• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

MS eliminates its best new feature: 10 person, 60 min Family Sharing plan for Xbone

Quadraphonic

Member
Mar 23, 2010
4,893
0
760
Woodland Hills
I've seen this in multiple posts. What did MS mean by this? Just that you can have your game library from any console you log into?

If it's this, how is that any different than what the PS3 currently does? I do this all the time - going to my friends' houses that have PS3s, log into my account, and download a game to play. The only difference maybe is that my persistent library is in the form of a download list in PSN.

The difference is on the PS3 you can have TWO activated PS3s and TWO activated portable devices playing titles. If you try to add a third, it says to remove one other one first. And you can't do that remotely more than once a year.

On the Xbox 360 you have ONE activated console per purchase that works offline. After that, you need to be logged in. That allows for more freedom with an internet connection, but no SINGLE repository, as the activated console is per GAME purchase, not CONSOLE. So it could be split between many devices.

The Xbox One would have taken that a step FURTHER. It would have added DISC GAMES to that, but it would carry the caveat of deactivating an hour after you signed out.
 

Mindwipe

Member
Mar 6, 2012
6,976
0
0
London, UK
If that pastepin is true then we've lost nothing and gained everything anyway. Family sharing was going to be completely shite.

Also, if it's true Microsoft has bigger issues of more fundamental delusions amongst it's devs.
 

beastworship

Neo Member
Oct 30, 2012
96
0
0
i think people gained much more then they'll ever know and this could be considered a golden generation of gamers that put forth some effort leaving the next generation to decide if they want to continue or if things are outstripped and need replacing. as it stands now people were not willing to give up ownership and privacy, it seems inevitable those will need to be relinquished but thankfully some of the slacktivists and other mouth pieces did enough so i didn't need to do anything which i appreciate since now i'll participate in this gen of exclusive games that i've grown fond of playing instead of missing out on them.
 

vg260

Member
Jun 9, 2004
13,133
1
1,565
Again, previously I would have been able to buy digital (by proxy of disc) from ANYWHERE resulting in cheaper prices for me. Now you can ONLY buy digital from the Xbox Store. I literally have ONE price to 'choose' from when buying digital.

Exactly, this change in plans is not the best solution for everyone. Not yet. People need to stop acting like it is, and everyone should be happy now. Before disc buyers were being told to deal with it, not digital purchasers are. Can you imagine if you could only purchase discs from one outlet?
 

mightynine

Member
Jun 8, 2004
14,280
0
0
42
Looseyana
mightynine.blogspot.com
Exactly, this change in plans is not the best solution for everyone. Not yet. People need to stop acting like it is, and everyone should be happy now. Before disc buyers were being told to deal with it, not digital purchasers are. Can you imagine if you could only purchase discs from one outlet?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the digital storefront can't be competitive with brick and mortar store shelves.
 

aristotle

Member
Nov 15, 2009
2,408
0
0
Texas
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the digital storefront can't be competitive with brick and mortar store shelves.

Go look at MS's track record. Go look at their Games on Demand sales. MS has a horrible track record of lower any price for anything with their name attached.
 

Gokurakumaru

Banned
Oct 21, 2006
1,077
0
0
Again, previously I would have been able to buy digital (by proxy of disc) from ANYWHERE resulting in cheaper prices for me. Now you can ONLY buy digital from the Xbox Store. I literally have ONE price to 'choose' from when buying digital.

Yes, but the reason people keep saying "buy digital" is because you are the only one getting the value add out of not having the disc in the drive. Everybody understands your position, but nobody sympathises because your cheap digital nirvana comes at their expense when they can no longer lend, resell, and play offline.

You can still do everything you wanted to on the XBox One, but it's now you who pays the premium rather than everybody else. As it should be. You can't have your cake and eat our's too.
 

Jomjom

Banned
Nov 26, 2009
11,734
2
0
Los Angeles
The difference is on the PS3 you can have TWO activated PS3s and TWO activated portable devices playing titles. If you try to add a third, it says to remove one other one first. And you can't do that remotely more than once a year.

On the Xbox 360 you have ONE activated console per purchase that works offline. After that, you need to be logged in. That allows for more freedom with an internet connection, but no SINGLE repository, as the activated console is per GAME purchase, not CONSOLE. So it could be split between many devices.

The Xbox One would have taken that a step FURTHER. It would have added DISC GAMES to that, but it would carry the caveat of deactivating an hour after you signed out.

Ah I see, I always deactivate on my console first before I leave to go play on someone else's console, so it's no different to me. I never use the remote deactivate.

Also was that really one step further though if it added disc games but it deactivated an hour after you signed out? Seems more like one step forward and one step back doesn't it? I can take my physical disc and not have to deal with the one hour thing if my friend wants to continue playing it.

Well, then, whose fault is that? Microsoft or the guy who wanted to still own a physical copy of a game?

Definitely MS. As the seller you need to take the risk and give the incentive to the buyer to buy your item. MS had the responsibility to lower prices on digital and incentivize people to buy digitally from them. If it fails it fails, but the burden is never on the consumer to do something so that sellers can then feel more secure in doing something. There are way too many other viable options for people to turn to. That people kept their physical copies just means that MS did nothing to get them to want to move. 100% MS's fault.
 

aristotle

Member
Nov 15, 2009
2,408
0
0
Texas
Well, then, whose fault is that? Microsoft or the guy who wanted to still own a physical copy of a game?

Uh....MS? You're really blaming the consumer for MS's entire history of not putting their shit on sale? It's like blaming Vita owners because Sony doesn't lower the price of their memory cards. It falls to the content provider, not the consumer in that instance. Even over time, they haven't lowered their prices one iota. That goes against almost every other merchandise/retail item. Movies go down in price over time, some games do, but not their digital games on GoD.

I can't believe you actually blame the consumer. you're the one who asked for the reason. It's MS and their corporate view. They've always been like and always have been. Windows 7 isn't suddenly cheaper now that Windows 8 is out is it (not counting OEM versions)? Hell Windows 7 is only !15 cheaper than Win8 on amazon. That's MS and no one else. Blame them.
 

John Caboose

Member
May 15, 2013
3,551
0
550
Sweden
Everybody understands your position, but nobody sympathises because your cheap digital nirvana comes at their expense when they can no longer lend, resell, and play offline.

That actually hurt..

I'll play my next-gen games on PC for the time being. Ordered a new 7770 card today. I'll see how PS/Xbox evolve and may decide to jump in when they align more to my tastes.
 

Tobor

Member
Sep 15, 2006
41,041
0
0
No no, my point wasn't that I would want to purchase from the MS marketplace beacsuse their prices would be forced to lower.

My point was that I with the old system I would not HAVE to purchase from the MS marketplace to be able to get the digital game. I would be able to get the digital game (albeit by proxy of activating a disc once) from any retailer. Those retailers would have the lower prices.

With this change they will still have the lower prices but I will not get the digital version anymore, only the "please insert your disc to play"-version.

And here are some more "just buy digital" that I tried to address with my last post just a few hours ago...



Again, previously I would have been able to buy digital (by proxy of disc) from ANYWHERE resulting in cheaper prices for me. Now you can ONLY buy digital from the Xbox Store. I literally have ONE price to 'choose' from when buying digital.

That's all well and good this gen, but we all know where this is headed. The disc drives are going to disappear, and you're right back to being locked to MS's digital store.

If MS wants to be progressive and help gamers into the future, as they claim, then the answer is simple. Allow retailers(online and brick & mortar) to sell digital codes and compete on price as they do with discs, and as they do with Steam keys today. Problem solved.
 

dantevsninjas

Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,439
0
0
I still can't believe that people honestly believed that this "family share" plan was going to work the way people said it would. How could anyone really think that MS (or anyone for that matter) was going to implement a system that let every one person share their library with 10 other people, with zero restrictions. Publishers were going to approve this? The same publishers that whine about used game sales and claim that the nickle and diming microtransaction bullshit is a good thing, and necessary to make a profit?

Regardless, to those bemoaning Microsoft's policy shift, why are you blaming the people who complained? If you're going to blame anyone, blame Microsoft. For one, they did a fucking terrible job of explaining the benefits that would be a trade-off to the restrictions. Seriously, they should burn down their PR department and rebuild it from scratch. Additionally, there is absolutely nothing keeping them from keeping the original system and making it opt-in. You want to keep everything disc-based like it is today, no problem. However, if you want to license your disc copy, and lock it to your system, you can enjoy all of the benefits. Problem fucking solved. This is what they should have done in the first place. Yes, sometimes people need a push to move to the future, but pushing them off a fucking cliff won't do the trick.
 

mightynine

Member
Jun 8, 2004
14,280
0
0
42
Looseyana
mightynine.blogspot.com
Uh....MS? You're really blaming the consumer for MS's entire history of not putting their shit on sale? It's like blaming Vita owners because Sony doesn't lower the price of their memory cards. It falls to the content provider, not the consumer in that instance. Even over time, they haven't lowered their prices one iota. That goes against almost every other merchandise/retail item. Movies go down in price over time, some games do, but not their digital games on GoD.

I can't believe you actually blame the consumer. you're the one who asked for the reason. It's MS and their corporate view. They've always been like and always have been. Windows 7 isn't suddenly cheaper now that Windows 8 is out is it (not counting OEM versions)? Hell Windows 7 is only !15 cheaper than Win8 on amazon. That's MS and no one else. Blame them.

You're missing my point. I am blaming Microsoft for this. I was responding to the person complaining about people wanting to choice to buy a physical copy taking away his choice from buying digital. I was trying to argue that the digital storefront should be as competitive as a store shelf.
 

Marty Chinn

Member
Jun 6, 2004
31,449
0
1,585
That's all well and good this gen, but we all know where this is headed. The disc drives are going to disappear, and you're right back to being locked to MS's digital store.

If MS wants to be progressive and help gamers into the future, as they claim, then the answer is simple. Allow retailers(online and brick & mortar) to sell digital codes and compete on price as they do with discs, and as they do with Steam keys today. Problem solved.

For some reason people think this is completely off the table. I think until the system launches, there is plenty of time for this to still actually happen. Sony is already doing this now with Vita games.

I still can't believe that people honestly believed that this "family share" plan was going to work the way people said it would. How could anyone really think that MS (or anyone for that matter) was going to implement a system that let every one person share their library with 10 other people, with zero restrictions. Publishers were going to approve this? The same publishers that whine about used game sales and claim that the nickle and diming microtransaction bullshit is a good thing, and necessary to make a profit?

Regardless, to those bemoaning Microsoft's policy shift, why are you blaming the people who complained? If you're going to blame anyone, blame Microsoft. For one, they did a fucking terrible job of explaining the benefits that would be a trade-off to the restrictions. Seriously, they should burn down their PR department and rebuild it from scratch. Additionally, there is absolutely nothing keeping them from keeping the original system and making it opt-in. You want to keep everything disc-based like it is today, no problem. However, if you want to license your disc copy, and lock it to your system, you can enjoy all of the benefits. Problem fucking solved. This is what they should have done in the first place. Yes, sometimes people need a push to move to the future, but pushing them off a fucking cliff won't do the trick.

NOBODY ever said there would be no restrictions. The common reasonable expectation was only one game could be played at a time, just like a physical copy of your game.
 

Alpende

Member
Feb 12, 2013
8,041
0
0
Netherlands
Yeah, if Pastebin is to be believed, then we really didn't lose anything

True, I just read through it. If that demo mode was legit then Microsoft still had to explain some negative features to the oh so great game sharing. That would've given them even more bad publicity.

And now that they've removed all those 'amazing' additions I presume the Xbone is no longer launching? Because you know, you have Xbox 360.
Doesn't make sense, I know
 
May 31, 2013
837
0
0
Hey now, he apologized for that one formally.

Which I completely respect! I'm just getting at the fact that none of us really know / knew what is legitimate or not. I guess Cboat was the closest thing we got. Too many assumptions and speculation, not enough legitimate information. :(
 

vg260

Member
Jun 9, 2004
13,133
1
1,565
If MS wants to be progressive and help gamers into the future, as they claim, then the answer is simple. Allow retailers(online and brick & mortar) to sell digital codes and compete on price as they do with discs, and as they do with Steam keys today. Problem solved.

Absolutely, I'm sure they'd have no problem allowing it. In fact that's essentially what they were allowing for all retailers before the change. The One discs would have just been glorified digital redemption codes.

That won't solve the problem though. I just don't see Gamestop wanting to play ball when they are actively pushing a $5 less used game at the counter with a much bigger profit margin. Effectively, opening physical used sales back up kills this option.
 

John Caboose

Member
May 15, 2013
3,551
0
550
Sweden
That's all well and good this gen, but we all know where this is headed. The disc drives are going to disappear, and you're right back to being locked to MS's digital store.

If MS wants to be progressive and help gamers into the future, as they claim, then the answer is simple. Allow retailers(online and brick & mortar) to sell digital codes and compete on price as they do with discs, and as they do with Steam keys today. Problem solved.

I absolutely 100% agree with you. I even wrote about it in my post from a few pages ago. Selling codes for the digital games is actually the system I want (EDIT: and already use on PC).
 

inky

Member
Dec 20, 2010
23,493
0
0
(*< - - - - - -
steamcommunity.com
I still can't believe that people honestly believed that this "family share" plan was going to work the way people said it would. How could anyone really think that MS (or anyone for that matter) was going to implement a system that let every one person share their library with 10 other people, with zero restrictions. Publishers were going to approve this? The same publishers that whine about used game sales and claim that the nickle and diming microtransaction bullshit is a good thing, and necessary to make a profit?

I guess we will never know how they intended to do this, but yes, it sounded like too good to be true, and if it clearly was unrestricted access there is no reason they wouldn't have said as much. Funny how people believed it and were not even a little suspicious, and now they are whining about the -still unspecified- feature as if it was something already out there that they were enjoying and was taken away.

There is absolutely zero reason why they couldn't implement this going forward with digital copies, and if they don't do it because of retail partners, well, they always had them by the balls then, and the "cheaper digital prices" were never going to happen in the first place.
 

bebop242

Member
Jul 18, 2012
4,461
0
0
We will probably never know how it was going to work. I'm glad Microsoft did the 180, but if that pastebin was accurate, the fallout from that press release would have been pretty amusing.
 
Jun 11, 2010
4,107
61
845
Which I completely respect! I'm just getting at the fact that none of us really know / knew what is legitimate or not. I guess Cboat was the closest thing we got. Too many assumptions and speculation, not enough legitimate information. :(

Except...cboat was right with everything except PoP, and that could show up at next E3 for all we know (he leaked Dead Rising 3 last year).
 

dantevsninjas

Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,439
0
0
NOBODY ever said there would be no restrictions. The common reasonable expectation was only one game could be played at a time, just like a physical copy of your game.

There were plenty of people claiming that this would allow more than one person to play the same game at the same time, ect. The simple fact is, even only allowing one game to be played at a time would have been over the top. This was going to be an evolution of the idea that if you downloaded an arcade game while signed in to a friend's 360, the demo version of the game would remain on their console when you logged out.
 

cicero

Member
Oct 11, 2005
4,767
0
1,460
That's all well and good this gen, but we all know where this is headed. The disc drives are going to disappear, and you're right back to being locked to MS's digital store.

If MS wants to be progressive and help gamers into the future, as they claim, then the answer is simple. Allow retailers(online and brick & mortar) to sell digital codes and compete on price as they do with discs, and as they do with Steam keys today. Problem solved.

Except that Steam isn't actually competing with retailers (online or brick & mortar) to sell digital codes. They provide the publisher/developer with free keys. They only tax the purchases when they are "directly contributing to a sale".

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=65023256&postcount=1007

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/valves-newell-predicts-shakeup-for-closed-game-consoles/
Newell: I consider Apple to be very closed. Let’s say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins, you can’t exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent, and they don’t care that you only have 7 percent to play with.

Fries: How is Steam different? Because you run your own digital distribution system that has its own tax.

Newell: Yeah, people can use it or not use it. We give away the tools for free. They can be included in people’s products. … We’ll provide server capacity, matchmaking services, product services, and all that’s free for content developers. If a product gets sold through our system, then we take a tax. If it’s sold through retail, or if it’s sold through a developer’s website or it’s sold through Origin or Direct2Drive, then we don’t take anything.
We’re only generating money when we’re directly contributing to a sale. Our tools and services are free to use, regardless of distribution channel. If we were to create a hardware platform of our own, and put our stuff on it, the first people we would want to stand up on stage with us would be people who built competitive distribution signals, so that people understood that we actually value openness and alternatives as being critical to the long-term viability of the entertainment and games industries.

Microsoft is not going to agree to a Steam-like relationship with retailers or their approach to game sales. It is an ignorant pipe dream to assume that is or was ever a real possibility.
 

Marty Chinn

Member
Jun 6, 2004
31,449
0
1,585
There were plenty of people claiming that this would allow more than one person to play the same game at the same time, ect. The simple fact is, even only allowing one game to be played at a time would have been over the top. This was going to be an evolution of the idea that if you downloaded an arcade game while signed in to a friend's 360, the demo version of the game would remain on their console when you logged out.

The more than one was going to be the primary and then one on the white list of "family". But still, only one copy of the game would be available to your "family". It was a reasonable restriction. I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions rather than just taking what was given to us and pulling that together. The fact that people keep throwing around 10 copies of the game being shared at the same time is evident of that. People didn't read what info we did have and made their own assumptions. I think if we take the original FAQ, and the info coming from some of the interviews afterward, we had a fairly good idea of what it was looking like despite not having 100% of the details. But people don't want to acknowledge this and make all sorts of stuff up.

And before anyone else jumps to conclusions, I guess I need to state that I'm very happy about yesterday and I would not advocate losing all those rights for this one feature. I'm only saying this one feature sounded interesting and one of the few benefits of what Microsoft was doing. I would have like to see it come out if it was what their initial claim was going to be.
 

Kusagari

Member
Dec 29, 2005
47,639
3
0
Gainesville FL
I do have to say if that pastebin is fake it's brilliant satire.

You have this MS "employee" saying the messaging was wrong but the features were brilliant and people would have come around on all of it!

And then the crown jewel, the family plan, was a piece of shit glorified free trial that was far worse than all the talking heads were telling people.
 
May 31, 2013
837
0
0
Except...cboat was right with everything except PoP, and that could show up at next E3 for all we know (he leaked Dead Rising 3 last year).

And Cboat was the closest thing we got to legitimate information. There's no denying their PR was a mess. It just would have been nice to get solid information from the source. Ugh.
 

Toma

Let me show you through these halls, my friend, where treasures of indie gaming await...
Mar 25, 2006
26,213
0
1,510
www.wasfuersohr.blogspot.com
I do have to say if that pastebin is fake it's brilliant satire.

You have this MS "employee" saying the messaging was wrong but the features were brilliant and people would have come around on all of it!

And then the crown jewel, the family plan, was a piece of shit glorified free trial that was far worse than all the talking heads were telling people.

And even if its a fake text, the information might still very well be true since nothing MS said would contradict the demo sharing idea.
 

dantevsninjas

Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,439
0
0
The more than one was going to be the primary and then one on the white list of "family". But still, only one copy of the game would be available to your "family". It was a reasonable restriction. I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions rather than just taking what was given to us and pulling that together. The fact that people keep throwing around 10 copies of the game being shared at the same time is evident of that. People didn't read what info we did have and made their own assumptions. I think if we take the original FAQ, and the info coming from some of the interviews afterward, we had a fairly good idea of what it was looking like despite not having 100% of the details. But people don't want to acknowledge this and make all sorts of stuff up.

I agree. I still feel like allowing one other family member to play the game at the same time as the primary was further than they would have gotten away with going. At best they they would have allowed one person to play any game the primary person isn't currently playing, but I think even that would have been too good to be true. The "extended demo" concept seems to be the most likely implementation.
 

Crisco

Banned
Oct 26, 2007
7,783
0
0
Figured the family share had a catch that wasn't fully fleshed out yet. It was the reason they weren't screaming about it from the roof tops as a justification for DRM.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,345
2
1,645
The pastebin stuff is congruent with how some of the MS exec talk at E3 around family sharing was framed. I recall at least one pitching it as a way for other people to 'try' a game.
 

Dysun

Member
Mar 30, 2011
14,069
0
695
Miami
Timed-demos is almost exactly what I expected Family Sharing to be. Xbox's initial strategy was clearly 1 user, 1 license. Sharing would have been contrary to that policy
 

Marty Chinn

Member
Jun 6, 2004
31,449
0
1,585
The pastebin stuff is congruent with how some of the MS exec talk at E3 around family sharing was framed. I recall at least one pitching it as a way for other people to 'try' a game.

No, this is where people keep mixing things up. It's understandable because there are so many different scenarios. The trying games out was you going to your friends house and signing in with your account to play the game. Without being signed in, you wouldn't have access to it. This is the trying things out aspect that was talked about BEFORE the whole family share feature was announced. That's the case where if they tried it out, they could buy it to unlock it. What Microsoft was claiming with the family share was portability of your games which does not jive with this whole trial thing. I'm a bit skeptical that info is at all accurate. If it is true, then the whole family share was pointless, but I don't think it is true because it really contradicts what they were saying before. Not that Microsoft hasn't been full of mixed messages over the last month though.
 

Guevara

Member
Jul 27, 2009
24,814
3
0
The pastebin stuff is congruent with how some of the MS exec talk at E3 around family sharing was framed. I recall at least one pitching it as a way for other people to 'try' a game.

Try games, then immediate get kicked into the store to buy it for $60. It's almost too truthy not to be true.
 

beastworship

Neo Member
Oct 30, 2012
96
0
0
i also see the big push towards social gaming in that pastebin. i have no reference for this since anytime i friend someone on my xbox 360 i generally never play a game with them again since we're playing different games or i just have no idea how to join a game. is this aspect really that important to people, does anyone really play a lot of games with their friends list? seems like a huge waste to me but i maybe an isolated instance.
 

LiquidSolid

Member
Aug 15, 2010
10,415
0
0
. . .

This is the stupidest fucking plan I've ever heard. I thought it was just MS management that was out of touch but it looks like the cancer has spread to the whole team (assuming this is true of course).

Yep, right down to the arrogance in dismissing the PS4 as the "Xbox 360 version 2." It's laughable.
 

Guevara

Member
Jul 27, 2009
24,814
3
0
i also see the big push towards social gaming in that pastebin. i have no reference for this since anytime i friend someone on my xbox 360 i generally never play a game with them again since we're playing different games or i just have no idea how to join a game. is this aspect really that important to people, does anyone really play a lot of games with their friends list? seems like a huge waste to me but i maybe an isolated instance.

No it's crap. I imagine shareholders heard "social is hot" and they force it places it doesn't belong. An Xbox only social network is stupid and a waste of money.
 
May 31, 2013
343
0
0
I agree. I still feel like allowing one other family member to play the game at the same time as the primary was further than they would have gotten away with going. At best they they would have allowed one person to play any game the primary person isn't currently playing, but I think even that would have been too good to be true. The "extended demo" concept seems to be the most likely implementation.

Yeah, I agree. There are just too many oddities in the sharing plan.

It's hard to say this flatly without numbers to back it, but the ability to share with 10 others seemed exorbitantly high. Andecdotally, I don't think the average sold game goes through 10 other hands right now. Why would Microsoft introduce a system as, or (more likely I think) more open than the one that they just rejected? A rejection that they had to know they would get flak for?

One might suppose that the family sharing was supposed to be the chaser for the bitter DRM and used game restriction pill. That Microsoft was making sacrifices in order to ensure that all the transactions occurred in their own infrastructure.

But they barely mentioned it - why? My guess is that, like much of the rest of their XB1 policy, it wasn't properly fleshed out. Gies says that they had deals in place with publishers, and I'm inclined to believe him. But I think that Microsoft probably would need to pay those pubs in order to get them to opt into the family sharing system, because it seems to be in their best interest not to otherwise.

That wouldn't be very comprehensive, and I wonder whether it would be financially viable in the long term, or in a large scope. Publishers could opt out of sharing, and I suspect that most would by default. If I'm a publisher, the prospect of one copy of my game sating 10 people through family sharing is more daunting than used game sales and lending, I think.

It wasn't going to be ready at launch, and that makes me think that they hadn't really settled on its implementation yet.

I could be wrong, but it just doesn't seem to add up right, to me.
 

Pillville

Member
Mar 22, 2012
2,603
1
420
Ohio
Even though this is no longer going to happen, can someone add "for 45 minutes" to step 4?

 

N2NOther

Banned
May 30, 2013
899
0
0
Los Angeles
Then I assume you hate iTunes and Steam, right?

Otherwise, you're just another in a long line of cheap hypocrites.
I'm happy. I don't PC game and I only use iTunes 3 times a year for my girlfriend because she's a burlesque performer that might need some obscure song.

I like being able to sell my games when I'm done with them. It's that simple.
 

avaya

Member
Oct 3, 2007
10,663
0
0
London
People championing family sharing just revealed how far removed from reality they were. They weren't going to block used games and then let you and 10 friends share 1 copy, that would have been the height of madness.