Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

49 posts in this topic

Apparently there is a reason for 40GB of data or else it wouldn't be the requirement, they don't just say "oh hey uh... yea 40GB looks good" they gain nothing from that. The high resolution textures and other data (sound etc.) are why the files are so huge. Really sucks my Xbox One will only have a 500GB HDD, unlike the PS4 that can be upgraded...

 

Yeah I'm sure they have their reasons. Shame nobody can see/hear them is what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Target today to take advantage of Target's current deal in buy 2 get one free in all games in stock (including the PS4 games that are starting to roll out on store shelves)... Yes I know this is the Xbox Threads, but I have a point...

When I got home and looked at the back of CoD: Ghost and KillZone:SF packaging... I noticed some astronomical numbers in the back. How high you say? Ghost has a minimum 49GB HDD Space, and KZ:SF has a minimum 45GB.. Talk about hogs on the ol' data caps most of our ISP's the world over have.

Which brings me to my point.

When Microsoft, first announced the Xbox One, they said all games would be digital (including those on disc) and the games would follow you.

I never thought this was so important, until now... Microsoft knew the limitations of the pipe in some parts of the world,and the data caps most people have from their IPS's...

Using the disc as a medium, to get your games played quicker and easier than downloading and using up your precious data (and more time consuming depending on your download speeds) was a genius idea on Microsoft's part.

I hope Microsoft finds a way to somewhat, find a happy medium...

For those with slow internet speeds, you may want to stick with physical copies of your next gen titles.

Especially if you have to wait till 50% or so, of the game to be installed before you can play them.

 

You are forced to install disc games still. I think if a friend brings over their disc game and installs it on your console, you can keep that install and just buy a digital license to play it. 

 

 

Its interesting that pc games have not moved to bluray discs at this point. 

 

They just keep chugging along using dvds and no one really cares.  For as much as games have grown in size, you would think there would be a huge push to adopt blurays for pc gaming.

 

 

Not surprising. Lots of PCs don't have blu-ray drives. They're basically only useful for videos so most don't see the point in buying one. I still have a SATA DVD drive that I've had for a while. In fact it's not even plugged in since I only have 8 SATA ports and 6 HDDs and 2 SSDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are forced to install disc games still. I think if a friend brings over their disc game and installs it on your console, you can keep that install and just buy a digital license to play it. 

 

 
 

 

Not surprising. Lots of PCs don't have blu-ray drives. They're basically only useful for videos so most don't see the point in buying one. I still have a SATA DVD drive that I've had for a while. In fact it's not even plugged in since I only have 8 SATA ports and 6 HDDs and 2 SSDs.

 

 

It says on the back of the package minimum required.  I'm gonna take that as a mandated installation.  But I do know on Xbox One, if a friend lets you borrow the game on disc, and you install it and they leave, all you have to do is go to the market and buy the license key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says on the back of the package minimum required.  I'm gonna take that as a mandated installation.  But I do know on Xbox One, if a friend lets you borrow the game on disc, and you install it and they leave, all you have to do is go to the market and buy the license key.

 

That is exactly what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME believe that the reason Microsoft scraped their entire policy, even the supposed positive ones, is because it was never as it seemed. Think about it, Microsoft has the more expensive and weaker console, so wouldn't any selling points that would have given them a leg in the race again been welcomed? Them why did they not implement the positive things and scrap the negative DRM parts?

 

Because it was never as it seemed. The family sharing plan for one was nothing more than glorified demo. Off course now that it is not "happening" Microsoft can claim that it was indeed not a 60 minute demo, because they can not be proven wrong. But do you honestly believe that publishers would have allowed 1 person to share a game with 10 other people for free? 10 people in a closed loop could buy 10 games for 500 dollars and share it between each other and save 4500 dollars. There is no way in hell that any publisher would have allowed that.

 

Sorry Mirosoft, but..

115242.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME believe that the reason Microsoft scraped their entire policy, even the supposed positive ones, is because it was never as it seemed. Think about it, Microsoft has the more expensive and weaker console, so wouldn't any selling points that would have given them a leg in the race again been welcomed? Them why did they not implement the positive things and scrap the negative DRM parts?

 

Because it was never as it seemed. The family sharing plan for one was nothing more than glorified demo. Off course now that it is not "happening" Microsoft can claim that it was indeed not a 60 minute demo, because they can not be proven wrong. But do you honestly believe that publishers would have allowed 1 person to share a game with 10 other people for free? 10 people in a closed loop could buy 10 games for 500 dollars and share it between each other and save 4500 dollars. There is no way in hell that any publisher would have allowed that.

 

Sorry Mirosoft, but..

115242.gif

 

 

uhhhhhhhhh... Ok... 

 

Ya feel better now that you got that out your system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME believe that the reason Microsoft scraped their entire policy, even the supposed positive ones, is because it was never as it seemed. Think about it, Microsoft has the more expensive and weaker console, so wouldn't any selling points that would have given them a leg in the race again been welcomed? Them why did they not implement the positive things and scrap the negative DRM parts?

 

Because it was never as it seemed. The family sharing plan for one was nothing more than glorified demo. Off course now that it is not "happening" Microsoft can claim that it was indeed not a 60 minute demo, because they can not be proven wrong. But do you honestly believe that publishers would have allowed 1 person to share a game with 10 other people for free? 10 people in a closed loop could buy 10 games for 500 dollars and share it between each other and save 4500 dollars. There is no way in hell that any publisher would have allowed that.

 

 

Its fun to speculate isn't it?

 

Some can believe a lot of things. 

 

Since it was never rolled out, we may never know.

 

However, that wont stop people from speculating based on what they think of MS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhhhhhhhh... Ok... 

 

Ya feel better now that you got that out your system?

 

Tots. Now don't tell me that you're one of those fellas that believed that the original DRM plan was in the best interest of gamers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME believe that the reason Microsoft scraped their entire policy, even the supposed positive ones, is because it was never as it seemed. Think about it, Microsoft has the more expensive and weaker console, so wouldn't any selling points that would have given them a leg in the race again been welcomed? Them why did they not implement the positive things and scrap the negative DRM parts?

 

Because it was never as it seemed. The family sharing plan for one was nothing more than glorified demo. Off course now that it is not "happening" Microsoft can claim that it was indeed not a 60 minute demo, because they can not be proven wrong. But do you honestly believe that publishers would have allowed 1 person to share a game with 10 other people for free? 10 people in a closed loop could buy 10 games for 500 dollars and share it between each other and save 4500 dollars. There is no way in hell that any publisher would have allowed that.

 

Sorry Mirosoft, but..

115242.gif

 

Exactly what I believe. In the middle of all that shitstorm after E3 they just kept quiet. If family sharing really was that awesome they would have said so. They just kept it EXTREMELY vague. It could easily be implemented for downloaded games but it wasn't. Why? Because if it really was a stupid demo or restricted version of the game then it would just give people more ammo against XB1. The big "feature" that was being given in exchange for the INSANE DRM policy was actually a load of crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tots. Now don't tell me that you're one of those fellas that believed that the original DRM plan was in the best interest of games?

 

Don't go there buddy lol :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tots. Now don't tell me that you're one of those fellas that believed that the original DRM plan was in the best interest of games?

 

 

There is actually a happy medium that does not involve touch retail games at all.

 

That means no 24hr check or messing with used games.

 

Let the user choose to buy a game digitally with the sharing features, or buy it at retail without.  Simple and it gives everyone what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fun to speculate isn't it?

 

Some can believe a lot of things. 

 

Since it was never rolled out, we may never know.

 

However, that wont stop people from speculating based on what they think of MS.

I have no negative opinion of Microsoft in general, although I completely disagreed with their draconian DRM. I bought Windows XP, 7 and 8 so there is really nothing to come after in terms of fanboys. I always primarily game on my PC so this is not a PS4 vs Xbox thing.

 

It is just my opinion of what transpired since E3. Tell me, do you honestly believe that publisher would have allowed the supposed Family plan to share ones games with 10 other people? And why did Microsoft scrap that plan if it indeed was real? I mean they can use all the help they can get since all the momentum is with Sony. Sincere question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tots. Now don't tell me that you're one of those fellas that believed that the original DRM plan was in the best interest of gamers?

 

 

My speculation doesn't matter..  There's then and now... and "Then" made it into existence to be compared to now.

 

Could of been a lie all along... could have been truth...  I'm a benefit of a doubt giver until proven otherwise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I believe. In the middle of all that ****storm after E3 they just kept quiet. If family sharing really was that awesome they would have said so. They just kept it EXTREMELY vague. It could easily be implemented for downloaded games but it wasn't. Why? Because if it really was a stupid demo or restricted version of the game then it would just give people more ammo against XB1. The big "feature" that was being given in exchange for the INSANE DRM policy was actually a load of crap?

 

 

Why is it that its assumed that MS' plan for drm was all about cutting off used games sales?

 

I mean seriously guys, I know its fun to hate MS and the first reaction is to not believe anything they say, but come on.

 

MS' mistake was to not separate the drm from retail titles. 

 

They extended it to retail titles which would have allowed us to install games to the console and then not need the disc again, plus allow it to get the digital sharing features just like digital titles.  Unfortunately, they went too far with the 24hr check and restricting used games.  They also didn't lay out the plans to us properly and coherently. It was a big screw up on their part.

 

So they rolled it back and said they were still interesting in bringing the sharing features back for digital titles. I think the lesson they learned is that most of us do not want them to touch retail titles.  We still want them to be freely used as they always have been,  We do not want to see them adopt a pc like system for retail games.

 

I really wish this topic would pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just my opinion of what transpired since E3. Tell me, do you honestly believe that publisher would have allowed the supposed Family plan to share ones games with 10 other people? And why did Microsoft scrap that plan if it indeed was real? I mean they can use all the help they can get since all the momentum is with Sony. Sincere question.

 

I have no idea what deal MS was working on with publishers.  I could imagine deals that could make them happy.  Plus, if publishers are so scared of used game sales, maybe the idea of features that bring more gamers to digital titles (which results in fewer used game sales) was reasonable.

 

Why did they scrap the plan?

 

They scrapped the plan because it was wholly rejected by the gaming community, gaming journalists, etc, etc.  Regardless of the features, the 24hr check and the used game restriction were simply not acceptable. So MS tried to convince people over the course of a few months and into E3.  They failed to do that and realized it was time to make the change.

 

They claim that they want to bring back the sharing features for digital titles as soon as they can.  That means a new system from scratch and probably also means they have to make a new deal with publishers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that its assumed that MS' plan for drm was all about cutting off used games sales?

 

I mean seriously guys, I know its fun to hate MS and the first reaction is to not believe anything they say, but come on.

 

MS' mistake was to not separate the drm from retail titles. 

 

They extended it to retail titles which would have allowed us to install games to the console and then not need the disc again, plus allow it to get the digital sharing features just like digital titles.  Unfortunately, they went too far with the 24hr check and restricting used games.  They also didn't lay out the plans to us properly and coherently. It was a big screw up on their part.

 

So they rolled it back and said they were still interesting in bringing the sharing features back for digital titles. I think the lesson they learned is that most of us do not want them to touch retail titles.  We still want them to be freely used as they always have been,  We do not want to see them adopt a pc like system for retail games.

 

I really wish this topic would pass. 

 

I'm not assuming that their plan was about cutting off used game sales, especially what they said they would allow users to trade games (though they didn't clarify ANYTHING about that!).

 

I'm saying that the family sharing was a load of crap and their 24 hour check in policy was terrible. If they had family sharing in place and publishers agreed, why would they remove it? It would be a HUGE selling point for the download versions of games. Download versions of games that now can no longer be traded which publishers would like MORE than when they could be. And the 24 hour check in was NOT necessary. All that was necessary for family sharing to work is for your console to be online WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO PLAY. If your console is not online then YOU can still play it, but not anyone else.

 

 

I have no idea what deal MS was working on with publishers.  I could imagine deals that could make them happy.  Plus, if publishers are so scared of used game sales, maybe the idea of features that bring more gamers to digital titles (which results in fewer used game sales) was reasonable.

 

Why did they scrap the plan?

 

They scrapped the plan because it was wholly rejected by the gaming community, gaming journalists, etc, etc.  Regardless of the features, the 24hr check and the used game restriction were simply not acceptable. So MS tried to convince people over the course of a few months and into E3.  They failed to do that and realized it was time to make the change.

 

They claim that they want to bring back the sharing features for digital titles as soon as they can.  That means a new system from scratch and probably also means they have to make a new deal with publishers.

 

 

Family sharing wasn't rejected by the community. The 24 hour check in and turning the retail discs into install files and digital licenses was. They didn't need 24 hour check in and they could have let discs function normally while making the download versions operate according to their original plan (BUT NO 24 HOUR CHECK IN!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not assuming that their plan was about cutting off used game sales, especially what they said they would allow users to trade games (though they didn't clarify ANYTHING about that!).

 

I'm saying that the family sharing was a load of crap and their 24 hour check in policy was terrible. If they had family sharing in place and publishers agreed, why would they remove it? It would be a HUGE selling point for the download versions of games. And the 24 hour check in was NOT necessary. All that was necessary for family sharing to work is for your console to be online WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO PLAY. If your console is not online then YOU can still play it, but not anyone else.

 

 

Why are you so convinced that the family sharing plan was a load of crap?

 

Maybe the reason they removed it was because it was tied to the other features being in place, including the drm stuff.  Perhaps publishers were adamant about what they wanted to see MS do to lock down the system and that once MS changed how licensing would work via removal of the drm, it resulted in that deal with publishers being dissolved.

 

So that meant whatever features they bring back now that are just tied to digital titles requires a new deal with publishers.

 

I agree that the 24hr check in was a mistake.  It was just going too far.  MS had to learn that the hard way, but maybe now we get the system we actually want to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think that the size you need on the disc doesn't equal the size you'll be downloading from them if you go digital. 

Guess we'll know in time.

 

I expect the downloads to be smaller. A big part of the blue ray is probably taken by lossless audio and/or HD videos. Yes lossless audio is great but compressed audio does the job just fine. The same goes for HD 1080 video versus 720p video.

 

I expect the dowloads to be between 15 and 30GB probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well consider the data detail with 1080p resolutions, textures get heavier and the data gets larger.

 

erm .. even 720p for that matter..  :huh:

 

PC games have been 1080p for a long time now and you can find very good looking one (better looking that next gen launch titles) for around 15-20GB. The difference is things are compressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so convinced that the family sharing plan was a load of crap?

 

Maybe the reason they removed it was because it was tied to the other features being in place, including the drm stuff.  Perhaps publishers were adamant about what they wanted to see MS do to lock down the system and that once MS changed how licensing would work via removal of the drm, it resulted in that deal with publishers being dissolved.

 

So that meant whatever features they bring back now that are just tied to digital titles requires a new deal with publishers.

 

I agree that the 24hr check in was a mistake.  It was just going too far.  MS had to learn that the hard way, but maybe now we get the system we actually want to use.

 

Because it makes the most sense that it was a load of crap. 

 

If publishers were OK with it for downloaded games then why are they no longer OK with it for downloaded games? And if they required a 24 hour check in to make sure the owner isn't playing it for someone else to play it then that could have been kept. Heck they could have even made it so that the owner's Xbox must ALWAYS be online for someone ELSE to play their game and it would've still been great. 

 

But it just makes no sense for publishers to allow users to digitally and easily share their games with 10 people with no restrictions on the games. There were rumors of the developers being able to know if the game was started via family share so they could disable features or impose a time limit. 

 

Think of the PS3. Originally you could download your content to five consoles that you had to have your profile logged in to. The publishers were NOT ok with that. They forced Sony to change it to 2. Now you think they'd be fine with letting people share their games with 10 people EASILY? Without giving people your username and password? 

 

Just use common sense. They kept it vague and publishers have a history of not allowing you to share your digital games. And why would they? They'd lose a lot of money. I know I had already talked to a few people as soon as they announced it. The conversation was always "if family sharing turns out to be legit, we can form a group of friends to buy just one copy of predominantly single-player games and share it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Family sharing wasn't rejected by the community. The 24 hour check in and turning the retail discs into install files and digital licenses was. They didn't need 24 hour check in and they could have let discs function normally while making the download versions operate according to their original plan (BUT NO 24 HOUR CHECK IN!)

 

I never said that family sharing was rejected.

 

What was rejected was part of the system that MS was using to make that possible.

 

MS created the wrong system, simple as that.  Neither you or I know why they made the system they way they did, but there you have it.

 

MS knows the family sharing thing was popular, that's why they want to bring it back.

 

 

Because it makes the most sense that it was a load of crap. 

 

If publishers were OK with it for downloaded games then why are they no longer OK with it for downloaded games? And if they required a 24 hour check in to make sure the owner isn't playing it for someone else to play it then that could have been kept. Heck they could have even made it so that the owner's Xbox must ALWAYS be online for someone ELSE to play their game and it would've still been great. 

 

But it just makes no sense for publishers to allow users to digitally and easily share their games with 10 people with no restrictions on the games. There were rumors of the developers being able to know if the game was started via family share so they could disable features or impose a time limit. 

 

Think of the PS3. Originally you could download your content to five consoles that you had to have your profile logged in to. The publishers were NOT ok with that. They forced Sony to change it to 2. Now you think they'd be fine with letting people share their games with 10 people EASILY? Without giving people your username and password? 

 

Just use common sense. They kept it vague and publishers have a history of not allowing you to share your digital games. And why would they? They'd lose a lot of money. I know I had already talked to a few people as soon as they announced it. The conversation was always "if family sharing turns out to be legit, we can form a group of friends to buy just one copy of predominantly single-player games and share it!"

 

 

I'm not sure what else there is to say.  A whole bunch of assumptions.

 

You could be right, I'm just trying to point out that there could have been some crappy red tape that prevented MS from removing the drm and still preserving the deal they had worked out with publishers to only apply it to digital titles.

 

Maybe publishers were more open to supporting the sharing features as long as retail titles were also tied into the system.  Like I said, they may have been tempted by the chance to curtail used game sales. 

 

So now they are apparently working to bring the features back just for digital titles.  That probably involves convincing publishers that its worth it to them to support it.

 

To be honest though, who cares at this point.  That system is gone and we will wait and see what they offer down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could still go back to the original idea by releasing boxed copies with a disc that can only be used for installation and package a code in the box that unlocks the digital copy of the game. This way you could avoid having to download a 50GB game, and you wouldn't have a second copy of the game that you can sell. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is stopping Microsoft or Sony from implementing a digital distribution system modelled on that of Steam, with games that can be redownloaded on any device as long as you're logged in. In fact it would be surprising if they didn't pursue that avenue. At the same time, games can still be sold on physical media as they have been. Those who aren't limited by slow internet connections and download caps will likely take advantage of digital distribution, especially if it allows them to preload games and be ready to play them on release from the comfort of their own home. Value can be added through pre-order bonuses and discounts.

 

The thing that most surprised me is that neither company is offering premium SKUs with enhanced storage. With next-gen titles taking 50GB of storage space the decision to include only 500GB of storage was a ridiculous one and will seriously inconvenience gamers who play a lot of different titles. One of the things I love about Steam is that I can keep all my games installed and not have to worry about juggling installs or frequent large downloads. My Steam folder is nearly 2TB in size and is constantly expanding. The constant disc juggling, large installs and storage management will be one of the great inconveniences of the next-generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is stopping Microsoft or Sony from implementing a digital distribution system modelled on that of Steam, with games that can be redownloaded on any device as long as you're logged in. In fact it would be surprising if they didn't pursue that avenue. At the same time, games can still be sold on physical media as they have been. Those who aren't limited by slow internet connections and download caps will likely take advantage of digital distribution, especially if it allows them to preload games and be ready to play them on release from the comfort of their own home. Value can be added through pre-order bonuses and discounts.

 

The thing that most surprised me is that neither company is offering premium SKUs with enhanced storage. With next-gen titles taking 50GB of storage space the decision to include only 500GB of storage was a ridiculous one and will seriously inconvenience gamers who play a lot of different titles. One of the things I love about Steam is that I can keep all my games installed and not have to worry about juggling installs or frequent large downloads. My Steam folder is nearly 2TB in size and is constantly expanding. The constant disc juggling, large installs and storage management will be one of the great inconveniences of the next-generation.

 

 

We can all agree that both Microsoft and Sony, had a "Get the box out the door" and go patch happy for next gen..

 

I think the distribution model will be upgraded for the better within the next 24months of the PS4 and One's life.  ISP's and their caps are a huge barrier that we the consumer know all too well..  So Microsoft and Sony both also have to recognize this as well

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.