Funny thing about all the game sharing stuff is that it would have probably just been a more convenient method of doing something you can already technically do now on the Xbox One.
Person 1 buys games on their account. They can play their games no matter where they're logged in.
But if Person 2-10 wants to play Person 1's games, they have to login as Person 1, and then set their Xbox One to be the "primary" console. So if Person 2 does this, Person 2 can now play Person 1's games at any time, even if they're offline. Person 1 can still play when they're online.
If Person 3 wants to play a game, they have to login as Person 1, set their Xbox One to be the "primary" console (remember, this can now be done at any time). Now Person 2 is kicked off, and Person 3 can play Person 1's games at any time, even if they're offline.
Of course, you would only ever want to do this with trusted people (like, say,
family), since it involves giving out your login information. But I wager that the family sharing plan was just a way to do all of this more easily, without having to give out login information. You would have just added Person 2-10 to your "family", and all of this would have been automated. Only 2 people could play a game at any given time, the "owner" and the "moocher", and the moocher would have to be online. Which, again, is pretty close to how the Xbox One (and I think PS4?) already work.
And if the moocher tries to go offline and play the game indefinitely...that's where the 60 minute timer comes in.
That's not the same as "hey, I can fill up a 10 player multiplayer lobby with 1 copy of this game!" That was definitely not a possibility, lol. The above scenario seems most likely based on all available evidence, but hey, 5 months before launch speculation and all that.
NullPointer said:
As far as I know that's all we got as far as details go, after quite a few false starts and misdirections and empty regurgitated PR QAs, before they reversed course with the 180's. So we never got to see or understand the extent and breadth of their vision (that was so cool, we have been vaguely assured so often since) before they discontinued it.
They've acted like they're hiding something while all the while assuring us this thing that never saw the light of day was going to be great, because, I don't even know why.
Even the family sharing is still to this day mysterious, with people believing it was anything from one hour trials to giving 10 other people access to your games as if they were borrowing the box of your shelf.
None of this, even to this day has seemed straight-forward. Not since the reveal.
Well yes, but what you've just described is "not everything is 100% finalized when the console is still under production and 5 months from release". I guess I don't see that the same as "they were not upfront about it!", which implies some sort of weird malice. Not being upfront implies there was some trickery involved in getting you to spend money on something, and then pulling the complete opposite thing after they already have your money. If not having 100% solid details 5 months before the launch of a product is considered "not being upfront" then the creators of pretty much every product ever made has never been "upfront", lol.
I do think that DRM in general is a confusing topic, and isn't straightforward, which is why it's like explaining a joke: once you have to describe it, you've already lost. But again, I don't see that as the same as "not being upfront". See that Killer Instinct thread recently where some people apparently still don't understand how the Xbox 360 DRM has worked for the past 8 years...
