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

[compl3x]

Based upon what though? They were clear the sharing was restricted to 10 people unlike the current ability to share your disc with as many people as you like.

 

Realistically, few people share 1 physical copy amongst 10 people. I don't even know if a single copy would be bought and resold that many times.

 

This system would be worse than the current reselling of used games that publishers decry, yet none of them seemed to mind MS doing it. That leads me to believe the system must have been heavily restricted and conditional. I've typed out what conditions or restrictions might apply. I cannot be bothered doing it again. Frankly this whole issue has made the Gaming Hangout a bore the last week or so.

[JonnyLH]

Realistically, few people share 1 physical copy amongst 10 people. I don't even know if a single copy would be bought and resold that many times.

This system would be worse than the current reselling of used games that publishers decry, yet none of them seemed to mind MS doing it. That leads me to believe the system must have been heavily restricted and conditional. I've typed out what conditions or restrictions might apply. I cannot be bothered doing it again. Frankly this whole issue has made the Gaming Hangout a bore the last week or so.

If you can only give that one game out to one person that once, then why is it any different to any use case of sharing a game disc of today? It just adds more convience for the consumer, which is the whole idea of the digital game library. Rather than passing a virtual copy, that person can just simply download it. There's still the official restrictions which were announced. The 30 day friend limit and that you only can pass it once. I don't see why its too hard to believe?

[compl3x]

So publishers would be totally cool with you sharing one copy with nine other people for only one retail sale :s?

[Yogurtmaster]

Realistically, few people share 1 physical copy amongst 10 people. I don't even know if a single copy would be bought and resold that many times.

 

This system would be worse than the current reselling of used games that publishers decry, yet none of them seemed to mind MS doing it. That leads me to believe the system must have been heavily restricted and conditional. I've typed out what conditions or restrictions might apply. I cannot be bothered doing it again. Frankly this whole issue has made the Gaming Hangout a bore the last week or so.

 

   I am sure there will be limitations of this for Digital Downloads.  Like for an example Publishers can opt out and also you can only have 2 people at once play the same game out of 10.  However, you can't do any of that right now with digital downloads.   This is a good thing to have in the future.  It has been confirmed via Major Nelson's podcast that it is coming back. There is nothing lost at all. 

 

   The feature is going to be re-added in the future.  I would guess next year, but that is just a guess. 

So publishers would be totally cool with you sharing one copy with nine other people for only one retail sale :s?

 

   I am sure Microsoft will have an opt-out process for them.  Let's not get all depressed without knowing the facts.

 

   I remember that there was an instance I would get angry at something that I received in the mail, but it was resolved in an error report instantly over the phone and all of that anger was for no reason at all. 

 

   Let's not jump to conclusions until we have ALL the facts.  Microsoft knows that people were angry about the DRM and they want  options, this was very clear to everyone. 

[compl3x]

 

 

   I am sure Microsoft will have an opt-out process for them.  Let's not get all depressed without knowing the facts.

 

   I remember that there was an instance I would get angry at something that I received in the mail, but it was resolved in an error report instantly over the phone and all of that anger was for no reason at all. 

 

   Let's not jump to conclusions until we have ALL the facts.  Microsoft knows that people were angry about the DRM and they want  options, this was very clear to everyone. 

 

I'm not getting angry, I am simply expressing my view based on the rationale that publishers wish to make money, and a sharing scheme that people think MS was going to offer was in stark contrast with that wish.

 

 

If the process was opt-in as you've suggested, what would encourage publishers to opt-in, exactly?

[-T- Member]

Realistically, few people share 1 physical copy amongst 10 people. I don't even know if a single copy would be bought and resold that many times.

This system would be worse than the current reselling of used games that publishers decry, yet none of them seemed to mind MS doing it. That leads me to believe the system must have been heavily restricted and conditional. I've typed out what conditions or restrictions might apply. I cannot be bothered doing it again. Frankly this whole issue has made the Gaming Hangout a bore the last week or so.

So because you can't understand it, it's not the way they said. For example I purchased Arkham City, and shared it with 8 different work colleagues, which took a while due to the physical media being passed around. You seem to think that other than convenience for users that there has to be a hidden agenda behind it.

*spelling corrected*

Edited June 23, 2013 by -T-

[compl3x]

So because you can't understand it, it's not the way they said. For example I purchased Arkham City, and shared it with 8 different work colleagues, which took a while due to the physical media being passed around. You seem to think that other than convenience for sees that there has to be a hidden agenda behind it.

 

Frankly, from that reply, I can't understand you.

 

My point is that publishers don't want us sharing games, they want us to buy them. MS's system would allow us to share games easier than before. Do you think publishers would have been just fine with that? No. But I didn't see them venting any outrage or concern at the system MS was proposing which leads me to believe the big publishers and MS had already hammered out a system which would ensure this sharing system was tightly controlled and conditional.

 

 

This isn't an issue of me not understanding, it is simply me being sceptical about this whole arrangement.

[Yogurtmaster]

I'm not getting angry, I am simply expressing my view based on the rationale that publishers wish to make money, and a sharing scheme that people think MS was going to offer was in stark contrast with that wish.

 

 

If the process was opt-in as you've suggested, what would encourage publishers to opt-in, exactly?

 

   Well, if there are some limits I don't think it would be such a bad thing.  I don't mean limits on time, I mean not being able to hand it out to so many people.   We will have to see.  You are asking questions we don't have answers for.  That is why I said wait for the facts.

 

   This is the entire problem.  I am speculating as are you, we don't really have the facts right?  So why speculate on something we are clueless about.  That is why I said don't jump to conclusions. 

 

   I think the only thing we know of right now is that it will be on Digital Downloads ONLY.  I am going to download the games instead of buying the disks.  I can instantly switch to those games without putting in a disk and I will have access to more features. I am fine with an all digital future just like I was fine with the Disk DRM.

[compl3x]

I think there is a difference between reasonable speculation based on a logical premise, and wishful thinking.

[Yogurtmaster]

I think there is a difference between reasonable speculation based on a logical premise, and wishful thinking.

 

  When you don't have all of the facts then "reasonable speculation" isn't reasonable as it's more like random guessing (i.e. completely useless). 

[vcfan]

So publishers would be totally cool with you sharing one copy with nine other people for only one retail sale :s?

 

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

[slapfacemcdougal]

It's not a compromise. It's lunacy. 

Oh here. Buy one copy lose 10 sales.

[George P Global Moderator]

You wouldn't be losing sales, not really, because there would be a limit on how many of the 10 could use the feature at the same time.  I bet it was limited to you, the original owner and creature of the group, and 1 other of the 10 friends playing the library at the same time.  That means the other 9 had to wait their turn.  It'd be the same as you having to lend out your disc to 10 friends, they'd still have to wait in order as one finished and passed the disc on.   That is the limit and I also bet that if you became a member of one persons "family" you couldn't join a 2nd or make your own etc.  That would further limit it and keep any through of abuse in check.

 

The main idea behind this sounded to me, from the start, that it was a way to "lend" games without the need to pass a disc around from one person to the next.

[BajiRav]

It's not a compromise. It's lunacy.

Oh here. Buy one copy lose 10 sales.

Which is not any different from current used discs from what I understand. There have been a number of developers commenting sales vs. unique gamer tags playing their games.

I would be happy to have a system even if limited (only x shares per game or allowed only for "older" games)

[Thief000]

Okay. I have a ton of information to share around the Family Sharing plan, what it used to be and what it will become. All I can say is that I'm an independant developer using Azure and I have this from an another Azure developer working on the Xbox Live side of things in the Netherlands so take this however you want. If you believe me or not, I won't care, I'm not under any NDA.

 

The way it was:

The way the Xbox One was setup, was around its WoL and all its effectively digitally purchased games. If your system was shut down, then after 24 hours it would do a check in on XBL to verify if the system, the installed software, the licenses and shares were uptodate and update both those and the cloud where necessary. If a person had a confirmation of a shared game on his system that was owned by another person, (s)he could play that game disconnected until the next check in after another 24 hours. If all those 10 people were connected to the internet, it would still be limited to 1 person at any given time.

So yes, with the previous online DRM scheme you could indeed let 10 people play a game simultaneously as long as they were disconnected and had that game completely on their system for up to 24 hours. After those 24 hours, the game would go into a frozen state or not let you start it up. Microsoft were not lying AT ALL when they said people would get creative with this.

 

Now the way it will be:

The amount of people playing one licensed game concurrently will be cut down from 10 to 2 and it will indeed be for digitally purchased games only (unless a publisher chooses to go with the license key option, which is still open to them). Everyone playing a shared game will need to be connected at all times when playing that game. When the connection is terminated, the game will go into a freeze and can continue to be played when that connection is reestablished (you can multitask whenever that game is in a frozen saved state). The game's official owner will still be able to play his game concurrently, but only if he is disconnected. When (s)he connects the person playing the shared game will be frozen as well.

Family Sharing will very likely be implemented either at launch or shortly thereafter as it requires quite an amount of work to change from the way it was.

 

That is all.

[FiB3R]

/snip

source?

[Thief000]

Do you really expect me to betray a friend? I won't, so good luck with that.

[FiB3R]

Did you really think that I had any idea that the source was a friend of yours? And that his identity was to be kept secret? He does state that he's not under any NDA.

[Woelfel]

source?

 

He clearly said: "All I can say is that I'm an independant developer using Azure and I have this from an another Azure developer working on the Xbox Live side of things in the Netherlands so take this however you want."

 

Meaning he won't betray the dude who gave him that information.

 

EDIT: Thief said that HE is not under NDA...I'm pretty sure the other guy is.

[vcfan]

It's not a compromise. It's lunacy. 

Oh here. Buy one copy lose 10 sales.

 

 

how is that any different than say, me and 4 of my friends buying 2 copies of different games each. every 2 weeks, we swap discs in order. in the end,we each only paid for 2 games, but played 10. there is no difference other than convenience because of the digital aspect of it,which does make it easier and better to share, but at the same time, the drm implemented prevents second hand sales that result in no extra compensation to the publisher. it absolutely makes sense.

[FiB3R]

Like I said, I didn't realise this was a friend of his, or a direct message sent to him. I mean how cold anybody come to that conclusion? It was not stated. I was quite reasonably expecting it to have been posted on another site, or even another anonymous pastebin.

I'm starting to think it's ###### anyway. Who would start a personal email to a friend with a disclaimer like that?

[MikeChipshop Member]

Do you really expect me to betray a friend? I won't, so good luck with that.

 

Loosely translated as "BulSh**"

 

I note, no reply from those gloating earlier in the thread.

Always quick to believe the FUD but never quick to accept they're wrong

 

Audioboxer starts these threads, gets proven wrong and has no comeback, thus vanishes. Not a new concept apparently, just view his other crap Xbox bashing threads, why this guy hasn't been warned as a PS troll i'll never know.

[ctrl_alt_delete]

Loosely translated as "BulSh**"

 

 

Audioboxer starts these threads, gets proven wrong and has no comeback, thus vanishes. Not a new concept apparently, just view his other crap Xbox bashing threads, why this guy hasn't been warned as a PS troll i'll never know.

So true

[slapfacemcdougal]

how is that any different than say, me and 4 of my friends buying 2 copies of different games each. every 2 weeks, we swap discs in order. in the end,we each only paid for 2 games, but played 10. there is no difference other than convenience because of the digital aspect of it,which does make it easier and better to share, but at the same time, the drm implemented prevents second hand sales that result in no extra compensation to the publisher. it absolutely makes sense.

 

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.

[-T- Member]

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.

Call of duty makes money from DLC and "season passes" as do most games these days. I'd assume the family game sharing would cover the single player parts of games more than multiplayer. Which would also account for the single online user part, if someone using a shared copy for multiplayer, you'd have to assume they could just buy the DLC and therefore give money to the publisher. Again it's no different to right now, giving your discs to multiple friends, just easier