Microsoft Explains Digital Game Sharing On Xbox One

[klaynexas3]

Man, even when Microsoft does marketing right, we find out it's just what their competitors have been doing for years. I still haven't forgiven them for the shitstorm they caused, and then how they blamed us as if we were the problem. I really, really want the XBone to be a failure on the level of the sinking of Atlantis. Microsoft deserves to be crushed for at least one console generation, and more importantly they need to learn the lesson that trying to fuck your consumer just fucks you.

But people are going to buy it, and it will be a success. Because we are all idiots.

To be fair, have you seen the sales for the original Xbox versus the PS2? Because, even though it still beat the Gamecube, with how much the PS2 did sell, I'd call it being crushed. Because it's a difference of over a hundred million sales.

And as long as the specific product isn't solely about screwing over the consumer, I don't care whether it sales well. Considering they changed the Xbone to be not a pile of shit, I'm fine with it doing well. I'll only care if they go back to playing the dick again.

 

[Roxas1359]

I'm guessing that the WiiU and Wii both do this (I don't fucking know) and Steam does this to an extent...why is this so special?

No the Wii U and Wii don't. All game purchases on their eShop are locked to the console's hardware and not the account. If for example you got a new Wii U after having the Basic edition and wanted to transfer the games, you can't since those games are locked to the account. Same thing if you wanted to play a game you bought on the Wii U on say a 3DS, assuming the game is available on both stores, you would have to rebuy the game again.

 

[Saltyk]

You know, I almost think that horrible Demo "Game Sharing" plan was better than this. At least then, I could share with people in other places. But the way this sounds, I'd have to go there, or let them use my profile to download the game. At the end of the day, this is exactly like what you can do currently with a PS3 from the sounds of it.

Color me unimpressed. And for that matter, a little annoyed that Microsoft had the balls to pretend this was the next evolution in how we share games. Pretty sure, we could do something pretty similar with the Atari. All you had to do was take your cartridge to your friend's house and play it on their system. And at the end of the day, that's all this sounds like it amounts to.

Though extending the Gold "experience" to others isn't half bad. Still annoying that services like Netflix are behind a paywall to begin with, however.

 

[Quazimofo]

So game library sharing with friends and family is back in? I thought Microsoft had taken that ball and went home.

Well look at what he is saying, specifically. The only differences between this and how games work currently are 1) it seems you don't need to log on to the account with XBL gold to use it on the same console, rather than just having people in a house share the one account and 2) you can carry saves to other Xboxes without having to carry a hard drive with you.

The old game sharing feature was more or less giving demos to people who had different accounts on an Xbone that wasn't yours. Like say a friend on the other side of the country, assuming your country isn't so small they couldn't just drive over and visit. You could have let them demo the game for a bit before they buy it, should they decide to buy it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wait, I thought this was how things already work. If you buy something digital from your account, everyone on the console you've installed it on can play it. That's how it works on the ps3 too.

Currently, that's only true of a primary console. Even the license swap doesn't 100% do this, since I've transfered my licenses to my new 360 (new being a relative term now) TWICE and just found out the other day that a friend can't play MTG: DotP 2013 unless I'm signed in.

Well, he can, but he can't access his saves, or save, as it's treated as the demo version.

Microsoft is kinda crap about this, TBH. I have a couple games I haven't been able to play since my first HDD transfer. At all.

 

[barbzilla]

Wait, I thought this was how things already work. If you buy something digital from your account, everyone on the console you've installed it on can play it. That's how it works on the ps3 too.

It sounds like the difference is the ability to easily peruse another user's library and install it while they're not around.

It's a bit complicated, I have two accounts on my 360, mine and my cousin's. While a good number of my digital download games work for both accounts, certain games like Mass Effect 1 wont.

I'm guessing it's entirely up to the developer for the 360.



Also, reading between the line, Didn't someone here a few days ago say that if Microsoft could put singleplayer games behind a pay gate, they would?


well, with this, if you want to play some singleplayer game at a friends house, you will first need to be a Gold Subscriber.

they did it.... they really did it....

All of your downloaded games from the marketplace will work on every account on the xbox the DRM is saved to. If you have games that aren't acting this way, you will need to initiate a DRM license transfer to your console. From my understanding there is a way to do that directly on your Xbox now, but you can also do it online or by calling the support number (which may be a wait depending on the call volume).

OT: other than the sharing of XBL features, this is nothing that isn't already in place on the 360.

 

[viranimus]

LOLwhuuut?

but it feels like this deal could be so much more enticing if only Microsoft's prime directive wasn't "stamp out piracy at all costs."

As usual, when it comes to fighting piracy, the only ones who really suffer are the legitimate users.

So forgive my insolence if I am completely missing something here, but can we get an clarification of how this has anything at all to do with piracy? The functionality was designed to kill used/rentals. It would have no impact on piracy in any way shape or form.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Wow, my family can use the games and subscription I payed for even when I'm not around? How very generous of you, Microsoft. Seriously, how is this some massive step forward from just taking a disk to someone else's house?

I still don't understand why Microsoft and now Sony get away with charging a subscription. Neither Steam or Nintendo (which if you believe the ignorant hoard is apparently in it's death throes) charge people to use servers. Hell, PC games in general don't keep charging people once they've paid the entry fee.

Though new functionality is always welcome, it seems odd that the Gold benefit-sharing system would require the subscriber to be present wherever the features are used. Why can't we share Gold features by simply sending a message over Xbox Live? Obviously it's to prevent people from enjoying stuff they haven't paid for, but it feels like this deal could be so much more enticing if only Microsoft's prime directive wasn't "stamp out piracy at all costs."

As usual, when it comes to fighting piracy, the only ones who really suffer are the legitimate users.

This doesn't have anything to do with piracy unless I'm very much mistaken. At worst it's stopping people from sharing disks around or demanding that people ask permission before they play a game at a friend's house.

... Okay, maybe it's not that far off from dealing with piracy...

 

[Verlander]

I might be a bit behind here, but let me get this straight: I buy a console. I buy a game. I then need to pay for a subscription to get the most out of my console and my game? Yeah, no thanks.

 

[masticina]

Did they just ask us to pay for something every console in the past pretty much had for free?

Wow Microsoft such a tentalizing deal! I can't wait to have your console next to my television. Who needs a cable box now...

*really microsoft?*

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm guessing MS is trying to rope in non-gamers or people who haven't bought a console in almost a decade, because what they are describing is currently considered basic functionality for most available game platforms. Except they're putting it behind a pay wall on Xbone.

That's been their M.O. since day one, really. Take something someone else invented, or something very nearly ubiquitous in the industry, tweak or restrict it to their own benefit, then offer it up as some kind of revolutionary new "feature". Like we're all fucking idiots.

 

[walrusaurus]

"Your Xbox One can become your virtual game library filled with digital games that different people in the home bought. Anyone can pick any digital game on your Xbox One, sign in with their own gamertag and play - even if the owner is not signed in."

According to Microsoft, this functionality also allows players to "take their games with them." Once a title has been associated with your Xbox Live Gold account - and yes, you'll need a Gold subscription for almost everything mentioned here - you can visit a friend's house, fire up his or her Xbox One, and resume your game from wherever you last left it on your own console, even if your friend doesn't own the game in question.

At home: You can set up your console at home so that anyone who uses that console will enjoy multiplayer gaming and access to entertainment apps - even if you are not home or logged in.

On the go: You can log in at a friend's house and everyone there can enjoy multiplayer gaming and access to entertainment apps while you are logged in.

Sooo unless i'm grossly misreading these none of these are new features.

1. I can just leave my xbox signed in and everyone can use my stuff

2. I can already load my gold account on my friends xbox and dl any of my xbla games. The cloud saves is new tho, so yay i guess.

3. Again, with the just leaving it logged in

4. Again with the signing in on my friends box.

I'm not seeing the new?

 

[SeventhSigil]

I'm also pretty sure that Sony announced this about the PS4 about a month ago. Just makes me curious as to why Microsoft took so long to likewise confirm. That being said, I have encountered a few people on various other forums and comment sections that are counting it as some feature the Xbox One has the PS4 doesn't, so it is certainly within the realm of possibility that The entire benefit of waiting a month is hoping that folks will forget the other guy already announced they can do it too.

Or am I misreading? Here's a link to when Sony made the announcement, could someone tell me one way or another if this is the same thing that Microsoft is now announcing, Or if there are any major differences?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/07/11/ps4-gamers-can-play-all-their-digital-games-from-any-system/

 

[TomWiley]

Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

 

[synobal]

If Microsoft wanted to win this generation, or at least compete better they should make Live free, and do away with all this gold nonsense.

 

[TomWiley]

If Microsoft wanted to win this generation, or at least compete better they should make Live free, and do away with all this gold nonsense.

Sony isn't doing it so why should Microsoft?

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Wait, I was fairly certain I could play the games I have on my PS3 regardless of which one of the accounts bought the game. Also it isn't restricted to 10 users. also it doesn't require a PS+ subscription.

Also, if I log into my account on a friend's PS3, I still get access to all of my digital games and they do as well.

Why is microsoft advertising this as a new feature?

 

[synobal]

If Microsoft wanted to win this generation, or at least compete better they should make Live free, and do away with all this gold nonsense.

Sony isn't doing it so why should Microsoft?

Well there is suppose to be this strange thing in business called competition, in which companies compete for your business and money. Now Microsoft is selling a console, which has few advantages over the PS4, and is 100 dollar more. Now one way to help mitigate these things they could make Xbox Live free, also it will allow to them to more aggressively push F2P titles which I expect we will see much more of in this next generation of games. Plus it will attract people who are looking to make F2P games, and they can get a nice cut of that revenue stream.

Sadly there isn't much competition in any market place these days, with companies often colluding together to price fix and such.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Wait, I was fairly certain I could play the games I have on my PS3 regardless of which one of the accounts bought the game. Also it isn't restricted to 10 users. also it doesn't require a PS+ subscription.

Also, if I log into my account on a friend's PS3, I still get access to all of my digital games and they do as well.

Why is microsoft advertising this as a new feature?

To be fair, Sony advertised this as a feature of the PS4 last month. xD So if nothing else, this at least puts them back on parity when it comes to that specific capability. I'm thinking it might be less of a announcement of a brand-new capability, and more a confirmation of how certain aspects of both consoles would work. Considering the initial confusion surrounding game sharing, probably good that they set the record straight once and for all.