Support NeoGAF

[Dreams-Visions]

I think they haven't figured out how it will work exactly yet.
Its not ready yet.

this right here. If things sound too good to be true, and no clarification is given...it probably is too good to be true.

If this was a feature and they were clear on it, they would have been on the roof of the E3 main building with a megaphone talking about this, because I'd be huge and they'd know it.

 

[Bgamer90]

You mean publishers will be happy to potentially losing 10 sales for each copy sold?....I don't think so. Something similar in PS3 had to be stopped for the same very reason.

Does that really overcome 9 additional sales though? I mean, I assume two people won't be able to play the same game at the same time, leading this to be impractical for multiplayer focused games, but doesn't that basically sink the sales of single player games? (Assuming people actually take advantage of the "family" of course.)

There is no way this is going to work how you think it is. No way. You think Microsoft is going to go out of their way to fuck consumers for some arbitrary remote financial gain and then is just going to have an open field day digitally letting people gameshare online up to 10 people? There are going to be hard restrictions and you won't be able to do anything you think you will.

If I'm wrong, it'd be nice (for those getting an XBO), but it simply does not make any sense given what we experienced these past months.

What's stopping people from giving their game disc out to more than 10 people now? Nothing really.

 

[60_gig_PS3]

i dont think any of this is finalized. They need to open this up even more and allow people to sell their used digital games to other people at a set price.

That could be a huge win for DRM.

 

[Hattori]

What's stopping people from giving their game disc out to more than 10 people now? Nothing really.

well it's only one disc so you can't share to ten people at the same time, whereas this plan let's 10 people share one digital copy at same time seems a little bit too good to be true. I'm going to reserve judgement until I see it in action.

 

[Garrett 2U]

well it's only one disc so you can't share to ten people at the same time, whereas this plan let's 10 people share one digital copy at same time seems a little bit too good to be true. I'm going to reserve judgement until I see it in action.

Only one person can play it at a time.

 

[Green Yoshi]

Don't think you are smarter than Microsoft. ;-)

I don't think that you can play the games at the same time. Otherwise you could find 9 friends in internet boards and only have to pay for every tenth game.

 

[Gorki247]

I suspect the 'problem' with this plan is that your family won't have their own library; i.e. they just have access to a shared library. While this is perfect for actual families; it may not work for what most people have in mind here; sharing their libraries between friends.

Yes, there would be ways around it by creating a second account sjust for sharing purposes, but it's not ideal (friends lists need to be kept updated, achievements will be split, etc...).

Then again it may not be; just speculation on my part. In any case, they are limiting it somewhat by allowing only one shared library at a time to be used. I'm also wondering if you and the friend sharing will be able to access the same game at a time.

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

I agree that this seems way too good to be true. Also, if this WASN'T thought up a just few hours before that interview, why did they let Sony get all that positive press from denouncing draconic DRM?

But hey, if it's true nice to see Microsoft bowing to the pressure, because that is clearly what this seems to indicate. Now they just need to relax that always-online-thing and issue an official apology for all this crap, then I might actually consider buying one.

 

[Bgamer90]

Don't think you are smarter than Microsoft. ;-)

I don't think that you can play the games at the same time....

Only one other person can play the game at the same time (digitally). The other people on the plan would have to wait.

 

[Darmik]

This is my guess on how it works.

Let's just say John creates an Xbox Gold Account and adds Ken as a Family Account on his Xbox One, which are tied to both his Xbox One and Xbox Live Gold profile. They are near enough counted as their own profile and have shared access to anything registered on John's Xbox One. They may even have their own achievements and display name, but they're still tied to John's Xbox Live Gold account.

Now let's just say Ken is liking the Xbox One and purchases his own One. He attempts to sign in on his new console with his Family profile. An error occurs.
"There is no Xbox Live Gold Account registered on this console. You will need to sign up for all the amazing benefits blah blah"
Ken creates his own Xbox Live Gold Account. John can go over his house and access his Xbox Live Gold library from his console and Ken can go to John's house and access his library on John's console.

The question is if Ken can still sign into his Family account tied with John's profile on his own Xbox One. I have a feeling they will find a way to stop people from doing this and will know when someone has both a Family account and a unqiue Xbox Live Gold membership. Perhaps through Kinect facial recognition or by detecting playtimes on each profile.

 

[jim2011]

You guys really need to read the arstechnica link. They specifically rebute the majority of what you guys are saying (negatively)


Since its announcement, there has been some confusion over the details of sharing your Xbox One game library with up to ten "family members." Mehdi couldn't give comprehensive details, but he did clarify some things.

For one, a family member doesn't have to be a "blood relative," he said, eliminating the extremely unlikely possibility that the Xbox One would include a built-in blood testing kit. For another, they don't have to live in the primary owner's house—I could name a friend that lives 3,000 miles away as one of my "family members" Mehdi said.

You'll be able to link other Xbox Live accounts as having shared access to your library when you first set up a system and will also be able to add them later on (though specific details of how you manage these relationships is still not being discussed). The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time. All in all, this does sound like a pretty convenient feature that's more workable than simply passing discs around amongst friends who are actually in your area.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/

 

[Hattori]

just read everything and I don't see this as being a positive or a negative at all for me personally. But I guess it does have it's advantages if you have cross-country relatives, in a vacuum where all the BS policies MS has does not exist I could see probably see this as a good thing...but the negatives really outweigh the positives regarding the Xbox One which is very unfortunate

 

[not psycho]

What's stopping people from giving their game disc out to more than 10 people now? Nothing really.

You can't do this with discs:

You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

With a disc, only one person has access at a time, and changing access is difficult or impossible due to time, distance, or even someone refusing to give it back.

With this, 11 people would have access at a time (though possibly only one could use it at a time). And distance would be meaningless.

And there would be no downside, because you always have access to your own games. If someone else was playing it, maybe they get kicked out when you start it, but there is no downside for you to share. Nobody can refuse to give you back access.

It would be very easy to set up 11 person groups which only buy 1 copy of each single player game and create a schedule so everyone in the group can play. Also, each 11 person group only needs 2 copies at most of each 2 player game.

 

[Of All Trades]

Well, onemic, if it is true, one reason for Microsoft not to focus on it would be exactly what people are scheming in this topic: to have online game sharing 'communities' that would essentially allow you to not buy anything, if you picked the right game sharing partners.

Of course, that's a dangerous course in of itself: if the news is accurate, only one of these people could play the game at a time, much like lending a disc out, so if you start putting people you don't trust on there, they might decide to start playing games you want to play at any given moment, making things extremely confusing.

Correct, the people "scheming" are not thinking through how difficult coordination can be as numbers increase, and the PR mention a sort of time restriction for identifying someone for game lending, so I'm guessing the "family" would be a very tightly account-controlled group.

This is to say nothing of trust issues - what's to stop one of those 10 from leaving the family and taking their library (that I paid into) with them?

It would be very easy to set up 11 person groups which only buy 1 copy of each single player game and create a schedule so everyone in the group can play.

Maybe for college students but as a working adult who'd be sharing with other working adults the functional play time for a given game would plummet without amazing coordination. If I want to play Bioshock Gargantua because the OT is covered in spoiler bars then I want to play it now, not three hours on one evening/week.

 

[emacs]

I have a feeling this is the case. So my friends and I would only need to buy one copy in total of short single player games? Nah.

perhaps the definition of 'family' will require multiple levels of authentication of some kind (i.e., same IP address, all people sharing one Xbox Live Family account, identity verification using credit card / home address). these type of checks will likely be a requirement so people don't abuse the term 'family'.

although i have no interest in the Xbox One, the console holds promise if and only if Microsoft sorts out their messaging. the mainstream media is spreading the negative reactions of the Xbox One while, in the same breath, extolling the goodness of the PlayStation 4.

 

[Klocker]

.

 

[Klocker]

Well, onemic, if it is true, one reason for Microsoft not to focus on it would be exactly what people are scheming in this topic: to have online game sharing 'communities' that would essentially allow you to not buy anything, if you picked the right game sharing partners.

Of course, that's a dangerous course in of itself: if the news is accurate, only one of these people could play the game at a time, much like lending a disc out, so if you start putting people you don't trust on there, they might decide to start playing games you want to play at any given moment, making things extremely confusing.

They say the owner will "always have access" so I assume that means they have right to play at all times.. maybe you send a message that says "Owner is ready to play this game, save and close"

perhaps the definition of 'family' will require multiple levels of authentication of some kind (i.e., same IP address, all people sharing one Xbox Live Family account, identity verification using credit card / home address). these type of checks will likely be a requirement so people don't abuse the term 'family'.

although i have no interest in the Xbox One, the console holds promise if and only if Microsoft sorts out their messaging. the mainstream media is spreading the negative reactions of the Xbox One while, in the same breath, extolling the goodness of the PlayStation 4.

they said they do not need to be in your house... they can be 3000 milles away

and this is different than the Family Gold where now anyone in Gold membership in same house gets access to Gold benefits for all GT's and Xboxes in house including multiplayer

I agree that this seems way too good to be true. Also, if this WASN'T thought up a just few hours before that interview, why did they let Sony get all that positive press from denouncing draconic DRM?

.

it was actually part of the policy info release last Thursday before E3 but went mostly unnoticed and today they just clarified it a bit

 

[Orca]

Of course, that's a dangerous course in of itself: if the news is accurate, only one of these people could play the game at a time, much like lending a disc out, so if you start putting people you don't trust on there, they might decide to start playing games you want to play at any given moment, making things extremely confusing.

It says clearly that the owner can play their games at any time AND one other.

 

[lionkitten]

Here are my questions:

My partner and I have 2 360's and 2 PS3's in separate rooms so that we can game together online and shoot people in their respective faces.

1. If I buy, say, TitanFall. Can I install it and run it on both new Xboxes easily? X1 will log me into my account because it will know my face via Kinect, and it will know his face as well and supposedly that he's in my "family circle"? Can we play our games on either TV once installed? Now we move the disc, but I assume this shouldn't be an issue if I;m logged in as me anyway?

2. Can we play at the same time on one disc, either as "Lionkitten" and "lion kitten guest" or as separate gamertags on the same IP address?

3. Could we play as Lionkitten and guest if we hardline the Xboxes together on two separate TVs - - like expanded multiple outputs?


I assume on our PS4s, we'd need two discs, but with this family plan for X1, it's unclear. I assume we'd need two copies, but if we only needed one, it'd be an enormous point in the X1's favor (and we'd buy a crapton more games for it likely so we could play together.)

Would love clarification, if anyone knows.


EDIT: I think the arstechnica thing answers some of this.

 

[biosnake20]

I hope someone can mention this in an interview soon because we need to clear it up. If this works how we think it does it could be a huge deal.

 

[eso76]

Only one other person can play the game at the same time (digitally). The other people on the plan would have to wait.

It's still huge.
Me and my 10 'relatives' all buy 1 SP game.
Week 1, everyone plays through his game, then everyone gets to play a different game from the list.
10 weeks, 10 full games played, games paid: 1.

 

[Bgamer90]

Another thing I thought off... this could possibly end up being the "21st century split screen".

'90s: A friend comes over to your house; You play 2 player split screen modes in games.

Xbox One: Have that friend on family plan. "Hey, want to play against me?" -- Put the game in family sharing. Then both of you can play against each other online instantly, on your own TV screens, without needing to go over to the other person's house.


MAN. This is sounding too good to be true.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

I think it's going to come down to semantics. The MS licensing post uses a whole bunch of different terms for what we think is the same thing.

- all of your games
- entire games library
- shared games library

and

- access vs playing

I'll bet it will come down to your shared library are your F2P games, entire games library will have "look" only access, and all of your games means real playable games.

There HAS to be a catch.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Another thing I thought off... this could possibly end up being the "21st century split screen".

'90s: A friend comes over to your house; You play 2 player split screen modes in games.

Xbox One: Have that friend on family plan. "Hey, want to play against me?" -- Put the game in family sharing. Then both of you can play against each other online instantly, on your own TV screens, without needing to go over to the other person's house.


MAN. This is sounding too good to be true.

Future powered by the cloud.
People like to knock it, but that situation is one that sounds possible and is really, really interesting.

There HAS to be a catch.

The DRM on games is the catch, no used games. But there seem to be some benefits.

 

[eso76]

MAN. This is sounding too good to be true.

that's because it isn't.
it can't be, and even if somehow nobody at Microsoft noticed there's a problem with their strategy and this was exactly the way it was intended, they'll certainly patch it out in no time.

 

[kitsuneyo]

Basically, MS is giving people the full ability to share games digitally. Not physically though. In some ways it's better since when you give a game disc to someone to borrow, you can't play that game (obviously). With this plan though, you can play the game that you bought at the same time that someone else in your family plan is "borrowing" it.

I don't think you can both play the game at the same time. You can't play online with each other using the same copy of the game either.

 

[megalowho]

Microsoft is honestly being more progressive than Sony in regards to how digital purchases are handled out of the gate, and this could absolutely become a factor a few years down the line if they end up being leaders in this space. However their messaging is a mess and they're so shook from the physical/DRM backlash that they can't double down on selling a digital only future right now, it would be a PR disaster.

I fully expect that DD policies from all console manufacturers will evolve as it becomes the dominant storefront for console purchases; consumer attitudes will change as well. Something as simple as adding resale value and a second hand marketplace for digital copies, even if it's all taking place within the ecosystem, could shift sentiment from one platform to the other.

 

[Of All Trades]

that's because it isn't.
it can't be, and even if somehow nobody at Microsoft noticed there's a problem with their strategy and this was exactly the way it was intended, they'll certainly patch it out in no time.

If true I'm guessing MS looked at your "strategy" and noticed the flaws in it, like how you've turned playing a game into a chore.

There HAS to be a catch.

The catch is: almost everything else announced so far (aside from games).

 

[kinggroin]

Like I said in the other thread, if this particular policy turns out to be best case scenario, that still leaves two absolutely moronic policies to solve. Rentals and offline mode. It's not like they have a calvacade of exclusive software so good that it makes the alternative, with nearly zero compromises, easy to ignore.

 

[Bgamer90]

I don't think you can both play the game at the same time. You can't play online with each other using the same copy of the game either.

"Only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time."

So from that, I'm assuming that the original person with the disc could play against the person that's sharing the game (since it refers to the shared copy).

 

[Dabanton]

Sounds cool. And from reading it only one person can be playing your game at any given time so there won't be a case of 9 people and you playing your one copy of Halo 5.

Would certainly be a good way to try out games and of course I suspect if you like it you'll then go out and get it.

 

[Klocker]

Also this is for disc games too not just DD as discs become digital content that can be shared

 

[Dreams-Visions]

"Only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time."

So from that, I'm assuming that the original person with the disc could play against the person that's sharing the game (since it refers to the shared copy).

That's how it reads.

I'll believe it when it launches and I can do it.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

Also I assume you can't play the same games at the same time right?

Because that would potentially cost them 9 copies of the game.

 

[Dragon]

Pretty sure you cannot play the same game at the same time with this Family Plan thing.

You and 9 friends buy the newest Halo, you all cannot use that same copy to play online together at all.

 

[Bgamer90]

Pretty sure you cannot play the same game at the same time with this Family Plan thing.

You and 9 friends buy the newest Halo, you all cannot use that same copy to play online together at all.

It says only one person can share the game at the same time.

 

[Dabanton]

Pretty sure you cannot play the same game at the same time with this Family Plan thing.

You and 9 friends buy the newest Halo, you all cannot use that same copy to play online together at all.

Yeah you can't do that

You'll be able to link other Xbox Live accounts as having shared access to your library when you first set up a system and will also be able to add them later on (though specific details of how you manage these relationships is still not being discussed). The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time. All in all, this does sound like a pretty convenient feature that's more workable than simply passing discs around amongst friends who are actually in your area.

 

[Orca]

Yeah you can't do that

That says only one person can play the SHARED copy. It also says you can always play all of your games.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Yeah you can't do that

"only one person can be playing the shared copy"

 

[strikeselect]

Sounds WAY too good to be true as others have said. There must be a catch they haven't revealed yet.

This is MS we're talking about.

 

[anatomyhorror]

Won't the people on the shared family list have to download 20-50gb of data first? Maybe I don't understand the cloud stuff, but wouldn't your internet connection have to be capped out if you want to start playing the game in a timely matter? Wouldn't cloud features only apply to people who have 20mb+ connections? Is the cloud stuff like streaming a game? That eats up tons of bandwidth.

 

[border]

I can almost guarantee that this is not the FREE VIDEOGAMES UPTOPIA that everyone is imagining it to be.

Why are they not talking about it if it is so great?
Why did they spend all this time trying to kill used games, only to introduce a program that will be every bit as damaging to industry revenues as used games?
Why would any major publisher agree to allow their game to be shared in this fashion?

I suspect the reason Microsoft executives are not talking it up is because there are some huge asterisks, fine print, and caveats that they have not revealed or figured out yet. I suspect one of the restrictions will be that only games on the Administrator account will be shared outward -- it won't be a 10-way gangbang of everyone's gaming libraries. I presume the other restriction is that sharing will require Publisher approval first -- if resale requires publisher approval, then sharing almost certainly will.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I don't understand the logic of allowing game sharing digitally with 10 people yet being so draconian over physical discs. Something is amiss

 

[Garrett 2U]

I don't understand the logic of allowing game sharing digitally with 10 people yet being so draconian over physical discs. Something is amiss

They obviously don't want to lose money to used games anymore, but still want people to be able to share games.

 

[MogCakes]

They obviously don't want to lose money to used games anymore, but still want people to be able to share games.

That doesn't translate to what they're doing with the 'family plan' and their policy on used games. They want to encourage new games sales, but with this family plan thing people can supposedly play games without ever buying a new copy.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

I know that you want clarification of this, but considering how pretty much everything about their policies has featured a bungled message, it's probably best that they keep quiet until they get their story straight.

 

[shinra-bansho]

With this plan though, you can play the game that you bought at the same time that someone else in your family plan is "borrowing" it.

This has not been confirmed.

Actually, re-reading that sentence from Ars it sounds like they're saying that only one person can play a given game at a given time.

While they've already stated that only one additional person can access a library at a given time.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Why do people think MS is going to adopt the original 5 game licence model the PS3 had, but increase it to 10? It's not going to work that way.

 

[turtle553]

Why did they spend all this time trying to kill used games, only to introduce a program that will be every bit as damaging to industry revenues as used games?
Why would any major publisher agree to allow their game to be shared in this fashion?

I imagine the thinking is it gives people a taste of a huge library of games. If you have ten people sharing one copy, but with only one person playing at a time then one of those other 9 may choose to just buy the game if they are locked out at the moment. It's already on their hard drive and maybe there will be a reduced price(maybe) and they'll just choose to get it.

If done right, it could be a great system for people to sample multiple games they may never have tried. Also, if it is multiplayer then a few people of that ten may just buy it to play together.

Microsoft just thinks this will get more people to actually buy games and more money for them and the publisher.

 

[Bgamer90]

This has not been confirmed.

Actually, re-reading that sentence from Ars it sounds like they're saying that only one person can play a given game at a given time.

While they've already stated that only one additional person can access a library at a given time.

"The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time."

It's states "shared copy". Not "the game" period.

Why do people think MS is going to adopt the original 5 game licence model the PS3 had, but increase it to 10?

Because these are statements coming from people who work at MS???