Rumor: Xbox One family sharing was limited to 60 minutes

With Microsoft's recent reversal of the "always on" Xbox One, there was one popular feature that was put on the backburner: Family Sharing. Although details of the program were limited, the basic concept was that you could share your gaming library with up to ten family members. There was no mention of how you select who your family members are, but Microsoft claimed that both you and a single family member could play a game at the same time.

Last week, we told you about a message posted on Pastebin discussing the Xbox One's DRM philosphy. Today we found another message on Pastebin, this time lamenting about game developers and used games, discussing the proposed Family Share plan (which is since on the backburner), and hinting at a Microsoft social media platform built within the 360. While the used game topic has been beaten to death, and the social media platform is a logical next step in the Xbox Live progression, the alleged details on the Family Share plan is a bit surprising.

The author paints it with a positive brush, but states that family members would only have been allowed 45-60 minutes of gameplay before being sent to the marketplace to purchase the game themselves. This "demoware" isn't how Microsoft was selling the feature at E3, but given the rest of the PR bungles, we wouldn't be surprised if this is true.

We're not sure if Microsoft employees just recently figured out how to use Pastebin, or if these posts are pranksters making stuff up in order to get a rise out of fellow gamers, so take this report with a grain of salt.

Source: Pastebin

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung announces the 3200 x 1800 ATIV Q, a Windows 8/Android slider tablet

Next Story

Samsung's new flagship Ultrabook: the ATIV Book 9 Plus

91 Comments

View more comments

Yogurtmaster said,
Only 2 out of the 10 can play at the same time.

you say "only" as though that's a bad thing, one 1 can play at a time with disk sharing.

Well they probably did have some limitations too it, perhaps things like only gold users get access to these features, shared games get no access to dlc, no achievements, no gamer score or any sort of score tracking, Unable to use the game dvr, unable to enter tournaments to win prizes, unable to benefit from the cloud, etc? But most likely we will never really know for the time being. Not only that, but look what you just said why would you even buy games, in order for this sharing feature to work, people would have to buy games, other wise there would be nothing to share. Personally i think this idea works great, if you think about it, 10 ppl to a shared group isn't much when you consider 40 or so million on live, so imagine you got a bunch of people in shares trying to grow there gaming library, which will really only work if you have a group people in the share willing to pitch in and buy games from time to time. LOL would be funny if they made a competition out of it and had a ladder and offered achievements for the groups with the biggest family share, groups would be competing against each other to stay on top with the most games purchased.

Ultravires said,
Well they probably did have some limitations too it, perhaps things like only gold users get access to these features, shared games get no access to dlc, no achievements, no gamer score or any sort of score tracking, Unable to use the game dvr, unable to enter tournaments to win prizes, unable to benefit from the cloud, etc? But most likely we will never really know for the time being. Not only that, but look what you just said why would you even buy games, in order for this sharing feature to work, people would have to buy games, other wise there would be nothing to share. Personally i think this idea works great, if you think about it, 10 ppl to a shared group isn't much when you consider 40 or so million on live, so imagine you got a bunch of people in shares trying to grow there gaming library, which will really only work if you have a group people in the share willing to pitch in and buy games from time to time. LOL would be funny if they made a competition out of it and had a ladder and offered achievements for the groups with the biggest family share, groups would be competing against each other to stay on top with the most games purchased.

I will find the link...
But they said access to the game and any dlc purchased as well

If this was true (very likely, since it doesn't make sense that 10 people can play the same game for free) then they learned nothing from what happened when they announced the Zune song-sharing feature. When they announced the Zune everybody was happy for a decent iPod competitor, after they announced the limited song-sharing capability everybody started treating it like trash. Apparently the Microsoft marketing dept never learns. Never.

I hope a reliable source can confirm this. If true, no one here should be surprised. Underneath all the new software and hardware Microsoft has released lately, they are still a shady company. It's not about consumers it's about those dollar signs. Then again, what company do we trust nowadays?

Didn't we already know this? Microsoft told us that if you're playing a shared game, the 24 brick-check turns into an hour check. Doesn't that mean the same thing as what this article is talking about?

I'm pretty sure that Microsoft stated that "borrowed" games had to check in once every hour So this doesn't make any sense what so ever.

I can't believe some people actually thought that they would be able to buy a game and have 10 of their friends/family have unrestricted access to it. This is the same industry that cries rivers over the secondhand market, you suddenly think they were going to transition to a 10:1 sales model

No sane person thought that. What we imagined was what MS described: You share your library with your group of 10, but only 1 of those people could be playing one of your games at a time. 10 people couldn't all play at once off of a single copy. And you yourself probably couldn't play the game that was being "shared" by a friend, until they stopped or you "booted" them off of it through prompts.

to put it more simple DRM is renting.. sorta. You never own the game if you owned the game it would be yours to do whatever you want.

With DRM on a game you are simply buying the rights to play it. Sort if like paying for a TV licence here in the UK or medical care in the US you pay for you only it cannot be transferred to someone else. Sure you can buy the game for someone else but not buy it yourself and trade it the licence to play is for you only 1 player. But for a small fee you could transfer the licence to someone else.

DRM = Game licence to you to play the game. Someone else who has no licence for this game cannot play it. You cant transfer licence without outside help i.e a game store for a small fee.

GOOGLE SCREWS UP: LET'S FORGIVE THEM
APPLE SCREWS UP: LET'S FORGIVE THEM
SONY SCREWS UP: LET'S FORGIVE THEM

MICROSOFT SCREWS UP: GET THE PITCHFORKS, WOOD AND A FIRE GOING, LET'S BURN THIS WITCH ON A STEAK.... SO SO SAD...

THE ORIGINAL VISION WAS A TRUE VISION... STEAM & XBOX LIVES LOVE CHILD...
DIGITAL AND PHYSICAL BLEND AND THE LINE IS ERASED...

PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY... DRM ON A SYSTEM LEVEL IS LEAPS AND BOUNDS BETTER THAN ON A PHYSICAL LEVEL.....

I do give Kudos to Sony though... They knew what Microsoft was trying to do, is truly innovative.. You noticed that during interviews Sony says it can have the "Same features in place"...
Sony just used Microsoft's inability to clarify a message against them to buy themselves some time...

PS4 has the raw horse power... I give it that... But from what I've seen so far, it has no vision...

Showan said,
GOOGLE SCREWS UP: LET'S FORGIVE THEM
APPLE SCREWS UP: LET'S FORGIVE THEM
SONY SCREWS UP: LET'S FORGIVE THEM

MICROSOFT SCREWS UP: GET THE PITCHFORKS, WOOD AND A FIRE GOING, LET'S BURN THIS WITCH ON A STEAK.... SO SO SAD...

THE ORIGINAL VISION WAS A TRUE VISION... STEAM & XBOX LIVES LOVE CHILD...
DIGITAL AND PHYSICAL BLEND AND THE LINE IS ERASED...

PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY... DRM ON A SYSTEM LEVEL IS LEAPS AND BOUNDS BETTER THAN ON A PHYSICAL LEVEL.....

I do give Kudos to Sony though... They knew what Microsoft was trying to do, is truly innovative.. You noticed that during interviews Sony says it can have the "Same features in place"...
Sony just used Microsoft's inability to clarify a message against them to buy themselves some time...

PS4 has the raw horse power... I give it that... But from what I've seen so far, it has no vision...

They actually announced many of their new features before the XBox One, and I was actually pretty impressed. I was also impressed by the XBox One's ability to interface so well with television, but I'm a Sony guy, and the DRM totally turned me off to the possibility of an XB1, even if they did end up removing it as a kneejerk reaction to getting their asses handed to them at E-3.

Now that the DRM is out of the question, my primary concern with the XB1 is that I've heard it will be running 3 separate operating systems simultaneously, a modified Windows 8/RTM based OS for running applications like Skype, the gaming OS, and an OS just to act as a moderator between those two. Not only does the XB1 have slightly (not drastically, at least from what I understand) weaker hardware, I think it's going to have trouble rivaling visual quality later on once developers start pushing the consoles because it's going to have so much more overhead to deal with than the PS4.

Gerowen said,

They actually announced many of their new features before the XBox One, and I was actually pretty impressed. I was also impressed by the XBox One's ability to interface so well with television, but I'm a Sony guy, and the DRM totally turned me off to the possibility of an XB1, even if they did end up removing it as a kneejerk reaction to getting their asses handed to them at E-3.

Now that the DRM is out of the question, my primary concern with the XB1 is that I've heard it will be running 3 separate operating systems simultaneously, a modified Windows 8/RTM based OS for running applications like Skype, the gaming OS, and an OS just to act as a moderator between those two. Not only does the XB1 have slightly (not drastically, at least from what I understand) weaker hardware, I think it's going to have trouble rivaling visual quality later on once developers start pushing the consoles because it's going to have so much more overhead to deal with than the PS4.

XB1 has 8gb of memory... And it's all dedicated to a task... 3gb of memory is dedicated to the OS (and the bridging OS)... 5gb of ram is dedicated to the Xbox side...
This is what I learned from the programmers at my job... When you code to the dedicated resources (I think I'm saying correctly)... The performance of that task should be amazing..

Commenting is disabled on this article.