• 00Days
  • 00Hours
  • 00Mins
  • 00Secs
Check out the best deals!
06-17-2013 11:18 AM
35 12
tools
  1. iBandar's Avatar


    Love this guy :)
    Oliver Newell and Mystictrust like this.
    06-15-2013 02:15 PM
  2. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    I'm still watching, but just to point out (and I am going to edit this post as I see more things I care to note):

    1. The second question is about getting banned, and he says that getting banned will NOT mean that you lose access to your games. Somewhere in these forums, there was a link to an Xbox Support tweet that states that people DO lose access to their digital licenses when they are banned, at least on the 360.

    2. The third question, he didn't even answer the question. The person asked why a disc couldn't be an option as a failsafe for when the Internet goes out, and he just said "we want you to access your content everywhere." The question didn't suggest taking that ability away, or even ask about that, it just asked why there couldn't be that second option of verification to help those who cannot get Internet in a pinch.

    3. Fifth question, they asked if they were going to change anything about the console after seeing Sony's conference. He basically says, "no, did you see our games?" The games aren't what the complaints are about, so I'm not sure why that was his response. The question was if anything would change, not if they'd get different games. The game quality doesn't change if someone has a problem with the check-in.

    4. Last question, what a pain. He basically halfway started to answer the biggest question people seem to want answered (about the family sharing), then just went "well, you kid-of asked me about that earlier, and since I dodged that question before, I'll just end my response here."

    I definitely want to see what he has to say on his blog next week, especially about the sharing proposition, but that interview was terrible, and his responses weren't even to the core of the questions.
    Last edited by Keith Wallace; 06-15-2013 at 03:10 PM.
    Chemilinski likes this.
    06-15-2013 02:49 PM
  3. Mystictrust's Avatar
    Major Nelson is awesome... wonder what the story is behind the fur he's rockin'? :P I know Major Nelson is pretty much at the forefront of PR *on* the Xbox itself, and through his personal blog and twitter, but why is he still hidden away? They don't even link to his blog from xbox.com! He used to do all those "60 second" updates on games and such in the industry that you could watch via the Xbox - but they got rid of that, so he has even less of a presence. People have to kind of search him out when there aren't big events such as this going on. Microsoft needs to position him more of a main PR guy - maybe at least for interviews and such. He just seems like a fun, relatable guy, and he's very up front about everything that he can share (I've listened to his podcasts. He does tease little things but generally doesn't mention things as fact unless they are)

    I also find the girl interviewing him to be really cute. Nice video :)

    Ninja Edit: As Keith mentioned above, I did also take issue with him dodging the "but what if you lose connection" type question. I felt the question needed to be MUCH more direct though... not "Why can't this be an option" but "What happens when the internet goes out for over 24 hours, and not even my limited edition disc based games will work? Will there be an option for validating via game disc in certain scenarios?"
    06-15-2013 03:07 PM
  4. iBandar'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.
    06-15-2013 03:18 PM
  5. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Major Nelson is awesome... wonder what the story is behind the fur he's rockin'? :P I know Major Nelson is pretty much at the forefront of PR *on* the Xbox itself, and through his personal blog and twitter, but why is he still hidden away? They don't even link to his blog from xbox.com! He used to do all those "60 second" updates on games and such in the industry that you could watch via the Xbox - but they got rid of that, so he has even less of a presence. People have to kind of search him out when there aren't big events such as this going on. Microsoft needs to position him more of a main PR guy - maybe at least for interviews and such. He just seems like a fun, relatable guy, and he's very up front about everything that he can share (I've listened to his podcasts. He does tease little things but generally doesn't mention things as fact unless they are)

    I also find the girl interviewing him to be really cute. Nice video :)

    Ninja Edit: As Keith mentioned above, I did also take issue with him dodging the "but what if you lose connection" type question. I felt the question needed to be MUCH more direct though... not "Why can't this be an option" but "What happens when the internet goes out for over 24 hours, and not even my limited edition disc based games will work? Will there be an option for validating via game disc in certain scenarios?"
    Tip: Putting "Ninja Edit," in bold kills any hope of stealthily doing anything.

    I don't see asking "why can't the disc be used as a failsafe when the connection is lost for 24 hours," to need to be worded any more blatantly. I mean, the only interpretation of those words is "why can't the disc be a last-ditch means of verification of a license?" Unless you started with something like "hey, *****," to get his attention level risen, I don't know that there could be a more-direct means of asking the question.
    06-15-2013 03:23 PM
  6. Reflexx's Avatar
    The disc is just a delivery method. It's all digital now.

    As was already pointed out in this thread, if a disc was the "failsafe", then someone could buy and install the game on their account, then give the disc to his friend that plays and finishes the game while offline. Then keep passing the game to the next friend and next friend etc... All of them playing and finishing the game while offline.
    06-15-2013 03:31 PM
  7. Keith Wallace'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.
    We know this. We also have discussed this elsewhere, and possible means of getting that possible problem solved. Here is something I suggested elsewhere:

    Allow SmartGlass to handle check-ins. If your Internet goes out, you could use the WiFi direct (which basically creates a direct WiFi connection between two devices without a router--in this case, between the Xbox One and the smartphone) as a means of verification. What you would do is give the SmartGlass app the ability to ping the servers. You make the phone into a tethering device, but without the requirement of a tethering package, I guess. You feed the verification information over the WiFi direct connection, then through the cellular connection to Microsoft's servers. Microsoft receives that ping, sends it over cellular back to the phone, and then SmartGlass receives a tiny file that it sends to the Xbox to reset the 24-hour check-in or something. Not everyone has a family data plan with free tethering, and a non-family plan with tethering requires a 5GB data plan at $50/month (which no one wants), so this could circumvent that.

    Or, if that's not a good-enough option, make the Xbox One capable of reading information from smartphones. You start with a USB connection from the Xbox to the smartphone. You'd transfer the licensing file on the Xbox to the phone, send it over cellular data, then get a verification file back, plug back into your Xbox One via USB, and transfer the license verification from the phone to the console.

    In either instance, you are required to get verification of license ownership from Xbox, but you can do it if your broadband ISP's connection goes out. Losing both your home and mobile Internet is such a rare occurrence that I would consider it out of the realm of reasonable problems to worry about, meaning it would be EXTREMELY rare someone suffers from that and cannot get verification through either data connection. Even then, cellular is widespread, so you could likely drive 10 minutes from your house, get a connection, and receive the file.

    They are long-winded explanations in writing, but they are very simple in practice. It's either fire up an app and do it or plug in your phone and do it. They're only 4 or 5 simple steps, really.
    06-15-2013 03:33 PM
  8. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    The disc is just a delivery method. It's all digital now.

    As was already pointed out in this thread, if a disc was the "failsafe", then someone could buy and install the game on their account, then give the disc to his friend that plays and finishes the game while offline. Then keep passing the game to the next friend and next friend etc... All of them playing and finishing the game while offline.
    Is there REALLY a group of maybe 2 or 3 people with the initiative to do that? You'd basically be asking the person to stay offline completely for days at a time, then give it up to the next person. I mean, with the 10-person sharing policy we're supposedly getting, when would that even be NEEDED?
    06-15-2013 03:35 PM
  9. Reflexx's Avatar
    Is there REALLY a group of maybe 2 or 3 people with the initiative to do that? You'd basically be asking the person to stay offline completely for days at a time, then give it up to the next person. I mean, with the 10-person sharing policy we're supposedly getting, when would that even be NEEDED?
    10 person family isn't EVERYONE.
    As for people pirating by playing offline.. Of course they would.

    They only have to go offline for the duration of the single player campaign. That might be 2 days for many.

    The fact is that it is EASY to surpass the 'disc as a failsafe.' Why would they replace the system they are planning with one that makes piracy easy?
    06-15-2013 03:41 PM
  10. iBandar's Avatar
    We know this. We also have discussed this elsewhere, and possible means of getting that possible problem solved. Here is something I suggested elsewhere:

    Allow SmartGlass to handle check-ins. If your Internet goes out, you could use the WiFi direct (which basically creates a direct WiFi connection between two devices without a router--in this case, between the Xbox One and the smartphone) as a means of verification. What you would do is give the SmartGlass app the ability to ping the servers. You make the phone into a tethering device, but without the requirement of a tethering package, I guess. You feed the verification information over the WiFi direct connection, then through the cellular connection to Microsoft's servers. Microsoft receives that ping, sends it over cellular back to the phone, and then SmartGlass receives a tiny file that it sends to the Xbox to reset the 24-hour check-in or something. Not everyone has a family data plan with free tethering, and a non-family plan with tethering requires a 5GB data plan at $50/month (which no one wants), so this could circumvent that.

    Or, if that's not a good-enough option, make the Xbox One capable of reading information from smartphones. You start with a USB connection from the Xbox to the smartphone. You'd transfer the licensing file on the Xbox to the phone, send it over cellular data, then get a verification file back, plug back into your Xbox One via USB, and transfer the license verification from the phone to the console.

    In either instance, you are required to get verification of license ownership from Xbox, but you can do it if your broadband ISP's connection goes out. Losing both your home and mobile Internet is such a rare occurrence that I would consider it out of the realm of reasonable problems to worry about, meaning it would be EXTREMELY rare someone suffers from that and cannot get verification through either data connection. Even then, cellular is widespread, so you could likely drive 10 minutes from your house, get a connection, and receive the file.

    They are long-winded explanations in writing, but they are very simple in practice. It's either fire up an app and do it or plug in your phone and do it. They're only 4 or 5 simple steps, really.
    The Xbox One
    authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering
    your phone


    The PA Report - The Xbox One authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering your phone
    Mystictrust likes this.
    06-15-2013 03:51 PM
  11. Mystictrust's Avatar
    Is there REALLY a group of maybe 2 or 3 people with the initiative to do that? You'd basically be asking the person to stay offline completely for days at a time, then give it up to the next person. I mean, with the 10-person sharing policy we're supposedly getting, when would that even be NEEDED?
    Yep, for sure. There were people who had spare xbox 360 consoles that they had hacked and were using for offline play only. Some of them knew they would get banned if they brought them online, so they never connected it... and some did, risking it for a bit, got banned, then bought another xbox for legit online play.

    I realize exactly why they need the 24 hour verification checks. I realize that the world is going disc-less in the future. But I also realize that the world still isn't connected to reliable (or sometimes not even cheap) internet. And I'm not even talking about 3rd world countries, I'm talking about somewhere in the US where someone would have an Xbox but their internet sucks. Now this was back in 2009, but when I worked Xbox support, I would occasionally get angry calls from people (usually in the central parts of the country) that didn't understand why they couldn't play their arcade games offline after the console got repaired or they got a replacement for it. Some of these people didn't have reliable internet, some weren't able to afford it that month, some were in the middle of areas prone to natural disasters and their internet service outages were surprisingly more frequent than I would think (lightning strikes, tornados taking out some station that served their internet up, etc). A lot of these people are on satellite... which sucked for a lot because they rarely had an open NAT, so game lobbies would sometimes refuse to connect them or couldn't get them online - but I digress. Satellite can do DRM checks, speed doesn't matter. But a satellite dish is also more prone to a lightning strike or some other type of interference than a cable company building somewhere.

    There are people who may want to buy the Xbox, but their infrastructure will not allow them online for short to long periods of time, and these people will be locked out of their single player, disc-based games. *This* is why it seems there need to be some changes. While it certainly won't affect me and likely hundreds of thousands if not millions of others, there is also a large chunk of population that is fully capable of purchasing the console, are not poor by any means, have internet, and may not be able to have access to their games for days at a time. If they can implement some sort of SmartGlass phone solution as Keith and many others have suggested, this would alleviate some major concerns.

    Mentioning all that, I do feel silly having ever argued "Well hey, I move often and sometimes I can't meet the ISP tech for their large 9am - 5pm window, and they can't set up my internet, so they have to reschedule for the following week."

    BTW: I have an old, grandfathered plan on T-Mobile that restricts tethering. On older devices, I need to provide a workaround to trick the system into thinking I am on a computer - but it doesn't always work, and requires a browser to change the user agent string. On newer devices, such as WP8 devices, there are system checks in place which check the account before enable tethering - if it's not on your account, you're dead in the water. I am not the only one who can't tether.
    06-15-2013 03:56 PM
  12. stevearsenault's Avatar
    The Xbox One
    authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering
    your phone


    The PA Report - The Xbox One authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering your phone
    Thanks for that article; I figured that would be possible since I've done it with the 360 to access cloud saves. It's good to know that is indeed the case.
    06-15-2013 04:00 PM
  13. Mystictrust's Avatar
    Tip: Putting "Ninja Edit," in bold kills any hope of stealthily doing anything.
    lol, just thought it would be funny. I generally add the "Edit" in there if I have any more significant thoughts to add after the full post, so that if someone quickly quotes me and then spends half an hour writing their reply, it won't look like I just added something to change my point of view. Yep, even before the system puts in the "edited by" stuff - kind of an honesty thing. I have been known to go back and clean things up - fix typos, edit grammar, and sometimes remove a line and add a parenthesis comment depending on if I think that statement might be misleading what I am trying to represent in my post/point of view.

    Thanks for the link, iBandar. I got the chance to read it. It makes sense if being peddled as a "you have to be connected, sorry" type of device... just as they did when Xbox required a broadband connection and no more dial-up - people got outraged. Of course, then you get the people who feel dismissed... and I guess maybe they should feel that way a bit... because they're locked out of some of the next gen games that publishers may not make available for the 360. Such as Halo 5. I don't think they should feel alienated entirely because of that, but I get why they would feel like they're not able to enjoy every single game anymore. Still, it is nice to see them supporting the 360 alongside Xbox One.

    And holy crap am I excited about Major Nelson actually confirming Xbox 360 through the Xbox One. I made a thread about it a few days ago, asking if people think it might be possible... might have to go see if anyone has addressed it in that thread.
    06-15-2013 04:16 PM
  14. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    The Xbox One
    authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering
    your phone


    The PA Report - The Xbox One authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering your phone
    Yes, but we don't all have tethering. I've proposed means of doing it WITHOUT tethering. In fact, I don't know anyone with it myself.
    06-15-2013 04:17 PM
  15. NaNoo123's Avatar
    I think the odd person willing to have their console offline to play games with the disk in system trying to work the system, is acceptable loss.
    Especially considering that they can now get a cut out of the used game market, and offset by people who will buy console but wont due to check in, service personnel etc.
    I think that being online is and will be too important for most people to keep off line when they can get online.

    So, people will get 11 family members instead of 10.... Just don't see people doing it when we now have the sharing that is possible.

    If people are confident that the checkin will stop pirates finding a way to hack the system, all i can say is i don't share your confidence.
    06-15-2013 04:33 PM
  16. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Since there were two semi-lengthy posts that replied to my comment about the disc verification, I'm not going to quote them both and make a big, long comment. Instead, I'll just leave a general reply:

    Yes, I know people will abuse the system. However, which is likely to be bigger--the number of people who lose their Internet connection, or the number of people who are in a network of more than 10 nearby individuals (because I don't think people would really attempt to "game the system" by mailing games cross-country) who won't COMBINED purchase more than one copy of the game? On top of that, I've been wondering something else about this license transference:

    Can we release a license at any time? By that, I mean if I want to trade in a game, how is that done? Do I got into my console and select to release the license? Do all places that deal with used games have to have a system to take away a license when the disc is provided? I'm guessing that each individual has the ability to give up a license at any time, but that's just what I see as the most-logical thing that can be done. If I am right with that, then the whole concern with circumventing the system with disc swapping and hiding offline is kind of ruined. I could just as-easily give up a license and give it to a friend under this system, so it's not like swapping a disc stops anything.

    Unless Microsoft intends to make it so once you give up a license, you can never get it back (which would be kind of weird, in my opinion), then there really isn't a NEED to duck the system and hide offline. There's only one scenario that I can think of where the action of hiding offline is something that matters, and that's if more than 2 people want to play simultaneously. So we're going to use the suggested model that 10 people can be shared with, but only the primary licensee and one person in that group can play at once. If myself and my brother-in-law want to play at the same time (be it campaign or multiplayer), that is allowed. If my cousin ALSO wants to play, he cannot--only two at a time. If he wants to play offline, he could use the suggested method of hiding offline, I guess.

    However, I guess I then have to ask: why is that actually a big deal? Why is Microsoft concerned if my cousin plays offline at 6 PM, while my brother-in-law and I are online, or 9 PM, when only I am? I get not wanting to allow full access at once and making it basically become a $6-per-game system. However, this isn't a case of avoiding that. Not allowing everyone to play ONLINE together, I can understand limiting. Making my cousin wait to play RYSE by himself is a little weird. He's not making use of the social aspects, so just lock him out of multiplayer.

    I guess I can get what they're accomplishing, I'd just like to see more consumer-friendly ways of doing it, which is why I suggested the smartphone pass-through.
    06-15-2013 04:36 PM
  17. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    I think the odd person willing to have their console offline to play games with the disk in system trying to work the system, is acceptable loss.
    Especially considering that they can now get a cut out of the used game market, and offset by people who will buy console but wont due to check in, service personnel etc.
    I think that being online is and will be too important for most people to keep off line when they can get online.

    So, people will get 11 family members instead of 10.... Just don't see people doing it when we now have the sharing that is possible.

    If people are confident that the checkin will stop pirates finding a way to hack the system, all i can say is i don't share your confidence.
    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.

    What I actually wouldn't mind seeing is this: Make all physical (and some digital) versions of a game $60, and shareable among 10 people. Include the primary licensee-plus-one simultaneous play. As an alternative, also offer a digital version of the game that functions like this: Make this version $30-40. Lock it to a single user. If someone else wants to piggyback off of that license (in the way the $60 game allows), it costs $10. What you get with this is the ability to simultaneously play, regardless of the number of people already playing from that initial license. If you want, limit this to the same 10-person maximum as the physical copy. This would allow the flexibility of simultaneous play (removing the need to hide offline and bringing back the option to use disc-based checking for the hard copies), and allow for more POTENTIAL revenue. Instead of all 10-person games having $60 in revenue, you would have this online-only option that would have a potential revenue of $120-130 ($90 for the additional $10 licenses, plus $30-40 for the initial license). Maybe there's too much possibility for confusion with the two purchasing systems, but it would be an option to both satisfy consumers AND add potential revenue into Microsoft's pocket.

    I suggest this on my own personal experiences. Odds are, if I and those I know get consoles, we'll mostly share a license for $60 and deal with the 2-person play limit. However, if my suggested digital alternative was available, I'd be totally willing to use that system. I think that the biggest that group of mine would get is about 6 or 7. We could all play together, and Microsoft would get $90-100. Microsoft (and the developers) would make more money, and we would be less restricted in our gameplay.
    06-15-2013 04:46 PM
  18. Mystictrust's Avatar
    However, this isn't a case of avoiding that. Not allowing everyone to play ONLINE together, I can understand limiting. Making my cousin wait to play RYSE by himself is a little weird. He's not making use of the social aspects, so just lock him out of multiplayer.
    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
    06-15-2013 04:49 PM
  19. mrpuny's Avatar
    Using a smartglass app seems like a really good idea, and something that MS should be able to easily incorporate.

    I'm going to be interested to see Microsoft explain the family sharing in more detail because the more I think about it, the more it seems like it could become a complicated mess. Here's something I posted over at Winsupersite.com. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, but I've had some annoying experiences with floating licenses with software at work, and it seems like some of those issues could also show up on the Xbox one depending on how MS sets it up.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

    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?)

    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?

    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?
    Mystictrust likes this.
    06-15-2013 04:50 PM
  20. Mystictrust's Avatar
    What I actually wouldn't mind seeing is this: Make all physical (and some digital) versions of a game $60, and shareable among 10 people. Include the primary licensee-plus-one simultaneous play. As an alternative, also offer a digital version of the game that functions like this: Make this version $30-40. Lock it to a single user. If someone else wants to piggyback off of that license (in the way the $60 game allows), it costs $10. What you get with this is the ability to simultaneously play, regardless of the number of people already playing from that initial license. If you want, limit this to the same 10-person maximum as the physical copy. This would allow the flexibility of simultaneous play (removing the need to hide offline and bringing back the option to use disc-based checking for the hard copies), and allow for more POTENTIAL revenue. Instead of all 10-person games having $60 in revenue, you would have this online-only option that would have a potential revenue of $120-130 ($90 for the additional $10 licenses, plus $30-40 for the initial license). Maybe there's too much possibility for confusion with the two purchasing systems, but it would be an option to both satisfy consumers AND add potential revenue into Microsoft's pocket.

    I suggest this on my own personal experiences. Odds are, if I and those I know get consoles, we'll mostly share a license for $60 and deal with the 2-person play limit. However, if my suggested digital alternative was available, I'd be totally willing to use that system. I think that the biggest that group of mine would get is about 6 or 7. We could all play together, and Microsoft would get $90-100. Microsoft (and the developers) would make more money, and we would be less restricted in our gameplay.
    I like it. I myself got confused a little with the costs and how it would work, but it sounds more like the game sharing future Microsoft looks to be heading toward. We're going to win either way with game sharing, but your suggestion really looks like an advanced way of doing it. I guess the 24-hour checks might give them the flexibility to pull something like this off.
    06-15-2013 04:53 PM
  21. NaNoo123's Avatar
    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.
    DavidinCT likes this.
    06-15-2013 05:08 PM
  22. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    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.
    06-15-2013 05:46 PM
  23. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    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.
    06-15-2013 05:52 PM
  24. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    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.
    06-15-2013 06:23 PM
  25. DaveGx'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.

    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.
    06-15-2013 10:32 PM
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