Support NeoGAF

[ultron87]

I don't want to talk about users but everyone has said the guy(cboat) is mostly accurate. This one just scream microsoft straight up lying about the policy which is difficult to comprehend when they were clear about their other drm policy which is far more negative.

Yeah, that is the thing I've been struggling with this whole time. With the other terrible stuff they did regarding the One they just said it upfront and directly. And for each of those things you could figure out some motive for it that made sense from some perspective, even if you didn't agree with that perspective. Even in the past when they were dishonest about stuff like the RROD you could figure out a reasonable financial reason for them to do that even if though it was a very shitty thing to do.

In this case I can't figure out any reason for them to lie so blatantly about this policy. I'd expect blatant incompetence, but they all kind of seem to be on message when it comes to it, so it seems like the messaging was a reasoned policy decision.

 

[Windu]

So there was no limit. Interesting. Well now I am sad to see it go.

 

[tearsofash]

If ten people are dropping $500 on a system, I'm sure they can figure a way to buy their own games too.

 

[QaaQer]

I don't know whom to believe anymore. This feature was cancelled anyway, so Microsoft can tell what they want. I want to believe them, but to be able to share a game with 10 friends sounds unreal.

Microsoft mouthpieces have lied multiple times over the last couple of months. Why anyone would take anything they have to say at face value is beyond me; although i guess it could be explained by stupidity and/or naivety.

 

[BlazeGaj]

Yeah, that is the thing I've been struggling with this whole time. With the other terrible stuff they did regarding the One they just said it upfront and directly. And for each of those things you could figure out some motive for it that made sense from some perspective, even if you didn't agree with that perspective. Even in the past when they were dishonest about stuff like the RROD you could figure out a reasonable financial reason for them to do that even if though it was a very shitty thing to do.

In this case I can't figure out any reason for them to lie so blatantly about this policy. I'd expect blatant incompetence, but they all kind of seem to be on message when it comes to it, so it seems like the messaging was a reasoned policy decision.

This is exactly my feeling as well. It makes no sense to lie about this.

 

[FrankT]

So there was no limit. Interesting. Well now I am sad to see it go.

GAF just got pastebined again. Heh

 

[JesseZao]

Spoiler

<3 Michael Shannon

I think they'll just re-brand this whole thing down the line to something that actually makes sense for the feature that it supposedly is. Shame for all the people who got so hyped up though. It's nice to dream big even if it's just that, a dream caused by ridiculous amounts of misinformation and terrible fucking PR.

I don't understand your agenda. Continue stroking.

 

[Hagi]

I don't understand your agenda. Continue stroking.

Eh i don't really have an agenda and i don't stroke when my girlfriend is in the room. Lets try to keep this on topic though before Bish appears.

Not that i don't trust Microsoft or anything but i'd like to hear somebodies opinion on this debacle who is at least somewhat impartial.

 

[QaaQer]

This is exactly my feeling as well. It makes no sense to lie about this.

It makes them look like nice guys who care about their customers. You seriously cannot see that? Or do we have another bunch of social media marketers here?

 

[Marty Chinn]

So, what did you think would happen after that hour check-in? The game would just keep playing? What's the point for the hour check-in otherwise?

I'll save you the answer: in one of the very first interviews, Harrison says your buddy would be prompted to purchase the game to continue playing.

Just like the 24 hour check in, it needs to just validate with the server. That's what happens.

The interview with Phil Harrison was specifically talking about going to friend's place, installing the game and then leaving. Of course that person wouldn't get a free copy of the game. He'd have to buy it to activate it under his account/system.

You're trying to connect two things that don't connect only because you know the end result.

 

[Socreges]

Microsoft mouthpieces have lied multiple times over the last couple of months. Why anyone would take anything they have to say at face value is beyond me; although i guess it could be explained by stupidity and/or naivety.

What have they lied about exactly? This isn't me suggesting that they haven't, but it'd just be interesting to see a list.

 

[ultron87]

It makes them look like nice guys who care about their customers. You seriously cannot see that? Or do we have another bunch of social media marketers here?

Yes, it makes them look like nice guys for like 3 weeks until someone ferrets out the actual details and then they look like horrible monsters and they have another gigantic PR shitstorm. No company is that horrifically short sighted.

 

[Garrett 2U]

It makes them look like nice guys who care about their customers. You seriously cannot see that? Or do we have another bunch of social media marketers here?

Just like Sony's "decision" not to enforce DRM made them look like nice guys who cared about their customers...
When really they just didn't have the infrastructure to support it and couldn't scale to do it.
Creating a huge cloud like Microsoft has costs a lot of money, and Sony just couldn't invest in something like that...

If Microsoft could have echoed their benefits better and consumers liked what they were doing, Sony wouldn't have been able to match it.
But instead, Microsoft had a communication disaster and Sony took advantage of it.

It is all business man.

 

[BlazeGaj]

It makes them look like nice guys who care about their customers. You seriously cannot see that? Or do we have another bunch of social media marketers here?

If that was the case they would have preached about it when they released it. Later on when they were asked they was no mention about timed or demo. The only confusion was how many can play at the same time. Even now they said the same.

I don't see it but if you still see it as a lie then we agree to disagree here

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

It's sad that we're at a point where many people believe anonymous pastebin posts over the #2 guy working on Xbox.

My theory is that the reason why MS was vague on the details is because they were still negotiating with publishers for rights. Microsoft probably wanted unlimited access for all games (and you probably would have gotten unlimited access for 1st party games), but some publishers wanted more restrictions on sharing. So both sides could be telling the truth to some extent, although the official terms posted on Xbox.com promised "unlimited" access.


I also thought the family plan was too good to be true, but my thinking was that the 9 people sharing would be subaccounts for a main account and have to share a credit card/billing. It would have made sense as to why it was called a "family share" as a means to provide access to your game library to kids away at college or for split families with shared custody. However they have confirmed that you didn't have to be at the same billing address, so that shared credit card theory was wrong.

 

[weekend_warrior]

60 min of Titanfall > 0 Min of Titanfall

What's stopping publishers from just putting out a damn demo then? Battlefield 1943 had a 1 hour trial for PSN and XBL. There's absolutely no reason to limit it to what your friends are playing, and it's pathetic to ever call it a worthy feature.

 

[JesseZao]

Eh i don't really have an agenda and i don't stroke when my girlfriend is in the room. Lets try to keep this on topic though before Bish appears.

Not that i don't trust Microsoft or anything but i'd like to hear somebodies opinion on this debacle who is at least somewhat impartial.

I post something impartial and you respond with an oozing facetious statement and then with an image macro. Check yo self before you wreck yo self.

 

[commedieu]

So there was no limit. Interesting. Well now I am sad to see it go.

No, According to Cboat, who has a what? 100% accuracy rating.. It was a limit.

suits aren't in the business of being open and honest.

It's sad that we're at a point where many people believe anonymous pastebin posts over the #2 guy working on Xbox.

My theory is that the reason why MS was vague on the details is because they were still negotiating with publishers for rights. Microsoft probably wanted unlimited access for all games (and you probably would have gotten unlimited access for 1st party games), but some publishers wanted more restrictions on sharing. So both sides could be telling the truth to some extent, although the official terms posted on Xbox.com promised "unlimited" access.


I also thought the family plan was too good to be true, but my thinking was that the 9 people sharing would be subaccounts for a main account and have to share a credit card/billing. It would have made sense as to why it was called a "family share" as a means to provide access to your game library to kids away at college or for split families with shared custody. However they have confirmed that you didn't have to be at the same billing address, so that shared credit card theory was wrong.

You do realize there is a reason Cboat is respected on GAF, and not banned for his reveals, right?

are you really just covering your ears at all of that?

 

[QaaQer]

What have they lied about exactly? This isn't me suggesting that they haven't, but it'd just be interesting to see a list.

Off the top of my head: 'cannot be flipped off like a switch', 'each xbone will have the power of 3 xbones in the cloud', 'the so-called live demo at their reveal', 'paying devs to not announce a ps4 version of games so as to make them look like exclusives'

I'm sure there are lots more.


And its not like I hate MS, but like Jonathan Blow, I hate when companies lie contemptuously and people don't notice. http://gengame.net/2013/05/jonathan-blow-on-xbox-one-reveal-microsoft-is-lying-contemptuously/

 

[Diffense]

How convenient.

NOW that they've cancelled the program they tell us that it was full game sharing.
Where were all these details when sharing and restrictive DRM were actually going to happen?
And where is the giant rolleyes smiley when you need it.

 

[Kinyou]

Well we know it wasn't a time limited demo.

I think I'll trust this more than the anonymous pastebin post.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Thurrot seems to gloss over this part:


"Share access to your games with everyone inside your home: Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games."

The "UNLIMITED" access is in YOUR HOME. on your machine. so the games are licensed to you. they're not the same as the shared libraries available to them in their homes.

yeah, that is pretty damning. they clearly mention unlimited for your home and your console and then on family share they say everything except that. no doubt now that there was a limit. and yeah, it was probably 60 minutes.

 

[Eric C]

It's sad that we're at a point where many people believe anonymous pastebin posts over the #2 guy working on Xbox.

I don't trust only the pastebin. On it's own the pastebin would be complete crap, who would ever know if it was true or not.

But CBOAT confirmed the 60 minute limit. CBOAT has earned GAF's trust, he/she has been leaking accurate stuff to GAF for nearly a decade, since before the 360 was released.


Now that it's officially canceled, and people found out what it was, why would any Microsoft employee confirm "Yeah. You know that Family Share program. It was complete crap, 60 minute demos. Please hate us more."

 

[Rebel Leader]

I think I'll trust this more than the anonymous pastebin post.

There would have to be a limit. Sony had gamesharing and pubs and devs hatted it

#teamCBOAT

 

[Hagi]

I post something impartial and you respond with an oozing facetious statement and then with an image macro. Check yo self before you wreck yo self.

The impartial thing wasn't aimed at you, i was talking about liking to hear from someone other than Aaron Greenberg. You missed out Chickity.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

GAF just got pastebined again. Heh

The MSFT PR machine will say anything so I don't really believe them on this anyways. The feature is gone for good or bad.

 

[Crisco]

lol at "it was as we described". The problem is they never actually described it in any detail.

 

[adamsappel]

My theory is that the reason why MS was vague on the details is because they were still negotiating with publishers for rights. Microsoft probably wanted unlimited access for all games (and you probably would have gotten unlimited access for 1st party games), but some publishers wanted more restrictions on sharing. So both sides could be telling the truth to some extent, although the official terms posted on Xbox.com promised "unlimited" access.

If that were true, don't you think MS would have said so, as Sony did about no PS4 DRM (only later stating outright they were referring to their own published games)?

 

[Garrett 2U]

yeah, that is pretty damning. they clearly mention unlimited for your home and your console and then on family share they say everything except that. no doubt now that there was a limit. and yeah, it was probably 60 minutes.

I can see why you'd think that if you didn't know how the 360 digital license worked and how they evolved it to form the family sharing plan.

How it works now is anyone can play your downloaded game on your 360, but if you download it into another 360 then your gamertag has to be signed in to play it.

What they are saying here is anyone can play your games on your XboxOne that you bought it on.
However if they are sharing your game on a different box, only 1 person can play at a time.
But if your gamertag is signed in on a different box, you can play your games at any time.

Once you understand how that works, the time limits for checking online start to make sense and why they say unlimited play on your 'home'/original box.

On your box it's a much more lenient license, you only have to check in ever 24 hrs.
On a different box it's more of a temporary license and you need to check in after an hour of being offline.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

lol at "it was as we described". The problem is they never actually described it in any detail.

I already said this but yes, this is it. Much like everything else they proposed and were going to bring to the table yet some here swallowed it up no matter what.

I'm a little more pessimistic after this whole BS campaign we've witnessed from MSFT the last 1-2 months.

 

[electricpirate]

Sounds like both CBOAT and the executives have some wiggle room. 60 minute sessions, but there were unlimited "sessions" with talk of how to limit those.

 

[Angelus Errare]

It's sad that we're at a point where many people believe anonymous pastebin posts over the #2 guy working on Xbox.

My theory is that the reason why MS was vague on the details is because they were still negotiating with publishers for rights. Microsoft probably wanted unlimited access for all games (and you probably would have gotten unlimited access for 1st party games), but some publishers wanted more restrictions on sharing. So both sides could be telling the truth to some extent, although the official terms posted on Xbox.com promised "unlimited" access.


I also thought the family plan was too good to be true, but my thinking was that the 9 people sharing would be subaccounts for a main account and have to share a credit card/billing. It would have made sense as to why it was called a "family share" as a means to provide access to your game library to kids away at college or for split families with shared custody. However they have confirmed that you didn't have to be at the same billing address, so that shared credit card theory was wrong.

Yea just like first party 360 games were going to be $49.99...

 

[LCfiner]

Just like Sony's "decision" not to enforce DRM made them look like nice guys who cared about their customers...
When really they just didn't have the infrastructure to support it and couldn't scale to do it.
Creating a huge cloud like Microsoft has costs a lot of money, and Sony just couldn't invest in something like that...

If Microsoft could have echoed their benefits better and consumers liked what they were doing, Sony wouldn't have been able to match it.
But instead, Microsoft had a communication disaster and Sony took advantage of it.

It is all business man.

the only person who has said this is Klepek on GB. And I suspect those sources are kinda full of shit as the talk was about how Sony was going to do it and then backed out.

Sony had been talking about the PS4 being payable fully offline much earlier in the year. They had no plans to make the DRM baked into the console and then back out last minute.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

No, According to Cboat, who has a what? 100% accuracy rating.. It was a limit.

suits aren't in the business of being open and honest.



You do realize there is a reason Cboat is respected on GAF, and not banned for his reveals, right?

are you really just covering your ears at all of that?

Cboat has also gotten things partially wrong in the past (Prince of Persia) and his comment contradicts the pastebin rumor. Pastebin said 15 minutes-45 minutes. Cboat said 60 minutes. So technically we have 3 different stories and no way of knowing which one is 100% truthfact.

Like I said maybe it's a little bit of each. Maybe Microsoft was still in the process of negotiating for rights with publishers which was the reason for not making a bigger deal about the feature. Maybe access would have varied by game, but many games would have had unlimited shared access.

Hopefully whatever the feature was supposed to be it will resurface again, because what they're offering right now for digital downloads is crap.

 

[Kinyou]

There would have to be a limit. Sony had gamesharing and pubs and devs hatted it

#teamCBOAT

I guess at the end it is impossible to prove either.

 

[Stainless]

Never forget...

You forgot step 5 on the XBox plan- Get new friends when they all rage at you when they hit a paywall after playing said game for only 30 minutes

 

[Delusibeta]

ITT: gullible fanboys eating Microsoft lies.

 

[N2NOther]

No, According to Cboat, who has a what? 100% accuracy rating.. It was a limit.

suits aren't in the business of being open and honest.



You do realize there is a reason Cboat is respected on GAF, and not banned for his reveals, right?

are you really just covering your ears at all of that?

Not to rock the boat or anything but he said Mirror's Edge 2 would be at Microsoft's presser and that there would be some sort of Prince of Persia "regurgitation" at E3. Both of which didn't happen.

While he is fairly accurate, 100% is a stretch.

 

[not psycho]

There would have to be a limit. Sony had gamesharing and pubs and devs hatted it

And once again, devs hated Sony game sharing (forced them to limit it to 2 and also used their own DRM to stop it) but Sony's terms of service don't even say game sharing is allowed.

It is either insanity or extreme wishful thinking to believe that Microsoft was going to put in their terms of service that you can share globally, anonymously (no giving account info), risk free, and join groups you find online to play every game on the system for free.

Well now I am sad to see it go.

Eh, I already used it to play most of the games for free. You should have bought the console day one if you wanted to use such an abused feature before they got rid of it.

 

[SRTtoZ]

Yea like MS is gonna come out and say 'Yep it was a 60 minute demo thing, we knew it wasnt gonna go over well with our audience so we backed the fuck up, but yea that was our plan".

 

[DarkCloud]

'paying devs to not announce a ps4 version of games so as to make them look like exclusives'

What games? Name them please.

Killer Instinct, Halo, Forza, Kinect Sports Rivals, Black Tusk's game. Owned by Microsoft.
Quantum Break, D4, Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, Project Spark. All Published by Microsoft Games.
Dead Rising 3. Paid for Exclusive.
Titan Fall. Timed Exclusive (maybe). At present though it's still exclusive to the Xbox platforms as far as consoles are concerned.

All other games shown (MGSV, Battlefield 4) were already confirmed for the PS4 at least.

The only Xbox 1 title announced soley for the xbox platform outside of microsofts conference were Zoo Tycoon and Fantasia (kinect titles) and Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare. Are we to believe that MS paid EA to not mention a sweet PS4 version of PVZ and yet let them announce Mirrors Edge 2 as multiplatform?

Seriously that stupid paid off rumor needs to die. Hell if anything the one paying off devs at the time was sony (dlc trinkets in every game).

 

[JesseZao]

The impartial thing wasn't aimed at you, i was talking about liking to hear from someone other than Aaron Greenberg. You missed out Chickity.

Oh, I know. Let me break it down for you. You were confused about what your agenda is, so I was helping you see how it appeared. I used your own language as you purport to value "impartiality."

 

[The Faceless Master]

I can see why you'd think that if you didn't know how the 360 digital license worked and how they evolved it to form the family sharing plan.

How it works now is anyone can play your downloaded game on your 360, but if you download it into another 360 then your gamertag has to be signed in to play it.

What they are saying here is anyone can play your games on your XboxOne that you bought it on.
However if they are sharing your game on a different box, only 1 person can play at a time.
But if your gamertag is signed in on a different box, you can play your games at any time.

Once you understand how that works, the time limits for checking online start to make sense and why they say unlimited play on your 'home'/original box.

On your box it's a much more lenient license, you only have to check in ever 24 hrs.
On a different box it's more of a temporary license and you need to check in after an hour of being offline.

i completely understand how the 360 works and nothing you said makes sense. it's either unlimited (time) or time limited and your paragraphs have no bearing on that.

 

[N2NOther]

And once again, devs hated Sony game sharing (forced them to limit it to 2 and also used their own DRM to stop it) but Sony's terms of service don't even say game sharing is allowed.

It is either insanity or extreme wishful thinking to believe that Microsoft was going to put in their terms of service that you can share globally, anonymously (no giving account info), risk free, and join groups you find online to play every game on the system for free.

Especially since they were restricting who you could "gift" the game to a friend for at least 30 days and only once.

Why on earth would the disc copy be under such limitations but the digital was free to be passed around to 10 people. None of this makes a lick of sense. At all.

 

[DarkCloud]

Not to rock the boat or anything but he said Mirror's Edge 2 would be at Microsoft's presser and that there would be some sort of Prince of Persia "regurgitation" at E3. Both of which didn't happen.

While he is fairly accurate, 100% is a stretch.

He also stated that there would be a 2nd capcom game at least with exclusive dlc on the XB1. There was no other capcom game or dlc.

 

[Kinyou]

And its not like I hate MS, but like Jonathan Blow, I hate when companies lie contemptuously and people don't notice. http://gengame.net/2013/05/jonathan-blow-on-xbox-one-reveal-microsoft-is-lying-contemptuously/

Didn't the latest cloud talks with Respawn entertainment actually make it sound as if MS has those server capabilities?

 

[WiiFan]

I can't comprehend why they canceled all the good features that were planned before like game sharing. They were like:"You don't want our revolution? Well, F**K YOU!!"

There is any explanation?

 

[Ishmae1]

I'm still wondering when pastebin became truth, although we'll likely never know either way.

 

[Shosai]

I can't comprehend why they canceled all the good features that were planned before like game sharing. They were like:"You don't want our revolution? Well, F**K YOU!!"

There is any explanation?

My best guess is that they have some avenue to re-introduce that model mid-generation, once people are already secure in their Xbox One purchases.

 

[Garrett 2U]

i completely understand how the 360 works and nothing you said makes sense. it's either unlimited (time) or time limited and your paragraphs have no bearing on that.

On other Xboxs you and others have limited access to your games.
You can play any of your games on another Xbox if you are signed in.
Others can play your games AND DLC on another Xbox if they are in your family sharing plan, and nobody else is playing one of your games.

What they are saying there is that despite the restrictions on other Xbox Ones playing your games, you and everyone else have unlimited access to your games on your own XboxOne.
That statement does not impose a limit on the family sharing plan.


Which is all an evolution of your digital rights on the Xbox 360:
You and everyone else have unlimited access to any of your games on your Xbox 360.
You can play any of your games on another Xbox 360 if you are signed in.
Others cannot play any of your games on another Xbox 360.