Major Nelson Video Interview on Xbox One

NaNoo123

New member
Jun 7, 2013
112
0
0
Visit site
I partially agree with you. I simply don't think there are enough people who have an 11-person circle to swap a disc between to really cause a serious problem. I DO think that this is a semi-decent means of limiting piracy, though.
my point regarding piracy is that they always find a way around it.
Therefore there has to be a reasonable balance between trying to stop it, to inconvenience to the legit user.
I think this could cost them more than it saves them which is the worst possible result.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
To be fair, it isn't confirmed that is exactly how it will work. Obviously you know what I am referencing when I mention the various conflicting reports. But it just seems as if you are stating, right there anyway, that is how it is going to work so it is wrong. We don't know that. Maybe you and your brother-in-law can both play online or campaign, and your cousin is still able to play RYSE by himself? It's frustrating... but Major Nelson will be sharing more details about game sharing on his blog soon. We can only hope he goes into as much detail about that as he did with the new Matchmaking and Reputation system

No, don't get me wrong. I'm speaking from the standpoint of what we know as the hypothetical system only. If it's different, my thoughts on it obviously are as well, I'm just saying with the information we have now, that is my thought process. I'm stating if THAT happens, I think that it's an odd thing to hinder someone from playing alone until someone playing online signs off. Then again, that's really not an unfair tradeoff if we're talking about the ability to purchase a game once and share it 9 or 10 times, so I can't even say I'd be bothered in the slightest if we really can share like that.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
my point regarding piracy is that they always find a way around it.
Therefore there has to be a reasonable balance between trying to stop it, to inconvenience to the legit user.
I think this could cost them more than it saves them which is the worst possible result.

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.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
For example, does anyone really know how family sharing is going to work? I've read the statement from Microsoft that says "You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time." So if I try to read this literally, to me it sounds like if I buy a game, I can always play it when signed in with my account, and only one of my family members can be playing games from my shared account on another console at the same time. Now I don't think that's what MS means. I suspect that all of my family members could potentially be accessing the shared library simultaneously, so it should read 'any of your family members...", not "any ONE..." but who knows for sure.

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."

Also how many simultaneous copies can be played from a single purchase? 'One' seems like the most likely answer, but there are a couple of things that make me wonder, First, it appears that Xbox 360 downloads can be played on up to two consoles simultaneously. I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I've tried a couple of games I downloaded (including Call of Duty 4) with my son playing under his account on the primary console and me playing under my account on a secondary console, both connected to my network, at the same time and it worked. Second, from the MS quote above, it states that "you can always play your games..." so what happens if one of my 'family members' is playing one of my purchased games on his console and I decide to start it up on mine? If I'm not allowed to play it because someone else is, then I can't "always play" my game, can I? What if I have 5 games and 5 family members, and each of them is playing one of my games, so I can't play anything? So is it that there can be up to two copies in use at one time? (The master account and 1 family account can play simultaneously, but two family accounts can't play simultaneously?)

Again, we THINK that the policy is the primary licensee and one other person. The hypothesis for one person at a time is this: Any single person In the group can play a single game at a time. 10 players can be on 10 games, but 10 cannot be on 9 or fewer. In this instance, we think that (since it's unlikely everyone would freely give up playing a game because you want to play) the primary licensee will essentially get a "Boot from Game" option for those sharing his license. That would lead to a quick-save on the other person's console (maybe multi-tasking it to the background until you are offline and that person is allowed to play again), and then free the game up for you.

Regardless of the number of copies allowed, what happens if that's exceeded? Say one of my family members is playing one of my games, and another one tries to play the same game and can't? Will the second person get a message saying who's using it so he can contact the first about getting a turn? What if the first person pauses the game and goes off for hours? (My sons are bad about this.) I assume that would tie up the license. Is there any way to bump a person after a while? Maybe just from the primary account?

We don't know the UI's inner workings, so we'll find out for sure later. My guess would be that whenever you enter the library, you'll see a list of games. Under each, the users who are currently using that game, maybe with the primary licensee in gold (or with a crown next to his name, like the Party chat leader on LIVE), and all others in white. That, or it might list all allowed players under each title, and have those offline or in another game in black and those playing that game in white (same theoretical gold/icon for the primary licensee). You could also have it black when offline, white when online but in a different game, and a third color (gold?) for being online and in that game (which would mean you have to choose the icon option for the primary licensee, if you make the third color gold--so maybe you make it green for the secondary licensee(s) in that game). Point being, there would be a number of UI options to sort that.

Additionally, you could make it so there are different backgrounds for games you can and cannot play at a given time. It could be black or white if you can play, and grey/faded if you cannot (with the names of the current users still underneath). It could be green if you may play and red if you may not. It could be your theme color if yes and a faded version of it if not. Maybe you use that two-color system for secondary licensees and make it always show up as gold (or another color) for the primary licensee, so he can see which are his game and which are shared with him. They could also have it auto-sort games currently in-use to the bottom of the list, or have it in tabs, where you have to press the bumper to see the in-use games, and the usable ones in the primary screen. Again, lots of UI implementations that could exist to solve this, using colors and sorted lists or tabs.

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.

Here's another question: Is it possible to be in multiple families? Can I be the head of one and a member of another? Can I be a member of two or more?

We have no idea. I could argue for allowing and disallowing that.
 

DaveGx

New member
Nov 5, 2011
756
0
0
Visit site
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.


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.
 

mrpuny

New member
Jan 1, 2013
172
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

_Emi_

New member
Apr 18, 2012
403
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

MerlotC

New member
Sep 19, 2011
168
0
0
Visit site
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).
 

mister2d

New member
Sep 7, 2012
481
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

lemonsteveo

New member
Oct 11, 2011
84
0
0
Visit site
"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.
 

mrpuny

New member
Jan 1, 2013
172
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

NaNoo123

New member
Jun 7, 2013
112
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

DavidinCT

Active member
Feb 18, 2011
3,310
0
36
Visit site
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.
 
Nov 7, 2012
540
0
0
Visit site
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?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
322,918
Messages
2,242,892
Members
428,005
Latest member
rogertewarte