Suggestion: Family Sharing enabled on Xbox One Games Downloads. Post-DRM


Recommended Posts

It's been an exciting week! E3, aftermaths, lots of games, and today, the DRM removal of the Xbox One.

For one, I think many people over the net are happy, others are lent down because this could remove the proposal of having cheaper games at early times. Others, like me, are quite sad to see that the family sharing feature will fade away.


Since I believe that complaining does not solve a thing, I suggest (which I could be very wrong) to allow games downloaded via Xbox Live to be shared with family members. Furthermore, the DRM will be the same used on the 360.

You can do it a la iTunes. For example, if I connect to the Internet, I decide which family members will be allowed to play the game at once. Since, I believe there were two people, I select the ones I see fit. if I select two family members, then my game is locked out, and I can't play it until I relinquish the authorization from other family members.


The thing is that a single player game could be replicated throughout all family members if they decide to set each other offline. Example: I have three family members: Alan, Wilson, William. I activate the family sharing, and lend Wilson the game. I can still play the game because I own the authorization. I disconnect my xbox from the Internet. I log in in another console and relinquish my own authorization and give it to Alan. Then, Wilson does the same: he disconnects his device from the Internet, and logs in in William's device. He sets the rights to use the game to William. Now, the 4 can play the same game at the same time.

Why? Because each xbox offline were previously authorized to play each game. They will be able to do so, as long as you don't connect back to the Internet.

To counter this method, I'd suggest a mandatory online check, each 24 hours, IF AND ONLY IF you enable Family Sharing. Both parties would be happy.

 

I've also made this post on Xbox Live Forums to see how people react to it! 

 

What do you think?!

 

http://forums.xbox.com/xbox_forums/general_discussion/f/3817/p/1429486/3568483.aspx#3568483

My suggestion....

 

Enabling Family Share a user must meet the following requirements:

 

  • Authorized owner's xbox one system game must be downloaded digitally
  • Authorized owner's xbox one system must be online within a 24 hr period (or always online)

Shared Game Library:

 

  • Can only be accessed if user is online and within the authorized owner's list of 10 family members
  • Shared games can't be played offline
  • Shared games can only be accessed by 1 member of the family at a time

That simple.
 

I think they're going to re-add the sharing plan again.  It's one thing people liked all DRM aside.  The best way to do it is with full digital downloads to start.  After that there should be a way/option to make your disc copy a full digital copy and thus not have a need for the disc to be in the try again and also to have it be shared.

 

The best thing this way is that those who want to use it more digitally can, and those who want to stick tied to a disc can but I think the option should be there.  And yeah, in order to do it you'll have to agree to a online security check of 24hrs or w/e. 

My suggestion....

 

Enabling Family Share a user must meet the following requirements:

 

  • Authorized owner's xbox one system game must be downloaded digitally
  • Authorized owner's xbox one system must be online within a 24 hr period (or always online)

Shared Game Library:

 

  • Can only be accessed if user is online and within the authorized owner's list of 10 family members
  • Shared games can't be played offline
  • Shared games can only be accessed by 1 member of the family at a time

That simple.

 

The other way still had more benefits though, alot of people have bandwidth caps or slow internet speeds and as more people start going digital and using the internet to downloading bigger files, ISP are going to be introducing more restrictive caps, before there were no caps, now there all sorts of teir's and it is only goign to get worse. With the previous policy, i could buy the physical copy install it to my hd and play it without the disc, while pass the disc to my friend, so they could do the same and we wouldn't have to wait for the download or be worried about using up our bandwidth or going over the cap.

 

  • Shared games can't be played offline             should at least be able to play for 1 hr offline incase net goes down!

 

Honestly, I really liked that feature.  I'm a bit confused as to why they didn't keep that as is, and just allow disc based authentication as a fallback if you didn't have internet...

 

I figured they would handle it like Privacy Controls, where you can allow or disallow the 24 hour check (And it's benefits), so if it were turned off, or the internet were not available for a 24 hour period, you could just use the disc as authentication...

 

And I completely understand the concerns about piracy, but by requiring if the internet isn't available that you have the disc, doesn't seem too unreasonable...

 

But in all honesty, Microsoft themselves seemed really confused by the whole model...  They really need to figure that  out before they push forward with something like this.

these suggestions are good yes, but they don't take into consideration of piracy. how do you stop piracy, piracy was the reason for the 24hr check.

 

I was for the drm policy, it was worth the trade off. The family sharing and cloud features seemed worth it, but they probably had some limits on it as well, perhaps things like, shared games cannot unlock achievements, gain gamer points, only purchased games can enter tournaments for prizes, etc, this would have given shared friends more incentives to buy the game to own.

I just don't get why we can't have an opt-in opt-out for this sharing and other features that require the DRM there... if we want to do the online thing fine you opt-in... else you play off line.... kinda like xbox live is now.... you want it you do it else you just play by your little lone self

My suggestion....

 

Enabling Family Share a user must meet the following requirements:

 

  • Authorized owner's xbox one system game must be downloaded digitally
  • Authorized owner's xbox one system must be online within a 24 hr period (or always online)

Shared Game Library:

 

  • Can only be accessed if user is online and within the authorized owner's list of 10 family members
  • Shared games can't be played offline
  • Shared games can only be accessed by 1 member of the family at a time

That simple.

 

No need to be digitally downloaded, just connected at least once every 24 hours to verify license. No reason physical discs can't join the fun too as long as you check in with them.

I just don't get why we can't have an opt-in opt-out for this sharing and other features that require the DRM there... if we want to do the online thing fine you opt-in... else you play off line.... kinda like xbox live is now.... you want it you do it else you just play by your little lone self

 

If they do like I expect and start to add some of these features back in bit by bit then we could very well end up with a opt-in situation.  It's just hard to say how long it will take, maybe the the end of 2014?  Maybe longer than that?  I still don't see them dropping any of their original plans, they're just on hold a bit, that's all.

I don't see why it should take that long to implement. I mean, you'd think the system was pretty much done already.

If they really want to turn the tables, and rewrite all those feature comparison charts, then they would be wise to have them both available at launch.

I don't see why it should take that long to implement. I mean, you'd think the system was pretty much done already.

If they really want to turn the tables, and rewrite all those feature comparison charts, then they would be wise to have them both available at launch.

 

 

Software development is not an easy switch. Much testing has to go into it. They may add more features not that far after launch...maybe next spring with Titanfall ;). I know right now, even having to re-implement the old stuff is a tough task. I feel sorry for their developers and testers and program managers (that's how teams work at MS) who thought they were going to have a nice break...jeez.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!
    • Depends on what you need. Might be a bit clearer on what you plan to do with it. Sort of a waste if you get the newest and greatest, but don't know how to use it.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      258
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!