Support NeoGAF

[gatisimo]

As someone with both consoles pre-ordered, I can tell you that (unless some major differences reside) this feature would definitely push me to choose XB1 versions of cross-platform games over the PS4 version (and perhaps PC) anytime I'm deciding which to buy.

As I understand it, I can play a title I own, either independently or with one "family" member who has access to my library (no, not all ten of those members) at once.

From a MS/Sony perspective, I can see the incentive. Sure, some titles (like short single-player games) would lose a sale when I could just borrow my friends copy rather than buying it myself. However, they'd be gaining a sale in that they're adding tangible value to the XB1 version over the PS4/PC version, so it'd make me and my "family" members much more likely to purchase XB1 cross-platform titles.

Additionally, if I'm home from work and decide to try out a title from someone else's shared library, I am much more likely to make an impulse purchase when I've already downloaded everything and am seconds away from owning my own copy.

I know everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it may, but I think the option we're reading about today is viable.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Looks like lending your games to your friends is back on the menu boys!

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Scenario:
I'm the owner

Friend A
Friend B

Are sharing games with me.

Friend A is playing game A with me
Can Friend B play game B?

It sounds like owner + one friend can play at the same time. So no, you can't play and also two friends play.

 

[Phawx]

Yep, pretty clear. Odd how Microsoft employees can't get their story straight.

There are two problems with this policy though. The first is that, once you have ten people on a list, whenever a new triple A game is added to that list, "the game becomes unplayable."

Seriously, think about it. If Halo 5's just launched, everyone on your friends list will constantly struggle to play it, will constantly cut each other off, and will be constantly preventing 9/10's of your friends from being able to play. Unless you're all in significantly different time zones, for the people on your shared list, its a glorified demo. This is designed mostly to wet peoples appetites into going out and buying their own copy. Sure, 5-6 months later it'll be fine, maybe, but of course Microsoft is mainly concerned about a games release window sales.

The second problem, is that given the above, its not an equal trade-off. Sharing a glorified demo with friends isn't worth simply being able to loan the full game when you're done with it. Nor, is it worth losing the right to trade, sale, or buy games used once you or somebody else in finished with them. Sure, you cannot loan a physical disk to ten people at once, but that one person CAN actually enjoy that game as they see fit, instead of constantly struggling to find an open time slot.

Read the PA article. There is no master account in the family-share. All 10 people could buy Halo 5. Really only 5 people need to buy it. As 5 could have local copies and their would be 5 shared copies for the other 5.

 

[Minions]

isn't lending doing the same thing? the people your lending to aren't buying the game.

Physically lending discs is much harder and takes much more effort than doing it digitally. I venture to say the combination of lending and used games would be less than 5 times... this is double that.

 

[Jarmel]

Maybe the DRM scheme is how they persuaded publishers to allow this?

Then they don't mention this to the public? Not likely. They also might allow it but won't publicize it or promote it to keep the publishers happy.

 

[aronnov reborn]

how would this not massively kill sales for new games?

I mean seriously.. just 2 people always go in on one game and be done?

 

[Slayer-33]

Maybe the DRM scheme is how they persuaded publishers to allow this?

Exactly. Maybe this is the consumers payoff, like they said everyone is supposed to get a cut or something.. Hoping to hear more about this

 

[Y2Kev]

isn't lending doing the same thing? the people your lending to aren't buying the game.

But I didn't say lending, I meant vs. used game sales. This is seemingly more damaging

Plus physical lending means I actually have to know and trust you. Now i can just split stuff with 10 internetizens

 

[Monty Mole]

The catch here is this: Currently when someone lends you a game you get to play it to completion before returning it. With this new system you are going to be fighting with 10 other people to play the game. Imagine being halfway through Bioshock Infinite and not being able to finish the game because someone else in the "family" is hogging it. Then you might as well go buy the copy, which might be what they are betting on.

Currently when someone lends you a game, the person who has lent it to you doesn't get to play it at all!

Also there's an incredibly simple solution to this issue: only add one friend to your family list at any one time. I'll probably just add my main gaming mate and we can just share between each other without worrying about any of that.

 

[TheDanger]

Question is, why didn't they talk about this feature on their reveal event or at e3?

stealth backpedaling?

 

[Salaadin]

Maybe the DRM scheme is how they persuaded publishers to allow this?

That doesnt make sense.

"Roll with us on DRM and we will allow 10 people to play your game while only paying for one copy"

 

[kitch9]

isn't lending doing the same thing? the people your lending to aren't buying the game.

You lend games to people 3000 miles away?

 

[Papercuts]

Here is how it seems to work:

Gamer A buys a game. Let's use Dead Rising 3, but he also owns Killer Instinct and Forza 5.

He has a family set up with B, C, and D. While Gamer A is playing Dead Rising 3, one other person can play it out of the other 3. While C is playing it, B and D can't.

The main question for me is can B and D access A's versions of Forza and KI during this, or just not DR3?

 

[see5harp]

DLC? Microtransactions?

What is the guy who shared the game decides to trade it in at Gamestop? All the people that bought additional DLC and microtransations suddenly have paper weight lol.

Why are game journalists so incompetent? Get the fucking facts straightened out man.

Speculation of course, but then your friend would need to buy the game, same as it is today with DLC and games that you've traded. That would at least justify the online requirement.

 

[Phawx]

Then they don't mention this to the public? Not likely. They also might allow it but won't publicize it or promote it to keep the publishers happy.

They don't mention how to do game-sharing on the 360.

 

[xaosslug]

LOL @ anyone who's buying this.

basically, this.

when MS either clarifies this, or peeps discover how this works in practice... I don't think the reality is gonna be very awesome.

 

[szaromir]

how would this not massively kill sales for new games?

I mean seriously.. just 2 people always go in on one game and be done?

That's the catch. Only two people can realistically play through the same copy (license).

 

[JetBlackPanda]

how would this not massively kill sales for new games?

I mean seriously.. just 2 people always go in on one game and be done?

this is what every single person that likes this feature is thinking.

makes no sense.

All I can go off of is whats been said by M$ and it sounds too good to be true.

I will keep my eye on it for sure though if it works as advertised.

 

[Boy Wander]

Yep, pretty clear. Odd how Microsoft employees can't get their story straight.

There are two problems with this policy though. The first is that, once you have ten people on a list, whenever a new triple A game is added to that list, "the game becomes unplayable."

Seriously, think about it. If Halo 5's just launched, everyone on your friends list will constantly struggle to play it, will constantly cut each other off, and will be constantly preventing 9/10's of your friends from being able to play. Unless you're all in significantly different time zones, for the people on your shared list, its a glorified demo. This is designed mostly to wet peoples appetites into going out and buying their own copy. Sure, 5-6 months later it'll be fine, maybe, but of course Microsoft is mainly concerned about a games release window sales.

The second problem, is that given the above, its not an equal trade-off. Sharing a glorified demo with friends isn't worth simply being able to loan the full game when you're done with it. Nor, is it worth losing the right to trade, sale, or buy games used once you or somebody else in finished with them. Sure, you cannot loan a physical disk to ten people at once, but that one person CAN actually enjoy that game as they see fit, instead of constantly struggling to find an open time slot.

This is probably why they're calling 'family' sharing because it is indeed suited better to families or very small groups of people who can agree who will play what when. Otherwise, as you say, it becomes a fucking bun fight as to who gets access to a game.

Probably also a big reason why MS wouldn't go region free. In theory, you could hook up with someone in a different timezone and share games without ever getting in each others way.

 

[Bigmac1910]

I don't see the publishers agree with this for too long.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Lol no.

Thanks for the constructive reply. It's really helped me to understand your position and made me question mine.

Good job all round.

 

[entremet]

That doesnt make sense.

"Roll with us on DRM and we will allow 10 people to play your game while only paying for one copy"

Tradeoffs. They probably believe used sales are more of a threat than personal lending.

 

[GashPrex]

I don't see the difference between lending a game to somebody in digital format as proposed here and lending a physical copy? How does this cause any more harm? Couldn't everybody "go in" on games together as they are today? This just makes it easier.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Would be awesome if true.

So if my family consists of 3 Americans and 3 Europeans so we never step on each others toes.

We could all split the cost of 2 copies (a copy belonging to to each region) of every game and pay $20 a game.

When the Americans are asleep or working 1 of their European pals can still use their US copy while the other two, 1 has full rights and the other can piggyback off his copy.


This seems insane.

 

[Zoe]

Currently when someone lends you a game, the person who has lent it to you doesn't get to play it at all!

Also there's an incredibly simple solution to this issue: only add one friend to your family list at any one time. I'll probably just add my main gaming mate and we can just share between each other without worrying about any of that.

Reread this:

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.

(bolding the last line as well since most people don't seem to understand it)

 

[Anticitizen One]

Looks like lending your games to your friends is back on the menu boys!

nice two towers reference

 

[koryuken]

“The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time,” Ars Technica reported after speaking with Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi.

There it is, one person at a time.

 

[Jarmel]

This would literally kill GameStop.

 

[Slayer-33]

That doesnt make sense.

"Rolivith us on DRM and we will allow 10 people to play your game while only paying for one copy"

Xbl req for everyone, kickbacks from used game sales/live to devs?

 

[BraXzy]

I saw it on NeoGAF instantly, the Xbox Family creation threads, where people said 'Hey be a part of my family.'”

Hehe I think I made that thread. Does that make me int3rneet famouz?

 

[TheDanger]

how would this not massively kill sales for new games?

I mean seriously.. just 2 people always go in on one game and be done?

Well they probably get a reasonable cut of xbl gold because this will at least require gold, although gold can be shared too right?

They should totally PR this to the max with videos and everything, it might help the massive hate a bit. Maybe they wait until the dust has settled a bit.

 

[Sblargh]

Right now you can share your disc-based games with infinite people. Microsoft reduces it to 10 and people think it is too good to be true and wait for the catch?

The catch is that they convinced you that this is too good to be true.

 

[ari]

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

You honestly share your games with more then 10 people at a time? Let alone before finishing your game? I.....I'm calling bullshit.

This is a great feature with or without subpar DRM.

 

[badb0y]

That's the catch. Only two people can realistically play through the same copy (license).

This would only work with games like Skyrim where you spend like hundreds of hours on it.

Games like Bioshock? Most people finish those in a day or 2.

This is more damaging then the traditional model of lending games.

This is more damaging then having used games.

 

[Papercuts]

Reread this:



(bolding the last line as well since most people don't seem to understand it)

Yeah, that clarifies what I was wondering.

 

[Odrion]

So piracy rings are better for the industry than used games sales?

edit: nevermind, this is a hilarious clusterfuck system.

 

[Phawx]

how would this not massively kill sales for new games?

I mean seriously.. just 2 people always go in on one game and be done?

Because people buy more games if they are cheaper and/or think they are getting one over on the system?

 

[ultron87]

“The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time,” Ars Technica reported after speaking with Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi.

There it is, one person at a time.

It is the game's original owner + one person on their shared list.

 

[CambriaRising]

Sure they will. That's pretty much the whole point of their strategy here: making game discs mostly meaningless.

They absolutely will not, people are being delusional.

 

[dark_prinny]

 

[dragonelite]

The catch here is this: Currently when someone lends you a game you get to play it to completion before returning it. With this new system you are going to be fighting with 10 other people to play the game. Imagine being halfway through Bioshock Infinite and not being able to finish the game because someone else in the "family" is hogging it. Then you might as well go buy the copy, which might be what they are betting on.

I think this. Its just a way to enable sharing.
I find it more interesting because i have some gaming friends that can't always make it day.
I have money over a lot of times so i can get a copy share it and they can fight it out or they could each chip so 3 people can play instead of 2.

 

[Nafai1123]

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.

 

[DirtyManos]

Do these family members have main standalone accounts, or are they sub-accounts controlled by the main account?

 

[EGM1966]

Currently when someone lends you a game, the person who has lent it to you doesn't get to play it at all!

Also there's an incredibly simple solution to this issue: only add one friend to your family list at any one time. I'll probably just add my main gaming mate and we can just share between each other without worrying about any of that.

If you're going to do that it would be easier just to pass that buddy a disk and save all that downloading and admin adding/deleting people to share stuff around.

Just saying.

 

[Monty Mole]

Reread this:



(bolding the last line as well since most people don't seem to understand it)

What? I was agreeing with that statement. When I said 'currently' I was referring to Xbox 360/PS3 physical discs. I know about Xbox One's policy on this, read my earlier posts.

If you're going to do that it would be easier just to pass that buddy a disk and save all that downloading and admin adding/deleting people to share stuff around.

Just saying.

No it wouldn't. I rarely see the person in real life, and then we can't both play the same game at the same time, whereas with this policy we could. Not to mention this allows access to his entire shared library, and not just a single disc he's lent me. This way is so much more convenient on so many levels.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

“The only limitation, it seems, is that only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time,” Ars Technica reported after speaking with Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi.

There it is, one person at a time. That twitter feed was BS.

So it's like how lending works now, but done digitally and you're limited to sharing with 10 friends and can't resell/trade your game? You'll all also likely need a gold subscription to boot....

 

[zainetor]

Tradeoffs. They probably believe used sales are more of a threat than personal lending.

this way, they will limit and know how many people play a game.
Now a single copy can be played virtually 50 persons or more.

 

[Salaadin]

Tradeoffs. They probably believe used sales are more of a threat than personal lending.

I guess I just dont see that. In this system 10 people who dont even have to really know eachother can all mass together on an account, each pay 6 bucks, and each take turns playing a game. One game sold. Ten people played it.

I dont know how any dev sees that and thinks "thats better than what we have now!".


I also keep thinking about CBOATs bit about the DRM stuff being even worse.

 

[dark_inferno]

That screams for damage control. But i dont think they will EVER do that. There must be something off.