Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Audioboxer

Rumour: Xbox One family sharing was a "45min demo"

193 posts in this topic

They're getting the initial sales on those 2. The others are just lost sales. The family plan is 9 lost sales per 1 sale.

 

1 game sale vs 2 game sales. I know which one publishers would much prefer.

 

Why should the publisher get ANY extra compensation on second hand sales? They're not in the second hand sales business. That's nothing but pure greed. 

Look at Call of Duty. That game brings in BILLIONS of dollars.. you're telling me that publishers should then be able to get MORE on top of that for private sales? Bull.

 

 

I just used 2 games as an example. I can buy 1 game,and each friend buys 1 game,and we swap . same thing,but digital more convenient. the publishers get the exact same amount of cash both methods, physical discs, or digital sharing. 1 copy of call of duty can be shared between 10 people with physical discs.

 

if we use your logic, why would publishers want to allow physical discs, after all, one copy can be shared with an unlimited amount of people, there is no cap. 1 game can be shared between 100 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just used 2 games as an example. I can buy 1 game,and each friend buys 1 game,and we swap . same thing,but digital more convenient. the publishers get the exact same amount of cash both methods, physical discs, or digital sharing. 1 copy of call of duty can be shared between 10 people with physical discs.

 

if we use your logic, why would publishers want to allow physical discs, after all, one copy can be shared with an unlimited amount of people, there is no cap. 1 game can be shared between 100 people.

 

 

because they can't all play simultaneously at the same time with a physical disc. They would be required to buy a copy to play with friends. 

This is not the same as it is now. You are being obtuse by saying it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they can't all play simultaneously at the same time with a physical disc. They would be required to buy a copy to play with friends. 

This is not the same as it is now. You are being obtuse by saying it is.

 

 

1 copy would not have been able to be played simultaneously by 10 people with family sharing either. nobodys arguing that it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 copy would not have been able to be played simultaneously by 10 people with family sharing either. nobodys arguing that it would.

Apart from Theif000s anonymous "friend". (For 24hrs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they can't all play simultaneously at the same time with a physical disc. They would be required to buy a copy to play with friends. 

This is not the same as it is now. You are being obtuse by saying it is.

 

Neither could they have done with family sharing. It was 1 player per copy. That's why they used the internet check-in.  To be able to play the game together, they would both have to buy the game. Family sharing would've been the same as sharing is done today, only digitally(with internet check-ins) instead of the physical check-in(disc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Audioboxer. Given that this feature is no more and this is complete rubbish which has been debunked by Microsoft themselves, why are you continuing to post complete guff about things which are no longer relevant to the console?

 

You're a sony fanboy, we get it, why do you not just stick to the Sony forum rather than trying to unnecessarily stir up FUD with rumour stories of non existant features? The ONLY things you post in the Xbox forum are seen as negative and when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel with articles like this it is verging on flamebait.  The fact you only ever post things to show xbox in a negative light, whether its fact, fiction, rumour, or non existent feature shows that you really have no love there for the xbox, and yet seem to forget without Microsoft sony would not have put out the same PS4 whatsoever. Competition is GOOD and stirring this up is childish.  You're giving the rest of us PS4 fans a bad name.  Stop it and grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither could they have done with family sharing. It was 1 player per copy. That's why they used the internet check-in.  To be able to play the game together, they would both have to buy the game. Family sharing would've been the same as sharing is done today, only digitally(with internet check-ins) instead of the physical check-in(disc).

 

Family Sharing was for up to 10 familiy members. Not 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Family Sharing was for up to 10 familiy members. Not 1.

 

you can share with 10 people, but each game can only be played by 1 person at any given time. if I share call of duty with you and 9 other people,and you begin playing it, the other 9 people have to wait until the game is no longer being played. its not 10 people playing 1 copy at the same time. you seem confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Family Sharing was for up to 10 familiy members. Not 1.

 

You could have a 10-man sharing group ("family") who automatically was able to share games between eachother. So 10 people could play MY games at the same time, but only one(1!) could play a specific game at the same time. One active player per license and up to 10 "family members". The only way 10 people could play your games at the same time is if every player plays a differnet game.

 

This is why many started screaming about Xbox One. They heard things like "share with up to 10 people", "required 24h check-in" ... , but forgot to read the rest and started complaining about how bad it is, how it's too good to be true etc. instead. And when they were proved wrong by those who read everything, they were "too deep" to pull back and continued to fight for no reason. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way 10 people could play your games at the same time is if every player plays a different game.

There is no way this would have been the case. Say each person in the "family" buys 11 games (one for themselves and one for each member), then they would all have access to a library of 121 games at the cost of 11 for each. The number of lost sales would be huge (1210 sales to be exact).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way this would have been the case. Say each person in the "family" buys 11 games (one for themselves and one for each member), then they would all have access to a library of 121 games at the cost of 11 for each. The number of lost sales would be huge (1210 sales to be exact).

 

Not really. You are assuming that all 10 folks would have bought the individual games anyways. That's as bad as the record company saying that the 100 people that downloaded a song for free cost them $22k each - not reality.

 

If I buy a game, and have 4 other people that live in my house, plus 6 other close friends, I can choose to hand my disc over to them now with the 360 or ps3... the new family sharing is no differnt, in fact, it is better for MS as they can target the users that play certain games the most, socially network the family and friends better, and when puch comes to shove, with the ease of family sharing, they would have potentially made MORE money as groups of people will buy more games overall, in order to share (as in, I normally buy a game every 2-3 months, but now, I can get my group to all pitch in and buy 11 games between us.

 

Win for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say they aren't now saying "it wasn't limited" after they already got rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. You are assuming that all 10 folks would have bought the individual games anyways. That's as bad as the record company saying that the 100 people that downloaded a song for free cost them $22k each - not reality.

 

If I buy a game, and have 4 other people that live in my house, plus 6 other close friends, I can choose to hand my disc over to them now with the 360 or ps3... the new family sharing is no differnt, in fact, it is better for MS as they can target the users that play certain games the most, socially network the family and friends better, and when puch comes to shove, with the ease of family sharing, they would have potentially made MORE money as groups of people will buy more games overall, in order to share (as in, I normally buy a game every 2-3 months, but now, I can get my group to all pitch in and buy 11 games between us.

 

Win for all.

You're right, the lost sales number is inflated, but that is not about how you and me see this. It's about the publishers and just like they see every pirated copy as a lost sale, they will see any game somebody has access to, that he hasn't paid for, as a lost sale.

 

The way it is with the current generation is still better (for the publisher), because people still have to deal with physical limitations. Going digital, the only limitation would be a person's internet speed (and cap for some) and the games bought once by anyone in the "family".

 

It would definitely be a win for gamers, but publishers? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say they aren't now saying "it wasn't limited" after they already got rid of it.

 

and who's to say we aren't all plugged into a great big computer simulation program and machines are using us as batteries?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from Theif000s anonymous "friend". (For 24hrs)

 

 

Except we know he's wrong. since it wouldn't work for 24 hours. MS already officially stated, the check in would be 60 minutes on all consoles except the "main" console. So even if they all in turns when and played the game and went offline, they would have to redo the dance every 60 seconds. AND that assumes MS doesn't/didn't put in a (easy to program) block that would lock the title for 60 minutes if the guy who was currently "lending" the game from the shared library went offline.

 

and I strongly believe only ONE person in total could play the game, despite MS' somewhat cloudy statement that "could" be interpreted as the owner and one other. I just don't see that as likely. 

There is no way this would have been the case. Say each person in the "family" buys 11 games (one for themselves and one for each member), then they would all have access to a library of 121 games at the cost of 11 for each. The number of lost sales would be huge (1210 sales to be exact).

 

 

that's ignoring a few obvious and fatal flaws. the main owner of the game will boot any other player when he wants to play the game. A lot of titles are multiplayer, and with this system multiplayer games could actually sell more, since two of them would be it first and play against each other, then one players would borrow one of the copies and play against the other, and then he wants to play with them and so on, and voila 10 copies sold. 

 

also that library of 121 games would be a good thing for the publishers. as an attach rate of 10 games per console is WAAAAY above average today. 

Who's to say they aren't now saying "it wasn't limited" after they already got rid of it.

 

They're still working on implementing the system for downloadable titles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's ignoring a few obvious and fatal flaws. the main owner of the game will boot any other player when he wants to play the game. A lot of titles are multiplayer, and with this system multiplayer games could actually sell more, since two of them would be it first and play against each other, then one players would borrow one of the copies and play against the other, and then he wants to play with them and so on, and voila 10 copies sold. 

 

also that library of 121 games would be a good thing for the publishers. as an attach rate of 10 games per console is WAAAAY above average today.

I'm sure they could come to an agreement with SP games and some of the less popular MP ones. I grant you that there's no way around it if you want to play at the same time, but I don't know about everyone buying copies. My IRL friends rarely play the same games, but maybe that is just me. SP games would suffer a lot worse in this scenario, but maybe it would be worth it as an opt-in for each game.

 

My example was not really meant to portray the average, but a group that would milk the feature for all it's worth, where everybody (arbitrarily) buys a game for everybody. Tie ratio is what you're looking for and, apparently, is pretty close to 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they could come to an agreement with SP games and some of the less popular MP ones. I grant you that there's no way around it if you want to play at the same time, but I don't know about everyone buying copies. My IRL friends rarely play the same games, but maybe that is just me. SP games would suffer a lot worse in this scenario, but maybe it would be worth it as an opt-in for each game.

 

My example was not really meant to portray the average, but a group that would milk the feature for all it's worth, where everybody (arbitrarily) buys a game for everybody. Tie ratio is what you're looking for and, apparently, is pretty close to 10.

 

My friends and I also rarely play the same games, but we discussed this feature before and at least to me, it was an incentive to play the games I usually don't play since I'm going to be into the same "family" with them.

 

The games and developers will get a lot of exposure. To the developers, rentals/lending discs and "family sharing" the game is the same, they don't receive any money. However, I feel and believe it's better for them because they can get the word out there about their games and brand, and get new/future buyers.

 

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

If I dig the game, maybe I'll buy the next one, maybe I'll buy a copy for multiplayer, or maybe I'll go grab a copy for myself for single player. If I don't like the game I simply stop investing my time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except we know he's wrong. since it wouldn't work for 24 hours. MS already officially stated, the check in would be 60 minutes on all consoles except the "main" console. So even if they all in turns when and played the game and went offline, they would have to redo the dance every 60 seconds. AND that assumes MS doesn't/didn't put in a (easy to program) block that would lock the title for 60 minutes if the guy who was currently "lending" the game from the shared library went offline.

 

and I strongly believe only ONE person in total could play the game, despite MS' somewhat cloudy statement that "could" be interpreted as the owner and one other. I just don't see that as likely. 

 

 

that's ignoring a few obvious and fatal flaws. the main owner of the game will boot any other player when he wants to play the game. A lot of titles are multiplayer, and with this system multiplayer games could actually sell more, since two of them would be it first and play against each other, then one players would borrow one of the copies and play against the other, and then he wants to play with them and so on, and voila 10 copies sold. 

 

also that library of 121 games would be a good thing for the publishers. as an attach rate of 10 games per console is WAAAAY above average today. 

 

They're still working on implementing the system for downloadable titles. 

 

HawkMan, I'll elaborate on that. The one hour period would only be the case where a GamerTag was logged in on a console that wasn't the primary console tied to that GamerTag. If the primary GamerTag on another person's primary console was playing a shared game, the check in would still have been 24 hours. It's not that different from the Xbox 360, but with the added time limitation.

 

Microsoft believed in this strategy where currently many people, if not most, are always connected to the internet anyway and then the many games that will use Azure features, that they wouldn't go through the hassle of disconnecting their Xbox One at every single opportunity just to play another man's game. It's a very big bet, I agree, but they believed the benefits of keeping your console connected would outweigh this negative and thus this one in ten scenario would rarely take place. Remote use of your own local content would be practically impossible with this disconnecting for example and it was also a point for MS to push Azure features among developers.

It does show they were ready to change a currently struggling industry for something they believed in where both the businesses (by cutting deeply into second hand sales and GameStop's business tactics without cutting them out) and the consumers win by letting them have more freedom with their licenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

youre completely ignoring the fact that second hand copy sales without making a dime would have essentially been killed. its a compromise.

 

 

But they're not making anything the other way either... They don't make money from 2nd hand sales and they wouldn't make money on people sharing. You're completely ignoring that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If family sharing worked like most people wanted it to, it could potentially drop games sales to 1/10th of what they are now. I know if I had the Xbox One I would share my games with ten friends. So we would be able to get 10 games for the price of one each.

 

If this happened then no one would publish to microsoft. This is why I'm confident that the original plan was for people on the family share account to only demo a game for 15-45mins. 

 

Why was another feature mentioned at E3; The ability to gift a game to a friend on the family account even as a feature? cause family share would've made that pointless.. Also the gift feature for family accounts you could only gift that game once before it got 'stuck' and your friend wouldn't';t gift that game away or return to you.

 

I know someone from Microsoft said it was unlimited but now that its not being implemented you could say anything about it, it was actually going to cure cancer or that it was going to make you a sandwich.. It doesnt matter cause they can say anything about it now and no one can check up on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please point out to me how this industry is struggling?

 

post-18738-0-68493600-1372072107.png

 

Genuine question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If family sharing worked like most people wanted it to, it could potentially drop games sales to 1/10th of what they are now. I know if I had the Xbox One I would share my games with ten friends. So we would be able to get 10 games for the price of one each.

 

No it wouldn't it's the digital equivalent of sharing the game disc with your family and friends. and you'll never find 10 people who want to play exactly the same game, and if you did, it ignores the day ones sales argument. people who want to play a game, WILL buy on on day 1-7. the original owner would play the game for that or longer leaving the others having to wait.  So it would only lets those who cloulndt' afford it to play it down the road, or let people play games they otherwise wouldn't play. basically the same as loaning the disc from your friend. 

 

and besides MS has already confirmed it's how it works. and again, the feature IS coming to digital download games, though maybe not at launch since they need to redo some of the base system due to the disc change. Or rather, most likely what happened is that most of the team responsible for finishing this system for launch, has been reassigned to fixing up the disc based DRM system. 

Can somebody please point out to me how this industry is struggling?

 

attachicon.gifScreenshot_2013-06-24-11-39-03.png

 

Genuine question.

revenue doesn't mean making money though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't it's the digital equivalent of sharing the game disc with your family and friends. and you'll never find 10 people who want to play exactly the same game

I think you would be far more likely to find 10 people via the sharing option, than you would with psychical discs.

revenue doesn't mean making money though...

I really wonder about you sometimes. Do you go full derp on purpose?

I understand what revenue is. If you are not making a massive profit when that is your turnover, then you have serious problems, and used game sales are not it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony has had massive revenue and been in the red so... 

 

And a lot of game companies don't necessarily have high profits since the profits get shunted back into new projects. MS for example, always try to put the majority of their profits back into new projects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they're not making anything the other way either... They don't make money from 2nd hand sales and they wouldn't make money on people sharing. You're completely ignoring that fact.

 

no that just isn't true. there was going to be a system in place where you can buy/sell/trade at authorized retailers/online. of course now we wont know how it works exactly because of the axing of the drm, BUT its been commented by Microsoft that such system was coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.