10 "Family" Share Feature

[Keith Wallace]

I would take that "Xbox One Employee" article with grain of salt.

View attachment 36076

And there is where Microsoft completely screwed up. They elected to ignore making it a popular, well-known feature. I mean, I can't help but wonder if publishers didn't like it, so they only agreed to it if Microsoft kept their mouths shut on it, in the hopes that this backlash would happen. It sounds like a crazy theory, but it's the only logical thing that I can come up with as to why Microsoft would claim this to be a great feature, then completely fail at telling people what it was. Honestly, it has to be that publishers were against it and tried to maneuver consumers into complaining it away or something.

 

[Mystictrust]

I agree with you, Keith. Unless the publishers decided they would only come out in support of it if it didn't make them look bad... then they saw the PS4 conference and abandoned Microsoft.

 

[EvilFiek]

Just to put another nail into the coffin of that pastebin-lie, I went on Twitter to Marc Whitten and well:

At the end of the day, family share would've probably been what we all dreamed it up to be. However on one hand Microsoft f'd it up massively (Why not scrap 24h DRM when license is on console + disc in tray?) and then again Sony obviously went against what everyone expected. I don't really blame Sony (okay, I kinda do ) because this is a dog eats dog world and after X360 wiped the floor with PS3 for a majority of the generation they obviously had to try to come up with something "killer". Unfortunately that killer turned out to kill the digital future, which was against MS and probably all the big publishers expectations. We've gone from Steam prices on consoles and lending 2.0 to Xbox 360/2 vs. PS3.5

 

[Keith Wallace]

That's the thing, it's really Microsoft's fault. They elected to avoid the work needed to overhaul the system to benefit everyone. That should have been the intent form the get-go, not to force everyone into a highly-inflexible system.

 

[Necroscope]

How was it "highly" inflexible.

The only seriously restrictive thing was the 24 hr check-in. I mean, you either have some form of internet access, or you don't.

Flexible:

1) Share your library with up to 10 people. I can share a game with however many people are in my house right now and that is it. Xbone would have let me share with my brother in a different city, my cousins and nephews in another state, and friends in another country. Xbone wins the sharing fight.

2) By and sell used games. We did not see a list, but I would bet that 'approved retailers' would have included Gamestop, Target, Walmart, and Best Buy, at the very least. Maybe a few more regional brands like FYE and some others. Ok, so I could not garage sell, or flea market these games. On the upside, the publishers would have good hard numbers to gage the used game market (as well as share in the profit of that market). Upside being the very real possibility that price could come down for games based on real market numbers. While first glance makes this a restriction, careful thought shows that the Xbone wins the used game fight if by no other means than getting the publishers on board the used games ship.

3) Digital downloads. Transferable liscenes, like those needed to buy and sell used (disc based) games could be extended to digital games. Also, digital games could be gifted from your library to another gamer (as long as they had been on your friends list for at least 30 days) one time per copy.


I could go on, but the point is, this was true innovation from the leader in the industry. Too bad the luddites of the internet (Gawker, IGN, et. al.) are too scared of the future.

 

[theeboredone]

Just to put another nail into the coffin of that pastebin-lie, I went on Twitter to Marc Whitten and well:

Just to counter that bit...

Disgruntled 'Xbox engineer' details unannounced game sharing and social features | The Verge

It's impossible to verify that these are the words of an Xbox engineer, but sources familiar with Microsoft's Xbox plans have revealed to The Verge that the company was discussing the idea of limiting each Family Sharing session to one hour and that game progress would be saved so you could play through the hourly caps or purchase the full game to continue uninterrupted.

Despite the initial setback, Microsoft's Xbox executives still believe in their vision. Marc Whitten, Microsoft's Xbox chief product officer, told The Verge recently that he believes "most people will choose to be connected, and play online, because just what they can do is so powerful with the architecture of Xbox One."

So I figure you can expect the online sharing and DRM stuff to surface later down the road.

 

[Necroscope]

how do "sourced familiar with Microsoft's Xbox plans" in any way shape or form counter Microsoft's Xbox Chief Product Officer? Keep on posting the Verge FUD. It doesn't make it true.

 

[theeboredone]

Right, because MS' executives and PR have always been on the same page...

Oh wait.

It wouldn't make sense for developers to allow gamers to play full games. If the idea is to kill the used game market or limit it, what's the point in that if people are sharing their full games digitally? It would just be like giving a friend a physical copy of the game.There would have to be some sort of limitation. Maybe some developers would allow their full games to be played, but I doubt it would resonate with everyone like that. Otherwise, you could literally buy a game, and "lend" it to 10 others like you would if you bought it physically. One at a time.

 

[Necroscope]

Who said anything about PR. This is an executive responsible for the product verses a web blogger's anonymous source.

"... Otherwise, you could literally buy a game, and "lend" it to 10 others like you would if you bought it physically. One at a time."

I believe this was exactly the plan. Up to 10 people could play the full version of my game, one at a time. Time limited demos makes no logical sense in this situation. With 'day one' digital copies available, I am willing to bet that limited (either time, or feature) demos of every game will be available. Why do I feel that way? Because that is the eco system MS has put in place with the Windows Store. Every game or app available for my windows phone is available as a limited demo. Why wouldn't they bring that system to the Xbox Marketplace?

It would make perfect sense if someone wanted to play a game from my library, that the game checked to see if anyone else was playing the shared game before launching the title. It also is perfectly reasonable for the system to check my liscence periodically to make sure I am still legally able to share the game.

Maybe I was reading between the lines, but I thought it was perfectly clear that only one user at a time would have full access to the game. I thought the people posting that they planned on buying one copy of Halo 5 and letting all 10 people get on multiplayer at once were being obviously sarcastic.

 

[EchoRedux]

DRM is supposed to help the publishers and developers. Do you honestly think Microsoft would allow people to work together to buy games in a manner that would screw the developers? Forget the aftermarket with secondary sales, there would hardly be initial sales. I can't believe people think Microsoft would allow such a thing. Also, Clemson sucks.

 

[MerlotC]

The pastebin post about Family Share limitations was bogus.

https://twitter.com/aarongreenberg/status/348125219019436033

 

[Coreldan]

While I guess obvious, it's good to hear that they plan to work on some more digital game goodies over time. I really think they can start their digital revolution already, but it does need a bit more incentives or at least a lower price point for digital download-games.

 

[Necroscope]

DRM is supposed to help the publishers and developers. Do you honestly think Microsoft would allow people to work together to buy games in a manner that would screw the developers?

Absolutely not. That is why I said I thought it was obvious that this would be a one at a time usage thing. Not 10 people playing together on on purchase.

Also, Clemson sucks.

Hey, you know that saying about what happens when you assume something? Turns out it ain't true. You only made an *** out of you.

 

[Mystictrust]

Major Nelson sure posts some interesting nuggets of info on Reddit.



Looks like something along the lines of family share could be addressed in an interview via his podcast, to be posted later today

 

[stevearsenault]

The Pastebin thing doesn't make much sense either, assuming they continue the same demo system they have now with the 360 for Gold memberships.

 

[ncxcstud]

Kotaku had an interesting editorial. Of course they say hood things AFTER all this and really didn't highlight this feature before...

http://kotaku.com/rumor-about-xbox-one-family-sharings-downsides-has-fla-534484570

 

[PhoenixSoul]

Just putting this out there for anyone that may have had concerns about sharing one xbox live gold account after the policy changes.





Smart Match

 

[theeboredone]

Who said anything about PR. This is an executive responsible for the product verses a web blogger's anonymous source.

"... Otherwise, you could literally buy a game, and "lend" it to 10 others like you would if you bought it physically. One at a time."

I believe this was exactly the plan. Up to 10 people could play the full version of my game, one at a time. Time limited demos makes no logical sense in this situation. With 'day one' digital copies available, I am willing to bet that limited (either time, or feature) demos of every game will be available. Why do I feel that way? Because that is the eco system MS has put in place with the Windows Store. Every game or app available for my windows phone is available as a limited demo. Why wouldn't they bring that system to the Xbox Marketplace?

It would make perfect sense if someone wanted to play a game from my library, that the game checked to see if anyone else was playing the shared game before launching the title. It also is perfectly reasonable for the system to check my liscence periodically to make sure I am still legally able to share the game.

Maybe I was reading between the lines, but I thought it was perfectly clear that only one user at a time would have full access to the game. I thought the people posting that they planned on buying one copy of Halo 5 and letting all 10 people get on multiplayer at once were being obviously sarcastic.

Once again, assuming this is true, it makes no sense. It's just like lending a friend a physical copy. If I'm allowing my 10 buddies to play this game (one at a time), don't you think that will impact sales negatively? It's not like developers would be making money off each "shared" game. If anything, it could be in some sort of scenarios pretty bad.

It just doesn't make sense to me, because a lot of you guys here have been "pro" developers in regards to them getting their share, and limiting the used game market. To me, this is just as bad if not worse. It's a small minority when a "new" game is passed around to different people at that much of a number. Whether it's being sold or borrowed. On a digital scale, you don't have to worry about if you're friend is in another city, let alone a state.

Now if you're saying you could care less how a game is shared. Digitally or physically, then I really don't care. More options, the better.

 

[smoledman]

Well either Microsoft lied about this feature or the pastebin post is a lie. Knowing Microsoft's track record, they tried to pull another fast one.

 

[ncxcstud]

So, we're at the point that random posts on a website with no sources are more trustworthy than interviews with Microsoft people?

Only thing I blame Microsoft for is not getting there ducks in a row. They all tried to do damage control, but without the umbrella of "only say this" to protect them...

I don't think Microsoft has lied about anything... They all didn't talk from the same script....