This is the thing that pisses me off the most about the entire situation. It seems to have escaped them that there is a difference between the average user not really caring about relatively minor hardware/software differences, and deliberately obfuscating product details to basically trick people into buying something. The fact that they didn't think it would blow up in their faces speaks volumes about the disconnect between the people handling the launch, and their target market.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MS eliminates its best new feature: 10 person, 60 min Family Sharing plan for Xbone
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
This is the thing that pisses me off the most about the entire situation. It seems to have escaped them that there is a difference between the average user not really caring about relatively minor hardware/software differences, and deliberately obfuscating product details to basically trick people into buying something. The fact that they didn't think it would blow up in their faces speaks volumes about the disconnect between the people handling the launch, and their target market.
The 60 minute thing doesn't even make sense if you take a second to think about it. Why would they have to eliminate that feature now? Why even talk about it the way they did? Its worthless.... And with everyone and their brother admitting it was the full games with no limit, exactly as they described, the reaction the gaming community had before getting all the info pisses me off. The fact that Microsoft pulled a 180 pisses me off even more. I canceled my preorder after this debacle. Both consoles are basically exactly the same, which is what people want I guess. This is why the game industry is so stagnant.
Better eliminate the feature now than face the flak MS would receive when users realized the whole 60 minutes thing.
It wasn't 60 minutes, otherwise I wouldn't care that they removed it. This has been confirmed by everyone who has commented on it. The 60 minutes thing is something someone pulled out of their ass.
natkingcoleslaw
Neo Member
I posted this elsewhere, but it seems relevant here as well so:
The feature elimination comes across as just vindictive and quite immature. It almost feels like them saying "fuck you. You deserved this." after being handed that massive beatdown by the gaming community.
I kind of see the point how used games available on day 2 (or even day 1) after launch would cannibalize new game sales which atm are the only source of revenue for devs. But this doesn't mean used games should be eliminated.
A simple 3-6 or so months moratorium on the sale of used games by "participating retailers" should be an adequate solution. All this means is, while I can't trade in a new game after a week for store credit, I'm still free to sell my 1 copy on ebay or to a friend. These large retailers with their massive distribution networks are more likely to affect new game sales than a bunch of gamers who need to find a buyer for their single copy.
So while, a hardware solution like what microsoft tried to impose with xbone is obviously stupid, not to mention expensive, the right way about this would have been to do the hard work of talking with retailers and have the required agreements in place rather than force us to be a part of their shenanigans.
The feature elimination comes across as just vindictive and quite immature. It almost feels like them saying "fuck you. You deserved this." after being handed that massive beatdown by the gaming community.
I kind of see the point how used games available on day 2 (or even day 1) after launch would cannibalize new game sales which atm are the only source of revenue for devs. But this doesn't mean used games should be eliminated.
A simple 3-6 or so months moratorium on the sale of used games by "participating retailers" should be an adequate solution. All this means is, while I can't trade in a new game after a week for store credit, I'm still free to sell my 1 copy on ebay or to a friend. These large retailers with their massive distribution networks are more likely to affect new game sales than a bunch of gamers who need to find a buyer for their single copy.
So while, a hardware solution like what microsoft tried to impose with xbone is obviously stupid, not to mention expensive, the right way about this would have been to do the hard work of talking with retailers and have the required agreements in place rather than force us to be a part of their shenanigans.
Dead Prince
Banned
I'm sure it would have been neat. Where it loads up a1 minute ad every x minutes
LiquidSolid
Member
How I wish I could be this naive, everything would be wonderful.
Yeah, Microsoft was going to let you share your games with 10 people and publishers were totally cool with the idea. That one seems more plausible based on everything else we know about their original policies.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Sorry for the lateness of my reply, went to bed early last night. Here's the link.
Where did this insane 60 minute rumor come from is my question? If you logically think about it, promoting such a program makes absolutely no sense. And why would they remove it now? If you don't think they would have mentioned its just a 60 minute demo, not the full access to the game like they were saying over and over, you are the naive one. This whole thing is just complete nonsense, much like the 30 page thread about MS employees, or the one about what major nelson told some random internet blogger in secret.
Yes, that was what they confirmed and reconfirmed and confirmed again after they removed it with the DRM change.
People are treating this as credible because a gaffer who correctly predicted a lot about the box and clearly works for Microsoft stated that it was true.
FairXchange
Member
Yes, because the way to stop used gaming is to give 10 people direct access to 1 new game sale indefinitely, forever.
Edit: MS haven't confirmed anything, in fact much of the rhetoric was about 'limited version', or 'single player experience' for the shared games.
The info came from our very own CBOAT in this very thread. So it is as good as confirmed.
The only thing that makes no sense in this whole mess is, why Microsoft would allow 10 people to play 1 copy on the most DRM ridden console ever. That's the one thing that made no sense.
And of course MS is gonna say: yeah this thing was totally balling, we wanted you to be able to share your game with the whole world, but oh too bad you made us change our plans"
Now, after they won't do it, talk is cheap.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Can you provide just a single link to where MS clearly said 10 people can share a game without any restrictions?
The only clear word he used in there was 'no'.
This is why it doesn't come off as credible.
While the DRM was in place, it was open to interpretation on what exactly the sharing thing is, and Microsoft didn't disclose it in much detail either, and now that it's scrapped we won't know as definitive proof one way or the other.
That being said if we take the rumour + CBOAT out of the equation the limit makes the most sense given everything that Microsoft has done up to now, actions speak louder than words and Microsoft's actions make the limit seem more plausible than sharing 1 full non restricted game among 10 people over the internet.
It took how long to be proven successful on the PC? Also, since there is virtually no market for boxed PC games, sales are not competing against retail. Also, comparing Smartphone gaming to $60 console gaming is erroneous at best.
Hopefully in 8 years the internet won't be as bad as it is now when it would take hours for people to download a game.
And honestly, I'm not so sure that disc-based media is on the outs like most people think it is. A LOT of people that don't spend their time on the internet don't give two shits about digital anything.
whoever keeps tweeting questions, they have to pin down the PR people. They keep leaving them outs. It wasn't demos. It was full games....for 60 minutes. It wasn't "only time limited access to games for family members", because the offerings weren't completely defined, so it remained open.
They are dealing with slippery characters, if that wasn't evident already, and now they're describing an extinct mythical beast anyway.
If anything they should ask "what restrictions, if any, were there?" and if they get another patently vague Major Nelson answer, then there you go.
But the logic doesn't fit. Why would MS put so much effort into locking down digital rights for sales if they were going to create some unlimited communal library for every user's friend's list so they could play and beat entire games without ever having to purchase or own them? Were they that progressive? I'm sure some would like us to believe they were, NOW, after the fact. But was it in fact true? I have my doubts, and only because Microsoft gave me those doubts.
They are dealing with slippery characters, if that wasn't evident already, and now they're describing an extinct mythical beast anyway.
If anything they should ask "what restrictions, if any, were there?" and if they get another patently vague Major Nelson answer, then there you go.
But the logic doesn't fit. Why would MS put so much effort into locking down digital rights for sales if they were going to create some unlimited communal library for every user's friend's list so they could play and beat entire games without ever having to purchase or own them? Were they that progressive? I'm sure some would like us to believe they were, NOW, after the fact. But was it in fact true? I have my doubts, and only because Microsoft gave me those doubts.
Confirmed by whom? Microsoft employees. Who a month ago were saying that you would have to pay a fee to play a used game. Then 2 weeks ago said, you could sell it to "participating retailers," and that the only way you can give away the physical disc was to an Xbox Live friend of at least 30 days and even then it could only be done once.
So you're telling me that a company that was working THAT hard to make selling or lending or renting games impossible because it meant a potential loss of revenue for them, would just allow 10 people to share one game for an unlimited amount of time?
This plan would undercut their profits by a far wider margin than any used games sales, renting or lending. Sorry, but that makes ZERO sense.
And this next question goes for everyone who is believing these "confirmations" from MS employees:
How would you explain the benefit for Microsoft and game publishers if this feature was a real thing?
Don't give buzz words or PR speak. Real world scenarios please. Because I just can't wrap my head around their contradictory actions. I honestly, no BS, want to know how this would work in their favor.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Re-read my post, that's not what I asked for.
Edit: Just noticed that sounded a little harsh. Sorry, didn't mean to sound rude.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, I agree with that. If they come out and say things that consumers find unacceptable. But consumers have no such ability to punish things like lying or fraud (at least not without turning things into a paranoid witch hunt since we lack the ability to investigate and verify).
Ironchef3500
Banned
Quadraphonic
Member
If we went back in time 30 days, we could be having the exact same argument about trading in games.
"No. Of course you'll be able to trade them in" says a PR person.
"What? Only trade it to a friend a single time? After knowing them for 30 days? That's confusing and wrong."
Every single reply pretty much parrots that.
"No. Of course you'll be able to trade them in" says a PR person.
"What? Only trade it to a friend a single time? After knowing them for 30 days? That's confusing and wrong."
Every single reply pretty much parrots that.
That ass happens to be a pair of crazy cheeks riding on a train, proven to be a very credible source. He said as much in this thread, you should try reading through it instead of jumping to the last page.
They don't explicitly state that the sharing allowed unlimited play. Their wording here is ambiguous at best; just a 'it's not accurate' denial instead of actually saying anything about the plan. Not good proof at all.
How come Greenberg didn't come out and define exactly what the Family Plan constituted before it was canned?
We barely had any info on the Family Plan beyond (share a game with 10 friends). Heck, I think Angry Joe even got confirmation from MS PR that it was only two games at a time, and only single-player no multiplayer, and even then we've heard different things from different MS mouthpieces.
So why are we trusting that "oh, its the best thing since sliced bread" when MS couldn't even get their message right originally?
Puppet Shadow
Member
Exactly. As they never once explicitly said you could do this (and Major Nelson himself said 'No...' it's pretty clear this was never the case. Not sure why some continue to ignore what Major Nelson said, he should be a decent enough source if you're not comfortable accepting what cboat said and The Verge reported.
mdsfx
Member
True, non-restricted game-sharing would have been a HUGE benefit to counter the negatives of the DRM policy, yet they didnt even mention it in their E3 presentation that I recall. There's no way they would have overlooked this as a selling point if it were the case. It would have been one of their key features, presented front and center.
I think you're giving Microsoft PR too much credit.
mdsfx
Member
You REALLY think they would overlook what everyone would consider to be a complete game-changer for the industry? I find it hard to believe.
They didn't overlook it, it was listed plain as day on their website announcement. They just don't seem to know how to convey things with the speaking.
Stone Ocean
Member
Except they never explained how family sharing worked. All we had were some vague conflicting tweets from some PR guys and Major Nelson promising a FAQ and never delivering. They didn't promote the program, they announced it vaguely and didn't even bother talking about it.
AFTER they removed, in other words now that they don't have to deliver shit, they can talk out of their asses all they want and lose nothing for it.
Ask anyone out here if we believe Sony never had any plans to do DRM on the PS4, even after them saying so. Stop being so gullible.
FieryBalrog
Member
And... I no longer have any interest in the Xbone. My interest in juggling discs like a primitive caveman is zero.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I doubt they are doing a by 1 get 9 free shit when trying to get more sales, not less
Why stop there? Why not stop changing TV channels?
=p
Why is XBL gold giving ages old games when PS+ has been giving new games for over a year now.
Man you must have hated your 360 then having to juggle multiple discs per game.
DeadlyBunny
Member
I still think it was plausible that the 10 member sharing plan was going to be unlimited sharing. Here are a few reasons.
1. One person playing per game means with 10 people, chances were slim that the hot new game would be available unless at least half of that 10 bought the game. The patient gamer that would be willing to wait until someone isn't playing anymore, is usually the person that would wait a week or 2 to buy used at a discount... Oh but wait they were allowed to do that anymore. Doesn't matter to th publisher if they wait to play their friends copy or buy used, as either way the publisher gets squat. But logging in 3 nights in a row to see all your friends playing with no copy available to "check out" makes it a lt harder to be patient.
2. A lot of the games we saw at e3 were multiplayer. Generally the 10 people in your "family" would be your friends.the guys you would play these games with together. But you can't play the same purchase at the same time. Want to romp around in a age with all your friends? Better buy your own damn copy. At full price. Cause lolnousedgames.
ALL THAT BEING SAID... It's all kind of moot now. Ms did away with the one feature that might have been awesome and set it apart from the ps4. Now all they have is a weaker console that's a 100 dollars more with a few games that may or may not stay exclusive forever.
1. One person playing per game means with 10 people, chances were slim that the hot new game would be available unless at least half of that 10 bought the game. The patient gamer that would be willing to wait until someone isn't playing anymore, is usually the person that would wait a week or 2 to buy used at a discount... Oh but wait they were allowed to do that anymore. Doesn't matter to th publisher if they wait to play their friends copy or buy used, as either way the publisher gets squat. But logging in 3 nights in a row to see all your friends playing with no copy available to "check out" makes it a lt harder to be patient.
2. A lot of the games we saw at e3 were multiplayer. Generally the 10 people in your "family" would be your friends.the guys you would play these games with together. But you can't play the same purchase at the same time. Want to romp around in a age with all your friends? Better buy your own damn copy. At full price. Cause lolnousedgames.
ALL THAT BEING SAID... It's all kind of moot now. Ms did away with the one feature that might have been awesome and set it apart from the ps4. Now all they have is a weaker console that's a 100 dollars more with a few games that may or may not stay exclusive forever.
mdsfx
Member
Thats my point. I dont think it was ever the case. Imagine the war they would have with developers/publishers. If I only had one close friend on my family list, we could always "go halves" on every game we both wanted to buy. All i can see is a loss in sales with this.
...buy digital? Ps4, 360, ps3 all will have a digital game marketplace for full retail games.
But it would be an uneven policy. Yes for multiplayer games it wouldn't effect sales because everyone will still need to buy. But this policy would absolutely decimate single player titles. Imagine how many sales a game like Rayman would have if only one copy was needed for every 10 players to play it. It would decimate the sales of certain titles and that's never a good thing.
CambriaRising
Member
Are you for real?
Cerebral Assassin
Member
You do realise that the XBOne(just like the PS4, PS3 & the 360) does not require you to ever put a disc into the machine, right?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
ALL THAT BEING SAID PART 2:
as I have said:
I doubt they are doing a by 1 get 9 free shit when trying to get more sales, not less
ALL THAT BEING SAID PART 3:
They can do this for digital games. Why are they not doing that? I wonder.
DeadlyBunny
Member
Totally agree. I think it's stupid that they pulled it all together (assuming it wasn't just a 60 min demo) instead of saying "ok, all that cool stuff applies to digital purchases only now". Suddenly, BAM best of Both worlds.
Trolling for sure.
as will the One. But if you can't share it and it's full price, that's the ultimate DRM.
because freely sellable/shareable discs still exist. In Gen 9 when discs don't exist, then we'll see.
Paladin CL
Member
The game sharing with without limitation doesnt make sense at all, the whole point of the DRM was to fight the used games sales and make profit for every single copy, so why gift 10 copies for every sale? is not that WAY worse for game developers than used games?
Do you think each copy are used and returned even 5 times?
They simply didnt had time to show the limitations of this feature.
Do you think each copy are used and returned even 5 times?
They simply didnt had time to show the limitations of this feature.
& they've basically acknowledged this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124970-Microsofts-Yusuf-Mehdi-We-Need-To-Educate-Consumers
while the article is titled 'Microsoft's Yusuf Mehdi: We Need To Educate Consumers', it contains this money-quote:
their marketing campaign was basically premised on the assumption that, aside from some core complainers, there was really no need to explain anything, because their true target audience would blindly go along with whatever they were (or were not) offering. iow, they were simply banking on consumer ignorance to put them over the top...
This is incredibly anti consumer... or in better words:
Similar threads
- Poll