06-17-2013 11:18 AM
35 12
tools
  1. mrpuny's Avatar
    It IS worded a little oddly. I think that is (from what we're somewhat being told through Twitter) is this: Any of those in the group can access the library at a time. However, only the primary licensee and one other can access the SAME GAME at a single time. However, we don't have concrete facts on it yet, so we shall see. Your re-wording doesn't fix it, it creates the issue of making it sound like everyone can be on the same game at once. They really should have used 2 sentences-- "any can used the library," and "you and any ONE can access one game.".
    I agree, and if it really is this simple, you have to wonder why Microsoft didn't do a better job of explaining it in the first place, or at least update the statement once questions started coming up.

    That second issue is a little trickier. The primary licensee option could work, but it's not perfect, either. Say your sons are at college, and you're all still sharing the licenses, with you as the primary licensee. your oldest boy leaves the game running and goes to class for 4 hours. your youngest son (who is in another dorm or at another school, point being he cannot access his older brother's console) wants to play that same game, but his brother is logged in. He asks you to free up the license, but you are at work and cannot. The problem cannot be resolved in that instance (though maybe allowing booting from a smartphone would be possible).

    There are two MAIN solutions to this, I think, beyond letting the primary licensee dictate the action (which I don't think is a great idea, because it basically lends itself to dragging the primary licensee into a bickering between the other two). you could either make it a "too bad" system, where if the person leaves his console on, then the license cannot be freed up, plain and simple. There could also be a "Request License" option. you would probably want to put a once-per-hour limit on that, so one person isn't spamming the other with requests until he gest his way. All you do if send a request for the license. The license has a timeout (make it something like 30 or 60 minutes though, so it cannot time out during a quick run to the kitchen or bathroom). If it times out or is accepted, it'll quick-save for the current user, move that game to the background (or shut it down entirely), then pass the permission on. If the request is rejected, then the current user keeps playing, with the person requesting permission unable to send another request for 60 minutes (again, to prevent spamming).

    A third, more-involved solution: You could make secondary licensees work within a time block. Say when you play a shared game, you get one hour to play. If no request is sent to you within that hour, you get another hour. It stay like that until that first request comes, at which point it alerts you that you have a request. You may then accept the request and pass the permission, or you may reject it, at which point you get something similar to the "Windows Update" alert on windows 8. you get a timer of 60 minutes, and a message stating that the game will be shut down (to pass the permission) after that 60 minutes has passed. It would probably give small reminders with 30, 15, and 5 minutes left as well. The issue there being if a person requests the game, is rejected, then decides to play something else instead. You, of course, ask that person who wanted the permission to verify that he still wants to play that game when the timer is up (or maybe at the 5-minute window, alert him that he is about to get permission and tell him to verify that he still wants to play; it not, kill the timer on the current player). The problem with this system REALLY comes from multiple permission requests though, and I'm not sure how to handle that beyond a queue system or something.
    Yeah, this is exactly the sort of issue I was thinking about. I'm sensitive to this because we have some high end engineering software at work with a floating license scheme, and the way it works is there are enough licenses for the base package that everyone who needs it can run it simultaneously. Then there are some add-on modules that are used infrequently, and so the company only has a limited number of licenses. Usually there's no problem - they're used sporadically and conflicts are rare, but every once in a while one of us will be unable to get a license because too many people are using it. Sometimes they're all actively being used, and sometimes others have loaded it and then forgot to unload the module and release the license. (I've done that a bunch of times myself.) It can be annoying enough at work, and I can see it potentially being a source of real frustration for someone who just wants to play a game. Not to mention that with its multitasking features, there will plenty of opportunities for someone to start a game and then get distracted, leaving it running the background.

    I also agree that making the primary account holder do conflict resolution isn't a good solution, not only because it drags him or her into the middle of arguments but because it makes being the primary account holder into an IT job, resolving licensing issues. So I really hope that Microsoft has a good system planned for addressing these issues, and that they communicate it effectively.

    We have no idea. I could argue for allowing and disallowing that.
    I don't have a particular strong feeling one way or another; it's just another hole in the story that Microsoft will have to address.
    Reflexx likes this.
    06-15-2013 10:38 PM
  2. _Emi_'s Avatar
    Until you run out of space....

    As for the interview, I like the guy, but he literally dodged some of the biggest questions. If MS can't just be upfront and their PR guy is dodging, sorry but that looks and is bad.
    I would like to know what "biggest" questions Major dodged? explain please... because i understood everything he said, but maybe im just smarter? (i dont doubt that anyway). but I really want to know what you will make up this time.

    "until you run of space" you can run out of space in ANY device, especially if its a gaming device. its not like HDD will be infinite everywhere else but Xbox One. how many games you would play at the same time anyway? uninstall a game and then install the game you wanna run, its not like you will play 20 games a day. and thats why discs still exist, because then you dont have to download anything, just put your disc in Xbox one, and after couple minutes you can play the game.
    mister2d likes this.
    06-16-2013 12:22 AM
  3. MerlotC's Avatar
    My guess is that the way family share operation was officially stated is most likely correct, that is, only one of the ten can access the library at a time but can play any game, including a game that you, the owner, are playing (which is effectively like having two copies).
    06-16-2013 01:21 AM
  4. mister2d's Avatar
    My guess is that the way family share operation was officially stated is most likely correct, that is, only one of the ten can access the library at a time but can play any game, including a game that you, the owner, are playing (which is effectively like having two copies).
    Your explanation doesn't sound like Major dodged the question though. Perhaps slightly incorrect.
    06-16-2013 01:47 AM
  5. lemonsteveo's Avatar
    "until you run of space" you can run out of space in ANY device, especially if its a gaming device. its not like HDD will be infinite everywhere else but Xbox One. how many games you would play at the same time anyway? uninstall a game and then install the game you wanna run, its not like you will play 20 games a day. and thats why discs still exist, because then you dont have to download anything, just put your disc in Xbox one, and after couple minutes you can play the game.
    Don't understand this guy either. If he really needs to bring this up, external USB hard drives can be used for games on the Xbox One.
    06-16-2013 06:28 AM
  6. mrpuny's Avatar
    Your explanation doesn't sound like Major dodged the question though. Perhaps slightly incorrect.
    I don't know that I'd say that he evaded questions either; this was one of those quick 'on the show floor' interviews that I don't expect too much of, though. I think the issue right now is that the family sharing plan is key to justifying what Microsoft is doing with licensing. As it stands, Microsoft has more restrictions on the usage (periodic phone home, game resale restrictions), and a more expensive console as well. The family sharing system looks to be the key to explaining why they're doing what they're doing, and so far the story is incomplete at best. We're having to interpret what Microsoft has said. If it really works that you can have up to copies running simultaneously for a single purchase, why hasn't Microsoft specifically called attention to it? It would be fairly simple to spell out.

    <Imaginary MS statement>: Any game - whether purchased on disc or digital download - will be playable on up to two consoles simultaneously. The owner of the purchasing account will always be able to play the game, and any one family member will be able to play the same game at the same time on another console. Meanwhile, other family members will each be able to play different games from the shared library."</Imaginary MS statement>

    This can be wordsmithed more, and more detail added, but the point is, I think Microsoft needs to be very brief yet specific in pointing out the potential benefits of their system. Each game being playable on two systems simultaneously is a benefit - one that helps counter both the licensing issues and console cost. Now given the details, not everyone may find it to be beneficial to them, but at least it would be something specific that would have to be acknowledged. Without doing so, it's easy to see how MS can be viewed as trying to screw people at worst or being clueless at best.
    mister2d likes this.
    06-16-2013 09:28 AM
  7. onysi's Avatar
    Somebody ******* fire Don Mattrick and Hire MJ. He is more of an xbox gamer representative.
    06-16-2013 01:43 PM
  8. NaNoo123's Avatar
    Yeah, what I am saying is that I think is that this is maybe the best action of trying to find that middle-ground yet. I mean, we're talking about possibly giving away 9 free copies of a game with each purchase. If giving the game to 9 people for free isn't enough of an incentive to not steal the game, then nothing is, short of hand-delivering them hard copies with no limits of copying and burning it.
    i agree with that, that was my view also and what i said, that's why i don't think the checkin, will combat piracy as much as they hope. I think they have a pretty compelling reason for people to go online as much as possible.
    So don't rule out people who can't get online for whatever, reason some times.
    06-16-2013 02:13 PM
  9. DavidinCT's Avatar
    Every Xbox One game needs to be installed on your HDD, So you guys fail to understand the concept. If there is ability to play offline, then what is stopping someone for installing the game and give the disk to someone who never goes online? This about it. Its a well thought out feature, IMO.
    Everyone here seems to be on one or other side of the fence here. Some people dont care and will deal with it and others have enough problems with their internet to possably be a problem for them. I have enough problems where this could effect me a few times a year, never mind if Xbox live is down or another related issue.

    So, how about this as a work-around ? You need to install the game from disk WITH a internet connection. IF internet after install is lost (confirming you have played the game before at least once), you can confirm your game by the phsical disc (no internet you NEED the disc to play the game). This would be a workaround, as it could only be played on the system where it was installed, from the disc that you installed it from.

    if you had a off line system, you could not install the game, so this would block this issue. This would be a nice backup to be able to play single player games If you run into this issue...

    Another idea....

    How about an option to DISABLE DRM options ? No sharing games no playing off the hard drive only, always needing a disk to play a game, still will need a temp internet connection to install a game but, after that point, it could be played off line. Yea, it would disable 1/2 the features of the X1 but, it would solve the problem for people who are dealing with this possable issue.
    06-17-2013 09:49 AM
  10. Robert Carpenter's Avatar
    Everyone here seems to be on one or other side of the fence here. Some people dont care and will deal with it and others have enough problems with their internet to possably be a problem for them. I have enough problems where this could effect me a few times a year, never mind if Xbox live is down or another related issue.

    So, how about this as a work-around ? You need to install the game from disk WITH a internet connection. IF internet after install is lost (confirming you have played the game before at least once), you can confirm your game by the phsical disc (no internet you NEED the disc to play the game). This would be a workaround, as it could only be played on the system where it was installed, from the disc that you installed it from.

    if you had a off line system, you could not install the game, so this would block this issue. This would be a nice backup to be able to play single player games If you run into this issue...

    Another idea....

    How about an option to DISABLE DRM options ? No sharing games no playing off the hard drive only, always needing a disk to play a game, still will need a temp internet connection to install a game but, after that point, it could be played off line. Yea, it would disable 1/2 the features of the X1 but, it would solve the problem for people who are dealing with this possable issue.
    Not trying to shoot down your suggestions, but they really need to stop. Nothing is going to change, so the suggestions are just thread clutter.

    The internet problems you complain about are insignificant and blown extremely out of proportion. In your case, your internet goes down 5 times a year for a max of 3 days for each outage.

    • Each outage lasts 3 days. Xbox One still works for 24 hours, so each outage means you go 2 days without Xbox One.
    • You have about 5 outages per year, so that means you will go 10 days without Xbox One per year.
    • You spend probably 6 hours a day playing videogames, so you are losing 60 hours a year with Xbox One.


    If 60 hours a year out of 8760 total hours per year matter that much to you, then that's your own personal problem. No one here wants to hear about it.

    99.32% uptime / 0.68% downtime
    -
    Are you seriously complaining about THIS?
    06-17-2013 11:18 AM
35 12

Similar Threads

  1. How Games Licensing Works on Xbox One
    By HeyCori in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 06-14-2013, 08:49 AM
  2. Play windows mobile game purchases on Xbox one?
    By BrownxGoblin in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 12:09 AM
  3. Live TV on XBox One
    By Plantje in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 05-28-2013, 04:09 AM
  4. My opinion on Xbox one compared to 360
    By TAB1360 in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-24-2013, 11:29 AM
  5. Play windows mobile game purchases on Xbox One?
    By BrownxGoblin in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2013, 06:09 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD