Major Nelson said it best. It's exactly like it is today except digital. I think people expecting to play someone else's library at the same time as them are going to be extremely disappointed in the near future.
idk from the way major said it, it sounded like its like a real library. If someone checks out a game in the library you can't, but you can play other games in the library that no one else is.
No one should expect to be able to play one copy of a game on multiple machines at the same time, you can't do it physically so why digital. If they allow for 2 people, thank the gods. Now sharing the library is an awesome idea that I can get behind.
More like shamily plan, amirite gaiyz?
But seriously, this is such a cool feature. My only problem is I don't have ten friends. And I foresee arms races between friends to keep their respective libraries comparable, for fear of being dropped from the other's share.
Arms races? I dunno what sorta people you had in mind for your group but for me it's just going to be me and a couple of my close friends. Maybe some not so close too.
Isn't this essentially just like the current PS3 system...you can have any 2 consoles sharing any games & content at any one time, however with PS3 you can both play online too.
For example, I played online with my son on a digital copy of RDR which was my PS+ title.
All you have to do is have your account details on as many PS3s as you want (ie your whole family) and then whoever wants to play gets the 2 'active' slots.
That contradicts the mention that the original owner will always have access, though.idk from the way major said it, it sounded like its like a real library. If someone checks out a game in the library you can't, but you can play other games in the library that no one else is.
Bolded part is fine for family, but not something I'd really want to do outside of that.
Considering the account associated with the Xbox is 1 account to rule them all basically I say @#$@#$@ NO.
Account sharing is not something I am very high on. I personally can't believe Sony actually encourages this in their system. Its horrible, you simply never EVER share your account on anything.
how different is it from playing split screen.So basically if me and my friend Timmy both pay 30 bucks for 1 sinle player game, we both get to play it? Hmm..
So basically if me and my friend Timmy both pay 30 bucks for 1 sinle player game, we both get to play it? Hmm..
Yeah if your not online, but kinda the same as it is now with a phycial copy except without the leg work.
But I think as soon as you went online they would be locked out
Again, it has been mentioned that original owner will never get locked from his games.
So if I get the latest game, does it automatically become shareable with 10 other people, or can the user deem it shareable?
I can't imagine it being a great thing buying a new game, but being unable to access it later in the day, when I want to, because someone on my friend's list is playing it.
I have a hard tiime believing this isn't something that was implemented or adjusted in response to the backlash. Otherwise why the hell would they not tout what is IMO the BEST feature of thier system? At best they didn't understand the value of it to the consumer, which is just as dumb IMO.
So this can be shared and pass region locking restriction across the pond with 10 people?
I just don't understand why they haven't made a bigger deal about it, unless the sharing plan wasn't finalized.They announced it at the exact same time as the DRM and used market control, just before E3. So it was before most of the backlash (that really started after the Sony conference).
I expect Xbone's region locking to work the same way 360's did. I have an American gamertag on my Polish 360 and minus a few IP blocked games everything ss working just fine.They announced it at the exact same time as the DRM and used market control, just before E3. So it was before most of the backlash (that really started after the Sony conference).
I very much doubt it. Since everything is digital in the MS system, when you're sharing a game, you're actually sharing a license. And with region locking, you only have a license for a game of your own region, so it shouldn't be valid outside of it.
I don't think even MS would be retarded enough to do the latter.Quick question.
I borrow Halo 5 and download it (say 40GB) and then another person wants it. Does the game just get locked from me or do I have to delete and re-download again when the other guy is done?
I assume the former.
Region lock for sharing is surely there. Otherwise you could just share Japanese only games to US for example and that just sounds too good.
that yusuf guy said you could add someone who is 3000 miles away into your family sharing
Someone from East Coast sharing a game with someone from Hawaii or Alaska. That's around 5000 miles.that yusuf guy said you could add someone who is 3000 miles away into your family sharing
I very much doubt it. Since everything is digital in the MS system, when you're sharing a game, you're actually sharing a license. And with region locking, you only have a license for a game of your own region, so it shouldn't be valid outside of it.
I don't think even MS would be retarded enough to do the latter.
Quick question.
I borrow Halo 5 and download it (say 40GB) and then another person wants it. Does the game just get locked from me or do I have to delete and re-download again when the other guy is done?
I assume the former.
Someone from East Coast sharing a game with someone from Hawaii or Alaska. That's around 5000 miles.
Alx said:Yes I don't think you would be asked to delete the game from your hard drive. The console doesn't really care about what is installed or not, but what you're allowed to run or not.
In a previous example, Phil Harrison (I think) explained how you could go to a friend with your disk, install the game on his console and play it with your own account. Then when you're gone, he still has the game on his drive, but cannot play it unless he buys it on his own.
That's not the sharing scenario, but it shows that the system is perfectly fine with leaving installations of different games on different consoles. Actually it could also help selling games : in your case you already have the full Halo 5 on your system, you started playing it and liked it, but if because of the sharing rules or possible restrictions you cannot play it at a given moment, you'd be tempted to buy it for yourself.
So basically if me and my friend Timmy both pay 30 bucks for 1 sinle player game, we both get to play it? Hmm..
From all of the prior discussion, this seems to be the case. From what I can tell, this system gets completely out of control when you try to balance 10 people. If it is true that you and one other person can play a shared game concurrently, the most rewarding decision would be to find only one other person to share games with. You would never have the lock out issue this way. Cutting game cost to $30 (assuming you both want the game) with absolutely no repercussion seems like an amazing deal. If this is the case, gaming on the Xbox One will actually be the cheaper option in the coming gen (assuming you buy more than 3 games in it's life-cycle). Perhaps all of the people griefing MS about Sony's better price tag should take note of this policy.
If there is anything incorrect here, please let me know.
Wasn't there supposed to be a blog post about this with accurate and more in depth info?
Major Nelson said he would write one up, didn't say when we would see it though. I would assume sometime later this week.
this is pretty much what I've been saying as well, someone shot me down saying 'you can do that on ps3 right now!' I don't have a ps3 so no idea.
Wasn't there supposed to be a blog post about this with accurate and more in depth info?