Microsoft: Xbox One family game share was never time limited

Earlier this week, after Microsoft killed their family Xbox One game share plan due to DRM changes, an alleged Microsoft employee used Pastebin to claim that the games shared through the plan would be limited to 60 minutes of game time. Since that piece of information was 'revealed', Aaron Greenberg of the Xbox team has come out and basically said that the claim on Pastebin was false.

It's not entirely surprisingly to learn that a completely unsourced statement from a "Microsoft employee" turns out to be false, but in the long run it doesn't really matter anyway: the game sharing feature has been killed, and likely won't return any time soon.

Image via Kotaku | Thanks for the tip, Elmer!

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft launches Windows Store Partner Directory website

Next Story

Windows 8.1 build 9428 unexcitingly spotted

151 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Angry Gamers: WELLS ALL MICROSOFT HAD TO DO WAS EXPLAIN IT CLEARLY...
MS: WE EXPLAINED IT CLEAR AS DAY... YOU WERE TOO BUSY FOAMING AT THE MOUTH OVER DRM, THAT YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO LISTEN
Angry Gamers: WELL, THERE HAS TO BE A WAY FOR THOSE IDIOTS AT MICROSOFT, TO BRING IT BACK
MS: TOO LATE... YOU WANTED THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD... YOU GOT IT....
ANGRY GAMERS: MICROSOFT IS SO STUPID, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR DOING...

Edited by Showan, Jun 23 2013, 12:40am :

Microsoft should have released two versions of XBOX One to make everyone shut up. One with DRM and one without DRM so that consumers would have an option. However, DRM is not effective against piracy anymore. EA's Simcity 2013 has DRM restrictions but it didn't take gamers too long to bypass that DRM restrictions. It's all over the torrent websites...

I get too what you're saying, but I disagree, iOS, Android and Steam are NOT the same as the DRM Microsoft intended...

Its the same idea maybe, but faaar from being the same execution. For one, with those you can put your account, and therefore access to ALL your bought apps, music, films and books, in unlimited number of devices.

You can even access and download the apps from devices other than yours (maybe a borrowed android or ipad) and its condoned by the companies and completely legal as long as its for your personal use. Minimal hassles, just login with username and password, and then download.


And for most people, whether we like it or not, even this is harder than rocket science.

If this scheme of Microsoft was so 'simple' and 'easy' to grasp, none of this discussion would be necessary.

Steam (which, for the record, is less strict than what Microsoft had in mind) is for the 'upper-average' computer user. It is not that easy for everyone to use (I'm the unofficial IT director of my family-friend-workplace and also third parties so I have a pretty good idea of this). It's convenient, yes. But it's NOT for everyone. Anyone can have access to it sure, but that does not mean they should or can.

Consoles are made to be simpler, not more complicated. Nobody in this market segment questions anything until they run into trouble. And this DRM of Microsoft was too needlessly complicated for the average console user.

I thought the DRM was a good idea, in that it was good for protecting their interests, but with all the backlash from so many people, they realized they did not have the resources to field EVERY question from EVERY user once the console is launched.

This kind of DRM is NOT for this target market. Perfect for Steam, yes, perfectly BAD for this one, definitely.

Also please think of the soldiers and other people with no working or reliable internet overseas. This scheme was dead before it hit the ground.

jhpadilla said,
If this scheme of Microsoft was so 'simple' and 'easy' to grasp, none of this discussion would be necessary.

Steam (which, for the record, is less strict than what Microsoft had in mind) is for the 'upper-average' computer user. It is not that easy for everyone to use (I'm the unofficial IT director of my family-friend-workplace and also third parties so I have a pretty good idea of this). It's convenient, yes. But it's NOT for everyone. Anyone can have access to it sure, but that does not mean they should or can.

Consoles are made to be simpler, not more complicated. Nobody in this market segment questions anything until they run into trouble. And this DRM of Microsoft was too needlessly complicated for the average console user.

I thought the DRM was a good idea, in that it was good for protecting their interests, but with all the backlash from so many people, they realized they did not have the resources to field EVERY question from EVERY user once the console is launched.

This kind of DRM is NOT for this target market. Perfect for Steam, yes, perfectly BAD for this one, definitely.

Also please think of the soldiers and other people with no working or reliable internet overseas. This scheme was dead before it hit the ground.

I kinda get what your saying.. But at the same time...
If this is too complicated, then people should not use iOS, Android, Steam, etc.., because it's the same as those, but your allowed to share...

That's not rocket science...

That's beauty...

Ok.. so No we had not thought about time limiting the family share but thanks for giving us this brilliant consumer screwing idea as we will try to pull this crap up with next console.

I really struggle to understand why people are having a problem figuring this out. It would have been just like sharing a disc with so done, only instantly as they would not require the actual disc. Only one person would be able to play at a time, you know just like it would be if someone borrowed your disc.

Those saying it would kill single player games are immensely hard of thinking as there are still single player games now and there's nothing preventing me sharing my disc with as many folk as I like.

Yet again, thanks for ruining the Xbox One you whining imbeciles

-T- said,
I really struggle to understand why people are having a problem figuring this out. It would have been just like sharing a disc with so done, only instantly as they would not require the actual disc. Only one person would be able to play at a time, you know just like it would be if someone borrowed your disc.

Those saying it would kill single player games are immensely hard of thinking as there are still single player games now and there's nothing preventing me sharing my disc with as many folk as I like.

Yet again, thanks for ruining the Xbox One you whining imbeciles


Thank you... I swear,... Is everyone just on slow motion with comprehending this...

But you got people, who work at IGN, Kotaku, Joystiq, who could not. Omprehend something so simple....
And we rely on them for information.,,???...sad...

-T- said,
I really struggle to understand why people are having a problem figuring this out. It would have been just like sharing a disc with so done, only instantly as they would not require the actual disc. Only one person would be able to play at a time, you know just like it would be if someone borrowed your disc.

Those saying it would kill single player games are immensely hard of thinking as there are still single player games now and there's nothing preventing me sharing my disc with as many folk as I like.

Yet again, thanks for ruining the Xbox One you whining imbeciles

exactly, its the same freakin thing, but more convenient because..... its digital. that was the whole point of having to check in everyday,you know,so your licenses can sync up.

: Internet is THE KILLER APP. And your ISP, may be preventing Microsoft from showing you why. Xbox One, being held back, not by DRM, but By your ISP...

It seems a lot of people never understood the family plan. Say I have 3 "family" members and I bought a game. Me and one other person could play the game at the same time, but SINGLE player only. The multiplayer would require separate licenses. The third person would not be able to play the game we are playing, but could play any other.

Multiplayer would be blocked from family sharing by most games and your individual gamer tag would need a license.

Getting tired of people saying MS has a confused message when it comes to rumors.

Bunch of stupid rumors come out paste on anon pastebin posts, MS makes statement to clear them up

People say MS needs to get their crap together.

MS did not start and had nothing to do with these rumors people.

Of course Microsoft wont reveal the limitations now when the feature is abandoned. They want to play the martyr role.

People who think it would have been free digital game sharing without any limitations aren't thinking unbiased or logical. This especially after Microsoft planned to shut down the open second hand physical market to appease game publishers. Why would they open an even bigger digital hole for publishers to supposedly loose money? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course there would be some kind of limitation, but it's not a demo. That's the whole point here. People were saying you'd only be playing a demo and it was pointless. Well, that's not the case. There would have been something to prevent piracy.

scaryrobots said,
Of course there would be some kind of limitation, but it's not a demo. That's the whole point here.

We probably wont get to know every detail now that it is abandoned. I'm sure it was pretty good, and should have been marketed more by MS. People can understand "we don't get this, but do get this instead" if it's properly communicated. MS made a large mess of it though, from the first TV/Sports press conference and later unclear information.

Buio said,

We probably wont get to know every detail now that it is abandoned. I'm sure it was pretty good, and should have been marketed more by MS. People can understand "we don't get this, but do get this instead" if it's properly communicated. MS made a large mess of it though, from the first TV/Sports press conference and later unclear information.

I'm pretty sure it's not abandoned.

Everybody lost.
That's the final outcome of one of the most stupid misunderstanding of the game industry.

Thanks to all of you, uninformed, childish and m0ron gamers who yelled before actually know.

TheCyberKnight said,
And thanks to you Microsoft for mishandling this like few of us had the chance to see in the recent gadgets history.


Stop pointing fingers for lack of understanding..l

I got ipwhat they were tryin to say right away...

look at the sony fanboys still in disbelief because this feature was the ultimate killer feature. I cant wait until Microsoft brings this back.

the tech press has been exposed for being the trolls that they are. after Microsoft axed the online drm, now all of a sudden its the greatest feature in the world. blame yourselves you pathetic losers.

And look at the Microsoft fanboys still thinking that this has anything to due with the Sony fanboys even though Microsoft said that they listened to feedback FROM THE XBOX COMMUNITY!

As I've mentioned before, Microsoft isn't bringing the start button back in Windows 8.1 because of a bunch of OS X and Linux fanboys, so why would they ax their plans to please Sony fanboys who aren't going to buy the Xbox One anyway?

Microsoft is to blame here, sorry. I know that you worship at their feet and that they can do no wrong, but they could have been, "stubborn," and moved forward with their plans to show the value, while also delivering a clear message along the way as to what they were doing and how it worked. But no. They had no back up plan, so they axed everything until they could come up with a new approach.

omgben said,
And look at the Microsoft fanboys still thinking that this has anything to due with the Sony fanboys even though Microsoft said that they listened to feedback FROM THE XBOX COMMUNITY!

As I've mentioned before, Microsoft isn't bringing the start button back in Windows 8.1 because of a bunch of OS X and Linux fanboys, so why would they ax their plans to please Sony fanboys who aren't going to buy the Xbox One anyway?

Microsoft is to blame here, sorry. I know that you worship at their feet and that they can do no wrong, but they could have been, "stubborn," and moved forward with their plans to show the value, while also delivering a clear message along the way as to what they were doing and how it worked. But no. They had no back up plan, so they axed everything until they could come up with a new approach.

So the guy liked the feature and this means he worships at the feet of MS? I too liked the feature and it's a shame it's been killed early, i'm by no means an Xbox fan boy, i owned both consoles BUT people like you are basically just chatting any old rubbish.

Microsoft has been doing console gaming right from the beginning...
because of Microsoft we got these great things in consoles..

Microsoft is the reason we got:

Hard drives on consoles
Xbox live
Headset to chat
Beacons
Join game with press of button
Party chat
Cross game chat
Live Marketplace
Xbox summer of arcade

People say don't trust Microsoft when so far all they have done is innovate (in the console market at least)...

Xbox live is the reason:
PSN exist
PS store exist
Trophies exist
Other apps besides gaming exist.
Sony Summer sale


Microsoft has pioneered console gaming for the better since it started with the OG Xbox...

Now because of Microsoft, we "The Gamer" expect those things to be a given

You may not like that truth above, but it's the truth...

Think I'm being a fanboy try again (I own 2 ps3's) my tag: showeezee friend me to prove it...
Also own 1 Xbox 360 (diezel78)....

Showan said,
Microsoft has been doing console gaming right from the beginning...
because of Microsoft we got these great things in consoles..

Microsoft is the reason we got:

Hard drives on consoles
Xbox live
Headset to chat
Beacons
Join game with press of button
Party chat
Cross game chat
Live Marketplace
Xbox summer of arcade

People say don't trust Microsoft when so far all they have done is innovate (in the console market at least)...

Xbox live is the reason:
PSN exist
PS store exist
Trophies exist
Other apps besides gaming exist.
Sony Summer sale


Microsoft has pioneered console gaming for the better since it started with the OG Xbox...

Now because of Microsoft, we "The Gamer" expect those things to be a given

You may not like that truth above, but it's the truth...

Think I'm being a fanboy try again (I own 2 ps3's) my tag: showeezee friend me to prove it...
Also own 1 Xbox 360 (diezel78)....


... All that was just brought to consoles, some features were already started on the console, but all of them were on the PC way before they got special names like paydoronlineplay live, and pay us money to do matchmaking and group chat over ventril... Xbox live.

SierraSonic said,

... All that was just brought to consoles, some features were already started on the console, but all of them were on the PC way before they got special names like paydoronlineplay live, and pay us money to do matchmaking and group chat over ventril... Xbox live.

That's partially true... Yes PC has had these features for awhile... Xbox live is 1 Central world for everything... Playing for multi player sucks... Sure it does...
Does infrastructure pay for itself???

Is WoW free???

SierraSonic said,

... All that was just brought to consoles, some features were already started on the console, but all of them were on the PC way before they got special names like paydoronlineplay live, and pay us money to do matchmaking and group chat over ventril... Xbox live.


That's partially true... PC has had these features in place... But PC did not have it in one central world that is Xbox Live...
I don't want to pay for multi player... Who does???
But since when is infrastructure free???...

Free to play games exist... Sure... But you ever notice they don't last long, when those willing to pay micro-tranactions disappear...

Showan said,


That's partially true... PC has had these features in place... But PC did not have it in one central world that is Xbox Live...
I don't want to pay for multi player... Who does???
But since when is infrastructure free???...

Free to play games exist... Sure... But you ever notice they don't last long, when those willing to pay micro-tranactions disappear...

I'm still playing half-life online for free, even some old quake games... You realize that older games had direct connection settings for when the master servers went down? What the new system is basically a form of control for when their servers shut down we get NO chance at playing online anymore.

Basically this, I am playing PC games from well before the Xbox 1 (not One), came out, can you play any Xbox 1 games online today? How long before you lose access to your 360 games? Also before you say Steam is the same thing, I'll post this: http://forums.steampowered.com...s/showthread.php?p=28246752

"Gabe has already stated in the past that some sort of patch would be released to remove Steam authentication.

Although at this stage you could say that Steam has become too large to go under. If Valve ever ran into difficulty (not going to happen) then I am sure another company would be interested in taking Steam onboard alongside its users."

Is it just me with my tinfoil hat, but are these new messages brought into the world some setup plan to discredit MS more on what happened?

We've read the stuff over and over, and still these lies (yes... they are) are spread and picked up by people who just don't read properly and have their facts straight.

I do hope this feature will return, even if it means 24 hour checkins. It would have been great to share all digital games between family consoles between houses.

For now a small but vocal group has spread lots of FUD, and MS only possible repsons was to step back and remove all new features. I had te rectify a friend of mine yesterday, as he was completely wrong and angry on MS. After I explained him te facts and showed the stuff on the MS site, he calmed down and also thought this was the way to go forward.

Another soul saved.... ;-)

Well if I was EA or another large developer I would be telling Microsoft if they gave away 10 free copies of my games I would not make any XBone games.

I suspect developer disquiet did more to change Microsofts plans than any consumer feedback.

I also doubt the 10 friends ability was or is as good as most seem to think, logic dictates that no company would want to give away so much for free.

Depicus said,
Well if I was EA or another large developer I would be telling Microsoft if they gave away 10 free copies of my games I would not make any XBone games.

I suspect developer disquiet did more to change Microsofts plans than any consumer feedback.

I also doubt the 10 friends ability was or is as good as most seem to think, logic dictates that no company would want to give away so much for free.

How is it 10free copies when only the owner and 1 other person can play, said game at the same time...???

People really don't think...

If I lent you a physical copy of say Halo, guess who's playing it?? Only you... Not 10... Not even me the owner, because the game is not at my place to play it...

A perfect example for me... A lent a friend of mines Kingdoms of Amular on the 360... He moved pretty far from me to live closer to his relatives... Guess what??
My game is gone... Sure he could mail it back... But digital sharing, would of been so much better, because I can take it back whenever I felt like it, on a system level...

What are you on about? When did Microsoft say that they were giving 10 free copies?? Its just 1 copy and that's the person who buys the game and he can share his game with 10 family members just like how it is today with the discs but Ms was making it more convenient than sharing a disc.

And all 10 members part of your family group couldn't play the same game at the same time or one game could be played by the buyer + one family member at the same time(I'm not quite clear on this bit)

So I can't see why developers would be unhappy with his when it works exactly as sharing a game disc today and also pushing gaming digitally with benefits for consumers.

Depicus said,
Well if I was EA or another large developer I would be telling Microsoft if they gave away 10 free copies of my games I would not make any XBone games.

I suspect developer disquiet did more to change Microsofts plans than any consumer feedback.

I also doubt the 10 friends ability was or is as good as most seem to think, logic dictates that no company would want to give away so much for free.

If I were MS and a dev told me that I'd tell them they were an idiot for having no understanding of how the program works.

The 99% use case for this would be someone playing a game they weren't going to buy in the first place. This would turn out to be good in that a person who plays a shared game and likes it might buy it because either they feel they should, or they keep being blocked from playing it because someone else it.

The idea that this opens the floodgates to people just playing shared games is ludicrous. Everyone would just start getting locked out because others are playing the game they want to play.

spenser.d said,

If I were MS and a dev told me that I'd tell them they were an idiot for having no understanding of how the program works.

You/Microsoft can say whatever you want but any developer is never going to want their work shared, why would you want less people to buy your game. If it's true that there were no time restrictions then why would I as a gamer buy if I can play a friends game ?

This is unlike disc sharing where developers were already trying to restrict such access with online passes why do you thing the very same developers would be happy about digitally sharing with 10 people.

By your logic developers shouldn't allow used games either as that massively affects them and the only one profiting from that is GameStop etc

In family sharing there are chances that none of your friends would buy a game you like and with Microsoft's old policies even if a consumer bought a used game the devs would profit from it and not entirely GameStop.

Depicus said,

You/Microsoft can say whatever you want but any developer is never going to want their work shared, why would you want less people to buy your game. If it's true that there were no time restrictions then why would I as a gamer buy if I can play a friends game ?

This is unlike disc sharing where developers were already trying to restrict such access with online passes why do you thing the very same developers would be happy about digitally sharing with 10 people.

You would buy it because you can't play it if someone else is playing it, and if it's a popular game, that's liable to happen quite a bit. As I said, your idea of what this program would end up being is ludicrous.

Elmer.Fernandes said,
By your logic developers shouldn't allow used games either as that massively affects them and the only one profiting from that is GameStop etc

In family sharing there are chances that none of your friends would buy a game you like and with Microsoft's old policies even if a consumer bought a used game the devs would profit from it and not entirely GameStop.

Do you not see this is exactly what developers would like to do. My copy of BF3 is virtually worthless for resale because it has no multi player unless the person buys a new unlock code.

I would have loved the idea of sharing games but I really don't understand on what planet you thought this was ever going to be greeted by developers as a positive step. Now if you look at the comments above the system of checks every 1h or 24hs was well explained and there is no reason Microsoft could have not tried to explain a bit better or even allowed you to turn off the check but at the same time turn off sharing.

Ludicrous as it may sound developers/publishers want to make as much money as possible.

Depicus said,

You/Microsoft can say whatever you want but any developer is never going to want their work shared,

Of all the crap thrown at MS by developers in the last month, not one of them had a complaint against family sharing and you know why? They get it and you clearly don;t have a clue.

Mikeffer said,

Of all the crap thrown at MS by developers in the last month, not one of them had a complaint against family sharing and you know why? They get it and you clearly don;t have a clue.

Try growing up a bit and think for a minute. So you think Microsoft changed their mind because of user feedback, I think it had more to do with developer feedback. You are aware that top company executives can have conversations without them being broadcast on the internet, I might be wrong but so might you. It's what we in the grown up world call an opinion but as we could both be wrong you are as clueless as I am.

Jebus Neowin is full of MS fanboys. Logic and reason you have none.

Do you know how they could remove any doubt about what this feature was? Clearly explain it.

Yet they're not doing that, why? The most logical reason would be because there was some kind of limitation and it would've been even more bad PR for them.

They did explain it and it was quite clear. Why would they bother to explain it more detailed now when it's removed? It's like saying that the Camaro cars are being discontinued, and then say that the next edition would have 1000bhp!

Could you link to where they clearly explained it and didn't just state that "you can buy one copy of a game and 10 of your friends won't need to buy a copy to play".

That's hardly being clear, more like leaving things out because it sounds too good to be true (and again, the publishers would not agree to something like that without restrictions).

Twisp said,
Could you link to where they clearly explained it and didn't just state that "you can buy one copy of a game and 10 of your friends won't need to buy a copy to play".

That's hardly being clear, more like leaving things out because it sounds too good to be true (and again, the publishers would not agree to something like that without restrictions).

Why is it hard to understand this concept. Lets put it this way, what makes more sense: one copy and ten people can play the same game at the time, or one copy and only one of those ten people can play it. Think about it, its really easy. One of them ensues the backlash from the publishers, the other doesnt. Im also pretty sure MS wont be promoting a _legalized_ variant of piracy.

Nope, that still sounds too good too be true. One copy for 10 people isn't remotely plausible when Sony isn't allowed more than 2. Not to mention that there's nothing stopping MS from still implementing this hence there's no real reason it got pulled if what you're claiming is true. Oh and kindly provide an official source for that info.

People are making a lot of claims about this feature yet none of you can back it up with real info (because there are none thanks to MS bad handling of it all). And now when they've pulled the feature they can claim whatever they want to score some nice PR points because no one can prove them wrong.

Common sense is lacking in this one. And please reread my reply. 10 people but ONLY ONE OF THEM HAS THE SAME GAME ACTIVE. I have an xbox, bro has another one. We live on different states, different homes. I buy Fifa 15, share it with him. He plays it more then me. But after work, i usually tend to go home a do a match or two to chill, but probably I will find my bro playing. I can either wait for him to finish, or, start the game, which in turn sends a message to my bro that his instance is going to shutdown soon (preferably after his match finishes) so that I can play my match. This is how I think it would have been implemented. It makes sense to me this way. Its exactly like giving my disc to my bro, but easier, and without discs involved. Nonetheless, this is just speculation, im just hoping MS reintroduces this in the future, even if just for downloaded games.

Why would i need to reread it? It means 10 people, no matter their location, could have access to one copy of a game with the push of a button. Do you not see a problem with this?

Why would publishers who are so keen on limiting used sales be ok with something like what you're suggesting? It would be considerably worse for them than the whole used games problem (note; not really a problem, publishers are just cocks).

Twisp said,
Why would i need to reread it? It means 10 people, no matter their location, could have access to one copy of a game with the push of a button. Do you not see a problem with this?

Why would publishers who are so keen on limiting used sales be ok with something like what you're suggesting? It would be considerably worse for them than the whole used games problem (note; not really a problem, publishers are just cocks).

i see your point, but i wouldnt compare used games with sharing. Used games is a sale the publishers have lost. In this gen, i would simply have to supply my credentials to my relative and the publishers wont even notice that i am actually sharing my game between two or more people. Its not a lost sale because there never existed another sale.

Twisp said,
Jebus Neowin is full of MS fanboys. Logic and reason you have none.

Do you know how they could remove any doubt about what this feature was? Clearly explain it.

Yet they're not doing that, why? The most logical reason would be because there was some kind of limitation and it would've been even more bad PR for them.

It was as clear as day, just because you can't fathom the concept doesn't mean the rest of us couldn't.

Mikeffer said,

It was as clear as day, just because you can't fathom the concept doesn't mean the rest of us couldn't.

Source to where it's clearly explained, please. Preferably in an interview where someone is actually asking relevant questions and not just some dubious PR statement.

If you can not provide this then it's speculation which is entirely different to actual facts.

georgevella said,
i see your point, but i wouldnt compare used games with sharing. Used games is a sale the publishers have lost. In this gen, i would simply have to supply my credentials to my relative and the publishers wont even notice that i am actually sharing my game between two or more people. Its not a lost sale because there never existed another sale.

So you're saying it's like piracy except only one person can play at a time?

Singleplayer games would basically die because there'd be no incentive for anyone to buy them if you can just have one copy and share it with 10 of your friends.

Why should someone have to buy two, three, four copies for his family. I am pretty sure i only have single copies of the games me and my bro play. This is current gen sharing. What MS proposed was a similar much more easier system involving no discs. We already know there was no timelimit - so probably the only limit was one instance at a time.

Piracy would be 10 players 10 active instances, one sale. 10 gamers, 1 active instance, 1 sale => pretty damn good future if we ever get to see it.

Either way, both of us have nothing to base our arguments on except speculations. I think i delivered all my points on this topic. Nice arguing with you

Twisp said,

So you're saying it's like piracy except only one person can play at a time?

Singleplayer games would basically die because there'd be no incentive for anyone to buy them if you can just have one copy and share it with 10 of your friends.

Twisp said,
Nope, that still sounds too good too be true. One copy for 10 people isn't remotely plausible when Sony isn't allowed more than 2. Not to mention that there's nothing stopping MS from still implementing this hence there's no real reason it got pulled if what you're claiming is true. Oh and kindly provide an official source for that info.

People are making a lot of claims about this feature yet none of you can back it up with real info (because there are none thanks to MS bad handling of it all). And now when they've pulled the feature they can claim whatever they want to score some nice PR points because no one can prove them wrong.


THAT'S WHAT THE DRM WAS FOR! To make sure ONLY ONE PLAYER COULD USE A SPECIFIC GAME AT A SPECIFIC TIME. They explained it by saying it would work just like borrowing a game today, only it's digital. If you have 1 game, can you give it to 10 people at the same time? NO. You can give it to ONE. That's why there was a 1 hour check(for friends) and 24hour check for you, to make sure only ONE played a SPECIFIC game at the SAME time. The ten people part is just that you could make a TEN PEOPLE GROUP ( "family" ) that you were able to share digital with. You could share with UP TO TEN people, ONLY. And only ONE AT A TIME for a specific game.

Please get some common sense before replying, you're making a big deal out of a simple concept.

georgevella said,
Why should someone have to buy two, three, four copies for his family. I am pretty sure i only have single copies of the games me and my bro play. This is current gen sharing. What MS proposed was a similar much more easier system involving no discs. We already know there was no timelimit - so probably the only limit was one instance at a time.

Piracy would be 10 players 10 active instances, one sale. 10 gamers, 1 active instance, 1 sale => pretty damn good future if we ever get to see it.

Either way, both of us have nothing to base our arguments on except speculations. I think i delivered all my points on this topic. Nice arguing with you

Exactly, we do not know anything about how this feature would've worked. However looking at it logically if they scrapped it even if they didn't have to (i mean really, what prevents them from still including it?) then it probably wasn't as good as they made it out to be.

To put it in another way, this was the XB1's only saving grace from all the bad PR they were receiving hence they hyped it up to heaven. MS then scrapped it because they knew it wouldn't live up to what they were saying about it and it would've meant even more bad PR.

Graimer said,

THAT'S WHAT THE DRM WAS FOR! To make sure ONLY ONE PLAYER COULD USE A SPECIFIC GAME AT A SPECIFIC TIME. They explained it by saying it would work just like borrowing a game today, only it's digital. If you have 1 game, can you give it to 10 people at the same time? NO. You can give it to ONE. That's why there was a 1 hour check(for friends) and 24hour check for you, to make sure only ONE played a SPECIFIC game at the SAME time. The ten people part is just that you could make a TEN PEOPLE GROUP ( "family" ) that you were able to share digital with. You could share with UP TO TEN people, ONLY. And only ONE AT A TIME for a specific game.

Please get some common sense before replying, you're making a big deal out of a simple concept.

That's not the same as borrowing a game. If i want to borrow a game from my friend in Ireland he would have to mail it to me and it'd take 2-3 days for me to play it. If he then wanted it back i would have have to do the same.

What you are suggesting would make it much too easy to share a game and i'm not naive enough to think that publishers would agree to it. As i wrote earlier 10 people having instant access to one copy of a game no matter their location is too good to be true, even if only one person can play it at a time.

Why? Microsoft might have made agreements or given a larger margins to the developers of the games? There may have been concessions somewhere that they agreed to this. Why do you think if Sony was only allowed this, Microsoft is only allowed this? That doesn't make sense.

norseman said,
Why? Microsoft might have made agreements or given a larger margins to the developers of the games? There may have been concessions somewhere that they agreed to this. Why do you think if Sony was only allowed this, Microsoft is only allowed this? That doesn't make sense.

You're allowed to share games to 10 people on PS? I must have missed that, my bad.

Oh no, wait. Turns out they were allowed 5 people (not bad!) but then the publishers complained and they lowered it to 2 (oh...).

So yea, you're right. It doesn't make any sense at all that they wouldn't be allowed 5 times the amount of people which Sony is currently allowed.

Twisp said,

You're allowed to share games to 10 people on PS? I must have missed that, my bad.

Oh no, wait. Turns out they were allowed 5 people (not bad!) but then the publishers complained and they lowered it to 2 (oh...).

So yea, you're right. It doesn't make any sense at all that they wouldn't be allowed 5 times the amount of people which Sony is currently allowed.

Woooosh!
That's the sound of all this discussion going so far over your head not even Felix Baumgartner could get that high up.

Now go play with your clutched straws elsewhere

Twisp said,

That's not the same as borrowing a game. If i want to borrow a game from my friend in Ireland he would have to mail it to me and it'd take 2-3 days for me to play it. If he then wanted it back i would have have to do the same.

What you are suggesting would make it much too easy to share a game and i'm not naive enough to think that publishers would agree to it. As i wrote earlier 10 people having instant access to one copy of a game no matter their location is too good to be true, even if only one person can play it at a time.

Why the h*ll does that make a difference? If you get to access the game in a few hours vs. a couple of days doesn't matter. Your friend still gets to play YOUR game for free(and you can't play yourself at the same time), the publishers ain't losing anything..

I borrow games to my friend who is my neighbour. With your logic, the publishers would come take my game away because it is waaay to easy that I could just throw the game to my friend through my window,

Someone borrowing a game means NO SALE for the publisher, so it doesn't make any sense to limit how "easy it is". Physical or digital sharing, you can't play coop either way until your friend buys the game too. That's what matters for publishers.

georgevella said,
Why is it hard to understand this concept. Lets put it this way, what makes more sense: one copy and ten people can play the same game at the time, or one copy and only one of those ten people can play it. Think about it, its really easy. One of them ensues the backlash from the publishers, the other doesnt. Im also pretty sure MS wont be promoting a _legalized_ variant of piracy.

You keep touting common sense yet you're not using it. This would DEVASTATE single-player game sales. A lot of people buy games because it's a hassle to find a friend with it in the same city and borrow the disc and then get it back to them. If you could simply browse your friends list and play it for free by waiting a little until they're done with it then a ton of people would. I know I wouldn't have bought The Last Of Us if I could just wait a week or two and press play.

Graimer said,

Why the h*ll does that make a difference? If you get to access the game in a few hours vs. a couple of days doesn't matter. Your friend still gets to play YOUR game for free(and you can't play yourself at the same time), the publishers ain't losing anything..

I borrow games to my friend who is my neighbour. With your logic, the publishers would come take my game away because it is waaay to easy that I could just throw the game to my friend through my window,

Someone borrowing a game means NO SALE for the publisher, so it doesn't make any sense to limit how "easy it is". Physical or digital sharing, you can't play coop either way until your friend buys the game too. That's what matters for publishers.

It makes a **** ton of difference. One is a huge hassle and one is zero hassle. People pay to remove hassle. I would borrow more games and buy less if it was zero hassle to do so. Instead I just buy the games because I don't want to be bothered with finding a friend in the same city with the game and getting it from them then getting it back to them. Or worse in a different city and ask them to mail it to me and then mail it back. I could have "family" anywhere in the country and instantly borrow it from them. And if they wanted it back they could instantly have it back. They could play in the morning and me at night. Don't you see how this would cause lost sales?

Earth to MS fanboys, Earth to MS fanboys.

Sony offer a better digital game distribution service than MS currently do, they also allow the sharing of 5 copies of anything digital to any friends or family you trust, you can activate your digital content on up to 5 machines. They also offer free and cheap games directly to your HDD and you think MS are being innovative? Sony are offering both physical and digital without dumb DRM restrictions. So believe whatever you want to believe, but it's making you out to look stupid to people that know better.

It's not 5, it's 2, and doesn't that require you to log onto the other console to download the games? The DRM was for being able to share with up 10 people WITHOUT logging into the remote console(actually your friend could use any console and play your games). It also made disc-less gaming available AFTER you installed from disc (which I and many others prefer).

The features are similar, yet quite different.

Graimer said,
It's not 5, it's 2, and doesn't that require you to log onto the other console to download the games? The DRM was for being able to share with up 10 people WITHOUT logging into the remote console(actually your friend could use any console and play your games). It also made disc-less gaming available AFTER you installed from disc (which I and many others prefer).

The features are similar, yet quite different.

Not worth feeding the troll mate, the blind are blind.

Also. If you use DLC for games or download digital games, the original email address must be signed into the PS3 at all times. So say you were giving away your PS3 to a family member but you don't want to give them your account details, I think you would still have to enter in your information whenever it prompted you for them.

I'm sorry, you're right, I never realised they changed this feature from 5 to 2, But still I stand by Sony having a better game distribution service.

Either way, I don't believe MS, why didn't they divulge this information BEFORE backtracking on it? why now? or am I missing something?

cammy said,

Either way, I don't believe MS, why didn't they divulge this information BEFORE backtracking on it? why now? or am I missing something?

What don't you believe?

That they intended to allow you to share a full game with 9 other people for infinity. It seems too good to be true all other factors considered.

cammy said,
That they intended to allow you to share a full game with 9 other people for infinity. It seems too good to be true all other factors considered.

How can it be "too good to be true" when it ALREADY EXISTS using physical media. It's JUST like sharing, only with family sharing you couldn't share with more then 10 people. It's actually a limited, digital version of what you do today....

I'm sorry, but I don't have time or energy for this anymore. It's like talking to a wall.

cammy said,

Either way, I don't believe MS, why didn't they divulge this information BEFORE backtracking on it? why now? or am I missing something?

They did... it's just as they announced it at E3.

So why did MS remove it? Why not just keep this feature in? You're missing the point, they don't NEED the stupid DRM checks to implement it, they can implement this quite easily without it. I'd assume an invite system you have someone on your friends list for 30 days, then you send them an invite for the game, they accept and download equaling minus 1 shareable copy. MS acknowledges it and that's that, the shared copy given to this individual is marked as a shared copy and cannot be shared again. What's so difficult about that? why did MS have to be a baby and pull the plug on it? Seems strange to me that's all.

cammy said,
So why did MS remove it? Why not just keep this feature in? You're missing the point, they don't NEED the stupid DRM checks to implement it, they can implement this quite easily without it. I'd assume an invite system you have someone on your friends list for 30 days, then you send them an invite for the game, they accept and download equaling minus 1 shareable copy. MS acknowledges it and that's that, the shared copy given to this individual is marked as a shared copy and cannot be shared again. What's so difficult about that? why did MS have to be a baby and pull the plug on it? Seems strange to me that's all.

Fuuuuu.. you just don;t get it do you?

Family sharing = lending games to mates/family, same as you could with physical menda with the added benefit being you didn't have to go and physically give them something and wait for it back and you could play with at least one of those people at the same time. The downside (for some but not for me) is that in order to make sure you're not abusing this system, MS would require a check-in for licences.

cammy said,
I'm sorry, you're right, I never realised they changed this feature from 5 to 2, But still I stand by Sony having a better game distribution service.

Either way, I don't believe MS, why didn't they divulge this information BEFORE backtracking on it? why now? or am I missing something?

Sony's distribution system sucks...
You have to give up account information.. Violates ToS..

Microsoft way is/was way better... All would of been handled on a system level..,no account information given up

It's the same with smart phones...

Why do you think Apple, Google, and Micorosft are baking features in at the OS/System level??...
Better experience...

Graimer said,
It's not 5, it's 2, and doesn't that require you to log onto the other console to download the games? The DRM was for being able to share with up 10 people WITHOUT logging into the remote console(actually your friend could use any console and play your games). It also made disc-less gaming available AFTER you installed from disc (which I and many others prefer).

The features are similar, yet quite different.

It used to be 5 before they were forced to make it 2 by the publishers. And you think these same publishers would have let microsoft make it 11 (buyer + 10 others)?

Mikeffer said,

Fuuuuu.. you just don;t get it do you?

Family sharing = lending games to mates/family, same as you could with physical menda with the added benefit being you didn't have to go and physically give them something and wait for it back and you could play with at least one of those people at the same time. The downside (for some but not for me) is that in order to make sure you're not abusing this system, MS would require a check-in for licences.

If it really let you access all the features and was so hassle-free who do you think this feature would benefit more? The consumer or the companies? Obviously the consumer. Companies will have a lot of lost sales if this was true.

I just bought and played The Last Of Us which I only care for the single player. If I wanted to play it for free I'd have to figure out who has it and have to ask to borrow it and hopefully someone in my city has it. Or else it'll have to be mailed. And I won't instantly have it.

With the "family share" I could just browse the list of friends and press play. Instant lost sale. You think the companies were OK with that?

Yogurtmaster said,
Is this feature still available on the PS4? I have not heard about it yet.

Sony does not have anything on this level setup,,,
But they said they could, very quickly if need be..

I knew this was wrong. For 45 minutes to an hour it would be a completely useless feature. There are game demos already and that wouldn't make sense.

They are going to look into doing this in the future, maybe by next year. However, it will just be for digital downloads and hopefully it's optional.

So disappointed. Was looking forward to this one feature. I was happy the way things used to be, now I got a crappy PS4 in a Xbox Shell.

Kratzie said,
So disappointed. Was looking forward to this one feature. I was happy the way things used to be, now I got a crappy PS4 in a Xbox Shell.

>.< Interesting analogy to it.

Kratzie said,
So disappointed. Was looking forward to this one feature. I was happy the way things used to be, now I got a crappy PS4 in a Xbox Shell.

Never TIME limited. But it was limited. The publishers raised hell when Sony let people register 5 consoles to use their PSN content on and made them set it to 2. You think they'd be OK with Microsoft letting 10 people other than the buyer play their game for free?

If it doesn't have a time limit then it has to have a limitation in some other form. Cause despite what some hardcore microsoft fans want you to believe, microsoft isn't nice enough to give 10 additional people a complete free ride for every 1 copy of a game purchased.

Spoken like a true Sony fanboy. What is so hard to understand? The family sharing is just the same as you giving the game disc to a friend. ONE can play a specific game at a time. It's the same limits, they just did it with a digital marketplace so let gamers move from physical media to digital-only. If they sell the digital games at the same price as physical discs, the publishers, MS etc. get the same money, without the cost of producing the physical discs., and the users will be able to share like they always did.

Studio384 said,
And why is that?

You're really asking why the company who originally wanted to outlaw used games isn't nice?

Graimer said,
Spoken like a true Sony fanboy. What is so hard to understand? The family sharing is just the same as you giving the game disc to a friend. ONE can play a specific game at a time. It's the same limits, they just did it with a digital marketplace so let gamers move from physical media to digital-only. If they sell the digital games at the same price as physical discs, the publishers, MS etc. get the same money, without the cost of producing the physical discs., and the users will be able to share like they always did.

Ya know, if you're gonna be crying fanboy cause someone didn't praise your beloved company, you should atleast get it right. I'm not a sony fanboy, they just haven't been making an utter mess of things this year like microsoft has. Thus it's easier to agree with them. If i slightly favor any of the big 3, it'd be the creative one who actually comes up with new ideas for playing games, nintendo.

Blackhearted said,

You're really asking why the company who originally wanted to outlaw used games

Do you have a source for that statement from an actual gaming news outlet?

Blackhearted said,
If it doesn't have a time limit then it has to have a limitation in some other form. Cause despite what some hardcore microsoft fans want you to believe, microsoft isn't nice enough to give 10 additional people a complete free ride for every 1 copy of a game purchased.

The limits were basically that you could have 10 max and I bet those 10 couldn't be part of another group at the same time. After that there was a limit on how many people could play at the same time. Probably you the game owner and one of the members of the group which means that the others would gave to wait their turn to play.

Blackhearted said,
If it doesn't have a time limit then it has to have a limitation in some other form. Cause despite what some hardcore microsoft fans want you to believe, microsoft isn't nice enough to give 10 additional people a complete free ride for every 1 copy of a game purchased.

So you were wrong, deal with it and stop trying to think of something else to moan about.

Blackhearted said,

You're really asking why the company who originally wanted to outlaw used games isn't nice?

Ya know, if you're gonna be crying fanboy cause someone didn't praise your beloved company, you should atleast get it right. I'm not a sony fanboy, they just haven't been making an utter mess of things this year like microsoft has. Thus it's easier to agree with them. If i slightly favor any of the big 3, it'd be the creative one who actually comes up with new ideas for playing games, nintendo.

I never said you were a fanboy, I said you spoke like one. The fact is the limit was FALSE(again probably a Sony fan who wanted to harm MS), and the only limits were the ones they announced(max 10 users). You make MS out the be a gready corporation while everyone else are just consumer-friendly companies who would NEVER do anything wrong. That's just insane. Yes, I like some MS products, but I also like Sony products(everything except the PS controller), and Nintendo products etc. So I'm not fanboy myself. I just defend the ones who get wrongfully accused with false information.

It's ridiculously naive to think that the publishers would let people share a game to 10 friends/family members without any sort of restriction on it. The publishers made Sony restrict their sharing feature from 5 people down to only 2.

Blackhearted said,
If it doesn't have a time limit then it has to have a limitation in some other form. Cause despite what some hardcore microsoft fans want you to believe, microsoft isn't nice enough to give 10 additional people a complete free ride for every 1 copy of a game purchased.

The limits were basically that you could have 10 max and I bet those 10 couldn't be part of another group at the same time. After that there was a limit on how many people could play at the same time. Probably you the game owner and one of the members of the group which means that the others would gave to wait their turn to play.

Graimer said,

I never said you were a fanboy, I said you spoke like one.

Dude, it's the same flippin' thing. You, in a more condensed way, said that what he was saying was what's expected from a Sony fanboy. That's what that phrase you used means.

If people are going to play the fanboy card, own it instead of backtracking into semantics when put on the spot.

Blackhearted said,

You're really asking why the company who originally wanted to outlaw used games isn't nice?

Ya know, if you're gonna be crying fanboy cause someone didn't praise your beloved company, you should atleast get it right. I'm not a sony fanboy, they just haven't been making an utter mess of things this year like microsoft has. Thus it's easier to agree with them. If i slightly favor any of the big 3, it'd be the creative one who actually comes up with new ideas for playing games, nintendo.

...a company has to have balance... Giving people a product/service without taking damages from us the consumer...
People say: Don't treat us all like thieves.. 1 bad apple spoils the bunch, always has to apply when in the software world...

Graimer said,
Spoken like a true Sony fanboy. What is so hard to understand? The family sharing is just the same as you giving the game disc to a friend. ONE can play a specific game at a time. It's the same limits, they just did it with a digital marketplace so let gamers move from physical media to digital-only. If they sell the digital games at the same price as physical discs, the publishers, MS etc. get the same money, without the cost of producing the physical discs., and the users will be able to share like they always did.

Except a **** ton more convenient and will be made use of much more, causing less game sales. I buy nearly all my games because I don't want to deal with borrowing and lending discs but if I could just wait a week or two and play a single player game for free by simply browsing my friends list and pressing play then I would.

Well what's the point in saying that now, aside having people want it back even more? With the rumour that it was only time-limited I suppose people could've calmed down a little since the loss wasn't THAT big, but now they've just confirmed how awesome the thing they just removed really was.

They really need a new PR strategy/coordinator.

Ambroos said,
Well what's the point in saying that now, aside having people want it back even more? With the rumour that it was only time-limited I suppose people could've calmed down a little since the loss wasn't THAT big, but now they've just confirmed how awesome the thing they just removed really was.

They really need a new PR strategy/coordinator.

Why should they say anything else. People who complained should regret! MS came with great features that people wanted, but stubborn gamers just read the three letters DRM and used the rest of their time to imagine worst case scenarios using the "loopholes" in the policy information and complained about it until it got removed.

It would be even worse if it was true. "Yes, we lied about the main features of the new Xbox One"....

They are still working on this feature, but if it ever gets implemented, be certain that it will be gimped. Without the online check in system on the console library and sharing, MS can no longer enforce the legitimate 1 license per customer, so they won't be able to verify if only 1 person plays that 1 license at any given moment in time.

Graimer said,

Why should they say anything else. People who complained should regret! MS came with great features that people wanted, but stubborn gamers just read the three letters DRM and used the rest of their time to imagine worst case scenarios using the "loopholes" in the policy information and complained about it until it got removed.

It would be even worse if it was true. "Yes, we lied about the main features of the new Xbox One"....


The stubborn gamers who ranted about it probably planned on getting a PS4 anyway, I don't think they really care about this.

Few of them were actual gamers. Some were probably PS fans and others worked for PR firms for Sony and bloggers that were paid to make anything Microsoft sound bad.

People get paid to join forums, blog post and criticize companies. They don't do it because they actually care or know anything about the product.

Thief000 said,
They are still working on this feature, but if it ever gets implemented, be certain that it will be gimped. Without the online check in system on the console library and sharing, MS can no longer enforce the legitimate 1 license per customer, so they won't be able to verify if only 1 person plays that 1 license at any given moment in time.

It's actually pretty simple. You can play your game offline, but if you're not connected to the internet then your friends can't borrow it from you. If you are connected to the internet and not playing it, 1 other friend can be playing it. Simple.

mrp04 said,

It's actually pretty simple. You can play your game offline, but if you're not connected to the internet then your friends can't borrow it from you. If you are connected to the internet and not playing it, 1 other friend can be playing it. Simple.

but what about all of those people in caves who don't have internet? Why should they not be able to shareeeee!!?!?!?!??! /s

Good job to all the ignorant so called "Gamers" who bashed Xbox for such potential digital benefits. All for a stupid disc that I'd rather not use ever again.

Mr.XXIV said,
Good job to all the ignorant so called "Gamers" who bashed Xbox for such potential digital benefits. All for a stupid disc that I'd rather not use ever again.

They aren't gamers because they disagreed with what was being proposed?

What exactly does Aaron Greenberg do for xbox/Microsoft? - sounds more like he's a PR drone for Microsoft (looking at his twitter feed), not someone who would actually know about technical developments being worked on within the xbox team.

Exactly what I wanted to write.Stupid ignorant people.It was such a great concept but too bad there are people who don't understand evolution.

Ian William said,

They aren't gamers because they disagreed with what was being proposed?

No, stereotypically, it's the fact the majority of these "gamers" who who criticize something that turns out to be great are the ones who always disagree about change.

They think they just want a "gaming console". We're far away from calling it a gaming console anymore, both consoles have built up entertainment, but Xbox has gone farther and gotten bigger with the media. This solely causes those "gamers" to throw in all kinds of contradictions without even realizing the other half of something.

dvb2000 said,
What exactly does Aaron Greenberg do for xbox/Microsoft? - sounds more like he's a PR drone for Microsoft (looking at his twitter feed), not someone who would actually know about technical developments being worked on within the xbox team.

He doesn't have anything to do with the development and the criticism. You should be asking what did the critics do for you when we've had so many chances over the years to experience change for the better.

Mr.XXIV said,
Good job to all the ignorant so called "Gamers" who bashed Xbox for such potential digital benefits. All for a stupid disc that I'd rather not use ever again.

Really? Why do people think that you must choose between "Online DRM" (digital activation) and "Disk DRM" (offline activation) when you can have both? There is no need to loose any previously announced feature for "Online DRM" (digitally activated) games. If Microsoft killed their family Xbox One game share plan for both types of DRM then people who make these decisions are incompetent idiots (which would be not surprising, judging from all the blunders they made recently).

dvb2000 said,
What exactly does Aaron Greenberg do for xbox/Microsoft? - sounds more like he's a PR drone for Microsoft (looking at his twitter feed), not someone who would actually know about technical developments being worked on within the xbox team.

Aaron Greenberg is Chief of Staff of Interactive Entartainment Business at Microsft...

EJocys said,

Really? Why do people think that you must choose between "Online DRM" (digital activation) and "Disk DRM" (offline activation) when you can have both? There is no need to loose any previously announced feature for "Online DRM" (digitally activated) games. If Microsoft killed their family Xbox One game share plan for both types of DRM then people who make these decisions are incompetent idiots (which would be not surprising, judging from all the blunders they made recently).

Can you explain the consequences of this coexistance? As a consumer, hacker, AND developer?

Mr.XXIV said,
Good job to all the ignorant so called "Gamers" who bashed Xbox for such potential digital benefits. All for a stupid disc that I'd rather not use ever again.

Wasn't it a single share to a friend and then it's done? You can a disk to unlimited friends.

It was the ability to duplicate the disc's into ISO's that caused piracy and a loss to the gaming industry, not to sound like a hypocrite. If I owned a company (which I will in a few weeks) I would make sure I protect my copyrighted content in the best way possible, and they're trying to do that by keeping track of orders real time.

And as far as "simply" sharing it to friends, I've learned not to trust other people with things because they won't always handle things with care when it's not theirs.

EJocys said,

Really? Why do people think that you must choose between "Online DRM" (digital activation) and "Disk DRM" (offline activation) when you can have both? There is no need to loose any previously announced feature for "Online DRM" (digitally activated) games. If Microsoft killed their family Xbox One game share plan for both types of DRM then people who make these decisions are incompetent idiots (which would be not surprising, judging from all the blunders they made recently).

go ahead, do tell of your intricate plan that you would've implemented seeing as your smarter than they are and they are "incompetent idiots".
why dont' you flesh out the plan for us as in how you would implement it while still having the desired effect and covering these points:
game distribution
piracy
privacy
family access
trade/resell
loaning/lending (these were upcoming features)

how would you do that while making the system fool proof and easy to use?
please let us all know since you're so smarter, even smarter than the people who came up with these ideas and who created a while new system for around it. go on. I bet you can't say one crap.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

go ahead, do tell of your intricate plan that you would've implemented seeing as your smarter than they are and they are "incompetent idiots".
why dont' you flesh out the plan for us as in how you would implement it while still having the desired effect and covering these points:
game distribution
piracy
privacy
family access
trade/resell
loaning/lending (these were upcoming features)

how would you do that while making the system fool proof and easy to use?
please let us all know since you're so smarter, even smarter than the people who came up with these ideas and who created a while new system for around it. go on. I bet you can't say one crap.


ok... All that would be delt with like so.

disks, would remain as they are, and how they are currently going to use them.

digital downloads, will work exactly how ms planned to make the disks work, but the only change you can no longer buy a disk version and make it digital...

ctrl_alt_delete said,
go ahead, do tell of your intricate plan

There is no intricate plan, because this system ALREADY exist on PC for years.

Mr.XXIV said,
Can you explain the consequences of this coexistance? As a consumer, hacker, AND developer?

There is nothing to explain. Customers will benefit from the choice. Game developers and publishers just have to decide which type of protection to use for their game: Online DRM (online activation) or Disk DRM (offline activation), because job, to support both DRM types on XBox, is done already. Some games on PC were released with both DRM types. Remember, it was possible to add some Disk DRM protected games to Steam and Origin later. It was very smart move by these networks which made a lot of customers happy.

Customer could look for "Online activation required" or "Disk is required to play" label when buying games. XBox One can enable family sharing on Online DRM games only. Disk DRM games would be shared by giving the disk only. This is not the rocket science.

I've wrote before: Microsoft could open paid service where you could post your DRM protected disk and Microsoft would record this on their online database and update this game on you console to use Online DRM.

This would allow smooth transition. Company must treat their customers with respect and choice; not like herd of animals by forcefully shoving down ideas into their throats.

ctrl_alt_delete said,
go ahead, do tell of your intricate plan that you would've implemented seeing as your smarter than they are and they are "incompetent idiots".

Remember, that people who make these decisions probably are getting at least six figure salaries. They suppose to do research and pool customers before making final decisions on the product which would impact trillion dollar industry. How the hell mandatory 24h online check passed? There is only one explanation, they didn't do their home work and never bothered to ask gamers about that. Either because they are too arrogant to ask or they are like some of these crazy politicians who claim they are getting commands straight from imaginary infallible God . They are making mistake after mistake. Result: they did huge damage to the company. This is what makes them "incompetent idiots".

SierraSonic said,

ok... All that would be delt with like so.

disks, would remain as they are, and how they are currently going to use them.

digital downloads, will work exactly how ms planned to make the disks work, but the only change you can no longer buy a disk version and make it digital...

currently this is the only other route they can take but be it as it may it still wouldn't carry the desired effect.
the problem falls under the 1st point: Game Distribution:
those who can't download will HAVE to buy the discs. however, the disc won't be treated as digital items so they won't get the benefits.
4th point: family access:
what incentives would there be for granting this feature? none, since its a dual system as you proposed.
5th point: trade/resell:
without having a holistic digital system publishers/devs would not agree to this.
6th point: loaning/lending: again without having a holistic digital system publishers/devs would not agree to this.
and an implied one that I didn't mention: pricing: with the all digital system, over time prices would go down. with this dual system prices would always stay the same, unless you buy used games which would intern hurt game publisher and dev houses while fatting the pockets of the gamestops of the world. in all truth, it was the breaking down of this system that would've made way for all the above.

Mr.XXIV said,
It was the ability to duplicate the disc's into ISO's that caused piracy and a loss to the gaming industry, not to sound like a hypocrite. If I owned a company (which I will in a few weeks) I would make sure I protect my copyrighted content in the best way possible, and they're trying to do that by keeping track of orders real time.

And as far as "simply" sharing it to friends, I've learned not to trust other people with things because they won't always handle things with care when it's not theirs.

Just don't treat them like complete thief's

EJocys said,

There is no intricate plan, because this system ALREADY exist on PC for years.

it exists on PCs for years? please tell which system is that? if you say steam you would be making a big mistake. but go on please tell me which system you speak of.

Here's what I think will happen, you give your friend family access, meanwhile, you own the disc so there's not check in (offline). The result, both your friend and you can multiplay.
The half-half offline or online is so flawed, the same thing with 7 day check in idea that are so flawed too.

EJocys said,

Really? Why do people think that you must choose between "Online DRM" (digital activation) and "Disk DRM" (offline activation) when you can have both? There is no need to loose any previously announced feature for "Online DRM" (digitally activated) games. If Microsoft killed their family Xbox One game share plan for both types of DRM then people who make these decisions are incompetent idiots (which would be not surprising, judging from all the blunders they made recently).

ctrl_alt_delete said,

currently this is the only other route they can take but be it as it may it still wouldn't carry the desired effect.
the problem falls under the 1st point: Game Distribution:
those who can't download will HAVE to buy the discs. however, the disc won't be treated as digital items so they won't get the benefits.
4th point: family access:
what incentives would there be for granting this feature? none, since its a dual system as you proposed.
5th point: trade/resell:
without having a holistic digital system publishers/devs would not agree to this.
6th point: loaning/lending: again without having a holistic digital system publishers/devs would not agree to this.
and an implied one that I didn't mention: pricing: with the all digital system, over time prices would go down. with this dual system prices would always stay the same, unless you buy used games which would intern hurt game publisher and dev houses while fatting the pockets of the gamestops of the world. in all truth, it was the breaking down of this system that would've made way for all the above.

4th point: To get people to use incentive to use the detail distribution method?
5th point: Uhh why? I would think they rather have some control over resale rather than non.
6th point: Uhh I've seen games come down in price both ways, again if the digital versions sell for cheaper than retail that is INCENTIVE to get the digital version over the retail version isn't it?
Again, both would allow CHOICE and CONTROL, make everybody happy.

1st point: this is still a choice, they don't HAVE to, and they would most likely have to download big patches either way...

Why do you honestly think that they cannot offer both methods such as the PS3 ALREADY does with it's digital games? Sure it's not 10 people, its only 2, but I can see MS securing the rights to at least 3-5 people if they wanted to.

ctrl_alt_delete said,
it exists on PCs for years? please tell which system is that? if you say steam you would be making a big mistake. but go on please tell me which system you speak of.

Why I would say Steam and compare one program to whole XBox gaming computer? I say PC, because it is a computer like Xbox. PC allows Online DRM (Steam/Origin/UPlay/...) and Disk DRM. On XBox role of Online DRM handled by Microsoft software.

minster11 said,
Here's what I think will happen, you give your friend family access, meanwhile, you own the disc so there's not check in (offline). The result, both your friend and you can multiplay.
The half-half offline or online is so flawed, the same thing with 7 day check in idea that are so flawed too.

No, you won't be able to play multilayer with your friend by buying one disk. It is because Online DRM content will be sold on non protected media and it will contain serial number only which will be used only once - to activate your game online (just like World of Warcraft). Your friend could use these disks to install game only, but they won't be able to play full game because disk don't have protection and game won't activate by using the disk. Friend have to buy new serial number.

Disk DRM games won't use online activation and always require genuine disk to play.

System have no flaws if you sell Online DRM games on plain non protected media which serves only as a content source (just like download from the Internet).

Edited by EJocys, Jun 22 2013, 3:26pm :

SierraSonic said,
4th point: To get people to use incentive to use the detail distribution method?
5th point: Uhh why? I would think they rather have some control over resale rather than non.
6th point: Uhh I've seen games come down in price both ways, again if the digital versions sell for cheaper than retail that is INCENTIVE to get the digital version over the retail version isn't it?
Again, both would allow CHOICE and CONTROL, make everybody happy.

1st point: this is still a choice, they don't HAVE to, and they would most likely have to download big patches either way...

Why do you honestly think that they cannot offer both methods such as the PS3 ALREADY does with it's digital games? Sure it's not 10 people, its only 2, but I can see MS securing the rights to at least 3-5 people if they wanted to.

maybe if you actually read my comment, then read yours you would see you didn't answer any of the questions.

Piracy is real, but it's effects are overstated in most cases. Piracy has been around FOREVER. I had pirated games for Commodore 64.

DRM has never done anything to stop piracy. There is no real reason they couldn't have both systems. We have both now, just on different platforms, so why wouldn't it work meshed together as EJocys mentioned?

You're delusional if you think prices will go down if everything is digital. Prices may not go up, but they definitely won't go down. Heck, DLC used to always be free and now they charge for that.

Of and publishers/developers not agreeing, they go where the money is. If Microsoft said that's the way it is, then they won't switched to another platform just because. Trading/lending has also been done for YEARS, and it's part of the ecosystem, just like piracy. Trying to change it is futile, and will in the end lead to less profit for them. Then they'll have find another thing to blame on the consumers instead of how they run their businesses.

They shouldn't need an incentive for family sharing except, THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT. This alone should make people realize they don't really care about consumers. It's like with digital video (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) vs cable companies. The media companies have too much control over the distribution and either charge too much or don't make it available on other platforms, forcing them to stay with cable or satellite. The media companies have huge stakes in the cable providers, so it's harder for the Hulus of the world to advance. My point being, that people will pay but the services need to supply what the people want or they won't use it. Something that the music industry took years to learn and they finally started releasing DRM-free stuff.

SierraSonic said,
4th point: To get people to use incentive to use the detail distribution method?
5th point: Uhh why? I would think they rather have some control over resale rather than non.
6th point: Uhh I've seen games come down in price both ways, again if the digital versions sell for cheaper than retail that is INCENTIVE to get the digital version over the retail version isn't it?
Again, both would allow CHOICE and CONTROL, make everybody happy.

1st point: this is still a choice, they don't HAVE to, and they would most likely have to download big patches either way...

Why do you honestly think that they cannot offer both methods such as the PS3 ALREADY does with it's digital games? Sure it's not 10 people, its only 2, but I can see MS securing the rights to at least 3-5 people if they wanted to.

Research before you quote.... On Playstation you have to give up account information... Which violates Sony's ToS.... On Xbox you wouldn't give up any account information.., game library only...

Mr.XXIV said,
Good job to all the ignorant so called "Gamers" who bashed Xbox for such potential digital benefits. All for a stupid disc that I'd rather not use ever again.

Only someone ignorant would think that that was their only concern...

While part of me would like to agree with you, far too many aspects of their model were not thought out... This would have affected market share, and with it, our ability to get some games. THAT was worth being concerned over.

Every time I have to put a disc in the drive to change games I'm going to be cursing the horde of mindless idiots that caused this to happen.

Or I guess I could just pay $20 more for every download from Xbox Live and never be able to transfer or share ownership like they wanted me to be able to do. Thank you morons of the game community for being so scared and clueless and technologically backwards.

Avatar Roku said,
Every time I have to put a disc in the drive to change games I'm going to be cursing the horde of mindless idiots that caused this to happen.

Truth is, that nobody wanted to take away your digital downloads or new features. People wanted to play some games offline, because it is very convenient. Problem is that Microsoft says that you must choose between Online DRM OR Offline/Disk DRM which is complete and utter BS and divides uninformed customers into two fighting sides. PC gamers know that Microsoft is full of BS, because they use Online DRM AND Offline DRM on the same PC for years and it works.

Showan said,

Research before you quote.... On Playstation you have to give up account information... Which violates Sony's ToS.... On Xbox you wouldn't give up any account information.., game library only...


you have to log into your friends system... And allow sharing... That isn't against the tos.
ctrl_alt_delete said,

maybe if you actually read my comment, then read yours you would see you didn't answer any of the questions.


What question, what are the incentives? I don't know, ask any PC gamer. It basically boils down to choice. People who buy the PC-DVD could install it with AND without linking the cd-key on Steam. The PC already offers the almost perfect version of these two system working together.

Edited by SierraSonic, Jun 22 2013, 7:41pm :

SierraSonic said,

you have to log into your friends system... And allow sharing... That isn't against the tos.

What question, what are the incentives? I don't know, ask any PC gamer. It basically boils down to choice. People who buy the PC-DVD could install it with AND without linking the cd-key on Steam. The PC already offers the almost perfect version of these two system working together.

And with Microsofts would of been system, I wouldn't of have to do even that...
Just select your gamer tag and share.. No logging in needed...
I could be right out of bed and just go to my iPad and hit up Xbox.com and do it....
I could be at work and your home and share to you...
As long as there would of been a Internet connection and a browser around me...

Much better system...

Showan said,

And with Microsofts would of been system, I wouldn't of have to do even that...
Just select your gamer tag and share.. No logging in needed...
I could be right out of bed and just go to my iPad and hit up Xbox.com and do it....
I could be at work and your home and share to you...
As long as there would of been a Internet connection and a browser around me...

Much better system...

That's great, but you are missing the point. I have stated that I would like for both MS's plan to work for DIGITAL PURCHASES EXACTLY AS THEY WANTED, and for RETAIL DISKS TO WORK AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE.
My point is, I WANTED BOTH SYSTEMS. ;o

EJocys said,

Truth is, that nobody wanted to take away your digital downloads or new features. People wanted to play some games offline, because it is very convenient. Problem is that Microsoft says that you must choose between Online DRM OR Offline/Disk DRM which is complete and utter BS and divides uninformed customers into two fighting sides. PC gamers know that Microsoft is full of BS, because they use Online DRM AND Offline DRM on the same PC for years and it works.

Actually PC gamers see that this is as a good thing...
They know what comes with this in the form of Steam...
And yes Steam is amazing now.., but it sucked big time during its pre-mature years...
Want to not be online get a Playstation or Xbox...
Steam makes you check in before you check out...
Microsoft makes you check in before you check out as well (24hrs suck)... But it's the necessary evil if the game sharing is gonna take off...

I hate the 24hr check in as well...
But it happens so quickly in the background or while I'm sleeping...so be it...
My brother, cousins and friends already scratched the idea of what single player games we were going to buy..,

Multi player games are a given, most publishers know that friends are going to buy, Call of Duty, TitanFall, Battlefield 4... Friends always usually buy copies of that together...

What's about the Skyrims, Max Paynes, and other great single player games???...
That's where sharing is key...

SierraSonic said,
That's great, but you are missing the point. I have stated that I would like for both MS's plan to work for DIGITAL PURCHASES EXACTLY AS THEY WANTED, and for RETAIL DISKS TO WORK AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE.
My point is, I WANTED BOTH SYSTEMS. ;o


I understand... But can you picture the backlash Microsoft would get... Then all you would here is "That's not fair, that you have to be online to get this and that!! ".... They are already taking a pounding and the system isn't even out yet...

Showan said,


I understand... But can you picture the backlash Microsoft would get... Then all you would here is "That's not fair, that you have to be online to get this and that!! ".... They are already taking a pounding and the system isn't even out yet...

There wouldn't be a backlash if they knew how to explain things.

A simple thing that state the differences between what you can and cannot do with a DISK license vs a DIGITAL license is all they really needed.

farmeunit said,
Piracy is real, but it's effects are overstated in most cases. Piracy has been around FOREVER. I had pirated games for Commodore 64.

DRM has never done anything to stop piracy. There is no real reason they couldn't have both systems. We have both now, just on different platforms, so why wouldn't it work meshed together as EJocys mentioned?

You're delusional if you think prices will go down if everything is digital. Prices may not go up, but they definitely won't go down. Heck, DLC used to always be free and now they charge for that.

Of and publishers/developers not agreeing, they go where the money is. If Microsoft said that's the way it is, then they won't switched to another platform just because. Trading/lending has also been done for YEARS, and it's part of the ecosystem, just like piracy. Trying to change it is futile, and will in the end lead to less profit for them. Then they'll have find another thing to blame on the consumers instead of how they run their businesses.

They shouldn't need an incentive for family sharing except, THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT. This alone should make people realize they don't really care about consumers. It's like with digital video (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) vs cable companies. The media companies have too much control over the distribution and either charge too much or don't make it available on other platforms, forcing them to stay with cable or satellite. The media companies have huge stakes in the cable providers, so it's harder for the Hulus of the world to advance. My point being, that people will pay but the services need to supply what the people want or they won't use it. Something that the music industry took years to learn and they finally started releasing DRM-free stuff.


Piracy is HUGE in Eastern Europe (a friend of mines was in the military for awhile says, games prices are so expensive in the Russia area, that's why piracy is sky high)... I believe that's why there was region locking so that it would be easier to combat piracy by territory...

Showan said,

Piracy is HUGE in Eastern Europe (a friend of mines was in the military for awhile says, games prices are so expensive in the Russia area, that's why piracy is sky high)... I believe that's why there was region locking so that it would be easier to combat piracy by territory...

That's why piracy is big, because of the prices. That's why it's so big in China, also. The pay is so bad, people can't buy games so they pirate. Some will do it anyway, but prices don't raise because of piracy. That's self-defeating.

Mr.XXIV said,
Good job to all the ignorant so called "Gamers" who bashed Xbox for such potential digital benefits. All for a stupid disc that I'd rather not use ever again.

Pushing towards an all digital system (DRM) was the best thing that MS was doing.

Of course there would be a transition and blowback but can't believe how bad it was. People love to whine and complain and act entitled. Some of the comments about the DRM, online connection have been insane.

People need to understand, you don't need to play videogames, you don't need a new console. These are fun things that we spend a pretty good chunk of money on because we want to, not because we need to.

People acting like MS was threatening their rights is crazy. If we are living in a world were our content is Digital, our music, movies, games, etc there will be DRM of some sort.

If not, I would buy one copy of a game and give it to 100 people. How many of the people screaming about DRM are the same people that torrent every episode of Game of Thrones?

If MS didn't think it was worth it, they wouldn't have changed it. Apparently they were losing too much ground way too quickly. Why else would they have gone through such a public loss of face? Personally I would have liked to have seen them stick with their original plan just to see what would happen. I still would have gotten a PS4 because I don't want DRM, but I would definitely like to see how that would have played out for the Xbox One and what things would have looked like in the long term on that side.

While I agree that MS was moving in the right direction, Its the unability to play if u were offline for more than 24 hours that got me..... Even if it happens rarely (maybe more often for some), why should i be restricted...
If MS wanted, they could have increased the check-in period to a week.. or said.. that if you are offline for more than 24 hours... all family/friend sharing would be disabled...

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 15-45 mins.

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 couldn't re-gift that game away or return it 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 doesn't matter cause they can say anything about it now and no one can check up on it.

NeoDominik said,
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.

Yeah but game sharing has always been done to that degree console chipping and burning of games is still widlely avalible on everyone console to date.

Witht he new xbox one it would stop that but in a few months someone would hack it so the windows 7 side would run like normal windows and then use that to expolite the other partition and run the game as if it were a disc.