InfiniteBento
Member
ahahahaha that's fantastic.
There's a petition for asking Microsoft To Bring Back Xbox One's DRM
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
ahahahaha that's fantastic.
Glorified G
Member
lol wow
Untill it's by a corporation you have an emotional attachment towards
I wish they would give users the option to have one DRM setup or the other.
I personally would opt to go digital or install my games (with a one-time use code) and get the benefits of the family sharing and such.
If you want to go with buying and selling physical games, just buy the game and don't use the code.
Everyone gets what they want and hopefully (but not very likely) everyone stops complaining.
I personally would opt to go digital or install my games (with a one-time use code) and get the benefits of the family sharing and such.
If you want to go with buying and selling physical games, just buy the game and don't use the code.
Everyone gets what they want and hopefully (but not very likely) everyone stops complaining.
FranXico
Member
I meant above that I would sign it just to make MS screw everything up even more...
It is a good one.
SwiftDeath
Member
Hmm while a polygon editor does hold more weight with me than a MS employee (not by much though)
Still not going to believe it as true until someone from ubisoft or EA etc. actually says "Yes we would've allowed Family Sharing" but I guess that's asking for too much and will likely never be discussed
Worth noting polygon guy says they were still finalizing the details which makes my original notion seem more likely
I still think the demo thing was likely the first iteration of family sharing and then when MS saw the writing on the wall they tried to make it full game sharing (maybe)
Still very suspicious that it wasn't finalized by E3 so I find it hard to believe this was to be in the original feature set of the X1
Can only imagine the box we would get if people hadn't complained at all
faulty_fork
Member
And what would stop you from selling/giving that disc away to someone (who hasn't chosen the stricter DRM option) once you've installed it?
Two completely different things.
Funny how you used that as me defending MS when MS was exactly the reason why I wanted to (at the time) see the PS4's online plans in more detail at the time of that post you linked to.
FYI, I didn't believe the family share plan until more articles came out about it; pre & post the DRM reversal.
Great "source". Might as well have just posted a picture of your ass for us.
Heh, uh.. okay? Sorry then?
Haha, I don't have emotional attachment towards any company. I buy/play whatever has games I'm interested in. This gen I played the 360 more than other consoles but last gen I played the PS2 more.
It's pretty funny yet sad and the same time how easily some people group others here on the basis of video games just because they have a difference of opinion(s). But hey, keep digging up old posts! Gotta get that evidence for the console war!
SwiftDeath
Member
They could separate it by digital only vs physical copies
I.E. impose DRM on digital purchases and get all features for it
Not sure you could really have both while letting the DRM people use physical discs for install though
I didn't say you were defending MS, I said you were taking what they said as gospel when you yourself said in that thread that PR speak is vague nonsense and not to be trusted.
What articles though? All the information out there pointing to the family plan being the full games are Twitter tweets (post 180 at that).
SwiftDeath
Member
That's not true
There's some articles as well........about those tweets
Honestly would love to be able to ask pubs/devs questions from time to time and just get a straight answer
The idea that MS was still in discussion with pubs about family sharing (if true) is mind-boggling to me
(Bold) is definitely understandable. But now that it's gone (at least for now), I don't think they will say anything about it.
I still to this day don't get why MS didn't go into more detail about it at their E3 conference. I mean, the blog they had about the Xbox One's restrictions from the week (or so) before went into more detail about the family share plan in comparison to what they stated about it at E3.
That was true for other features too such as game multitasking (which now after the "180" is just for digital games). Overall they did a terrible job in explaining the features of the system in my opinion.
SwiftDeath
Member
Agree wholeheartedly here and honestly think pretty much everyone everywhere does as well
MS's PR up to and including E3 was terrible
You want to impose all these restrictions on me as a consumer?
Fine, sell me on why I should be ok with that
MS never did this ^ successfully for most of the diehard xbox fans
Everyone else was even less sold on it
Game switching is cool, discless gaming has its merits, family share (could) be cool but the fact that MS didn't talk about it was ridiculous
If you're so excited about your gaming innovations why don't you talk about it more for the love of god?
NullPointer
Member
I could believe that people liked the idea of buying a physical disk, installing it, and never needing it to boot the game up, but still keeping it for re-installs, lending or resale.
In theory its a great idea, but in practice, the "supported retailers" bit and publisher veto (or opt-in) would ruin it.
I also have to think some of this is still related to misunderstandings or wishful thinking on how the family plan would have worked.
In theory its a great idea, but in practice, the "supported retailers" bit and publisher veto (or opt-in) would ruin it.
I also have to think some of this is still related to misunderstandings or wishful thinking on how the family plan would have worked.
Latvian Hitman
Member
To take it one step further: let's assume that Cboat was wrong and the family share plan was going to be this wonderful thing that let you link up with any 10 people and just pass games back and forth all willy-nilly.
Why, exactly, did MS pull this off the table after their DRM 180? Were they butthurt and just looking to punish everybody? Did they just not want to give us too much awesome at once?
I never said "nonsense" and "not to be trusted". I just said that to me it was vague and that I wanted to see more info of their full online plans; just like I wanted to see/read more details about the family share plan shortly after I found out about it after MS' E3 conference.
These interviews came out before the tweets.:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/
http://penny-arcade.com/report/arti...ames-with-ten-family-members-but-some-details
So many people have said this, but I don't understand the confusion. Obviously without DRM online sharing wouldn't be possible, the licence needs to be restricted to a single account if you want online sharing to be a possibility. If you could share both online and offline, then why not just sell the disk once you've linked it to your account? It would work since there wouldn't be any DRM, so the system basically enables piracy for the masses. It makes absolutely no sense for both to be implemented.
But of course nobody here cares. Sony is king etc etc
xValentine
Member
The number of people that would have benefited from the original 10 person family share plan is much less than people who benefit from disc sharing since the majority of people don't have fast enough internet connections for the share feature to be good for them.
Then when you put those two things together (original family share plan and no restrictions on discs), TONS of people would never buy games. Hence why I said that if digital sharing does come back that it would more than likely be with fewer people and/or have more restrictions.
Yep.
Where in those articles does it "shut down" the speculation that it wouldn't be full game sharing?
Why didn't they implement family sharing for digital purchases? I fail to see any way that would be exploitable, and it would be a good way to encourage people to buy digitally.
SwiftDeath
Member
Again interviews don't alleviate my concerns with family sharing as both executives don't know the real details
And while a time limit vs no time limit is a far bigger thing to not be aware of compared to one vs two people can play it at the same time, it all just shouts unfinalized to me
Hence if MS scrapped it before the details were finalized they can damn well say anything they please about it
Maybe I'll start trying to hit up devs on twitter about it but doubt it would come to anything
Id rather have the drm policys. I dont buy used games nor sell them. My perfered console is and will be the pc and on that all my games are digital and the majority are locked down on steam. The kast time my internet has been down for any significant amou I t of time was caused by sandy . The drm would actually be good for me. I could choose from the best deal is target selling a new release for 50 ? Vs 60 in the dd store or does gamestop have a reallu cool preoder bonus ? Its all good cause no matter where I buy from it will still be treated as a digital download. Id be able to load it on my console and not swap discs just like on steam but with the added benfit of sharing with ten people
For example I got bioshock infinte for 40 on the pc at gamestop will it was still 60 on steam. Activated the game on steam and boom all the benfits as if I bout it on steam
For example I got bioshock infinte for 40 on the pc at gamestop will it was still 60 on steam. Activated the game on steam and boom all the benfits as if I bout it on steam
InfiniteBento
Member
Most of the speculation came after those articles were posted.
Those articles still read to me though that it was going to be full games; especially the one from ars technica.
There are so many viable solutions to this without implementing an all encompassing 24 hour check, it's not even funny. Just because you say it's impossible doesn't make it so.
But go ahead and believe MS and applaud their "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude.
They never made clear exactly how family sharing would work. Such a system would be quite easy to abuse if there weren't restrictions. There had to be some kind of restrictions to it.
It seems clear that the benefits to them outweighed the benefits to the consumer. On the subject of used games specifically, a policy was being put in place that would affect every game bought. After the negative reception, they pushed it all on to the publishers. If the publishers wanted to though, they could have completely blocked the sharing and selling of games anyway. And it was very easy for them to do, because the necessary tools to do so were built into the system.
I am scratching my head at this whole 'future of gaming' bullshit. Basically the only new and definite thing it added to the user experience is the ability to play games without a disc in the drive. Wow, fucking wow. Family sharing sounded interesting, but there were some serious question marks on how that would really work. Digital downloads are still an option, but then it is an option for PS4 owners as well. There is hardly anything this policy brought to the table that you can't already do. Anything beneficial to the consumer anyway.
I am just hung up on your original statement in this thread:
I just don't see how we will ever know if it was actually going to be full games, and to say it was 'shut down' is a little off the mark.
I'm pretty sure it was full games with 10 people. Also MS said this was the first step to cheaper games, so we were probably going to have $30-40 games instead of $60 games as well. My plans were to share every new release game with 9 of my friends and only pay $3-4 a game. Now all those plans have gone up in smoke. Hell yes, I signed the petition.
fastford58
Member
I signed it.
I'm not buying an Xbone.
I'm not buying an Xbone.
If it was actually going to be this, they would have explicitly said so.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
IT CANT BE FOR NOTHING
They did, Aaron Greenberg said it explicitly. He has zero reasons to lie. That's basically an official statement from MS. Official statement from MS = truthfact.
SwiftDeath
Member
Right, MS promised in clear language that family sharing was full games and that Xbox games were going to be cheaper where exactly?
They didn't promise any of that, just implied it
They have no legal obligation to follow through on any of it so why should I blindly believe they will?
Oh /sarcasm
You is tricky
You can't seriously believe this can you?
Which is precisely why I never believed the family sharing plan was a real thing. At least not without some serious caveats that they never got around to detailing.
Post 180, they can say anything. Why didn't they say it pre-180, especially in that press release they sent out or during E3? Because they still hadn't figured it all out is my guess. They can claim the world now that they killed it.
KnockOneOff
Banned
Go home people that did that, your drunk!
SwiftDeath
Member
DukeTogo1300
Member
Microsoft must be so confused...
I just LOL at people believing the MS PR and execs and other speculations (about full game 10 people family sharing, and cheaper games) might as well be a game developer going:
Hey guys, you know the sequel we started making which got cancelled due to you guys not buying enough copies of the first game, well that sequel was going to be the best game ever of all time. Too bad. You guys missed out.
Hey guys, you know the sequel we started making which got cancelled due to you guys not buying enough copies of the first game, well that sequel was going to be the best game ever of all time. Too bad. You guys missed out.
Where did they say it was the first step to cheaper games? I don't recall Microsoft stating that ever.
And that is exactly what I was talking about when it comes to abusing that system. What would happen is there would be sites popping up with the purpose of creating sharing groups. The publishers aren't going to like that one bit. I just can't see how such a policy would be workable.