Support NeoGAF

[Pop]

Meanwhile at Sony:

 

[maeh2k]

Thing is, they could've had it both ways. A DRM-free setup for everyone who prefers the old way, and a DRM Opt-In setup for those that want to take a chance with Microsoft's new way with disc-less gaming and Family Sharing, and those that Opt-In can share and sell and trade with each other just like the plan they described.

They simply cannot implement the same system as opt-in. It's not a system-level decision.
If someone were to opt into an all-digital system to use their discs only to install a game and then play it without discs, then he could just give the disc to someone who opted out and could use the disc to play. There's no way to invalidate the disc.

Not to mention that that choice would needlessly add a lot of complexity to the whole system.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

...Why the fuck are they damage controlling a cut feature?

Also, they could have totally kept this feature for digital purchases as an incentive to not buy disc games.

Because they sadly think if they reintroduce it it will make up for all the features they had to cut.

Still won't be able to trade in your digital copies, still won't be able to transfer ownership of your digital copies, and still won't be able to shop around for the best price on digital copies. Everyone is so hung up on the one family sharing feature that they're ignoring all the other features that are now killed. They're assuming when/if they bring back family sharing everyone will just forget about all the other cool stuff they had planned.

As far as I know this concept of being able to retain any resale/trade-in value of digital media would have been pretty revolutionary for the whole tech industry.

 

[Brannon]

They simply cannot implement the same system as opt-in. It's not a system-level decision.
If someone were to opt into an all-digital system to use their discs only to install a game and then play it without discs, then he could just give the disc to someone who opted out and could use the disc to play. There's no way to invalidate the disc.

Not to mention that that choice would needlessly add a lot of complexity to the whole system.

Ah yes, well digital only then. And it could be more complex, but it could still be done for digital games.

 

[Jake Tower]

As far as I know this concept of being able to retain any resale/trade-in value of digital media would have been pretty revolutionary for the whole tech industry.

In Valve we trust.

 

[Jac_Solar]

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.

You compared consoles to PC's, so I just assumed that you wanted digital. I apologize.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Even if they put these features back into the digital download marketplace, the dream of being able to shop around for the best prices on digital purchases is dead.

Now that disc purchases no longer come with digital ownership you're going to be stuck buying your games from one store only if you're ever planning on building up a digital library.

The original plan was going to be like it is when you buy a Blu-ray movie and it comes with a free digital copy of the movie on Ultraviolet. But now they've removed the free digital copy from the deal and everybody cheered because they can play their games in a cabin in the woods with no cell towers.

I will take that. Thank you Mister 1%

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Having access to the internet makes me part of the 1%? Whatever.

But buying a $500+ game machine with $60+ games nothing excessive about that...


P.S. Congratulations to you on getting what you wanted.

 

[Jake Tower]

But buying a $500+ game machine with $60+ games nothing excessive about that...


P.S. Congratulations to you on getting what you wanted.

That was going to happen even before the 180.

P.S. Thanks

 

[babyghost853]

Question for all the people who believe it was not smoke and mirrors, and worked the way you all hoped.

Why would a company that thinks used games is bad for business, even going as far as implementing system wide DRM, give away 9 free copies of a game?

It's like saying, hey, don't buy the game used it's bad business, here have a free copy.

 

[Uno Venova]

Having access to the internet makes me part of the 1%? Whatever.

But buying a $500+ game machine with $60+ games nothing excessive about that...


P.S. Congratulations to you on getting what you wanted.

Thanks.

 

[remnant]

The original plan was going to be like it is when you buy a Blu-ray movie and it comes with a free digital copy of the movie on Ultraviolet. But now they've removed the free digital copy from the deal and everybody cheered because they can play their games in a cabin in the woods with no cell towers.

Is that what xbots are calling the right and ability to share and sell games now?

 

[Kill Your Masters]

We do not believe you. As it should be.

Apparently people do, because corporations don't lie. Funny how when everything goes 'back to zero' for the next gen, so does the memory of the average gamer...

Ah well, I'm off now, gonna play some 4D 120fps games before giving my 1st gen rrod-less 360 a spin.

 

[JDSN]

After all the Adam Orth stuff and everything that cames afterwards I find problematic that people believe this comments, do you seriously believe that MS and third parties went to this great lenghts to cripple the second hand market....just to let people slipt the cost of a game so they could play it?

Absurd to see other gamers implying that gamers are responsible for denying this beautiful gift.

 

[maeh2k]

Why would a company that thinks used games is bad for business, even going as far as implementing system wide DRM, give away 9 free copies of a game?

First, it's not that different from having a disc and lending it to everyone you know. There may have been other limitations. E.g. what if only one person could access your library at a time. In that case it would be limited compared to handing out multiple disc-based games.

Also, you are implying that they tried to implement a particularly diabolical DRM. They didn't. All games have some sort of DRM. With disc-based games, the disc works as the DRM. It only works in one system at a time and prevents you from copying it. All of their DRM decisions were just consequences of their move to an all-digital system. When the disc doesn't matter and you and your family can play your games from anywhere, then the DRM has to be handled via the internet.
Overall, what they tried to do was using an all-digital system that tries to mimic the things people expect from discs such as sharing and trade-in.

You can certainly argue that not everyone has a sufficient internet connection or that you prefer a disc-based solution, but nothing they tried to do was inherently evil. Just in some ways limited.

 

[NullPointer]

They simply cannot implement the same system as opt-in. It's not a system-level decision.
If someone were to opt into an all-digital system to use their discs only to install a game and then play it without discs, then he could just give the disc to someone who opted out and could use the disc to play. There's no way to invalidate the disc.

Again:

Worst case scenario is that you're playing it discless while a friend is playing via the disk. Two people.

How is that any worse than the Family plan?

The problem with making it opt-in is that one purchase could be played by two people. Thats also, bare minimum what the Family plan would provide, if not support for eight more players as well.

So all things considered the opt-in plans seems more straight-forward and a win/win for both disc users and the digital crowd.

There's no way the family share thing would ever have let two people play the same game at the same time. Not buying that.

I don't believe in the family plan at all, but most views held that the original buyer could always play the game plus one other person. So assuming it worked as has been described, its no better for publishers than a straight up opt-in system. Its a lot better for consumers though.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

There's no way the family share thing would ever have let two people play the same game at the same time. Not buying that.

 

[DarkCloud]

Again:


The problem with making it opt-in is that one purchase could be played by two people. Thats also, bare minimum what the Family plan would provide, if not support for eight more players as well.

Install game and sell game. You now have a free game. Send that game to someone on ebay or wherever. They obviously do not want you to do that.

 

[Branduil]

Something that never existed can't be time limited.

 

[Forsaken82]

I believe cboat at this point. No reason to confirm it was times, it always sounded too good to be true

The ability for 1 person out of a group of 10 to play a game at any single time sounded to good to be true?

The only difference between that and handing a physical copy to a friend is that your friend doesn't have to come over and be physically handed the copy.

If you seriously expected anything more than that you gave MS wayyyyy to much credit.

 

[Wired]

There's no way the family share thing would ever have let two people play the same game at the same time. Not buying that.

My first thought when I heard about it was that 10 people would have access to your library and could then play any game they wanted. But only one person could play any one game at the same time. So if you owned Halo 13 and one of your friends was playing it neither you or anyone else could play it until he had finished with it.

Well, that was what made the most sense to me at the time.

 

[babyghost853]

First, it's not that different from having a disc and lending it to everyone you know.

It's completely different, if I lend someone a disc, I can't play. I can only lend it to 1 person at a time. Also the question was for those who believed, "yea free games", since they seem to be the most vocal about the cut.

Also, you are implying that they tried to implement a particularly diabolical DRM. snip

I'm not implying, they did.

You can certainly argue that not everyone has a sufficient internet connection or that you prefer a disc-based solution, but nothing they tried to do was inherently evil. Just in some ways limited.

Sorry I consider talking away my freedom evil, if you don't that's fine for you. Luckly for me they can't take away my freedom of choice, I can always choose not to buy anything I don't like. It's something I've grown rather used to, they are many here who should try it sometime. Everytime I read "but everyone is going to have "xxxxxx" anyway so we have to put up with X or Y, I feel sick.

example: Game x is going to suck because of xxx, but everyone is going to buy it anyway.

Wtf the fuck is wrong with people these days. 30 yrs ago if you made crap it ended up in a land fill because people wouldn't buy it.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

family sharing under new rules (no 24 hour online checks) could still be pretty simple

1. Friend wants game.
2. You go online, go to your digital library, select "lend game to family" and choose your friend.
3. The rights to the title on your system are revoked, rights are given to your friend instantly.
4. You could get access back from your game as long as you are both online (or your friend selects to "gives it back"). Perhaps you could set a maximum time for your friend to play the game before it automatically grants your game rights back (and cripples their install).

If they were so fucking prepared to do this crazy 10 person family sharing why not continue with it for digital purchases to try to ease people into making digital purchases? Give people the choice between retail and their "brave new digital future" they were clamoring about?

 

[ThisWreckage]

Mattrick and Greenberg both need to shut up. I swear to god, Microsoft can't do anything right and even when they do their PR mouthpieces fuck everything up.

 

[Vodh]

As I posted before, there should be no difference between physical or digital games. Just because you downloaded a title does not mean you would have access to the internet in the future.

The arguments that your internet might break or that you might want to take your console to a holiday home that doesn't have the internet at all still apply.

It is hypocritical for someone to say I don't mind those restrictions if it is digital downloads only.

You can say ah but I had the choice to buy digital and I knew if I did that if I lose internet connectivity that I would no longer be able to play the game. But you also had the choice to buy an Xbox One and physical copy when the restrictions were previously proposed.

They could bring this back for both digital and physical if they made the system opt-in.

They could make it so that if you wanted you could tie your system to the internet and have to check-in once a day, knowing the the upside is that you can access both your physical and digital library from any console and also share with your family.

I reckon they may do this when they launch the slim models later down the line.

How about you learn to fucking read. No restrictions on buyer, only restrictions on the family members who want to play a game that isn't theirs.

 

[famousmortimer]

More seriously, I think famousmortimer is right on this. It was originally restricted and then Microsoft scrambled to sign deals as soon as the shit hit the fan. They couldn't get it done and so they promised clarifications to the program that never came. Then they just scrapped the whole thing. Seriously, believing that they could do otherwise when they haven't implemented the schema for DD titles is absolutely insane.

When i posted that (and no one responded, so thanks for noticing!) I wasn't ready to call that a leak so i passed it off as my opinion. I'm still not 100% on it because I know so few people around Microsoft so I'm going to call that hypothesis an educated theory.



For those that missed my original post it's basically what kev said above but i started it by saying that both gies and cboat were right. And it pains me to say that gies was right - haha. But cboat was right in that it was designed as 60 min trials and Gies was right in that 'there were deals in place with publishers.' The story, err... The educated theory I've been able to put together is that it started exactly as cboat said and as anger about the drm spread and then hopes rose for the family plan microsoft scrambled to expand it and some pubs were on board. But many large ones weren't and it wasn't going to work. So Microsoft decided to not ever clarify what it was and eventually shit canned it.



And now it's just pr mode. Of course it was going to be awesome! Sony does the same thing... Yoshida says that Sony never considered always online - my understanding is that they did consider it but decided pretty quickly against it. There's also pr people saying sony was never going to have any drm but people like Adam Boyes have clarified that they were thinking about it but leaning against it. All of these companies always lie after the fact because there's no penalty against doing so. And honestly I don't blame them. But we should be cognizant of the fact that they do it.

 

[abadguy]

Is that what xbots are calling the right and ability to share and sell games now?

I see the console warz are in full swing in this thread.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Having access to the internet makes me part of the 1%? Whatever.

But buying a $500+ game machine with $60+ games nothing excessive about that...


P.S. Congratulations to you on getting what you wanted.

No. But 1) The Xbox 1 will not always be a $500 machine with the only availble games $60. Competition will naturally drive prices down faster in the retail space than digital


2) The people who seem to be the loudest seem to be PC gamers who are dwarfed by the current and potential userbase. Its funny how self absorbed many potential xbox fans are. It doesnt matter if half the current userbase would suffer in some way. Long as you dont need to get up to change a disc, its A-ok.


Some of the rhetoric defending microsoft sounds straight out of the "Glorious master race" garbage ive read here and elsewhere.


How fucking dare you accuse me of holding back technology because I want to keep my right of physical ownership. You want everything to move to digital? Vote with your wallet. Funny how people forget that with every advance of technology there is an increased price for the adopting consumer compared to the previous technology. Steam has spoilt you guys rotten. You look at your libraries of hundreds of games, the majority you dont play and only bought on because it was on sale. You consider that progress, I consider it poor impluse control and short attention span.


What makes this all so insulting is this whole debate was originally framed as being better for the industry. What industry? microsofts bank balance? Because id really like you to find me a developer who would like his game shared between 10 people, even if the only limitation is only one person could play it at a time. Again you PC gamers with poor impluse control might buy your own copy but common sense shows most people would not go out and buy another copy that they have access to.


What people seem to forget is that gamers are as much a important piece of the gaming industry as developers retailers and publishers. Ultimately Its our needs, wants and desires that these institutions serve, not the other way round. While you may be happy with gaming becoming the process of placating someone while you rip them off. I am not. I became a gamer to purchase entertainment which i reinburse the supplier of that entertainment with money. simple as that. If the creators of games want to get that money, create lasting products with value and sell them at a reasonable price point. simple.


But back on topic. Yes. You may not be the 1% but ive been reading very insular and destructive attitudes that border on the elitist. Gaming is a worldwide and unrestrictive hobby and must always continue to be that way. If you as a gamer have preferences distrubution wise of games, you must buy into the system and pay a higher premium rather than expect the world to conform to how you like to game. If you dont like how it is done on console, just keep gaming on PC.

 

[infinityBCRT]

I believe cboat at this point. No reason to confirm it was times, it always sounded too good to be true

I dunno man. CBOAT is always trying to confirm negative stuff about MS, and never has had anything bad to say about Sony (at least recently). He's definitely an insider-- but I do wonder if he's an insider with an agenda of some sorts. Because of him trying to confirm the family sharing was only an hour (which was nothing that MS ever stated-- everything out of MS from interviews to the FAQ on news.xbox.com strongly suggested you were getting the full version of the game) I'm extremely skeptical about anything he says about MS now.

 

[Unregistered007]

I dunno man. CBOAT is always trying to confirm negative stuff about MS, and never has had anything bad to say about Sony (at least recently). He's definitely an insider-- but I do wonder if he's an insider with an agenda of some sorts. Because of him trying to confirm the family sharing was only an hour (which was nothing that MS ever stated-- everything out of MS from interviews to the FAQ on news.xbox.com strongly suggested you were getting the full version of the game) I'm extremely skeptical about anything he says about MS now.

here is a word of advise, get a freakin PS4 and let MS sort out their mess.

They (MS) are obviously lying and playing a cover up / catch up game on all fronts.

 

[call_kotaku]

When i posted that (and no one responded, so thanks for noticing!) I wasn't ready to call that a leak so i passed it off as my opinion. I'm still not 100% on it because I know so few people around Microsoft so I'm going to call that hypothesis an educated theory.



For those that missed my original post it's basically what kev said above but i started it by saying that both gies and cboat were right. And it pains me to say that gies was right - haha. But cboat was right in that it was designed as 60 min trials and Gies was right in that 'there were deals in place with publishers.' The story, err... The educated theory I've been able to put together is that it started exactly as cboat said and as anger about the drm spread and then hopes rose for the family plan microsoft scrambled to expand it and some pubs were on board. But many large ones weren't and it wasn't going to work. So Microsoft decided to not ever clarify what it was and eventually shit canned it.



And now it's just pr mode. Of course it was going to be awesome! Sony does the same thing... Yoshida says that Sony never considered always online - my understanding is that they did consider it but decided pretty quickly against it. There's also pr people saying sony was never going to have any drm but people like Adam Boyes have clarified that they were thinking about it but leaning against it. All of these companies always lie after the fact because there's no penalty against doing so. And honestly I don't blame them. But we should be cognizant of the fact that they do it.

How unrestricted would their new agreements have been? Give devs the option to sell bundles of licenses for the buyer to give away (like some Steam games) and call it a family share-enabled game? Simply allowing someone to play a game when the owner isn't playing it is just utter nonsense, but I can't really think of method for multiple people to share a game and somehow generate some return for the publisher in the process. It'd also have to be controversial enough of an idea that MS would want to dance around it at every opportunity instead of properly explaining the details.

 

[Spongebob]

Having access to the internet makes me part of the 1%? Whatever.

But buying a $500+ game machine with $60+ games nothing excessive about that...


P.S. Congratulations to you on getting what you wanted.

Thank you.

 

[tokyostomp]

My assumption is that the Family Plan time limit was indeed a truthfact. A lot of people refuse/won't believe anything else given the recent fiasco with the DRM and generally shadiness.

I can only assume that MS is doing damage control to salvage what they can of their faith with gamers.

 

[Jake Tower]

When i posted that (and no one responded, so thanks for noticing!) I wasn't ready to call that a leak so i passed it off as my opinion. I'm still not 100% on it because I know so few people around Microsoft so I'm going to call that hypothesis an educated theory.



For those that missed my original post it's basically what kev said above but i started it by saying that both gies and cboat were right. And it pains me to say that gies was right - haha. But cboat was right in that it was designed as 60 min trials and Gies was right in that 'there were deals in place with publishers.' The story, err... The educated theory I've been able to put together is that it started exactly as cboat said and as anger about the drm spread and then hopes rose for the family plan microsoft scrambled to expand it and some pubs were on board. But many large ones weren't and it wasn't going to work. So Microsoft decided to not ever clarify what it was and eventually shit canned it.



And now it's just pr mode. Of course it was going to be awesome! Sony does the same thing... Yoshida says that Sony never considered always online - my understanding is that they did consider it but decided pretty quickly against it. There's also pr people saying sony was never going to have any drm but people like Adam Boyes have clarified that they were thinking about it but leaning against it. All of these companies always lie after the fact because there's no penalty against doing so. And honestly I don't blame them. But we should be cognizant of the fact that they do it.

I could have sworn I responded, but it made total sense to me in light of CBOAT, the XBONE Detective, and aegies' MS PR twitter feed.

And yes, Sony has likely done the same shit, let's not forget that. The big difference, Sony came down on the side of "doing the right thing" in the first case, so gets to reap the benefits of being "pro-consumer."

Remember, we the gamers and consumers have a responsibility to keep these companies honest. They are only "trustworthy" insofar as they are responsive to us if they want our money.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Good grief. The pouty bullshit victim stuff is veering towards the ridiculous. "Look what you did, gamers! You ruined the future." That it's coming not just from PR professional bullshitters, but from posters on here is rather astonishing.

Start a fucking twitter campaign or something if you really want your DRM back. #pleasescrewmeoveryourliesarelikecandy

No one else, even edge and other websites, never even mention this

Why does everyone keep ignoring The Verge?

On different consoles? Wouldn't one console be required to be online at all times in that scenario?

In any case, if this were to be brought back for digital games, some kind of online restriction or check in would be required. Either those who are accessing a shared library would have to be online at all times or you'd have to 'gift' the licence to someone and have go back online to reclaim the licence.

I'm just assuming tho.

No.

My brother bought Journey on his PS3 on his account, I played it on mine on my account.

I bought Rayman Origins on my PS3 on my account, my sister can download it on hers.

The only time one needs to be online is when downloading the game. Or when playing the game if it was an online game.

Both consoles with the account that purchased digital software can concurrently play that software on different accounts, including multiplayer.

I can do this on the PS3 now. So then, your move Microsoft.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The original plan was going to be like it is when you buy a Blu-ray movie and it comes with a free digital copy of the movie on Ultraviolet. But now they've removed the free digital copy from the deal and everybody cheered because they can play their games in a cabin in the woods with no cell towers.

What is this utter bullshit?

This isn't what they were intending to do.

It's what they could have done if they really wanted to incentivize digital. Buy retail, it gets added to your download list.

But they didn't.

I can lend a BluRay, I can sell it, I can gift it. Freely.

What they did was tie a retail copy of a game to your account effectively making the disc worthless.

People need to stop making up nonsense.

 

[JDSN]

I dunno man. CBOAT is always trying to confirm negative stuff about MS, and never has had anything bad to say about Sony (at least recently). He's definitely an insider-- but I do wonder if he's an insider with an agenda of some sorts. Because of him trying to confirm the family sharing was only an hour (which was nothing that MS ever stated-- everything out of MS from interviews to the FAQ on news.xbox.com strongly suggested you were getting the full version of the game) I'm extremely skeptical about anything he says about MS now.

So are you suggesting that the guy that has been posting all kinds of leak for about nine years on Gaf has been a Sony plant that activated when MS decided to go DRM mental?

 

[NoirVisage]

I dunno man. CBOAT is always trying to confirm negative stuff about MS, and never has had anything bad to say about Sony (at least recently). He's definitely an insider-- but I do wonder if he's an insider with an agenda of some sorts. Because of him trying to confirm the family sharing was only an hour (which was nothing that MS ever stated-- everything out of MS from interviews to the FAQ on news.xbox.com strongly suggested you were getting the full version of the game) I'm extremely skeptical about anything he says about MS now.

Has it not dawned on you that he works for ms (hence the "insider bit) and not sony, which is why he has inside information about ms stuff, rather than sony stuff?

 

[Jake Tower]

The original plan was going to be like it is when you buy a Blu-ray movie and it comes with a free digital copy of the movie on Ultraviolet. But now they've removed the free digital copy from the deal and everybody cheered because they can play their games in a cabin in the woods with no cell towers.

I somehow missed this earlier...

What are you talking about? That is not how the DRM was going to work at all. When you did the mandatory install of a retail disc, that game was tied to your account, and didn't need the disc to play. That is why there was a 24 hour parole officer, so you couldn't install one retail copy on multiple Xbones.

Which is why there is no reason all the rad future shit like family share cannot still work with wholly digital purchases and not require the parole officer... except that it was all bullshit and MS couldn't get publishers to agree to sharing anything other than limited demos. lol

 

[blitzcloud]

So are you suggesting that the guy that has been posting all kinds of leak for about nine years on Gaf has been a Sony plant that activated when MS decided to go DRM mental?

Just like phil harrison!

 

[WAR recon zero]

After all the Adam Orth stuff and everything that cames afterwards I find problematic that people believe this comments, do you seriously believe that MS and third parties went to this great lenghts to cripple the second hand market....just to let people slipt the cost of a game so they could play it?

Absurd to see other gamers implying that gamers are responsible for denying this beautiful gift.

stop making sense man!

 

[Truespeed]

I dunno man. CBOAT is always trying to confirm negative stuff about MS, and never has had anything bad to say about Sony (at least recently). He's definitely an insider-- but I do wonder if he's an insider with an agenda of some sorts. Because of him trying to confirm the family sharing was only an hour (which was nothing that MS ever stated-- everything out of MS from interviews to the FAQ on news.xbox.com strongly suggested you were getting the full version of the game) I'm extremely skeptical about anything he says about MS now.

The only agenda CBOAT has is the truth. People doubting the 60 minute time limit by using the Greenberg quote as proof are just fooling themselves. It may have not been the final plan, but there's no question in my mind that a time limit was brought up as an option. No 3rd publisher is going to let 2 or more people play the same retail game at the same time. That policy would be gamed to infinity and beyond. So whatever plan they had for family sharing was always going to be a shell of what they initially made it look like. This was just another mistake in the long list of mistakes they've made since they announced their console. To be at this stage in the game and not have any concrete idea on how your features are going to work is just plain incompetent.

 

[infinityBCRT]

here is a word of advise, get a freakin PS4 and let MS sort out their mess.

They (MS) are obviously lying and playing a cover up / catch up game on all fronts.

I have both on pre-order, because I'm lucky enough to afford both, and I'm all about the games. I don't play sides. MS had a major messaging problem, and continues to do so.

So are you suggesting that the guy that has been posting all kinds of leak for about nine years on Gaf has been a Sony plant that activated when MS decided to go DRM mental?

No, but for whatever reason, recently he's been extremely negative on them without anything really solid to say outside of the downclock rumour. The family sharing accusation just seems so outrageous to me-- that anyone at MS would think about touting that feature at all when it was just a glorified demo. And I'll take Whitten or Greenberg at face value. They seem to be the genuine voices at MS-- not just a mouth piece like Major Nelson.

 

[Jake Tower]

I feel like we need amir0x to do an evidence thread with all the pieces and deduction that's been done to show why the utopia future of family share was never really a thing.

 

[MirageDwarf]

People who believe this are high. MS tried way hard to fuck all with anti-consumer features to prevent consumers selling even a single copy of their games without MS and its buddies getting paid.

And yet company would allow sharing full game with random 10 people free of cost. Even with limit of two people being able to play at the same time, it would have been big loss for them. You guys should stop daydreaming.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

I feel like we need amir0x to do an evidence thread with all the pieces and deduction that's been done to show why the utopia future of family share was never really a thing.

Taking a bunch of speculation and trying to turn it in to evidence is rather foolish.

Whatever family share was, we'll never know. MS say now there was no time limit. But the product was never shown working. Therefore nobody has a factual analysis.

 

[adamsappel]

I can't wait to read the book that investigates this whole saga.

I'm sorry to see family sharing go, even any of the speculated versions. An hour at a time? I can game in those increments. If it had worked the same as currently on the PS3, then it's just a timed sample of the full game, and those are fine. They've led me to game purchases.

I used game sharing on the PS3. I would definitely have availed myself of it on Xbox One as well. I checked my library and I have eight games I would have definitely borrowed from a friend rather than buy at full-price. I'd have to buy my share of those, but that's still hundreds of dollars of lost money to publishers.

Why can't you digitally lend things? Set a timer to it. Why can't you rent directly from publishers, just as you buy them through Live's Marketplace? There are plenty of sharing, renting and selling options to explore.

 

[Takuya]

I dunno man. CBOAT is always trying to confirm negative stuff about MS, and never has had anything bad to say about Sony (at least recently). He's definitely an insider-- but I do wonder if he's an insider with an agenda of some sorts. Because of him trying to confirm the family sharing was only an hour (which was nothing that MS ever stated-- everything out of MS from interviews to the FAQ on news.xbox.com strongly suggested you were getting the full version of the game) I'm extremely skeptical about anything he says about MS now.

There was nothing positive to leak about MS.

 

[Jake Tower]

There was nothing positive to leak about MS.

Except when Klepek leaked the Xbox 180.