Support NeoGAF

[theDeeDubs]

I can imagine a few catches that make perfect sense that they haven't mentioned yet, like time limits, rental costs, play count limits, no online play, publisher discretion, no achievements, limited area access (defined by the dev).

Exactly. New game releases may not be eligible for so many days or I could see the trial achievement message popping up saying, "you got an achievement. Buy the game now to unlock this achievement on your profile" etc. Or another person is playing a co-op game with the owner and you want to play too. Since the game is already on your box and downloaded, why not just pay to activate the license. Could work.

 

[dragonelite]

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.

Im pretty sure they said something like a digital marketplace to for used games?

 

[Jarmel]

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

Or just do it between three friends. It's not mandatory that you add 9 people.

 

[kitch9]

No.

So how does someone 3000 miles away get the 50gb game?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I will avatar bet anyone that it works like this.

10 accounts can share. 1 person can play a game on the list and 1 other person can play a different game on the list at any given time.

This is also how I'm reading it. Given the wording of the statement, it's saying that Person A (the owner) can play his/her game, and person B ('family member') can play a game from Person A's shared games, not the same game. It also means that if Person B is playing from Person A's shared library, no one else in the 'family' (Person C/D/E etc) can play from the shared library either. So no, you can't have two people playing the same game at the same time. At least that's how I understand it.

 

[CambriaRising]

What other possible way to interpret this from their official policy page is there:



It directly says that any of your family members will see all your games available to play.

That doesn't say that you don't need the disc first to put it on that list.

This needs clarification.

 

[ultron87]

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.

If the description of this system ends up accurate as described it'll pretty much cut games prices in half for me, since I can just alternate buying stuff with my brother and share everything full with never being locked out ever. So I'd be fine with the non-foreverness of my games at that point just like I am with Steam. I'm willing to put up with a decent amount of crap for 30 dollars off new games.

 

[ElTorro]

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

Sure, but that would still be cool.

I think the main catch is, that you have to share your account login (With all your credit card information attached to it) by entering it on consoles that you share games with. Same as on iTunes. You would not do that with strangers, or even friends.

Sorry for repeating that point, but it's hard to get read in this thread, and I am interessted in your opinions on that.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Most gamers don't give a shit about DRM its PRICE...

Exactly most people care about DRM. They will only by a DRM version if it's significantly cheaper. Steam sales. The put a price on DRM.

 

[StudioTan]

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.

A lot of things can change quickly, what may have been true last month may not be true now. The 24 hour check in was apparently 3 mins at one point.

Also, they'll only lose out on 9 sales if people are extremely coordinated about the games they play. No playing 2 of the same game at the time. How many people want to wait until 9 other people have stopped playing the newest hot game to come out? Also, what about multiplayer games? People are going to need their own copies.

 

[zainetor]

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

you can still resell a game if you want. It's not denied.
They want to discourage reselling with this method, so youll always have their game in your library.
And let's be honest, not everybody will use this. Probably most people wont even know about it. Not everybody used the ps3 condivision and you need to have trusted people to do that.

 

[baphomet]

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

Actually only single player games are going to get use out of this. It's not like you and 10 friends can play the 1 copy of CoD at the same time.

 

[Minions]

Or just do it between three friends. It's not mandatory that you add 9 people.

Or you can rotate everyone's games each week.

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.

 

[Can Crusher]

Publishers will have to allow for this. Don't see it happening.

 

[feint_ruled]

Surely it is that all 10 can chip into a "shared library" but only any two people can be playing the games at once. THAT is the restriction - two players at once, no matter what the games. The others cannot access the shared library AT ALL until one of the others logs off.

 

[tfur]

It's not damage control.

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

So? Mixed in obfuscation to carrot the damage.

Also, how can Spencer not know these answers?

The question is how many people can play the game at the same time. Spencer told me he believed that two people can play one copy of a game concurrently, but he urged me to check Microsoft's official wording on the matter to be sure.

If its reasonable and true, you do not need to wrap every statement in bullshit vagaries. Same stuff they have been doing for months now. Time will tell, and we will have to see when the system is implemented.

 

[Papercuts]

Or just do it between three friends. It's not mandatory that you add 9 people.

Yes, this sounds amazing to me with fewer numbers of people.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Where is CBoaT when we really need him.

 

[AzraelKans]

They never says its free, unless i missed it. Could the catch be, each person has to pay a fee to be able to do this? Like you can borrow it, but you have to pay $20 or something.

There has to be a catch, if publishers were pissed about used games, this seems just as bad if not worse.

There is a catch, only one out of the 10 players can play it at the same time. Otherwise is marked as "unavailable"

 

[crazygambit]

I can't buy one PS4 game and share it with my brother who lives 2 hours away and have us both be playing it at the same time like I can with this system.

So that's one advantage.

Actually you can with digital titles. It used to be with up to 5 people and now it's limited to 2. However you can play simultaneously.

 

[Satchel]

"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.

Why does it matter?

Even in the worst case scenario, it beats physical lending regardless.

This is huge for "consumers" whether a few on GAF want to admit it or not. I'm just flabbergasted Microsoft didn't mention or push this at their briefing.

 

[Bgamer90]

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

Haha, how is this pointless?

That's basically like saying sharing game discs between people is pointless too since you could use the same argument for that.

With this, I wouldn't need to go a long distance to let my friend borrow a game (disc). I could just let him borrow it instantly.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

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

That's kind of what I said earlier. On the one hand, it's a cool feature but with lots of strings.

If it's between a tight knit core of 3-4, maybe it can work but it's just creating some planning that will have to be talked on between the participants.

 

[Off-Kilter]

Only on NeoGAF could you find people willing to complain about something as awesome as this.

Not complaining, so much as many of us are skeptical. Like some have alluded to, this really does sound too good to be true, especially in light of Microsoft's other policies, and there seems to be a large potential for exploitation.

 

[border]

Publishers will be allowed to opt out of this. And nearly all of them will. End of story.

I can see it bein a valuable tool for little games that want to create word of mouth, but somebody making a $100 million dollar game is not going to let it be shared.

 

[Dega]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/Bgamer90/ScreenShot060_zpse40f3ea8.png[IMG][/QUOTE]

Yes, just like that. :)

Seems pretty damn cool to me. Just hope they're stating how it works correctly.

 

[Zoe]

So how does someone 3000 miles away get the 50gb game?

They download and install it. All games are downloadable.

Surely it is that all 10 can chip into a "shared library" but only any two people can be playing the games at once. THAT is the restriction - two players at once, no matter what the games. The others cannot access the shared library AT ALL until one of the others logs off.

Only one family member can access the library at a time, not two.

 

[PG2G]

There is some inconsistency in the messaging, some make it sound like only one family member has access to your entire library at once, while others make it sounds like one person per game.

One person per game would be kind of unrealistic IMO, but I'm pretty happy with their implementation either way.

 

[- J - D -]

This is a MEGATON.

 

[ekim]

Here is my take on this: they introduced this to stop the complaints about not being able to give games to family members. Now they they add that family members can also be complete strangers to finally get some positive news. There will be some catch to it. But good news.

 

[ultron87]

Publishers will have to allow for this. Don't see it happening.

This is actually one of the places on their policy page that they don't say "Publishers can enable".

 

[Jomjom]

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

Why would it minimize though? Couldn't I just change my family members?

Why does it matter?

Even in the worst case scenario, it beats physical lending regardless.

This is huge for "consumers" whether a few on GAF want to admit it or not. I'm just flabbergasted Microsoft didn't mention or push this at their briefing.

I think this news is just really incredulous because this would be the most consumer friendly policy that has ever existed in gaming, which is why GAF is not willing to admit it. But seriously MS should call a brief press con right now just to announce this to get this into every media outlet.

I have a feeling MS would eventually limit this to fewer than 10, maybe like 2 like the PS3 currently has. Obviously it's been shown that things like this will be abused from the PS3 gamesharing incident. But even 2 would be pretty good because this includes physical games not just downloadable games like the PS3.

 

[Aureon]

Case A: This is real.
In said case, Microsoft marketing team is made up of morons for not showing it at E3 or reveal.
Case B: There's a terrible, terrible catch that we're missing.
In said case, Microsoft marketing team is evil, and the cake is a lie.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Imagine the abuse you can use this for single-player games or primarily single-player. You just beat the game and then let your friends play it and vice versa. This is unbelievable, both figuratively and literally.

 

[gutter_trash]

remember when you could could log into 5 different PS3 machines then Sony changed it 3 or 2?

so yeah, nothing stops MS from reducing the name of shared friends later on

 

[Miles Quaritch]

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

Yeah, but I suspect that the trade in values won't make it worth it.

I mean just look at this,

http://www.game.co.uk/webapp/wcs/st...=148256&catalogId=10201&langId=&storeId=10151

Game will only give you £20 if you trade in TLoU today. That should give you an idea of what trade in values will be on the One.

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

Of course, it's just one theory in a sea of many. I don't pretend to know what their aims are. Apologies if I wasn't clear that I was only offering my opinion/theory.

 

[weekend_warrior]

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.

Depending on how quickly you can change who's in your family list you could theoretically buy 1 game and have access to to every other game in the Xbones library for the entire generation. Just have a huge group of people and you could message each other "I want to play X who's got it", "Ok I'll add you to my list", etc etc.

 

[gofreak]

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

You can if PS4 works like PS3... I've shared digital content with my brother for a lonnng time.

This sounds like it would do way more damage to games sales than just not having drm. I lend to like one or two other people. This would cut our game purchases in third...

As above though, pubs have tolerated this on other systems...at least, until they seemingly persuaded Sony to cut down on the number of sharing accounts. The simultaneous use restriction is kind of a cap on abuse though. Microsoft is by their description making it easier to set up, but I don't know if that'll create a fundamental dealbreak for pubs or not. And they may have a lot of control here...

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

Sure, but that would still be cool.

I think the main catch is, that you have to share your account login (With all your credit card information attached to it) by entering it on consoles that you share games with. Same as on iTunes.

Sorry for repeating that point, but it's hard to get read in this thread, and I am interessted in your opinions on that.

I also think this means sharing your account, as you do today on ps3 for example (up to 2 or 3 ps3 if i remeber right). What this means is that as they would have to log into your account, naturally you won't be able to access that game if he already started playing it.

I guess it could work with careful synchronisation but with 10 people I hardly believe it will be achievable.

 

[GloveSlap]

Sounds awesome, but the cynic in me thinks this isn't the full story. Or it will just get patched out sooner rather than later.

 

[TheDanger]

Why would anyone want to put themselves through this bullshit when they can just get a PS4 and be done with it?

Because if you partner up with say your best friend you only have to pay for every second game or if you got a rich friend maybe even less. You could buy Halo 5 and play multiplayer together forever, if you need a game buddy for help with achievements or anything else you always have your best friend available. This is fucking awesome and way more convenient than lending the disc and you can play together at the same time. You never have to worry about some guy losing or breaking your game or damaging that beautiful cover, if someone you don't hang out with that often it can be very annoying to call that guy up and tell him you want your game back, where to meet bla bla bla. You can just turn on your xbox and browse your best friend's library. With all these advantages I don't mind the DRM too much. For me personally the 24 hour check in is not a real problem even though it is kind of shitty.

 

[Justice_dp]

Sooo... anyone here wanna adopt an adorable 29 year old guy with messed up sleeping cycles coming Winter?



That feature alone will move lots of consoles.

 

[GoofsterStud]

This could be a MEGATON.

Fixed

 

[ari]

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.

Gamestop confirmed that Xbox One will be supported and the majority of retail chains will be able to I believe.

I'm not sure why people is trying to make the Xbox One sound bad without even remotely reading what Microsoft had said about it.

 

[Monty Mole]

So how does someone 3000 miles away get the 50gb game?

Very few games will ever hit anything like 50gb. Also games can be played as they're downloaded next-gen, on both consoles.

 

[kitch9]

They download and install it. All games are downloadable.



Only one family member can access the library at a time, not two.

Nah, I can't see it?

 

[evilchicken]

Am I the only one that realizes that the DRM on your game collection isn't about 3rd parties selling more copies of their games and stopping used games? It's about becoming become more of a platform like iOS appstore or Steam. The gamesharing seems counter intuitive to their "corporate greed anti consumer policies" because the motivation behind the account system was to created to enable features like this. They just want you and your friends to buy into an ecosystem. I would not be surprised if said ecosystem eventually extends to mobile phones and Windows. Once your games are tied to 'Microsoft' instead of a physical disc, they could allow things like purchasing a game and playing it on either XB or PC. Then once the devices you care about are in Microsoft's ecosystem (consoles, PC), you are more likely to buy other microsoft products (music streaming, windows phones) etc.

That's what they mean about battle for the living room. They can't allow you to have digital accounts where you can access your collection everywhere if there is also a disc floating around. That's why they are taking the disc out of the equation. Not because they are tired of you lending games to friends.

 

[Plinko]

A lot of things can change quickly, what may have been true last month may not be true now. The 24 hour check in was apparently 3 mins at one point.

Also, they'll only lose out on 9 sales if people are extremely coordinated about the games they play. No playing 2 of the same game at the time. How many people want to wait until 9 other people have stopped playing the newest hot game to come out? Also, what about multiplayer games? People are going to need their own copies.

People on message boards like this can easily coordinate. One person plays one game for a week, the next person gets the next week, and so on. Keep a solid rotation. It's not that hard.

Publishers will be allowed to opt out of this. And nearly all of them will. End of story.

I can see it bein a valuable tool for little games that want to create word of mouth, but somebody making a $100 million dollar game is not going to let it be shared.

Exactly.

 

[Baron Aloha]

I will repeat this for the umpteenth time.

THE CATCH: Only 1 persion out of the 10 can borrow any one of the games from your library at a time.

From the official MS PR:

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Emphasis on "any one". It is 2 separate words.

While it sounds nice, it is actually still more restrictive than the current model where I can purchase 2 games and loan them to 2 people at the same time.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

How about I just buy a PS4 and share my games with how many fucking people I want to.

People are missing the fact that with this you don't have to give away your copy of the game, they essentially get a free game.

Yeah the no physical sharing sucks but this is different.