Support NeoGAF

[smerfy]

Don't you still have to wait for them to be on your friends list for 30 days before you can begin sharing?

If so...that's unfortunate for Xbone buyers.

from what I've read, that's only for "gifting" games.

As in, you're done with the game, but you know someone that wants to play or something. You don't want the game anymore, he/she isn't in your circle, so you can just "give" them the game to keep. It is theirs after that point.

In that scenario, they have to have been on your friend's list for 30 days and it can only be given once. No word on if that person can trade it in/resell it.

 

[silvon]

If I have five games shared and I am playing a game with a family, can other members of the family play the other games?

 

[Sobriquet]

The XB1 uses discs, so under his definition with physical discs (he is referring to physical with his statement as deduced by the current law of first sale doctrine), it is anti-consumer, whereas Steam and other digital platforms aren't. Being digital =/= anti-consumer, preventing people from being able to exercise first sale doctrine with the physical discs they bought = anti-consumer. The term 'anti-consumer' itself is used as an adjective, and though it doesn't have a dictionary definition, the context in which he uses it gives it meaning, in this case 'restrictive' and 'against the consumer' or 'against consumer interests'.

The issue is that, for all practical purposes, a disc-based game and a digital game on the Xbox One are the same. Every game is treated as digital since every game is installed. Once a game is installed, which is mandatory, the disc becomes useless. That's why your license needs to be de-activated if you wish to sell your game, and why the 24-hour check in is necessary. Otherwise, a game could be freely installed on as many friends' machines as possible.

 

[Justin]

If I have five games shared and I am playing a game with a family, can other members of the family play the other games?

Not confirmed yet but the wording on the official website at this time is that only one person (aside for the owner of the game) will be able to access your library at a time. There have been conflicting reports from various interviews about this but that is what the Xbox site says at this time.

Major Nelson is going to work on a blog post next week hopefully detailing the feature.

 

[Cartman86]

I know we are all confused about the details of this policy, and I hope this doesn't add any more confusion...I'm cross-posting this from another thread because it MAY answer some of the questions that are circulating in this thread. I went to the Microsoft store today and pre-ordered. There was a Microsoft representative there, since it's in Bellevue, so I decided to talk to him about some of the concerns and hopefully clarify a few things. I summarized what he said, but it was about a 20 minute convo and I asked him a bunch of different scenarios to try to nail down some specifics. Here's the points that I posted in the Hype thread:

2. The other 9 people no longer have access to my shared library until that person is done playing.

I'm still looking forward to Major Nelson laying it out in plain english, but there were some good tidbits. This is what the Microsoft stores are being trained with from the reps, so take that as you will.

So if a person is playing a game on my list no one else can play ANY game on my list correct? Or are you just saying no one else can play the specific game that someone is already playing?

 

[Cartman86]

The issue is that, for all practical purposes, a disc-based game and a digital game on the Xbox One are the same. Every game is treated as digital since every game is installed. Once a game is installed, which is mandatory, the disc becomes useless. That's why your license needs to be de-activated if you wish to sell your game, and why the 24-hour check in is necessary. Otherwise, a game could be freely installed on as many friends' machines as possible.

Well you could just require the person planning to sell/trade their used disc to deactivate their license on the console the title is installed to before selling it. Basically "uninstall" it. Or of course you could making installing/redeeming the license optional.

 

[DR3AM]

so according to major nelson, 2 people cant play the same game at the same time.

 

[Impeccable]

I see no problem with that - again to avoid exploitation.

LOL, if this is what it seems I can't even understand the point of what MS is doing, this will be exploited to hell and back and the losers in all of this are people who can't get in these circles due to time constraints etc. AND publishers of anything other than AAA games.

Disaster inbound.

 

[Justin]

So if a person is playing a game on my list no one else can play ANY game on my list correct? Or are you just saying no one else can play the specific game that someone is already playing?

See my post one above. As currently written your first example is correct.

 

[smerfy]

So if a person is playing a game on my list no one else can play ANY game on my list correct? Or are you just saying no one else can play the specific game that someone is already playing?

according to the rep, your shared games library is not available to the other 9 people.

however, those 9 other people, all their shared games libraries are available.

 

[JrBaconCheeseburger]

I posted this in another thread but it should go here.


The sharing is not likely gonna allow 10 people to benefit from one $59.99 purchase and i am sure no one here thinks that "family share" (Meaning friends) is gonna allow this.


Sure you can give the game to one person but then they keep it forever.


I posted that if you want 10 of your friends to enjoy COD ghosts along with yourself, you will need 10 Copies, Not just one.


Though someone mentioned it can be 5, if you give one away to someone on your list for a month.

 

[Pop]

All these hoops and rules put aside...

Doesn't it sound too good to be true. One person could literally never buy a game in the console lifetime and just use his brothers or whoever shared library. Getting free games, which we know Microsoft won't like that. Now if it was like the 360 were your brothers or whoever account had to be signed into your console in order to play the game. Now that makes more sense. This shared cloud library from anywhere in the world just sounds crazy, why would Microsoft give a free game to Bob living 3000 miles from you just cause you labeled him a "family member".

 

[Cartman86]

I'm curious about the the management of this. Like if my plan is to buy a multiplayer game for that my brother and I would share there must be a way to specify access to him so someone else doesn't jump into my library and take up the share space that moment right? Also if someone is playing one of my shared games and I want to play with my brother can I "kick" them off the game? Will their game save?

 

[Moze]

So....can publishers block this?

if publishers can block this then it is a useless feature

 

[I2amza]

I know we are all confused about the details of this policy, and I hope this doesn't add any more confusion...I'm cross-posting this from another thread because it MAY answer some of the questions that are circulating in this thread. I went to the Microsoft store today and pre-ordered. There was a Microsoft representative there, since it's in Bellevue, so I decided to talk to him about some of the concerns and hopefully clarify a few things. I summarized what he said, but it was about a 20 minute convo and I asked him a bunch of different scenarios to try to nail down some specifics. Here's the points that I posted in the Hype thread:

I talked to the 'on-site' Microsoft representative there about some of the issues, here's a rundown of some of the interesting things he said:

1. In the family/friend circle, concurrent play is allowed on the same game. Say I get battlefield 4 and put it in my share. 1 person can play it with me, single player and/or multiplayer.

2. The other 9 people no longer have access to my shared library until that person is done playing.

3. Every person within the group can make their shared games available, so if 5 people in the group buy battlefield 4, the other 5 can play concurrently through other 'shared libraries' in the group. This way, everyone gets to play.

4. (this one tidbit was REALLY interesting) Let's say you have battlefield 4 in your family share circle, and you pick up halo 5 when it drops. no one in that circle is really interested at all in that game. you can have OTHER circles that you can share games with. You CANNOT have the same game in multiple circles, however. So if you put Halo 5 in one, it cannot be in another unless you remove it from that circle. No word on how many circles you can have, however.

5. The trade-off with this system, as I know a lot of people on GAF were saying there HAD to be one, is already known. It's the 24-hour check. In order to make sure that this system isn't exploitable, they needed a way to ensure that games weren't being passed around physically to be pirated/exploited. So that's the trade-off, to get this type of sharing system between friends/family and keep devs/pubs happy.

There were other things, but I got stuck in traffic and this is all that I one-noted. If I explained something in a way that you don't get, I'll try to rephrase it for you. I'm paraphrasing most of this because our conversation was probably 20 minutes and I had to go through MULTIPLE scenarios and analogies to get exact info from him.

I'm still looking forward to Major Nelson laying it out in plain english, but there were some good tidbits. This is what the Microsoft stores are being trained with from the reps, so take that as you will.

Isn't point 4 an exploit to point 2? I mean what's to stop someone from creating multiple one game circles (share one game only) with the same circle and this way let others have unlimited access (one player per game) to my games?

 

[Cartman86]

All these hoops and rules put aside...

Doesn't it sound too good to be true. One person could literally never buy a game in the console lifetime and just use his brothers or whoever shared library. Getting free games, which we know Microsoft won't like that. Now if it was like the 360 were your brothers or whoever account had to be signed into your console in order to play the game. Now that makes more sense. This shared cloud library from anywhere in the world just sounds crazy, why would Microsoft give a free game to Bob living 3000 miles from you just cause you labeled him a "family member".

Probably to give you incentive to get into their digital storefront. same reason why they have cable TV option HDMI input. Makes you see the Microsoft interface more often even while watching TV.

 

[Sobriquet]

Well you could just require the person planning to sell/trade their used disc to deactivate their license on the console the title is installed to before selling it. Basically "uninstall" it. Or of course you could making installing/redeeming the license optional.

That sounds great, in theory, but how do they make sure that you uninstall before you sell?

It's like when people import their CD collections to their computer, then sell the CDs. It's technically illegal, but tons of people do it. There's no way to enforce it.

 

[NullPointer]

This still seems the simplest solution:

* Require an internet connection to install a game (from disk or online marketplace).
* Must be online to play games without the disk in tray.
* No online auth check to play games when disk is in tray.

Thats simple, flexible, and no more exploitative than what we think we know about the family plan.

Somebody tell me how the family plan is better than this, from both a consumer and content provider side?

 

[Justin]

This still seems the simplest solution:

* Require an internet connection to install a game (from disk or online marketplace).
* Must be online to play games without the disk in tray.
* No online auth check to play games when disk is in tray.

Thats simple, flexible, and no more exploitative than what we think we know about the family plan.

Somebody tell me how the family plan is better than this, from both a consumer and content provider side?

The person I want to share the game with is on the other side of the country.
I am only buying games digitally.

 

[NullPointer]

The person I want to share the game with is on the other side of the country.

You could always install your game from disk and then send the disk to your friend to play offline. But you example is convenient. So this is convenient for geographically separated families. Enough of a convenience to tie the platform to a 24 hour online requirement?

As a content provider I still see lost sales.

How is that more lost sales than if I handed a person a disk?

In the case where I install the game to my console and then give you the disk to play offline? Its a lost sale in the sense that you should have bought your own damn copy.

In the case where you check a game out of our family circle of shared games, thats another lost sale because you should have bought your own damn copy.

Either way its one copy of a game being played by multiple people.

 

[Justin]

You could always install your game from disk and then send the disk to your friend to play offline. But you example is convenient.

As a content provider I still see lost sales.

How is that more lost sales than if I handed a person a disk?

 

[smerfy]

Isn't point 4 an exploit to point 2? I mean what's to stop someone from creating multiple one game circles (share one game only) with the same circle and this way let others have unlimited access (one player per game) to my games?

No, because in that instance, you're getting roughly the same end effect.

let's say you have 2 games. you put one game in one circle and one in another circle. let's even assume you can have the same people in the same circles...even in that instance, only one other person is getting access to each game.

I'd imagine that circles are limited to 2-3 or something. You can't have the same game in multiple shared libraries.

I don't really see the exploit here. Maybe if you could explain how your exploit would work I could understand where you're coming from.

 

[funkystudent]

I wonder if the 10 people have to be locked in as your family or whatever its called so you cant just swap people in and out at will and be game sharing like crazy.

I would have to guess they will limit how easily you can edit the 10 approved people on this list. It would kind of crazy if they didnt. Shit would be worse then the old PSN game sharing days.

 

[Justin]

No, because in that instance, you're getting roughly the same end effect.

let's say you have 2 games. you put one game in one circle and one in another circle. let's even assume you can have the same people in the same circles...even in that instance, only one other person is getting access to each game.

I'd imagine that circles are limited to 2-3 or something. You can't have the same game in multiple shared libraries.

I don't really see the exploit here. Maybe if you could explain how your exploit would work I could understand where you're coming from.

I think the intention is that only one person has access to your shared library at a time. If you could create multiple share libraries like I think you are saying in your example then you could just make a separate library for each game and all your games could be shared without restriction.

 

[entremet]

so according to major nelson, 2 people cant play the same game at the same time.

Including the license holder?

 

[Justin]

Including the license holder?

The owner of the game will always have access to their game.

 

[Sobriquet]

Including the license holder?

The owner of the game will always have access to their game.

There's even more conflicting information now, as he later corrected himself. He told Angry Joe that the owner plus one other person in the family can play the same game, but not multiplayer.

They really need to sort this stuff out.

 

[smerfy]

I think the intention is that only one person has access to your shared library at a time. If you could create multiple share libraries like I think you are saying in your example then you could just make a separate library for each game and all your games could be shared without restriction.

ah...alright.

I really wish I asked him about how many circles you can have...

I post here and all of a sudden I have more questions xD

20 minutes of talking just is never enough sometimes hahaha

 

[Justin]

Think about it this way.

When you buy a game you get a license for yourself that goes into a personal library as well as a second license that goes into a separate shared game library. At any time a person whom you have identified as a "family" member can checkout a copy of the shared license. When they stop playing the game the shared license gets returned to your shared library and is available for another person to checkout. Only one shared license can be checked out from your shared library at a time.

 

[entremet]

The owner of the game will always have access to their game.

But the poster I was replying to said Major Nelson said two people can't play the same game simultaneously? So confusing?

This needs a flowchart.

 

[mdsfx]

Jesus... We need more than a flowchart, we need some real, concrete information. This thread is making my brain hurt.

 

[Justin]

But the poster I was replying to said Major Nelson said two people can't play the same game simultaneously? So confusing?

This needs a flowchart.

I am only going off of what is written on the official xbox site. I know many people have said many varying things but until Major Nelson posts his blog about the feature I am only trusting what is on the official site.

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.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

I got a headache just reading this thread. Every bullet point seems to have half a dozen interpretations and almost as many "official" explanations.

On top of that, all of this seems like it will be nerf'd all to hell by the same publishers who pressured Sony to change their 5 console rule for account games down to 2.

 

[statham]

we have best case and worst case scenarios, even with worst case, its pretty awesome.

 

[Shingro]

No they didn't. They said loaning (physical disks) and renting wouldn't be available at release.

Aha, you're right, my mistake.

Many thanks

 

[Heretic]

we have best case and worst case scenarios, even with worst case, its pretty awesome.

Yup!

 

[I2amza]

ah...alright.

I really wish I asked him about how many circles you can have...

I post here and all of a sudden I have more questions xD

20 minutes of talking just is never enough sometimes hahaha

Yeah. That's what I meant, but Justin worded it better

 

[tafer]

Boy, I don't want to put myself on the shoes of anyone that has to explain all the policies that come with a brand new X1.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

So let's round up the info we have so far.

10 people can share one person's game library.

2 people can play the same single player game at the same time

DLC is shared

Publishers can apparently opt out

We still don't know about restrictions in place outside of only two people can play single player games and publishers can opt out.

 

[Jeanmamadou]

This sharing scheme feels dubious on the business side of things.

Read EA Annual report or Ubisoft's : you will learn that their top 10% customers generate 50-60% of their revenue.

What if these top 10% start buying a game for 10 people ? I'm especially concerned for those solo campaigner games...

 

[Justin]

So let's round up the info we have so far.

10 people can share one person's game library.

2 people can play the same single player game at the same time

DLC is shared

Publishers can apparently opt out

We still don't know about restrictions in place outside of only two people can play single player games and publishers can opt out.

I dont think any of that stuff aside from the first point is confirmed. I seriously think that PR people are getting confused with the ability for all family members to have access to games purchased on a system with the online sharing libraries.

When asked if two people can play a game simultaneously he said "if there is split screen you can". That statement only makes sense to me if he is talking about family members having access to all games on a specific box regardless of which account purchased it and not the online sharing. Same thing goes for the shared DLC piece.

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

The XB1 uses discs, so under his definition with physical discs (he is referring to physical with his statement as deduced by the current law of first sale doctrine), it is anti-consumer, whereas Steam and other digital platforms aren't. Being digital =/= anti-consumer, preventing people from being able to exercise first sale doctrine with the physical discs they bought = anti-consumer. The term 'anti-consumer' itself is used as an adjective, and though it doesn't have a dictionary definition, the context in which he uses it gives it meaning, in this case 'restrictive' and 'against the consumer' or 'against consumer interests'.

Pretty much this. There is no defending this. If you buy physical and you can't resale it is anti-consumer. On Steam you CAN NOT BUY physical. It's different. STOP COMPARING IT FFS!!

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

This sharing scheme feels dubious on the business side of things.

Read EA Annual report or Ubisoft's : you will learn that their top 10% customers generate 50-60% of their revenue.

What if these top 10% start buying a game for 10 people ? I'm especially concerned for those solo campaigner games...

Man, I would hate to see devs move on from single player games because they feel there is no money there. I just don't see how this makes financial sense for Microsoft either.

 

[Walshicus]

On Steam you CAN NOT BUY physical. It's different. STOP COMPARING IT FFS!!

Yes you fucking can.

 

[statham]

Man, I would hate to see devs move on from single player games because they feel there is no money there. I just don't see how this makes financial sense for Microsoft either.

Thats been happening for the past 8 years. Microsoft is trying something different.

 

[Justin]

Yes you fucking can.

Can you though? What percentage of new PC games do you think get physical releases anymore? I just checked 2 of the bigger releases this year, Tomb Raider and Crysis 3 and I can not find that physical versions were ever released.

 

[Walshicus]

Can you though?

Have you not been in a game shop recently? GAME have an entire section dedicated to games on Steam and Origin.

What percentage of new PC games do you think get physical releases anymore?

I don't know, and I don't think it really matters.

 

[Justin]

Have you not been in a game shop recently? GAME have an entire section dedicated to games on Steam and Origin.


I don't know, and I don't think it really matters.

Been a while since I have been in a GameStop but their PC section consists of cards with steam codes on them.

Edit: Seems like you are somewhere in Europe so I guess the market is different then here in the US. I found this from a dev on there being no physical version of Tomb Raider in the states.

In Europe, the game is still very much widely a retail PC SKU. It holds up very strongly in sales. You have to have it. It’s part of the DNA. Whereas what we’ve found in North America is that PC sales have slowly but surely started to move into the digital space.

 

[jdmonmou]

This game sharing feature sounds too good to be true. Microsoft should have explained this feature on stage at E3. Perhaps even given some type of demo. Someone on stage could have said, "XBOX TITANFALL SHARE!", or something like that. It would have done a lot to repair the damage done to their reputation over the negative press they've been receiving. The daily online check in could have even been explained as a way to support game sharing. It is DRM, but DRM used in a way to allow you to share games over the internet with friends without having to physically meet and exchange a physical disc. This would be taking away something from the consumer (flexibility and options of used games), and giving them something that could potentially be better (convenience of sharing digital games). Again, it sounds to good to be true, and the fact that they didn't clearly explain how this would work sooner makes me highly skeptical.

 

[harlekin]

And so it begins. The seemingly abusable carrot that is dangling in front of everyones face to lead them to the new "one library - profit motive - no ownership" utopia.

If just one game can be shared by any one person at a time, this results in a net loss of sharing potential over the entire gaming population. That said there is a huge increase of opportunity through to perceived "ease of use".

Which is reigned in through a 30 days policy which eliminates "opportunity" plays.

The other factor that eliminates opportunity is unlimited share time. Prepare to see most of your friends "locked" (someone already is sharing) for most of the time.

The psychology is such that as someone who would like to use this system, I will try to protect my "fast players, early purchasers" from other sharers.

Sharers who recognize that will defer in a "quid pro quo" mentality, which professionalizes the whole process beyond believe.

There is a new scarce resource on Xbox Live. The rich kid.

In one sentence: MS is creating a library system underneath their own one where you can source as many libraries as you want, but there is always only one copy of a lendable book at every library. At a time. With almost in every case 10 gamers who want to play "something" which locks everyone else out from any one lender.

That should fix public perception...