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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But buying a $500+ game machine with $60+ games nothing excessive about that...
P.S. Congratulations to you on getting what you wanted.
Thanks.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.
Is that what xbots are calling the right and ability to share and sell games now?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.
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...We do not believe you. As it should be.
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?
Again: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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
I believe cboat at this point. No reason to confirm it was times, it always sounded too good to be true
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.
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.First, it's not that different from having a disc and lending it to everyone you know.
I'm not implying, they did.Also, you are implying that they tried to implement a particularly diabolical DRM. snip
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.
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.
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.
Is that what xbots are calling the right and ability to share and sell games now?
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.
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.
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.
Thank you.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.
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.
Why does everyone keep ignoring The Verge?No one else, even edge and other websites, never even mention this
No.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.
What is this utter bullshit?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 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?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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.