Jump to content



Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#151 vcfan

vcfan

    POP POP RET

  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 23 June 2013 - 19:31

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.




#152 slapfacemcdougal

slapfacemcdougal

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 12-March 13

Posted 23 June 2013 - 19:36

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.



#153 vcfan

vcfan

    POP POP RET

  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 23 June 2013 - 19:40

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.



#154 +D. FiB3R

D. FiB3R

    aka DARKFiB3R

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 06-November 02
  • Location: SE London
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64
  • Phone: Lumia 800

Posted 23 June 2013 - 20:03

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)

#155 +Graimer

Graimer

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 08-October 04
  • Location: Norway
  • OS: Win8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 23 June 2013 - 20:24

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).



#156 Nilus

Nilus

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 09-March 13
  • Location: England

Posted 23 June 2013 - 20:51

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.



#157 slapfacemcdougal

slapfacemcdougal

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 12-March 13

Posted 23 June 2013 - 20:59

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.



#158 vcfan

vcfan

    POP POP RET

  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 23 June 2013 - 21:32

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.



#159 +Graimer

Graimer

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 08-October 04
  • Location: Norway
  • OS: Win8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 23 June 2013 - 21:54

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. ^^



#160 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 23 June 2013 - 22:28

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).



#161 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 23 June 2013 - 22:41

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.



#162 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 23 June 2013 - 22:52

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



#163 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 23 June 2013 - 23:52

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.



#164 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 23 June 2013 - 23:55

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?



#165 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 24 June 2013 - 00:34

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. 





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!