Jump to content



Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#166 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:28

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.




#167 Rodrigo

Rodrigo

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 24-May 03
  • Location: Mexico

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:54

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.



#168 Thief000

Thief000

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:51

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.



#169 compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:14

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.



#170 GotBored

GotBored

    Brain Trust

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 24-June 13
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:13

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.



#171 +FiB3R

FiB3R

    aka DARKFiB3R

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 06-November 02
  • Location: SE London
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise
  • Phone: Lumia 930

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:10

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

 

Screenshot_2013-06-24-11-39-03.png

 

Genuine question.



#172 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:20

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...



#173 +FiB3R

FiB3R

    aka DARKFiB3R

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 06-November 02
  • Location: SE London
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise
  • Phone: Lumia 930

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:42

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.

#174 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:52

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. 



#175 vcfan

vcfan

    Doing the Humpty Dance

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:04

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.



#176 Graimer

Graimer

    Neowinian

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:21

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 don't agree with you there. Only one player could play the game at the same time, and the owner would probably be able to kick the other player out if he wants to play the game himself. He's the owner of the game, so he wouldn't have to wait for his friend to quit. THAT + the ability to share with your friends(that the current owner doesn't know) is a reason why you would give the game away. So it wouldn't be useless to have both sharing and "giving away".



#177 +FiB3R

FiB3R

    aka DARKFiB3R

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 06-November 02
  • Location: SE London
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise
  • Phone: Lumia 930

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:22

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.


Sony are in all sorts of product markets, so that is more complicated to work out. Putting your profits back into the business, is standard/good practice after everybody gets their cut. I'm pretty sure everybody involved has been well paid.

As for pure game companies, I just don't see how they are struggling. At least according to that info-graphic.

#178 Graimer

Graimer

    Neowinian

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:25

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.

 

I guess his point was that "family sharing" wouldn't affect the publishers compared to how it works today. Today, publishers don't earn money from sharing or 2nd hand sales. Family sharing would be the same as physically sharing the disc. The fact that publishers would get some money from 2nd hand sales would actually make sure publishers get more money, while people are able to share the same way they have always done(only digital instead of physical). So they make more money, while the only limitation for consumers is that they can't sell on ebay.



#179 Zedox

Zedox

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:35

Sony are in all sorts of product markets, so that is more complicated to work out. Putting your profits back into the business, is standard/good practice after everybody gets their cut. I'm pretty sure everybody involved has been well paid.

As for pure game companies, I just don't see how they are struggling. At least according to that info-graphic.

 

And Microsoft isn't in all sorts of product markets???



#180 George P

George P

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location: Greece
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: HTC Windows Phone 8X

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:37

It should be clear that revenue does not mean profit.  Zynga is in there at $1.2billion and I remember a week or so ago that they're slashing like half of their workforce?  So what does that actually say?  I'd like to see a breakdown of profits and not just how much money they initially pulled in.