Yeah, it's awesome. You can buy virtually all new big PC releases physical in Europe. Was often true in the US as well but it's much more common here.
-
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.
Phil Spencer: You can share your Xbox One games with any 10 people
- Thread starter Kuno
- Start date
- Status
Zoe
Member
Actually though, don't Europe laws say you can resell digital licenses too?
WhyIsTheRumGone
Banned
No naivety. Believe me, the internet community has its fair share of conceptional models on how to keep sharing up while balancing ratio. This one doesn't sound like its very efficient at that.
Especially in high demand scenarios (first month...).
Or to put it differently. No public library could function if publishers only allowed them to lend one book at a time but encouraged them to find "as many lenders (cycles) as they could".
Broken by design. Welcome to DRM world.
Especially in high demand scenarios (first month...).
Or to put it differently. No public library could function if publishers only allowed them to lend one book at a time but encouraged them to find "as many lenders (cycles) as they could".
Broken by design. Welcome to DRM world.
dragonelite
Member
Digital goods are getting a lot of the same rights as physical good here in EU.
There was a lawsuit going on about how a friend stole another persons Runescape gear.
Outcome was stealing digital goods is the same as stealing physical goods. For both things you have to put hours of your life into it. A lot of folks went lol what stupid. But it did show me that judges are taking digital goods serious here in the Netherlands. Question is for how long with all those US companies lobbying very hard to take away rights from us.
Maybe its a cultural difference i have noticed that the mandatory kinect is a much bigger issue then the 24 hour check with a lot of my close by friends.
Most likely scenario:
Social guilt.
You want to borrow game A, because friend has signed into quid pro quo thinking and demands a sharing slot in return (slots are scarce) - you are thinking about kicking out other friend from your current sharing slot, because you want to play a game he cant share - ore even worse, he has already shared his slot to another person.
System is designed to fail.
Best outcome in 1 on 1 sharing agreements with buying intent of both players at puchase time - both pay half, AND or more likely OR alternating shopping patterns.
Problem: Who "owns" the copy. After a "divorce".
I recon this is pretty much a scam.
Social guilt.
You want to borrow game A, because friend has signed into quid pro quo thinking and demands a sharing slot in return (slots are scarce) - you are thinking about kicking out other friend from your current sharing slot, because you want to play a game he cant share - ore even worse, he has already shared his slot to another person.
System is designed to fail.
Best outcome in 1 on 1 sharing agreements with buying intent of both players at puchase time - both pay half, AND or more likely OR alternating shopping patterns.
Problem: Who "owns" the copy. After a "divorce".
I recon this is pretty much a scam.
I reckon you're reasoning is crap. The person who owns the copy "owns" the copy. It's that simple. At its worst, a inclusive network of ten friends will only need 5 copies of every game they collectively wish to play.
This is a crazy post but everything you typed here can also happen with a physical disk.
WhyIsTheRumGone
Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=591666
Well pretty much fucks the whole we can play multiplayer at the same time thing. Although it still is quite good.
Well pretty much fucks the whole we can play multiplayer at the same time thing. Although it still is quite good.
Green Yoshi
Member
http://youtu.be/6RtSGFryKwo?t=3m50s
If Major Nelson isn't talking BS you can't play the game that your friend bought at the same time as your friend.
I also read this, don't know where it's from:
Q.: Can multiple people play the same game from the shared library at the same fucking time?
A.: Yes they can. Licence owner and ONE other guy. TWO guys at the same time.
Q: Let's see. Me and my friend Bob playing Halo 5 from my shared library. Can my friend Jim play any other game from my shared library at the same time while me and Bob playing Halo 5?
A: No, he can not.
If Major Nelson isn't talking BS you can't play the game that your friend bought at the same time as your friend.
I also read this, don't know where it's from:
Q.: Can multiple people play the same game from the shared library at the same fucking time?
A.: Yes they can. Licence owner and ONE other guy. TWO guys at the same time.
Q: Let's see. Me and my friend Bob playing Halo 5 from my shared library. Can my friend Jim play any other game from my shared library at the same time while me and Bob playing Halo 5?
A: No, he can not.
entremet
Member
Do they still use keys to authenticate? I haven't bought boxed PC software, either productivity or games in years!
dragonelite
Member
Physical disk can get damaged or lost.
A digital copy can exist forever. Or i just load up an external hdd and keep that around just incase of.
As I've stated, thats five 1 on 1 sharing agreements. Its the best possible outcome.
Those five people will want a sharing slot in return, because the ones they are giving up are so damn valuable.
Lending from one person and sharing a game to another one pretty much becomes unmanageable very quickly - because of differing "I need reciprocity" perceptiontimes. Its very likely that you will have your copy "return at will" If you don't believe in 1 on 1 sharing agreements, because the favours are more than 10to1 against you that one person will have a slot open and a game that you like in a time window where you would "discover" it, if both of you wouldn't believe in 1 on 1 sharing agreements.
WhyIsTheRumGone
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPC4XzyE3Gc&feature=youtu.be
At around 5 minutes he says that the people who think that this will allow 10 people to put $6 each for a game and then just share it are in for cold shower. It's not gonna work that way.
At around 5 minutes he says that the people who think that this will allow 10 people to put $6 each for a game and then just share it are in for cold shower. It's not gonna work that way.
statham
Member
Dont put too much stock in anything he is saying as it contradicts a lot of what has been said elsewhere. Major Nelson is working on a blog post which will hopefully be out later this week detailing the sharing features.
Also he is talking about 10 people playing a single shared copy at the same time which no one ever thought was going to happen.
Single game. And no one is saying that here.
WhyIsTheRumGone
Banned
No, he says 2 can play the same game, singleplayer only. The other 8 can play the other games (but still limited to 2 player per game singleplayer.)
And besides, stuff that "has been said elsewhere" is not more trustworthy as this.
We are talkin DRM, of course it is crazy.
And no - the one essential thing that is missing is:"Sure take it - I have many (to share)". You only have one share slot at any given time. That makes it more valuable. Because of that you will demand a share slot in return.
Well probably not "right now", but "sometime". The problem is, that with everyone just having one share slot open sometime from a specific person might become increasingly uncertain when it depends not only on the time another person stops lending from him, but also on the agreements he has taken to lend further games as well as if he has that game you want in your common circle.
Lending becomes something you will only do in "exchange". Probably at the same time to/from each other.
The alternative is kicking someone out from a lending slot - which results in social guilt. And more impulse purchases. Yay!
edit: he/she
I know that I am just saying that it is contradicting what is on the official Xbox site which stay that only one game can be checkout of your shared library at a time.
I still think that the part about 2 people playing the same game simultaneously got mixed up with everyone being able to access the game on the system it was purchased on irregardless of the account that is logged on. When asked if 2 people can play the same shared game at the same time Major Nelson says it can be done if the game is split screen. How does that make sense for the online sharing feature? I think he got mixed up.
We are talkin DRM, of course it is crazy.
"Sure take it - I have many (to share)". You only have one share slot at any given time. That makes it more valuable. Because of that you will demand a share slot in return.
Well probably not "right now", but "sometime". The problem is, that with everyone just having one share slot open sometime from a specific person might become increasingly uncertain when it depends not only on the time another person stops lending from him, but also on the agreements he has taken to lend further games as well as if he has that game you want in your common circle.
Lending becomes something you will only do in "exchange". Probably at the same time to/from each other.
The alternative is kicking someone out from a lending slot - which results in social guilt.
edit: he/she
Simple solution, buy your own copy of the game if it is always being shared by other friends and you want to play it that bad.
Right. But not only if "it" is lent by others, but if "any" game is lent by others from the person who has the game you want. At the time you bother to check if your friends lending slot is open.
The question is not "is there an out, if I buy the game" (the answer is, yes - of course and it is very much encouraged), but how well does this system manage "sharing opportunity" and the answer is - not well at all.
It keeps it scarce as heck, while practically demanding a 1 on 1 ratio.
Oh, and by the way, that 1 on 1 deal of course eliminates you sharing with any other (9 to unlimited) person for the duration of the sharing agreement (not even additional 1 on 1 agreements with different games would be granted).
Scam.
Microsoft should hire you to write FAQs
I think I understand your reasoning and I agree. The system seems to be designed to be reliably used by two people at a time and only that, with more people it just becomes a clusterfuck of sharing slots. As I wrote earlier in this thread - with an existing model, having a library of 10 different titles lets you share games with 9 friends at a time. With Xbone model you can only share your games with one, while the rest of your library is locked.
Or am I missing something?
No that's what he is saying it just isn't a scam like he is claiming. It's limiting to encourage people to buy their own copy of games they want. It does give the benifit though of sharing games over long distances as well as allowing the owner to continue playing the game while the game is being shared which I cant do if I hand a disk to my friend. The only people who will be disappointed will be those looking to game the system by chipping in 5 dollars between 10 people. That will not be the normal use case.
I wonder if publishers even knew MS had this plan? I doubt they'd want MS to go on stage and talk about how you can work around the family share system so that you can share every game you have with 10 random people, if you can do that of course, which i think won't happen even if initially it starts out that way.
I'm sure they knew because this feature has been known since the XO announcement conference.
BruiserBear
Banned
I'm nearly certain this is going to work exactly as Major Nelson explained in the Angry Joe interview. You have a virtual library of games, like a physical shelf.
Your "family" can play a game from that shelf, but just like a physical shelf, only one of you can be playing it at any given time.
That's what Major said, and frankly that's the only way it makes sense. Microsoft is not generous.
Your "family" can play a game from that shelf, but just like a physical shelf, only one of you can be playing it at any given time.
That's what Major said, and frankly that's the only way it makes sense. Microsoft is not generous.
Garrett 2U
Member
What? When did we hear publishers can opt out
Where was this said? Truth be told, I will only ever had one other person in my FS (Family Share). Maybe two
Still a kick ass feature and pushes the digital age for consoles forward.
Phawx
Member
That's not how a physical shelf works? Or at least my physical shelves don't lock tight when someone removes something from it.
Karak
Member
He does say that. IN regards to MP. Regardless its all up in the air until its not.
That info was from a post on Gaf by a Junior and it was his/her first and only post as far as I know. I don't think we ever found out who it was.
grap3fruitman
Banned
Sony needs to come out with a rebuttal that says you can share your PS4 games with up to 7 billion people.
Phawx
Member
There's a reason people are very interested in this family share. It's because loaning a game out to a single friend is hard enough, let alone 2.
statham
Member
theirs a ocean of a difference between the two.
Spinning Plates
Member
I can see it already: You can access 1 library share for a maximum 60 minutes in any 24hr period.
statham
Member
lets make up stuff. again we have a best of and worse of and both are pretty awesome.
Karak
Member
Well for me at the very least I can share with my online peeps who are at minimum 1000 miles away that is huge for me personally and will save me a couple hundred in the first year alone. Whatever this allows above that is just more awesome. Just that
i like the way you think
I never thought of it that way, and when you think about games and how long they take to beat (or more specifically how long people keep a game before they feel they're done with it), the fact that many people will want a game at the same time, the fact that the games are $60, and the fact the two people max can play a game at the same time (and that's the single player), it's going to be super crazy. I imagine a lot of conflict will come about as a result of this system.
publicpwnerer
Member
This is some kind of reaction, considering they never mentioned or probably intentioned for 10 people to play a single "licence".
Alx
Member
If it works the way we think, they should describe it as your virtual gaming room. It's a room with a copy of all your shared games, but with only one seat. Your friends can remotely access your room and play there with any title of the shared collection, but when there's someone in the room, nobody else can enter.
It should be simple enough to explain with two or three simple drawings, with other friends "waiting at the door", or doing something else in the meantime.
Except major Nelson seemed to say that if one family member is playing a game from the shelf,the shelf then gets locked. So it's worse than physical in that sense.
Why not? I see it exactley working like that. :/
Alx
Member
There have to be pros and cons. Since you're making sharing easier, you have to limit the width of the distribution, or else people will abuse the system, and publishers will lose money on it.
I think it's a perfect system for groups of two friends (no locking out at all), and if you add more people to a group, you have potentially more choice, but also more chances of being locked out of a game you want to play. It should self-balance in the end.
The thing that surprises me is that in the whole discussion of this sharing feature we seem to focus on the short-comings of physical media vs the ease of use/access of digital media, while nobody seems to be bothered by the fact that something simple like sharing a game has turned into this complex, convoluted mess of which we don't even yet truly know how it's going to work. If this is Microsoft's "future" they are harping on about, they can keep it.
Alx
Member
That's because we don't know how it works exactly that it sounds complex and convoluted... once everything is in place, it should be quite clear for the user, and even easier to handle than traditional lending :
Main account : select games to share, add to share list
Friend account : startup console, "here are the games shared and currently available", select, play.
Traditional lending requires knowing who owns which games, ask them whether they're available, when you can meet them to borrow it (if they don't mind),... and the user doing the lending has to keep track of all people who borrowed which game, and hope that they'll return it in time.
Main account : select games to share, add to share list
Friend account : startup console, "here are the games shared and currently available", select, play.
Traditional lending requires knowing who owns which games, ask them whether they're available, when you can meet them to borrow it (if they don't mind),... and the user doing the lending has to keep track of all people who borrowed which game, and hope that they'll return it in time.
- Status