Support NeoGAF

[LiquidMetal14]

"The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time."



Ugh, I thought it was at least the original owner and one other person, but that is not the case.


Imagine buying a brand new Halo 5, installing it, then going to bed, and you cannot play it for 2 weeks cause all your "Family" members are playing it and you never get a chance. That would suck.

They're better off turning this then because that's what it seems like. Mind you, this is what it's like on PS3 at the time BUT the 2nd recipient does not have to be logged into the other users account. As long as the main account is registered on the 2nd console, it's good. You can then play the game on your own account.

Is this making sense to anyone?

 

[Crimson_Gold]

This is going to cost $15 a mont for everyone involved on top of XBL. That has to be the catch. Something like that would generate a steady stream of revenue for the publishers. People would buy into it. The world is led into oblivion as the fees go up and the features go down.

 

[Minions]

Look, Even if only 1 person can play in each person's game share..... That is fine. However what if everyone has the same 10 friends, in a giant circle.

So person 1 is playing person 2's shared games
Person 2 is playing person 3's shared games
Person 3 is playing person 4's shared games
Person 4 is playing person 5's shared games
Person 5 is playing person 6's shared games
Person 6 is playing person 7's shared games
Person 7 is playing person 8's shared games
Person 8 is playing person 9's shared games
Person 9 is playing person 10's shared games
Person 10 is playing person 1's shared games.

This still means substantially less people will buy new games. You can have everyone play 1 persons games in this order per week. Each week everyone shifts... so Person one would now be playing person 3's games etc, and person 10 would be playing person 2's.

This would make everyone buy at least one (or two) games each, however if everyone bought different games then you would still be able to essentially play tons of games for cheap, and reduce a lot of the profits the games would have.

 

[dragonelite]

So to get 10 people play the same game at the same time you'll need five copies of that game in your family list. Basically halves the price of any game.

No you need 5 pairs of 2 each in their own family if i understand the rules.

Look, Even if only 1 person can play in each person's game share..... That is fine. However what if everyone has the same 10 friends, in a giant circle.

So person 1 is playing person 2's shared games
Person 2 is playing person 3's shared games
Person 3 is playing person 4's shared games
Person 4 is playing person 5's shared games
Person 5 is playing person 6's shared games
Person 6 is playing person 7's shared games
Person 7 is playing person 8's shared games
Person 8 is playing person 9's shared games
Person 9 is playing person 10's shared games
Person 10 is playing person 1's shared games.

This still means substantially less people will buy new games. You can have everyone play 1 persons games in this order per week. Each week everyone shifts... so Person one would now be playing person 3's games etc, and person 10 would be playing person 2's.

This would make everyone buy at least one (or two) games each, however if everyone bought different games then you would still be able to essentially play tons of games for cheap, and reduce a lot of the profits the games would have.

Probably why you have to check in each hour to combat this sort of loop holes. Or devs could just release quality dlc worth its pricepoint then with one copy 10 people would have to buy the dlc?
I think the margins on dlc is much higher then disk based sales where a store takes a cut.

 

[Hattori]

I'd rather have the ability to rent/borrow than share games to 9 freeloaders (family excluded of course).

 

[calder]

Just when I thought MS couldn't remind me more of Sony in the early PS3 days... wow. The parallels between this and the PSN game sharing are strong imo, from the seemingly accidental way it develops, to the confusion as people ask if this is what they intended, to the company seeing the short term PR benefits and claiming that yeah that's exactly what we intended, to (presumably) the publishers being pretty choked by it and it slowly being gimped.

But yeah, while a bit limited take advantage of it XBO owners lol. I'm not sure it'll last long, if it survives even to launch.

 

[gogosox8]

So does the one hour check still apply since you would be accessing the games on another xbox or not?

 

[Kromis1]

I think for MS published games, they'll allow you to share it with your "family" freely like this. But for third party games, I think there could be a catch or something. Microsoft can afford to do this. But third parties? I'm not too sure.

 

[Dega]

"The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time."



Seems like they have all their messages mixed up again, one person says its the owner and a member, he says its only one person. Who knows anymore.

The shared copy.

Owner is not playing the shared copy. So it's Owner + One other.

That's how I see it anyway?

 

[zainetor]

2-3 people chipping in for a brand new copy and sharing it is worse then 3 people buying their own copy.

this entire thing is missing a piece of the puzzle.

there will probably restrictions about how many groups you can be in. Probably just 1, so youll be chained to those 10 people group forever, unless you pay money.

 

[out0v0rder]

You can't play a game while lending it to one person, here you can.

we still don't actually know that yet, notice how they have two terms "Your Games", and "Shared Library"

It may be that once you tick the checkbox and place a game in your "shared library" you won't be able to play it anymore until you uncheck the box and put it back into "Your Games" again.

Of course I may be wrong, but this still needs to be clarified, they are getting closer though...

 

[Bgamer90]

Sounds like a not really well thought out damage control carrot. It will work for those that need it to work.

It's not damage control.

This was announced at the same time that the Xbox One's restrictions were.

 

[soldat7]

This does sound too good to be true...

And why would publishers support this again?

 

[Neko Mimi Mode]

This sounds...good? I mean, really really good.

Could this be the reason for other restrictions (24 hour check in etc) also?

This would be pretty huge for me and my nucleus of gamer friends, all things considered.

 

[StudioTan]

Dude, this means I could buy a Xbox One and never buy a game, because I may have a family member that is loaded and I just play his games in my console whenever I want.

This is too good to be true.

Someone please explain.

How is this any different than people who only buy used games? MS is making the exactly same amount of money from each case, zero (beyond the sale of the console). Only with this you'll likely all need to have a Gold account.

 

[kitch9]

Everyone don't have to download the game. All games you install on your system the digital copy is stored in the cloud, that is why all games must be installed. After that you can access your library on another xbox at a friend or family house. They explained this in the doc running up to e3.

So the game is streamed from the cloud like Gaikia?

That might make more sense, the sharers get the shitty streamed version. Would save MS having to provide the bandwidth for 10 downloading a 50gb game for free also.

 

[GashPrex]

This actually sounds pretty decent. Question is if it's worth accepting MS's DRM strategy for this sharing convenience. I think we need more details though

I was thinking about this sharing issue yesterday - the only way I could come up with to protect against abuse is by requiring the 24 hour check in. Otherwise, people could just get authorized on your list, and go offline.

 

[koryuken]

This is from the official "How Games Licensing Works on Xbox One" page:

If this is true, then this is indeed very nice. +1 to MS

However, i still don't think that this in itself is enough to convince me to get a less powerful system with Kinect (which I don't want) for 100 dollars more with a more expensive paywall of an online platform. (Xbox Live) I have XBL right now, but I am already fucking sick of the advertisements. The adverts are enough for me to move to PS4 tbh.

 

[Jomjom]

This family share sounds to good to be true. After all the other restrictions it seems strange.

-I get 10 people and create a group.
-We all buy a game each so we can get a circle of sharing going
-We can then all share whatever games we own within that group as long as only one person is playing that game at a time?
-Then on neogaf there are two families in which we are friends for 30 days.
-Group a buy game 1
-Group b buy game 2
-Once game 1 is finished passing around the first 10 people after paying for just 1 copies it is passed to groups b for a one time give. Game 2 is passed back in Opposite direction.
-They then get played 20 times off just 2 sales? Assuming you have the patience.

Each person buys 1 game each and plays 20? Or do I suck at math.

If this really works as advertised there will definitely be GAF threads of people forming "GAF families" to do exactly this. If this really is the real deal, MS has basically completely fixed their DRM and used game debacle.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

This actually sounds pretty decent. Question is if it's worth accepting MS's DRM strategy for this sharing convenience. I think we need more details though

Most gamers don't give a shit about DRM its PRICE.. they love used games because they are cheaper if they can share games this way.

Yikes. DRM argument goes right out the window.

I still think something else is missing from all this.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

This actually sounds pretty decent. Question is if it's worth accepting MS's DRM strategy for this sharing convenience. I think we need more details though

I think you can come up with the right answer upon thinking about it

 

[Miles Quaritch]

What do you mean you can't trade it in? I thought it was pretty clear you can trade in games for credit.

Selected retailers if I'm not mistaken and likely for a pittance, so essentially trying to create an environment that pushes people away from trading games in.

 

[jorma]

Nope.... its very clearly states



Key word is bolded.

also from the pa article.

this would have been clear:
"You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at any given time."

This is muddier:
"You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

 

[Zemm]

I am pretty sure that you have to share the account login. That is, you have to enter it once and reenter it sometimes thereafter on consoles that you share games with.

Your credit card would be attached to that login you "give away". That's how it works on iTunes. And this would keep sharing "in the family" because nobody would give their login to strangers.

This would make the most sense. Fuck, I wouldn't even trust my sister with my account details, I'll log in and have all the dance and karaoke games on it.

 

[Hellsing321]

How is that any different than lending a physical game between your friends?

Well I can't still play the game I lend to a friend, which it sounds like you can with this system. Also Its extremely unlikely I'd ever lend a game to more than 2-3 people over the course I own it, let alone 9 other people. Making it so I can lend to someone I don't even know over the internet makes it trivial to do so why wouldn't I do it?

 

[Plinko]

How is this any different than people who only buy used games? MS is making the exactly same amount of money from each case, zero (beyond the sale of the console). Only with this you'll likely all need to have a Gold account.

Only difference is that now the publisher isn't losing out on 1 sale--it is losing out on 9, which makes absolutely no sense and will infuriate publishers even more than what PS4 is doing.

Let's also remember something:

CBoaT said the DRM is WORSE than what we've seen so far.

 

[Trogdor1123]

This is an amazing feature... same thing Sony said abotu game sharing and look how that turned out. Whats the catch?

 

[bidguy]

The shared copy.

Owner is not playing the shared copy. So it's Owner + One other.

That's how I see it anyway?

totally missed this
makes sense now

 

[hadareud]

Won't anyone think of the publishers.

 

[Zoe]

So the game is streamed from the cloud like Gaikia?

That might make more sense, the sharers get the shitty streamed version.

No.

 

[jagowar]

I really think this is their solution to the coop problem.... when this generation started there really was no coop in games but now it is a vital part of single player games. It always was stupid that you have to buy 2 copies of the game to play with your son/daughter/wife. It actually makes sense that you should be able to play coop off a single disc.

 

[zainetor]

And why would publishers support this again?

because with this method, publishers will get a cut on used games, and can minimize the number of people 1 copy gets played by.

 

[Sobriquet]

So many questions.

1.) If only two people can play at the same time, can I buy and additional copy to up the limit. That way if my kids, wife and I want to all play a game while I'm away, we can on the family plan?

I don't know the answers to your other questions, but for this one, anyone that has access to your console will be able to play your games. If you have one Live Gold account, everyone on that console in effect has Live.

 

[Dabanton]

Has someone actually tweeted Phil Spencer and asked him about this?

 

[alterno69]

If this is true a year after launch i might buy an Xbone by then and live off of my friends game colection :~D

 

[Scofield94941]

I think the bigger issue is owning your game for life. I know this is kind of stupid for some people but I like to know that I own my game forever and can play without online if something happens.

 

[Ballistik]

How is this any different than people who only buy used games? MS is making the exactly same amount of money from each case, zero (beyond the sale of the console). Only with this you'll likely all need to have a Gold account.

And with the person not spending any money on used games, they have more in their pocket to spend it on DLC and microtransactions in each one...!

 

[criesofthepast]

If Sony took away 3 activations from 5 to 2 for this very same reason of game sharing, then I doubt Microsoft would allow 10. Something is fishy here. Sorry haven't read the entire thread but this makes no sense.

 

[Kinyou]

It's not. It's actually more restrictive in that you're limited to only sharing with 10 people and you can't resell/trade your game after you and your friends are done with it. You'll all likely need a gold sub too.

Trade-offs, I guess.

I thought you could always trade in your game at MS approved shops?

 

[baphomet]

They go through all this trouble to block used games and such, then they just let people add someone so they can play their games for free. It's like they're enabling piracy to a degree. I'd almost buy an Xbox and just look for people online to add to my share account. Like get a group of 10 people who take turns buying the big new single player games, and just work out a way to take turns playing through it. Your group could buy 2 games per month, and you would get to play all the new games for $60 for 5 months. It makes no sense.

 

[GashPrex]

Selected retailers if I'm not mistaken and likely for a pittance, so essentially trying to create an environment that pushes people away from trading games in.

Sure, selected retailers but you are making some very large assumptions.

 

[Minions]

because with this method, publishers will get a cut on used games, and can minimize the number of people 1 copy gets played.

What used games? No one needs to buy additional copies, they can just play one of the shared games when it becomes available....

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Those are the key words.

They can only play at a given time (i.e. when no one else is playing it)

 

[ari]

co-op games and sports games could benefit from this. Like, ten fold.

 

[daemissary]

Even if only one person can play the game at a time, this is still pretty awesome. I'm still weary because of all of their other anticonsumer policies but at least there is some hope.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

This is pointless unless you are going to co-ordinate times between 9 other people.

 

[Plinko]

because with this method, publishers will get a cut on used games, and can minimize the number of people 1 copy gets played by.

But wouldn't this hurt them even MORE?

Scenario:

I buy a game and share it with 9 friends. They all play it through and the publisher lost out on 9 sales.

I then trade that game in to Gamestop. Publisher gets a small cut.

A new person buys the game and shares it with 9 friends. They all play it through and the publisher loses out on ANOTHER 9 sales.

Repeat.

 

[EGM1966]

This actually isn't so bad. If you can really play shared copies of the same game at the same time, what's to stop a pool of you and 10 of your friends and family from buying one copy of Halo or Destiny and all using that to play online at the same time?

There is no way this policy will support 10 people chipping in to buy one copy of CoD then all jumping online - I don't believe for a second Activision, EA, etc. would have bought into this policy if that was the case. It would be worse than used games!

Personally I want to know very specifically the restrictions (because there will be restrictions).

I want to know if MP is covered for example - I'm betting MP can only be shared with Gold accounts - and I want to know restrictions on numbers

I want to know if I'm playing a game how many friends can play at same time - I'm guessing one max assuming two playing at once is supported

I want to know about coop offline play in titles vs online coop

The policy sounds very interesting and indeed attractive but there doesn't seem to be a fully comprehensive explanation covering all gameplay offline/online scenarios anywhere and even MS comments seem to contradict themselves (as with their online check/DRM comments).

Surely they know how this policy works in detail? Why isn't it posted somewhere?

 

[Zoe]

Those are the key words.

They can only play at a given time (i.e. when no one else is playing from the library)

fixed for accuracy

 

[Bgamer90]

The shared copy.

Owner is not playing the shared copy. So it's Owner + One other.

That's how I see it anyway?