while, loss of publisher profits followed.
Idea limited based on those results.
Only way this works is higher live pricing for people opting into the plan. MS subsidising pubs or combination of both? (yeah right)How high the price would be? I don't have an idea.
Come to think, if Sony got wind of MS game sharing. They knew it wouldn't fly as MS wanted. Maybe this is one of the reasons their drm stance was the way it is.
Just speculation but Sony may have had a better picture overall on next gen based on PSN game sharing years before. Looks like it anyway. Could write a bigger post, someone will probably do better if they see what I'm saying. Been up all night.
StUnNeR H2K
Member
How hard is it to explain things? Seems Microsoft's biggest problem is explaining things. Nothing at E3 was crystal clear, other than what games were coming to the system...
Your argument makes sense assuming they were actually focused on video games and turning a profit through video games. What has given you the impression that this is their end game? Personally, I thought this was an attempt to lock even more people into their ecosystem and help push stuff like W8 tablets and entertainment services. Imagine how the "10 friends get a copy" would work. You buy a copy. You want your friend to play. You push them to buy a console. They don't want a console, maybe they'll buy a W8 tablet to play with you. Maybe they'll buy a PC and register on Xbox Live. It's like a Pokemon model. You want your friend to play with you so you convince them to play with you. It works. Microsoft obviously doesn't give a shit about the home console market in the same way they historically have. Their moneyhatted games like Titanfall appear to be ecosystem wide products. Some supporting evidence right there.
CambriaRising
Member
If CBOAT contradicts something my mother said, I would likely believe him.
Tyrone_Biggums
Banned
Seems in line with how every message delivered by MSFT was muddled. One guy says one thing, another guy says another.
If you wanna argue that they didn't have the total facts laid out for all employees to understand and communicate to consumers, well then I'm all ears. Outright calling everything they say as "lies", well ... I'll be less inclined to engage your fanboy mindset. No rational person would argue the latter.
CambriaRising
Member
MS just HAD to listen to all of the Xenophobic cavemen who wanted to stop progress.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I believe you, Greenberg. Your words: they resonate. I feel, more than hear, them and know them to be true. You would never lie to us. You, I trust.
True but you could have a "shared library" and anything that you put into this shared library requires the online check. Therefore, you're giving up the right to play it without the online check until you decide to remove it from the shared library.
Edit: Also if they meant for 2 people to be able to play at once (the owner and someone else), this is even easier. The license is tied to both the account and system. Even offline, the system is licensed to play it. They just extend the account license to those on your family plan as well. They'll need to be online but you won't need to be.
Tyrone_Biggums
Banned
You're right on the money! Yeah!
TheDarkKnight774
Member
No. Not from this cast of characters. They need a change of leadership
Jake Tower
Banned
Who let you out of the Phantom Zone?
Dave Meltzer
Banned
I don't know what that means
mangochutney
Member
Quite true.
What you say there is giving the consumer choice. You put it in that shared library and you need to be connected once a day or hourly if not your console.
Except, you also had a choice whether or not to buy a Xbox One when the same rules applied to physical discs so applying to digital games is no different from before.
It is very hypocritical to say "oh screw that I don't want to be online once a day or once an hour if I'm round a friends remove that archaic requirement at once!" but then say "oh but I am totally up for it if it is a digital download".
Alx
Member
To be more precise, it's not 10 people playing a copy of a game... it's 10 people concurrently playing a copy of a game. The more people in the sharing group, the less convenient for them, since it raises the chances of not being able to play because the only seat is taken.
With only 2 persons in a group, it would be full sharing without inconveniences (not unlike what PS3 currently does, as I understand it), with more people it will increase the chances of people buying the game if they really want to play it.
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
to everyone saying but cboat said it was time limit, he has been wrong about numerous things in the past, most recently he has been wrong about a new prince of Persia being announced at e3 for xbone and being exclusive
Consoles are closed; one company owns and controls everything about it; PC's are open. There are several stores. You want Microsoft to have even more influence? If you could only get games through Microsofts digital shop, that would be very, very, very bad for gaming. Imagine the Metro, or whatever it's called, on Windows 8, but no games go on sale, or very, very rarely, and only a select, few, obscure titles, and the prices for big titles are jacked up to 70-80+ within a few years.
Consoles have to go open OS for digital only to work. One company can't have that much control over distribution -- especially not Microsoft.
As I posted in another thread. Marc Whitten also stated it was not time limited and that the idea of being time limited is silly.
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/EvilFiek/status/348092801914912769?p=v
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/EvilFiek/status/348092801914912769?p=v
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
no people need to stop believing shitty pastebin rumors.
pastebin was already banned on here just before xbox reveal
dd is cheap in americaRetail games are always going to be cheaper than digital day 1, which is when I buy most games I care about. I would have loved being able to just buy a game for £35-40 instead of £50 and tie it to a digital account and not worry about discs. But that got ruined
w1ck3dn1nj4
Member
Well, their data points do support such evidence.
Jake Tower
Banned
It means these threads were better when you were banned.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
As I posted in another thread. Marc Whitten also stated it was not time limited and that the idea of being time limited is silly.
source: https://mobile.twitter.com/EvilFiek/status/348092801914912769?p=v
honestly I don't buy it, because if they were really serious it would still be available for Direct Download and XBLA titles.
They've mentioned nothing except saying the family share plan is gone.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
Where did I say I wanted them to be digital sales only?
I want retail selling CD keys with glorified installation discs. But seeing as thats not happening now, it's not worth arguing about.
Similar threads
- Locked