Nikodemos
Member
This. Many people forget about the great Buttocks and his amazing info.It falls in line with what CBoat said about Microsoft's DRM being much worse than advertised. And CBoat has a pretty proven track record.
This. Many people forget about the great Buttocks and his amazing info.It falls in line with what CBoat said about Microsoft's DRM being much worse than advertised. And CBoat has a pretty proven track record.
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.
Yeah that sounds completely probably to me, so all in all, the only true benefits the xbone system had for customers were full game install with no disc check, and a persistent game library?
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.
Yeah - it's pastebin but for what it's worth:
http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2
It falls in line with what CBoat said about Microsoft's DRM being much worse than advertised. And CBoat has a pretty proven track record.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, then, whose fault is that? Microsoft or the guy who wanted to still own a physical copy of a game?
Well, then, whose fault is that? Microsoft or the guy who wanted to still own a physical copy of a game?
That new Prince of Persia looks amazing!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Yeah, if Pastebin is to be believed, then we really didn't lose anything
Hey now, he apologized for that one formally.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
Newell: I consider Apple to be very closed. Lets say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins, you cant exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent, and they dont 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 peoples products. Well provide server capacity, matchmaking services, product services, and all thats free for content developers. If a product gets sold through our system, then we take a tax. If its sold through retail, or if its sold through a developers website or its sold through Origin or Direct2Drive, then we dont take anything.
Were only generating money when were 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.
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.
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).
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.
Yeah - it's pastebin but for what it's worth:
http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2
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.
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.
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.
. . .
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).
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.
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.
It falls in line with what CBoat said about Microsoft's DRM being much worse than advertised. And CBoat has a pretty proven track record.
Don Mattrick said:We imagined a new set of benefits such as easier roaming, family sharing, and new ways to try and buy games.
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.Then I assume you hate iTunes and Steam, right?
Otherwise, you're just another in a long line of cheap hypocrites.